SR 01-26-2016 8D
City Council
Report
City Council Regular and Special Joint Meeting: January 26, 2016
Agenda Item: 8.D
1 of 24
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development, Planning
Commission Agenda (PCD)
Andy Agle, Director
Subject: Discussion of Concept Plans and Conceptual Business Terms associated
with a Development Agreement (15ENT-0225) for the development of a new
multi-screen movie theater and retail/restaurant project located at 1318 -1320
Fourth Street.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Discuss the applicant’s Development Agreement Concept Plans and direct staff
to initiate the Development Agreement negotiation process;
2. Provide direction for negotiating potential community benefits, parameters for site
redevelopment, and design alternatives identified by the Planning Commission
and staff;
3. Review and comment on the conceptual business terms and direct staff to initiate
the negotiations on the Disposition and Development Agreement and Ground
Lease Agreement for the project.
Executive Summary
The applicants, Pacific Theatres Exhibition Corp. and Macerich G3, LLC, propose a
Development Agreement to construct a new 4-story (84 feet), 100,000-square-foot
mixed-use cinema and retail/restaurant project at the site of Downtown Parking
Structure No. 3 located at 1318-1320 Fourth Street. The property is located within the
Bayside District Specific Plan area and the Downtown Core LUCE designation. The
proposed project consists of:
Demolition/removal of Downtown Parking Structure No.3 and its 344 existing public
parking spaces.
Construction of an approximately 100,000−square-foot building, which includes
90,000 square feet of theater floor area with up to 16 auditoriums/screens;
approximately 2,700 theater seats; interior restaurant/lounge space available to
theater patrons as well as to the public; and approximately 10,000 square feet of
ground floor retail/restaurant tenant space leased separately from the theater use.
2 of 24
The City has sought the redevelopment of Parking Structure No. 3 since 2007 and has
conducted multiple efforts since that time to implement a mixed-use cinema at the site
in an effort to restore opportunities for the Santa Monica community to see a wide range
of movies in a contemporary setting without leaving Santa Monica. Since the site is City-
owned, a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and Ground Lease
Agreement would govern the City’s proprietary interests in the development of the
property. The applicant (Development Team), Pacific Theaters/Arclight Theaters
(Exhibitor) and Macerich (Developer), have been working with s taff and the City’s
consultants to develop foundational conceptual business terms for the project. Staff
seeks Council’s direction on the conceptual business terms.
A Development Agreement is requested because the proposed design of the structure
does not comply with the applicable Bayside District Specific Plan and Zoning Code
development standards related to building height, stepbacks, and building volume. The
draft Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) is contemplating an 84 -foot height limit for the site;
however, until the DSP is adopted, the Bayside District Specific Plan, Interim Zoning
Ordinance No. 2490 (CCS), and the 1988 Zoning Ordinance govern development on
the site. The draft DSP will serve to inform and assist staff in its processing of the
Development Agreement.
While a Development Agreement is exempt from compliance with existing zoning
standards, such agreements must comply with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plans. As such, an amendment to the Bayside District Specific Plan is
necessary prior to the final consideration of this Development Agreement by the Council
to achieve consistency with the Specific Plan’s height standard for the property. The
project shall be consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the LUCE so t hat its
design, use, and features will contribute to the community in accordance with the
property’s Downtown District General Plan designation.
The following is a summary of key issues recommended for consideration by Council in
its discussion of the proposed Development Agreement and its formulation of direction
to staff and the applicant regarding the proposal:
Consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the neighborhood context
and the LUCE vision for the Downtown District.
Consider how the schematic project design fits into the overall streetscape and
whether it is responsive to its neighborhood context.
Identify potential negotiation points and/or community benefits that would be
appropriate for the broader neighborhood and community.
Identify potential negotiation points and/or public benefits related to additional
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures in excess of the baseline
TDM requirements to reduce future vehicle trips in the area associated with the
project and/or increase use of public transit for both project employees and patrons.
As part of the project review, a parking study would be prepared that analyzes parking
utilization and demand within the context of the City’s broader Downtown Parking
3 of 24
Program. The study will include collection and analysis of current parking utilization
data and provide recommendations to maximize the efficiency of the public and private
parking supply in the Downtown. Economic analyses will also be prepared to analyze
the project’s revenue and costs to the City, and a value enhancement analysis will be
prepared based on a project proforma and the effects of the cost of development on the
residual land value.
The Planning Commission conceptually reviewed the project at a float-up meeting on
August 19, 2015. The project was not viewed favorably by the Planning Commission
primarily due to the three issues of parking, building height/mass, and a passageway
through the alley to Fourth Street, as summarized in Attachment A. The Planning
Commission recommended that City Council pay particular attention to items related to
the project’s impact to parking in the downtown, building mass and height, community
benefits, and neighborhood compatibility.
Background
In 2001, Council established the Promenade Uses Task Force (PUTF) to address
community concerns regarding the Third Street Promenade losing some of its signature
diversity and vitality. The PUTF held a series of public meetings during 2002 and 2003
and concluded its work with a set of recommendations for ensuring the continued
appeal of the Promenade and surrounding downtown area to residents, employees and
visitors. Among the PUTF’s recommendations was a focus on creating high -quality
downtown movie theaters. The PUTF’s recommendation recognized that movie
theaters play a critical role in Downtown Santa Monica, both in terms of enriching the
downtown experience beyond shops and restaurants and in creating local venues that
allow the Santa Monica community to enjoy everything from Hollywood blockbusters to
foreign films. The PUTF acknowledged that Santa Monica’s cinemas were becoming
outdated, particularly with respect to essential amenities such as stadium seating. The
PUTF also recognized that the existing cinemas within the downtown were located on
sites too small to accommodate stadium seating and that the cinemas had become less
appealing to movie-goers and would continue to do so. The PUTF recommended that
the Council consider larger sites beyond the Promenade that could accommodate
contemporary cinemas while expanding the associated pedestrian energy to the larger
downtown beyond the Promenade. Council accepted the PUTF’s recommendation on
June 10, 2003 (Attachment D), and on September 9, 2003 (Attachment E), Council
directed staff to pursue a work plan for implementing the PUTF recommendations.
4 of 24
The PUTF’s predictions were correct. At its height in the late 1980s, the downtown
Santa Monica cinema market included 5,690 seats wh ich generated over two million
cinema attendees annually. Since that time, cinema attendance has continued to
decline, with market attendance now at approximately 600,000 patrons per year due to
aging facilities and the establishment of contemporary cinemas in neighboring areas.
In addition, the Criterion 6, with 1,526 seats, has closed, the AMC 7 and AMC
Broadway 4 have both reduced their auditoriums by 1,945 seats, and the Laemmle
Monica 4 is in the process of reducing its seat count by 719 seats. The only new
downtown cinema is the Arclight at Santa Monica Place, which was approved by the
City Council on April 22, 2014 (Attachment J), and recently opened with 1,500 stadium
seats; however, with other cinema closures and seat reductions there has been a net
loss of 2,690 seats (47%) relative to downtown’s seat count of approximately 5,700 for
over 20 years.
At about the same time that the PUTF was conducting its work, another Council-
appointed group, the Downtown Parking Task Force (DPTF), was developin g a strategic
parking plan for Santa Monica’s downtown. The task force’s recommendations included
the demolition and replacement of Parking Structures 1, 3 and 6. When the work of
both Council-appointed groups was completed, many community members identified
the potential confluence of the parking plan and the cinema plan. Those discussions
eventually focused on the opportunity to demolish Parking Structure 3 on Fourth Street
and replace it with a contemporary cinema. Structure 3 was identified as a pri me
opportunity because of its relatively central location within the downtown. Community
members advocating for the opportunity also recognized that cinemas generally operate
as loss leaders within shopping malls, much like department stores. Cinemas and
department stores are essentially underwritten by mall owners because they draw foot
traffic that supports the other shops and restaurants within the center. Santa Monica’s
downtown contains only one shopping mall, Santa Monica Place, and there was
concern about focusing too many cinema seats at one location, particularly a location at
a gateway edge of downtown. As a result, community members expressed a desire for
the City to use its land resources to support cinema development in order to benefit the
5 of 24
diversity of uses downtown and provide the broader community with a breadth and
depth of movie-going options throughout the downtown.
Council agreed with the approach and on November 13, 2007 (Attachment F),
authorized the solicitation of proposals to redevelop the City-owned site of Parking
Structure No. 3 into a cinema. On September 8, 2009 (Attachment H), Council
authorized staff to enter into exclusive negotiations with AMC Entertainment Inc., in
partnership with Metropolitan Pacific Capital Inc., (AMC Development Team) to develop
and operate a multiplex cinema on the site. At that meeting, Council directed staff to
move forward with the cinema proposal without providing parking on the site, in
accordance with the findings in the Downtown Walker Parking Study, as detailed further
in the ‘Downtown Parking Program’ section of this staff report below. During the
exclusive negotiating period with the AMC Development Team, a draft EIR was
prepared and publicly circulated in October 2012.
The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with the AMC Development Team expired
on November 26, 2012, and AMC informed staff that the development team would not
seek an extension to continue exclusive negotiations due to the financial infeasibility of
the proposed project. On December 11, 2012 (Attachment I), Council directed staff to
negotiate in the open market with prospective cinema exhibitors and developers. At its
April 22, 2014, meeting (Attachment K), Council authorized staff to negotiate and enter
into an ENA with the Development Team of ArcLight Cinemas and Macerich (Applicant)
to develop and operate a contemporary multiplex cinema project on the site. The City
and Development Team have executed the ENA and are currently negotiating the
conceptual business terms for the project. During the term of the ENA, the applicant will
seek discretionary entitlements for the project that will be subject to review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); concurrently the City and
Development Team will finalize the business terms to the Disposition and Development
Agreement and Ground Lease Agreement.
Discussion
6 of 24
Because the proposed project is located on City land, Council has regulatory
responsibilities (as reflected in a potential Development Agreeme nt) and proprietary
responsibilities (as reflected in a potential Disposition and Development Agreement and
Ground Lease) related to the project, as discussed below.
Development Agreement
Development agreements are negotiated contracts between the City and an applicant
that specify the design parameters, development standards, and requirements of a
project. Development agreements provide some flexibility from the development
standards of the Zoning Code in return for some level of public benefit. A development
agreement is an alternative to the standard development approval process; in practice it
is similar to other public review processes where Council makes the final decision; with
the exception that Council has more discretion in imposing conditions and requirements
on the proposed project since development agreements are negotiated contracts and
adopted by ordinance. On October 13, 2015, Council explicitly enacted new policy
direction to de-emphasize discretion for Development Agreements, with clear and
specific parameters to be included in the future Downtown Specific Plan – and in fact
deferred consideration of most applications for Development Agreements until the DSP
was in place. However, this project was explicitly included for continued Council
consideration pending the DSP adoption, expected this June. Council direction as part
of the float-up review will provide initial direction to staff, and inform the applicant of
potential project-related issues in moving forward with the project design and
development agreement negotiation, with final approval taking place after the adoption
of the DSP.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the City-owned Downtown Parking Structure No. 3
(344 spaces) to redevelop the project site with an approximately 100,000 square-foot
multi-screen theater and retail/restaurant building (Arclight Santa Monica). The concept
includes up to 16 screens and 2,700 seats in 90,000 square feet of theater floor area.
Retail and restaurant uses are proposed within 10,000 square feet of ground floor
tenant spaces to be leased separately from the theater. The proposal is consistent with
7 of 24
the Council-adopted criteria for the development of a state -of-the-art cinema at the site,
including the preservation or modest increase in the total number of cinema seats that
have historically existed in the Downtown.
The original design proposed for this project is shown in the rendering below, one that
was sharply critiqued by the Planning Commission at its Float Up – and a new design
responsive to those concerns is detailed below. Both designs called for four stories that
measures approximately 84 feet in height, not including parapets and roof
appurtenances. Pedestrian access to the theater would be provided on the ground floor
from Fourth Street where patrons will access escalators and a grand staircase to the
third floor theater lobby and associated theater services (i.e. restaurant, lounge,
admission to auditoriums). The theater entrance and ground floor retail/restaurant lease
spaces are preliminarily designed with a glass façade that allows transparency into the
retail/restaurant uses as well as into the theater lobby and restaurant/lounge area on the
third floor. The structure is a zero lot line design so no landsca ping is proposed.
Arclight 4th Street Cinema: Original Rendering
8 of 24
The development of cinemas in the Downtown District was a key strategy in the
revitalization of the downtown and its evolution as a retail, dining, and entertainment
destination. The development of new theaters in neighboring jurisdictions over the past
15 years that offer more choices and modern cinema amenities have caused many
residents to leave Santa Monica for their entertainment needs. The current upgrades to
the existing AMC and Laemmle theaters will provide some modernized amenities and
technologies to compete with the surrounding cinema market, but the scope of the
improvements are limited due to site and building constraints. Additionally, the
upgrades are occurring at the cost of a significant reduction in the number of seats.
