SR 05-10-2016 7D
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 10, 2016
Agenda Item: 7.D
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development, Planning &
Community Development, City Planning
Subject: Introduction and first reading of an Ordinance adopting Development
Agreement 13DEV-008 and General Plan Text Amendment 15ENT-0232 to
allow a new 7-story (84 feet), 301,830 square foot mixed-use development
project consisting of 35,428 square feet of ground floor commercial area,
24,217 square feet of subterranean commercial area, 249 residential units,
and 524 parking spaces within a four-level subterranean parking garage.
Additionally, a Zoning Map Amendment 15ENT-0307 is proposed to change
the zoning district from M-1 (Industrial Conservation) to MUB (Mixed Use
Boulevard) for the rear portion of the property located at 1626 Lincoln
Boulevard for the development of a 100% Affordable Housing Development in
connection with the 500 Broadway project (off-site affordable housing).
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for
the project in accordance with CEQA;
2. Adopt a Resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project;
3. Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Text Amendment 15ENT-0232 for
the 500 Broadway project;
4. Introduce for first reading an ordinance approving Zoning Map Amendment
15ENT-0307 for a 100% affordable housing project located at 1626 Lincoln
Boulevard which is the off-site affordable housing for the 500 Broadway project;
and,
5. Introduce for first reading an ordinance adopting the proposed Development
Agreement.
1 of 50
Executive Summary
As we look toward adoption of the Downtown Community Plan early next year, this
project is one of the last (and the largest) Development Agreements to be processed
under the Interim Zoning Ordinance. As such, it reflects a turning point away from
project-by-project planning consideration toward a more comprehensive and consistent
approach to achieving the
lengthy and intense scrutiny involving the balancing the provision of both market rate
and affordable housing and increasing services to Downtown residents with the addition
of a grocery market with concerns about vehicle traffic, infrastructure impacts and the
design character of new building.
The applicant, DK Broadway, LLC, proposes a Development Agreement to allow a new
mixed-use building located at 500 Broadway. The project involves the construction of a
7-story (84 feet) building consisting of 301,830 total square feet, including 24,217
square feet of basement area, 35,428 square feet of ground floor commercial space,
249 residential rental units, and 524 parking spaces within a four-level subterranean
parking garage. The project site consists of two contiguous parcels with a total of
th
67,500 square feet located on the southeast corner of Broadway and 5 Street, and
th
extending 450 feet in length along the east side of 5 Street (between Broadway and
Colorado Avenue). The site is currently developed with a one-story commercial building
and surface parking lot (Fred Segal).
The site is located in the C3C zoning district and Downtown Core land use designation
of the Land Use and Circulation E
located in the Downtown Core land use designation with proposed buildings exceeding
32 feet in height. Furthermore, the project is subject to the 1984 Land Use and
Circulation Element of the general plan until the adoption of the Downtown Community
Plan. Project compliance is limited to the LUCE, while other aspects of the project such
as height, floor area ratio, setbacks, open space, parking, and other standard zoning
requirements would be established by the Development Agreement.
The applicant requests General Plan Text Amendment 15ENT-0232 that would amend
the 1984 LUCE maximum Floor Area Ratio from 3.5 to 4.0 and allow no limitation on the
number of stories of any structure containing at least one floor of residential use, so
long as the height does not exceed the maximum height in number of feet. No change
to the LUCE maximum allowable building height of 84 feet is proposed. The proposed
increase in allowable FAR from 3.5 to 4.0 within the Downtown Core area further
reinforces the Downtown as the focus of the City, supporting the greatest concentration
of activity adjacent to the Bayside District, and in proximity to the Expo light rail terminus
station and Colorado Esplanade, consistent with LUCE objectives. The proposed
amendment to allow no limitations on the number of stories provides a housing
incentive that would allow projects with greater flexibility in achieving allowable floor
2 of 50
area. Staff is supportive of these LUCE amendments based on the findings provided in
this report.
The project includes an off-site affordable housing component that includes the
dedication of land to Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), a non-profit
housing provider, and the construction of a 100% affordable housing project with 64
residential units located at 1626 Lincoln Boulevard. The land dedication would satisfy
tion while the additional land
cost exceeding AHPP requirements, and the gap financing and construction of 64
affordable housing units would be provided as a community benefit negotiated in the
500 Broadway development agreement. CCSM is pursuing Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (9% or 4% credits) for the 1626 Lincoln project. The off-site location is currently
divided into two LUCE and Zoning designations; the approximate front ¾ depth of the
property is located in the Mixed-Use Boulevard LUCE designation and Mixed-Use
Boulevard Zoning designation. The approximate rear ¼ depth of the property is located
in the Downtown Core LUCE designation and M1 zoning designation. In order to
develop the site under the same zoning development standards, Community
Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM) requests a zone change of the rear portion of the
parcel currently zoned M1 (Industrial Conservation) to MUB (Mixed-Use Boulevard) to
be consistent with the current zoning for the front portion of the parcel. The 1626
Lincoln project will require approval of a Development Review permit, which will be
considered by the Planning Commission on May 11, 2016. The order in which these
for Low Income Housing Tax Credits by June 2016 to assist with financing the 100%
affordable housing project.
The proximity of the project site to the Expo light rail terminus station and the Colorado
Esplanade are important considerations. From an urban design perspective and based
on the draft DCP, increased density at the proposed site would be appropriate and is
supported by the anticipated increase in pedestrian volumes in this transit-adjacent area
of the Downtown. The project would provide transit-adjacent housing and
neighborhood-serving commercial uses in proximity to light rail and transit opportunities,
convenient for residents to use alternate modes of transportation other than private
ogram,
would further City goals of increasing transportation choice. Also consistent with mobility
th
goals for the Downtown, the project would widen sidewalks along 5 Street and
Broadway that would expand pedestrian capacity and enhance the pedestrian
experience adjacent to the project. Consistent with City goals to nurture a complete and
long-term Downtown community, the Development Agreement would provide a mix of
sizable units, and would also result in the construction of 64 affordable housing units
that would expand affordable family housing and help balance the housing mix in the
Downtown. For these reasons, in addition to a comprehensive community benefits
package, staff recommends approval of the project based on the findings contained in
the staff report.
3 of 50
On October 13, 2015, Council gave direction that certain priority projects could be
processed prior to the adoption of the Downtown Community Plan. The 500 Broadway
project was identified because it had completed float-up reviews and would provide a
significant source of housing in the Downtown. In negotiating the project, staff closely
followed the expectations identified in the draft Downtown Specific Plan (February 2014
version) in addition to those in the LUCE, Water Master Plan, Climate Action Plan, and
direction from Planning Commission and City Council during the float-up discussions.
The proposed project has an overall unit mix of 20% studios, 50% one-bedroom units,
20% two-bedroom units, and 10% three-bedroom units.
Background
The project site consists of two contiguous parcels with a total of 67,500 square feet
th
located on the southeast corner of Broadway and 5 Street. The site has 150 feet of
th
frontage along Broadway and 450 feet of frontage along the east side of 5 Street
(between Broadway and Colorado Avenue). The site is currently developed with a one-
story commercial building and a 92-space surface parking lot (Fred Segal).
th
View East on Broadway View North on 5 Street
View South on 5 th Street View West on Broadway
4 of 50
Area Context
thth
Surrounding uses along 5 Street, Broadway, and across the 5 Court Alley include
commercial retail and office, hotel (future Courtyard Marriott and Hampton Inn and
Suites hotels), and residential uses. Across Broadway to the north is a one-story
commercial building with a pending Development Agreement application for a 6-story
mixed-use project. Existing structures in the area range in building height. The
adjacent forthcoming 6-story Hampton Inn and Suites hotel would be 77 feet in height,
th
and all mixed-use residential buildings (4) across the 5 Court Alley on the west side of
thth
6 Street (1522-1548 6 Street) are 5-stories, 60 feet in height. The adjacent office
th
building across the 5 Court Alley (520 Colorado Avenue) is 6-stories, 84 feet in height.
th
The west side of 5 Street is developed with a one-story retail building (420 Broadway,
Fred Segal), the 6---
Up on Fifth residential building, and the forthcoming 6-st
hotel. The project site is a half block from the future light rail terminus station at the
th
corner of 4 Street and Colorado Avenue.
This development agreement application was submitted to the City on August 27, 2013,
and has been reviewed consistent with the public process including a community
meeting, ARB concept review, Planning Commission and City Council float-up reviews,
and Planning Commission formal consideration as summarized in Attachment M.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission reviewed this development agreement on March 9, 2016 and
voted 6-1 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve the
5 of 50
project, general plan amendment, LUCE map amendment, and adopt the proposed
Development Agreement with the following recommendations:
1. The Development Agreement should include a provision that prohibits all
commercial office use in the project. The applicant has agreed to this
recommendation, and language prohibiting all office uses including Business and
Professional, Creative, Medical and Dental, and Walk-in Clientele are prohibited
\[DA Section 2.5.1(c)(7)\].
2. The project should provide 20 additional long-term bike parking spaces for
employees. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and an additional
20 long-term bike parking spaces for a total of 64 spaces are provided in the
project as shown on the project plans.
3. The project should provide at least 3 electric charging stations within the EV
ready parking spaces provided for the project. The applicant has agreed to this
recommendation, and 3 electric charging stations within the EV ready parking
spaces will be provided in the project as shown on the project plans.
4. The number of unreserved commercial parking spaces available for public use
should be increased from 135 to 145. The applicant has agreed to this
recommendation, and this change has been revised in the Agreement \[DA
Section 2.8.10(a)\].
5. The commercial parking demand shall be analyzed commencing two years from
Certificate of Occupancy to determine whether any additional commercial spaces
up to 55 additional spaces (200 in total) may become unreserved spaces
available for public use. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and a
provision in the Agreement has been added accordingly. \[DA Section 2.8.10(b)\].
6. The project shall provide space within the subterranean garage for the storage of
energy fuel cells. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and a
provision in the Agreement has been added accordingly \[DA Section 2.8.21\].
7. The developer should provide a transit subsidy between 25-50% of the cost of a
monthly regional transit pass for 1-3 months for new project residents electing
not to obtain the resident transportation allowance prescribed in the Agreement.
The applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and proposes a transit
subsidy of 25% of the cost of a monthly regional transit pass for 3 months for
new project residents electing not to receive a transportation allowance \[DA
Section 2.8.7(e)(3)(ii)\].
6 of 50
thth
8. The cross court driveway connecting 5 Street and 5 Court Alley shall remain
open at all times. Condition No. 7 has been added reflecting this
recommendation.
9. Increase availability of the community room for public use from 2 to 4 times per
month. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and DA section 2.8.10
has been revised accordingly.
10. Allow the ARB to have design flexibility in amount of floor area reduction that
may result from the Architectural Review Board design review procedures no
greater than a 2% reduction in ground floor commercial area and no greater than
a 5% in upper residential floor. Staff is supportive of this recommendation. The
applicant does not agree to this recommendation however considering the
Planning Comm has revised their proposal from 2% to 3%
specific for the residential floor area only. The applicant expresses concerns with
since float-up review, including reductions in floor area (4.5 to 4.0), and
increased ground floor open space. Staff and the applicant have agreed to
disagree on this issue and as a result, both proposals are shown in the DA. \[DA
Section 6.1\].
11. The ARB should pay particular attentio
it may affect Project and neighboring uses. Condition No. 2(e) has been added
reflecting this recommendation.
12. The ARB should pay particular attention to ensure that the publicly-accessible
open space immediately west of the main residential lobby is usable by the public
and contributes to the pedestrian environment of the surrounding publicly
accessible open space. Condition No. 2(f) has been added reflecting this
recommendation.
13. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council should further
support the use of SMURRF water for this type of project.
Project Analysis
Project Description
The project is a 7-story building with a maximum height of 84 feet, consisting of 35,428
SF of ground floor commercial space, 24,217 square feet of subterranean commercial
space, 249 residential units with 233,600 square feet of residential floor area, and a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 4.0. The four-level subterranean parking garage consists of
7 of 50
524 parking spaces, and a total of 29,041 square feet of commercial (24,217 SF) and
residential (4,824 SF) area that are excluded from the floor area ratio calculation. The
ground floor and subterranean commercial space could include pedestrian-oriented,
neighborhood-serving commercial uses including a general market, restaurant, retail
establishments, fitness/exercise facility. The development agreement places a leasing
priority for at least 15,000 square feet of general market at the ground floor level.
al component consists of 249 residential units with the following
unit configuration:
Unit Type Number of Units Bedrooms Percentage Average Sq Ft
Studio 49 0 19.7% 573
1-Bed 125 125 50.2% 820
2-Bed 50 100 20.1% 1,174
3-Bed 25 75 10.0% 1,359
Total 249 300 100% 982 SF
Total Project Average Bedroom Factor (300/249) = 1.2
The proposed unit mix percentages are consistent with Development Agreement priority
processing guidelines established by the City Council of 20% maximum studios,
minimum 20% two-bedroom units, and minimum 10% three-bedroom units. Further, the
average number of bedrooms for all of the market-rate units combined is 1.2, consistent
with the 1.2-1.5 unit mix threshold established for Tier 2 projects pursuant to the Zoning
code.
Project Design + Site Planning
The proposed building design is modern/contemporary. The building is divided into four
separate building forms above the podium level (second floor) with landscaped courts in
between the structures designed with seat walls for project residents. The upper levels
above the podium level consist of residential uses, and are connected by open
pedestrian bridges on each floor providing access between the buildings. Separating
the building into four sections breaks the overall length and building mass of the entire
structure, and allows for adequate light and air passage through the project and
separation between residential units. These physical breaks between the buildings also
provide light, air, and building mass relief for adjacent office and residential uses across
th
the 5 Court alley. Exterior building materials would consist of smooth limestone plaster,
8 of 50
operable and fixed sunshade louvers, board formed concrete, and aluminum frame
windows and balcony doors. The four building elements are designed with windows in
a variety of sizes and arrangements (horizontally and vertically) on each internal and
external elevation, and include private balconies with steel cable or semi-transparent
glass railings. To ensure there is adequate privacy between north/south facing
residential units, staff has included Condition No. 2 requiring that the ARB pay particular
attention to the use and materiality of the privacy louvers/screens.
th
5 Street Elevation | Corridor View Between Buildings
Ground Floor Commercial Uses
The ground floor commercial space would include pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood-
serving commercial uses that may include market, restaurant, and retail establishments.
The project includes approximately 34,577 SF of ground floor commercial area (35,428
SF including support areas) divided within two physically separated areas (8,068 SF
and 26,509 SF). Although separate tenant spaces may be created to accommodate a
variety of commercial uses, the larger of the spaces has been designed to
accommodate a general market use. As indicated during concept review, a ground floor
market had been commented by the Commission and Council as an important project
component as proposed by the applicant. Accordingly, the Development Agreement
(Article 2.25) includes a provision that prioritizes a general market use on the ground
floor. Specifically, the developer is required to provide a general market on the ground
floor, unless unable to secure a tenant after demonstrated good faith attempts for 180
days, and may propose alternate commercial uses, subject to discretion of the Planning
Director. The provision also requires the market to participate in the Calfresh program,
federally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that
9 of 50
provides debit cards to low-income individuals and families that can be used at markets
to purchase food. This would allow the market to be more accessible to low-income
individuals and families.
