Loading...
SR-12-08-2015-7A City Council Report City Council Regular Meeting: December 8, 2015 Agenda Item: 7.A 1 of 37 To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development, Planning Commission Agenda (PCD) Subject: Introduction and first reading of an Ordinance adopting Development Agreement 12DEV-011 to allow a 5-story (57 feet), 77,758 square-foot mixed- use project consisting of 90 residential units, 10,617 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 168 parking spaces within a two -level subterranean parking garage at 1601 Lincoln Boulevard. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve Development Agreement 12DEV-011 to allow a 5-story (57 feet), 77,758 square-foot mixed-use project consisting of 90 residential units, 10,617 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 168 parking spaces within a two-level subterranean parking garage at 1601 Lincoln Boulevard. 2. Introduce for first reading an ordinance adopting Development Agreement 12DEV- 011 for the property at 1601 Lincoln Boulevard. Executive Summary The applicant, FSTAR 1601, LLC, proposes a development agreement to allow a new mixed-use project located at 1601 Lincoln Boulevard that includes a 4-story (47 feet) and a 5-story (57 feet) building totaling 77,758 total square feet (2.34 FAR), 10,617 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 90 residential units, and two levels of subterranean parking with 168 parking spaces. The development agreement is a Tier 3 project, as established pursuant to Chapter 2.1 of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), and qualifies as a priority p roject for the purposes of processing as established by City Council 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. Specifically, the proposed 2 of 37 project’s unit mix consists of 19% studio units, 51% one -bedroom units, 20% two- bedroom units, and 10% three bedroom units. The development site is located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Boulevard and Colorado Avenue, adjacent to the Expo light rail corridor, and within ½ mail of the Downtown terminus station. The property is divided by zoning and LUCE district boundaries. The front (west) portion of the lot is located within the Mixed Use Boulevard (MUB) district, and the rear (east) portion is located within the Mixed Use Boulevard Low (MUBL) district. Furthermore, the west portion that is designated MUB is also within the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area. Project compliance for a development agreement is limited to the LUCE standards including floor area and height, while other aspects of the project such as open space, setbacks, off-street parking and other standard zoning requirements will be established by the Development Agreement. Although the project exceeds certain zoning regulations, it is important to consider the potential of the area to be a more transit and pedestrian -oriented downtown destination. These factors suggest that increased density at this location , as proposed, may be appropriate and supported by the anticipated increa se of pedestrian activity in the area. A number of community benefits have been negotiated as part of the development agreement, including additional affordable housing units, enhanced development impact fees, sustainability measures, the provision of public parking spaces for City use, monetary contributions to Big Blue Bus, early childhood initiatives, historic preservation, and transportation programs. Furthermore, the 2013-2021 Housing Element incorporates the housing goals from the LUCE, which generally seek to produce more housing in transit accessible locations. Santa Monica was allocated 1,674 units in the 2014-2021 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) with a quantified objective of 1,371 units. Based on information from the Housing Division, there are 871 units that have been completed or are under construction. This project helps the City towards attaining its housing objective. 3 of 37 The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the LUCE, and implements the City’s vision and policies of locating higher density development in the Downtown and close to the Expo light rail. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the development agreement. Background The development site totals 33,154 square feet in size and is located on the southeast corner of Lincoln Boulevard and Colorado Avenue. The property has approximately 129 feet of street frontage along Lincoln Boulevard and approximately 265 feet of street frontage along Colorado Avenue. The site was previously occupied by a restaurant (Norm’s); however, all structures have been demolished and the site is currently vacant and secured with perimeter chain link fencing. Street Corner View of Site (Feb., 2014) Street Corner View of Site (May, 2015) The existing neighborhood context is modest in height. Adjacent uses along Lincoln Boulevard include retail, service, and restaurant uses with structures that are primarily one-story in height and ranging up to three stories. Along Colorado Avenue there are commercial office, retail, and industrial uses within one and two story buildings. The project site is 3½ blocks east of the future EXPO line light rail terminus station at the corner of 4th Street and Colorado Avenue. Diagonally across the intersection to the northwest corner of Lincoln Boulevard and Colorado Avenue is the site of a one -story commercial building (Denny’s) with a development agreement application that was recently approved by the City Council for a 5-story (60 feet) mixed-use project. 4 of 37 View North on Lincoln Blvd. (June, 2015) View South on Lincoln Blvd. (June, 2015) View West on Colorado Ave. (June, 2015) View East on Colorado Ave. (June, 2015) The development agreement application was subm itted to the City on August 24, 2012, and has been reviewed consistent with the public process established for projects that are exempt from CEQA including a community meeting, ARB concept review, and Planning Commission float-up review, as further summarized in Attachment F. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission reviewed the development agreement on September 16, 2015 (Attachment I) and voted 6-1 to recommend that the City Council approve the project subject to 10 recommended changes. The Planning Commission subsequently voted 5-2 to recommend an additional affordable unit. The full recommendations are detailed below along with responses to each item: Planning Commission Motion (Passed 6-1) 1. The number of parking spaces designated for electric vehicle charging stations should be increased from 10% (17 spaces) to 20% (34 spaces) of overall number of parking spaces. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and the language in the respective section of the development agreement has been updated. [DA Section 2.7.17] 5 of 37 2. One of the affordable 2BR units @ 50% A rea Median Income (AMI) should be switched to a 3BR unit @ 50% AMI. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation and the language in the respective section of the development agreement has been updated accordingly. [DA Section 2.7.1] 3. In its review of the project, the Architectural Review Board should pay particular attention to the ground floor frontage of the East Building facing Colorado Avenue to ensure a pedestrian-oriented design; and to the roof deck canopy and pedestrian bridges between the buildings as they relate to horizontal expansiveness and perception of façade length along the Colorado Avenue elevation. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation and the conditions of approval have been updated. [Project Specific Condition of Approval No. 2] 4. The bike storage location should be revisited to make it as convenient and accessible as possible. Bicycle parking is proposed at-grade for short-term bike parking and within the subterranean parking garage for long-term bike storage. The long-term bike storage location is conveniently located near the residential elevators, and is a more secure and preferred location for this purpose than relocating it to the ground floor level. Enclosed long-term bike storage at-grade would detract from the more desirable and functional active use of the ground floor area. Consequently, no change to the bike storage location is proposed. 5. Any cultural resources found on the project site during excavation shall be preserved and protected. A standard condition of approval is required of all projects and provides the protocol to be followed, in compliance with State law, with respect to the inadvertent discovery of archaeological and paleontological resources or human remains. [No change to DA; already included as Project Specific Condition of Approval #11] 6. At least 50% of the roof area shall be covered with solar panels. The development agreement already includes a provision that solar energ y systems shall be installed on the roof to achieve maximum coverage of the roof area. It is very likely that this requirement will result in more than 50% of the area being covered with solar energy systems and therefore, adding this recommendation would be duplicative. [No change to DA Section 2.7.6(d)] 7. Private storage spaces should be provided for units under 800 square feet in size. Discussions with the applicant regarding this item highlighted the operational difficulties related to providing private storage units since space within the project is limited. There are 63 units that are under 800 square feet in the project. The applicant indicates that when storage spaces are provided, they are often charged separately from the unit and provided above a designated parking space or in areas of the garage where there is room to provide storage. The subterranean garage is completely occupied with parking spaces, bike parking, showers/lockers, and mechanical equipment making it impractical to 6 of 37 reserve additional areas for excess storage space. As a result, the development agreement does not include this recommendation. 8. The storage of items on the balcony such as furniture and plants shall not be prohibited. The applicant has confirmed that the use of the balcony spaces is regulated by the property management and that the reasonable placement and use of the balconies for items such as a seating area and/or plants is permitted. Storage of items on the balcony shall be allowed subject to developer’s reasonable rules and regulations. [Project Specific Condition of Approval No. 5] 9. Allow the ARB additional design flexibility by increasing the amount of floor area reduction that may result from the Architectural Review Board design review procedures from the proposed 2% to 5%. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation and the development agreement has been updated. [DA Section 6.1] 10. The proposed sidewalk width of 20-feet along both street frontages shall not be reduced. The 20-foot sidewalk width, measured from the building to the face of curb,is included as part of the proposed project and shall not be reduced to a lesser dimension. [Project Specific Condition of Approval No. 6] Planning Commission Subsequent Motion (Passed 5 -2) 11. An additional affordable 2BR unit @ 50% AMI shall be provided as part of the project. The inclusion of this additional affordable 2BR unit @ 50% AMI would effectively replace the affordable 2BR unit @ 50% AMI that the Planning Commission recommended be converted to an affordable 3BR unit @ 50% AMI as part of its initially approved motion. A broader goal of deed-restricting units in the project is to address the full range of housing needs in the City. Since the project already includes the majority of units affordable to households at 50% and 80% AMI, staff proposes that the additional affordable unit be a deed- restricted studio unit to households at a moderate income level. During development agreement negotiations, staff strived to obtain an affordability mix reflective of the overall project unit mix. The project includes a proportionally higher number of 1BR and studio units, as compared to other unit sizes, and provides a reasonable number of affordable 2BR and 3BR units. As proposed, among recently approved projects, this project would be the first to provide an affordable 3BR unit at a deep level of affordability (50% of AMI). The provision of an additional studio unit for moderate income level households would be the only affordable studio unit in the project, would provide an affordability mix that is more consistent with the proposed unit mix, and would provide a unit in the project that is affordable to a potential pool of Downtown workers. The applicant has agreed to staff’s proposal and the development agreement has been updated accordingly. [DA Section 2.7.1] 7 of 37 Figure 2: Proposed Project – View from Colorado Ave. & Lincoln Blvd. Discussion Project Description The proposal consists of a 5-story (57 feet) building and a 4-story (47 feet) building with 10,617 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 90 residential units. The two buildings are separated by a driveway/alley from Colorado Avenue for vehicular access to 2 levels of subterranean parking with 168 parking spaces. The proposed driveway/alley would align with Lincoln Court in contemplation of any potential future extension of Lincoln Court from Olympic Boulevard to Colorado Avenue. Figure 3: Potential Lincoln Court Extension 8 of 37 The driveway/alley also demarcates the district boundaries that traverse the project site, as shown in the figure below. The west side of the site is within the Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB) designated LUCE and zoning districts. The east side of the project site is within the Mixed-Use Boulevard Low (MUBL) designated LUCE and zoning districts. Furthermore, the west portion of the site is within the Downtown Specific Plan area. As such, there are a number of regulatory documents considered in the review and analysis of this development agreement, which include the LUCE, the Zoning Ordinance Update (effective July 24, 2015), and the draft Downtown Specific Plan. A development agreement may provide flexibility from the development standards of the respective zoning districts; however, consistency with the General Plan (i.e. the LUCE) is required. The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) is currently in its draft form and is referenced in this report along with the newly adopted Zoning Ordinance for comparative and analytical purposes, and to strive to achieve consistency with the anticipated direction of the goals, policies, and standards of the draft DSP. For the purposes of reviewing this development agreement, the property was considered as one development site within the DSP area to provide consistency and continuity in scope and design with respect to features such as parking, sidewalk width, and building frontage requirements; however the LUCE designations and standards (i.e. FAR, building height) for each respective district were held in higher priority to ensure the project maintained consistency with the General Plan and its two LUCE designations. The floor area of the project totals approximately 77,758 square feet for an overall FAR of 2.34. Considered separately, the 50,164 square feet of the West Building results in a 2.63 FAR and the 27,594 square feet of the East Building constitutes a 1.95 FAR. The West Building has street frontage along both Lincoln Boulevard and Colorado Avenue and includes 10,617 square-feet of ground floor commercial space, a 1,203 square-foot outdoor common plaza area at the corner, a residential lobby, a leasing office, Figure 4: District Boundaries Driveway Location 9 of 37 trash/recycling areas, and mechanical/utility rooms. The ground floor of the East Building fronts onto Colorado Avenue and consists of 10 1BR loft-style residential units. The upper floors of the West Building include 50 residential units and amenities such as a lap pool, cabana, yoga deck, fitness center, BBQ and seating areas. The upper floors of the East Building include 30 residential units and a rooftop deck/garden approximately 2,777 square feet in size with amenities including seating areas, landscaping, fire pits, BBQs, and a covered trellis with photovoltaic panels integrated into the design. Internal pedestrian circulation between the two buildings is provided via breezeways along the residential floors that extend across and above the driveway/alley. General pedestrian access to the building is provided along both street frontages. Vehicular access to the site is from the driveway/alley on Colorado Avenue. The project’s residential component consists of 90 residential units with the following unit configuration: Table 1: Project Unit Mix Unit Type Number of Units Percentage Average Sq. Ft. Studio 17 19% 430 1BR 46 51% 687 2BR 18 20% 938 3BR 9 10% 1,024  Total Project Average Bedroom Factor = 1.21 The proposed unit mix percentages are consistent with development agreement priority processing guidelines established by the City Council of 20% maximum studios, minimum 20% two-bedroom units, and minimum 10% three-bedroom units. The project proposes to satisfy the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program requirements by providing a total of nine affordable units (10%) on-site affordable to 50% income households. Furthermore, the project would provide an additional 9 affordable units on-site to 50% and 80% income households as a community benefit, 10 of 37 resulting in a total of 18 affordable units (20%) for the project. The proposed affordable housing unit mix for the project would consist of the following: Table 2: Affordable Unit Mix Unit Type Number of Units Percentage Average Sq. Ft. Studio (Moderate) 1 1% 430 1BR (50% income) 11 12% 685 1BR (80% income) 2 2% 719 2BR (50% income) 2 2% 933 2BR (80% income) 2 2% 991 3BR (50% income) 1 1% 1,020  Affordable Housing Average Bedroom Factor = 1.26 The average bedroom factor of 1.26 for the affordable housing units exceeds the average bedroom factor of 1.21 for the overall project. This is consistent with the minimum average bedroom factor of 1.2 established in the Zoning Ordinance. Project Design + Site Planning The two buildings are of a modern/contemporary design. The upper floors cantilever over the first floor and are heavily articulated using a variety of geometric forms to accentuate the balconies and the overall building form, and to pro vide a distinct separation from the commercial ground floor. The open-air pedestrian bridges are setback approximately 42 feet from the curb and extend into single-loaded, south facing corridors on the second through fifth levels. The separation between the buildings provides a break in the building mass and allows for light and air to pass through the project. The southward facing second level residential courtyard is designed to take advantage of natural daylight. The residential units accessed by the single-loaded corridors face the residential courtyard and would have operable windows to allow for cross-ventilation through the units. The roof deck atop the 4 -story, 47-foot high East Building would provide additional open space amenities for the residents and creates a high level of visual presence and interest to/from the street. 11 of 37 Figure 5: Proposed Colorado Avenue Elevation Pedestrian Orientation + Open Space West Building The ground floor design of the West Building’s street elevation provides 18’-00” floor-to- floor height, consistent with the LUCE and the draft DSP standards, and incorporates a significant amount of glazing that would provide transparency and engage outside pedestrian activity. The building is setback 10-feet from the property line to provide more opportunity for usable open space on the ground floor, and to accommodate a minimum sidewalk width of 20 feet (curb to building) along both street frontages, consistent with the Building Frontage Line standards of the draft DSP. The 2 0-foot wide public sidewalk would primarily serve as pedestrian circulation area, but also provides opportunities for short-term bike parking, landscaping, gathering spaces, and outdoor seating. The sidewalk along both street frontages widens into a common plaza area totaling approximately 1,203 square feet that is located at the visually prominent corner of the property, beneath the cantilevered upper floors, to further expand the usable ground floor open space and emphasize the public gathering features of the project. Secured pedestrian access to the residential upper floors is provided from the common plaza via a glass guardrail stairway to encourage use of the plaza space by residents and their visitors as well as pedestrians and customers of the commercial space. 