Features of the proposed concept include state-of-the-art amenities including at least
one Premium Large Screen Format auditorium (i.e. IMAX-style auditorium) with
premium immersive sound, stadium seating, 3D format technology, reserved seating,
hearing loop technology, and digital projection and sound; a cinema cafe and lounge
that can be accessed by the general public as well as theater patrons; enhanced food
and beverage service with specialized food areas; and additional ground-floor
commercial space fronting Fourth Street for unaffiliated retail or restaurant uses.
Community Benefits
As part of the entitlement process, a fiscal impact analysis will be prepared to estimate
potential project generated revenue to the City as well as any additional municipal
service costs. Additionally, a value enhancement analysis on the project will be
conducted based on a project proforma to study the effects of the cost of development
on the residual land value to determine the potential for community benefits.
Potential community benefits preliminarily identified by City staff include the following
points that will be included in discussions with the applicant once the development
agreement negotiations have commenced:
Require some auditoriums to be available for use by community groups during
certain day and/or at non-peak attendance times;
9 of 24
Availability of screens for use during the American Film Market (AFM) or other
film markets or festivals that may be hosted in Santa Monica;
Provide public art at the project site (1318-1320 Fourth Street);
Establish and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan in
excess of the baseline TDM requirements to reduce the number of vehicle trips
associated with the project and to encourage alternative forms of transportation
to and from the site for both employees and patrons;
LEED v4 Platinum certification;
Local hiring provisions for theater and concessions.
Community benefits that support transportation that may be considered include, but are
not limited to:
Additional Contributions to the Transportation Impact fee fund to support
pedestrian enhancements in the Downtown.
Pedestrian-oriented, placemaking public art to be located on the site, or
participation in combining public arts fees contributions with other development
projects to provide a signature piece of art in the immediate vicinity
Build or fund an enhanced crosswalk.
Based on feedback from the Planning Commission, Council, and the community, staff
will identify additional community benefits for potential implementation in conjunction
with the proposed development during development agreement negotiations.
Downtown Parking Program
On May 9, 2006, Council adopted the Downtown Parking Program (Program), which
was developed by the Downtown Parking Task Force to evaluate and improve parking
resources in the Downtown. The Program set forth a goal to add 1,712 net new public
parking spaces to the Downtown parking supply through the seismic retrofitting of two
nine-story parking structures, the demolition and reconstruction of three five-story
parking structures, and the addition of up to two new parking structures. The Program
recommended that occupancies and projected demand should be evaluated prior to the
10 of 24
construction of any new parking facilities Downtown. As a result, the City hired Walker
Parking consultant in 2007 to evaluate the current parking demands, anticipated parking
demands, and financing options to better manage Downtown parking resources.
The Downtown Walker Parking Study (Study) was endorsed by Council on September
8, 2009 (Attachment G). The Study concluded that the construction of new parking
structures is not necessary to achieve the increase of 1,712 spaces sought by the
Program, provided that Parking Structure Nos. 1 and 6 are reconstructed and other
recommendations such as improved pricing strategies and enhanced operational,
technological and informational strategies are implemented. However, the Study goes
on to state that potential commercial redevelopment of the Parking Structure 3 site
could negatively impact the Downtown supply of parking in two ways, by increasing the
demand for parking in the area and eliminating several hundred parking spaces at the
same time. Updated parking analyses will be conducted as part of this project’s review
to determine existing utilization rates of parking in the downtown, anticipated parking
demand for a new cinema use at this location, and to develop recommendations based
on its findings.
The Study did not foresee nor account for the significant reduction in cinema seats in
the Downtown District. However, the Study was cited and discussed by Council on
September 8, 2009 (Attachment H), when authorization was given to enter into
exclusive negotiations with AMC to develop a movie theater on the site of Parking
Structure No. 3 without providing any on-site parking. Council direction was based on
the following:
With the implementation of the Walker Parking Study (2009) recommendations,
there will be sufficient parking availability in the Downtown to support the
demolition of Parking Structure #3 and its replacement with a movie theater;
Providing parking on-site would require a much taller structure than what is
currently proposed;
11 of 24
Providing parking on the site would interfere with the pedestrian -oriented design
of the proposed cinema;
Providing parking on the site would discourage the pedestrian activity that occurs
when significant destinations and primary parking resources are not co -located.
One of the key measures identified in the Study to increase parking supply was
completed in 2013 in the reconstruction of Parking Structure No. 6, which increased its
capacity from 345 spaces to 744 spaces (i.e. 399 parking space increase). At this time,
the timing of the reconstruction of Parking Structure #1 is uncertain; however the
potential development at Arizona Avenue and Fourth Street may provide public parking
spaces as a community benefit that will effectively replace the additional public pa rking
spaces contemplated in the Walker Parking Study as part of the reconstruction of
Parking Structure No. 1.
As part of the ongoing review of parking needs and demand in the Downtown, the City
has contracted with two traffic consultants (SP+ Municipal Services and
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates) to prepare a study to update and augment the
Walker Parking Study findings. The scope of the new study include s an updated
assessment of current inventory and utilization of all parking within the Downto wn
(public and private), an analysis of the anticipated parking demand for the proposed
development, an estimation of potential parking demand of new developments expected
in Downtown, and offering of recommendations and strategies to improve parking
operations throughout the entire Downtown district. The findings and recommendations
of these studies will be used to supplement technical data for the theater project’s EIR,
and in staff’s analysis of the project and subsequent recommendation to the Planning
Commission and Council as part of the Development Agreement review process.
Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plan, & General Plan Consistency
Bayside District Specific Plan & 1988 Zoning Ordinance
Until such time as the draft Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) is adopted, Interim
Ordinance No. 2487 (CCS) provides that the Bayside District Specific Plan and
12 of 24
development standards of the 1988 Zoning Ordinance are applicable to development in
the Downtown. Movie theaters are a permitted use in the BSC-2 zoning district. The
maximum height permitted is 56’-0” (four stories) with a maximum allowable Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of 3.0. The project’s proposed 84’-00” building height and approximate 3.4
FAR do not comply with the respective development standards of the applicable
Bayside District Specific Plan and 1988 Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the massing
of the proposed structure does not comply with zoning code development standards
addressing building stepbacks and building volume envelope requirements above 30’-0”
in height. More specifically, Bayside Commercial District standards (SMMC Section
9.04.08.15.060) require that new buildings be stepped back at a 36.9 degree angle
measured from the horizontal above 30 feet in height. Additional Project Design and
Development Standards (SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.040) in the Zoning Code establish
building volume envelope requirements that require a 9’-0” average setback for any
portion of a structure between 31’-0” and 35’-0” in height and an 18’-0” average setback
between 46’-0” and 56’-0” in height.
Due to the unique building requirements for movie theater development, a larger
building volume envelope is a typical feature of its design. By eliminating the
requirement for upper level building stepbacks above 30’-0” and allowing the additional
building height, the building volume necessary for auditoriums with state -of-the-art
movie screens and stadium-style seating can be achieved; otherwise, some theater
auditoriums would have to be placed below grade. While the proposal wil l require
modification to the development standards outlined above pertaining to building volume
and upper level stepbacks, the project will comply with other Bayside Commercial
District and general project design and development standards, including those that
address the building’s relationship to street frontage and require ground floor levels to
be designed with pedestrian orientation. Furthermore, the draft Downtown Specific Plan
(DSP) is contemplating an 84-foot height limit for a Tier 3 project at this site, which was
authorized by Council for use in studying the upper height limits for the DSP EIR.
13 of 24
Consistent with the City’s formal design review process, the Architectural Review Board
will be required to review and approve the final building design, materials, colors, and
signage for the project.
Consistency with the Draft Downtown Specific Plan
The project is located within the City’s Downtown Core where the draft DSP envisions
enhanced public spaces and improved pedestrian accessibility. Project design
considerations should occur in consultation with the designers of the project at Arizona
Avenue and Fourth and Fifth Streets to ensure optimal pedestrian access between the
two projects, and to provide a seamless transition at this vital corner of the Downtown.
This project should provide an enhanced pedestrian relationship to the street, the
corner, and the City plaza and public spaces across the street. These types of
enhancements support the pedestrian oriented vision of the draft DSP and could include
features such as enhanced street crossings, additional pedestrian storage space, and
on-site bicycle parking. In particular, an enhanced crosswalk at the same level of
design as the crosswalk between Tongva Park and City Hall, or the design fo r the new
crosswalk between Santa Monica Place and Sears should be considered. In
accordance with the current draft of the proposed DSP, the project should be set back
by three feet along the 4th Street frontage for a total width of 15 feet, and provide
convenient short-term bicycle parking nearby the building’s main entrance.
Downtown Core District Land Use Designation & Bayside Specific Plan
The subject property is located in the Downtown Core District of the adopted General
Plan Land Use Element. Policies in this District are geared primarily toward reinforcing
the Downtown as the focus of the City, encouraging the concentration of land uses and
activities which create activity in both the daytime and evening hours.
The proposed movie theater and retail/restaurant building is consistent with Land Use
Policy 1.3.3 which encourages the construction of major entertainment or cultural uses
Downtown and with Bayside Specific Plan Policies 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 which support retail
and other complementary uses on or near the Third Street Promenade as necessary to
14 of 24
maintain a vibrant downtown environment and provide for the development of uses
necessary to maintain the economic viability of the Bayside District, including
entertainment facilities such as theaters.
Consistency with the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE)
The LUCE Downtown District land use designation supports the area as a thriving,
mixed-use urban environment for people to live, work, be entertained and be culturally
enriched. The Downtown District designation capitalizes on Downtown being the
terminus of the Expo Light Rail with a station planned for Fourth Street and Colorado
Avenue, located within walking distance of the subject property.
The LUCE also encourages development that will capitalize on Downtown as an already
transit rich environment, in particular the presence of major bus routes on Fourth Street.
As well, the LUCE vision for the Downtown District addresses the provision of parking:
“A parking management approach for the Downtown, the Expo Light Rail
station and the Civic Center areas, and potentially the Beach and Oceanside
Districts utilizes a shared pool of parking resources, creating a true shared
parking district, which balances variable parking demand and economic
return. This will require an optimal mix of investment in new parking,
coordinated management of existing parking, access improvements and
transit augmentation.”
With respect to land uses, Downtown District Policy D7.1 encourages a broad mix of
uses that create dynamic activity in both the daytime and evening hours including retail,
hotels, office, high-density residential, entertainment and cultural uses in the Downtown.
Downtown District Policy D1.2 encourages the construction of new or rehabilitated
movie theaters in the Downtown to assure that these entertainment venues are
competitive in the marketplace.
15 of 24
Finally, the Downtown District’s Land Use Parameter Policy D8.3 states that buildings
should be constructed with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to
create visual interest along the street. The proposed building will create a new
entertainment venue on Fourth Street, and provide a use that will generate activity and
enhance the pedestrian environment, in particular during the evening hours.
Planning Commission Float-Up Review
The Planning Commission conducted a float-up review of the project on August 19,
2015. The project was not viewed favorably by the Planning Commission primarily due
to three issues (parking, building height/mass, passageway through alley). Ultimately,
the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to Council that negotiations
proceed with attention to a number of items related to parking, building design,
community benefits, and neighborhood compatibility. A detailed summary of Planning
Commission comments is provided in Attachment A.
Height and Design Considerations
As a result of the Planning Commission’s comments, the Development Team has
reviewed design alternatives reducing the height and overall massing of the building.
One option to reduce the height significantly is to excavate approximately 30 feet below
grade. Doing so would add several million dollars to the tight project budget and cause
it to become economically infeasible. The City’s economic consultant concurs with the
conclusion. Staff also notes that AMC employed a similar approach to a project that
they ultimately determined to be infeasible.
A second option for reducing the height is to significantly reduce the number o f seats
and auditoriums in the cinema. However, a reduced -sized project presents a series of
challenges for the Development Team and for the City. For the Development Team, it
creates a project that could struggle operationally since cinema complexes can not
compete effectively for either film or audience without a critical mass of screens and
seats. (Staff notes that the proposed cinema and the cinema at Santa Monica Place
would operate as one from a market standpoint and are expected to be large enough to
16 of 24
allow ArcLight to show virtually every current film across its large number of screens.)