Pedestrian Orientation + Open Space
Ground Floor Open Space
The conceptual ground floor design shown as Figure 1 below has been revised resulting
in an increase in the amount of ground floor open space, an improvement in the overall
th
pedestrian realm, and adequate pedestrian space along 5 Street.
Figure 1: Float-Up Conceptual Ground Floor Plan + Vehicular Access
Changes to the conceptual ground floor plans include the following:
1. Reduced Ground Floor Commercial Space: The ground floor commercial space
was reduced by approximately 4,000 SF, resulting in reduced floor area, and
greater ground floor setbacks/open space.
2. Additional Ground Floor Setback: Portions of the building frontage have been
th
further recessed 18-24 feet on Broadway and 19-51 feet on 5 Street resulting in
additional open space with a minimum unobstructed pedestrian clear zone of 12
feet along both street frontages.
3. Ground Floor Courtyard: Additional open space (plaza) in between the first two
buildings from the street corner has been created on the ground floor and is open
above (no projecting podium level above), leading to the recessed centralized
residential lobby. Relocating the residential lobby from its previous location allows
th
for increased storefront visibility and improved use of the open space along 5 St.
10 of 50
4. Building/Cross Court Driveway Corner: The pedestrian orientation at the driveway
th
corner has been improved. The width of the cross court driveway connecting 5
Street and the alley has been reduced, allowing for additional open space for
pedestrian circulation, outdoor seating, and short-term bike parking.
Figure 2: Proposed Ground Floor Plan + Vehicular Access
Loading Dock
The proposed ground floor building design incorporates glazing surfaces with varying
th
setbacks throughout the 5 Street elevation, providing outdoor seating opportunities,
adequate sidewalk space for pedestrian circulation, short-term bike parking, and
gathering spaces adjacent to the public sidewalk. The ground floor would have a 20
foot floor-to-floor height with
transparent glazing, exceeding
the minimum draft DCP
standard of 18 feet. Pockets of
outdoor seating areas are
th
proposed facing 5 Street, with
the largest open area identified
on the plans as the public plaza
at the street corner. The ground
floor would include
approximately 2,790 SF of
outdoor dining area to support
restaurant and food serving
uses. The ground floor building setback provides additional sidewalk width exceeding
th
the minimum sidewalk width of 15 feet (curb to building) along 5 Street, and 18 feet
along Broadway as contemplated in the draft Downtown Community Plan (DCP). More
th
specifically, the ground floor storefronts along 5 Street are generally setback from the
curb ranging from 32-37 feet and 45-51 feet at the street corner, and range from 18-24
feet along Broadway, as shown in Figure 2 above. Although structural column,
11 of 50
stair/elevator shaft, and light well projections are located within the ground floor open
space areas, a mi-
maintained between the existing tree wells and these projections. This clearance would
sidewalk, particularly at these reduced points along the sidewalk. No permanent
physical obstructions, including outdoor dining, may be located within this clear
pedestrian zone as described in DA Section 2.8.2 and as shown in the Publicly
Accessible Open Space plan provided as Exhibit L. To ensure there is adequate space
for pedestrian circulation, staff recommends that the ARB pay particular attention to the
th
proposed placement of the building columns on the ground floor along the 5 Street
elevation (Condition 2).
The main residential lobby is located between the first two buildings from the street
corner, with a smaller secondary lobby adjacent to the cross court driveway. The
primary lobby is also accessible from the rear alley through the short-term residential
bike parking area. Short-term
bike parking for commercial
visitors is spread throughout the
ground floor. Resident short-term
bike parking is provided adjacent
to the main residential lobby,
accessible from the rear alley.
Along the alley, passenger and
commercial loading spaces are
provided, and the ground floor is
setback two feet from the
property line that provides
additional alley width to accommodate service and delivery vehicles for improved alley
circulation.
The proposed ground floor open space has increased from the conceptual plans from
5.6% to 20%, consistent with the 20% ground floor open space contemplated in the
draft DSP at the time of concept review. As shown in Figure 3 below, the proposed
13,614 SF of ground floor open space includes the setback areas between the building
th
and minimum sidewalk width, provided primarily at the street corner and along 5
Street.
Figure 3: Ground Open Space Plan
Floor
12 of 50
Additional open space is provided in between the resident short-term bike parking area
and the main residential lobby that would primarily be used by residents. The cross
court driveway area is not included in the percentage, as recommended by the
Commission during concept review. However, it should be noted that there are areas of
open space not specifically designed for usable open space (accounting for
approximately 3%) that the applicant has included in the ground floor percentage,
including the 1,120 SF area provided along the rear alley and the 940 SF landscaped
area adjacent to the cross court driveway along the southern property line.
Resident Open Space and Roof Deck Amenities
Resident common open space is provided on two second floor courtyards at the podium
level consisting of 6,612 SF, and on the roof deck that includes 25,903 SF. Each
building form includes resident amenities on the roof deck, collectively consisting of
lounge, bbq/dining, dog run, and landscape/garden areas for residents, including a pool
and spa. Photovoltaic solar canopies are proposed that would provide shading for
residents with additional solar hot water panels provided above the mechanical
Sustainability staff, the proposed area of solar panels (100 kilowatt system) would
gene
of the pool would be limited to 12,000 gallons and would be heated with 100%
renewable energy.
Figure 4: Roof Plan
13 of 50
Private balconies and patios averaging 50 SF per unit would provide an additional
12,544 SF of private open space. The project provides a total of 58,707 SF of open
space or 86.9% of the parcel, including 20% on the ground floor.
Building Mass + Area Context
The upper floors above
the podium level are
divided into four
separate building forms
with openings in
between approximately
27 and 30 feet in
average width.
Separating the building
into four building
forms/sections reduces
the overall length and
upper level building
mass of the structure as
viewed from the street
and rear alley, and allows for adequate light and air passage through the buildings for
residents. The building includes angled façades and varied building planes on each
elevation in an alternating pattern between floors, an
footprint is shaped differently. In efforts to reduce the upper level massing, parapets
have been lowered and upper level units (3 bed units) include larger recessed balconies
that provide added visibility and building relief. Each building form includes two façade
types vertically divided: sculptural plaster faces on the north sides and fiber cement
board in warm grey with fixed and operable sunshade louvers on the south sides. This
façade treatment is also applied to the alley elevation. The operable sunshade louvers
allow the facades to vary in their appearances depending on the natural lighting. These
design elements provide added visual interest to each building form that further helps to
reduce the perceived building mass on upper floors.
14 of 50
th
Figure 5: 5 Street Elevation
As described earlier in this report, the existing structures in the area range in building
th
Court Alley (520
Colorado Avenue) approximately 84 feet in height. At 7 stories, 84 feet in height, the
proposed building would be taller than nearby existing buildings. However in reviewing
the project contextually, the proximity of the project site to the Expo light rail station and
the Colorado Esplanade are important considerations. From an urban design
perspective and based on the draft DCP, increased density at the proposed site would
be appropriate and is supported by the anticipated increase in pedestrian volumes in
this transit-adjacent area of the downtown.
Building Differentiation and Rear Elevation Design
Design comments provided during concept review included that the building forms
should be differentiated in building design, and the rear elevation needed further
enhancement. Although the overall building forms are similar in concept, each form
th
includes subtle differences in appearance depending on the floor and location facing 5
Street, consisting of angled façades and varied building planes on each elevation in an
alternating patterns. As shown in Figure 6 below, the rear alley has been further
enhanced from the conceptual design. In addition to larger windows added throughout
the elevation, additional balconies were added on upper floors that improve resident
views and private open space. Further, the split façade design consisting of sculptural
plaster and fiber cement board were added throughout that improves the relationship of
s, providing
a more cohesive design.
Figure 6: Proposed Rear Alley Elevation
15 of 50
Conceptual Rear Alley Elevation
Vehicular Parking and Access | Bike Parking
Vehicle Parking
th
The four-level subterranean garage is designed with driveway access from both 5
th
Street and 5
provides 524 vehicular parking spaces (and 12 motorcycle spaces on P2 level) for
residents, guests, and commercial uses. Approximately 46 of these spaces would be
provided in a tandem configuration. Fourteen commercial tandem spaces located on
the P2 level would be operated by valet or attendant assist system, and 32 residential
tandem spaces would be located on residential parking levels. Thirty-two residential
units would have the option to lease two parking spaces in a tandem configuration.
Both commercial and residential parking levels are accessed by their own separate
ramps located off of the cross court driveway, which would remain open at all times.
Commercial parking is located on the first and second (P1, P2) subterranean levels, and
residential parking is located on the third and fourth (P3, P4) levels. Residential parking
spaces would be secured and separated from the commercial parking spaces. Excess
commercial parking demand may be accommodated by use of surplus residential
parking managed by attendant parking.
A parking demand analysis was prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting,
concluding that the projected peak parking demands for both the proposed commercial
(204 spaces) and residential uses (306 spaces) could be sufficiently satisfied by the
16 of 50
proposed parking supply, and the proposed parking is appropriate for the project. The
study compared the Zoning Ordinance and draft DCP parking standards, and further
developed parking rates applied to a shared parking model to account for the inherent
characteristics of a mixed-use development. Furthermore, the study concluded that the
proposed number of tandem spaces would not adversely affect project operations. The
parking demand study is provided as Attachment K.
Pursuant to the DA Section 2.8.10, at least 145 commercial parking spaces would be
unreserved such that the parking garage would serve the development and also
P1 and P2 levels as unreserved commercial parking would be appropriate compared to
reserving parking spaces for City use as negotiated in recent Development Agreements
both resi
(DA Section 2.8.7).
The following table compares the minimum vehicular and bicycle parking requirements
of the draft DCP with the proposed project.
Table 1: Required and Proposed Parking Comparison
Parking Type Draft DCP Proposed Project
287 residential 319 residential
Automobile
208 commercial* 205 commercial**
Off-Street Parking
495 total 524 total
368 residential
350 residential
Bicycle Parking
64 commercial
42 commercial
(Long Term)
total
432
392 total
35 residential 37 residential
Bicycle Parking
63 commercial 75 commercial
(Short Term)
98 total 112 total
17 of 50
Parking Type Draft DCP Proposed Project
490 544***
Total Bike Parking
* Based on 1/300 parking rate on all commercial SF(62,435 SF), per draft DCP parking rates.
** Exclude 12 proposed motorcycle parking spaces proposed on P2 level. Per ZO,
12 motorcycle spaces would equate to 3 vehicle spaces, per SMMC Section 9.28.180(G).
*** Includes 51 cargo bike spaces.
Bicycle Parking
Long-term bike parking for both commercial and residential uses, including locker and
shower facilities, would be located on the first and second garage levels in a location
convenient to access elevators. Short-term bike parking for commercial visitors is
spread throughout the ground floor, and conceptually includes 56 spaces within the
public right of way (parkway) adjacent to the curb and sidewalk. However, due to
competing interests for space in the public right-of-way, and to ensure the appropriate
mix of uses within this area, staff will continue to work with the applicant on the
appropriate number of bike parking spaces to be located within the parkway area
(Condition No. 6), with a total of short-term spaces no less than the minimum required
per the draft DCP. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, at least 25% of the required
short-term bike parking for properties located in the Downtown are required to be
provided on-site, whereas the remainder may be provided within the public right-of-way,
subject to Public Works approval.
Commercial / Resident Loading
The project includes two loading spaces; a passenger size loading space for residential
use and a semi-tractor trailer loading space as required for a general market, and would
also support other commercial uses. The semi-tractor trailer loading space is located
off of the rear alley adjacent to the cross court driveway and is designed with sliding
screen doors along the side of the space (facing the alley) that, when opened, would
allow adequate turning maneuvers and improved accessibility into the loading area from
both the alley and driveway. Condition No. 5 requires that the sliding screen doors be
closed during loading operations to mitigate noise, particularly for residential uses
located across the alley.
1984 LUCE Consistency
500 Broadway: General Plan Text Amendments to FAR and Number of Stories
Pursuant to the LUCE and the IZO, the 1984 LUCE and zoning standards remain
applicable to Downtown properties until the adoption of the Downtown Community Plan.
Accordingly, the project is subject to the 1984 LUCE Downtown Core standards and the
18 of 50
C3C Zoning standards from the 1988 Zoning Ordinance (previous ZO). The 1984
LUCE establishes the maximum building height of 84 feet, 6 stories, and 3.5 FAR for
the Downtown Core area where the subject site is located. The proposed project is
consistent with the allowable building height of 84 feet, however is inconsistent with the
number of stories and FAR limitations. The applicant requests to amend the maximum
Floor Area Ratio from 3.5 to 4.0 and to add a provision that there shall be no limitation
on the number of stories of any structure containing at least one floor of residential use.
The 1984 LUCE Policy 1.3.6 would be amended as follows:
Core Area Specific Plan is
adopted, allow in the Downtown area a maximum of:
And permit by site review up to:
3.5 4.0 FAR
There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any
structure containing at least one floor of residential uses, so long as
the height does not exceed the maximum height in number of feet.
The Downtown Core area affected by these amendments includes the area bounded by
ndthth
2 Street (east side) to 4 Court between Broadway and Colorado Ave (north side), 5
Street (both sides) between Wilshire Blvd and Colorado Ave (north side), and the south
th
side of Wilshire Blvd between 5 Court and Lincoln Blvd.
The proposed amendment would be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and
land uses of the 1984 LUCE. Specifically, the proposed increase in allowable FAR from
3.5 to 4.0 within the Downtown Core area further reinforces the Downtown as the focus
of the City, supporting the greatest concentration of activity, consistent with LUCE
Objective 1.3. Consistent with this objective, the proposed amendment would allow
additional commercial and residential floor area in the Downtown Core area where it
would be appropriate adjacent to the Bayside District and be within a transit-adjacent
area in proximity to the Expo light rail terminus station and Colorado Esplanade. The
proposed amendment to allow no limitations on the number of stories of any structure
19 of 50
containing at least one floor of residential uses, so long as the height does not exceed
the maximum height in number of feet, provides a housing incentive and would provide
projects with greater design flexibility in achieving allowable floor area. The proposed
amendments support residential mixed-use development and would result in increased
housing opportunities, consistent with Policy 1.3.5 which encourages residential uses in
the Downtown on upper floors and neighborhood commercial uses for the Downtown
residential community.
The draft DCP contemplates a 4.0 FAR for the Transit Adjacent district where the
project is located, and does not include story limitations for the Downtown. Therefore,
the proposed amendments would be consistent with the contemplated draft standards.
The DCP, when adopted, would establish the LUCE and zoning development standards
for the project site, and would replace the 1984 LUCE standards that are currently
applicable to the project, including the proposed General Plan Amendments to FAR and
number of stories. Due to the review and consideration of the draft DCP by City Council
within the next year, the applicability of the proposed amendments would be limited to
the subject project, and any development projects seeking a 4.0 FAR would be subject
to Commission and Council review as a Development Agreement per the Interim Zoning
Ordinance for the Downtown. . Staff supports the proposed amendments based on
consistency with 1984 LUCE objectives and policies for the area and that the
amendments are consistent with the contemplated standards in the draft DCP.