12 of 37 Figure 6: Proposed Corner Plaza Proposed Partial Lincoln Boulevard Elevation The leasable commercial ground floor space of the West Building measures approximately 10,617 square feet in size with the additional 1,203 square feet of common plaza area available for outdoor dining. The commercial area is designed to utilize the street frontages along both Lincoln Boulevard and Colorado Avenue as primary pedestrian entrances to the tenant spaces, along with ancillary access from the interior of the common plaza for the adjacent commercial spaces. In total, approximately 2,063 square feet of ground floor open space (excluding the sidewalk area) is provided within the west portion of the site, which exceeds the minimum 10% of lot size (1,902 square feet) standard contemplated by the draft DSP at the ground floor level. Intentionally Left Blank 13 of 37 East Building The ground floor design of the East Building includes 10 one-bedroom w/ loft units and also provides 18’ floor-to-floor height. Four of the loft-style one-bedroom units face Colorado Avenue adjacent to the 20-foot wide sidewalk. The street elevation along the East Building provides varied surface materials that include architectural concrete walls separating the glazing of the individual units and integrated planters in front of each unit. Perforated metal panels across the top of the windows break -up the 18’ high elevation and create an attractive pedestrian scale along this portion of the project. The Planning Figure 7: 2nd Floor Residential Open Space Roof Deck/5th Floor Residential Open Space Lincoln Boulevard Lincoln Boulevard 14 of 37 Commission commented on the ground floor residential units of the East Building and offered suggestions to activate the frontage with elements such as building entries, porches, and other pedestrian-scaled elements. A condition of approval for the Architectural Review Board to address the Planning Commission’s concern is included in the development agreement. In total, approximately 3,160 square feet of ground floor open space (excluding the sidewalk area) is provided within the MUBL designated portion of the site, which exceeds the minimum 10% of lot size (1,413 square feet) standard contemplated by the draft DSP at the ground floor level. The East Building is not located within the DSP area; however the overall project, when viewed as one development site, provides a total of 5,223 square feet of ground floor open space, which equates to approximately 16% of the entire 33,154 square -foot property size. Overall, the project would provide 21,263 square feet of open space (64% of lot size). Residential Open Space As shown in Figures 7 and 8, residential common open space is provided in the second level residential courtyard area consisting of 4,128 square feet, and on the roof deck area totaling 3,687 square feet. As described previously, the residential courtyard is south facing to take advantage of natural light and includes a lap pool, yoga deck, cabana, BBQ, and seating areas. The roof deck on the East Building includes landscape features, additional BBQ and seating areas, and provides approximately 470 square feet of covered trellis/canopy areas integrated with photovoltaic panels. Furthermore, private balconies averaging approximately 62 square feet per unit would provide an additional 5,580 square feet of private residential open space. 15 of 37 Figure 8: Second Level Residential Courtyard Area Driveway/Alley The 20 foot-wide driveway/alley to the site runs between the two buildings at the ground floor level from Colorado Avenue. The driveway would be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in anticipation of potential development of adjacent properties such that the alley can extend to connect to the existing portion of Lincoln Court. The developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of the driveway until such time the full extension to an alley is completed. Both buildings are setback from the edge of the driveway/alley to provide space for pedestrian circulation, landscaping, and bicycle racks. The driveway/alley elevation of the West Building contains the leasing office, residential lobby/elevators, mechanical/utility rooms, minimal landscaping, and a loading zone. The setback area adjacent to the East Building serves as the primary entrance to the building’s ground floor residential units and is designed with wider pedestrian areas and more prominent landscaping for an enhanced pedestrian experience. 16 of 37 Building Mass + Modulation Building Mass The building elevations along both street frontages include openings and varying lengths to reduce the overall building mass. The Lincoln Boulevard frontage measures approximately 129 feet in length (Figure 9); however 72’-6” (56%) of the frontage is occupied with building volume at the ground level. Figure 9: Lincoln Boulevard Elevation The development site measures approximately 265 feet in length along the Colorado Avenue elevation (Figure 10). The West Building measures approximately 139 feet in length along this elevation, with approximately 99 feet (71%) of building volume occupying the ground level. The opening at the ground floor for the common plaza area provides relief from building mass at the pedestrian level and helps accentuate the cantilevered corner feature of the building at the upper levels. The separation between the buildings along Colorado Avenue measures 48’-6” at the ground floor and narrows to 21’-10” between the upper floors. The East Building’s width measures just under 78 feet along this elevation. The proposed building façade lengths for the project are less than the 150-foot maximum of unbroken primary façade length described in the draft 129’ 72’-6” 17 of 37 DSP (Appendix A.3.A.2) to encourage a human-scaled building rhythm. The Planning Commission commented on the bridges connecting both buildings and the trellis/solar canopy that is proposed on the east elevation of the project and their combined effect on the expanse of the North Elevation of the project. Condition of approval No. 2 is included in the development agreement for the Architectural Review Board to address the Planning Commission’s concern. Figure 10: Colorado Avenue Elevation Building Modulation The LUCE Mixed-Use Boulevard allows a building height of 55 feet, with a provision allowing up to 60 feet in height provided that a corresponding percentage decrease in the floor area for the portion of the building between 55 and 60 feet is provided . This flexibility is intended to allow for additional building height in exchange for reduced floor area at the top floor of a building. As applied to this project, the portion of the We st Building between 55 and 60 feet is the 5 th floor of the building. As proposed, an increase of building height from 55 to 57 feet is a 3.6% increase, and therefore a corresponding 3.6% decrease in floor area on the 5th floor is required. The average size of floors 2-4 of the West Building is 9,562 square feet, with the 4th floor consisting of 9,863 square feet. The proposed 5th floor totals 9,123 square feet in area, which represents a 7 percent decrease in floor area from the immediate floor below. As proposed, the top floor is reduced in size relative to the general building 48’-6” 22’ 78’ 139’ 99’ 18 of 37 footprint and massing of the project above the podium level, and is therefore consistent with this requirement. The draft DSP also addresses building volume of upper floors; ho wever it approaches the reduction of upper level massing differently. The stepback requirements historically used by the City have been replaced in the Draft DSP with limitations on floor plate ratios as compared to the floors below and limiting the lengt h of primary façade that occupies the building frontage zone six feet from the frontage line of the upper floors. More specifically, the overall size of the upper floors is limited, but its specific location along the upper floors is flexible (i.e. moveable across the entire floor). This flexibility allows specific site characteristics to be considered in the design phase that could result in optimizing benefits such as natural sunlight into internal courtyards, roof deck location, site uniqueness, and overall design quality within a case-by-case setting. In this instance, the building design wraps around the north, east, and west elevations in a manner that allows for optimal natural sunlight to enter the internal courtyard and south - facing units while limiting building massing at the building frontage and reducing the overall upper level massing as intended by the draft DSP. The applicable maximum floor plate ratios for this project identified in the draft DSP are 90% for the 3rd floor, 75% for the 4th floor, and 55% for the 5th floor. As indicated in the Development Standards Project Compliance Table in Attachment D, the project has floor plate ratios of 61% on the 3rd floor, 61% on the 4th floor, and 33% on the 5th floor, and is in compliance with this draft DSP provision. Vehicular Parking and Access | Bike Parking Vehicle Parking The two-level subterranean garage is designed with vehicular access to the site from Colorado Avenue. As part of the draft DSP, parking areas shall be accessed from alleys when available. Currently, there is no alley access serving the project site; however, the proposed driveway/alley that bifurcates the project site is intended to address this requirement by creating access to the project from Colorado Avenue. 19 of 37 The proposed garage provides 168 off-street parking spaces for residents, guests, and the ground floor commercial uses. Access to the subterranean garage is secured by a parking access gate at the ramp entrance. As proposed, the project’s parking is deficient 13 parking spaces as it relates to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; however, the 168 parking spaces exceed the draft DSP parking standards by 37 parking spaces. Thirty-nine commercial parking spaces and 24 guest parking spaces (63 total spaces) are located on the first subterranean level of parking immediately as vehicles enter the parking area. The remaining 105 parking spaces are allocated for the residential uses and are located on a portion of the first garage level as well as the entire second level of the garage. Residential parking spaces are secured and separate from the commercial parking spaces by an electric sliding gate. Parking would be unbundled for both residential and commercial uses, as outlined in the project’s TDM requirements (DA Section 2.7.8). There is an 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. Table 3 below compares the proposed project with the minimum vehicular and bicycle parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (effective July 24, 2015) and the draft DSP. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per 500 square feet of floor area for retail and restaurant uses below 2,500 square feet in size. The require d parking ratios increase to 1/300 and 1/200 for retail and restaurant uses larger than 2,500 square feet in size, respectively. It is uncertain how the 10,617 square-foot commercial space will be subdivided and what types of uses will occupy the ground floor, but evaluation of the parking plan should consider the provision of sufficient parking to allow flexibility in the type and size of uses. Evaluating parking at only a 1/500 parking ratio would potentially place unnecessary constraints on the parking supply and limit the opportunity to combine tenant spaces to accommodate larger uses. Conversely, evaluating the parking at only a 1/200 parking ratio could potentially result in too much parking being required for the project. The development agreement requires that all commercial tenancies consist primarily of neighborhood serving uses; therefore, the risk of larger, parking intensive 20 of 37 uses is unlikely. The 1/300 parking ratio has therefore been used to determine the project’s parking requirements in order to provide the greatest flexibility for smaller tenant spaces while also allowing for the possibility of some larger spaces. Based on the numbers in Table 3 below, the proposed number of parking spaces would be adequate for the project. Table 3: Parking Comparison Table Parking Type Updated Zoning Ordinance Draft DSP Proposed Project Automobile Off- Street Parking 144 residential 39 commercial* 183 total 92 residential 39 commercial** 131 total 129 residential 39 commercial*** 168 total Bicycle Parking (Long Term) 126 residential 4 commercial 130 total 126 residential 8 commercial 134 total 127 residential 10 commercial 137 total Bicycle Parking (Short Term) 13 residential 4 commercial 17 total 13 residential 11 commercial 24 total 13 residential 11 commercial 24 total Total Bike Parking 147 158 161 * 1/300 parking rate applied, including 1,203 SF outdoor dining area. ** 1/300 parking rate applied, including 1,203 SF outdoor dining area with a 500 SF credit (per draft DSP). ***Commercial parking includes 15 parking spaces dedicated as Shared Parking spaces Bicycle Parking Long-term bike parking for both commercial and residential uses, including locker and shower facilities, would be located on the first and second garage levels in a location convenient to access elevators. Short-term bike parking, including cargo bike spaces, would be located throughout the ground floor open space areas as shown on the project plans. The project plans have been reviewed and conceptually approved by the City’s Transportation Division. 21 of 37 Updated Zoning Ordinance Development Standards The project site is located within the MUB and MUBL zoning districts, which establish property development standards that govern the height, bulk, and mass of buildings. The MUB zoning district was established to facilitate the transformation of auto -oriented sections of the boulevards into vibrant, diverse, and attractive pedestrian friendly mixed - use boulevards that support local-serving retail and a diversity of housing types. The MUBL district is a district intended to have a slightly lower intensity than the MUB district, but still strives to transform sections of boulevards into highly walkable areas with broad, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and local-serving uses. As proposed, the project exceeds the following Zoning Ordinance development standards for Tier 2 projects in the MUB and MUBL zoning districts (as further outlined in Project Compliance Table provided in Attachment D):  Building Height: MUB (50 Feet) MUBL (36 Feet)  Floor Area Ratio: MUB (2.25 FAR) MUBL(1.75 FAR)  Build to Line, Nonresidential Uses  Residential Parking Although the project exceeds certain zoning regulations, the proximity of the project site to the light-rail terminus station, and the potential of the general area to be a more transit and pedestrian-oriented downtown destination are important considerations. As mentioned, from an urban design perspective, these factors suggest that increased density at this location may be appropriate and supported by the anticipated increase of pedestrian activity in the area. LUCE + Draft DSP Consistency The project is currently subject to the provisions of the MUB and MUBL land use designations of the LUCE. However, the draft DSP includes this portion of Lincoln Boulevard in the MUB sub-area designation, and provides separate development standards for the property. The draft DSP, when adopted, may modify the existing Mixed-Use Boulevard designation along this portion of Lincoln Boulevard. The project is consistent with the LUCE Mixed-Use Boulevard requirements for building height and 22 of 37 FAR, and is therefore consistent with the General Plan. Furthermore, as discussed previously in this staff report, and further detailed in the Project Compliance table (Attachment D), the project is consistent with the requirements and standards of the draft DSP, including FAR, building height, open space, floor plate ratios, and upper level building frontage occupancy. However, the project is inconsistent with the pedestrian level building frontage requirements of the draft DSP. Council previously expressed interest in information from the LUCE monitoring report that would provide some context to the proposed housing project. For the purpose of evaluating the impacts of potential land use changes during the 20-year time horizon of the LUCE, among other factors, the LUCE Final EIR (FEIR) considered residential and non-residential land use changes. The LUCE FEIR analyzed 4,955 residential units. The projections of land use change in the LUCE FEIR are not a cap on development but rather were used to analyze the environmental impact of the General Plan. Table 4 provides information regarding the land use change analyzed in the LUCE FE IR and the proposed project. Table 4: Residential Units Completed, Under Construction or Approved Since LUCE Adoption Residential Units Completed Residential Units Under Construction Residential Units Approved/ No Building Permits Proposed Project 1,064 429 435 90 Housing Element Consistency The 2013-2021 Housing Element incorporates the housing goals from the LUCE, which generally seek to produce more housing in transit accessible locations. The proposed project is located adjacent to the Expo light rail corridor and is within ½ mile of the Downtown terminus station. Santa Monica was allocated 1,674 units in the 2014 -2021 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) with a quantified objective of 1,371 units. Based on information from the Housing Division, there are 871 units that have been completed or are under construction leaving 500 units remaining to achieve the quantified objective. Table 5 illustrates the remaining quantified objective by income 23 of 37 category with information from recently approved h ousing projects. Approved projects will actually need to be completed projects in order to achieve the quantified objective. Table 5: Housing Element Remaining Quantified Objectives 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Moderate Above Moderate Remaining Quantified Objective 25 108 114 86 167 Recently Approved Housing Projects 1560 Lincoln Blvd DA (Denny’s) -- 10 10 -- 80 1415 5th St DA -- 10 4 -- 50 Proposed Project -- 14 4 1 71 A key goal of the Housing Element is the production of housing for all income categories including housing for the community’s workforce. In determining the affordability level of units and unit mix, negotiations were guided by the Council’s unit mix priority guidelines for development agreement processing (maximum 20% studios, minimum 20% two- bedroom, and minimum 10% three-bedroom), the average bedroom factor requirements for Tier 2 projects as adopted in the zoning ordinance, the needs of the City’s Affordable Housing Master Waiting List, and policy guidance from the LUCE and Draft DS P with respect to trip reduction and housing affordability for the working population. Deed- restricted middle-income housing (i.e. above moderate but below market level) is not included in the project. Development Agreement Overview A development agreement is a contract between the City and a developer that authorizes the type and amount of development that may occur within a specific period of time. Development agreements provide developers with guaranteed development rights in exchange for community benefits. A development agreement must comply with the General Plan, but can establish different development standards than provided by zoning regulations. A development agreement can provide greater latitude to advance local planning policies compared to the Development Review Permit process. While a development 24 of 37 agreement is an alternative to the standard development approval process, in practice it is similar to other public review processes where the City Council makes the final decision with the exception that the City Council has more discretion in imposing conditions and requirements on the proposed project since development agreements are negotiated contracts. The proposed development agreement is included as Attachment B. Community Benefits The development agreement includes a negotiated community benefits package that totals approximately $8.6M, summarized in Table 2, with values assigned to each community benefit, where it was possible to monetize the value of the benefit. The 19 affordable housing units are an estimated $6.2M value to the City based on the 2015 affordable housing unit development cost of $327,927, which represents the City’s average costs to develop a unit to housing affordable to 30%, 50%, 80%, or moderate - income households. Community benefits are described in further detail below: On-Site Affordable Housing The project would provide on-site affordable housing units exceeding the minimum 10% on-site unit requirement (for 50% income households) pursuant to the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHHP). Specifically, the project would provide the following: 19 total affordable units (21% of the total 90 units) 50% income households (very-low):  11 one-bedroom units  2 two-bedroom units  1 three-bedroom unit 80% income households (low):  2 one-bedroom units  2 two-bedroom unit Moderate income households  1 studio unit 25 of 37 Although the nine units affordable to 50% income households, pursuant to the 10% minimum required by AHPP, do not consist entirely of two-bedroom units, the proposal exceeds the overall bedroom factor of 1.2 for affordable units as established for Tier 2 projects in the Zoning Ordinance with five of the affordable units consisting of two- bedrooms or larger. The Developer would also be required to market and provide outreach to disability advocacy organizations to inform them of the availability of the affordable units and the process to be placed on the City’s Affordable Housing waiting list. Enhanced Impact Fees The development agreement includes augmented impact fees compared to adopted fees that would otherwise be required by the Municipal Code in addition to negotiated contributions to priorities established in the LUCE. The following summarizes the negotiated contributions:  Enhanced Transportation Impact Fee A monetary contribution of $820,000 towards transportation programs. This contribution is a 35% increase above adopted Transportation Impact fees for the incremental development above Tier 1 - an increment of approximately $247,000.  Enhanced Parks and Recreation Impact Fee A monetary contribution of $600,000 towards parks and recreation programs. This contribution is a 35% increase above adopted Parks and Recreation fees for the incremental development above Tier 1 - an increment of approximately $165,000.  Enhanced Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee A monetary contribution of $175,000 to fund development of affordable housing units in the City. This contribution is a 35% increase above adopted Affordable Housing Linkage fees for the incremental development above Tier 1- an increment of approximately $45,000. 