For the City, a reduced-size cinema means that Downtown would be unable to serve
the full movie-going needs of Santa Monica, including the ability to see most, if not all,
films in current release in a variety of seating formats (both stadium seating and sloping
auditoriums with wide seats.) It could also affect the inclusion of a premium large -
format (IMAX-style) auditorium, which is an important feature for many Santa Monica
movie-goers. (See the discussion below of the Santa Monica movie -going market.)
While either scenario for reducing the height of the cinema to 56 feet has significant
negative implications for the feasibility of the project, in response to Planning
Commission concerns, the Development Team has considered concepts intended to
reduce the perceived building massing by creating an upper-level set-back of the top-
floor auditoriums, as well as incorporating additional architectural elements to address
the building volume. At this point, the alternative design concept is largely schematic,
as shown in the rendering below. Specific colors and materials have not yet been
identified, but the concept does provide a general idea of an alternative direction for the
project design.
The alternative design maintains the overall 84-foot height while scaling back elements
of the building massing at the upper levels, where permitting, to maintain a project
objective of providing large screen format auditoriums. The alternative design replaces
the very modern, highly visible design with a more traditional, classic concept that is
more compatible with the existing context along Fourth Street in terms of both design
and massing, which were expressed as significant concerns by the Planning
Commission. The new design reinforces compatibility with the immediate area in how it
references and relates to adjacent structures more effectively than the previous design,
and achieves more consistency in street wall height. Staff and the Development Team
seek Council feedback on the alternative design direction illustrated below.
17 of 24
Arclight 4th Street Cinema: Alternative Design Concept
Disposition and Development Agreement
Disposition and development agreements (DDAs) are negotiated contracts between the
City and a developer that specify and govern the City’s proprietary interests in the
development of City-owned property. A DDA sets forth the terms of the development of
a property and is considered following Council’s approval of a project’s entitlements and
development agreement. An approved DDA remains in place while a developer is
pursuing building permits and construction financing and establishes a developer’s
performance requirements that must be met in order to execute a ground lease
agreement, which controls the use of the property and project and stipulates the
business terms and obligations such as the amount of ground rent, the term of the
ground lease, permitted uses and assignment, and other project requireme nts.
Project Financing and Feasibility
18 of 24
To supporting the City in its proprietary capacity, consultants with expertise in public -
private partnerships and cinema development and operations have reviewed the
proposed project to understand it development and operational feasibility. The following
are some of the key findings as the conceptual stage of the project.
The estimated cost of the structure, exclusive of furniture, fixtures and equipment
(FF&E) and tenant improvements to the retail space, is est imated at $40 million to $42
million, excluding City development impact fees. Traditionally, cinema complexes are
built on development-ready pads as single-story projects on large contiguous parcels.
However, due to the constrained site of the proposed cinema project and the need to
have a sufficient number of seats and screens to be operationally and economically
feasible, the project must be built as a multi-level cinema. The primary factor
contributing to the project’s cost is the building’s inefficien cies created by the site
conditions and constraints.
The construction of a multi-level cinema requires, among other things:
(1) Significant additional costs for duplication of concession, restroom facilities,
and internal circulation on each level;
(2) Construction of expensive vertical transportation systems (i.e. elevators,
escalators) normally not needed within a cinema complex; and
(3) The general increase in construction cost associated with multi-story
buildings.
Another major and atypical source of additional cost is the substantial cost of demolition
of the existing parking structure and preparation of the site, as most cinema projects
occur within larger buildings such as a mall or on “development -ready” pads.
The inefficiency of the multilevel cinema also significantly impacts the costs of FF&E
and operations because of the inherent duplication of many facilities on multiple levels.
While a single-level theater requires essentially one bank of restrooms and one set of
concession stands, a multilevel theater requires them for each level as well as
additional ushers and circulation personnel. This adds materially to both labor and
19 of 24
utility costs. Additionally, because the proposed cinema will be in a free standing
building and not within a shopping center or other developer-owned complex, the stand-
alone cinema has to cover the majority of the associated common area maintenance
expenses. These additional and non-typical costs include maintenance of exterior
walls, miscellaneous cleaning, and restoration charges not typically borne by cinema
operators.
Demolition of the parking structure and construction of the mixed -use cinema is
estimated to cost between $40 million and $42 million. With the inclusion of
development impact fees, including a parking in-lieu payment, the total project cost rises
to $57 million to $59 million. The City’s economic consultant has estimated that a total
project of approximately $40 million is just minimally economically feasible (Attachment
O). However, with the addition of development impact and parking in-lieu fees, the
project quickly becomes infeasible. If Council authorizes staff to continue negotiations,
one option is to give the developer a credit against development impact fees for the cost
of demolishing the existing public improvements, in order to help make the project
feasible.
Conceptual Business Terms
Staff from Economic Development and the City Attorney’s Office, with the assistance of
economic development and cinema consultants, have been conductin g a high-level
evaluation of the economics of the project. A critical issue in the evaluation is the market
reality that a cinema is generally unable to pay full market rent due to the inherently high
cost of constructing and operating a multi-level, mixed-use cinema project. The City’s
consultant evaluated the project’s proforma and has preliminary opined that the
economics of the project would not support a traditional market -rate land rent. Staff
seeks Council’s direction on the proposed conceptual business terms to assist staff in
further negotiations as the project’s design is refined and the entitlement process
continues, if authorized.
The project’s scope and conceptual business terms reflect the broad goals for
Downtown cinema revitalization which includes a contemporary multi-screen cinema
20 of 24
complex that provides such amenities as stadium seating, at least one large screen
format (IMAX-style) auditorium, state-of-the-art technology and limited in-theater food
and beverage sales. If Council authorizes staff to proceed with further negotiations of
the DDA and Ground Lease Agreement, staff will return to Council with a detailed
financial evaluation and recommendation of business terms for consideration as part of
the DDA and Ground Lease. The conceptual business topics discussed to date for the
project are described below and are defined further in Attachment N.
Staff and the Development Team are in general agreement regarding many of the
conceptual business topics, including specific terms involving th e base rent formula,
terms of the ground lease, cinema participation formula, changes in use, and
requirements upon closing. However, staff and the Development Team have been
unable to agree on the term of a cinema operating covenant and whether the retai l
space should include a participation formula. With respect to the areas of agreement,
staff recommends a ground lease with a base term of 35 years with four, five -year
option periods for a total ground lease term of 55 years. In addition, staff recomme nds
a base ground rent of $100,000 annually, plus additional rent if the cost of the project
that is less than a pre-specified amount. The rent payment would adjust annually every
five years by ten percent beginning on the sixth year of the lease. The City would
receive percentage rent if attendance exceeds one million tickets sold annually and an
additional rent for every ticket sold in excess of 1.25 million annually. The Development
Team could not change the primary use from cinema to an alternative use without
presenting compelling evidence that a cinema use is no longer financially feasible in the
space. If a new use is proposed, the ground rent would be adjusted to reflect the new
use. Finally, once the ground lease was executed, the Development Team would be
required to proceed with the project, other than for defined, unforeseen site conditions.
Staff also recommends that any change in use would trigger a revaluation of rent with
the understanding that no use would be allowed other than as an ArcLight Cinema
during the cinema operating covenant period and any change in use contemplated after
the cinema operating covenant period expires would be subject to the condition that
21 of 24
Macerich demonstrate compelling evidence that cinema use is no longer feasible. While
details have yet to be fully negotiated, the Development Team is in general agreement.
There are two primary areas of disagreement as to the conceptual business terms.
The first area of disagreement relates to the term of the cinema operating period.
Staff recommends a 15-year operating covenant period for the use of the cinema space
as an ArcLight Cinema. ArcLight has countered with a 10-year operating period.
The second area is disagreement relates to whether Macerich should pay percentage
rent for the retail space after Macerich has achieved a fair return on capital. Staff
recommends additional rent to the City in the event the retail space achieves a certain
level of success. Macerich does not support the concept of percentage rent. Staff
seeks Council direction to continue to negotiate the two open issues.
Cinema Market Evaluation
Staff engaged Alan D. Kotin and Associates (ADK) and Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS) to complete a market evaluation of the proposed cinema (see
Attachment P.) While it is atypical for the City to commission a market evaluation of a
proposed development, the study was completed because the City is the landowner and
can benefit from understanding whether demand exists for a use proposed for valuable
City property. A market study can also help identify the locations of the likely users of
the cinema. The study prepared by ADK and EPS concludes that there is sufficient
market demand to support the proposed cinema, based on a market area that is
primarily composed of Santa Monica and the immediately adjacent areas.
Understanding the primary market area helps answer the question of whether the
cinema would need to be a regional draw in order to be successful. The study finds that
the cinema can be successful drawing upon the local market. The conclusion is
understandable from an intuitive standpoint as well, given that ArcLight cinemas serve
the different parts of the region, including the San Fernando Valley / Sherman Oaks,
Central Los Angeles / Hollywood, San Gabriel Valley / Pasadena, Southwest Los
Angeles / Culver City, and South Bay / El Segundo. The study also confirms that even
with the opening of the ArcLight at Santa Monica Place, the local market is underserved
22 of 24
by cinemas and will continue to be underserved unless a cinema of the approximate
size proposed in the project is built. Until then, movie-goers in Santa Monica will have
to leave Santa Monica to see a full range of films in a contemporary setting.
Public Outreach & Community Meeting
A community meeting was held for the project on May 28, 2015, at the Santa Monica
Main Library. The only attendee present at the meeting outside of the development
team and City staff was a representative from Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
Environmental Analysis
CEQA review is not required for the purpose of a preliminary discussion of the feasibility
of a potential project and the appropriateness and potential community benefits of a
Development Agreement for the site (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15262).
Environmental factors will be considered and analysis will be completed and circulated
for public review, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, prior to consideration of the
formal Development Agreement application by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission’s recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the
applicant’s proposal and any potential public benefits and project requirements will help
inform Council’s discussion and direction regarding the Development Agreement review
and negotiation process for the development of a new multi -screen movie theater and
retail/restaurant building at 1318-1320 Fourth Street. Direction regarding the
conceptual business terms will assist staff in negotiating the Disposition and
Development Agreement.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Council could consider the following with
respect to the project:
23 of 24
Continue discussion with the applicant regarding additional project options
Do not initiative DA negotiations and conclude ENA negotiations.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There are no immediate financial or budget impacts associated with the actions
recommended in this report.
Prepared By: Ariel Socarras, Associate Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission August 19, 2015, Float-Up Comments
B. Architectural Review Board June 15, 2015, Float-Up Comments
C. Public Correspondence
D. 6/10/03 City Council Review of Promenade Uses Task Force Recommendations
E. 9/9/03 City Council Study Session Report on Proposed Work Plan for
Implementation of Promenade Uses Task Force Recommendations
F. 11/13/07 City Council Report to Authorize Solicitation of Proposals to Redevelop
the Site of Parking Structure 3
G. 9/8/09 City Council Report to Implement Walker Parking Study
H. 9/8/09 City Council Report to Enter Into Negotiations with AMC
24 of 24
I. 12/11/12 City Council Report Authorizing Staff to NEgotiate for Cinema
Development at Site of Parking Structure 3
J. 4/22/14 City Council Report Approving Arclight at Santa Monica Place
K. 4/22/14 City Council Report Authorizing ENA with Arclight and Marcerich for
Theater Development at Site of Parking Structure 3
L. Walker Parking Study, June 24, 2009 (Downtown Parking Program Update)
M. Arclight Rendering
N. Conceptual Business Terms
O. Economic Feasibility Analysis
P. Cinema Market Study
Q. Written Comments
R. Powerpoint - 1
S. Powerpoint - 2
Attachment A
Summary of August 19, 2015, Planning Commission Float-Up Review
The Planning Commission conducted a float-up review of the project on August 19,
2015. The project was not viewed favorably by the Planning Commission primarily due
to three issues (parking, building height/mass, passageway through alley). Ultimately,
the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to City Council that
authorization to proceed with negotiations should occur with attention to the following
items:
The project appears too big and too tall for the project move forward; The height,
mass, and bulk of the building is too large for, and is not compatible with, the
scale of Fourth Street;
The size, height, and scale of the building need to be reduced;
The parking study must look at the circulation and accessibility of parking in the
Downtown in addition to determining that there are a sufficient number of parking
spaces to serve the demand;
A passageway through the site should be provided to connect the Promenad e to
Fourth Street;
The building height should be guided by compatibility with the historic fabric of
Fourth Street; and
City Council’s decision should be guided by compatibility with existing historic
fabric of Fourth Street.
Generally, the Planning Commission expressed that the project appeared incompatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, and that the development team was unresponsive
to the suggestions raised. In addition to the adopted motion, the Planning Commission
expressed concerns related to the following:
There is a significant shortfall in parking as a result of the removal of Parking
Structure #3 and the lack of any on-site parking associated with the proposal.