1626 Lincoln Boulevard: Zoning Map Amendment
To facilitate the 64 units of off-site affordable housing proposed for the 500 Broadway
project, the applicant, Community Corporation of Santa Monica, requests a Zoning Map
Amendment to change the zoning district from M-1 (Industrial Conservation) to MUB
(Mixed Use Boulevard) for the rear portion of the parcel. Currently, the parcel is divided
by a Zoning District boundary in which the development standards applicable to each
district are applied to the area within the District. The proposed zone change would
allow the project to be developed consistently throughout the site according to the
Mixed-Use Boulevard development standards. Community Corporation of Santa Monica
is developing the site pursuant to a Development Review (DR) Permit 15ENT-0306.
The 1626 Lincoln Boulevard project requires the following entitlements/approvals:
- Certification of 500 Broadway Final EIR (PC recommendation, Council
approval)
- Development Review Permit 15ENT-0306 (PC approval)
- Zoning Map Amendment 15ENT-0307 (PC recommendation, Council approval)
20 of 50
The City has reviewed this off-site affordable housing project concurrently with 500
Broadway, and the project was analyzed as a project alternative in the 500 Broadway
Final EIR to a project level of detail. Therefore, the environmental clearance for this
project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will be
provided
on May 11, 2016,
provided Council approves the 500 Broadway Development Agreement, the zoning map
amendme
in which these requests are being reviewed by the Commission and Council will assist
100% affordable housing project.
The property located at 1626 Lincoln Boulevard is currently divided into two land use
and zoning designations; the approximate front ¾ depth of the property (easterly) is
located in the Mixed-Use Boulevard LUCE designation and Mixed-Use Boulevard
Zoning designation. The approximate rear ¼ depth of the property (westerly) is located
in the Downtown Core LUCE designation and M1 Industrial Conservation Zoning
designation. Similar to 500 Broadway, the 1984 LUCE and 1988 Zoning standards
remain applicable to downtown properties until the adoption of the Downtown
Community Plan. Accordingly, while the front portion of the parcel is subject to the
current MUB LUCE and MUB zoning designations, the subject rear portion of the parcel
is subject to the 1984 LUCE Downtown Frame standards and the M1 Zoning standards
from the 1988 Zoning Ordinance (previous ZO).
Figure 7:
M1
Downtown
Core
MUBMUB
Land Use Designation Map: Property divided into Zoning District Map: Property divided into
two Land Use Designations: MUB + Dowtown Core two Zoning Districts: MUB + M1
CCSM requests to change the zoning for the portion of the parcel currently zoned M1 to
the MUB zoning district, consistent with the front portion of the property. The proposed
Mixed-Use Boulevard zoning district for the subject rear portion of the property would
result in development standards that would remain consistent with the underlying 1984
21 of 50
LUCE Downtown Frame requirements. Therefore, the proposed zone change would be
consistent with the General Plan. As indicated in the chart below, the 1984 LUCE
allows 6 stories, 84 feet in height, and FAR of 3.0. Consistent with these requirements,
the proposed MUB zoning district includes no limit on the number of stories, 55 feet in
height, and FAR of 2.75. Although the MUB does not limit the number of stories, a
project would practically not be able to achieve greater than 6 stories within the
maximum height of 55 feet, and is therefore consistent with the 1984 LUCE
requirement. Furthermore, the proposed affordable housing project would be required
to comply with the MUB zoning development standards.
Table 2: Development Standards Comparison for 1626 Lincoln
1984 LUCE Draft DCP M1 zone MUB zone Project
Frame
FAR 3.0 2.75 1.0 2.75 1.7
Height 60
Stories 6 No Limit 2 No Limit 5
Below is the draft DCP Downtown District map that identifies the subject property
located in the Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB) district. The draft standards are generally
consistent with the existing MUB zoning standards currently applicable to properties
along this segment of Lincoln Boulevard. The DCP, when adopted, would replace the
existing Mixed-Use Boulevard zoning and land use designation along this portion of
Lincoln Boulevard. According to the map in the draft DCP, the subject site will be
entirely located within the MUB district, and will not remain divided into multiple districts.
The draft map recognizes this existing parce
inconsistency will be addressed. Staff is supportive of the proposed map amendment
based on its consistency with the draft DCP.
Figure 8: Proposed Zone Change
M1
MUB
22 of 50
Draft DCP District Map Proposed Zoning Change
The affordable housing project is designed based on the entire property being subject to
the current Mixed-Use Boulevard zoning standards consisting of a maximum building
height of 55 feet and 2.75 FAR allowable for Tier 2 100% affordable housing projects.
The underlying M1 development standards currently applicable to the rear portion of the
property (per the IZO) would limit development in that particular area to two stories with
a maximum building height of 30 feet, and a 1.0 FAR.
The proposed amendment would be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and
land uses of the 1984 LUCE. Specifically, the proposed Mixed-Use Boulevard zoning
district for the subject rear portion of the property would result in development
standards, including building height, number of stories, and floor area ratio, that are
consistent with the underlying 1984 LUCE Downtown Frame requirements, and as
such, the proposed zoning map amendment would be consistent with the General Plan.
In addition, the proposed map amendment is requested in conjunction with a 100%
affordable housing development project at the subject property, consistent with LUCE
Objective 1.1 which seeks to increase the amount of affordable housing particularly in
the Downtown. For these reasons, staff supports the proposed map amendment.
Draft Downtown Community Plan (DCP) Consistency
The project is currently subject to the 1984 Downtown Core LUCE standards and would
be consistent with the objectives and policies of the 1984 LUCE with the approval of the
proposed General Plan Text Amendment related to the allowable number of stories and
FAR. The DCP, when adopted, would establish the LUCE and zoning development
standards for the project site, and replace the 1984 LUCE standards that are currently
applicable to the project, including the proposed General Plan Amendments. The
project site is identified in the draft DCP within the Transit Adjacent district. As
recommended during float-up review, the design of the project has been modified to be
compliant with the draft standards provided in the draft DSP issued in February 2014.
Based on the February 2016 draft DCP, certain standards have been revised and new
standards have been added.
The draft DCP includes maximum floor plate ratio, maximum upper level building
frontage occupancy, and minimum open space requirements based on small, medium,
large, and sites exceeding 100,000 SF building types. As defined, the project would fall
under the sites exceeding 100,000 SF building type category. The DCP identifies four
sites (table 2A.2) in the Downtown that, given the parcel size and development
standards, could potentially produce projects 100,000 SF in size or greater, which does
not include the 500 Broadway project. This is based on the anticipation that the timing
of the 500 Broadway project would precede the adoption of the DCP.
23 of 50
Attachment F contains a table that compares the proposed project to the 1984 LUCE
and draft DCP standards. Based on the draft DCP standards, the project is consistent
with the building height, floor area ratio (FAR), maximum average building height, and
maximum unbroken primary façade length, however is inconsistent with the following
standards as further described in Attachment H:
Floor Plate Ratio
Upper Level Building Frontage Occupancy
Open Space
Pedestrian Level Building Frontage
Consistent with the draft DCP, increased density at the proposed site, in proximity to the
Expo light rail terminus station and the Colorado Esplanade, would be appropriate and
is supported by the anticipated increase in pedestrian volumes in this transit-adjacent
area of the Downtown. The draft DCP seeks to establish an urban form strategy that
places the greatest height and density near the Expo terminus station and adjacent to
the I-10 freeway, where there is the most convenient access to high frequency transit,
istoric core and at edge
transitions to residential neighborhoods in order to preserve existing scale and
character.
The project would provide transit-adjacent housing and neighborhood-serving
commercial uses in proximity to light rail and transit opportunities, convenient for
residents to use alternate modes of transportation other than private vehicles, and in
City goals of increasing transportation choice. Also consistent with mobility goals for the
th
Downtown, the project would widen sidewalks along 5 Street and Broadway that would
expand pedestrian capacity and enhance the pedestrian experience adjacent to the
project. Consistent with City goals to nurture a complete and long-term Downtown
community, the Development Agreement would provide a mix of sizable units, and
would also result in the construction of 64 affordable housing units that would expand
affordable family housing and help balance the housing mix in the Downtown.
Housing Element Consistency
Council previously expressed interest in information from the LUCE monitoring report
that would provide some context to the proposed housing project. For the purpose of
evaluating the impacts of potential land use changes during the 20-year time horizon of
the LUCE, among other factors, the LUCE Final EIR (FEIR) considered residential and
non-residential land use changes. The LUCE FEIR analyzed 4,955 residential units.
The projections of land use change in the LUCE FEIR are not a cap on development but
24 of 50
rather were used to analyze the environmental impact of the General Plan. Table 3
provides information regarding the land use change analyzed in the LUCE FEIR and the
proposed project.
Table 3: Residential Units Completed, Under Construction or Approved Since LUCE Adoption
Residential UnitsResidential Units Approved/500 Broadway
Residential Units
Completed
Under ConstructionNo Building Permits
1,064429551249
The 2013-2021 Housing Element incorporates the housing goals from the LUCE, which
generally seek to produce more housing in transit accessible locations. The proposed
project is located adjacent to the Expo light rail corridor and is within ½ mile of the
Downtown terminus station. Santa Monica was allocated 1,674 units in the 2014-2021
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) with a quantified objective of 1,371 units.
Based on information from the Housing Division, there are 871 units that have been
completed or are under construction leaving 500 units remaining to achieve the
quantified objective. Table 4 illustrates the remaining quantified objective by income
category with information from recently approved housing projects. Approved projects
will actually need to be completed projects in order to achieve the quantified objective.
Table 4: Housing Element Remaining Quantified Objectives
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Moderate Above Moderate
Remaining Quantified Objective2510811486167
Recently Approved Housing Projects
--1010--80
1415 5 St DA--104--50
th
1601 Lincoln Blvd DA (Norms)--144171
3008 Santa Monica Blvd DR -- 4 -- -- 22
500 Broadway DA (PENDING) 7 56 1 -- 249
Development Agreement Overview
A development agreement is a contract between the City and a developer that
authorizes the type and amount of development that may occur within a specific period
25 of 50
of time. Development agreements provide developers with guaranteed development
rights in exchange for community benefits. A development agreement must comply with
the General Plan, but can establish different development standards than provided by
zoning regulations.
A development agreement can provide greater latitude to advance local planning
policies compared to the Development Review Permit process. While a development
agreement is an alternative to the standard development approval process, in practice it
is similar to other public review processes where the City Council makes the final
decision with the exception that the City Council has more discretion in imposing
conditions and requirements on the proposed project since development agreements
are negotiated contracts.
The proposed development agreement is included as Attachment B.
Community Benefits
The development agreement includes a negotiated community benefits package that
includes a contribution amount of $6.4M excluding affordable housing, summarized in
Table 4, with values assigned to each community benefit where possible to monetize
the value of the benefit. The total cost of the off-site affordable housing project to the
applicant is dependent on the amount of TCAC financing available for the project. As
discussed, the cost of the land ($16.3M) more than satisfies AHPP requirements and
the additional land cost exceeding AHPP requirements ($8.9M) would be considered
community benefit value. Remaining costs to the applicant to complete the project are
also considered the community benefit, and based on a monetary value would range
between $18-32M depending on the public financing secured by CCSM. Therefore, the
total monetized value of the community benefits package would range between $
33.3M-$ 47.3M, consisting of $6.4M in contributions, $8.9M in additional land cost
exceeding AHPP requirements, and $18-32M value of completing the affordable
housing project. Community benefits are described in further detail below:
Off-Site Affordable Housing Through Land Acquisition
dedicating land located at 1626 Lincoln Boulevard to Community Corporation of Santa
Monica (CCSM) for the construction of a 100% affordable housing project with 64
residential units. Pursuant to the
guidelines, the applicant may meet the affordable housing obligation by dedicating land
to a non-profit housing provider that must be of a value at least equivalent to the
affordable housing obligation, which would be approximately $7.45M based on the
current affordable housing fee rate of $31.25/project square footage (238,424 SF x
-site property located at 1626
Lincoln Boulevard would be $16.3M, exceeding the minimum land value, thereby more
than satisfying the AHPP obligation. The additional cost of the land would be considered
26 of 50
a community benefit. It is anticipated that the project would be constructed concurrently
with the 500 Broadway project, and to ensure that the affordable housing project is
completed, as outlined in DA Section 2.8.1, 500 Broadway may not obtain its Certificate
of Occupancy (C of O) or offer residential units for rent until 1626 Lincoln Blvd has
obtained its C of O and offered residential units for rent, with specified exception. The
off-site housing project as it relates to community benefit is described later in this report.
The Development Review Permit for 1626 Lincoln Boulevard will be heard by the
Planning Commission on May 11, 2016.
In addition to exceeding AHPP requirements, the applicant would also provide
additional financing for constructing the 64-unit affordable housing project, and funding
on-site resident services annually once the project is completed. CCSM will seek
construction financing through the California Tax Credit Allocation Com
with remaining financing provided by the applicant. Depending on the amount of public
financing secured by CCSM, the applicant estimates total financing (including land
costs) of approximately $34-48M. The off-site housing project would consist of 64
affordable units with a unit mix and affordability level consisting of the following:
Unit Type Number of Units Bedrooms Percentage Average Sq Ft
1-Bed 29 29 45.3% 500
2-Bed 18 36 28.1% 750
3-Bed 17 51 26.6% 1,000
Total 64 116 100% 750 SF
29 (45%) 1-Bedroom Units (Ave Size: 500 SF)
18 (28%) 2-Bedroom Units (Ave Size: 750 SF)
17 (27%) 3-Bedroom Units (Ave Size: 1,000 SF)
Affordable Housing Average Bedroom Factor (116/64) = 1.8
r would be 1.8 bedrooms
27 of 50
The affordability levels for these units are as follows:
30% AMI 40% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI Total
ŷƩĻĻΏĬĻķ Ћ ЊЎ 17
ǞƚΏĬĻķ Ћ ЊЌ Ћ Њ 18
hƓĻΏĬĻķ Ќ ЊЌ ЊЌ 29
Total 7 13 26 17 1 64
10% units affordable to 30% income households or lower per TCAC.
89% units affordable to 60% income households or lower per TCAC.
1% unit affordable to 80% income households or lower per TCAC (managers unit).
The off-site 100% affordable housing project would be owned in whole or in part and
operated by Community Corporation of Santa Monica. The project includes a
considerable percentage of larger two and three bedroom units (55% of the units)
intended to accommodate growing families. Accordingly, the project includes extensive
open space, play areas and gardens, and communal space that would be utilized for
on-site training and activities specifically for project residents. As further detailed in DA
Section 2.8.1(a), the applicant would also provide a 100% transportation allowance for
residents of the affordable housing project, and wi-fi access for residents at no cost.
The off-site project would consist of approximately 26% of the total units at the 500
Broadway site as affordable off-site units. This would be a considerable increase in the
percentage of affordable housing units provided by a project based on recently
approved projects in the downtown that have provided between 20-22% affordable units
(on-site). Also, the project would include 3-bedroom units that would expand family
living in the Downtown area. Based on the number of affordable units, unit composition,
and the family service amenities that would be available for residents, staff is supportive
of the project providing the affordable housing units at the proposed off-site location.