26 of 37  Early Childhood Initiatives Contribution A monetary contribution of $150,000 that would support early childhood initiatives including but not limited to infant, toddler and pre-school tuition subsidies; family support and parent engagement strategies; home visitations programs; facility and playground improvements; and kindergarten readiness models. This contribution is approximately double the fee amount that would be required pursuant to the Child Care Linkage Program. This total contribution would be in-lieu of the Child Care Linkage Program ordinance requirements for the project.  Transportation Management Association Contribution A monetary contribution of $50,000 towards Transportation Management Association programs.  Big Blue Bus Contribution A monetary contribution of $80,000 towards Big Blue Bus transit improvements in the Downtown.  Historic Preservation Contribution A monetary contribution of $50,000 towards historic preservation programs throughout the City. Shared Vehicle Parking Section 5.4.C of the Draft DSP (Page 172) discusses the potential expansion of the Downtown parking district beyond the Bayside District and seeking public parking opportunities in the eastern part of the Downtown area as infill projects occur. The Draft DSP anticipates that approximately 800 additional public parking spaces will need to be added to the public network to keep pace with land use changes that opt to participate in an expanded parking in-lieu fee program. The development agreement supports maximizing the amount of publicly available parking for visitors and employees by requiring that:  All parking shall be unbundled; and  The developer must charge for parking at rates not competitive with comparable transit. 27 of 37 This parking framework provides flexibility for the Developer to efficiently manage the project’s parking to not only serve the project’s need but also to lease parking spaces to off-site users. Draft DSP Policies CM3.11 and CM7.10 aim to distribute public vehicle parking facilities at the periphery of the district and encourage parking efficiency strategies that allow optimal use of excess parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of excessive parking. However, with the parking access from Colorado Avenue, the project site may be difficult to access for visitor public parking. In the project’s float-up review, the Commission shared this concern along with the difficult accessibility to the 10 Freeway from the site. In response to concerns raised at the float-up review and for consistency with the LUCE and the draft DSP, the project was redesigned to eliminate the driveway apron on Lincoln Boulevard. Further review of the project has determined that without any alley access to the property, the proposed location of the driveway on Colorado Avenue is the most favorable location due to easy accessibility to the site from the I -10 Freeway off Lincoln Boulevard and to accommodate any future extensi on of Lincoln Court. Staff considered the goals and policies of the Draft DSP as they relate to expanding public parking opportunities in Downtown and negotiated for use of 15 surplus parking spaces at the project site in order to provide the City options for integrating privately owned parking spaces into the public parking supply. With written notice, the City could exercise rights for 15 parking spaces in the subterranean garage. The framework is set up as a potential pilot program pursuant to the terms outlined in Section 2.7.20 of the development agreement that would require the project to make up to 15 monthly parking spaces available at the City’s option at rates adopted by City Council. This would potentially allow the City to relocate monthly parkers from public structures in the Downtown core to Downtown periphery locations. These individuals would be familiar with the location of the project’s subterranean garage. This would increase parking availability within the public parking garages and facilities that are centrally located in the Downtown area. Unlike some monthly parking permits that provide Downtown 28 of 37 employees the ability to seek available parking spaces within the Downtown area, employees issued a permit for this specific location could have a dedicated space at the site, which would result in reduced trips in the area. As detailed in Section 2.7.20 of the development agreement, the City’s use of these spaces shall commence and terminate at the City’s option with the parking rates established by the City Council and the spaces available during the weekdays from 6 a.m. – 7 p.m. Table 6: Summary of Proposed Community Benefits Able To Be Monetized Community Benefit Value Affordable Housing (19 Units) $327,927 x 19 = $6,230,613 Enhanced TIF $820,000 Enhanced Parks and Recreation Fee $600,000 Enhanced Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee $175,000 Early Childhood Initiative contribution $150,000 Historic Preservation contribution $50,000 Big Blue Bus contribution $80,000 Transportation Management Association $50,000 Water Conservation Program contribution $300,000 Bioswale Contribution $200,000 Total $2,425,000 without affordable housing $8,655,613 including affordable housing Local Hiring The project would include local hiring provisions for construction-related and permanent employment. At least 60 days before recruitment is opened up to general circulation, the developer shall prepare and submit a local hiring program for review and approval by the City that is consistent with the obligations under development agreement Section 2.7.18 and associated Exhibits F-1 (Local Hiring Program For Construction) and F-2 (Local Hiring Program For Permanent Employment). All hiring decisions would continue to remain at the discretion of the Developer and commercial tenants. 29 of 37 Local Marketing A local marketing provision is included in the development agreement stating that the developer shall market the residential units to local employees for 90 days prior to making the units available to the general public. Transportation Demand Management The development agreement includes TDM measures that would reduce vehicular trips and parking demand generated by the proposed project. Measures include, but are not limited to, a transportation information center, average vehicle ridership (AVR) targets, unbundled parking, parking cash-out, transportation allowances for employees and residents equivalent to 100% of the cost of a monthly regional transit pass , showers and lockers for commercial employees who bike to work, ground level short-term visitor bike parking, long-term resident and commercial bike parking, and active participation in a Transportation Management Association. If the project should not meet its annual AVR target, the development agreement requires the payment of a monetary penalty, based on the formula provided in Section 2.7.8(h) of the development agreement, and the submittal of a modified TDM Plan that is designed to achieve the AVR targe t by the date of the next annual report to the City. The proposed TDM measures are further detailed in Section 2.7.8 of the development agreement. Sustainability Elements The negotiated sustainability elements are intended to ensure that the project meets the highest levels of sustainability possible for the project. Many elements would likely have long-term benefits for the project’s operations. The following summarizes the project’s sustainability elements: LEED Status The project will be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum LEED® for Homes Platinum certification as established by the LEED® Rating System. 30 of 37 Solar Infrastructure The project would include renewable energy generation including roof -mounted photovoltaic solar panels and solar water heating technology that would allow the pool to be heated with 100% renewable energy. The project design would be required to provide a sufficient number of photovoltaic panels to power all of the common areas of the project and also achieve maximum coverage of the roof with solar energy systems excluding necessary areas for building mechanical systems and Fire Code requirements. Further, up to 22% of tenant amenity space could be covered by solar canopies providing shade while also generating renewable energy for the project. As currently designed, photovoltaic panels above a rooftop trellis provide a shade element for a portion of the roof deck. The building would be designed to use 15% less energy than required by California Energy Code. Consistent with zoning code requirements, the trellis projections are subject to Architectural Review Board approval for photovoltaic solar energy systems exceeding 5 feet (not to exceed 14 feet) in height above district height limits. Water Conservation The project would use non-potable water sources for landscape irrigation and commit to a 30% reduction below CalGreen baseline for interior building water usage. Specific performance standards for all of the interior fixtures, washers, and toilets are outlined in Section 2.7.5 of the development agreement. The project’s anticipated water usage of 5,739 gallons per day (gpd) includes the utilization of higher efficiency fixtures, equipment, and project design, as required by the development agreement. Over the past 5 years (2010-2014) the average daily water usage of the site has been 4,461 gpd; however, this figure includes nearly 1½ years of inactivity on the property since Norm’s restaurant closed in July, 2013. The historical average of water usage for the last five years that Norm’s restaurant was in full operation from 2008 to 2012, was 5,368 gpd. Further, the development agreement includes a contribution of $300,000 towards water conservation programs throughout the City. This amount was negotiated after extensive discussion regarding the possibility of using greywater for toilet flushing in the 31 of 37 project. The use of greywater for toilet flushing has been recently allowed by LA County Department of Public Health, however, the regulatory framework for installing such a system and the maintenance and testing requirements that follow is still in flux. In researching other multi-family residential projects around the country that have installed greywater systems, such projects tended to be on average 250 units, had obtained sizeable grants from a public utility, or were no longer using the greywater system due to maintenance difficulties. In speaking with manufacturers of greywater systems, it became clear that the cost of maintenance and regulatory compliance due to water testing could be substantial. Further, the City has not yet developed a regulatory framework that would provide appropriate oversight for testing of greywater systems. Given the uncertainty in ensuring the long-term success of a greywater system in the project, staff ultimately decided that a contribution that represented what it would cost to install a greywater system would be more effective in bringing the use of greywater in the City to fruition. The contribution could assist the City in studying the feasibility of greywater systems and also be a source of potential grants for partners who are interested in pilot projects for greywater systems. The negotiated water conservation contribution was not originally intended to address water demand offsets for purposes of water neutrality, but instead was intended to represent the potential cost of installing a greywater system for toilet flushing in a project. However, the contribution achieves the same goal as the potential water neutrality ordinance and therefore, the development agreement does not specifically address water neutrality. Bioswales Bioswales are landscape elements that allow for the collection, conveyance, filtration and infiltration of stormwater, in efforts to reduce contaminated stormwater runoff. In addition to satisfying the on-site stormwater requirements for the project, staff and the developer explored the feasibility of constructing a bioswale and infiltration system within the public right-of-way/sidewalk along the project’s Lincoln Boulevard frontage. In discussion with the City’s Public Works Department, it was determined that the project would be responsible for the collection of stormwater runoff from westward sheetflow on 32 of 37 the southern half of Colorado Avenue; however, the placement of a bioswale a long Colorado Avenue is infeasible due to the existing subsurface utilities and the lack of available space created by this condition. An alternative bioswale system on the Lincoln Boulevard frontage was explored that would capture the runoff on Colorado Avenue and pipe it across the property through a diversion facility to the potential bioswale area on Lincoln Boulevard for treatment and infiltration. This alternative was also determined to be infeasible due to a Southern California Edison (SCE) easemen t along the entire Colorado Avenue frontage that prohibits any infrastructure from traversing the easement. Ultimately, it was negotiated as part of the development agreement that the developer would provide a monetary contribution of $200,000, equivalent to the cost of installing the bioswale and infiltration system, to be used by the City for stormwater management programs. Electric Vehicle Parking Developer shall in the parking garage provide panel capacity and conduit stubs for installation of electrical outlets designed to allow the simultaneous charging of a minimum number of 208/240 V 40 amp, grounded AC outlets of at least 20 percent (20%) of the total parking spaces as shown on the Project Plans. Significant Project Features Private Development Cultural Arts Requirement The project would comply with the Private Developer Cultural Arts ordinance by either paying an in-lieu fee of approximately $157,374 or provide an on-site cultural art facility valued at approximately $314,748 per the on-site requirements, and the process for approval would be consistent with the Private Developer Cultural Arts Requirement ordinance. The proposed on-site art would be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Community and Cultural Services Department, in coordination with the Arts Commission. The applicant has indicated that payment of the fee is anticipated in -lieu of the art installation. 33 of 37 Economic Analysis The City contracted Keyser Marston and Associates (KMA) to prepare an economic study of the project consisting of a Value Enhancement Analysis and Fiscal Impact Analysis. The following is a summary of those analyses, which are attached to this report in Attachment E. Value Enhancement Analysis The premise of the value enhancement analysis is that additional building height and floor area above the baseline project would enhance the economic value of the site. For this project, the baseline project was defined as a Tier 1 project with a base height of 32 feet and 1.5 FAR, pursuant to the Mixed-Use Boulevard zoning designation. To quantify the amount of this value enhancement, the City’s financial consultant, KMA, independently prepared a pro forma analyses, and estimated the difference in residual land values (estimated value less estimated construction costs) for the baseline project and the Proposed Project. KMA estimates that the proposed project would provide a value enhancement of approximately $4.91 million over the value supported by the base zoning alternative. This analysis does not include the $2.4M in monetary contributions or the value of the affordable housing units exceeding AHPP requirements provided by the project. Fiscal Impact Analysis The project’s fiscal impact to the City was evaluated, and measured in terms of revenue and cost impacts to the City’s General Fund. The fiscal impact is calculated by subtracting the anticipated costs to the City generated by the project (e.g. public safety, community services) from the anticipated revenues (e.g. sales tax, utility tax, business license fees) generated by the project. On an annually recurring basis, the proposed project would result in a cost of approximately $6,000 per year to the City’s General Fund. The complete KMA analysis is included as Attachment E. 34 of 37 Environmental Analysis The proposed five-story, 90-unit, mixed-use project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 21159.24 which exempts infill housing projects from CEQA if a project is consistent with the applicable general plan and a community level environmental review was previously certified or adopted in the last five years. Specifically, the proposed project meets all of the criteria prescribed in Section 21159.24(a): 1. The proposed project is a residential project on an infill site. Per Section 21159.24(d), a residential project is defined as a project with residential units and primarily neighborhood serving retail/commercial uses that do not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. These neighborhood serving retail/commercial uses will be small-scale general or specialty establishments primarily serving residents or employees of the neighborhood and will include but not be limited to retail or restaurant use. The proposed project includes approximately 65,162 square feet of residential floor area and approximately 12,596 square feet of commercial area for a total project area of approximately 77,758 square feet. The commercial space does not exceed 25 percent of total floor area, and therefore, the proposed project meets the definition of a residential project. 2. The proposed project is located within an urbanized area as defined in CEQA Section 21071. Additionally, the project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by existing development. 3. The project site satisfies the criteria of Section 21159.21 in that the project is consistent with the LUCE and the City's Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. In addition, the project can be adequately served by existing utilities, and the project applicant will pay all applicable in-lieu and development fees. The project site also does not contain wetlands or wildlife habitat; is not listed as a hazardous waste site pursuant to Section 65952.5 of the Government Code; and has completed a Phase I environmental site assessment. The project site is currently vacant (undeveloped) and therefore there would not have an impact on Historic Resources. Further, the project site is not subject to wild-land fire hazard, high risk of fire or explosion, or significant public health risk. The project site is also not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone or seismic hazard zone or a landslide flood plain, and flood way area; on developed open space; or within the boundary of a state conservancy. 4. Community level environmental review was adopted within five years of the date the project was deemed complete. Specifically, a Final EIR for the LUCE was certified in July 2010 and the project application was deemed complete on December 4, 2012. 35 of 37 5. The project site is approximately 0.76 acres and does not exceed the threshold of four acres. 6. The project includes 90 residential units and does not exceed the threshold of 100 residential units. 7. The proposed project will satisfy the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program by providing at least 14 units affordable to 50% income households, 4 units affordable to 80% income households, and one unit affordable to moderate income households. 8. The proposed project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop at Fourth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard. This stop is served by at least four Big Blue Bus routes including Lines 1, 2, 3, and 7 with 15 minute headways or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours. 9. The proposed project is approximately 77,758 square feet within a multi-level building, and does not exceed a single-level building of greater than 100,000 square feet. 10. The proposed project provides the equivalent density of 118 units per acre and thus, is presumed to promote higher density infill housing. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 21559.24(b), there is no reasonable possibility that the project will have a project-specific, significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There is no feature of this project which would distinguish it from any other mixed-use project in this area or other projects in the exempt class. No substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken have occurred since the community-level environmental review (LUCE Final EIR) was certified. In addition, no new information has become available regarding the project and its circumstances that was not known at the time of the LUCE Final EIR. Therefore, based on the above, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21159.24. 36 of 37 Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific actions are required in the future. Based on the fiscal impact analysis provided by Keyser Marston and Associates (KMA), approval of the proposed project, on an annually recurring basis, would result in a cost of approximately $6,000 per year to the City’s General Fund. However, the project would provide one-time monetary contributions in an amount of $2.4 million during FY 2016-17 in the form of community benefits that the applicant will be required to provide pursuant to the proposed development agreement:  Enhanced Transportation Impact fee contribution in the amount of $820,000 to be deposited in revenue account 04267.402050.  Enhanced Parks and Recreation fee contribution in the amount of $600,000 to be deposited in revenue account 04501.408710.  Enhanced Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage fee contribution in the amount of $175,000 to be deposited in revenue account 04264.408690.  Early Childhood Initiatives contribution of $150,000 to be deposited in revenue account 04262.408760.  Historic Preservation contribution in the amount of $50,000 to be deposited in revenue account 04266.409240. 37 of 37  Big Blue Bus contribution in the amount of $80,000 to be deposited in revenue account 41642.410080.  