The availability of the potential sources to cover the shortfall are not direc tly tied
to the opening of the theater and should be better coordinated;
Strong TDM measures should be included to reduce the overall vehicular and
parking demand of the uses;
Consideration should be given to lowering a portion of the building below grade
to accommodate theater auditorium space and ultimately reduce the overall
height of the building;
A reduction in the number of theater auditoriums and/or number of seats should
be considered;
The extension of a passageway could connect to an enhanced mid -block
crosswalk on Fourth Street to connect to the potential development at Arizona
Ave./5th Street;
The secondary facades should be more articulated, and special attention should
be given to the relationship with the alley;
The existing public parking structure includes a trash bin room that is used by the
commercial tenants in the area. The new development should provide a
replacement trash bin room so bins are not stored in the alley; and
The ability to achieve LEED Platinum certification should be evaluated.
Twelve of the 14 members of the public who spoke at the float -up meeting were in
support of the project and the quality movie -going experience that Arclight would bring
to Downtown Santa Monica. The two speakers in opposition expressed concern s about
the removal of public parking and the increased parking demand that would result from
the proposed uses.
Additionally, staff received 19 emails (Attachment D) in response to the public
notification for the August 19, 2015, Planning Commission mee ting. Fifteen of the
emails were in opposition to the project and concerns were primarily focused on the
proposal to remove public parking and construct a new commercial development with
no on-site parking. Additional correspondence received in favor of the request state
that the proposed use is a needed and welcomed upgrade to the Downtown area.
Attachment B
Summary of June 15, 2015, Architectural Review Board Float-Up Review
The project was presented as a ‘float-up’ to the ARB on June 15, 2015, where it was
generally viewed favorably by the Board. T he following comments were received from
the Board members at the meeting:
Design consideration should be given to create more of a stepback effect along
the upper levels of the building;
The Krion material proposed for the building exterior may produce an undesirable
glare;
The Krion material may present difficulties in maintenance and cleaning;
The visual permeability of the building should be revisited;
The project’s relationship to the street and its appearance looking down Fourth
Street should be examined, including consideration of context with pending
nearby development such as The Plaza at Santa Monica ;
A photovoltaic green roof should be considered;
The theater could possibly succeed without a retail component, avoiding potential
tenant vacancies at the ground level and allowing the theater to benefit from the
ground floor transparency;
More differentiation along the side and rear elevations should be provided. More
specifically, the alley elevation is large, flat, and expansive. Each of the
elevations should be articulated and responsive to the views exposed on each
side and the potential shadows cast on the level surfaces;
The Planning Commissioner representative at the meeting stated that the alley should
not be ruled out as an entry, and that a pedestrian access from the alley to Fourth
Street is important to help invigorate Fourth Street via an easily accessible pedestrian
connection from the Promenade. Concerns about the mass and shape of the building
were also presented. The Commissioner expressed concerns about the mass and form
of the building and commented that the design is obtrusive and conceptually not
developed enough to achieve the desired scale, design, and pedestrian accessibility.
Attachment L
Conceptual Business Terms
Provision Term
Ground Lease Term 35 year base term with four, five year
options totaling 55 years.
Ground Lease Payment Base ground rent of $25,000 annually
during the estimated two years of
construction. Upon completion of the
project a base ground rent payment of
$100,000 plus 3.5 percent of the amount
of the cost of the project that is less than
$40 million. The rent payment will adjust
annually every five years by ten percent
beginning in the sixth year of the lease
term.
Percentage Rent The City will have a percentage rent
condition for the cinema use in which the
City will receive one dollar for each ticket
sold if attendance is greater than one
million to 1.25 million tickets sold annually
and two dollars for every ticket sold in
excess of 1.25 million. The City is seeking
a profit participation formula for the retail
use, the developer is not in agreement.
Operating Covenant A term of either 10 or 15 year Operating
Covenant Period to require the cinema use
has not yet been agreed upon.
Attachment F
Preliminary Estimated Project Economic Feasibility
Residual Land Value (RLV) Analysis for the Proposed Project
The proposed cinema project is proceeding as a multi-level negotiation involving the City, the
Developer (Macerich) and the Exhibitor (ArcLight). Each has a unique financial position that is
relevant to estimating a reasonable RLV for the site, if developed as currently proposed. The role
of each of these three entities is briefly described below with a summary of the key Project
financial parameters summarized in Exhibit 1.
The City of Santa Monica: As the Master Lessor, the City will continue to own the site and
will collect ground lease payments as specified below.
The Developer (Macerich): Macerich will finance the development of the Proposed Cinema,
estimated at between $40 and $42 million and will also serve as the Master Lessee. In this
capacity it will manage the overall property, collect lease payments from the Exhibitor and
retail tenants, and be responsible for ground lease payments to the City, specified under the
current deal terms at $100,000 per year for a 55-year term. The development costs exclude
city permits and fees, which if fully charged would equal about $18.8 million (including
parking fees estimated at over $14 million).
The Exhibitor (ArcLight): ArcLight will operate the cinema portion of the project and will
responsible for all business expenses associated with movie exhibition and marketing as well
as lease payments and 89 percent of property taxes. Under the current deal structure,
Arclight’s lease payment to Macerich is roughly equal to 7 percent of total development costs
(excluding cinema furniture, fixtures, and equipment such as seats, screens, projection
technology, and concession equipment). Arclight will also oversee the development process.
Exhibit 1 Key Financial Assumptions for Proposed Project (4th St. Cinema Complex)
Category
Low High
Development Costs (excludes City fees and parking)1 $40,000,000 $42,000,000
Amount Allocated to Cinema 89%$35,600,000 $37,380,000
Amount Allocated to Retail 11%$4,400,000 $4,620,000
Lease Payment to Developer
Cinema Portion 7.0%of allocated costs2 $2,358,545 $2,483,145
Retail Portion3 $6.00 / sqft. / month $792,000 $792,000
Total $3,150,545 $3,275,145
Annual Property Tax 1.22%of AV (Table A-5)$793,133 $823,535
Annual Ground Rent (To City)$100,000 $100,000
Term of Lease
Developer (Lessee)55 55
Cinema Operator 35 35
Avg. sales per sq. ft. for retail3 $1,250 / Year $13,750,000 $13,750,000
[2] Approximation as final number will be very slightly lower due to exclusion of certain cost from 7% rate.
[3] Retail market assumptions based on estimates from York Consulting Group LLC.
Assumption / Factor
[1] Excludes approximately $175,000 in City permits and $18.8 in impact fees, including $14.2 million in
parking fees (See Appendix A).
Amount
As noted above, the RLV calculation for the Proposed Project is based on the capitalized value of
the Developer’s annual land lease payment to the City and thus not directly tied to the financial
performance of the cinema or retail. However, the Developer’s annual lease payment to the City
has been negotiated in part with consideration to the projected sub-lessee rent received by the
Cinema complex tenants (i.e. ArcLight and retail). Consequently, the financial performance of
the cinema and retail factor indirectly into the RLV for the site.
While the projected rents from the retail component of the Project can be e stimated from
prevailing market rates at nearby establishments, the cinema is less straight-forward.
Consequently, this analysis incorporates a cash-flow pro forma model that simulates the financial
performance of the cinema operator based on known Project parameters and additional analysis.
The projected investment and annual cash flow for the proposed 12 screen, 2,600 seats Fourth
St. cinema is illustrated in Exhibit 2 and further described below:
Annual Attendance: The “high” and “low” market attendance estimate are based on the
findings from the Santa Monica Cinema Market Study prepared by EPS and ADKA to inform
the City’s consideration of the Proposed Project.
Operator Start-up Costs: These include the initial investment by ArcLight to equip and
prepare the movie theater complex for operation, including furniture, fixtures and equipment
as well as initial marketing expenses. The estimates are based on data provided by Arclight
and validated through other sources.
Annual (stabilized) Operating Revenues: Operating revenues are generated primarily by
ticket sales (52 percent) and concessions (49 percent).
Costs of Goods Sold: These include fees and royalties paid to film distributors as well as
non-labor food and beverage expenses.
Annual Operating Cost: These include all other operating costs, including labor, utilities,
and advertising.
Annual Occupancy Costs: These primarily consist of ArcLight lease payments to Macerich
as well as property taxes.
Net Operating Income and Return on Investment: The NOI calculation subtracts “cost
of goods” and Annual Occupancy Costs from the “Annual Operating Revenue”. “Return on
Investment”, in turn, divides annual NOI by the “Operator Start-up Cost”. ArcLight has
indicated that an investment of this nature would require an annual return of in the range of
20 to 30 percent on its initial occupancy related investments. The “low” and “high” range
estimates shown in Exhibit 2 roughly correspond to this range.
Exhibit 2 Cash-Flow Pro Forma for Proposed Project (4th St. Cinema Complex)
Return thresholds for mainstream movie exhibitors that should be considered adequate to entice
investment are difficult to verify given the highly proprietary nature of the industry. However,
the highly competitive and volatile nature of the industry, as well as the single use nature of the
underlying assets (including building and equipment) implies a level of investment risk that is
likely to require returns that are well above normal yields in real estate and related sectors (see
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study prepared by EPS and ADKA). Moreover, industry experts
report that a 25 percent return on costs represents a common “rule of thumb” expectation for
mainstream exhibitors.
Cash-Flow Item Low High
Annual Attendance 815,000 896,500
Operator Start-up Costs
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment2 $548,750 Avg. / screen $8,780,000 $8,780,000
Other Pre-opening Expenses3 (e.g. planning, marketing)$1,000,000 $1,000,000
Subtotal $9,780,000 $9,780,000
Annual (Stabilized) Operating Revenues
Admissions $13.5 Avg. ticket price $11,002,500 $12,102,750
Concessions and related sales 48%of ticket sales $5,281,200 $5,809,320
Subtotal $16,283,700 $17,912,070
Cost of Goods Sold
Film exhibition costs 55%of ticket sales $6,051,375 $6,656,513
Food and beverage costs 17%of F&B $897,804 $987,584
Subtotal $6,949,179 $7,644,097
Annual (stabilized) Operating Costs
Labor 12.5%of total Revenue $2,035,463 $2,239,009
Utilities 3.0%of total Revenue $488,511 $537,362
Advertising 3.0%of total Revenue $488,511 $537,362
Repairs and Maintenance 1.5%of total Revenue $244,256 $268,681
Other / Miscellaneous 3.0%of total Revenue $488,511 $537,362
Liability Insurance 1.5%of total Revenue $244,256 $268,681
Subtotal 24.5%of total Revenue $3,989,507 $4,388,457
Annual Profit before Occupancy $5,345,015 $5,879,516
Occupancy Costs
Lease Payments 7.0%of allocated costs $2,483,145 $2,358,545
Property Tax 89%of prop. tax + FF&E $840,062 $813,004
CAM & Property Insurance $1.00 / sq. ft $89,000 $89,000
Subtotal $3,412,207 $3,260,549
Net Operating Income (excludes start-up costs)$1,932,808 $2,618,967
Return on Investment 20%27%
[3] Excludes any other non-traditional soft costs incurred in connection with the non-standard construction and
development pattern associated with this project.
Assumptions1
[1] Based on review of operating budget for publicly traded exhibitors, discussions with industry experts, and input from
ArcLight.
[2] Typically includes seating, screens, projection and sound technology as well concession equipment, restroom
fixtures, paint, carpet, art, and related design elements.