Although the applicant is actively pursuing the off-site affordable housing project,
alternatively, in the event that the off-site affordable housing project cannot be achieved,
applicant may elect to provide on-site affordable units instead of providing affordable
housing through the land acquisition option. Pursuant to DA Section 2.7.5(b), the
28 of 50
applicant would satisfy AHPP requirements by providing 25 on-site units (10%)
affordable to 50% income households. Pursuant to 2.8.1(c)(1), twelve additional units
affordable to 50% income households would be provided and 20 additional units
affordable to 80% income households, for a total of 32 community benefit affordable
units. In total, 57 affordable units or 23% of the total 249 residential units would be
provided on-site. The affordability levels for the on-site option would be as follows:
37 (15%) units for 50% income households.
20 (8%) units for 80% income households.
57 (23%) total affordable units
The proposed affordable housing unit mix for the on-site option would consist of the
following:
5 (9%) Studio Units (Ave Size: 500 SF)
37 (65%) 1-Bedroom Units (Ave Size: 600 SF)
10 (18%) 2-Bedroom Units (Ave Size: 850 SF)
5 ( 9%) 3-Bedroom Units (Ave Size: 1,080 SF)
Affordable Housing Average Bedroom Factor (72/57)= 1.26
The average affordable housing bedroom factor would be 1.26 bedrooms per unit,
The affordability levels for the total 57 residential units are as follows:
65% of the affordable units provided to 50% income households: 37units
5 (8.7%) Studio Units
25 (44%) 1-Bedroom Units
5 (8.7%) 2-Bedroom Units
2 (4%) 3-Bedroom Units
35% of the affordable units provided to 80% income households: 20 units
12 (21%) 1-Bedroom Units
29 of 50
5 (8.7%) 2-Bedroom Units
3 (5%) 3-Bedroom Units
The on-site proposal would include 57 of the 249 residential units, or 23% as affordable
units. Compared to the off-site 100% affordable housing project, the on-site scenario
would provide 7 fewer affordable units, 44 fewer bedrooms, significantly fewer 2- and 3-
bedroom units, and a significantly decreased level of affordability overall.
The monetized community benefit value of providing the 32 affordable housing units on-
site would be an estimated $10M value based on the 2014-15 affordable housing unit
unit of housing affordable to 30%, 50%, 80%, or moderate-income households. The
total monetized value under this on-site affordable housing scenario, including
contributions would be $16.7M, as provided in Table 5 below.
In the on-site scenario, the developer would be required to inform local disability
advocacy organizations of the availability of the affordable units and the process to be
adopted by the City Council in the Administrative Guidelines for the Affordable Housing
Production Program, households having at least one member of the household with a
physical disability shall have a preference for one-half of the affordable units in the
project.
Enhanced Impact Fees
The development agreement includes augmented impact fees compared to adopted
fees that would otherwise be required by the Municipal Code in addition to negotiated
contributions to priorities established in the LUCE. The following summarizes the
negotiated contributions:
30 of 50
Enhanced Transportation Impact Fee
A monetary contribution of $1,650,000 towards transportation programs. This
contribution is a 50% increase above adopted Transportation Impact fees for the
incremental development above Tier 1 - an increment of approximately
$310,000.
Enhanced Parks and Recreation Impact Fee
A monetary contribution of $1,700,000 towards parks and recreation programs.
This contribution is a 50% increase above adopted Parks and Recreation fees for
the incremental development above Tier 1 - an increment of approximately
$385,000.
Enhanced Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee
A monetary contribution of $325,000 to fund development of affordable housing
units in the City. This contribution is a 50% increase above adopted Affordable
Housing Linkage fees for the incremental development above Tier 1- an
increment of approximately $42,000.
Early Childhood Initiatives Contribution
A monetary contribution of $1,100,000 that would support early childhood
initiatives and resident services including but not limited to infant, toddler and
pre-school tuition subsidies; family services, family support and parent
engagement strategies; home visitation programs; facility and playground
improvements; and kindergarten readiness models. The City shall deposit such
monies into a separate restricted account to be used exclusively for the early
childhood initiatives and resident services as described above through guidelines
to be established by the City. First priority for receipt of these monies shall be
residents of the affordable housing project located at 1626 Lincoln or agencies
who will serve residents of the 1626 Lincoln project. This total contribution would
replace the Child Care Linkage Program ordinance requirements for the project.
31 of 50
Historic Preservation Contribution
A monetary contribution of $150,000 towards historic preservation programs
throughout the City.
Big Blue Bus Contribution
A monetary contribution of $240,000 towards Big Blue Bus transit improvements
in the Downtown.
Transportation Management Association Contribution
A monetary contribution of $150,000 towards Transportation Management
Association programs.
Physical Improvements
The ground floor building setback provides additional sidewalk width exceeding the
th
minimum sidewalk width of 15 feet (curb to building) along 5 Street, and 18 feet along
Broadway as contemplated in the draft Downtown Community Plan (DCP). More
th
specifically, the ground floor storefronts along 5 Street are generally setback from the
curb ranging from 33--25 feet
along Broadway. The proposed 13,614 SF of ground floor open space includes the
-wide clear pedestrian zone
and approximately 2,790 SF of outdoor dining area to support restaurant and food
serving uses.
Unreserved Commercial Parking
The project would provide 145 unreserved commercial parking spaces such that the
parking garage would serve the development and also function as a public parking
resource for the area. The applicant anticipates at least 60 reserved parking spaces
would be needed for potential commercial tenants. As recommended by the Planning
commencing two years from Certificate of Occupancy to determine whether any
additional commercial spaces up to 55 additional spaces (200 in total) may become
unreserved spaces available for public use. The recommendation is based on efforts to
maximize the amount of publicly available parking at the site while ensuring that the
Draft DCP Action AM3.5A seeks to encourage shared (unreserved) parking and
discourage reserved parking, ensuring that shared parking is open to all motorists,
regardless of whether they are customers, employees or building tenants, with the same
parking prices, restrictions, and privileges as building occupants. Chapter 3.3H of the
Draft DCP (Page 132) discusses the need for shared/unreserved parking, seeking
32 of 50
public parking opportunities as infill projects occur. The draft DCP anticipates that
approximately 800 additional public parking spaces will need to be added to the public
network to keep pace with land use changes that opt to participate in an expanded
parking in-lieu fee program. The development agreement supports maximizing the
amount of publicly available parking for visitors and employees by requiring that:
All parking be unbundled
Developer must charge for parking at rates not competitive with comparable
transit
This parking framework provides flexibility for the Developer to efficiently manage the
spaces to off-site users.
accessible parking supply in the Downtown area, and would also help with reducing
vehicular trips further into the downtown area. Specifically, the unreserved spaces
would be offered at market rates to commercial customers, all residential guests, and
any commercial tenants and their employees, and the general public in need of parking.
Community Meeting Space
The project would provide community meeting space available to non-profit or other
community organizations at a cost consistent with City-owned facilities, available at
least 4 times per month, as shown on the project plans (400 SF minimum space).
Local Hiring
The project would include local hiring provisions for construction-related and permanent
employment. The Developer and commercial tenants would be required to follow
certain steps to ensure that the greatest opportunity for interviewing local residents and
employees is provided. All hiring decisions would continue to remain at the discretion of
the Developer and commercial tenants.
Table 5: Summary of Proposed Community Benefits Able To Be Monetized
Community Benefit Value
Est.$26.6-$40.6M (less $7.4M land cost
Off-Site Affordable Housing Project (Cost
satisfying AHPP requirement)
to the Developer
$34M-$48M total including land costs
33 of 50
Enhanced TIF $1,650,000
Enhanced Parks and Recreation Fee $1,700,000
Enhanced Affordable Housing
$325,000
Commercial Linkage Fee
Early Childhood Initiative contribution $1,100,000
Historic Preservation contribution $150,000
Big Blue Bus contribution $240,000
Transportation Management Association $150,000
Recycled Water Infrastructure Program $900,000
Treated Urban Runoff distribution main
$200,000
(SMURRF) extension
$6,415,000 without affordable housing
Total
$33.3M-$47.3M including afford. housing
On-Site Affordable Scenario
On-Site Affordable Housing (32 Units)
$312,609 x 32 = $10,003,488
Contributions
$6,415,000
$6,415,000 without affordable housing
Total
$16,718,488 including afford. housing
Transportation Demand Management
The development agreement includes TDM measures that would reduce vehicular trips
and parking demand generated by the proposed project. Measures include, but are not
limited to, a transportation information center, average vehicle ridership (AVR) targets,
unbundled parking, parking cash-out, transportation allowances for employees and
residents equivalent to 100% of the cost of a monthly regional transit pass, a transit
subsidy of 25% of the cost of a monthly regional transit pass for 3 months for new
project residents, showers and lockers for commercial employees who bike to work,
ground level short-term visitor bike parking, long-term resident and commercial bike
parking, and active participation in a Transportation Management Association. The
TDM plan also includes a formula to calculate an alternative compliance fee should the
34 of 50
project not meet its annual AVR target. Further, the plan includes a PM peak hour trip
EIR. The provision requires
exceeding the trip generation limit, including working with staff on changes to the TDM
plan and penalty fees. The proposed TDM measures are further detailed in Section
2.8.7 of the development agreement.
Sustainability Elements
The negotiated sustainability elements are intended to ensure that the project meets the
highest levels of sustainability possible for the project. Many elements would likely have
long-
sustainability elements:
LEED Status
The project will be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum LEED® for Homes
Platinum certification as established by the LEED® Rating System. The applicant
studied the possibility of achieving Platinum certification under the version 4 (v4) rating
system and concluded that a lack of clarity regarding compliance with the energy
standards and credits still remain. The applicant has discussed v4 certification with the
Green Building Council as it relates to the project, and understand that the Council will
apply a hybrid of current v3 requirements since v4 standards have not been fully
established. Staff acknowledges this lack of clarity regarding compliance with the
energy standards. Staff understands that the main differences between version 2009
(v3) and v4 are potentially more efficiency gained in building energy performance and
greater transparency in material supply chains but it would be difficult to provide a
comparison of whether v4 provides significantly meaningful benefits over version 2009.
Considering that the Development Agreement includes energy reduction requirements,
including that the building shall use 15% less energy than required by California Energy
Code, staff would be supportive of the project achieving certification under v3. As a
result, the development agreement includes Platinum certification under the current
rating system.
Solar Infrastructure
The project would include renewable energy generation including roof-mounted
photovoltaic solar panels (100 kilowatt system) above trellis structures sufficient to
power all of the common areas, and solar water heating technology that would allow the
pool to be heated with 100% renewable energy. Furthermore, the building would be
designed to use 15% less energy than required by California Energy Code.
35 of 50
Consistent with zoning code requirements, the trellis structure projections are subject to
Architectural Review Board approval for photovoltaic solar energy systems exceeding 5
feet (not to exceed 14 feet) in height above district height limits.
Water Conservation
The project would use non-potable water sources for landscape irrigation and commit to
a 30% reduction below CalGreen baseline for interior building water usage. Specific
performance standards for all of the interior fixtures, washers, and toilets are outlined in
Section 2.8.4 of the development agreement. The applicant provided an estimate of the
-year average for the
use has a historical average use of 3885 gallons per day (gpd) and the project is
estimated to use approximately 13,800 gpd, which is a 41% reduction below CalGreen
baseline and 9,915 gpd more than the historical average water use of the existing use.
These performance standards would reduce water usage below baseline requirements,
however would not completely off-Council provided
direction regarding a potential water neutrality requirement applying to new
development on November 24, 2015. Potential approaches to offset water demand
from new development were presented including a proposal for how off-sets might be
calculated. Based on this concept, the Development Agreement includes a contribution
of $900,000 towards recycled water infrastructure program improvements throughout
the City. Furthermore, DA Section 2.8.20 requires that the developer extend the
existing Treated Urban Runoff (TUR) distribution main (SMURRF water main) to service
the project that would allow the use of SMURRF water for landscape irrigation and
potentially for future indoor usage as described below. Further, the developer would
provide $200,000 to the City to be used for extending the Treated Urban Runoff
distribution main from the project site to Santa Monica Boulevard that would assist with
extending the availability of SMURRF water into the Downtown area for landscape
irrigation and potential alternate uses such as toilet flushing for future projects.
There have been extensive discussions between the developer, the City, and the LA
County Department of Public Health on the use of recycled water and greywater for
toilet flushing for this project. On February 16, 2016, the LA County Department of
Public Health issued guidelines for alternate water sources for indoor/outdoor non-
potable water uses, notably including the use of non-potable water for residential toilet
flushing.
In researching other multi-family residential projects around the country that have
installed on-site greywater recycling systems, projects tended to be consistent with the
size of the proposed project (250 units), had obtained sizeable grants from a public
utility, or were no longer using the greywater system due to maintenance difficulties. In
speaking with manufacturers of greywater systems, it appears that the cost of
maintenance and regulatory compliance for water quality testing could be substantial.
Further, the City is continuing its research on a regulatory framework that would provide
36 of 50
appropriate oversight for testing of water quality produced by on-site recycled greywater
systems.
Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) currently has capacity to provide the proposed
project with recycled water for toilet flushing. The City is seeking opportunities to
expand the capacity of the SMURRF facility and also extend the availability of SMURRF
water into the Downtown area. Based on this available resource, staff pursued
extensive research with ongoing discussions with the applicant, City staff, and the LA
residential and common area commercial toilet flushing. This arrangement would
-site
greywater recycling systems. In comparing the potential options for reducing potable
water use in the project, staff determined that in the long-term, a more comprehensive
to individual
on-site greywater recycling systems. Expanding the capacity of the SMURRF facility
goal to achieve water self-sufficiency.
For SMURRF water to be utilized at the project site, the Treated Urban Runoff
distribution main (SMURRF) along Colorado Avenue would be extended to the project
site. The building would also be designed with dual plumbing that would allow the use
of potable water during instances where SMURRF water is unavailable. The applicant
has expressed concerns with using SMURFF water for indoor toilet flushing, given the
lack of precedent and still developing regulatory framework for governmental approvals
that are not yet in place authorizing the use of treated urban runoff/recycled water in
multi-family residential housing. In working with the applicant, the Development
Agreement (Section 2.8.5) includes a two-step approach for the project to utilize
SMURRF water for residential toilets and common area toilets in the garage and
employee shower/locker room. This approach would include (1) purple pipe installation
and (2) SMURRF water usage.
The provisions outlined in the DA are to ensure that the review of the purple pipe
verall building permit timeframe. For the
installation of purple pipe, the City shall prepare a public handout, within 30 days after
generally describing regulatory procedures for
dual plumbing of a building and other regulatory and permitting agencies having the
jurisdiction over the installation of the purple piping system in the project. Further, the
DA provides that the applicant and the City initiate early discussion on the design of the
purple pipe system and that if through the plan check process, that the installation of the
purple pipe system is determined to be infeasible that the $900,000 recycled water
infrastructure programs contribution negotiated for the project would be increased by
$300,000 for a total of $1.2M, in lieu of installing purple pipe (and using SMURRF water
37 of 50
for indoor use). However, staff believes that satisfying this initial step as outlined in the
DA is achievable.
Once the purple piping system has been approved and installed within the project, the
developer would be required to switch from using potable water in the purple piping
system to using SMURRF water when authorized for use. The City is required to obtain
necessary regulatory approvals authorizing SMURRF water for indoor toilet use in multi-
family
in the project, as outlined in the DA. The LA County Department of Public Health would
have regulatory authority over reviewing the use of SMURRF water for indoor toilet
flushing in multi-family residential buildings. As such, SMURRF would need to comply
with Title 22. SMURRF is currently operated as a Best Management Practice (BMP)
because it is a unique facility for treating dry-weather urban runoff that was not
specifically contemplated in Title 22, which was intended to address recycled
wastewater. As a result, SMURRF currently does not technically meet all Title 22
requirements, and the City is continuing discussions with County and State departments
regarding permitting requirements for SMURRF to become a Title 22 permitted facility.