Transportation Management Association contribution in the amount of $50,000 to be deposited in revenue account 04267.402840.  Water Conservation contribution in the amount of $300 ,000 to be deposited in revenue account 04226.408750.  Bioswale/stormwater management contribution in the amount of $200,000 t o be deposited in a new special revenue account to be created. Prepared By: Ariel Socarras, Associate Planner Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Development Agreement Findings B. Compliance Chart C. Keyser Marston Associates Economic Analysis, August 3, 2015 D. Community Meeting, ARB Concept, Planning Commission Float-Up Summary E. Public Notification F. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 2015 (web link) G. Ordinance H. 1601 LINCOLN DA CC PLANS (12_08_15) I. Ariel 12DEV-011 (1601 Lincoln Blvd) CC Staff Presentation (12-8-15) clean ATTACHMENT C Development Agreement Findings 1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan, in that LUCE Goal B25 (Lincoln Boulevard Goals and Policies) seeks redevelopment of Lincoln Boulevard as a district and visually -cohesive mixed-use commercial boulevard. Specifically, Policy B25.5 encourages a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, where gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged. The project includes expansive sidewalks and outdoor seating areas that will support restaurant uses on the ground floor. Furthermore, the project includes a 1,203 SF, open plaza at the corner of the property for outdoor gathering and seating space. Consistent with Policy B25.11, the mixed-use project would include active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential on upper floors. Further, the project will provide 19 affordable housing units in proximity to the future light rail transit and employment center within the Downtown core, consistent with Policy B25.13, which encourages affordable housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers. The implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce vehicle trips in the area and associated parking demand is consistent with LUCE Circulation Policy T19.2 which seeks appropriate TDM requirements for new development. Furthermore, the project is consistent with LUCE’s overall land use policies by providing community benefits for the area, including but not limited to, affordable housing, and contributions that would support transportation, parks and recreation, early childhood initiatives, and historic preservation programs in the City. 2. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located, in that the subject property is located in the Mixed-Use Boulevard and Mixed-Use Boulevard Low districts that permits multi-family dwelling units and commercial uses. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with LUCE Policy B25.11 in that the mixed- use project would include active neighborhood serving retail/commercial uses that will be small-scale general or specialty establishments p rimarily serving residents or employees of the neighborhood, and would include but not be limited to retail or restaurant use. In addition, ground floor uses will face the boulevard with residential on upper floors. Further, the project will provide 19 affordable housing units in proximity to the future light rail transit and employment center within the Downtown core, consistent with Policy B25.13, which encourages affordable housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers 3. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices, in that it allows for the redevelopment of an existing, underutilized property with a mixed -use project that is compliant with the Land and Use Circulation Element vision for the area. The proposed project replaces a restaurant and surface parking with 90 new residential units and 10,617 square feet of ground floor commercial space that will feature neighborhood-serving uses, and will provide community benefits including affordable housing, and contributions that would support transportation, parks and recreation, early childhood initiatives, and historic preservation programs in the City. Further, the project seeks to be consistent with the City’s sustainability goals by committing to LEED® for Homes Platinum certification, the use of renewable sources for heating the roof -top pool, powering the project’s common areas with solar energy, using non-potable water sources for landscape irrigation, and committing to indoor water use of 30% below CALGreen baseline standards. 4. The proposed Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, in that the agreement would allow for the redevelopment of an existing, underutilized parcel with a use that is compliant with the Land and Use Circulation Element vision for the area. The proposed project will be located in an urbanized area and is consistent with other similar improvements in the area, and does not have the potential to disrupt the urban environment or cause health or safety problems. The proposed project provides 90 new residential units and 10,617 square feet of ground floor commercial space that will feature neighborhood serving uses on the ground floor, and will provide community benefits including affordable housing, and contributions that would support transportation, parks and recreation, early childhood initiatives, and historic preservation programs in the City. 5. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property, in that the Development Agreement is contingent upon the review and approval of a specific site plan consistent with recognized urban design principles that reflect the goals and policies of the City of Santa Monica which were established through a long range planning process and are reflected in the Land Use and Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. 6. The proposed Development Agreement will result in a cost of approximately $6,000 per year to the City’s General Fund. Additionally, the project would provide an estimated $2.4 million in monetary contributions that would support transportation, parks and recreation, big blue bus, transportation management association, early childhood initiatives, affordable housing, water conservation, and historic preservation programs in the City. Further, the affordable housing units provide an estimated $6.2M value to the City based on the 2014 -15 affordable housing unit development costs, and the ground floor commercial uses would generate City business license taxes towards the City’s general fund. ATTACHMENT D Development Standards Project Compliance Table and Description of Non-Compliant Areas Development Standard LUCE / MUB / MUBL Zoning District Draft DSP Proposed Project Compliance Height / Stories LUCE MUB MUBL Tier 3: 60’ / Unspecified MUB MUBL LUCE: Yes DSP: Yes MUB: No MUBL: No Tier 3: MUB - 55 feet (up to 60 feet with corresponding decrease in FAR above 55 feet) MUBL – 47 ft Tier 2: 50’ / Unlimited Stories Tier 2: 36’ / Unlimited Stories 57’ / 5 Storie s 47’ / 4 Stories Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Basement Commercial SF (P1, P2 ) exempted as FA, per IZO 2466 and updated ZO. LUCE MUB MUBL 2.75 MUB MUBL LUCE: Yes DSP: Yes MUB: No MUBL: No MUB - 2.75 with correspondin g decrease above 55 feet MUBL – 2.0 Tier 2: 2.25 FAR Tier 2: 1.75 FAR 2.63 1.95 Min./Max. 1st Story Street Wall Height: LUCE MUB MUBL N/A Min: 15’ Max: 18’ LUCE: N/A DSP: N/A MUB: Yes MUBL: Yes (N/A, Defined in ZO) Min. 15’ / Max. 20’ Maximum Building Footprint LUCE MUB MUBL N/A Max. Bldg Footprint: Ground Floor (24,457 SF) LUCE: N/A DSP: N/A MUB: Yes MUBL: Yes (N/A, Defined in ZO) 35,000 SF Minimum Upper-Story Setbacks LUCE MUB MUBL N/A Above Max 20’ 1st story street wall height: 7’ average setback: LUCE: N/A DSP: N/A MUB: Yes MUBL: Yes (N/A, Defined in ZO) 5’ Average (street facing facades) Development Standard LUCE / MUB / MUBL Zoning District Draft DSP Proposed Project Compliance Residential Unit Mix LUCE MUB MUBL N/A 19% Studio 51% One Bed 20% Two Bed 10% Three Bed ABR – 1.21 LUCE: N/A DSP: N/A MUB: No MUBL: No (N/A, Defined in ZO) Min. 15% 3BR, 20% 2BR Max 15% Studio ABR – 1.2-1.5 Loft/Studio / % / Avg.Size - - 17 / 19% / 430 SF 1-Bed / % / Avg.Size - - 46 / 51% / 687 SF 2-Bed / % / Avg.Size - - 18 / 20% / 938 SF 3-Bed / % / Avg.Size - - 9 / 10% / 1,024 SF Affordable Unit Mix LUCE MUB MUBL N/A 15% of units for 50% income households 11- one-bed units 3- two-bed units 5% of units for 80% income households 2- one-bed units 2- two-bed units LUCE: N/A DSP: N/A MUB: No MUBL: No Combined 20% package would comply with AHPP percentage requirements, however not with minimum size requirement of 10% of units for 50% income households to be two-bedroom units. N/A 5% for 30% income households (5 units) or 10% for 50% income households (10 units) or 20% for 80% income households (20 units). All units must be 2BR, per AHPP Commercial Ground Floor Frontage/Com mercial Space Depth LUCE MUB MUBL 60% / 50’ depth average Min. 60% on all frontages except Lincoln Blvd. / More than 50’ depth average LUCE: N/A DSP: No MUB: No MUBL: No N/A 70% / 40’ depth average Commercial Ground Fl. to Fl. Height LUCE MUB MUBL 18’ min. 18’ min. LUCE: Yes DSP: Yes MUB: Yes MUBL: Yes 15’ min. Development Standard LUCE / MUB / MUBL Zoning District Draft DSP Proposed Project Compliance Residential Ground Floor to Floor/ Upper Residential Floor to Ceiling Height LUCE MUB MUBL 11’ / 8’ Ground Floor Res (Lofts): 18’- 0” Floors 2-5 Res Floor to Ceiling: 8’-0” min LUCE: N/A DSP: Yes MUB: N/A MUBL: N/A N/A Floor Plate Ratios LUCE MUB MUBL 3rd Floor 90% 3rd Floor 61% LUCE: N/A DSP: Yes MUB: N/A MUBL: N/A N/A 4th Floor 75% 4th Floor 61% 5th Floor 55% 5th Floor 33% Building Frontage Line: Widened Sidewalk LUCE MUB MUBL Lincoln Blvd: 20’ Colorado Ave: 20’ Lincoln Blvd: 20’ Colorado Ave: 20’ LUCE: N/A DSP: Yes MUB: N/A MUBL: N/A N/A Open Space LUCE MUB MUBL 30% of lot area 20% lot area provided at- grade. 61 % total (20,353 SF) 27% at-grade, (8,880 SF) Private Outdoor Space 52sf avg: (5,223 SF) LUCE: N/A DSP: Yes MUB: No MUBL: No N/A Min Outdoor Space: 100 sf/unit (9,000 sf) 60 sf/unit private open space (5,400) Parking Updated ZO: 144 residential 39 commercial 183 total 92 residential 39 commercial 131 total 129 residential 39 commercial 168 total LUCE: N/A DSP: Yes MUB: No MUBL: No Bike Parking Long-Term: 126 residential 4 commercial 130 total 126 residential 6 commercial 132 total 126 residential 12 commercial 138 total LUCE: N/A DSP: Yes MUB: Yes MUBL: Yes Development Standard LUCE / MUB / MUBL Zoning District Draft DSP Proposed Project Compliance Short-Term: 13 residential 4 commercial 17 total 13 residential 4 commercial 17 total 13 residential 4 commercial 17 total LUCE: N/A DSP: Yes MUB: Yes MUBL: Yes LEED Certification N/A LEED Gold or CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards LEED Platinum LUCE: N/A DSP: Yes MUB: N/A MUBL: N/A Mixed-Use Boulevard & Mixed-Use Boulevard Low Zoning District Non-Compliance As proposed, the project is inconsistent with the following Zoning Ordinance development standards for Tier 2 projects in the MUB and MUBL zoning districts: 1. Building Height: MUB (50 Feet) MUBL (36 Feet): The proposed project consists of a 57-foot high building in the MUB zoning district and a 47-foot high building in the MUBL zoning district. As such, the height of both buildings exceeds the maximum allowable building height established for a Tier 2 project under the respective district standards. Consistency with this requirement would result in a four-story mixed-use building on the MUB designated portion of the property and a three-story building on the MUBL designated portion of the property. The dev elopment agreement seeks additional height to allow the project to provide an additional floor of residential units. Although inconsistent with the underlying zoning requirements, the project is consistent with the maximum LUCE heights of 60 feet and 47 f eet for the MUB and MUBL districts, respectively. 2. Floor Area Ratio: MUB (2.25 FAR) MUBL(1.75 FAR): The proposed west building consists of 50,164 square feet of floor area within 19,017 square feet of property designated as MUB (2.63 FAR). The proposed east building totals 27,594 square feet of floor area within the 14,137 square feet of property designated as MUBL (1.95 FAR). The proposed floor areas exceed the respective FAR amounts for both zoning districts by a factor of 0.38 FAR (7,226 SF) on the MUB designated property and 0.20 FAR (2,827 SF) on the MUBL designated property. Although inconsistent with the requirements of the underlying zoning districts, the project is consistent with the maximum allowable floor area ratios of 2.75 and 2.0 for the MUB and MUBL districts, respectively, as established by the LUCE. 3. Build to Line, Nonresidential Uses: Buildings with ground floor commercial uses are required to be setback no farther than 10 feet from the street facing property line for 70% of the linear street frontage. The proposed ground floor of the west building along the Lincoln Boulevard street frontage is setback greater than 10 feet for more than the 30% allowed per this Code provision. However, the project is consistent with the findings that allow for modification to this standard. Findings include but are not limited to, that the additional setback consists of plazas and outdoor eating areas that are designed and accessible for public use. Furthermore, t he additional ground floor setback was proposed in response to design comments expressed by the Commission and to provide adequate ground floor open space at the street corner . As such, a modification to this standard is appropriate. 4. Residential Parking: The project would provide 15 fewer residential parking spaces than required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, the draft DSP includes a lower residential parking requirement for this area due to the location of the site in the Downtown and its proximity to the future light rail station. As discussed previously, the project was reviewed as an overall development site with in the Draft DSP boundaries with respect to parking, and is compliant with the draft DSP parking standards. Draft Downtown Specific Plan Non-Compliance The project is inconsistent with the following pedestrian level building frontage requirements of the draft DSP: 1. Pedestrian Level Building Frontage: Section A.3.B of the draft DSP requires that at least 70% of the building frontage shall be occupied by the first two floors. The intent of this standard is to frame the street and ensure proximity between the pedestrian experience and the commercial spaces. The proposed ground floor of the west building along the Lincoln Boulevard street frontage occupies less than 70% of this street frontage. However, the area not occupied by building frontage is used for the common plaza area at the corner of the property. This open area is provided in response to design comments from the Planning Commission and to enhance the pedestrian experience along the public sidewalk in a manner consistent with the intent of the draft DSP standard. 500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1480  LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071  PHONE 213.622.8095 1507020.SM:KHH WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 19305.015.001 ADVISORS IN: Real Estate Redevelopment Affordable Housing Economic Development SAN FRANCISCO A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Kate Earle Funk Debbie M. Kern Reed T. Kawahara David Doezema LOS ANGELES Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Gregory D. Soo‐Hoo Kevin E. Engstrom Julie L. Romey SAN DIEGO Paul C. Marra MEMORANDUM To: Ariel Socarras, Associate Planner City of Santa Monica From: Kathleen Head Tim Bretz cc: Jing Yeo, Acting Principal Planner Date: August 3, 2015 Subject: 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis At your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) reviewed the proposal submitted by Century West Partners (Developer) to develop the property located at 1601 Lincoln Boulevard (Site) with a mixed-use development consisting of apartments, ground floor retail space, and subterranean parking (Proposed Project). The KMA analysis consists of the following components: 1. KMA prepared pro forma analyses to compare the land value supported by the following: a. A project that meets the base zoning standards imposed on the Site (Base Zoning Alternative); and b. The Proposed Project, which utilizes certain height and floor area (FAR) incentives provided by the City of Santa Monica (City). 2. KMA prepared a fiscal impact analysis of the Proposed Project. The fiscal impact assumptions are based on the City’s fiscal year 2014/15 budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following table summarizes the differences between the Proposed Project and the scope of development allowed by the Base Zoning Alternative: Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 2 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 Base Zoning Alternative Proposed Project Difference Apartment Units 63 90 27 Retail Square Footage 10,687 10,617 (70) Required Parking Spaces 107 131 24 The analysis prepared by KMA concludes that the Proposed Project supports a land value that is $4.91 million more than the land value supported by the Base Zoning Alternative. This represents the estimated value enhancement created by the height and FAR incentives proposed to be utilized for the Proposed Project. KMA prepared a fiscal impact analysis based on the development scope for the Proposed Project. This analysis estimates the net cost to the City’s General Fund at approximately $6,000 per year. BACKGROUND STATEMENT The scope of development included in the Proposed Project exceeds the development scope allowed by the base zoning standards imposed on the Site. In order to obtain height and FAR incentives, the Developer is proposing to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. As one metric in the evaluation of the proposed Development Agreement terms, the City requested that KMA analyze the enhanced value created by the proposed incentives. VALUE ENHANCEMENT ANALYSIS It is the fundamental premise of this analysis that providing building height and FAR incentives will enhance the economic value of the Site. To quantify the amount of this value enhancement, KMA conducted pro forma analyses for the Base Zoning Alternative and the Proposed Project. The value enhancement is estimated by comparing the supportable land value for the Base Zoning Alternative to the supportable land value for the Proposed Project. KMA then crosschecked this analysis with a review of recent property sales in the area. The KMA financial analyses are described in the following sections of this memorandum. These analyses are presented in Appendices A and B, and are organized as follows: Table 1: Estimated Construction Costs Table 2: Estimated Stabilized Net Operating Income Table 3: Estimated Supportable Land Value Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 3 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 Base Zoning Alternative Analysis Scope of Development The scope of development under the Base Zoning Alternative can be described as follows: 1. The gross building area (GBA) is estimated at 53,650 square feet, and is comprised of the following: a. Residential Component – 42,963 square feet; and b. Retail Component – 10,687 square feet. 2. The development includes 63 residential units, with a weighted average unit size of 632 square feet. The units are allocated as follows: Number of Units Unit Size (Square Feet) Studio Units 16 465 One-Bedroom + Loft Units 11 533 One-Bedroom Units 26 638 Two-Bedroom Units 8 955 Three-Bedroom Units 2 1,140 Total / Weighted Average 63 632 3. One-hundred seven subterranean (107) parking spaces are required for the Base Zoning Alternative. These spaces can be provided in two subterranean parking levels. 4. The City’s Affordable Housing Production Program requires that at least 10% of the units in the project must be set aside for 50% income households, and that these units must include at least two-bedrooms. A fractional unit requirement of less than .75 units can be fulfilled through the payment of an affordable housing fee. The assumptions applied in the Base Zoning Alternative can be described as follows: Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 4 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 a. Six two-bedroom units affordable to 50% income households are required to be included in the development. b. The Base Zoning Alternative generates a 0.3 fractional unit obligation. Based on the City’s published “Affordable Housing Development Cost” of $312,609, the fractional unit fee is estimated at $94,000. Pro Forma Analysis (Appendix A) The following sections of the analysis summarize the major assumptions applied in the KMA pro forma analysis of the Base Zoning Alternative: Estimated Construction Costs (Appendix A – Table 1) Direct Costs KMA assumed that the Base Zoning Alternative could be developed using Type V construction standards. In addition, KMA assumed that the Base Zoning Alternative would not be subject to prevailing wage requirements. Based on these assumptions, KMA estimates the direct costs as follows: 1. The site improvement costs are estimated at $15 per square foot of land area, or $500,000. 2. The subterranean parking costs are estimated as follows: a. The 1st-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $30,000 per space; and b. The 2nd-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $35,000 per space. 3. Based on Type V construction standards, the building costs are estimated as follows a. The residential building costs are estimated at $130 per square foot of residential GBA; and b. The retail building costs are estimated at $150 per square foot of retail building area. 4. The retail tenant improvement costs are estimated at $45 per square foot of retail GBA. Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 5 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 5. The contractor costs, inclusive of overhead, profit, general conditions, builder’s risk insurance and contingency allowance, are estimated at 20% of other direct costs. KMA estimates the total direct costs at $13.98 million, or $261 per square foot of GBA. Indirect Costs KMA utilized the following assumptions to estimate the indirect costs for the Base Zoning Alternative: 1. The architecture, engineering and consulting costs are estimated at 8% of direct costs. 2. Based on KMA’s experience with similar projects in the City of Santa Monica, the public permits and fees costs are estimated at $16 per square foot of GBA. 3. The fractional unit affordable housing fee is estimated at $94,000. 4. The taxes, insurance, legal and accounting costs are estimated at 3% of direct costs. 5. The marketing and leasing costs are estimated as follows: a. The residential marketing costs are estimated at 2% of direct costs; and b. The retail leasing commissions are estimated at $3.00 per square foot of retail GBA. 6. A development management fee equal to 4% of direct costs is provided. 7. An indirect cost contingency allowance equal to 5% of other indirect costs is provided. KMA estimates the total indirect costs at $3.53 million. Financing Costs The financing costs for the Base Zoning Alternative are estimated as follows: 1. The land carrying costs are estimated at $1.28 million based on a 5.5% interest rate and a 21-month development period. Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 6 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 2. The construction and absorption period interest costs are estimated at $1.35 million. These costs are based on the following assumptions: a. The construction period interest costs are based on a 5.5% interest rate, an 18-month construction period, and a 60% average outstanding loan balance. b. The absorption period interest costs are based on a three-month absorption period with a 100% average outstanding balance. 3. The financing fees are set at 2.50 points. This equates to $1.17 million. KMA estimates the total financing costs at $3.81 million. Total Construction Costs The following table summarizes the KMA construction cost estimates: Total Direct Costs $13,979,000 Total Indirect Costs 3,528,000 Total Financing Costs 3,805,000 Total Construction Costs $21,312,000 Per Square Foot of GBA $397 Estimated Stabilized Net Operating Income (Appendix A – Table 2) Residential Net Operating Income 1. The rents for the market-rate residential units are estimated as follows: Studio Units $2,200 One-Bedroom + Loft Units $2,700 One-Bedroom Units $2,850 Two-Bedroom Units $3,800 Three-Bedroom Units $4,200 Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 7 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 2. The rents for the two-bedroom units affordable to 50% income households are based on the calculation methodology imposed by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 50053, and are set at $689 per unit per month:1 3. A $10 per unit per month allowance is provided for miscellaneous income. 4. The City requires the parking to be unbundled from the residential and retail rents. In addition, the tenants in the 50% income units have the option to use one space at no cost, or to receive a rent reduction equal to one-half of the parking lease rate. The parking revenues are estimated as follows: a. The market rent for the parking is estimated at $150 per space per month. This rate is applied to 107 spaces in the Base Zoning Alternative. b. The six spaces dedicated to the 50% income units are estimated to generate effective income of $75 per space per month.2 5. A 5% vacancy and collection allowance is provided. 6. KMA estimates the residential operating expenses as follows: a. The general operating expenses are estimated at $6,000 per unit per year; and b. The annual property tax payments are estimated at $5,664 per unit per year.3 Based on the preceding assumptions, KMA estimates the effective gross income for the residential component at $2.0 million and the operating expenses at $734,800. The resulting residential net operating income is $1.26 million. Retail Net Operating Income 1. Revenues: a. The retail rent is set at $5.50 per square foot of retail gross leasable area (GLA) per month. 1 The affordable rents are net the applicable utility allowance published in 2014-2015 by the City. The allowance equals $40 per month for two-bedroom units. 2 If the 50% income tenant does not use a parking space, the Developer can lease that space at the estimated market rate of $150 per month. However, the tenant’s apartment rent reduction decreases the effective income from each space to $75 per month. 3 This estimate is based on a 4.5% capitalization rate and a 1.27% property tax rate. Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 8 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 b. The common area maintenance (CAM) reimbursements are estimated at $10 per square foot of GLA per year. c. A 5% vacancy and collection allowance is provided. 2. KMA estimates the retail operating expenses as follows: a. The CAM expenses are estimated at $10 per square foot per year. b. The management fee is set at 3% of effective gross retail income. KMA estimates the effective gross income for the retail component at $771,600, and the operating expenses at $130,000. Based on these assumptions, the retail net operating income is set at $641,600. Total Net Operating Income KMA estimates the net operating income for the residential component at $1.26 million, and for the retail component at $641,600. The resulting net operating income for the Base Zoning Alternative equals $1.91 million. Estimated Supportable Land Value (Appendix A – Table 3) The supportable land value is equal to the difference between the estimated value of the Base Zoning Alternative, and the sum of the $21.31 million in estimated construction costs and an allowance for developer profit equal to 12% of the Base Zoning Alternative’s estimated value. The value supported by the Base Zoning Alternative is estimated by capitalizing the net operating income at a capitalization rate that reflects current market conditions. To estimate the value supported by the Base Zoning Alternative, KMA capitalized the net operating income at a 4.84% rate; this rate is derived from a weighted average of 4.5% for the residential component and 5.5% for the retail component. The valuation analysis prepared by KMA is summarized in the following table: Estimated Net Operating Income $1,906,000 Capitalization Rate 4.84% Project Value $39,380,000 The resulting supportable land value for the Base Zoning Alternative, under the KMA analysis, can be summarized as follows: Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 9 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 Project Value $39,380,000 (Less) Developer Profit (4,726,000) (Less) Total Construction Costs (21,312,000) Supportable Land Value $13,342,000 Per Square Foot of Land Area $400 Proposed Project Analysis Scope of Development The following summarizes the scope of development for the Proposed Project: 1. The Proposed Project includes 78,687 square feet of GBA, which is comprised of the following: a. Residential Component – 68,070 square feet; and b. Retail Component – 10,617 square feet. 2. The development includes 90 residential units, with a weighted average unit size of 712 square feet. The units are allocated as follows: Number of Units Unit Size (Square Feet) Studio Units 17 430 One-Bedroom + Loft Units 10 618 One-Bedroom Units 36 715 Two-Bedroom Units 18 938 Three-Bedroom Units 9 1,020 Total / Weighted Average 90 725 3. One-hundred thirty-one (131) subterranean parking spaces are required to be provided, and will be constructed in two subterranean parking levels. 4. Under the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program requirements, the affordability assumptions for the Proposed Project are as follows: Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 10 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 a. Nine (9) two-bedroom units affordable to 50% income households are required to be included in the development. b. The Proposed Project does not generate a fractional unit obligation. Pro Forma Analysis (Appendix B) The following sections of the analysis summarize the major assumptions applied in the KMA pro forma analysis of the Proposed Project: Estimated Construction Costs (Appendix B – Table 1) Direct Costs KMA assumed that the Proposed Project will be developed using Type V construction standards. In addition, KMA assumed that the Proposed Project will not be subject to prevailing wage requirements. Based on these assumptions, KMA estimates the direct costs as follows: 1. The site improvement costs are estimated at $15 per square foot of land area, or $500,000. 2. The subterranean parking costs are estimated as follows: a. The 1st-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $30,000 per space; and b. The 2nd-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $35,000 per space. 3. Based on Type V construction standards, the building costs are estimated as follows a. The residential building costs are estimated at $130 per square foot of residential GBA; and b. The retail building costs are estimated at $150 per square foot of retail building area. 4. The retail tenant improvement costs are estimated at $45 per square foot of retail GBA. Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 11 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 5. The contractor costs, inclusive of overhead, profit, general conditions, builder’s risk insurance and contingency allowance, are estimated at 20% of other direct costs. KMA estimates the total direct costs at $18.82 million, or $239 per square foot of GBA. Indirect Costs KMA utilized the following assumptions to estimate the indirect costs for the Proposed Project: 1. The architecture, engineering and consulting costs are estimated at 8% of direct costs. 2. As was the case with the Base Zoning Alternative, the public permits and fees costs are estimated at $16 per square foot of GBA. 3. The taxes, insurance, legal and accounting costs are estimated at 3% of direct costs. 4. The marketing and leasing costs are estimated as follows: a. The residential marketing costs are estimated at 2% of direct costs; and b. The retail leasing commissions are estimated at $3.00 per square foot of retail GBA. 5. A development management fee equal to 4% of direct costs is provided. 6. An indirect cost contingency allowance equal to 5% of other indirect costs is provided. KMA estimates the total indirect costs at $4.71 million. Financing Costs The financing costs for the Proposed Project are estimated as follows: 1. The land carrying costs are estimated at $2.01 million based on a 5.5% interest rate and a 21-month development period 2. The construction and absorption period interest costs are estimated at $2.27 million. These costs are based on the following assumptions: Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 12 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 a. The construction period interest costs are based on a 5.5% interest rate, an 18-month construction period, and a 60% average outstanding loan balance. b. The absorption period interest costs are based on a six-month absorption period with a 100% average outstanding balance. 3. The financing fees are set at 2.50 points. This equates to $1.62 million. KMA estimates the total financing costs at $5.89 million. Total Construction Costs The following table summarizes the KMA construction cost estimates: Total Direct Costs $18,816,000 Total Indirect Costs 4,713,000 Total Financing Costs 5,888,000 Total Construction Costs $29,417,000 Per Square Foot of GBA $374 Estimated Stabilized Net Operating Income (Appendix B – Table 2) Residential Net Operating Income 1. The market rents are estimated as follows: Studio Units $2,200 One-Bedroom + Loft Units $2,700 One-Bedroom Units $2,850 Two-Bedroom Units $3,800 Three-Bedroom Units $4,200 2. The rents for the 50% income units are set at $689 per unit per month.4 3. A $10 per unit per month allowance is provided for miscellaneous income. 4 The rent setting methodology is described in the analysis of the Base Zoning Alternative. Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 13 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 4. The parking rents have been unbundled from the residential and retail rents. The parking revenues are estimated as follows: a. One hundred twenty-two (122) parking spaces will be leased at the estimated market rate rent of $150 per space per month; and b. The Developer will receive effective income estimated at $75 per space per month for the nine parking spaces that will be available to the 50% income tenants. 5. A 5% vacancy and collection allowance is provided. 6. KMA estimates the residential operating expenses as follows: a. The general operating expenses are estimated at $6,000 per unit per year; and b. The annual property tax payments are estimated at $6,070 per unit.5 Based on the preceding assumptions, KMA estimates the effective gross income for the residential component at $3.02 million and the operating expenses at $1.09 million. The resulting residential net operating income is $1.94 million. Retail Net Operating Income 1. Revenues: a. The retail rent is set at $5.50 per square foot of retail GLA per month. b. The CAM reimbursements are estimated at $10 per square foot per year. c. A 5% vacancy and collection allowance is provided. 2. KMA estimates the retail operating expenses as follows: a. The CAM expenses are estimated at $10 per square foot per year. b. The management fee is set at 3% of effective gross retail income. KMA estimates the effective gross income for the retail component at $766,600, and the operating expense at $129,200. Based on these assumptions, the retail net operating income is set at $637,400. 5 Based on a 4.5% capitalization rate and a 1.27% property tax rate. Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 14 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 Total Net Operating Income KMA estimates the net operating income for the residential component at $1.94 million, and for the retail component at $637,400. The resulting net operating income for the Proposed Project equals $2.57 million. Estimated Supportable Land Value (Appendix B – Table 3) The valuation analysis prepared by KMA for the Proposed Project is summarized in the following table. The 4.75% capitalization rate is derived from a weighted average of 4.5% for the residential component and 5.5% for the retail component. Estimated Net Operating Income $2,573,000 Capitalization Rate 4.75% Project Value $54,168,000 The resulting supportable land value based on the results of the KMA analysis are summarized in the following table: Project Value $54,168,000 (Less) Developer Profit (6,500,000) (Less) Total Construction Costs (29,417,000) Supportable Land Value $18,251,000 Per Square Foot of Land Area $548 Estimated Value Enhancement The value enhancement created by the proposed increases in height and FAR is estimated based on the difference between the land values supported by the Base Zoning Alternative and the Proposed Project. The following table presents the KMA estimate of the value enhancement: Supportable Land Value Proposed Project $18,251,000 Base Zoning Alternative 13,342,000 Estimated Value Enhancement $4,909,000 Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 15 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 As a crosscheck to the land value estimates derived from the value enhancement analyses, KMA compiled information for properties that have recently sold within the vicinity of the Site. Given the limited number of vacant land parcels near the Site, KMA focused the research on the recent sales of commercial buildings. The parameters of the property sales survey are as follows: 1. Sales transactions between May 2013 and May 2015 were included in the survey. 2. Non-arms length transactions, multi-property transactions, and transactions without sales prices were excluded. Based on the search parameters outlined above, KMA documented five improved property sales transactions within a 0.5-mile radius of the Site. The survey results are detailed in Appendix C, and the values per square foot of land area are summarized in the following table: Property Sales Minimum Price $357 Maximum Price $694 Weighted Average Price $412 As can be seen in the preceding table, the values associated with recent property sales range from $357 to $694 per square foot of land area. The large spread in the values is likely due to the varying quality and intensity levels of the existing improvements on the properties. The KMA value enhancement analyses resulted in a supportable land value of $400 per square foot of land area for the Base Zoning Alternative, and a $548 per square foot land value for the Proposed Project. The supportable land value under the Base Zoning Alternative falls below the weighted average price of recent sales. Comparatively, the land value supported by the Proposed Project is approximately 33% higher than the weighted average value of the recent sales. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (APPENDIX D) The City has requested that KMA provide an analysis of the fiscal impacts the Proposed Project could potentially create on the City’s General Fund. KMA reviewed the City’s fiscal year 2014/15 budget, and estimated the Proposed Project’s fiscal impacts as follows. Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 16 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 Fiscal Impact Analysis Assumptions The major assumptions used in this fiscal impact analysis can be described as follows: 1. Population Estimates: a. KMA applied an average household size of 1.50 persons per residential unit. b. The retail employment is estimated at two employees per 1,000 square feet of retail GBA. c. The employment-based resident equivalent factor is set at 0.50 employees per resident (i.e. two employees equate to one resident). 2. The total General Fund revenue that could potentially be generated by the Proposed Project is estimated at $237,800 based on the following assumptions: a. The property taxes are estimated based on a $54.17 million assessed value for the Proposed Project and the assumption that the City’s General Fund receives 14% of the 1.0% base property tax levy. This equates to $75,800 per year. b. KMA estimated the motor vehicle license in-lieu fee (MVLIF) revenue that could be generated by the Proposed Project based on the ratio the Proposed Project’s assessed value represents of the total assessed value of properties within Santa Monica. When this ratio is applied to the $8.45 million in MVLIF the City received in fiscal year 2014/15, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate $16,600 in MVLIF revenue per year. c. The sales tax revenue that could be received by the City is estimated at $60,500 per year, based on the following assumptions: i. The City’s share of sales tax revenue is equal to 1.25% of taxable sales occurring in Santa Monica. This includes the revenue generated by Measure Y. ii. The expenditures on taxable goods made by the Proposed Project’s residents, in retail establishments in Santa Monica, is estimated at approximately $9,400 per unit per year. Ariel Socarras, City of Santa Monica August 3, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard: Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 17 1507020.SM:KHH 19305.015.001 iii. The taxable sales projected to be generated by the retail component of the Proposed Project are estimated at $400 per square foot per year of retail GBA. d. The utility tax revenue is estimated at $264 per person served. This equates to $36,700 per year. e. The Business License Fee is set by the City at $1.25 per $1,000 in gross receipts for both the residential and retail components. The annual revenues are estimated at $10,500 per year. f. Miscellaneous revenues are estimated at $271 per person served, or $37,700 per year. 3. The General Fund expenditures projected to be incurred as a result of the Proposed Project are estimated at $243,800 per year based on the following assumptions: a. The aggregate departmental expenditures are estimated at $539 per person served, which equates to $74,900 per year.6 b. The public safety expenditures are estimated at $907 per person served, or $126,000 per year. c. The community services are estimated at $308 per person served, which equals $42,900 per year. Fiscal Impact Analysis Findings The General Fund revenue and expenditures analysis for the Proposed Project is presented in Appendix C. The results are summarized in the following table: Estimated General Fund Revenues $237,800 (Less) Estimated General Fund Expenditures ($243,800) Net Annual General Fund Revenue / (Cost) ($6,000) 6 The aggregate departments are comprised of administration, information services, finance, public works, planning and community development, and housing and economic development. APPENDIX  A SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE BASE ZONING ALTERNATIVE Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Base Project Pro Forma; trb APPENDIX  A ‐ TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS BASE ZONING ALTERNATIVE ‐ TYPE V CONSTRUCTION 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs Site Improvement Costs 33,334 Sf Land $15 /Sf Land $500,000 Parking Spaces 1st‐Level Subterranean 53 Spaces $30,000 /Space 1,590,000 2nd‐Level Subterranean 54 Spaces $35,000 /Space 1,890,000 Building Costs Residential 42,963 Sf Res GBA $130 /Sf Res GBA 5,585,000 Retail 10,687 Sf Retail GLA $150 /Sf Retail GLA 1,603,000 Tenant Improvements ‐ Retail 10,687 Sf Retail GLA $45 /Sf Retail GLA 481,000 Contractor Costs 1 20% Other Direct Costs 2,330,000 Total Direct Costs 53,650 Sf GBA $261 /Sf GBA $13,979,000 II. Indirect Costs Arch, Eng, & Consulting 8.00% Direct Costs $1,118,000 Public Permits & Fees/Impact Fees 53,650 Sf GBA $16.00 /Sf GBA 858,000 Fractional Unit Affordable Housing Fee 0.30 Fractional Unit $312,609 AH Dev Cost 94,000 Taxes, Ins, Legal & Acctg 3.00% Direct Costs 419,000 Marketing  Residential 2.00% Direct Costs 280,000 Retail 10,687 Sf Retail GLA $3.00 /Sf Retail GLA 32,000 Development Management 4.00% Direct Costs 559,000 Soft Cost Contingency Allowance 5.00% Other Indirect Costs 168,000 Total Indirect Costs $3,528,000 III. Financing Costs Land Carrying Costs 2 $13,342,000 Financed 5.50% Interest $1,284,000 Interest During Construction 3 $21,312,000 Financed 5.50% Interest 1,348,000 Financing Fees Construction Loan $21,312,000 Financed 2.50 Points 533,000 Permanent Loan $25,597,000 Financed 2.50 Points 640,000 Total Financing Costs $3,805,000 IV. Total Construction Costs 53,650 Sf GBA $397 /Sf GBA $21,312,000 1 Includes contractors' fees, general requirements, builder's risk insurance and a direct cost contingency allowance. 