Amount (@ 2,700 Seats; 16 Screens)
Attachment N
Report
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Prepared for:
City of Santa Monica
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
With support from
Allan D. Kotin & Associates
January 19, 2016
EPS #154027
ADK&A
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Summary of Findings ........................................................................ 1
Project Overview and Context .................................................................................... 1
Summary Findings .................................................................................................... 3
2. Santa Monica Cinema Market Conditions and Trends ..................................................... 5
Trends in Movie Distribution ....................................................................................... 5
Santa Monica Cinema Trade Area Definition ................................................................. 6
Trade Area Competitive Supply and Positioning ............................................................. 8
Santa Monica Trade Area Market Demand Trends ........................................................ 11
Market Share Dynamics .......................................................................................... 14
3. Santa Monica Cinema Market Projections ................................................................... 17
Trade Area Demand Projections ................................................................................ 17
Market Share Scenarios........................................................................................... 18
4. Additional Economic Implications of a New Cinema ...................................................... 21
Local Spending Impacts .......................................................................................... 21
Other Economic Benefits to Downtown Santa Monica ................................................... 23
List of Tables and Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Proposed Development Program for Fourth Street Cinema Complex ..................... 2
Exhibit 2 U.S. and Canada Historic Box Office ................................................................ 5
Exhibit 3 U.S. and Canada Admissions and Admissions/Capita 2005-2014 .......................... 6
Exhibit 4 Primary and Secondary Trade Areas ................................................................ 7
Exhibit 5 Primary and Secondary Trade Areas Detail ....................................................... 8
Exhibit 6 Competitive Set ........................................................................................... 9
Exhibit 7 Competitive Positioning ............................................................................... 10
Exhibit 8 Santa Monica and West Los Angeles Box Office ............................................... 12
Exhibit 9 Santa Monica and West Los Angeles Box Office by Theater ............................... 12
Exhibit 10 Santa Monica and West Los Angeles: Seats and Admissions .............................. 13
Exhibit 11 Santa Monica and West Los Angeles: Utilization .............................................. 14
Exhibit 12 Change in Santa Monica Seat and Screen Share by Operator ............................ 15
Exhibit 13 Market Demand Assumptions ....................................................................... 17
Exhibit 14 Market Demand Estimate ............................................................................. 18
Exhibit 15 Santa Monica Estimated 2020 Admissions Scenarios ........................................ 19
Exhibit 16 Estimated “off-site” Spending by Patrons of Proposed 4th St. ArcLight Cinema ..... 22
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This Report evaluates the market support and impacts associated with a multi-screen cinema
complex in Downtown Santa Monica proposed for development on Fourth Street at the location
of the current Parking Structure 3. It has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS),
as a sub-consultant to and with support from Allan D. Kotin & Associates (ADK&A), to inform the
City of Santa Monica (Client) in its consideration of project entitlements and related approvals.
This market Report serves as a complement to a Value Enhancement Analysis (VEA) that is being
prepared by the same authors for presentation to the City under separate cover. The VEA
focuses on the financial performance of the entire Fourth Street cinema complex (both cinema
and a retail component, as described below), as well as its fiscal impact on the City’s General
Fund. While this market Report and the VEA are to be delivered under separate cover, both
analyses have been coordinated and incorporate findings from the other, as appropriately
referenced throughout.
Project Overview and Context
Consideration for a new, multi-screen cinema complex at the location of Parking Structure 3 on
Fourth Street was formally initiated in 2004, based in part on recommendations from the
Promenade Uses Task Force. The Task Force identified cinemas located near or along the Third
Street Promenade as playing a critical role in sustaining the Downtown’s evolution as a
successful retail, dining, and entertainment district. The Task Force also recognized that new
cinemas built in neighboring cities were capturing market share from Santa Monica by offering
movie-goers more screen options and better amenities. As documented in subsequent sections
of this Report, Santa Monica’s position in the cinema market has continued to erode since the
Task Force recommendations were made.
The City is currently engaged in exclusive negotiations with ArcLight Cinema (Exhibitor) and
Macerich (Developer) for the development of a 16-screen, 2,700-seat cinema in conjunction with
10,000 square feet of retail (see Exhibit 1). This project is proceeding on two parallel tracks,
one involving the negotiation of the ground lease and the other involving the securing of the
appropriate entitlements. The City’s direct interest in this project stem from the following:
1. The proposed project is on City-owned land. The proposed ArcLight cinema project
would be built on City-owned land that currently includes a 344-space parking garage.
Under the current proposal, the land would be leased to the Developer on a 55-year ground
lease, with the precise terms to be specified in a Disposition and Development Agreement
and Ground Lease negotiated with the City and ultimately approved by the City Council.
2. The proposed project is not allowed under existing zoning: The current ArcLight
proposal does not comply with the applicable building height, setbacks, and volume envelope
requirements for projects above 30 feet, as specified in the applicable Bayside District
Specific Plan and Zoning Code. While the site is located within the Downtown Core and the
draft Downtown Specific Plan is contemplating an 84-foot height limit for the site, until
adopted the Bayside District Specific Plan and development standards of the 1988 Zoning
Ordinance remain in effect.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
3. The proposed project cannot pay market rents: A new cinema development at the site
(or anywhere in the City) is unlikely to be viable without City support. High development
costs and relatively low revenues per-square-foot often make new movie theaters “loss
leaders” as real estate development projects in most locations. In addition, in Santa Monica
strong market support for other uses (e.g. residential, retail, office, etc.), make land costs
prohibitive for a new cinema. Moreover, the developer and exhibitor have presented
information to the City suggesting that they cannot pay full market rent for the City-owned
site and that they will be unable to pay the standard development impact fees, the parking
in-lieu payment, or any material public benefit expenditures. These issues are to be further
evaluated in the VEA.
Exhibit 1 Proposed Development Program for Fourth Street Cinema Complex
In addition to the direct considerations above, the City has a broader objective supporting a
diverse and thriving commercial district in the Downtown. Towards this end, the City has
requested a market study to better understand the underlying economic implications and
potential community benefits of a new theater. This includes the potential impact that the
proposed project will have on cinema patronage, increased activity and expenditure in Downtown
Santa Monica, and the restoration of the City’s position as a place to see a wide variety of movies
in a contemporary setting.
Category Metric
Land Area
Square Feet (200' x 150')30,000
Acres 0.69
Building Square Feet
Cinema 90,000
Retail 10,000
Total 100,000
Building Height
Floors 4
Height (Feet)84
Screens 16
Seats 2,700
Source: Planning Commission Meeting: August
19, 2015; Agenda Item: 10-A
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Summary Findings
The following Summary Findings provides a topline overview of the major conclusions and
implications of this Report.
1. Santa Monica’s position as a regional movie theater destination has steadily
declined over last 15 years. The City’s cinemas have experienced a steady drop in
attendance due to structural changes impacting the sector overall and the dated,
uncompetitive nature of the City’s outlets in particular. While physical constraints of infill
locations and high land costs have made it difficult for existing outlets to upgrade and
expand, substantial investments in cinemas in West Los Angeles and Playa Vista have
allowed competitors such as the AMC Century City 15 and Landmark Westside Pavilion to
capture a portion of Santa Monica’s share of the movie-going market.
2. Technology has led to a vast increase in media distribution channels, program
choices, and playback options—a glut of competition that has pressured cinema’s
share of total media consumption, especially among younger consumers. Despite
this market share decline, theatrical distribution remains important to media conglomerates
as the front end of a multi-platform sales and marketing effort that pushes original movie
content through multiple distribution and merchandising channels. Consequently, many
industry analysts believe theatrical exhibition will remain an important—if declining—sector
of the entertainment industry.
3. In this highly competitive environment, theater circuits require economies of scale
to achieve per-seat operating efficiencies and to maintain bargaining power with
film distributors to ensure exhibition rights to major releases. A majority or
dominant share of screens and seats within a geographical zone allows the operator to
negotiate licenses with distributors for desired first-run films, even in the presence of a
competitor attempting to enforce clearances (i.e., exclusive access to desired releases). In
addition, strong market share gives the operator power to negotiate more favorable
“splits”—the terms by which box office revenues are shared with distributors over the
duration of a first-run release.
4. A new, large and effectively operated cinema will bolster Downtown Santa Monica’s
entertainment offerings. ArcLight is a highly successful cinema operator in Southern
California that has begun to expand to other U.S. markets. The proposed state-of-the art
Fourth Street Cinema will restore Santa Monica seat counts, which have fallen 47 percent
since 2013, and win back lost market share from competitors (in West Los Angeles and Playa
Vista). With the proposed theater, Santa Monica cinema admissions are estimated to grow to
1.63 million by 2020—nearly double 2014 box office. In this scenario, the proposed ArcLight
Fourth Street can be expected to sell between 770,000 and 900,000 tickets. At the higher
projection, the theater’s rate of seat utilization is a conservative 20 percent. By comparison,
three years after opening, the Landmark Westside Pavilion and AMC Century City 15
achieved 35 percent utilization and 29 percent utilization rates, respectively.
5. Expanded movie patronage can provide spill-over benefits to the rest of Downtown
Santa Monica. The “off-site” economic benefits of a successful cinema include spending at
local businesses as well as other indirect economic benefits from the increased economic
activity. Based on various case studies of moviegoer behavior before or after a show, bars
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
and restaurants appear to be the most frequently visited venues although other local
businesses can also benefit. The “off-site” spending by patrons of the proposed ArcLight
Cinema is estimated to range from $5 to $27 million per year depending on projected theater
attendance and the assumed average non-theater spending levels per patron. In addition, a
well-designed, operated, and successful cinema will provide increased market exposure to
local business as well as “place-making” benefits that will help the Downtown sustain its
brand as a premier, mixed-use entertainment district.
6. A new cinema development Downtown is not financially viable without City
support. High development costs and relatively low revenues per-square-foot often make
new movie theaters “loss leaders” as real estate development projects. Strong market
support for other Downtown Santa Monica uses (e.g. residential and retail), make land costs
prohibitive. The VEA finds that the proposed Cinema project results in a substantial reduction
in value relative to a hypothetical residential mixed-use “baseline” project.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
2. SANTA MONICA CINEMA MARKET CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
This Section provides an overview of existing market conditions and industry trends that will
affect the long-term performance of movie theaters in Santa Monica.
Trends in Movie Distribution
The outlook for cinema attendance in Santa Monica is heavily influenced by the structure of the
media industry and the ongoing transformation of movie distribution and exhibition. The most
prominent change factor influencing theatrical distribution is growing competition driven by
technology, which over the last twenty years has vastly increased the number of distribution
channels, programming choices, and playback options available to consumers. Within this
competitive environment, cinema performance has experienced a pattern of both revenue
growth and admissions decline. Box office revenue, as shown in Exhibit 2, has grown at an
annual rate of 1.8 percent since 2005.
Exhibit 2 U.S. and Canada Historic Box Office
Sources: Rentrak, MPAA
However, the annual growth for total and per-capita admissions, shown in Exhibit 3, has been
negative at –0.9 and -1.9 percent respectively. All recent revenue growth can thus be attributed
to the price of movie tickets, which has grown since 2005 at a 2.7 percent average annual rate.
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
20
1
4
20
1
3
20
1
2
20
1
1
20
1
0
20
0
9
20
0
8
20
0
7
20
0
6
20
0
5
20
0
4
20
0
3
20
0
2
20
0
1
20
0
0
19
9
9
19
9
8
19
9
7
19
9
6
19
9
5
19
9
4
19
9
3
19
9
2
19
9
1
19
9
0
19
8
9
19
8
8
19
8
7
Bi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Historical U.S. and Canada Box Office
Non-3D Box Office 3D Box Office
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Exhibit 3 U.S. and Canada Admissions and Admissions/Capita 2005-2014
Sources: Rentrak, MPAA
Despite the decline in box office admissions, theatrical distribution remains extremely important
to large media conglomerates at the front end of a multi-platform sales and marketing effort that
pushes original movie content through various distribution and merchandising channels. In an
increasingly fragmented consumer environment, a theatrical opening remains the best way to
assemble a mass audience and achieve marketing and mindshare economies of scale.
Consequently, many industry analysts believe that theatrical exhibition will remain an
important—if declining—sector of the entertainment industry.
In response to increasing competitive pressure, theater chains have pursued operating
economies of scale by constructing multiplex theaters, and negotiating economies of scale by
consolidating ownership. Between 1995 and 2014, North American screen count grew from
27,000 to nearly 40,000. At the same time, screen ownership by the top-five exhibition chains
grew from 31 percent to 53 percent. A large market share nationally and a dominant multiplex
locally provide operators per-seat operating efficiencies and negotiating power with movie
distributors to obtain top titles.
Santa Monica Cinema Trade Area Definition
A cinema Trade Area represents the geographic region containing the primary elements of
demand and supply that largely determine the size of the overall market opportunity. Trade Area
boundaries are influenced by drive times, competition, geography and infrastructure, and other
considerations such as nearby amenities. The Trade Area considered by this study is bounded by
Interstate 405 to the east, Mulholland Drive to the north, and Route 90 to the south, and divides
into Primary and Secondary Areas.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Ad
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
/
C
a
p
i
t
a
Ad
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
B
i
l
l
i
o
n
T
i
c
k
e
t
s
)
U.S. and Canada Box Office Admissions and Admissions/Capita
Admissions (Billion Tickets)Admissions/ Capita
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
• The Primary Trade Area is defined as the area from which the drive times to Santa Monica
theaters near the Third Street Promenade (including the proposed ArcLight Fourth Street,
ArcLight Santa Monica Place, AMC Santa Monica 7, AMC Broadway 4, and Monica Film
Center), are actually or perceived to be shorter than to competitive cinemas in Playa Vista
and West Los Angeles. For the Primary Trade Area, market capture by Santa Monica theaters
is assumed to be 80 percent of the residential population.
• The Secondary Trade Area is defined as the area from which drive times to Santa Monica
theaters are equal to drive times to competitive cinemas. The Secondary Trade Area includes
two theaters (AMC Dine-In Marina 6, AMC Marina Marketplace 6) and assumes market
capture by Santa Monica theaters of 50 percent of the residential population.