Staff believes the timeframe could be 1-2 years depending on the requirements. Until
such time when SMURRF water is authorized for indoor use, the project will utilize
potable water for indoor toilet flushing.
Bioswales
Bioswales are landscape elements that allow for the collection, conveyance, filtration
and infiltration of stormwater, in efforts to reduce contaminated stormwater runoff. In
addition to satisfying the on-site stormwater requirements for the project, staff and the
developer is exploring the feasibility of constructing a bioswale and infiltration system
th
within the public right-of- Street and Broadway
property front
determined that the project would be responsible for the collection of approximately
th
1,720 cubic feet of stormwater runoff for percolation beneath 5 Street. However, the
surface area (landscaping) needed to collect the desired capacity is limited based on
the existing site conditions. Specifically, large existing ficus street trees are spread
th
along 5 Street and Broadway that will be maintained, and include critical root zone
radius boundaries where construction activity would either be limited (+/- 22 foot radius)
or prohibited (+/-13 foot radius) to ensure preservation. These boundaries result in
limited surface areas available in between the existing street trees. The parkway space
would also include needs for parking meters, access between curb and sidewalk for
people utilizing street parking, and potentially space for short-term bike parking. The
overall sidewalk design would need to accommodate a variety of uses and therefore
overall space is limited.
With the many competing interests for space in the public right-of-way, bioswale
against the function, aesthetics, and management of public streets. These will be
38 of 50
guided by the development of a comprehensive streetscape manual, identified as a
major action item in the draft DCP. In the event that soil percolation conditions make it
impractical for the installation of a bioswale/infiltration system or if the City cannot
identify an appropriate location on the project frontage for bioswales, the developer
would provide an equitable fee of $205,000 to the City, sufficient to cover the design
and construction of a similar system elsewhere in the City.
Electric Vehicle Parking
Developer shall in the parking garage provide panel capacity and conduit stubs for
installation of electrical outlets designed to allow the simultaneous charging of a
minimum number of 208/240 V 40 amp, grounded AC outlets of at least 10 percent
(10%) of the total parking spaces (53) as shown on the Project Plans. In addition, the
project would provide 3 of the spaces with electric charging equipment, as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Significant Project Features
In addition to the negotiated community benefits, there are project features that are
otherwise required by the Municipal Code as further outlined in the Development
Agreement, including the following:
Private Developer Cultural Arts Requirement
The project would provide on-site public art valued at approximately $1.2 M, and the
process for approval would be consistent with the Private Developer Cultural Arts
Requirement ordinance. The proposed on-site art would be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Community and Cultural Services Department, in coordination with
the Arts Commission. This on-site provision would satisfy the Private Developer Cultural
Arts Requirement for the project.
Pending DA Items for Discussion
Article 6.1: Architectural Review Board Approval
The project is subject to review and approval by the ARB. This DA provision includes
that the ARB cannot require modifications to the building design which negate the
s
recommendation prior to the Planning Commission hearing was for reductions in the
project floor area limited to no greater than 5% for the entire project, consistent with
recently approved Development Agreements. It is not the intent of this provision to
include modifications to the fundamental development standards established by the
Agreement including number of stories, number of units, and overall height. Instead,
39 of 50
providing the 5% discretion for the ARB provides flexibility to adjust the project design in
The Planning Commission concluded discussions on the provision with a
recommendation of a floor area reduction of no greater than a 2% reduction in the
ground floor commercial area and no greater than a 5% in upper residential floor. A
Commissioner reiterated the intent of the provision to allow the ARB to have flexibility
when reviewing the project, and a Commissioner believed the 5% for the upper
residential floors could allow for any revisions to the building that may allow for
improved variations in designs between the building forms. Another Commissioner
commented that the size of the ground floor should be maintained for the potential
The applicant
does not agree to this recommendation however considering the Planning
3% specific for the
residential floor area only. The applicant expresses concerns with additional reduction in
-up review,
including reductions in floor area (4.5 to 4.0), and increased ground floor open space.
This is one area where staff and the applicant have agreed to disagreed and as a result,
both proposals or shown in the draft development agreement.
Section 2.8.5(b) SMURRF Water Usage
While the applicant has generally agreed to the installation of purple pipe and using
SMURRF water in the project, there are three details regarding the conditions precedent
to using SMURRF water for residential and common area toilet flushing that staff and
the applicant do not agree upon. The applicant has proposed the following:
1.
potable water.
2. The City shall have completed a six-month pilot program using SMURRF
water in multi-strate that
conversion to the use of recycled water in residential buildings for toilet and
3. This City shall have required some other multi-family residential projects
which have access to SMURRF water to install purple pipe for residential
toilets.
The applicant would like to ensure that if the project is required to use SMURRF water
that they would not be unfairly penalized with higher rates than potable water. While the
City currently charges lower rates for SMURRF water than potable water, staff could not
-potable water rates in the interest of not
committing to potential rate increases in the future. Further, if there are statutory
40 of 50
requirements that SMURRF water be sold at rates lower than potable water, the City
would be required to comply and the DA provision is unnecessary.
The applicant is concerned that because the project will be the first multi-family
residential project in the City to commit to using SMURRF water for indoor toilet
flushing, that there be assurance that any issues have been resolved through a 6-month
demonstration project sponsored by the City. Staff believes that issues regarding water
quality and safe use of SMURRF water in multi-family residential structures will be
required to be demonstrated to the County before authorization for use of SMURRF
water in multi-family residential buildings is granted. Therefore, staff does not
recommend this provision.
Similarly, the applicant would like the City to require other multi-family residential
projects which have access to SMURRF to also install purple pipe in their projects. If
this is done outside of a development agreement context, the City would be required to
make local findings to impose a requirement more stringent than State law. There is no
guarantee that these findings can be made and therefore, staff does not recommend
this provision.
41 of 50
Economic Analysis
The City contracted The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) to prepare an economic
study of the project consisting of a Value Enhancement Analysis and Fiscal Impact
Analysis. The following is a summary of those analyses, which are attached to this
report in Attachment I and J.
Value Enhancement Analysis
The premise of the value enhancement analysis is that additional building height and
floor area above the baseline project would enhance the economic value of the site.
For this project, the baseline project was defined as a Tier 1 project with a base height
of 32 feet and 2.4 FAR, pursuant to the Interim Zoning Ordinance that requires a
Development Agreement for projects exceeding 32 feet in height. To quantify the
amount of this value enhancement, TNDG independently prepared a pro forma
analyses, and estimated the difference in residual land values (estimated value less
estimated construction costs) for the baseline project and the Proposed Project. TNDG
estimates that the proposed project would provide a value enhancement of
approximately $13.5 million over the value of the existing development. This analysis
does not include the $6.4 million in monetary contributions or the value of the off-site
affordable housing financing exceeding AHPP requirements.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
o the City was evaluated, and measured in terms of revenue
subtracting the anticipated costs to the City generated by the project from the
anticipated revenues (various taxes) generated by the project. On an annually recurring
basis, the proposed project would result in annual revenue of approximately $227,365
Environmental Analysis
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to determine the environmental effects of the
proposed 500 Broadway Mixed-Use project, both individually and cumulatively.
However, subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR, the applicant elected to pursue
development of a project that is substantively similar to Alternative 4, which was
thoroughly described and analyzed in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives, of the EIR. As currently
proposed, Alternative 4 would include demolition of the existing commercial building on
the 500 Broadway site, and construction of 249 units consisting of 173 studios/one-
bedrooms, 51 two-bedrooms, and 25 three-bedrooms with 64,526 square feet of
commercial uses. The off-site affordable housing would be located at 1626 Lincoln
Boulevard and would include 64 affordable housing units, comprised of 29 one-
bedrooms, 16 two-bedrooms, and 17 three-bedrooms within a 55 foot building (FAR
2.75). The total number of units would be 313 units, which is less than the 332 units
analyzed for Alternative 4. As analyzed in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives of the EIR,
42 of 50
Alternative 4 would result in significant impacts in the areas of transportation/traffic
impacts and sewer (cumulative only). The project, that is substantially similar to
Alternative 4, is the project that was the basis for development agreement negotiations.
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation was
published on November 20, 2014 for a 30-day comment period which indicated the
intent to prepare an EIR for the project. On September 28, 2015, a Notice of
Completion and Public Availability was published for the Draft EIR, which commenced a
45-day public comment period. The areas studied in the Draft EIR include:
Aesthetics/Shade & Shadow Effects
Air Quality
Construction Effects
Cultural Resources and Historic Structures
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Neighborhood Effects
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
The Final EIR, which was published in February 2016, contains all comments and
responses to comments received during the comment period as well as minor changes
to the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR identified mitigation measures in the areas of Construction Effects,
Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources), Geology/Soils, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Noise (Construction), Public Services (Fire and Police Protection
Services), and Transportation/Traffic (Construction) to reduce potential impacts to less
than significant levels. To ensure that these measures are properly enacted, a
mitigation monitoring program is necessary and will be enforced during the construction
and operation of the project, if approved. The proposed mitigation measures are
provided in the Final EIR.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
For the previously proposed project, significant and unavoidable impact was identified in
the area of Transportation/Traffic and cumulative impacts to Sewer and Utilities.
Transportation/Traffic
Operation of the proposed project would generate up to an estimated 199 net new AM
peak hour trips, 308 net new PM peak hour trips, and 355 net new weekend peak hour
trips. Although the project is a mixed use development located in the transit-rich
Downtown District that also offers opportunities for walking and biking, the project would
increase the number of vehicle trips traveling on the surrounding local street network.
43 of 50
esholds for intersections, the project would result in
significant traffic impacts at 4 intersections during the Approval Year (2016); impacted
intersections would include Palisades Beach Road (PCH) & California Incline (all peak
hours), 4th Street & I-10 Eastbound On-ramp (weekend midday peak hour), Lincoln
Boulevard & Colorado Avenue (AM peak hour), and Lincoln Boulevard & I-10
Westbound Off-ramp/ Olympic Boulevard (all peak hours). In addition, the proposed
project would also create cumulatively considerable impacts at 5 intersections under the
Future Year (2025), which includes the 4 intersections listed above and the intersection
at Lincoln Boulevard & Santa Monica Boulevard (weekend midday peak hour). No
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce these impacts due to physical and
policy constraints. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact to transportation and traffic.
Sewer/Utilities
The project would contribute to potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative
impacts to wastewater utilities and infrastructure. Although the existing wastewater
utilities would be able to accommodate the proposed project, the project would
incrementally contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase from future projects in
the City that may exceed the capacity of the sewer lines. Cumulative development may
necessitate future upgrades to maintain adequate service capacity for existing and
future development. As a result, there would be cumulative significant impacts to the
significant impact at the cumulative level. The City is anticipating preparation of a sewer
model and completion of a Citywide Sewer Master Plan that would analyz
sewer system and identify any necessary upgrades. If this master plan is completed
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, Mitigation Measure U-
1 would require that the project provide a fair share contribution to upgrade sewer
Comments on the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR was available for a 45-day public review period, during which a total of
four comment letters were received. Two of the comment letters were from public
agencies, one from a general member of the public, and one from the project applicant.
The most substantive comment letter was from the project applicant, who provided
mostly clarifying comments on the EIR. Responses to all comments received are
included in the Final EIR.
Alternatives Studied
The EIR studied five alternatives to the originally proposed project, which are intended
to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project.
Alternative 1 No Project
Alternative 2 C3-C (Downtown Overlay) Zoning Compliant Alternative
Alternative 3 Draft Downtown Specific Plan Tier III Compliant Alternative
Alternative 4 Project with Offsite Affordable Housing Alternative
Alternative 5 32 foot Height Alternative
Alternative 1 No Project Alternative
44 of 50
The No Project Alternative assumes the proposed project is not approved, and that the
project site will remain in its current condition. The No Project Alternative would reduce
the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. However,
the No Project Alternative would not satisfy any of the project objectives, and would not
achieve the goals of the LUCE.
Alternative 2 C3-C (Downtown Overlay) Zoning Compliant Alternative
Alternative 2 (the C3-C Zoning Compliant Alternative) would develop a mixed use
-C Downtown Overlay
Zoning District standards. This alternative would reduce impacts through a reduction of
the overall height, total floor area, and density of proposed development. Alternative 2
would consist of a 60-foot tall mixed use project totaling 191,696 sf with 52,648 sf of
ground floor commercial uses and 139,048 sf of upper floor residential uses for a FAR
of 3.5. Commercial uses would include a 37,834 sf grocery store, 12,814 sf of retail, and
2,000 sf of restaurant. Residential uses would include a total of 158 units, with a mix of
32 studios, 79 one-bedrooms, 31 two-bedrooms, and 16 three-bedrooms. This
alternative would result in the same number of significantly impacted intersections as
the proposed project. Feasible mitigation is not available to address these impacts. This
alternative would not meet many of the Project objectives or achieve LUCE consistency
and implementation to the same extent.
Alternative 3 Draft Downtown Specific Plan Tier III Compliant Alternative
Alternative 3 (Draft DSP Tier III Compliant Alternative) would consist of an 84-foot
mixed use project totaling 265,977 sf with 61,699 sf of commercial uses and 204,278 sf
of upper floor residential uses for a FAR of 4.0. Commercial uses would include 24,850
sf of restaurant, 24,850 sf of retail, and 12,000 sf of fitness center uses. In efforts to
study a range of alternatives, a grocery store which is the highest trip generating use in
the proposed project, would not be included in Alternative 3. Residential uses would
include a total of 232 units, with a mix of 46 studios, 116 one-bedrooms, 47 two-
bedrooms, and 23 three-bedrooms. As compared to the proposed project, the total floor
area of Alternative 3 would be reduced by 50,679 sf or 16 percent. In terms of the uses,
Alternative 3 represents a 17.8 percent reduction in residential floor area and 30 fewer
units than the project, and an 11.8 percent decrease in commercial uses. This
alternative would meet all the proposed requirements of the Draft DSP, including FAR,
building height, floor plate ratios, parking standards, and ground floor open space
standards. Under the Draft DSP, the project site lies within the Transit Adjacent Zone,
which promotes increased activity near transit to minimize new automobile trips in the
City. The Draft DSP permits development of 84 feet in height with a maximum FAR of
4.0 in the Transit Adjacent Zone. This alternative would result in the same number of
significantly impacted intersections as the proposed project. Feasible mitigation is not
available to address these impacts.Without the grocery store, Alternative 3 would not
achieve project objectives to the same extent as the project or meet LUCE policies and
-serving retail
uses. If Alternative 3 had a grocery component, however, it would increase auto trips
generated, part of the challenging trade-offs involved in Downtown infill development.
Alternative 4 Project with Offsite Affordable Housing Alternative
45 of 50
The Offsite Affordable Housing Alternative (Alternative 4) assumes development of the
proposed project (as proposed at 500 Broadway) plus the provision of offsite affordable
housing requirements (as determined by the Development Agreement) would be met
either fully or partially through the provision of offsite affordable housing units.