2 Based on an 18‐month construction period and a 3‐month absorption period with a 100% average outstanding balance. 3 Based on an 18‐month construction period with a 60% average outstanding balance and a 3‐month absorption period with a 100% average outstanding  balance. Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Base Project Pro Forma; trb APPENDIX  A ‐ TABLE 2 ESTIMATED STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME BASE ZONING ALTERNATIVE ‐ TYPE V CONSTRUCTION 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Residential Rental Income Market Rate Units 1 Studio Units 16 Units $2,200 /Unit/Month $422,400 One‐Bedroom + Loft Units 11 Units $2,700 /Unit/Month 356,400 One‐Bedroom Units 26 Units $2,850 /Unit/Month 889,200 Two‐Bedroom Units 2 Units $3,800 /Unit/Month 91,200 Three‐Bedroom Units 2 Units $4,200 /Unit/Month 100,800 50% Income Two‐Bedroom Units 2 6 Units $689 /Unit/Month 49,600 Gross Rental Income $1,909,600 Laundry and Miscellaneous Income 63 Units $10 /Unit/Month 7,600 Market Rate Parking Income 3 101 Spaces $150 /Space/Month 181,800 Affordable Unit Parking Income 4 6 Spaces $75 /Space/Month 5,400 Gross Residential Income $2,104,400 (Less) Vacancy and Collection 5% Gross Residential Income (105,200) Effective Gross Residential Income $1,999,200 II. Residential Operating Expenses General Operating Expenses 63 Units $6,000 /Unit/Year $378,000 Property Taxes 5 63 Units $5,664 /Unit/Year 356,800 Total Residential Operating Expenses 63 Units $11,700 /Unit/Year $734,800 III. Residential Net Operating Income $1,264,400 IV. Retail Income Retail Space 10,687 Sf Retail GLA $66.00 /Sf/Year $705,300 CAM Reimbursements 10,687 Sf Retail GLA $10.00 /Sf/Year 106,900 Gross Retail Income $812,200 (Less) Vacancy and Collection 5% Gross Retail Income (40,600) Effective Gross Retail Income $771,600 V. Retail Operating Expenses CAM Expenses 10,687 Sf Retail GLA $10.00 /Sf/Year $106,900 Management Fee 3% Effective Gross Income 23,100 Total Retail Operating Expenses 10,687 Sf Retail GLA $12.16 /Sf/Year $130,000 VI. Retail Net Operating Income $641,600 VII. Total Net Operating Income $1,906,000 1 2 3 4 5 Based on a 4.50% capitalization rate for the residential component and a 1.27% property tax rate. The affordable rents are net the applicable utility allowance as published by the City in 2015: $40 for two‐bedroom units. The market rate rents equate to: $4.73/sf/month for studio units; $5.07/sf/month for one‐bedroom + loft units; $4.47/sf/month for one‐bedroom  units; $3.98/sf/month for two‐bedroom units; and $3.68/sf/month for three‐bedroom units. The parking is uncoupled from the market rate units and retail space.  The space rent is estimated at $150/space/month. 50% income tenants can use one parking space at no cost.  Alternatively, these tenants can receive a rent reduction equal to 1/2 of the prevailing  parking rent.  The Developer will implicitly receive 1/2 the market rate parking rent for the 50% income units. Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Base Project Pro Forma; trb APPENDIX  A ‐ TABLE 3 ESTIMATED SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE BASE ZONING ALTERNATIVE ‐ TYPE V CONSTRUCTION 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Estimated Project Value Net Operating Income $1,906,000 Capitalization Rate 1 4.84% Estimated Project Value $39,380,000 II. Supportable Land Value Estimated Project Value $39,380,000 (Less) Developer Profit 12% Estimated Project Value (4,726,000) (Less) Total Construction Costs (21,312,000) III. Supportable Land Value 33,334 Sf Land $400 /Sf Land $13,342,000 1 Based on a weighted average of: a 4.50% capitalization rate for the residential component and a 5.50% capitalization rate for the commercial  component.  Based on the rates published by RERC for the 1st quarter of 2014 and adjusted for the strength of the Santa Monica real estate market. Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Base Project Pro Forma; trb APPENDIX  B SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE PROPOSED PROJECT Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Proposed Project Pro Forma; trb APPENDIX  B ‐ TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS PROPOSED PROJECT ‐ TYPE V CONSTRUCTION 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs Site Improvement Costs 33,334 Sf Land $15 /Sf Land $500,000 Parking Spaces 1st‐Level Subterranean 65 Spaces $30,000 /Space 1,950,000 2nd‐Level Subterranean 66 Spaces $35,000 /Space 2,310,000 Building Costs Residential 68,070 Sf Res GBA $130 /Sf Res GBA 8,849,000 Retail 10,617 Sf Retail GLA $150 /Sf Retail GLA 1,593,000 Tenant Improvements ‐ Retail 10,617 Sf Retail GLA $45 /Sf Retail GLA 478,000 Contractor Costs 1 20% Other Direct Costs 3,136,000 Total Direct Costs 78,687 Sf GBA $239 /Sf GBA $18,816,000 II. Indirect Costs Arch, Eng, & Consulting 8.00% Direct Costs $1,505,000 Public Permits & Fees/Impact Fees 78,687 Sf GBA $16.00 /Sf GBA 1,259,000 Fractional Unit Affordable Housing Fee 0 Fractional Unit $312,609 Fractional Unit 0 Taxes, Ins, Legal & Acctg 3.00% Direct Costs 564,000 Marketing  Residential 2.00% Direct Costs 376,000 Retail 10,617 Sf Retail GLA $3.00 /Sf Retail GLA 32,000 Development Management 4.00% Direct Costs 753,000 Soft Cost Contingency Allowance 5.00% Other Indirect Costs 224,000 Total Indirect Costs $4,713,000 III. Financing Costs Land Carrying Costs 2 $18,251,000 Financed 5.50% Interest $2,008,000 Interest During Construction 3 $29,417,000 Financed 5.50% Interest 2,265,000 Financing Fees Construction Loan $29,417,000 Financed 2.50 Points 735,000 Permanent Loan $35,209,200 Financed 2.50 Points 880,000 Total Financing Costs $5,888,000 IV. Total Construction Costs 78,687 Sf GBA $374 /Sf GBA $29,417,000 1 Includes contractors' fees, general requirements, builder's risk insurance and a direct cost contingency allowance. 2 Based on an 18‐month construction period and a 6‐month absorption period with a 100% average outstanding balance. 3 Based on an 18‐month construction period with a 60% average outstanding balance and a 6‐month absorption period with a 100% average  outstanding balance. Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Proposed Project Pro Forma; trb APPENDIX  B ‐ TABLE 2 ESTIMATED STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME PROPOSED PROJECT ‐ TYPE V CONSTRUCTION 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Residential Rental Income Market Rate Units 1 Studio Units 17 Units $2,200 /Unit/Month $448,800 One‐Bedroom + Loft Units 10 Units $2,700 /Unit/Month 324,000 One‐Bedroom Units 36 Units $2,850 /Unit/Month 1,231,200 Two‐Bedroom Units 9 Units $3,800 /Unit/Month 410,400 Three‐Bedroom Units 9 Units $4,200 /Unit/Month 453,600 50% Income Two‐Bedroom Units 2 9 Units $689 /Unit/Month 74,400 Gross Rental Income $2,942,400 Laundry and Miscellaneous Income 90 Units $10 /Unit/Month 10,800 Market Rate Parking Income 3 122 Spaces $150 /Space/Month 219,600 Affordable Unit Parking Income 4 9 Spaces $75 /Space/Month 8,100 Gross Residential Income $3,180,900 (Less) Vacancy and Collection 5% Gross Residential Income (159,000) Effective Gross Residential Income $3,021,900 II. Residential Operating Expenses General Operating Expenses 90 Units $6,000 /Unit/Year $540,000 Property Taxes 5 90 Units $6,070 /Unit/Year 546,300 Total Residential Operating Expenses 90 Units $12,100 /Unit/Year $1,086,300 III. Residential Net Operating Income $1,935,600 IV. Retail Income Retail Space 10,617 Sf Retail GLA $66.00 /Sf/Year $700,700 CAM Reimbursements 10,617 Sf Retail GLA $10.00 /Sf/Year 106,200 Gross Retail Income $806,900 (Less) Vacancy and Collection 5% Gross Retail Income (40,300) Effective Gross Retail Income $766,600 V. Retail Operating Expenses CAM Expenses 10,617 Sf Retail GLA $10.00 /Sf/Year $106,200 Management Fee 3% Effective Gross Income 23,000 Total Retail Operating Expenses 10,617 Sf Retail GLA $12.17 /Sf/Year $129,200 VI. Retail Net Operating Income $637,400 VII. Total Net Operating Income $2,573,000 1 2 3 4 5 Based on a 4.50% capitalization rate for the residential component and a 1.27% property tax rate. The affordable rents are net the applicable utility allowance as published by the City in 2015: $40 for two‐bedroom units. The market rate rents equate to: $5.12/sf/month for studio units; $4.37/sf/month for one‐bedroom + loft units; $3.99/sf/month for one‐bedroom  units; $4.05/sf/month for two‐bedroom units; and $4.12/sf/month for three‐bedroom units. The parking is uncoupled from the market rate units and retail space.  The space rent is estimated at $150/space/month. 50% income tenants can use one parking space at no cost.  Alternatively, these tenants can receive a rent reduction equal to 1/2 of the prevailing  parking rent.  The Developer will implicitly receive 1/2 the market rate parking rent for the 50% income units. Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Proposed Project Pro Forma; trb APPENDIX  B ‐ TABLE 3 ESTIMATED SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE PROPOSED PROJECT ‐ TYPE V CONSTRUCTION 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Estimated Project Value Net Operating Income $2,573,000 Capitalization Rate 1 4.75% Estimated Project Value $54,168,000 II. Supportable Land Value Estimated Project Value $54,168,000 (Less) Developer Profit 12% Estimated Project Value (6,500,000) (Less) Total Construction Costs (29,417,000) III. Supportable Land Value 33,334 Sf Land $548 /Sf Land $18,251,000 1 Based on a weighted average of: a 4.50% capitalization rate for the residential component and a 5.50% capitalization rate for the commercial  component.  Based on the rates published by RERC for the 1st quarter of 2014 and adjusted for the strength of the Santa Monica real estate market. Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Proposed Project Pro Forma; trb APPENDIX C PROPERTY SALES COMPARABLES Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Sales Comps; trb APPENDIX C PROPERTY SALES COMPARABLES 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Type Address Year Built Sales Date Site Size (Sf)Sales Price Price / Sf Land Retail Storefront / Office 1327 5th Street 1930 7/2/2013 7,497 $5,200,000 $694 Retail Service Station 1398 Lincoln Boulevard 1985 7/11/2013 4,792 $1,968,000 $411 Retail Storefront 1427 Lincoln Boulevard 1956 7/15/2013 7,501 $2,775,000 $370 Retail Storefront 1448 Lincoln Boulevard 1923 6/14/2013 15,002 $5,350,000 $357 Auto Repair Bldg 1124 Santa Monica Boulevard 1943 7/31/2014 17,511 $6,250,000 $357 Weighted Average $412 Minimum $357 Maximum $694 Source:  Costar, 5/2015 Note:  Building sales transactions for the 0.5‐miile radius surrounding 1415 5th Street from 5/4/2013 ‐ 5/4/2015.  Non‐arms length transactions,  multi‐property transactions, and transactions without sales prices were excluded. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; Sales Comps; trb APPENDIX D PROPOSED PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; FIA; trb APPENDIX D ‐ TABLE 1 POPULATION AND TOTAL PERSONS SERVED ESTIMATES PROPOSED PROJECT 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Estimated Number of Residents Occupied Housing Units 1 86 Persons Per Unit 1.50 Estimated Total Residential Population 129 II. Estimated Number of Employees Served Retail Square Feet 10,086 Estimated Retail Square Feet Per Employee 500 Estimated Number of Employees 20 Employment Based Resident Equivalent 0.50                      Estimated Number of Employees Served 10 III. Estimated Number of Persons Served Estimated Total Residential Population 129 Estimated Number of Employees Served 10 Total Persons Served 139 1 Based on 90 total housing units and a 5% vacancy rate.  Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; FIA; trb APPENDIX D ‐ TABLE 2 ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES PROPOSED PROJECT 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Property Tax Revenue Assessed Value $54,168,000 Property Tax Rate 1.00% Total Property Tax Revenue $541,680 City Share of Property Tax Revenue 14.00% City Property Tax Revenue $75,800 II. Motor Vehicle License In‐Lieu Fee Revenue FY 2013‐2014 MVLF Revenue $8,446,245 Percent of Assessed Value 0.197% Motor Vehicle License In‐Lieu Fee Revenue $16,600 III. Sales Tax Revenue A. Aggregate Resident Sales Tax Revenue Taxable Sales $9,398 /Unit Number of Occupied Housing Units 86 Taxable Sales $808,228 Sales Tax Rate (Includes Measure Y Revenue) 1.25% Aggregate Resident Sales Tax Revenue $10,100 B. Commercial Sales Tax Revenue Taxable Sales $4,034,460 Sales Tax Rate (Includes Measure Y Revenue) 1.25% Commercial Sales Tax Revenue $50,400 Total Sales Tax Revenue $60,500 IV. Utility Tax Revenue $264 Per Person Served $36,700 V. Business License Revenue A. Residential Business License Tax Revenue Residential Gross Income $3,021,900 Residential Rate $1.25 Per $1,000 of gross receipts Residential Business License Tax Revenue $3,800 B. Commercial Business License Tax Revenue Retail Gross Receipts $5,379,280 Professional Services Rate $1.25 Per $1,000 of gross receipts Commercial Business License Tax Revenue $6,700 Total Business License Revenue $10,500 VI. Miscellaneous Revenues $271 Per Person Served $37,700 VII. Total Annual Revenues $237,800 Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; FIA; trb APPENDIX D ‐ TABLE 3 ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES & NET FISCAL IMPACT PROPOSED PROJECT 1601 LINCOLN BLVD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Annual Expenditures Aggregate Departmental Expenditures $539 Per Person Served $74,900 Public Safety Costs $907 Per Person Served 126,000 Community Services Costs $308 Per Person Served 42,900 Total Annual Expenditures $243,800 II. Net Fiscal Impact Calculation Total Annual Revenues $237,800 Less Total Annual Expenditures ($243,800) Net Fiscal Impact ($6,000) 1 Includes the following departments: administration, information services, finance, public works, planning and community development, and housing  and economic development. Prepared by:  Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name:  1601 Lincoln Blvd_8 3 15; FIA; trb ATTACHMENT F Community Meeting, ARB Concept, & Planning Commission Float-Up Summary Community Meeting A community meeting was held on November 8, 2012, at the Ken Edwards Center for the 100-unit project. Six members of the public were in attendance. The issues raised at the community meeting included:  Vehicular access to the site should be through right turns only;  No on-street parking on Lincoln Boulevard or Colorado Avenue should be allowed;  Bicycle parking for residential uses should be located below grade and at grade for commercial uses;  Windows in the residential units should be operable;  Concerns about light rail noise impacts to residential units should be considered;  Residential units should have balconies;  Project should achieve LEED certification; and  Restaurants should have outdoor dining. Architectural Review Board Concept Design Review The project was presented for concept review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on July 15, 2013, for the 100-unit project. The ARB gave overall support to the design of the project noting that the project displayed a strong differentiation between the ground floor commercial and the upper residential floors. The ARB also indicated that the balconies were well designed and complemented the architecture of the project. The Board offered the following design comments:  Trellis treatments and/or overhanging landscapes on the roof deck should be included in the project to create visual interest from the street given its location as a gateway and proximity to light rail station;  Retail level may need additional elements to address solar control;  Provide more differentiation along elevations to provide greater visual interest;  Address the starkness of the interior courtyard in comparison to the sophisticated geometry and light and airy design of the remainder of the project;  Identify daylighting strategies and illustrate a sustainable and efficient plan for the roof and yoga decks, shade structures, and photovoltaics for the west portion of the project facing Lincoln Boulevard. Planning Commission Float-Up Review The project was presented to the Planning Commission for Float -Up discussion at its June 25, 2014 meeting. The Planning Commission identified facets of the overall project layout and design that should be given additional attention and also commented on potential community benefits. At the meeting, the Planning Commission was generally supportive of the project and recommended that staff initiate the Development Agreement negotiation and review process. The following details the comments made by the Planning Commission at the float-up review and how the current project responds to each comments. Project Design 1. Curb Cut: Eliminate curb cut on Lincoln Boulevard. Response: Lincoln Boulevard curb cut/driveway is eliminated. 2. Upper Level Stepbacks: Consider reducing the amount of building cantilever by providing additional stepback on upper floors. Response: The upper levels of the building (Floors 2-5) are pushed back five feet along the Lincoln Boulevard frontage. 3. Articulation/Modulation: Break up long wall planes and provide more building modulation along both upper and ground floor levels. Consider the removal of the upper unit at intersection corner for views and air flow into project. Response: Floor area is removed at the ground level instead of the upper floor to introduce the common plaza area and reduce the long wall planes at the ground floor level. Design changes are made to better articulate the facades, break up the volume of the building, and add depth to the corner element. 4. Driveway/Alley Design: Give particular attention to design and landscape in driveway/alley entering project from Colorado Avenue. Response: The pedestrian realm along the driveway/alley is enhanced with landscaping, bicycle parking, and a relocated leasing office for an improved pedestrian experience for residents and visitors. Additionally, the separation between the two buildings above the driveway/alley is increased for more openness and light at the ground level. 5. Ground Floor Open Space: Consider providing additional ground floor open space and achieve compliance with the draft DSP standard of 20% open space on the ground floor. Response: Plans are revised to comply with the ground floor open space requirements of the draft DSP. 6. Commercial Plan: The commercial space should be divided to promote smaller neighborhood servicing uses. As proposed, the commercial area is large and may be potentially difficult to subdivide and lease. Response: The introduction of the common plaza area at the corner of the property reduces the size of the tenant spaces and provides greater flexibility in the overall subdivision of the spaces. Furthermore, the common plaza area provides secondary access to the adjacent commercial spaces to encourage its use for outdoor dining or gathering. 7. Circulation Bridge: Pedestrian walkway over driveway/alley should be removed. Response: The pedestrian walkways over the driveway/alley are retained to provide ease of internal access between the buildings and to comply with ingress/egress requirements of the Building and Fire Codes. Community Benefits 8. Affordable Housing: Compensation should be paid for varying from AHHP standard requiring the affordable units to be at least 2 bedroom units. Provide deeper level of affordability than moderate level for units beyond AHPP requirements and provide these units evenly among all unit types. Affordability in larger units (i.e. 3-bedroom) should be provided. Response: At the time of the Commission’s float-up review, the applicant proposed moderate income units. Since the float-up review, all moderate income units have been removed and replaced with affordable units that are available only to 50% and 80% income households. This proposal exceeds that required of Tier 2 projects and provides greater affordability in-lieu of an enhanced payment. 9. Unbundled Parking: Opportunities for unbundled parking should be explored. Response: The parking associated with the project is required to be unbundled as part of the Development Agreement. 10. Transportation Demand Management Plan: TDM plan should focus on trip reduction, and establishing a circulator/TMO for the area. Response: The TDM plan includes measures that would reduce vehicular trips and parking demand generated by the proposed project including transportation allowances for residents and employees. The funding and formation of a citywide TMA was in the budget presented to City Council on May 27, 2015. If adopted by City Council, the citywide TMA would be formed by the end of 2015 and would be funded for three years. The project would provide a monetary contribution of $50,000 that could be used for initiation and continued operations of a TMA. 11. Sustainable Design Features: Design the building to achieve a LEED Gold equivalent. Response: The project would be designed to achieve a minimum LEED® for Homes Platinum certification as established by the LEED® Rating System. 