Trade Area boundaries and locations of competitive outlets are shown in in Exhibit 4 and
Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 4 Primary and Secondary Trade Areas
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, GoogleMaps, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Exhibit 5 Primary and Secondary Trade Areas Detail
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, GoogleMaps, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Trade Area Competitive Supply and Positioning
Santa Monica’s movie theaters compete within a robust market that includes multiplexes in Playa
Vista, West Los Angeles, and Marina Del Rey, as well as a number of single-screen art houses. As
shown in Exhibit 6, the Trade Area inventory of 4,028 seats (excluding the proposed Fourth
Street ArcLight) is roughly one quarter of the 15,577 total seats in the competitive set.
All theaters in the competitive set have either been constructed or renovated within the last ten
years (as shown in Exhibit 6), reflecting two recent waves of capital investment by the exhibitor
sector. The first wave, which began in the 1990s, emphasized construction of megaplex theaters
(facilities with more than eight screens, often integrated into a mall), which provide exhibitors
operating economies of scale and bargaining power in negotiations with distributors for new
releases. Prime examples of such megaplexes in the Santa Monica competitive area include the
National Amusements’ 18-Screen/Imax theater at the Bridge Howard Hughes Center built in
2001 (now the Cinemark XD), the AMC Century City 15/Imax theater built in 2005, and the
Landmark 12 at Westside Pavilion built in 2007.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
One indirect consequence of the rise of the multiplex was a concurrent decline of traditional
neighborhood theaters with one or two screens, which could not compete with larger circuits to
obtain new releases. The NuWilshire and the Brentwood 1 & 2 were two such traditional Santa
Monica theaters that closed during this period. Notably, there were no new theaters or major
renovations of existing theaters in Santa Monica during this period due primarily to the logistical
and economic challenges of multiplex construction in downtown environments.
Exhibit 6 Competitive Set
The second—and ongoing—wave of capital investment includes enhancements to upgrade the
cinema experience to be more competitive in today’s media marketplace. When ArcLight
launched in Los Angeles in 2002, it prioritized a pure cinematic experience with innovations such
as reserved seating, plush chairs, and improved picture fidelity that have since been adopted by
rival circuits and become a baseline for competitive viability. After falling behind state-of-the-art
rivals such as the AMC Century City 15 and Landmark Westside Pavilion for years, Santa
Monica’s remaining theaters all underwent renovation beginning in 2014 and now feature a more
contemporary mix of amenities, as shown in Exhibit 7.
Trade Area and Theater1
Primary Trade Area
Proposed Arclight 4th Street Santa Monica ArcLight 12 2,700 TBD Mainstream, Indie 0 Infill
ArcLight Santa Monica Place Santa Monica ArcLight 12 1,500 2015 Mainstream, Indie 0 Mall
AMC Loews Broadway 4 2 Santa Monica AMC 4 405 2015 (reno)Mainstream 0 Infill
AMC Santa Monica 7 3 Santa Monica AMC 7 724 2015 (reno)Mainstream 0 Infill
Monica Film Center 4 Santa Monica Laemmle 6 372 2016 (reno)Indie, Foreign 0 Infill
41 3,001
Secondary Trade Area
AMC Marina Marketplace 6 Los Angeles AMC 6 600 2014 (reno)Mainstream 4.2 Strip
AMC Dine-in Theatres Marina 6 Los Angeles AMC 6 427 2013 (reno)Mainstream 4.1 Strip
Subtotal 12 1027
West Side and Playa Vista
AMC Century City 15 Los Angeles AMC 15 2,900 2005 Mainstream 7.1 Mall
Landmark at Westside Pavilion Los Angeles Landmark 12 1,710 2007 Mainstream, Indie 4.5 Mall
ArcLight Culver City Culver City Arclight 12 1,565 2015 (reno)Mainstream, Indie 6.9 Infill
Cinemark Playa Vista & XD Los Angeles Cinemark 9 1,650 2015 Mainstream 7 Infill
The Bridge Cinemark XD Los Angeles Cinemark 18 3,300 2014 (reno)Mainstream 8.6 Mall
iPic Westwood iPic 6 424 2014 Mainstream 4.7 Infill
Subtotal 72 11,549
TOTAL (excluding 4th St.)125 15,577
Notes
(1) Competitive set excludes traditional "specialty" and second-run theaters such as the Aero and Royal Theaters
(2) 1,144 seats until 2015 renovation (renovation loss of 739)
(3) 1,930 seats until 2015 renovation (renovation loss of 1,206)
(4) Formerly the Laemmle Monica 4plex with 4 screens and 1,091 seats (renovation loss of 719)
Sources: Company web sites, general literature search, Economic & Planning Systems
Programming Mi. from
Prom-
enade
Location
Type
City Operator Screens Seats Built / Re-
modeled
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Exhibit 7 Competitive Positioning
Typical enhancements upgrading the cinema experience fall into the categories of picture,
comfort and convenience, and food and beverage, which are described further below.
• Picture Enhancements, which include features such as digital projection, sound
technologies like Dolby ATMOS, and screen formats such as digital 3D and Premium Large
Format (PLF) (including variants such as IMAX and RealD), differentiate cinema-going from
the small-screen experience of viewing at home or on a hand-held device.
Digital projection is now standard throughout North America with a 97 percent share of
outlets, but PLF is still relatively scarce, with only 374 screens in North America as of mid-
2014. The importance of PLF is reflected in its box office popularity and ability to command a
price premium, indicated by 2014 box office share of 5.5 percent of total revenues from a
base of only 0.9 percent of total screens. There are PLF screens in Century City and Playa
Vista currently; the proposed Fourth Street cinema would offer the first and only PLF screen
in Santa Monica.
• Improved Comfort and Convenience from reserved seating, plush seats, stadium seating,
and recliners treat movie goers to features once found only in private screening rooms.
Reserved seating and plush seats, which were introduced by ArcLight in 2002, have since
Trade Area and Theater
Premium
Large Format
(PLF)3-D
Reserved
Seating
Plush
Seats
Stadium
Seating
Reclining
Seats
Dine-In
Service 1 Alcohol2
En-
hanced
Food
Option3
Primary Trade Area
Proposed Arclight 4th Street 1 yes yes yes yes no no TBD TBD
ArcLight Santa Monica Place no yes yes yes yes no no yes yes
AMC Loews Broadway 4 no no yes yes no yes no no no
AMC Santa Monica 7 no yes yes yes yes yes no no4 partial
Monica Film Center no no maybe yes partial yes no yes yes
Secondary Trade Area
AMC Marina Marketplace 6 no yes yes yes no yes no no partial
AMC Dine-in Theatres Marina 6 no yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes
West Side and Playa Vista
AMC Century City 15 2 yes yes yes yes no no no yes
Landmark at Westside Pavilion No no yes yes yes no no partial yes
ArcLight Culver City No yes yes yes yes no no no no
Cinemark Playa Vista & XD 1 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
The Bridge Cinemark XD 1 yes yes yes yes minimal partial partial yes
iPic no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Notes
(1) Food is delivered to patron in-seat
(2) Alcoholic beverages may be consumed in-seat
(3) Options for in-seat dining more typical of a restaurant than a cinema
(4) Pending license
Sources: Company web sites, general literature search, Economic & Planning Systems
Amenities and Features
Picture Comfort Food & Beverage
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
become standard for competitive theaters. Reclining seats, reduced seating per screen, and
stadium seating, on the other hand, provide operators with a differentiating feature as well
as an opportunity to charge an additional ticket premium.
The recent renovations of the AMC Loews Broadway 4 and AMC Santa Monica 7 have reduced
seat-counts to install reclining seats, which implies a strategic decision by AMC to occupy
more of a niche role in the Santa Monica market. The ArcLight Santa Monica Place and
proposed Fourth Street Theater, on the other hand, have standard non-reclining seats,
presumably because ArcLight has determined the benefits of greater seat capacity (coupled
with still-very-comfortable seats) outweigh the economic benefits of premium pricing for the
recliners.
• Upgraded Food and Beverage Options include a wide range of choices beyond traditional
popcorn and candy that aim to capture a greater share of consumer nightlife expenditure.
These options may include, depending on the operator, on-site restaurants, on-site bars, and
extensive and/or premium menus at the concessions counter. Examples in the Santa Monica
competitive area include the variety of eating options at the Landmark Westside Pavilion and
the Cinemark Playa Vista as well as in-seat dining at the AMC Marina Dine-In 6 and IPic.
ArcLight’s focus on reducing distractions to promote the pure cinematic experience has
largely precluded such options (although ArcLight Santa Monica Place serves food and alcohol
in the lobby).
All movie theater enhancements discussed above add a ticketing premium. While this has helped
revenues to grow despite declining admissions, some analysts worry the trend could eventually
price cinema-going out of reach for a large proportion of the population and make non-cinema
alternatives an even more attractive value.
Santa Monica Trade Area Market Demand Trends
Trends in movie admissions and revenues in the Santa Monica competitive market area mirror
those on the national level. As shown in Exhibit 8, combined box office revenues of Santa
Monica and West Los Angeles have plateaued and may be in decline.
Viewed on a theater-by-theater basis, as shown in Exhibit 9, it is clear the revenues of newer
multiplexes in West Los Angeles and Playa Vista (including the Bridge 17, the Century City 15,
and the Landmark 12) far outperform the smaller and aging Santa Monica outlets.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Exhibit 8 Santa Monica and West Los Angeles Box Office
Note: Includes combined performance of AMC Century City 15, Landmark Westside Pavilion 12, AMC Santa Monica
7, AMC Broadway 4, Mann Criterion 6 (since closed), the Nu Wilshire (since closed), and the Laemmle Monica 4
(under renovation).
Source: City of Santa Monica and Economic & Planning Systems
Exhibit 9 Santa Monica and West Los Angeles Box Office by Theater
Source: City of Santa Monica and Economic & Planning Systems
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
As shown in Exhibit 10, the historical decline in Santa Monica box office admissions appears to
result from several factors, including declining seat inventory (from closure of the Nu Wilshire
and the Criterion 6 theaters) and the opening of the AMC Century 15 and Landmark 12 in West
Los Angeles. However, it is also notable that the admissions decline actually pre-dated these
events, which may have only accelerated a larger structural decline in the Santa Monica
marketplace. Likewise, after an initial blip of enthusiasm around the opening dates of the state-
of-the-art West Los Angeles cinemas, admissions there may also be in decline.
Exhibit 10 Santa Monica and West Los Angeles: Seats and Admissions
Note: West LA seat inventory before 2007 unavailable.
Source: City of Santa Monica and Economic & Planning Systems
The newer cinema outlets in West Los Angeles and Playa Vista are larger than those in Santa
Monica and are thus expected to generate greater admissions. However, as shown in Exhibit
11, the West LA and Playa Vista outlets also exhibit much higher seat utilization (calculated as
actual admissions divided by total potential admissions) than those in Santa Monica. While this is
due in part to the competitive disadvantage of the City’s older facilities, it also appears to be a
consistent historic characteristic: even at Santa Monica’s admissions high point in 1997, when 2
million tickets were sold, seat utilization peaked at 19 percent, compared with 34 percent at
West LA’s high point in 2010. This relatively low utilization rate is likely attributable to the City’s
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
coastal location, which effectively limits the trade area potential to half that of an inland
location.1
Exhibit 11 Santa Monica and West Los Angeles: Utilization
Note: West LA box office performance and seat inventory before 2007 unavailable.
Source: City of Santa Monica and Economic & Planning Systems
Market Share Dynamics
Santa Monica’s inventory of screens and seats is in transition due to the competitive and
technological trends discussed above. Since 2013, the Mann Criterion closed and the AMC Loews
Broadway 4, AMC Santa Monica 7, and Laemmle Monica Fourplex have undergone renovations
removing a net 2,664 seats. Even with the 2015 opening of the ArcLight Santa Monica Place and
expected 2016 re-opening of the Laemmle Monica Fourplex as the Monica Film Center, total
Santa Monica seat inventory of 3,001 will have fallen 47 percent from 5,691, as shown in the
“Estimated 2016” column in Exhibit 12.