Accordingly, this alternative assumes that up to 70 multi-family affordable housing units
would be developed on up to 2 single lots (approximately 7,500 sf each) or one larger
site (approximately 15,000 sf) within the Downtown area only. Limiting the potential
location of the offsite affordable units to the Downtown area would ensure that LUCE
goals for affordable housing in proximity to transit would be achieved with this
alternative. The 500 Broadway project, as currently proposed, is consistent with this
project alternative.
The EIR specifically identifies 1626 Lincoln Boulevard as a site for the off-site affordable
housing project, and analyzed this alternative to a project level of detail. This 28,070 sf
site is located in the Downtown and currently developed a with a single-story 8,906 sf
building for automotive repair and painting uses, including approximately 15 automotive
service bays. However, to provide for a conservative traffic analysis, the EIR does not
take credit for the trips associated with the existing automotive repair uses.
Alternative 4 assumed development of the offsite affordable housing development(s)
within a multi-story building with ground floor commercial uses and upper level
residential uses. The structure(s) would have a height up to 76 feet and 2 to 3 levels of
subterranean parking. Under this alternative, the project would develop 70 deed-
restricted offsite affordable residential units. The offsite affordable housing would
provide a mix of studios, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms. For
purposes of studying the most conservative (greatest) level of impacts, a combination of
49 two-bedroom units and 21 three-bedroom units is assumed for this alternative.
Additionally, up to 4,000 sf of ground-floor commercial uses are assumed for the project
site. This alternative would result in additional intersection impacts, which include
Ocean Avenue & Colorado Boulevard (weekday midday peak for Approval and Future
th
Year conditions), 4 Street & I-10 Eastbound Off-Ramp (PM peak hour for Approval
Year and Future Year conditions); and the Lincoln Boulevard & the I-10 Westbound Off-
Ramp (AM peak hour and weekend midday peak hour for Future Year Conditions).
Feasible mitigation is not available to address these impacts.
Alternative 5 32 foot Height Alternative
Alternative 5 (the 32-Foot Height Alternative) would consist of a 32-foot tall mixed use
project totaling 157,680 sf with 55,924 sf of ground floor commercial uses and 101,756
sf of upper floor residential uses for a FAR of 2.3. Commercial uses would include a
31,317 sf grocery store, 22,929 sf of retail, and 1,678 sf of restaurant. Residential uses
would include a total of 105 units, with a mix of 10 studios, 66 one-bedrooms, 25 two-
bedrooms, and 4 three-bedrooms. As compared to the proposed project, this alternative
would result in 157 fewer units than the project, a 60 percent reduction in residential
uses. This alternative would also reduce commercial floor area by 18 percent or 12,169
sf and would not include a mezzanine. This alternative would only partially meet project
objectives with reduced provision of affordable housing and lower levels of employment,
economic and fiscal benefits and with diminished LUCE consistency.
46 of 50
Environmentally Superior Alternative
In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should
minimize adverse impacts to the project site and its surrounding environment. Of the
impacts; therefore, it is environmentally superior to a project, which proposes to change
existing conditions.
However, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 states that if the environmentally superior
alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally
superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Therefore, because hazards,
cultural resources, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts would be reduced the greatest
under the Alternative 5, this alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior
alternative over other alternatives that may have fewer impacts in more resource areas.
This Alternative, however, would not achieve many of the project objectives. It also
raises an inherent shortcoming of conventional CEQA analysis since analysis of where
alternative fails to account for the need for additional market and affordable housing in
both the local area and the larger region, a down-sized project leaves out the impacts of
those units being built elsewhere or the social and economic impacts of units not
being built at all.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Due to the significant and unavoidable impacts of Alternative 4 (the currently proposed
project) with respect to Transportation/Traffic, approval of Alternative 4 will require the
City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The benefits of the
Alternative 4 have been discussed earlier in this staff report and have been incorporated
into the Council resolution adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring Program should the Council determine that an override is
appropriate. With respect to the anticipated Transportation/Traffic impact, the proximity
of the project site to the Expo light rail terminus station and the Colorado Esplanade are
important considerations. The project would provide transit-adjacent housing and
neighborhood-serving commercial uses in proximity to Expo and other transit
opportunities, convenient for residents to use alternate modes of transportation. In
addition, the development agreement includes a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program that is based on increasing transportation choice, a core strategy for the
City to achieve the long-term citywide goal of No Net New PM Peak Period Trips. The
TDM program requires a transportation allowance be offered to all tenants residents
and employees in the project to provide options for commute and non-commute trips.
The program also includes a PM-period trip cap and AVR targets with financial penalties
for non-compliance. Furthermore, the project includes a comprehensive community
benefits package including but not limited to, affordable housing, physical
improvements, monetary contributions, and sustainable elements,
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific actions are required in the
future. Based on the fiscal impact analysis provided by The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
47 of 50
(TNDG), approval of the proposed project, on an annually recurring basis, would result
In addition, the project would provide one-time monetary contributions in an amount of
$6.4 million in the form of community benefits that the applicant will be required to
provide pursuant to the proposed development agreement:
Enhanced Transportation Impact fee contribution in the amount of $1,650,000 to
be deposited in revenue account 04267.402050.
Enhanced Parks and Recreation fee contribution in the amount of $1,700,000 to
be deposited in revenue account 04501.408710.
Enhanced Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage fee contribution in the
amount of $325,000 to be deposited in revenue account 04264.408690.
Early Childhood Initiatives contribution in the amount of $1,100,000 to be
deposited in revenue account 04262.408760.
Historic Preservation contribution in the amount of $150,000 to be deposited in
revenue account 04266.409240 .
Big Blue Bus contribution in the amount of $240,000 to be deposited in a revenue
account 41642.410080 .
Transportation Management Association contribution in the amount of $150,000
to be deposited in revenue account 04267.402840.
Recycled Water Infrastructure Program contribution in the amount of $1,200,000
to be deposited in revenue account 04226.408750 .
Treated Urban Runoff distribution main (SMURRF) extension contribution in the
amount of $200,000 to be deposited in a new special revenue account to be
created.
48 of 50
Prepared By:
Steve Mizokami, Associate Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Ordinance Adopting Development Agreement 13DEV-008
B. 500 Broadway Final DA for City Council
C. Development Agreement Findings
D. Resolution Certifying Final EIR
E. Resolution Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan
F. Resolution Amending 1984 LUCE
G. Ordinance Amending Districting Map
H. Development Standards Project Compliance Table
I. Economic Impact Memo-500 Broadway_Final
J. VEA & Fiscal Impact Memo - 500 Broadway (4-28-16)
K. Parking Analysis 2-22-16
L. PV - Common Area MEMO 11-10-15
M. ARB PC CC Float-Up Comments + PC Recommendation
N. Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2016 - Web link
49 of 50
O. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Web link
P. Supplemental Report
Q. Written comments
R. Powerpoint
50 of 50
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINDINGS
1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable
specific plan, in that Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Goal D1
advantage as a premier local and regional shopping, dining, and entertainment
destination, and support its evolution in order to respond to changing market
conditions. Specifically, Policy D1.5 seeks to focus new investment in the areas
near the Expo Light Rail station that are accessible to transit, accommodate mixed-
use development, contribute to the pedestrian-oriented environment, and support
substantial community benefits. The project is located approximately 300 feet from
the Expo Light Rail station and consists of mixed-use development that includes
expansive sidewalks and outdoor seating areas that will support restaurant and
other food-serving uses on the ground floor. Specifically, the project includes
approximately 13,614 SF of ground floor open space. Consistent with Goal D7 and
Policy D7.1 that seeks to create a balanced mix of uses in the Downtown that
reinforces its role as the greatest concentration of activity in the City, the project
proposes a variety of commercial retail and restaurant uses. Further, the project
proposes 249 residential units with a diverse unit configuration, and the project will
provide a diverse range of affordable housing unit types within the Downtown,
consistent with Policy D7.7. The implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan to reduce vehicle trips in the area and associated parking
demand is consistent with LUCE Circulation Policy T19.2 which seeks appropriate
TDM requirements for new development. Furthermore, the project is consistent
including but not limited to, affordable housing, and contributions that would
support transportation, parks and recreation, early childhood initiatives, historic
preservation, and recycled water infrastructure programs in the City.
2. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in
the district in which the real property is located, in that the subject property is
located in the Downtown Specific Plan district that allows multi-family residential
and commercial uses. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with
LUCE Goal D7 and Policy D7.1 that seeks to create a balanced mix of uses in the
Downtown that reinforces its role as the greatest concentration of activity in the
City in that the project proposes a variety of commercial retail and restaurant uses.
Further, the project proposes 249 residential units with a diverse unit configuration,
and the project will provide a diverse range of affordable housing unit types within
the Downtown, consistent with Policy D7.7.
3. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity,
public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices, in that it allows
for the redevelopment of an existing, underutilized property with a mixed-use
project that is consistent with the Land and Use Circulation Element vision for the
area. The proposed project replaces a small-scaled commercial building and
surface parking lot with 249 new residential units that will feature neighborhood-
serving commercial uses on the ground floor, and will provide community benefits
including affordable housing, and contributions that would support transportation,
parks and recreation, early childhood initiatives, historic preservation, and water
infrastructure programs in the City. Further, the project seeks to be consistent with
certification with a building designed to achieve 15% less energy than required by
California Energy Code, the use of renewable sources for heating the roof-top pool,
-potable water
sources for landscape irrigation, and committing to indoor water use of 30% below
CALGreen baseline standards.
4. The proposed Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare, in that the agreement would allow for the redevelopment of
an existing, underutilized parcel with a use that is consistent with the Land and
Use Circulation Element vision for the area. The proposed project will be located
in an urbanized area and is consistent with other similar improvements in the area,
and does not have the potential to disrupt the urban environment or cause health
or safety problems. The proposed project provides 249 new residential units and
will feature neighborhood serving commercial uses on the ground floor, and will
provide community benefits including affordable housing, and contributions that
would support transportation, parks and recreation, early childhood initiatives,
historic preservation, and water infrastructure programs in the City.
5. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly
development of the property, in that the Development Agreement is contingent
upon the review and approval of a specific site plan consistent with recognized
urban design principles that reflect the goals and policies of the City of Santa
Monica which were established through a long range planning process and are
reflected in the Land Use and Circ
6. The proposed Development Agreement would result in annual revenue of
approximately $227,365 However, the project
would provide an estimated $6.4 million in monetary contributions that would
support transportation, parks and recreation, big blue bus, transportation
management association, early childhood initiatives, affordable housing, recycled
water infrastructure, and historic preservation programs in the City. Further, the
ground floor commercial uses would generate City business license taxes towards
.
GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS1984 LUCE AMENDMENTS
:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives,
policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted Land Use and
Circulation Element. Specifically, the proposed increase in allowable Floor Area
Ratio from 3.5 to 4.0 within the Downtown Core area further reinforces the
Downtown as the focus of the City, supporting the greatest concentration of
activity, consistent with LUCE Objective 1.3. Consistent with this objective, the
proposed amendment would allow additional commercial and residential floor area
in the Downtown Core area adjacent to the Bayside District that would be
appropriate, supported by the anticipated growth in this transit-adjacent area in
proximity to the future Expo light rail station and Colorado Esplanade. The
proposed amendment to allow no limitations on the number of stories of any
structure containing at least one floor of residential uses, so long as the height
does not exceed the maximum height in number of feet, provides a housing
incentive and would provide projects with greater design flexibility in achieving
allowable floor area. The amendments support residential mixed-use development
and would result in increased housing opportunities, consistent with Policy 1.3.5
which encourages residential uses in the Downtown on upper floors and
neighborhood commercial uses for the Downtown residential community.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendments in that the general welfare of the City is enhanced when the
development of new mixed-use housing projects in the Downtown area is
encouraged. LUCE Objective 1.3 seeks to reinforce the Downtown as the focus
of the City, supporting the greatest concentration of activity. The proposed
amendments would allow for greater density in an area of the Downtown where
appropriate, supported by the anticipated growth in this transit-adjacent area in
proximity to the future Expo light rail station and Colorado Esplanade.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FINDINGS
1. The proposed map amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives,
policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted Land Use and
Circulation Element in that the map amendment would change the zoning of the
rear portion of the subject parcel located at 1626 Lincoln Boulevard that is current
zoned M1 to the Mixed-Use Boulevard zoning designation, consistent with the
remaining front portion of the property. The proposed Mixed-Use Boulevard zoning
designation for the subject rear portion of the property would result in development
standards, including building height, number of stories, and floor area ratio, that is
consistent with the underlying 1984 LUCE Downtown Frame requirements, and as
such, the proposed zoning map amendment would be consistent with the general
plan. In addition, the proposed map amendment is requested in conjunction with
a 100% affordable housing development project at the subject property, consistent
with LUCE Objective 1.1 which seeks to increase the amount of affordable housing
particularly in the Downtown.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
map amendment in that the general welfare of the City is enhanced when the
development of new 100% affordable housing projects in the Downtown area is
encouraged. Specifically, the proposed map amendment is requested in
conjunction with a 100% affordable housing development project at the subject
property, consistent with LUCE Objective 1.1 which seeks to increase the amount
of affordable housing particularly in the Downtown. Further, the map amendment
would allow the property to be developed under consistent zoning development
standards that would further encourage redevelopment of the site.
Development Standards
Project Compliance Table and
Description of Non-Compliant Areas
Development Draft Proposed
1984 LUCE Compliance
Standard DCP Project
Height / Stories
No
LUCE:
(LUCE Amendment
Stories
DCP: Yes
Required)
Floor Area Ratio
4.0 w/housing
(FAR)
4.0 w/housing
LUCE: 3.5
No
LUCE:
(LUCE Amendment
Required)
DCP: Yes
Basement Commercial SF
(P1, P2) exempted as FA, per
IZO 2490 and draft ZO.
Ground Floor
N/A N/A
Commercial SF
35,428 SF
N/A
Basement Commercial
Not Including
24,217 SF (P1, P2) exempted
Basement SF
as FA, per IZO 2490.
Residential Units N/A N/A
Studio / % / Ave Size
49 / 19.7% / 590
- -
SF
1-Bed / % / Ave.Size
124 / 49.8% / 839
- -
SF
2-Bed / % / Ave.Size
51 / 20.5%/ 1,191
- -
SF
3-Bed / % / Ave.Size
25 / 10.0%/ 1,343
- -
SF
5% extremely low
Land Dedication
(12 units) or 10%
Affordable Units
and additional
very-low (25 units)
financing for off-site
Yes
-
or 20% low-income
100% affordable
(50 units), or 100%
housing project with
moderate (249
64 res units.
units)
Commercial Space 60average Min 60
Yes
N/A
Depth depth provided.
Ground Fl. to Fl.
Yes
20
Height
Maximum Average
Yes
N/A
Building Height
For Large Building
Maximum Unbroken
Types:
Yes
Primary Façade
Bldg Length
Length
rd
3
rd
3 Floor 100% 56.7%
Floor
th
4
th
4 Floor 55% 56.6%
Floor
No
Floor Plate Ratios* N/A
th
5
th
5 Floor 55% 56.2%
Floor
th
6
th
6 Floor 40% 55.9%
Floor
th
7
th
7 Floor 40% 54.9%
Floor
Max occupancy of
Maximum Upper
front bldg. façade
No
Level Building N/A 71.5%
proposed height is
Frontage Occupancy:
70%
Minimum Pedestrian Building frontage
Ground floor
Level Building
No
N/A
shall occupy a setback exceeds
Frontage Occupancy
minimum 70% at frontage line.
the frontage line.