12. Contributions: Contributions shall include, but not limited to, a contribution towards Historic Preservation programs. Response: The project would provide an estimated $2.2 million in contributions that would support transportation, parks and recreation, big blue bus, transportation management association, early childhood initiatives, affordable housing, water conservation, and historic preservation programs in the City. ATTACHMENT G PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least 8 weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of appli cant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting. In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a 1,000 foot radius of the project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. On October 8, 2015, the applicant was notified of the subject hearing date. The applicant provided the following information regarding attempts to contact area property owners, residents, and recognized neighborhood associations: Community Meetings: A community meeting was held for the project on November 8, 2012, at the Ken Edwards Center. LINCOLN COLLECTION / RESIDENTIAL MIX-USE / 1601 Lincoln Boulevard MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.899.3920 t | www.folonisarchitects.com DESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DECEMBER 8, 2015 DA-2CORNER PERSPECTIVEMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects DA-3LINCOLN PERSPECTIVEMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects DA-1 DA-2 DA-3 DA-4 DA-5 DA-6 DA-7 DA-8 DA-9 DA-10 DA-11 DA-12 DA-13 DA-14 DA-15 DA-16 DA-17 DA-18 DA-19 DA-20 DA-21 DA-22 DA-23 DA-24 DA-25 DA-26 DA-27.1 COVER SHEET CORNER PERSPECTIVE LINCOLN PERSPECTIVE PUBLIC BENEFIT PACKAGE PROJECT CALCULATIONS CONTEXT IMAGES SITE PLAN OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM UNIT PLANS UNIT PLANS P1 & P2 - PARKING GROUND AND MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN SECOND - THIRD FLOOR PLAN FOURTH - FIFTH FLOOR PLANS ROOF PLAN ELEVATIONS SECTION LINCOLN VIEW INTERIOR COURTYARD CLOSE UP RENDERS LANDSCAPE - GROUND FLOOR LANDSCAPE - SECOND LEVEL LANDSCAPE - THIRD + FOURTH FLOORS LANDSCAPE - ROOF DECK PROJECT PERSPECTIVE GROUND - unit mix swap COMMUNITY BENEFIT SUMMARY - 1601 LINCOLN 1601 Lincoln Boulevard is located at the southeast corner of Lincoln and Colorado. CWP acquired the property in July 2012 with the intention of constructing a mixed-use, multifamily apartment building with neighborhood serving ground floor retail, below-grade parking and bicycle storage, plus residential units on four upper floors. Project amenities include a terrace level swimming pool, fitness deck, WiFi café, business center and a landscaped roof deck with BBQ area. This project is exactly the type of development envisioned in the LUCE to improve the pedestrian experience along Lincoln Boulevard in close proximity to the new Expo Line. The 1601 Lincoln project includes 90 residential apartment units, 10,617 square feet of retail and 168 parking spaces, which will attract and accommodate a mix of uses serving the daytime and evening residents, as well as tourists and visitors to the Santa Monica area. The Project will also enhance the economic and physical relationship of the intersection of Lincoln and Colorado to the new Expo Line and improve the walkability of Lincoln Boulevard. With large set-backs on the ground floor and limited curb cuts, the project is designed to activate the pedestrian experience. There are numerous Community Benefits associated with the development including: As a direct response to the request by Planning to add affordable residences, we have adjusted the plans to include twenty percent of the residential units are proposed to be affordable. The proposed unit mix and corresponding affordable levels is as follows: Mkt rate Aff V.Low Aff Low Aff Mod Total Studio 16 0 0 1 17 One Bedroom Loft 9 1 0 0 10 One Bedroom 24 10 2 0 36 Two Bedroom 13 2 2 0 18 Three Bedroom 9 1 0 0 9 Total Units 71 14 4 1 9 0 Each affordable unit provided above the base requirement of ten percent is counted as a Community Benefit. With a cost of approximately $450,000 per affordable unit, the Community Benefit for the additional ten affordable units is $4,500,000. INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TABLE OF CONTENT DA-4PUBLIC BENEFIT PACKAGEMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects 1601 1601 1601 SITE MAP SCALE: NTS 1 2 3 5 4 1 2 4 3 5 DA-6CONTEXT IMAGESMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects OLYM P I C B L V D MICHIGAN A V E OLYMPIC BLVD COLORADO AVE BROADWAY9T H S T 10 T H S T 11 T H LI N C O L N B L V D 7T H S T 4T H S T 6T H S T 2T H S T 5T H S T 3r d S T CONTEXT PLAN SCALE: NTSSITE MAP SCALE: NTS 1601 Lincoln Boulevard DSP BORDER SANTA MONICA B L V D DN DN UP UP UPUPUP UP UP UP UP UP UP SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS LINCOLN BLVD C O L O R A D O A V E 26 4 . 9 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E 128.64' PROPERTY LINE 26 4 . 9 5 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT 26 4 . 9 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E 123.39' PROPERTY LINE UP W/D W/DW/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D DN UP CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMUNIM TRELLIS DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILER HVAC HVAC HVAC DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILER RG D W RGD W RGDW RG DW RGDW RG D W SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PEDESTAL SYSTEM W/D W/D W/D W/D W/ D 9,034 sq ft LOWER ROOF (including Deck) 1A STUDIO 1A 1A 1A 2B low affordable low affordable DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILER C DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILER W/D N N FIVE STORIES FOUR STORIES POOL DECK 2ND LEVEL INT E R S T A T E F R E E W A Y 10 DA-7SITE PLANMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects 10,617 sq ft DN DN UP D WRG UP D WRG UP D WRG UP D WRG UP RG DW UP UP DW RG UP DW RG UP DW RG UP DW RG UP DW RG 128'-8" 14 9 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 2 " 94 ' - 8 " 39 ' - 7 " 48 ' - 5 " 50 ' - 9 " 9' - 9 " 1' - 5 " 10'-0"46'-1"62'-5"10'-3" 13'-5" 10 ' - 2 " 13 9 ' - 9 " 36 ' - 5 " 78 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 0 " 26 4 ' - 7 " 26 4 ' - 9 " 10 7 ' - 0 " 32 ' - 9 " 19 ' - 9 " 10'-0" 122'-9" 10'-0"2'-0"10'-0" 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 1' - 8 " 67 ' - 1 1 " 10 ' - 4 " 5'-0"5'-0" 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 9'-11"28'-8"10'-9"51'-0"22'-4" 17'-1"16'-10"17'-1" 16 ' - 1 " 18 ' - 5 " 18 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 2 " 18 ' - 5 " 4' - 9 " SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS LINCOLN BLVD TRASH/ RECYCLE 477 SF LOBBY 590 SF TRANSFORMER ROOM 416 SF COMMERCIAL TOTAL 10,617 SF C O L O R A D O A V E MECHANICAL- POOL ROOM 308 SF POOL ABOVE L O A D I N G Z O N E DCDA 26 4 . 9 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT 123.39' PROPERTY LINE UP 2,228 sq ft DN 10'-0" 1,203 sq ft 420 sq ft 59 s q f t 389 sq ft 32 sq ft 289 sq ft 56 sq ft 63 sq ft 31 sq ft LEASING OFFICE 188 SF UP GROUND  LEVEL:  OPEN  SPACE    |    SQUARE  FEET OPEN TO SKY: 352 sq ft COVERED USABLE OPEN-SPACE: 1,711 sq ft PROVIDED TOTAL: 2,063 square feet (10.8%) REQUIRED OPEN SPACE 10% 1,902 sq ft IN COMPLIANCE + 161 sq ft USABLE OPEN-SPACE @ sidewalk: 2,707 sq ft ACTUAL OPEN-SPACE TOTAL: 4,770 square feet (25.1%) OPEN  SPACE        |        GUIDELINES      |      LUCE    pg  214 MUB  (C-­‐4)  LOT = 19,017 square feet (M-1 lot is not under DSP consideration) Section 6.4.E.1 FOR LOTS LESS THAN 22,501: 25% Open Space lot size 19,017 x 25%: 4,754 square feet Section 6.4.E.1- c Where required open space is a minimum of 25% of the Lot Area, no less than 10% of the total Lot Area shall be accommodated at-grade. The remaining open space requirement may be accommodated at grade, on a podium one (1) to two (2) stories (to maximum height of 32 feet) above grade, on exterior balconies a minimum of 35 sf each, roof garden, or any combination thereof. REQUIRED GROUND FLOOR : 10% Open Space lot size 19,017 x 10%: 1,902 square feet REQUIRED UPPER FLOORS : 15% Open Space lot size 19,017 x 15%: 2,852 square feet UPPER  LEVELS:  OPEN  SPACE    |    SQUARE  FEET OPEN TO SKY PODIUM: 4,029 sq ft PRIVATE BALCONIES 4,667 sq ft (min 50 sq ft each) PROVIDED TOTAL: 8,696 square feet (45.7%) REQUIRED OPEN SPACE 15% 2,852 sq ft IN COMPLIANCE + 5,844 sq ft A B A B SITE: OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS   C - ­ ‐ 4   L O T ORIGINAL SCHEME DA-8OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects 10,617 sq ft DN DN UP D WRG UP D WRG UP D WRG UP D WRG UP RG DW UP UP DW RG UP DW RG UP DW RG UP DW RG UP DW RG 128'-8" 14 9 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 2 " 94 ' - 8 " 39 ' - 7 " 48 ' - 5 " 50 ' - 9 " 9' - 9 " 1' - 5 " 10'-0"46'-1"62'-5"10'-3" 13'-5" 10 ' - 2 " 13 9 ' - 9 " 36 ' - 5 " 78 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 0 " 26 4 ' - 7 " 10 7 ' - 0 " 32 ' - 9 " 19 ' - 9 " 10'-0" 122'-9" 10'-0"2'-0"10'-0" 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 1' - 8 " 67 ' - 1 1 " 10 ' - 4 " 5'-0"5'-0" 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 9'-11"28'-8"10'-9"51'-0"22'-4" 17'-1"16'-10"17'-1" 16 ' - 1 " 18 ' - 5 " 18 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 2 " 18 ' - 5 " 4' - 9 " SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS LINCOLN BLVD TRASH/ RECYCLE 477 SF LOBBY 590 SF TRANSFORMER ROOM 416 SF COMMERCIAL TOTAL 10,617 SF MECHANICAL- POOL ROOM 308 SF POOL ABOVE L O A D I N G Z O N E DCDA 26 4 . 9 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT 123.39' PROPERTY LINE UP 2,228 sq ft DN 10'-0" 1,203 sq ft 420 sq ft 59 s q f t 389 sq ft 32 sq ft 289 sq ft 56 sq ft 63 sq ft 31 sq ft LEASING OFFICE 188 SF UP UP RG D W RG DW RG D W RG DW RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG DW RG D W RG D W RG DW RG D W RG DW RG DW RG DW RG DW RG DW RG DW RGD W ZONING SPLIT LINE M1 ZONING C4 ZONING RESIDENTIAL COURTYARD 4,128 SF OPEN TO BELOW Lap pool 33' x 12' W/ D W/ D W/ D W/ D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D UP 3C 3B3A 2E STUDIO 1C STUDIO STUDIO 1B 1B 1A STUDIO 1A 1A 1A STUDIO 1A 2B 1B 2C2A 1A very low affordable low affordable very low affordable very low affordable low affordable very low affordable C C C C C C C C C W / D C C C W/ D C C C W / D C C C C C C C C C W/ D C RG D W RG DW RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG DW RG D W RG DW RG DW RG DW 794 sq ft ZONING SPLIT LINE M1 ZONING C4 ZONING PV PANEL ARRAY ABOVE MECHANICAL UNITS - 16 MECHANICAL UNITS - 24 W/ D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D DN 544 sq ft 9,034 sq ft LOWER ROOF (including Deck) 1A STUDIO 1A 1A 1A STUDIO 1A 2B 1B 2C2A 2D low affordable low affordable C C C W / D C C C CC C W/ D C C C W / D C C GROUND  LEVEL SECOND  LEVEL FIFTH  LEVEL GROUND LEVEL: OPEN SPACE | SQUARE FEET OPEN TO SKY: 2,223 SQUARE FEET COVERED USABLE OPEN-SPACE: 6,657 SQUARE FEET SUB-TOTAL: 8,880 SQUARE FEET /33,154 SQ FT SITE 26.8% OPEN SPACE SECOND LEVEL: OPEN SPACE | SQUARE FEET OPEN TO SKY: 4,029 SQUARE FEET COVERED USABLE OPEN-SPACE: N/A SUB-TOTAL: 4,029 SQUARE FEET /33,154 SQ FT SITE 12% OPEN SPACE ROOF LEVEL: OPEN SPACE | SQUARE FEET OPEN TO SKY: 3,217 SQUARE FEET COVERED US ABLE OPEN-SPACE: 470 SQUARE FEET SUB-TOTAL: 3,687 SQUARE FEET /33,154 SQ FT SITE 11% OPEN SPACE PROJECT TOTAL: OPEN SPACE | SQUARE FEET OPEN TO SKY: 9,469 SQUARE FEET USABLE OPEN-SPACE: 7,127 SQUARE FEET RESIDENTIAL BALCONIES: 4,667 SQUARE FEET (TOTAL PROJECT LOT SIZE 33,154 square feet) ON SITE OPEN SPACE 64% RESIDENTIAL: PRIVATE OPEN SPACE | SQUARE FEET RESIDENTIAL BALCONIES: 4,667 SQUARE FEET SUB-TOTAL: 4,667 SQUARE FEET /33,154 SQ FT SITE 14% OPEN SPACE TOTAL PROJECT OPEN SPACE: 21,263 SQUARE FEET PROJECT  ACTUAL  TOTAL  -­‐  OPEN  SPACE DA-9OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects D W RG 14'-6"21'-2" 35'-8" 9'-4"5'-2"15'-5"5'-9" 2 10 3 22 9 1 6 6 3 6 9 2 1 BATH A KITCHEN A 34 ' - 5 " 38 ' - 8 " 6' - 2 " 8'-2"2'-9"7'-4"5'-7"1'-11"5'-5"4'-6" 25 ' - 1 1 " 4' - 4 " 10 ' - 1 1 " 3' - 5 " 9' - 3 " 10 ' - 1 1 " 6'-2" 35'-8" 10'-11"12'-11"11'-10" 4' - 2 " 4' - 2 " C C C BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 LIVING/DINING KITCHEN RG D W 2'-0" 10 2 6 1 1 22 9 3 9 2 1 3 6 KITCHEN A BATH A 35 ' - 1 0 " 4' - 3 " 26 ' - 0 " 5' - 8 " 6'-5" 6' - 2 " 7'-10"2'-9"6'-0"7'-0"1'-11"5'-5"4'-6" 10'-7"12'-11"11'-10" 35'-4" 10 ' - 1 1 " 3' - 5 " 9' - 3 " 10 ' - 7 " 4' - 4 " 10'-2"5'-2"12'-5"8'-9" 15'-4"21'-2" 38 ' - 6 " 36'-7" C C C BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 LIVING ROOM KITCHEN RG D W 10 2 3 9 6 3 2 1 22 9 1 1 6 KITCHEN A BATH A 6'-5"5'-1"6'-4"6'-7"1'-11"5'-5"4'-6" 10 ' - 1 1 " 3' - 6 " 9' - 3 " 10 ' - 1 1 " 34 ' - 6 " 8'-3"6'-1"6'-3"14'-11" 14'-4"21'-2" 35'-6" 6'-11" 6' - 2 " 2'-0" 34 ' - 6 " 4' - 3 " 26 ' - 2 " 4' - 1 " 36'-4" 11'-7"12'-11"11'-10" C C C BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 LIVING ROOM KITCHEN 1 RG DW 35 ' - 6 " 15 ' - 2 " 7' - 6 " 30'-10" 15'-3"15'-7" 4'-6"5'-5"1'-10"3'-6"10'-5"5'-2" 30'-10" 15'-7"15'-3" 32 ' - 8 " 13 ' - 1 " 6' - 9 " 2' - 1 0 " 2' - 1 0 " 5' - 9 " 9'-4"6'-3"3'-7"11'-7" 9 11 12 10 2 2 1 4 3 3 6 7 BATH A KITCHEN A C W / D C C BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 LIVING/DINING KITCHEN 1 RG DW 31'-10" 14'-11"16'-11" 4'-6"5'-5"5'-0"11'-9"5'-2" 32 ' - 8 " 3' - 2 " 15 ' - 2 " 7' - 6 " 13 ' - 1 " 3 5 ' - 1 0 " 31'-0" 15'-7"15'-5" 8'-7"7'-0" 6' - 9 " 2' - 1 0 " 4' - 0 " 8'-2"7'-3" 2 BEDROOM UNIT 1002 SQ FT UNIT: 2B 9 11 12 10 2 2 1 4 3 4 6 6 BATH A KITCHEN A 6' - 2 " C W / D C C BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 LIVING/DINING KITCHEN 1 RG DW 3' - 2 " 32 ' - 8 " 31'-6" 15'-7"15'-11" 8'-7"7'-0" 15 ' - 2 " 7' - 6 " 13 ' - 1 " 35 ' - 1 0 " 30'-8" 14'-11"15'-10" 4'-6"5'-5"5'-0"10'-8"5'-1" 6' - 9 " 2' - 1 0 " 5' - 9 " 8'-6"7'-5" 9 11 2 12 10 2 2 1 4 3 6 6 BATH A KITCHEN A 6' - 2 " C W / D C C BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 LIVING/DINING KITCHEN 1 6 RG D W 30'-0" 11'-1"3'-6"15'-5" 4'-4"11'-1" 30 ' - 1 0 " 4' - 2 " 13 ' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 15'-7" 13'-11"1'-8" 13 ' - 1 1 " 34 ' - 5 " 3'-2 " 3'-1 " 14'-5" 30'-0" 5'-7"5'-5"3'-5" 7'-2"3'-11" 14 ' - 3 " 11 ' - 1 " 5' - 6 " 2 BEDROOM CORNER UNIT 896 SQ FT UNIT: 2D 2 9 10 2 10 3 4 4 18 6 1 17 KITCHEN B BATH A 7' - 2 " C C C BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 LIVING/DINING KITCHEN RG DW 28'-9" 15'-0"13'-8" 30 ' - 1 " 4' - 3 " 23 ' - 3 " 6' - 1 1 " 30 ' - 1 " 11 ' - 4 " 8' - 0 " 10 ' - 9 " 2' - 6 " 28'-9" 24'-7"4'-2" 6'-0"6'-11"2'-1"7'-6"6'-2" 2 BEDROOM CORNER UNIT 807 SQ FT UNIT: 2E 12 4 7 1 1 2 10 2 9 1 3 6 BATH A KITCHEN A 7'-4"2'-3" 2'-4" C W/D C BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 LIVING/DINING KITCHEN UNIT 3A 1/16" = 1'-0"UNIT 3C 1/16" = 1'-0"UNIT 3B 1/16" = 1'-0" UNIT 2A 1/16" = 1'-0"UNIT 2B 1/16" = 1'-0"UNIT 2C 1/16" = 1'-0"UNIT 2D 1/16" = 1'-0"UNIT 2E 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 BEDROOM UNIT 1,020 SQ FT 3 BEDROOM UNIT 1,042 SQ FT 3 BEDROOM UNIT 1,032 SQ FT 2 BEDROOM UNIT 980 SQ FT 2 BEDROOM UNIT 1,002 SQ FT 2 BEDROOM UNIT 990 SQ FT 2 BEDROOM UNIT 896 SQ FT 2 BEDROOM UNIT 807 SQ FT THREE BEDROOM PLANS TWO BEDROOM PLANS DA-10UNIT PLANSMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects 1 6 RG D W 22'-8" 10'-11"11'-9" 8'-2"2'-9"5'-5"6'-4" 22'-8" 8'-0"14'-8" 34 ' - 8 " 4' - 2 " 9' - 1 1 " 8' - 2 " 16 ' - 7 " 34 ' - 8 " 2'-11"6'-4"5'-5" 5 3 2 13 5 W/ D 8 1 BATH B KITCHEN A 5'-6" C BEDROOM LIVING/DINING KITCHEN 66 RG D W 34 ' - 8 " 4' - 2 " 9' - 1 1 " 8' - 2 " 16 ' - 7 " 34 ' - 8 " 8'-0"13'-9" 2'-1"6'-4"5'-5" 21'-9" 10'-11"10'-11" 7'-4"3'-7"3'-3"7'-7" 5 3 2 13 5 W/ D 8 1 KITCHEN A BATH B 5'-6" C BEDROOM LIVING/DINING KITCHEN 1 6 RG D W 8'-0"13'-10" 2'-1"6'-4"5'-5" 30 ' - 2 " 4' - 2 " 9' - 1 1 " 6' - 8 " 13 ' - 7 " 4' - 2 " 34 ' - 4 " 3'-2"4'-11"3'-3"7'-8" 8'-1"10'-11" 5 3 2 9 5 W/ D 8 1 KITCHEN A BATH B 5'-2" C BEDROOM LIVING/DINING KITCHEN 96 RG DW 30 ' - 1 " 4' - 2 " 30 ' - 1 " 20 ' - 2 " 9' - 1 1 " 7'-7"8'-0" 2'-6"3'-3"1'-10" 15'-7" 7'-5"5'-11"2'-4" 3 9 1 9 BATH A KITCHEN A C BEDROOM/ LIVING ROOM KITCHEN 14 DW RG UP 18'-9" 8'-0"10'-9" 28 ' - 1 0 " 7' - 7 " 11 ' - 7 " 9' - 8 " 3' - 5 " 8' - 1 " 18'-9" 9'-0"9'-9" 7'-1"1'-11" 2 5 11 W/ D 9 2019 BEDROOMLIVING ROOM KITCHEN DINING DO W N 14'-6" 7' - 2 " 11 ' - 1 " 9' - 3 " 2'-11" 7'-1"10'-4" 13 11 12 11 12 MEZZANINE 14 RG DW UP 31 ' - 0 " 7' - 7 " 11 ' - 1 " 12 ' - 4 " 3' - 5 " 7' - 8 " 17'-5" 8'-7"8'-11" 2'-5"4'-3"1'-10"4'-3"4'-8" 17'-5" 7'-8"9'-9" 496 sq ft 2 3 11 W/ D 13 109 14 C BEDROOMLIVING ROOM KITCHEN DINING DO W N 1'-7"14'-6" 7' - 2 " 10 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 0 " 7'-8"8'-5" 16 1514 1514 MEZZANINE UNIT 1A 1/16" = 1'-0"UNIT 1B 1/16" = 1'-0"UNIT 1C 1/16" = 1'-0"STUDIO 1/16" = 1'-0" LOFT A 1/16" = 1'-0"LOFT A 1/16" = 1'-0"LOFT B 1/16" = 1'-0"LOFT B 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 BEDROOM UNIT 734 SQ FT 1 BEDROOM UNIT 704 SQ FT 1 BEDROOM UNIT 610 SQ FT STUDIO UNIT 430 SQ FT LOFT 104 SQ FT 1 BEDROOM LOFT GROUND LEVEL 495 SQ FT 1 BEDROOM LOFT GROUND LEVEL 495 SQ FT LOFT 104 SQ FT ONE BEDROOM PLANS ONE BEDROOM/LOFT PLANS DA-11UNIT PLANSMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects 8 . 0 2 % RAMP DOWN RA M P U P DN DN UP UP 122'-8" 15'-0"25'-0" 25 ' - 0 " 3'-0"18'-5"88'-3"18'-10" 16 ' - 5 " 11 6 ' - 1 1 " 26 ' - 0 " 10 4 ' - 8 " 26 3 ' - 1 1 " 37'-7"12'-5"24'-5"5'-9"20'-3"22'-4" 26 ' - 2 " 21 ' - 1 0 " 15 ' - 0 " 4'-10"7'-7"8'-5"7'-6"8'-6"7'-7"7'-6" 18'-0" 15'-0" 8' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 7' - 9 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 9' - 1 " 9' - 2 " 18'-0" 9' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 7' - 8 " 7' - 7 " 7' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 9' - 1 " 8' - 0 " 9' - 4 " 9' - 1 " 5' - 0 " 7' - 8 " 7' - 7 " 7' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 " 9' - 1 " 5' - 0 " 18'-0"18'-0"25'-0" 3' - 2 " 9' - 0 " 8' - 8 " 8' - 8 " 7' - 8 " 7' - 7 " 7' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 18'-0" 1'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-7"8'-7"7'-6"7'-6"7'-7"8'-7"8'-6"8'-6" 18 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 0 " 1' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 3' - 5 " 23'-5"15'-0" 18'-0" 5' - 8 " 10 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 4 " 6' - 0 " 11 ' - 4 " 6' - 0 " 12'-0"6'-2"12'-0" 12'-2"8'-8"14'-3"1'-5" 10'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " T Y P . 2 4 ' - 3 " 7' - 7 " 7' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 7' - 9 " 1' - 2 " 1' - 9 " 7' - 3 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 7' - 6 " 21'-9" 2'-0'' TYP. 4'-0"10'-10"1'-2"2'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0"10'-10"1'-2"2'-0" 128'-6" 5'-0" 40.98' 40.38' 37.31' 46.18' 43.99' 43.39' GATE ENCLOSURE TYPICAL COLUMN SPACING COMMERCIAL + GUEST PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING EDISON EASEMENT Double stacked bicycle rack system by Saris TOTAL BICYCLES: 138 CARGO BIKE LOCKERS: 5 COMP. COMP.COMP. COMP.COMP.COMP.COMP.COMP. C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . COMP. MECHANICAL MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT 8'-4" FOR SARIS STACK RACK SYSTEM THROUGH OUT BICYCLE STORAGE AREA (APPROXIMATE HEAD HEIGHT 8'-6") MECHANICAL A B UP 32 ' - 4 " 11 3 ' - 8 " 23 ' - 1 1 " 2' - 1 " 5' - 0 " 39 ' - 6 " 4' - 1 1 " 26 ' - 6 " 16 ' - 6 " 1' - 8 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 6' - 2 " 1' - 2 " 1' - 6 " 7' - 8 " 7' - 8 " 8' - 7 " 7' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 1' - 2 " 1' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 3 " 40.98'41.39' LINE OF ALLEY ABOVE RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS SECURITY GATE EGRESS FIRE STAIR ELECTRICAL/DATA ROOM 5' WIDE SCE EASEMENT AT THE VAULT COMMERCIAL LONG TERM PARKING WITH UNISEX SHOWER + TEN DOUBLE STACKED BICYCLE STALLS COMMERCIAL ELEVATOR ELECTRICAL SHAFT TO TRANSFORMER FIRE STAIR 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 43 1 R A M P 20 % 20 % 12 % 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 8.2% 12 % C UP UP 25'-0" 2'-0" 3'-8"17'-9"88'-3"18'-10" 17 ' - 1 " 11 6 ' - 3 " 26 ' - 0 " 95 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 26 4 ' - 9 " 7' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 7' - 6 " 3' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 9 " 8' - 7 " 7' - 7 " 7' - 8 " 7' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 2 " 8' - 2 " 8' - 7 " 3' - 1 1 " 6' - 6 " 9' - 0 " 10 ' - 5 " 9' - 0 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 2 " 8' - 2 " 2' - 1 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 0 " 8' - 7 " 9' - 1 " 9' - 2 " 1' - 5 " 18 ' - 0 " 18'-0"18'-0"23'-2"18'-0" 7' - 1 0 " 7' - 1 1 " 7' - 1 0 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 " 9' - 1 " 5' - 0 " 7' - 1 0 " 7' - 1 1 " 7' - 1 0 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 " 9' - 1 " 5' - 0 " 15'-0"6'-0"15'-0"25'-1" 7" 7" 4'-10"7'-7"9"7'-6"7'-6"8'-7"8'-6"7'-6"7'-6"1'-3"8'-0"7'-6" 8' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 7' - 9 " 5' - 1 " 8' - 4 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 7 " 7' - 7 " 7' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 3' - 9 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 2" 20'-3" 1' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 18'-0" 1'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-7"8'-7"7'-6"7'-6"7'-7"8'-7"8'-6"8'-6"15 ' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 7' - 1 0 " 1' - 2 " 1' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 8' - 7 " 9' - 1 " 9' - 1 " 4' - 7 " 1' - 6 " 11 ' - 2 " 1' - 6 " 1'-6" 18 ' - 6 " 26 ' - 2 " 25'-1"18'-0"3'-4"8'-6"4'-8"8'-2"8'-3"2'-8"22'-2" 1'-6" 18'-0" 128'-6" 36.50' MECHANICAL RAMP UP MECHANICAL ELEV MECH COMP. COMP.COMP. COMP.COMP.COMP.COMP.COMP. C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . COMP.COMP.COMP. C O M P . C O M P . C O M P . COMP. COMP.COMP. A B 32 ' - 4 " 62 ' - 7 " 90 ' - 6 " 33 ' - 2 " 5' - 0 " 39 ' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 85'-4"20'-0"14'-3"3'-0" 122'-8" 31.48' 32.08' RESIDENTIAL ELEVATOR 12131415 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 40 41 45 42 43 44 27 20 % 12 % 1617181920 36 39 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 103 104 105 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 82 83 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 717069686766656463 72 73 SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0" Commercial Parking 1ST PARKING LEVEL COMMERCIAL 39 PUBLIC PARKING 15 RESIDENTIAL GUEST 9 SUB TOTAL 63 RESIDENTIAL 11 TOTAL 74 COMPACT 28 (38%) STANDARD 46 HANDICAP 3 2ND PARKING LEVEL COMMERCIAL 0 RESIDENTIAL 94 TOTAL 94 COMPACT 36 (38%) STANDARD 58 HANDICAP 4 P1 PARKING GARAGE P2 PARKING GARAGE COMMERCIAL 39 RESIDENTIAL 105 RESIDENTIAL GUEST 9 PUBLIC PARKING 15 GRAND TOTAL 168 COMPACT 64 STANDARD 104 HANDICAP - inclusive - [7] TOTAL PARKING     VEHICLE  S UMMA R Y        SEE  SHEET  DA-­‐3  FOR  CALCULATIONS LOADING REQUIREMENT: ONE STANDARD LOADING SPACE Mixed-­‐Use  Projects  shall  provide  the  required  loading  spaces  for  the  use  that  requires  the  greater  number  of  loading  spaces.  