1 Santa Monica is also a major tourist destination with 11,000,000 visitors per year, but out-of-town
tourists typically have minimal impact on cinema attendance.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Exhibit 12 Change in Santa Monica Seat and Screen Share by Operator
Theater1 Screens Seats Screen
Share
Seat
Share
Screens Seats Screen
Share
Seat
Share
Screens Seats Screen
Share
Seat
Share
Screens Seats Screen
Share
Seat
Share
Arclight
ArcLight 4th Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2,700
ArcLight SMP 0 0 0 0 12 1,500 12 1,500
AMC
AMC Loews Broadway 4 4 1,144 4 1,144 4 405 4 405
AMC Santa Monica 7 7 1,930 7 1,930 7 724 7 724
Laemmle
Monica Film Center 2 4 1,091 17%24%4 1,091 27%33%6 372 21%22%6 372 13%12%
Mann
Mann Criterion 3 8 1,526 35%27%0 0 0%0%0 0 0%0%0 0 0%0%
Total 23 5,691 15 4,165 29 3,001 45 5,701
(1) Set excludes traditional single-screen theaters such as the Aero or the Laemmle Royal
(2) Formerly the Laemmle Monica 4plex. Renovation expected complete in 2015
(3) Closed in 2013
Sources: City of Santa Monica, Economic & Planning Systems
2013 2014 Estimated 2016
48%73%54%38%
0%0%0%
Proposed
20%74%38%24%
0%41%50%62%74%
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
The resulting mix of screens and seats is likely to continue to leak sales to competitors in West
LA and Playa Vista, for several reasons. The renovated AMC theaters on the Promenade, while
considerably improved with plush recliners, are still older and non-cutting-edge facilities. The
new ArcLight at Santa Monica Place, with relatively small screens and a less desirable location
that attracts less foot-traffic, is at a competitive disadvantage with the Landmark Westside
Pavilion and Century City theaters, which offer easier consumer access from within the facility.
What’s more, relative competitive parity of ArcLight with AMC, as shown in the “Estimated 2016”
column in Exhibit 12 (which shows 12 ArcLight screens compared with 11 AMC screens and
1,500 ArcLight seats compared with 1,129 AMC seats) may allow AMC to continue to enforce film
“clearances,” which is the practice by which AMC punishes distributors that don’t grant it
exclusive access to certain first-run titles by boycotting the distributor’s movies entirely. While
boycotts cause the distributor and exhibitor to both lose revenue, the boycotts are successful
because distributors typically have more to gain by complying with requests for exclusivity from
market-leading exhibitors like AMC.
While AMC is no longer the clear market leader in Santa Monica, competitive parity, coupled with
dominance in many other sub-markets locally and nationally, still give it bargaining power in the
competitive trade area. For example, AMC appears to have enforced a “clearance” policy in Santa
Monica with regard to Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which played at the ArcLight Santa Monica
Place but not at the AMC Loews Broadway 4, AMC Santa Monica 7, AMC Marina Marketplace 6, or
AMC Dine-In Theatres Marina 6.
The proposed Fourth Street Theater, with 2,700 seats, would not only restore Santa Monica’s
seat inventory to 2013 levels, but with PLF, 16 large screens, ArcLight’s reputation for quality,
and a Promenade-adjacent location, it would make Santa Monica’s cinema portfolio highly
competitive with all other West Side locations for Santa Monica customers. Furthermore, with 74
percent of seats and 62 percent of screens in Santa Monica, ArcLight would gain flexibility to
optimize the mix of offerings for Trade Area demand while at the same time reducing or
eliminating the ability of AMC to enforce “clearances” and conduct an effective boycott.2
2 The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has since begun an investigation into
exclusionary boycott practices and potential violations of federal antitrust laws related to the
enforcement of clearances. Resolution could eventually render this issue moot.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
3. SANTA MONICA CINEMA MARKET PROJECTIONS
This section estimates the future market performance of the Santa Monica Cinema sector
assuming the proposed Fourth Street Theater is successfully developed as currently defined.
Trade Area Demand Projections
Trade Area demand is estimated by multiplying trade area population by both an area capture
rate and a per-capita attendance rate. Key assumptions used in the estimate are shown in
Exhibit 13. The per-capital attendance rate of 6.5 is higher than the North American average of
3.75 but lower than the highest typically measured per-capita rates of 7 and 8 in Pacific
Northwest markets like Portland and Seattle. The rate is also consistent with what ArcLight uses
to estimate Santa Monica Trade Area potential. The assumption that 90% of demand comes from
the Trade Area reflects the fact that most movie attendance is local, especially in a market like
Los Angeles where geographical subareas are independently served by a local supply of screens.
Exhibit 13 Market Demand Assumptions
Trade Area population in 2015 is 318,000 and estimated to grow to 328,000 by 2020. At the
assumed attendance and capture rates, this translates into potential demand of 1.58 million
tickets in 2015 and 1.63 million in 2020, as shown in Exhibit 14.
Assumption Metric
Annual Movies per Capita 6.5
Primary Trade Area Capture Rate 80%
Secondary Trade Area Capture Rate 50%
% of Total Demand from Trade Area Residents 1 90%
ArcLight Fourth Street Capture of Trade Area Demand 50%-55%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(1) In other words, approximately 10% of attendance is estimated to
come from visitors who live outside the Primary and Secondary Trade
Areas. This is conservative given Santa Monica's status as a major
tourist destination.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Exhibit 14 Market Demand Estimate
Market Share Scenarios
From an estimated 1.63 million tickets purchased at Santa Monica theaters in 2020, the
proposed ArcLight Fourth Street can be expected to sell between 772,000 and 897,000 tickets,
based on the three scenarios shown in Exhibit 15.
Item Capture Rate 2015 2020
Trade Area Population
Santa Monica 92,416 95,178
Rest of Primary Trade Area 107,923 110,936
Secondary Trade Area 117,755 121,539
Total Trade Area 318,094 327,653
Attendance @ 6.5 Annual Tickets/Capita
Santa Monica 80%480,563 494,926
Rest of Primary Trade Area 80%561,200 576,867
Secondary Trade Area 50%382,704 395,002
Capture from Outside Trade Area1 158,274 162,977
Total Trade Area (rounded)1,583,000 1,630,000
Notes:
(1) Assumes 10% of total attendance from outside Trade Area (e.g., from tourists and from
beyond Trade Area boundaries), so estimated Trade Area attendance is then 'grossed up' by
90%
Sources: ESRI Business Analyst Online; ArcLight; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Exhibit 15 Santa Monica Estimated 2020 Admissions Scenarios
1.2.3.
Ticket
Share
Tickets
Sold
Implied
Utiliz-
ation1
Ticket
Share
Tickets
Sold
Implied
Utiliz-
ation1
Ticket
Share
Tickets
Sold
Implied
Utiliz-
ation1
Seats
ArcLight 4th Street 2,700 47%771,970 17%50%815,000 18%55%896,500 20%
Other Santa Monica Outlets 2 3,001 53%858,030 17%50%815,000 16%45%733,500 15%
Total 5,701 100%1,630,000 17%100%1,630,000 17%100%1,630,000 17%
Total 20133 5,691 100%800,000 8%
(1) Assumed 32 showings per week and 52 weeks per year
(3) 2013 the last full year before AMC Broadway 4 and Santa Monica 7 renovations/seat reductions
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
All Outlets Prorated by
Seat Share
4th Street at 50% Ticket
Share; Remaining Demand
Distributed to Other
Outlets2
4th Street at 55% Ticket
Share; Remaining Demand
Distributed to Other
Outlets2
(2) Other Santa Monica outlets include ArcLight Santa Monica Place, AMC Loews Broadway 4, AMC Santa Monica 7, Laemmle Monica Film
Center
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
• In Scenario 1, all Santa Monica theaters are estimated to sell tickets at a rate prorated by
share of seats. Thus, with 47 percent of all seats, the proposed ArcLight sells 47 percent of
tickets, or 772,000. At 5,701 total seats, average utilization for all theaters computes to 17
percent, which is more than double actual Santa Monica utilization for 2013.3
• In Scenario 2, the Fourth Street Cinema captures 50 percent of all tickets sold, a rate 6
percent higher than the pro-rata average, for a total of 815,000 tickets. This would be a
conservative estimate for the most state-of-the art theater in the city. At 50 percent share,
the Fourth Street Cinema achieves 18 percent utilization, which is lower than the 19 percent
average for Santa Monica during its peak year of 1997.
• In Scenario 3, the Fourth Street Cinema is estimated to capture 55 percent of all tickets sold,
a rate 17 percent higher than the pro-rata average, for a total of 897,000 tickets. At 55
percent share, the Fourth Street Theater achieves a 20 percent utilization rate, which is
significantly lower than either the Landmark Westside Pavilion (35 percent) or AMC Century
City 15 (29 percent) achieved three years after their openings.
3 Utilization is calculated as: 1.63 million tickets / (5,701 seats * 32 showings per week * 52 weeks
per year).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
4. ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF A NEW CINEMA
The foregoing analysis has focused on the direct economic impacts of the proposed 4th St.
Cinema project on movie patronage in Santa Monica. However, it is widely acknowledged that
cinemas have a variety of off-site or “indirect” impacts that are generally more difficult to
quantify but nevertheless significant. These indirect impacts relate to the role that theaters can
play in attracting people to surrounding businesses or even a broader commercial district (e.g., a
downtown).
This section provides a high level review of the potential economic impacts that an additional
cinema could generate for the City of Santa Monica and in the Downtown in particular. These
effects include increased spending at local businesses as well as other indirect economic benefits
from the increased economic activity. While the indirect economic impacts of cinemas on local
geographies are more difficult to quantify, and can vary significantly depending on context, they
have been documented in the popular, professional, and academic publications.
Local Spending Impacts
In addition to the spending captured at the cinemas (i.e. movie tickets and concessions)
moviegoers may contribute to a local economy through ancillary spending at nearby commercial
establishments prior to or after a movie. Strong evidence shows that cinema visits are frequently
undertaken in conjunction with another principal activity such as shopping, dining, or other
entertainment.4
Based on various case studies of movie patron behavior before or after a show, bars and
restaurants appear to be the most frequently visited venues, although other local businesses can
also benefit. While there are few definitive studies that have quantified these impacts, several
reviewed as part of this analysis shed light on the range of additional spending that might be
expected. These include:
• A 2001 study of the economic impact of the AMC Kabuki Theaters in San Francisco’s
Japantown found that nearly 50 percent of patrons frequented nearby commercial
establishments before or after a show, spending an average of about $17.35 each.5
• A 2012 study on the economic impact of the Fox Theater goers in Downtown Tucson found
that 80 percent of the moviegoers spend money at other downtown businesses, averaging
$56.75 per party, or $21.41 per person.6
4 “Cinema Provision Preston City Centre,” 2014
5 “AMC Kabuki Theaters Social. Cultural, and Economic Impact on Japantown” by Porat Consulting,
Nov. 2001.
6 Economic Impact of Fox Theatre on Downtown Tucson, Direct Spending by Fox Theater Patrons at
the Fox and other downtown businesses.” By AZ Economic Research. October, 2012.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
• A 2005 study in London found that approximately 11 percent of the visitors had a meal at a
local establishment, while another 9 percent of patrons had visited a local bar.7
It is important to note that research suggests that the level of “off-site” spending by movie-goers
can vary significantly depending on a variety of factors, including the convenience, quality and
range of nearby commercial venues as well as a cinema’s own “in-house” options. For example,
more recently built and upscale theaters have begun to provide upgraded food options and
alcohol. These enhanced options may promote spending at the theater, and less on local
establishments.
For illustrative purposes, Exhibit 16 shows the range of possible outcomes for “off-site”
spending by the additional patrons of the proposed ArcLight Cinema. The amount ranges from $5
to $27 million per year in “off-site” sales depending on projected theater attendance and the
assumed average non-theater spending levels per patron. Given that Downtown Santa Monica
possesses a wide range of dining, retail, and related amenities to attract movie-goers either
before or after a show, the spending impact is likely to be on the higher end of this range. This
effect may be further reinforced by the fact that parking for the proposed cinema will be “off-
site”, which means that many patrons will likely pass by nearby commercial establishments on
the way to and from a movie.
Exhibit 16 Estimated “off-site” Spending by Patrons of Proposed 4th St. ArcLight Cinema
7 “The Impact of a Local Cinema,” Film London, 2005
Category Formula Low High
Projected Annual Attendance
at ArcLight 4th St.1
a 815,000 896,000
Avg. "Off-site" Spending Per
Patron2 b $6 $30
Total Increase in Annual "Off-
Site" Spending = a * b $4,890,000 $26,880,000
Amount
[2] Based on case studies of movie patron spending levels at other downtown
cinemas.
[1] "Low" and "high"estimates corresponds to Arclight 4th St. attendance Scenario
#2 and Scenario #3 from Exhibit 15, respectively.
Santa Monica Cinema Market Study
Report 01/19/16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 P:\154000s\154027SantaMonicaCinemaImpact\Reports\154027DraftReport011916.docx
Other Economic Benefits to Downtown Santa Monica
In addition to the “off-site” spending of theater patrons, successful cinemas also have other less
tangible but nevertheless important economic benefits to neighborhoods and jurisdictions in
which they reside. Several economic or market benefits most relevant to downtown Santa
Monica are discussed below.