Building Frontage
Line: Widened
Sidewalk
th
5
th Yes
N/A 5
Sidewalks Exceed
Minimum Req.
No
Open Space N/A 50% of lot area 66.46% total
25% of lot area 20% at-grade
provided at-
grade. (not including cross
court or widened
sidewalk SF)
Average private
Private Deck SF
open space
N/A
N/A N/A
Range
provided through
balconies
Studio Units - - 90 SF
1-Bed Units - - 90 SF
2-Bed Units - - 90 SF
3-Bed Units - - 90 SF
LEED Gold or
LEED Certification CalGreen Tier 2
Yes
N/A LEED Platinum
green building
standards
* Maximum floor plate ratios for Floors 3 & 4 and 4 & 5 may be averaged and applied to all floors included in the average
(DCP page 171). Therefore, Floors 6-7 cannot be averaged, and the maximum floor plate ratio is 40% for each floor.
Draft Downtown Community Plan (DCP) Inconsistencies
The project is consistent with the draft building height, FAR, maximum average building
height, and maximum unbroken primary façade length, however is inconsistent with the
following Floor Plate Ratio, Upper Level Building Frontage Occupancy, Open Space, and
Pedestrian Level Building Frontage standards as described below:
Maximum Floor Plate Ratios
This standard attempts to modulate upper-level building mass, establishing maximum
floor plate ratios for floors 3-7. The maximum floor plate ratio is the amount of floor plate
divided by the total buildable area, meaning the total lot size (67,500 SF) for this project.
Maximum floor plate ratios for floors 3 and 4 or floors 4 and 5 may be averaged and
applied to all floors included in the average, however floors 6-7 cannot be included in the
average, and the maximum floor plate ratio is 40% for each of these floors. The project
would comply with floors 3 and 4 when averaged, however would exceed the maximum
floor plate ratios for floors 5-7, as indicated below:
Table 3:
Floors Draft DCP Proposed
3 100% 56.7%
4 55% 56.6%
5 55% 56.2%
6 40% 55.9%
7 40% 54.9%
divided into four separate building forms that reduces the overall building length and
th
massing of the structure along the 5 Street elevation. Furthermore, the spacing of the
building forms provide adequate light and air passage through the project and separation
between residential units. The building includes angled façades and varied building
planes on each elevation in an alternating pattern between floors. Each building form
includes two façade types that are vertically divided: sculptural plaster faces on the north
sides and fiber cement board in warm grey with fixed and operable sunshade louvers on
the south sides. These design elements provide added visual interest to each building
form that further helps to reduce the perceived building mass on upper floors.
Maximum Upper Level Building Frontage Occupancy:
The intent of this standard is to maintain the quality of light and air easily accessible to
the pedestrian. The standard requires that the maximum occupancy of the front building
exceeding this percentage is setback a minimum of 20 feet. As proposed, the façade
is slightly inconsistent with this standard. The building provides three vertical breaks in
the building elevation established in between the building forms above the podium level,
with building separation ranging from 27-30 feet in width. These consistent breaks of the
upper level building forms provide building relief beginning from the second floor podium
level with less building frontage occupancy throughout the overall elevation compared to
Open Space
minimum
22,501 SF. The initial draft standard required no less than 20% open space on the ground
floor with the remaining 10% provided on a podium above grade, on exterior balconies,
roof decks, or any combination thereof. Overall, the project exceeds the minimum 30%
open space and is consistent with the ground floor requirement of 20% (20.02%).
Approximately 8,266 SF of the 13,614 SF of publicly accessible open space would be
covered by the cantilevered 2nd floor (60%) that has a height clearance of approximately
17 feet above grade. The updated draft DCP standards state that sidewalk widening
exceeding the minimum amount may count towards ground floor open space
requirements, provided any overhanging encroachments have a minimum vertical
the project is compliant with a floor to floor height of 20 feet.
The current DCP open space standard requires 50% of the lot area as open space, with
25% located at the ground floor and the remaining 25% without regulated location. The
project would be consistent with the overall requirement providing 66.46% open space,
however would be inconsistent with ground floor requirements. However in response to
direction provided by the Planning Commission and City Council during the float-up
discussion, the applicant significantly increased the amount of ground floor open space
(from 5.9% to 20%) based on the 20% requirement indicated in the initial draft DSP.
Minimum Pedestrian Level Building Frontage Occupancy
occupy a minimum 70% at the frontage line (also known as the minimum sidewalk width
th
setbacks that exceed the minimum sidewalk width standards along both street frontages
providing open space to accommodate outdoor seating areas and adequate pedestrian
space, as previously described. Except for a small portion of the building along
Broadway, no other portion of the ground floor is proposed at the minimum sidewalk width.
within proximity of the
frontage line, however would occupy less than 34% of the pedestrian level occupancy
anticipated size of the ground floor commercial uses, the greater ground floor setbacks
proposed in the site design would still be designed to activate the sidewalk and street
through allowances for outdoor display of merchandise, allowance for on-site outdoor
dining, and a clear pedestrian zone that would encourage a continuous flow of pedestrian
activity as intended by this provision.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Steve Mizokami, AssociatePlanner DATE:February 25, 2016
City of Santa Monica
FROM: Roger Dale, Managing Principal FILE: #4051
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG)
SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis for500 Broadway
As a companion document to the Fiscal Impact and Value Enhancement analyses prepared for the
proposed project, this memorandum evaluates the project’s broader economic benefits, measured in
terms of output (the value of industry production), local jobs and income created. Separate calculations
are provided for two categories of benefits:
a.Temporary (construction phase) benefits; and
b.Permanent benefits associated with the ongoing operation of the new on-site commercial
operations.
Consistent with standard practice for these types of impact studies, our analysis considers the direct
(i.e., onsite) impacts associated with the proposed 500 Broadway project, as well as “multiplier” impacts
within the larger Los Angeles economy (these “indirect” and “induced” impacts are calculated both for
the City Santa Monica and County of Los Angeles). These multiplier impacts have been projected using
the IMPLAN model. The IMPLAN model was originally developed by researchers at the University of
Minnesota and is widely used throughout the United States for economic impact analysis. The model
estimates impacts at the city and county levels (based on data that are specific to Los Angeles County).
The programmatic data used in the IMPLAN analysis were derived by TNDG from construction cost
summary data from the project pro forma, along with the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR). Economic benefits were estimated through the following process.
Construction Phase. Based on data from the project pro forma, the estimated construction
values were matched to appropriate IMPLAN construction sectors. Construction costs do not
include land acquisition costs, as this is simply an asset swap and does not produce any
economic activity. The appendix table shows the distribution of construction costs among the
IMPLAN construction industry-related sectors.
Operations Phase. Operations-phase impacts are based on the projected number of employees
at the project’s onsite commercial operations. The projected number of employees by
commercial land use type are used as inputs in the IMPLAN model to estimate ongoing impacts
associated with the proposed project 1.
1
Consistent with assumptions in the project’s DEIR, this analysis assumes that there will be 425 square feet of
commercial building space per employee.
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 2
The project will generate the following types of economic benefits in the regional economy:
Direct Benefits. Direct benefits relate to: a) the short-term business activity of general
contractors involved in the project construction, and b) the ongoing business activity of retailers
and other firms located within the developed project.
Indirect Benefits. Indirect benefits will result when local firms directly impacted by the project
in turn purchase materials, supplies or services from other firms. An example would include
increased sales of building materials as a result of construction activity.
Induced Benefits. Induced benefits relate to the consumption spending of employees of firms
that are directly or indirectly affected by the project. These would include all of the goods and
services normally associated with household consumption (e.g., housing, retail purchases, local
services, etc.).
The analysis quantifies the above benefits in terms of the following measures:
Total industry output – the increase in gross industry receipts, representing the total economic
activity generated by the project;
Total value added – The difference between an industry’s total output and the cost of its
intermediate inputs. It is the portion of total output that most accurately reflects local economic
activity (i.e., local payrolls and profits, as distinct from gross output which may include the value
of raw materials purchased outside the region);
Employment – Expressed as new full- and part-time jobs ; and
Employee compensation – Payroll and benefits associated with the created jobs, including wage
and salary, all benefits (e.g., health, retirement) and payroll taxes (both sides of social security,
unemployment taxes, etc.).
Abbreviated Summary of Total City and Total County Economic Impacts
Table 1, below, provides a summary of the total one-time construction impacts, as described in the two
sets of bullet points above, that would be generated by the proposed project.
Table 2, on the following page, provides a summary of the total ongoing impacts, resulting from project
operations, which would be generated by the proposed project’s on-site commercial components
evaluated in this analysis.
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 3
Table 1. Summary of Total Impacts for 500 Broadway, Construction Phase
1
CategoryAmount
($000s, except where noted)
Santa Monica
Output194,058
Value Added99,867
2
Employees1,260
Employee Compensation65,889
Remainder of County
Output42,573
Value Added21,458
2
Employees222
Employee Compensation10,675
County Total
Output236,630
Value Added121,326
2
Employees1,482
Employee Compensation76,564
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1. Sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts.
2. Actual number of part-time and full-time employees.
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 4
Table 2. Summary of Total Impacts for 500 Broadway, Operations Phase
1
CategoryAmount
($000s, except where noted)
Santa Monica
Output10,977
Value Added8,013
2
Employees140
Employee Compensation5,044
Remainder of County
Output3,464
Value Added2,058
2
Employees22
Employee Compensation1,051
County Total
Output14,441
Value Added10,071
2
Employees162
Employee Compensation6,096
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1. Sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts.
2. Actual number of part-time and full-time employees.
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 5
Summary of One-Time Construction Impacts
The one-time economic benefits associated with the construction phase are summarized for the
proposed project in Table 3 on the following page. These one-time economic benefits are based on the
construction hard and soft costs estimated in the project pro forma. See the appendix table for a
breakdown of the construction costs by IMPLAN industry sector.
Table 4, on page 7, shows the top 10 industries affected by employment, in terms of direct, indirect, and
induced impacts. The construction impacts would include the following:
Direct Benefits: During its construction phase, the proposed project would directly generate
approximately $150.6 million in total economic activity, result in approximately $71.5 million in local
value added, create approximately 961 full- and part-time jobs, and generate more than $50.0 million in
employee compensation. Given that the project would be developed in the City of Santa Monica, all
direct impacts would be in the City.
Indirect/Inducted Benefits: Along with its direct impacts to the City, the indirect/induced (“multiplier”)
impacts during project construction would include about $43.5 million in total economic activity,
approximately $28.3 million in local value added, approximately 299 jobs, and about $15.5 million in
employee compensation. Beyond the City’s boundaries, the construction phase would also generate
additional multiplier impacts in other parts of Los Angeles County, as shown in Table 3.
Total Construction Phase Benefits: During its construction phase the project is projected to generate a
grand total of approximately $194.1 million in total industry output, $99.9 million in local value added,
1,260 jobs, and about $65.9 million in employee compensation through direct, indirect and induced
economic activity. See Table 3 for the total impacts in the remainder of the County.
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 6
Table 3. Summary of One-Time Construction Impacts for 500 Broadway
CategoryDirectIndirectInducedTotal
Output ($000s)
City150,55636,7216,781194,058
Remainder of County021,76520,80842,573
________________________________________
Total County150,55658,48627,588236,630
Total Value Added ($000s)
City71,54823,8654,45499,867
Remainder of County08,93212,52621,458
________________________________________
Total County71,54832,79716,981121,326
Employee Compensation ($000s)
City50,35113,2672,27165,889
Remainder of County04,5056,17010,675
________________________________________
Total County50,35117,7728,44176,564
Employees
City961250491,260
Remainder of County091131222
________________________________________
Total County9613411801,482
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 7
Table 4. Top 10 Industries Affected by Employment, Construction Impacts, L.A. County
Labor Value
EmploymentIncomeAddedOutput
IMPLAN Sector
($000s)
37Construction of new residential permanent site 39829,60730,07075,391
single- and multi-family structures
34Construction of new nonresidential commercial 23212,99713,36027,390
and health care structures
36Construction of other new nonresidential 1428,0818,25117,778
structures
355Nondepository credit intermediation and 12713,33012,10619,331
related activities
360Real estate establishments348995,3226,541
369Architectural, engineering, and related services343,6043,6175,339
413Food services and drinking places329081,2182,145
319Wholesale trade businesses312,4954,6086,557
358Insurance agencies, brokerages, and related251,8302,4323,913
activities
382Employment services23728806986
Notes: Sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Labor income includes employee compensation
and proprietor income.
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 8
Summary of City and County Ongoing Impacts
The ongoing economic benefits associated with the proposed project’s on-site commercial operations
are summarized in Table 5 (page 9). In addition, Table 6, on page 10, shows the top 10 industries
affected by employment, in terms of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. The ongoing impacts would
include the following:
Direct Benefits: From ongoing operations, the proposed project would directly generate approximately
$8.5 million in total economic activity, result in approximately $6.3million in local value added, create
124 jobs, and generate approximately $4.2 million in employee compensation. Given that the project
would be developed in the City of Santa Monica, all direct impacts would be in the City.
Indirect/Inducted Benefits: Along with its direct impacts to the City, the indirect/induced (“multiplier”)
impacts would include approximately $2.5 million in total economic activity, close to $1.7 million in local
value added, approximately 16 jobs, and more than $800,000 in employee compensation. Beyond the
City’s boundaries, the construction phase would also generate additional multiplier impacts in other
parts of Los Angeles County, as shown in Table 5.
Total Ongoing Benefits: On an annual basis, the project is projected to generate a grand total of
approximately $11.0 million in total industry output, $8.0 million in local value added, 140 jobs, and
about $5.0 million in employee compensation through direct, indirect and induced economic activity.
See Table 5 for the total impacts in the remainder of the County.
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 9
Table 5. Summary of Ongoing Operational Impacts, 500 Broadway (Commercial Components)
CategoryDirectIndirectInducedTotal
Output ($000s)
City8,4501,4921,03510,977
Remainder of County05492,9153,464
________________________________________
Total County8,4502,0413,95014,441
Total Value Added ($000s)
City6,3301,0026808,013
Remainder of County03061,7512,058
________________________________________
Total County6,3301,3092,43110,071
Employee Compensation ($000s)
City4,2264723475,044
Remainder of County01898621,051
________________________________________
Total County4,2266611,2086,096
Employees
City12487140
Remainder of County041822
________________________________________
Total County1241226162
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
Economic Impact Summary
February 25, 2016
Page 10
Table 6. Top 10 Industries Affected by Employment, Ongoing Operations Impacts, L.A. County
Labor Value
EmploymentIncomeAddedOutput
IMPLAN Sector
($000s)
324Retail Stores - Food and beverage75.03,1093,8785,238
329Retail Stores - General merchandise50.91,7612,5473,337
413Food services and drinking places3.5100134236
360Real estate establishments2.156330406
394Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health p1.6133135215
382Employment services1.6505668
319Wholesale trade businesses1.4113210298
397Private hospitals1.2114125209
398Nursing and residential care facilities0.9384364
388Services to buildings and dwellings0.9263257
Notes: Sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Labor income includes employee compensation
and proprietor income.