If  the number  of  required  loading  spaces  for  the  residenKal  and  commercial  uses  is  equal,  the  loading  space  with  the  greater  dimensional requirements  shall  be  required. GROUND LEVEL Residential Parking11 DA-12P1 & P2 - PARKINGMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects 2,484 sq ft DN DN UP UP DW RG RG D W UP RG DW UP RG DW UP RG DW UP RG DW UP D WRG UP D WRG UP D W RG UP D WRG UP 128'-8" 14 9 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 1 " 94 ' - 9 " 39 ' - 7 " 48 ' - 5 " 50 ' - 9 " 9' - 9 " 1' - 5 " 10'-0"46'-1"62'-5"10'-3" 13'-5" 7' - 5 " WEST BOUND DEDICATED RAIL WAY 16'-3" CURB TO CURB 10'-0" 1 0 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 2 " 13 9 ' - 9 " 11 4 ' - 7 " 10 ' - 0 " 26 4 ' - 7 " 26 4 ' - 9 " 10 7 ' - 0 " 32 ' - 9 " 19 ' - 9 " 10'-0" 122'-9" 22'-0" 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 1' - 8 " 67 ' - 1 1 " 10 ' - 4 " 5'-0"5'-0" 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 10'-0"112'-9" 16'-10" 52 ' - 5 " 41 ' - 5 " R 30'-0" R 40'-0" R 8'-1" R 28'-4" R 40'-0"Residential Bicycle Spaces: 13 SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS LINCOLN BLVD DRIVEWAY TRASH/ RECYCLE 477 SF LOBBY 590 SF TRANSFORMER ROOM 416 SF ZONING SPLIT LINE COMMERCIAL TOTAL 10,617 SF C O L O R A D O A V E MECHANICAL- POOL ROOM 308 SF POOL ABOVE L O A D I N G Z O N E DCDA STREET PROFILE 26 4 . 9 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E 128.64' PROPERTY LINE 26 4 . 9 5 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E LOFT B LOFT B LOFT B LOFT B LOFT B LOFT B LOFT A LOFT A LOFT A LOFT A FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT 123.39' PROPERTY LINE UP B B A A W/D W/DW/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D W/D DN 10'-0" R A M P LEASING OFFICE 188 SF 12 % 20 % very low affordable UP C 8. 2 % 8.2% 2% 12 % CCC C C C C C C C C C DD DO W N DO W N DO W N DO W N DO W N DO W N DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN 77 ' - 1 0 " 7' - 4 " 21 ' - 2 " 22 ' - 3 " 12 8 ' - 7 " 13 2 ' - 1 " 40 ' - 7 " 71 ' - 1 " 62'-3"9'-10" 128'-3" 10 ' - 2 " 25 3 ' - 9 " 10 " 10 ' - 2 " 24 3 ' - 9 " 10 ' - 8 " 122'-10" 34 ' - 4 " 7' - 8 " 29 ' - 1 " 122'-9" 16'-10" 41 ' - 5 " B B A A SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS SHEAR WALL SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS POOL LINE ABOVE COMMERCIAL BELOW open to below open to below open to below open to below open to below open to below open to below open to below open to below open to below UP C C C C DD SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0" GROUND FLOOR PLAN MEZZANINE project north true UNIT TYPE KEY: affordable - low affordable - very low market rate moderate N DA-13GROUND AND MEZZANINE FLOOR PLANMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG DW RG D W RGDW RG DW DW RG RGDW RGD W RG DW RG D W RG DW RG D W RG DW RG DW RGD W RG D W RG DW RG DW B B A A 30 ' - 0 " 59 ' - 3 " 22 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 22 ' - 4 " 21 ' - 1 1 " 28 ' - 9 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 35 ' - 1 0 " 34'-5"16'-3"72'-0" 122'-8" 81'-3" 40 ' - 7 " 9' - 2 " 35 ' - 1 0 " 51 ' - 8 " 39 ' - 1 " 35'-7"9'-9"30'-5"52'-9" 26 4 ' - 9 " 128'-6" 5' - 0 " 25 9 ' - 3 " 4'-3"12'-0"15'-3"21'-2"35'-5" 34 ' - 3 " 9' - 5 " 34 ' - 2 " 5' - 1 " 4'-4"30'-1" SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PEDESTAL SYSTEM RESIDENTIAL COURTYARD 4,128 SF OPEN TO BELOW Lap pool 33' x 12' W/D W/ D C W/ D C W/ D C W/D W/D W/D W/ D W/ D W/ D C C C C UP UP DD 3C 3B3A 2E STUDIO 1C STUDIO STUDIO 1B 1B 1A STUDIO 1A 1A 1A STUDIO 1A 2B 1B 2C2A 1A very low affordable very low affordable low affordable low affordable very low affordable C C C C C W / D C C C CW/D W/D C C C C C C C W/ D C C C C C C C moderate affordable very low affordable DN UP UP RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG DW RG D W RGDW RG DW DW RG RGDW RGD W RG DW RG D W RG DW RG DW RG D W RG DW RGD W RG D W RG DW RG DW B B A A 41 ' - 4 " 8' - 1 1 " 39 ' - 4 " 5' - 0 " 89 ' - 6 " 16 9 ' - 1 0 " 15 0 ' - 8 " 21 ' - 9 " 94 ' - 1 " 5" 2' - 1 0 " 29 ' - 1 1 " 14 ' - 3 " 21 ' - 1 1 " 22 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 9 " 14 ' - 3 " 22 ' - 9 " 4'-2"30'-3" 4'-3"23'-2" 75'-9"21'-1"31'-5" 22'-8" 128'-3" 4'-3"12'-0" 7'-9"10'-1"7'-9" 15'-3"21'-2"35'-5" 122'-6" 34'-5"16'-3"71'-10" 15 ' - 6 " 13 ' - 3 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 5 " 15 ' - 0 " 86 ' - 9 " 34 ' - 3 " 9' - 5 " 34 ' - 2 " 5' - 3 " 3'-5"14'-4"3'-5" W/D W/ D C W/ D C W/ D C W/D W/D W/D W/ D W/ D W/ D C C C DN DD 3C 3B3A 2E STUDIO 1C STUDIO STUDIO 1B 1B 1A STUDIO 1A 1A 1A STUDIO 1A 2B 1B 2C 2A 2D 1A very low affordable very low affordable very low affordable very low affordable C C C C C W / D C C C CC C CC C CW/D W/D C C C C C C C W/ D C C C C C C C very low affordable SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0" DOUBLE HEIGHT LOUNGE SECOND FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN SECURITY GATE AT SECOND FLOOR FLOOR PLATES: MI C4 TOTAL 7,603 8,960 1 6 , 0 8 3 FLOOR PLATES: MI C4 TOTAL 7,123 9,863 1 6 , 9 8 6 affordable - low affordable - very low market rate UNIT TYPE KEY: moderate DA-14SECOND - THIRD FLOOR PLANMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects DN UP RG D W RG D W RG DW RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG DW RG D W RGDW RG DW DW RG RGDW RGD W RG DW RG D W RG DW RG D W RG DW RG DW RGD W RG D W RG DW RG DW B B A A 15 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 6 " 3 0 ' - 2 " 28 ' - 5 " 1" 16 ' - 1 0 " 5' - 7 " 14 ' - 7 " 22 ' - 9 " 3' - 4 " 18 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 1 " 12 ' - 3 " 14 ' - 3 " 15 ' - 6 " 14 ' - 5 " 94 ' - 2 " 21 ' - 9 " 14 7 ' - 1 0 " 5" 26 6 ' - 6 " 41 ' - 4 " 8' - 1 1 " 39 ' - 4 " 31 ' - 4 " 16 ' - 1 0 " 38 ' - 7 " 34 ' - 3 " 9' - 5 " 34 ' - 2 " 89 ' - 6 " 86 ' - 9 " 77 ' - 1 0 " 25 4 ' - 2 " 5' - 5 " 27'-6"7'-9" 35'-3"10'-0"82'-11" 30'-10"20'-5"31'-8" 128'-2" 34'-5"88'-1" 122'-5"3" 15'-3"21'-2"35'-5"16'-3"4'-3"30'-2" W/D W/ D C W/ D C W/ D C W/D W/D W/D W/ D W/ D W/ D C C C C DD DN UP 3C 3B3A 2E STUDIO 1C STUDIO STUDIO 1B 1B 1A STUDIO 1A 1A 1A STUDIO 1A 2B 1B 2C2A 2D 1A very low affordable very low affordable very low affordable C C C C C W / D C C C CC C CW/D W/D C C C C C C C W/ D C very low affordable C C C C C C RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RG D W RGDW RG DW DW RG RGDW RGD W RG D W RG DW B B A A 88 ' - 6 " 30 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 3 " 66 ' - 8 " 14 ' - 3 " 22 ' - 8 " 11'-11"19'-0"20'-4"15'-11"15'-8" 45'-3"82'-10" 128'-1" 38'-7"12'-0"71'-10" 122'-5" 16 4 ' - 8 " 5' - 5 " 14 7 ' - 9 " 21 ' - 1 0 " 93 ' - 1 0 " 7" 30 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 1 0 " 30 ' - 1 " 21 ' - 5 " 40 ' - 4 " 8' - 1 1 " 39 ' - 4 " 26 4 ' - 1 " 4'-4"30'-11"10'-0" 86 ' - 9 " 77 ' - 1 0 " SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PEDESTAL SYSTEM W/D W/ D C W/D W/D W/D W/ D C C DD DN 9,034 sq ft LOWER ROOF (including Deck) 1A STUDIO 1A 1A 1A STUDIO 1A 2B 1B 2C2A 2D low affordable low affordable C CC DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILER C C W / D C C C CW/D W/D C C C DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILER SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0" FOURTH FLOOR PLAN FIFTH FLOOR PLAN FITNESS DECK FLOOR PLATES: MI C4 TOTAL 0 9,123 9 , 1 2 3 FLOOR PLATES: MI C4 TOTAL 7,123 9,863 1 6 , 9 8 6 UNIT TYPE KEY: affordable - low affordable - very low market rate moderate DA-15FOURTH - FIFTH FLOOR PLANSMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects 30 ' - 7 " 14 ' - 4 " 10 3 ' - 7 " 21 ' - 1 1 " 93 ' - 1 0 " 26 4 ' - 3 " 7" 37'-0"14'-3"71'-2" 122'-5" 4' - 1 0 " 41 ' - 5 " 8' - 1 1 " 39 ' - 4 " 86 ' - 9 " 34 ' - 3 " 9' - 5 " 34 ' - 2 " 5' - 1 0 " 26 4 ' - 9 " 35'-3"9'-6"83'-5" 128'-2" CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMUNIM TRELLIS 13,057 sq ft UPPER ROOF MECHANICAL UNITS - 12 MECHANICAL UNITS - 16 DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILER HVAC HVAC HVAC DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILER LANDSCAPED AMENITY DECK LO W E R R O O F UP P E R R O O F PERCENTAGE AREA 100% 20,999 sqft GROSS ROOF 22.15% 4,652 sqft POTENTIAL AREA FOR PV PANELS ROOF DECK (AMENITY) 15.27% 3,206 sqft ROOF CIUCULATION 21.50% 4,515 sqft MECHANICAL 28.10% 5,901 sqft OSHA/ FIRE ACCESS 12.98% 2,725 sqft ROOF AREA BREAKDOWN DA-16ROOF PLANMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects ±0.00' 1 1. GROUND +9.00' 2 1.5 LOFT MEZZANINE +18.00' 3 2. SECOND FLOOR +27.75' 4 3. THIRD FLOOR +37.50' 5 4. FOURTH FLOOR +47.25' 6 5. FIFTH FLOOR +57.00' 7 ROOF PLPL ±0.00' 1 1. GROUND +9.00' 2 1.5 LOFT MEZZANINE +18.00' 3 2. SECOND FLOOR +27.75' 4 3. THIRD FLOOR +37.50' 5 4. FOURTH FLOOR +47.25' 6 5. FIFTH FLOOR +57.00' 7 ROOF PL PL PLPL PL PL SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION FACADE SET BACK 10'-0" PERSPECTIVE ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION DA-17ELEVATIONSMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects -19.00' -2 P2 PARKING GARAGE -9.50' -1 P1 PARKING GARAGE ±0.00' 1 1. GROUND +9.00' 2 1.5 LOFT MEZZANINE +18.00' 3 2. SECOND FLOOR +27.75' 4 3. THIRD FLOOR +37.50' 5 4. FOURTH FLOOR +47.25' 6 5. FIFTH FLOOR +57.00' 7 ROOF 20'-0"1'-7" PLPL -19.00' -2 P2 PARKING GARAGE -9.50' -1 P1 PARKING GARAGE ±0.00' 1 1. GROUND +9.00' 2 1.5 LOFT MEZZANINE +18.00' 3 2. SECOND FLOOR +27.75' 4 3. THIRD FLOOR +37.50' 5 4. FOURTH FLOOR +47.25' 6 5. FIFTH FLOOR +57.00' 7 ROOF PLPL 41.39' 43.39' 8' - 2 " CL R . M I N . 26'-8"5'-0" SLP 8.2% PL PL PL PL SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0" SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0" SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0" SECTION B SECTION A 100% of building face setback from Building Frontage Line SECTION C SECTION D DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAYRAMP DOWN DA-18SECTIONMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects DA-19LINCOLN VIEWMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects DA-20INTERIOR COURTYARDMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects DA-21CLOSE UP RENDERSMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects LINCOLN COLLECTION © T. 213-383-1788 (Studio) 380 N. PALM ST. SUITE B CA, 92821 F. 562-905-0880la@sqlainc.com T. 562-905-0800 (Main) www.sqlainc.com BREA, Landscape Architects KEYNOTES 1. BICYCLE PARKING N LANDSCAPE PLAN - GROUND LEVEL 2. CUSTOM BLOB POTS 3. STAINLESS STEEL BOLLARD 4. DETECTABLE WARNING PAVER 6. COR-TEN STEEL PLANTER 7. BUILT-IN BENCH COR-TEN STEEL PLANTERBOLLARDDETECTABLE WARNING PAVER BUILT-IN BENCH PALO VERDE 'DESERT MUSEUM' CERCIDIUM HYBRID LEMON & LIME CITRUS TREES LP-1 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0" W/ VARYING HTS. 8. BENCH / PLANTER 9. MASONRY PLANTER FLASH WALL AGAINST BUILDING 5. CONCRETE PAVING, LIGHT SALT FINISH W/ STAIN PATTERN BIKE RACK LANDSCAPE FORMS - BOLA CONCRETE PAVING COLORADO AVE. LI N C O L N B L V D . 08-27-2015 DA-22LANDSCAPE - GROUND FLOORMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects LINCOLN COLLECTION © T. 213-383-1788 (Studio) 380 N. PALM ST. SUITE B CA, 92821 F. 562-905-0880la@sqlainc.com T. 562-905-0800 (Main) www.sqlainc.com BREA, Landscape Architects KEYNOTES 1. POOL N LANDSCAPE PLAN - 2ND FL. 2. GLASS POOL ENCLOSURE FENCE 3. CABANA STRUCTURE 4. FIRE PIT 6. COR-TEN STEEL PLANTER 7. GREEN SCREEN TOWER COR-TEN STEEL PLANTERCABANA FIRE PIT LP-2 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0" 8. BBQ 9. BAR 10. POT 11. LANDSCAPE MOUND 5. LED FRAME W/ PULL DOWN SCREEN 12. PRECAST CONCRETE PAVER OVER PEDESTAL 13. CUSTOM PERFORATED METAL SCREEN W/ ROY LICHTENSTEIN PAINTING 14. CANOPY STRUCTURE 15. WOOD DECK OVER PEDESTAL CUSTOM PERFORATED METAL SCREEN LED FRAME GLASS POOL ENCLOSURE FENCE 08-26-2015 16. GLASS GUARDRAIL PER ARCH 17. 30" H. STEEL PLANTER DA-23LANDSCAPE - SECOND LEVELMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects LINCOLN COLLECTION © T. 213-383-1788 (Studio) 380 N. PALM ST. SUITE B CA, 92821 F. 562-905-0880la@sqlainc.com T. 562-905-0800 (Main) www.sqlainc.com BREA, Landscape Architects KEYNOTES 1. GLASS GUARDRAIL PER ARCH N LANDSCAPE PLAN - 3RD FL. 2. 30" H. STEEL PLANTER LP-3 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0" 08-26-2015 DA-24LANDSCAPE - THIRD + FOURTH FLOORSMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects 735 SF.735 SF. 735 SF.735 SF. LINCOLN COLLECTION © T. 213-383-1788 (Studio) 380 N. PALM ST. SUITE B CA, 92821 F. 562-905-0880la@sqlainc.com T. 562-905-0800 (Main) www.sqlainc.com BREA, Landscape Architects KEYNOTES 1. WOOD SCREEN N LANDSCAPE PLAN - 5TH FL. 2. BUIL-IN WOOD BENCH 3. 12" H. STEEL PLANTER W/ CACTUS GARDEN 4. BBQ BAR W/ SINK 5. FIRE PIT 6. 36" H. COR-TEN STEEL PLANTER 7. 42" H. PLANTER LP-5 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0" 9. LED TV FIRE PIT SOLUS DECOR - HALO 36" 10. PRECAST CONCRETE PAVER OVER PEDESTAL 8. WOOD DECK OVER PEDESTAL WOOD DECK OVER PEDESTAL PRECAST CONCRETE PAVER OVER PEDESTAL WOOD SCREEN SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" ENLARGEMENT PLAN - 5TH FL. SCALE : 1" = 20'-0" KEY PLAN - 5TH FL. BBQ BAR W/ SINK TOURNESOL SITEWORKS 08-26-2015 11. GLASS GUARDRAIL PER ARCH 12. TW. 30" PLANTER W/ BAMBOO 13. POUF SEATING AND TEA TABLE TYP. 14. WOOD TABLE W/ SHELVES UNDERNEATH SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" ENLARGEMENT PLAN - 5TH FL. YOGA DECK - BOULEVARD STRUCTURAL WOOD TILES POUF SEATING DA-25LANDSCAPE - ROOF DECKMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects DA-26PROJECT PERSPECTIVEMICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS 1524 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite D Santa Monica, California 90404 310.8993.920 t | 1601 LINCOLNDESIGNS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL W FLOLONIS ARCHITECTS AND WERE DEVELOPED FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY. THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN IT REPRESENTS SHALL NOT BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON OR FIRM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MICHAEL W FOLONIS ARCHITECTS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT © 2014 Michael W. Folonis, Architects City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Development Agreement 12DEV-011 December 8, 2015 City of Santa Monica City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard DSP (Downtown Specific Plan) Property Location MUB (Mixed-Use Boulevard) MUB-L (Mixed-Use Boulevard Low) L i n c o l n B o u l e v a r d N LUCE & Zoning Downtown Specific Plan •SE corner of Lincoln Blvd. & Colorado Ave. •Lot Size: 33,334 SF Colorado Avenue Expo Line 1560 Lincoln Bl. 5-story (60 ft.) 100 units 13,800 sf comm. Subject Site LUCE •Building Height •FA R DSP •Sidewalk Width •Parking •Building Frontage City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Mixed-Use Boulevard Low (MUB-L) Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB) ----- Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) •47 feet (4 stories) •40 units •27,594sf Residential •1.95 FAR •57 feet (5 stories) •50 units •37,568sf Residential •12,596sf Commercial •2.63 FAR Project Description LUCE 47 feet 2.0 FAR LUCE 55 -60 feet 2.52 -2.75 FAR Project Project Colorado Av enue City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard 77,758sf –2.34 FAR 90 Res. Units 17-Studio (19%)|46-1BR (51%)|18-2BR (20%)|9-3BR (10%) 430sf |687sf |938sf |1,024sf Average Bedroom Factor –1.21 Project Description Off-Street Parking §2-Level Subterranean Garage –168 Parking Spaces §161 Bicycle Parking Spaces –24 Short-Te rm, 137 Long-Te rm City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Project Design •Contemporary Design •Cantilevered Upper Floors •Geometric Design & Corner Element •Ground Level 18’-00” Floor Height •Ground Floor Glazing/Transparency •1,200 sf Ground Floor Open Plaza •Driveway/Alley Access •Upper Level Pedestrian Access •Roof Deck •Rooftop Solar Panels Lincoln Blvd. Elevation Colorado Ave. Elevation 78’139’ 22’ 48’-6”99’ City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Project Design •20-Foot Wide Sidewalks •Pedestrian Access •Bicycle Parking •Seating Areas •Private Residential Access •Residential Lobby •Leasing Office •Service Areas •Loading Space •10 1-BR Loft Units •Single-Loaded Corridors •4,128sf Residential Courtyard Area •Lap Pool •BBQ / Cabana / Seating Areas •Yo ga Deck •Roof Deck •Landscaping •Fitness Room •BBQ / Cabana / Seating Areas •Solar Panels Residential CourtyardGround Floor Plaza Colorado Avenue L i n c o l n B o u l e v a r d 2nd Floor Plan Colorado Avenue L i n c o l n B o u l e v a r d Ground Floor Plan Secured Residential StairwayLincoln B o u l e v a r d Colorado Avenue L i n c o l n B o u l e v a r d Colorado Avenue 5th Floor/ Roof Deck City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Planning Commission Planning Commission (9/16/15) Recommendations agreed to: §Increase EV charging stations to 20%; §Change one affordable unit at 50% AMI from 2BR to 3BR; §ARB should pay particular attention to: §Residential ground floor frontage §Roof deck canopy and pedestrian bridges; §Inclusion of protections should any cultural resources be found during excavation; §Use of furniture and placement of plants on balconies shall not be prohibited; §Increase ARB’s flexibility to reduce project floor area from 2% to 5%; §Prohibit any reduction in the proposed 20-foot sidewalk width PC Float-Up Design (2014) City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Planning Commission Planning Commission (9/16/15) Recommendations not modified in proposed project: §At least 50% of the roof area shall be covered with solar panels; §Consideration of providing long-term bike storage at-grade; §Private storage spaces should be provided for residential units under 800sf in size; §Provision of an additional affordable 2BR unit @50% AMI City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Community Benefits Affordable Housing §11 % above minimum AHPP requirements (10 units) §21% total affordable units (19 units) §Affordable to 50% income households: Eleven 1-BR units Tw o 2-BR units One 3-BR unit §Affordable to 80% income households: Tw o 1-BR units Tw o 2-BR units §Affordable to moderate income households: One studio unit Enhanced Impact Fees / Contributions §Tr ansportation Impact Fee:$820,000 §Parks & Recreation Fee:$600,000 §Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee:$175,000 §Early Childhood Initiatives Contribution:$150,000 §Historic Preservation Contribution:$50,000 §Big Blue Bus Contribution:$80,000 §Tr ansportation Management Association Contribution:$50,000 Tr ansportation Demand Management Plan §Ve hicular trip and parking demand reduction measures §Bicycle parking §Unbundled parking §Tr ansportation allowances §AV R targets Shared Parking (15 surplus parking spaces) Local Hiring Provisions Physical Improvements / Open Space §Expanded Sidewalks, Outdoor Public Space, Outdoor Seating Sustainability Elements §Bioswale Contribution:$200,000 §Wa ter Conservation Program Contribution:$300,000 §LEED: LEED®for Homes Platinum Certification §Solar infrastructure: pool & common areas (15% less than Energy Code) §Wa ter conservation: non-potable used for landscaping (exterior) and 30% reduction below CalGREEN baseline (interior) §EV vehicle parking: at least 20% of total parking spaces (34 spaces) Community Benefits Av erage Bedroom Factor of Affordable Units –1.32 > 1.21 City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Keyser Marston & Associates (KMA) §Va lue Enhancement Analysis: $4.91M above Tier 1 Project §Fiscal Impact Analysis: $6,000 annual project costs to the City Economic Analysis Community Benefits City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard LUCE / ZO/ DSP LUCE /ZO / DSP Consistency LUCE §Consistent with LUCE Zoning Ordinance §Building Height -50’in MUB & 36’in MUB-L §FA R –2.25 in MUB & 1.75 in MUB-L §Build to Line, Nonresidential Uses –Max. 10’setback for 70% of frontage Draft Downtown Specific Plan §Pedestrian Level Building Frontage –At least 70% of building frontage shall be occupied by the first two floors City Council December 8, 2015 1601 Lincoln Boulevard Comments / Questions Reference:    Agreement No.  10232   (CCS)