Increased Market Exposure
A new cinema can generate substantial foot traffic that essentially serves as “free advertising”
opportunity for nearby commercial establishments. In other words, even if movie patrons do not
spend money in nearby establishments before or after a particular show, they are exposed to
new venues or attractions that they may return to as part of a separate visit. To the extent that
the patrons would not have otherwise come downtown, local businesses gain an indirect form of
market exposure by reaching new and / or untapped segments of the population.
Place-making and Brand Enhancement
Well-designed, operated and successful entertainment venues generally project a positive image
of a downtown as a fun and exciting place to be. They also contribute to foot traffic and a vibrant
street scene, supporting a critical mass of activity and overall sense of a “happening place”
where you can go to “see and be seen”. Cinemas also add to the overall diversity of land uses
which has been shown as a key element to sustaining economically vibrant downtowns, allowing
them to that cater to a range of population and user groups and support complimentary
economic relationships and interactions. For example, strong entertainment districts have been
shown to support increased demand for office and residential uses.
jerde partnership inc 2016
In
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
fl o
a
t
-
u
p
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
w
e
h
a
v
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
S
t
u
d
y
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
Th
e
s
t
u
d
y
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
“
f
o
l
d
e
d
”
d
e
s
i
g
n
m
a
s
s
(
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
a
g
e
)
b
y
:
1.
E
x
p
l
o
r
i
n
g
w
a
y
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
m
a
s
s
b
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
a
u
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
f
r
o
m
n
o
n
-
a
uditorium areas.
2.
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
r
e
a
k
t
h
e
m
a
s
s
b
o
t
h
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
l
y
3.
A
d
d
i
n
g
m
o
r
e
g
l
a
s
s
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
m
o
r
e
d
e
p
t
h
a
n
d
a
s
t
r
o
n
g
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
/
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
4.
A
l
i
g
n
i
n
g
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
a
s
c
a
l
e
t
h
a
t
r
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
m
a
s
s
i
n
g
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
f
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
5.
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
u
s
e
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
c
o
l
o
r
s
t
o
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
l
e
n
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
m
o
r
e
,
t
h
u
s
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f mass
6.
U
t
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
t
o
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
a
r
e
a
s
.
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
u
d
y
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
january 12
jerde partnership inc 2016
4t
h
S
T
R
4t
h
S
T
R
4t
h
S
T
R
4t
h
EE
T
EE
T
R .E
.
I
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
i
n
ar
e
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
tr
u
c
t
u
r
ru
c
t
u
r
e e e
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
B
L
V
D
.
4 th
C
O
U
R
T
Ch
a
s
e
Ch
a
s
e
Ch
a
s
e
B a n k
4t
h
S
T
R
R EE
T
EE
T
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS 2016_0112 VARIATION A VIEW ONE
jerde partnership inc 2016ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS 2016_0112 VARIATION A VIEW ONE
jerde partnership inc 2016
4t
h
S
T
R
E
E
T
R .E
.
I
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
e
S tr
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
A
N
T
A
M
B
O
N
I
C
A
B
L
V
D
.
D
D
L
V
D
4 th
C
O
U
R
T
C ha
s
e
Ba
n
k
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS 2016_0112 VARIATION A VIEW TWO
jerde partnership inc 2016ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS 2016_0112 VARIATION A VIEW TWO
jerde partnership inc 2016
4t
h
S
T
R
E
E
T
R .E
.
I
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
e
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
T
A
M
S
A
N
T
A
O
N
I
C
A
B
L
V
D
.
4 th
C
O
U
R
T
Ch
a
s
e
B a n k
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS 2016_0112 VARIATION A VIEW THREE
jerde partnership inc 2016ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS 2016_0112 VARIATION A VIEW THREE
jerde partnership inc 2016
4t
h
S
T
R
E
E
T
R .E
.
I
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
e
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
B
L
V
D
.
4 th
C
O
U
R T
Ch
a
s
e
B a n k
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS 2016_0112 VARIATION A VIEW FOUR
jerde partnership inc 2016ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS 2016_0112 VARIATION A VIEW FOUR
4TH STREET CINEMAS SANTA MONICA, CA.PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION AUGUST 19 2015
ARCLIGHT-HOLL YWOOD LOBBYARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
ARCLIGHT -SHERMAN OAKS CAFE BARARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
A
R
C
L
I
G
H
T
-
L
A
J
O
L
L
A
A
U
D
I
T
O
R
I
U
M
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
A
R
C
L
I
G
H
T
-
L
A
J
O
L
L
A
I
M
A
G
E
W
A
L
L
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
G
R
A
N
D
B
U
D
A
P
E
S
T
H
O
T
E
L
D
I
S
P
L
A
Y
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
A
R
C
L
I
G
H
T
Q
&
A
W
I
T
H
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
O
D
I
C
A
P
R
I
O
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
P
L
A
C
E
A
R
C
L
I
G
H
T
12
A
U
D
I
T
O
R
I
U
M
S
AM
C
L
O
E
W
S
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
4
A
U
D
I
T
O
R
I
U
M
S
PROPOSED ARCLIGHT T.B.D.AMC SANTA MONICA 7 7 AUDITORIUMS
LA
E
M
M
E
L
M
O
N
I
C
A
F
I
L
M
C
E
N
T
E
R
6
A
U
D
I
T
O
R
I
U
M
S
CINEMA LOCATIONSARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
A
T
T
E
N
D
A
N
C
E
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
2
.
0
1
.
8
2
.
0
2
.
0
2
.
0
1
.
9
1
.
9
1
.
7
1
.
8
1
.
8
1
.
7
1
.
7
1
.
6
1
.
5
1
.
4
1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6
0.
0
0.
5
1.
0
1.
5
2.
0
2.
5
19
9
3
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
E
s
t
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
c
e
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Z
o
n
e
Br
i
d
g
e
1
7
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
C
i
t
y
1
5
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
1
2
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
1
2
Re
b
u
i
l
d
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
C
i
t
y
1
5
Re
b
u
i
l
d
Br
i
d
g
e
1
7
Op
e
n
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
R
e
n
t
r
a
k
LA Live 14 Opening
4t
h
S
T
R
E
E
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
CI
N
E
M
A
SI
T
E
We
l
l
s
Fa
r
g
o
R.
E
.
I
.
Parking Structure 1
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
2
7
3r
d
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
R
O
M
E
N
A
D
E
5t
h
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
B
L
V
D
.
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
A
V
E
.
3r
d
C
O
U
R
T
4t
h
C
O
U
R
T
Post Office
Ch
a
s
e
Ba
n
k
Ba
n
k
o
f
Am
e
r
i
c
a
2n
d
C
O
U
R
T
Fo
o
d
Co
u
r
t
AM
C
-
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
7
N
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819SITE AREA 29,807 sq. ft.PROPOSED NUMBER OF CINEMAS 16 PROPOSED NUMBER OF SEATS 2700 SITE PLAN
N
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PL
F
SECTION BARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819 4TH STREET ELEVATION
ARCLIGHT 4TH STREET CINEMAS - planning commision presentation 2015_0819 3RD COURT RENDERING
DI
S
C
O
V
E
R
ME
M
O
R
A
B
L
E
PL
A
C
E
.
.
.
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Proposed
4th Street Arclight Cinema
1318 –1320 4th Street
15ENT-0225
January 26, 2016
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
History
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits
•Birth of the Third Street Promenade
•Promenade Uses Task Force
•Downtown Parking Task Force
•Walker Parking Study
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Decline of Attendance
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
405 SEATS
724 SEATS
2
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street Market Area
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Cinema Efforts
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits
•RFP for Cinema (2007)
•AMC Proposal (2008)
•AMC ENA Expired (2012)
•Open Market Soliticitation (2012)
•ArcLight/Macerich ENA (2014)
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Existing Conditions
724
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street Purpose
Introduce project concept to City Council and public;
Opportunity to review and discuss the concept plans; and
Provide direction on negotiation points and potential community
benefits
Float-Up Review
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street Property Location
•West side of Fourth Street between Arizona Ave & Santa Monica Blvd.
•Downtown Core (DSP) / Bayside District Specific Plan / BSC-2 zone
•IZO# 2490(CCS) requires DA for project over 32ft. in height.
ZoningLUCEDowntown
Specific
Plan
•Removal of Parking Structure #3
•100,000 sf theater/retail development
•90,000 sf theater use / 10,000 sf ground floor commercial
Subject
Site
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Existing Conditions
Fourth Street facing north
Fourth Street facing south
Surrounding Uses
Banking
Retail / Services
Office
Residential
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Project Description
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits •Demolition of Parking Structure #3 (344 spaces)
•100,000 sf theater / retail development
•4-stories / 84 feet in height
•3.4 FAR
Ground Floor 2nd Floor3rdFloor4thFloor
•10,000 sf ground floor commercial
•90,000 sf theater use
•Up to 16 theater auditoriums (up to 2,700 seats)
•Interior restaurant/lounge
BSC-2
•4-stories / 56 feet in height
•3.0 FAR
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Project Description
North ElevationSouth Elevation
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Necessary Approvals
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits
1988 Zoning Ordinance (BSC-2 zoning district)
Does not meet building massing (height, stepbacks, and building
volume) requirements.
3.0 FAR
56’ height
Upper level stepbacks above 30’ in height
Bayside District Specific Plan
Project exceeds maximum allowable height (56 feet).
Development Agreement
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Necessary Approvals
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits
Parking Study
Inventory of public and private parking opportunities.
Analysis of utilization of existing parking structures.
Future parking demand and supply.
Estimate potential parking demand from new Downtown
developments.
Provide recommendations based on Study’s findings.
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Community Benefits
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits
Availability of screens for use during film markets or festivals that
may be hosted in Santa Monica;
Auditorium availability for use by community groups;
Provision of public art;
Enhanced TDM plan;
Enhanced Transportation Impact fee contributions;
Build or fund an enhanced crosswalk;
Provide pedestrian access from alley to Fourth Street;
LEED certification
Community Benefits
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Architectural Review Board
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits
ARB Float-Up
June 15, 2015
More upper level stepbacks should be considered.
More evaluation of the effects of the Krion material.
Provide more visual permeability.
The project’s relationship to the street should be further examined.
PV panel opportunities should be explored.
Is ground floor retail component necessary?
More differentiation should be provided along side and rear
elevations.
Pedestrian access from the alley to Fourth Street should be
provided.
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Planning Commission
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits
PC Float-Up
August 19, 2015
Height, mass, and bulk of building are too large.
Building height and Council direction should be guided by
compatibility with historic fabric of 4th St.
Parking study must also consider circulation and accessibility to
parking.
Pedestrian access from the alley to Fourth Street should be
provided.
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Alternative Design Concept
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Process / Next Steps
Appropriateness of building mass and scale for the
intersection;
Quality of proposed design at downtown gateway
intersection;
Relationship with future light rail station;
Consistency with the LUCE;
Level of desired consistency with draft DSP; and
Potential Community Benefits
CEQA process
Staff negotiations with developer
Planning Commission review of DA
-Recommendation to City Council
City Council review of DA
ARB review of project (post DA approval).
DA Process / Next Steps
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Conceptual Business
Terms
In Agreement:
Ground Lease –35 years with 4, 5-year options (50 years total)
Lease Payments
•$25,000 annually during construction
•$100,000 with 10% increases every 5 years
Percentage Rent on the Cinema Use –based on attendance
In Disagreement:
Operating Covenant –term of 10 years vs. 15 years
Percentage Rent on the Retail Use
City Council
January 26, 2016
1318-1320 Fourth Street
Comments
or Questions
ArcLight Cinemas
4th Street
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
Kathleen Rawson, CEO
93% of locals visit
Downtown at least
once/year
Theater Seats
THEATER HISTORIC PROPOSED
AMC Santa Monica 7 1,930 724
AMC Broadway 4 1,144 405
AMC Criterion 1,600 0
Laemmle Monica 1,091 372
ArcLight Santa Monica Place 0 1,500
ArcLight 4th Street 0 2,700
TOTAL 5,765 5,701
Parking Availability
BEFORE PS6
REDEVELOPMEN
T
AFTER PS6
REDEVELOPMEN
T
PROPOSED
AFTER THEATER
DEVELOPMENT
6,316 6,727 6,391
NET GAIN: 75 SPACES
Downtown Accessibility
Breeze Bike Share
Car Share
Big Blue Bus / Metro Bus
Expo Lightrail
Transportation Network Companies (Uber, Lyft)
Pedestrian Action Plan
Transportation Management Organization