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
APPENDIX
IMPLAN MODEL INPUTS
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS PHASES
Construction Categories
IMPLAN SectorModel Input
34 – Construction of new nonresidential commercial and health care structures $27,459,089
36 -Construction of other new nonresidential structures 17,823,348
37 -Construction of new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures 75,582,972
355 -Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities 26,914,341
358 -Insurance agencies, brokerages, and related activities2,634,444
360 -Real estate 6,348,076
369 -Architectural, engineering, and related services5,631,567
Value Added 10,731,152
Not Modeled 1,008,727
Total 174,133,716
Source: IMPLAN; TNDG.
Operations Categories
Land Use Square IMPLAN Sector Model Input
Feet(Employees)
Grocery 31,200 324 - Retail Stores (Food and Beverage) 74
Retail 21,308 329 - Retail Stores (General Merchandise) 50
Total 52,508 124
Source: IMPLAN; TNDG.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:DATE:
Steve Mizokami, Associate PlannerFebruary 25, 2016
City of Santa Monica
FROM:FILE:
Roger Dale, Managing Principal#4051
The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG)
SUBJECT:Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis for 500 Broadway
At your request, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) has reviewed the mixed-use project proposed for
development at 500 Broadway Avenue (Site). The project would include apartments, ground floor retail
space, below grade commercial space, and a four-level parking garage (Proposed Project). The TNDG
analysis consists of the following components:
1.Pro forma financial analyses to compare the land value supported by the following:
a.A project that meets the base zoning standards imposed on the Site (Base Case); and
b.The Proposed Project, which would reflect certain height and floor area ratio (FAR)
incentives provided by the City of Santa Monica (City).
2.A fiscal impact analysis of the Proposed Project. The fiscal impact assumptions are based on the
City’s fiscal year 2015/16 budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following table summarizes the differences between the Proposed Project and the scope of
development allowed by the Base Zoning Alternative:
Base Zoning Proposed Difference –
Alternative Project Proposed to Base
Apartment Units 105 249 144
Retail Square Footage (leasable)52,508 52,508 0
Required Parking Spaces301 524 223
Key Findings
The analysis prepared by TNDG concludes that the Proposed Project supports a land value that is $13.5
million more than the land value supported by the Base Zoning Alternative. This represents the
estimated value enhancement created by the height and FAR incentives proposed to be utilized for the
Proposed Project.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 2
TNDG prepared a fiscal impact analysis based on the development scope for the Proposed Project. This
analysis estimates the net impact (benefit) to the City's General Fund at approximately $227,000 per
year.
VALUE ENHANCEMENT ANALYSIS (VEA)
The scope of development included in the Proposed Project exceeds the development scope allowed by
the base zoning standards imposed on the Site. In order to obtain height and FAR incentives, the
Developer is proposing to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. As one metric in the
evaluation of the proposed Development Agreement terms, the City requested that TNDG analyze any
enhanced value created by the proposed incentives.
To quantify the amount of the value differential, TNDG conducted pro forma analyses for the Base
Zoning Alternative and the Proposed Project. The value enhancement is estimated by comparing the
supportable land value for the Base Zoning Alternative to the supportable land value for the Proposed
Project. TNDG then crosschecked this analysis with a review of recent property sales in the area.
The TNDG financial analyses are described in the following sections of this memorandum. These
analyses are presented in Appendices A (Base Zoning Alternative) and B (Proposed project), and are
organized as follows:
Table 1: Estimated Construction Costs
Table 2: Estimated Stabilized Net Operating Income
Table 3: Estimated Supportable Land Value
Methodological Notes
TNDG’s assumptions and also the structure of this analysis used, as a point of departure, a recently
completed VEA analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) for a project in the City.
Construction cost estimates for the Proposed Project were derived by the TNDG team based on an
itemized construction budget supplied by the Applicant. TNDG developed cost figures for the Base Case
project based on an internal review of the project costs. Estimates for both the Proposed and Base cases
were reviewed for TNDG by John Mauk, CPE, of O'Connor Construction Management, Inc., using the
design development facility drawings supplied by the Applicant and information on the Base Zoning
Alternative contained in the Draft EIR for the project. Based on this review, Mauk recommended certain
adjustments to the cost estimates for the Base Zoning Alternative. Mauk’s analysis also included
recommendations to supplement the Base alternative’s program with upgrades that made it more
comparable to the Proposed alternative. This is accomplished in the model by the line item labeled
“Enhancements in Proposed Project Carried over into Base Zoning Alternative.” A more detailed
description of the cost estimation process is provided in Appendix F.
Residential and commercial rental rates projected for the two alternatives were derived as follows:
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 3
Proposed project. Residential and commercial rents were based on a review of comparables
that focused on recent, high-quality projects. Projected residential rates reflect averages for the
overall project, recognizing that rent premiums may be applied to some of the upper-floor units
with superior views (see additional discussion on residential rents below). Commercial rents for
the ground floor reflect a combination of lower-cost market space and other retail space that
would rent at a higher level. Rents for the below-grade commercial space are discounted
substantially, in keeping with rent comparables for similar space in the City.
Base Zoning Alternative. Rental rates for the Base case were presumed to be approximately
10% lower than the Proposed Project, since fewer rent premiums would be available and the
building would not convey the same impression as the larger project.
Residential rents for the proposed project have been projected based on the following monthly rents
per square foot:
Studios - $6.00
1-bedroom units - $5.50
2-bedroom units - $4.75
3-bedroom units - $4.75
These per-square foot rent factors were derived by TNDG based on an online search of apartments
currently available for rent in Santa Monica. The sample focuses on newer buildings (constructed within
the last 5 years) in the general vicinity of the proposed project. Given the project’s location and design,
and the applicant’s intention to develop a high-amenity residential environment, TNDG has assumed
that the proposed project would achieve residential rents equivalent to the 85 th percentile of the
comparable buildings included in TNDG’s sample. Appendix C of this memorandum provides the data for
the comparable buildings and shows the derivation of the 85 th percentile factors.
Base Zoning Alternative Analysis
Scope of Development
The scope of development under the Base Zoning Alternative can be described as follows:
1.The gross building area (GBA) is estimated at 164,191 square feet (exclusive of parking garage
area), and is comprised of the following:
a.Residential Component – 101,756 square feet; and
b.Retail Component – 62,435 square feet.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 4
2.The development includes 105 residential units, with the sizes shown below. The units are
allocated as follows:
Number of Units Unit Size (Square Ft.)
Studio Units 10 590
One-Bedroom Units 66 810
Two-Bedroom Units 25 1,200
Three-Bedroom Units 4 1,260
Total 105
3.Three hundred one (301) subterranean parking spaces are required for the Base Zoning
Alternative. These spaces can be provided in three subterranean parking levels.
4.
The City's Affordable Housing Production Program requirements were met through the dedication
ofland to a non-profit housing provider at an off-site location equivalent to $31.25 per square foot
of the gross residential area.
Pro Forma Analysis (Appendix A)
The following sections of the analysis summarize the major assumptions applied in the TNDG pro forma
analysis of the Base Zoning Alternative. The assumptions for the Base Zoning Alternative are based
primarily on the description of alternatives in the draft EIR dated September 2015.
Estimated Construction Costs (Appendix A – Table 1)
Direct Costs
TNDG assumed that the Base Zoning Alternative could be developed using Type V construction
standards. In addition, TNDG assumed that the Base Zoning Alternative would not be subject to
prevailing wage requirements. Based on these assumptions, TNDG estimated the direct costs as follows:
1.The site improvement costs are estimated at $15 per square foot of land area, or $1,012,500.
2.The subterranean parking costs are estimated as follows:
a.The 1 st-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $30,000 per space.
b.The 2 nd-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $35,000 per space.
rd
c.The 3-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $40,000 per space.
3.Based on Type V construction standards, the building costs are estimated as follows:
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 5
a.The residential building costs are estimated at $270 per square foot of residential GBA;
and
b.The retail building costs are estimated at $100 per square foot of retail GBA.
4.The contractor costs, inclusive of overhead, profit, general conditions, builder's risk insurance
and contingency allowance, are estimated at 20% of other direct costs.
As another step in aligning the development concept for the Base Zoning Alternative more closely with
that of the Proposed project, a cost line item labeled “Enhancements in Proposed Project Carried over
into Base Zoning Alternative” was added to TNDG’s Base Zoning Alternative project pro forma (Appendix
A, Table 1). TNDG estimates the total direct costs at $56.5 million, or $344 per square foot of GBA.
Indirect Costs
TNDG utilized the following assumptions to estimate the indirect costs for the Base Zoning Alternative:
1.The architecture, engineering and consulting costs are estimated at 8% of direct costs.
2.The public permits and fees costs are estimated at $16 per square foot of GBA.
3.The taxes, insurance, legal and accounting costs are estimated at 3% of direct costs.
4.The marketing and leasing costs are estimated as follows:
a.The residential marketing costs are estimated at 2% of direct costs; and
b.The retail marketing costs are estimated at $3 per square foot of retail space.
5.A development management fee equal to 4% of direct costs is included.
6.An indirect cost contingency allowance equal to 5% of other indirect costs is included.
TNDG estimates the total indirect costs at $13.0 million.
Financing Costs
The financing costs for the Base Zoning Alternative are estimated as follows:
1.The land carrying costs are estimated at $1.9 million based on a 5.5% interest rate and a 21-
month development period.
2.The construction and absorption period interest costs are estimated at $5.1 million. These costs
are based on the following assumptions:
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 6
a.The construction-period interest costs are based on a 5.5% interest rate, an 18-month
construction period, and a 60% average outstanding loan balance.
b.The absorption-period interest costs are based on a three-month absorption period with
a 100% average outstanding balance.
3.The financing fees for both the construction and permanent loan are set at 2.50 points. This
equates to $4.2 million in financing fees.
TNDG estimates the total financing costs at $11.2 million.
Total Construction Costs
The following table summarizes the TNDG construction cost estimates for the Base Case:
Total Direct Costs $56,451,208
Total Indirect Costs13,031,624
Total Financing Costs 11,180,583
Total Construction Costs $80,663,415
Per Square Foot of GBA $491.28
Estimated Stabilized Net Operating Income (Appendix A – Table 2)
Residential Net Operating Income
1.The rents for the residential units are estimated to be as follows:
Studio Units $3,186
One-Bedroom Units $4,010
Two-Bedroom Units $5,160
Three-Bedroom Units $5,418
2.A $10 per unit per month allowance is provided for miscellaneous income.
3.The City requires the parking to be unbundled from the residential and retail rents. The parking
revenues are estimated as follows: The market rent for the parking is estimated at $150 per
space per month. This rate is applied to 125 spaces in the Base Zoning Alternative.
4.A 5% vacancy and collection allowance is provided.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 7
5.TNDG estimates the residential operating expenses at $15,056 per unit per year.
Based on the preceding assumptions, TNDG estimates the effective gross income (EGI) for the
residential component at $5.3 million and the operating expenses at $1,580,884. The resulting
residential net operating income (NOI) is $3.7 million.
Commercial Net Operating Income
1.Revenues:
a.The restaurant and retail space rent is set at $66.00 per square foot of gross leasable
area (GLA) per year.
b.The grocery market rent is set at $45.00 per square foot of gross leasable area (GLA) per
year.
c.The common area maintenance (CAM) reimbursements are estimated at $10 per square
foot of GLA per year.
2.A 5% vacancy and collection allowance is provided.
3.TNDG estimates the retail operating expenses as follows:
a.The CAM expenses are estimated at $10 per square foot per year.
b.The management fee is set at 3% of effective gross retail income.
TNDG estimates the EGI for the retail component at $3.2 million, and the operating expenses at
$621,802. Based on these assumptions, the retail NOI is $2.6 million.
Total Net Operating Income
The sum of the NOI for the residential component and for the retail component, for the Base Zoning
Alternative, equals $6.3 million.
Estimated Supportable Land Value (Appendix A – Table 3)
The supportable land value is equal to the difference between the estimated value of the Base Zoning
Alternative and the sum of the estimated construction costs plus an allowance for developer profit
equal to 12% of the Base Zoning Alternative's estimated value. The value supported by the Base Zoning
Alternative is estimated by capitalizing the NOI at a capitalization rate that reflects current market
conditions.
To estimate the value supported by the Base Zoning Alternative, TNDG capitalized the NOI at a 4.72%
rate; this rate is derived from a weighted average (by building area) of 4.5% for the residential
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 8
component and 5.5% for the retail component. The valuation analysis prepared by TNDG is summarized
in the following table:
Estimated Net Operating Income $6,344,725
Capitalization Rate 4.72%
Project Value $134,490,601
The resulting supportable land value for the Base Zoning Alternative under the TNDG analysis can be
summarized as follows:
Project Value $134,490,601
(Less) Developer Profit (16,138,872)
(Less) Total Construction Costs(83,843,290)
Supportable Land Value $34,508,439
Per Square Foot of Land Area $511.24
Analysis of Proposed Project
Scope of Development
The following summarizes the scope of development for the Proposed Project:
1.The project includes 302,467 square feet of GBA (exclusive of parking garage area), which is
comprised of the following:
a.Residential Component – 229,012; and
b.Retail Component – 62,435 square feet (gross).
c.Other space – 11,020 square feet.
2.The development includes 249 residential units, sized and allocated as follows:
Number of Unit Size
Units(Square Ft.)
Studio Units 49 590
One-Bedroom Units 124 810
Two-Bedroom Units51 1,200
Three-Bedroom Units 25 1,260
Total249
3.Five hundred twenty-four (524) subterranean parking spaces are provided. It is assumed that
four subterranean parking levels will be required to accommodate these spaces.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 9
4.
The City's Affordable Housing Production Program requirements were met through the dedication
of land to a non-profit housing provider at an off-site location equivalent to $31.25 per square foot
.
of the gross residential area
Pro Forma Analysis (Appendix B)
The following sections of the analysis summarize the major assumptions applied in the TNDG pro forma
analysis of the Proposed Project. The assumptions incorporate those applied by the Applicant to the
proposed project, within the analysis framework used for the Base Zoning Alternative described above.
In doing so, some variations in the analysis structure prepared by the Applicant and the system used
above were unavoidable.
Estimated Construction Costs (Appendix B – Table 1)
Direct Costs
TNDG assumed, per the Applicant’s description, that the Proposed Project will be developed using
Type I / II-A construction standards. In addition, TNDG assumed that the Proposed Project will not be
subject to prevailing wage requirements. Based on these assumptions, TNDG estimates the direct costs
as follows:
1.The site improvement costs are estimated at $15 per square foot of land area, or $1,012,500.
2.The subterranean parking costs are estimated as follows:
st
a.The 1-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $30,000 per space;
nd
b.The 2-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $35,000 per space; and
c.The 3 rd-level and 4 th-level subterranean parking costs are estimated at $40,000 per
space.
3.As part of the process of reconciling the Applicant’s cost estimates with the analysis format used
by TNDG for the Base Zoning Alternative, a separate cost line item was added labeled,
“Additional estimated parking costs associated with relationship of podium to garage.”
4.Based on Type I / II-A construction standards, the building costs are estimated as follows:
a.The residential building costs are estimated at $285 per square foot, for a total of $65.3
million; and
b.The retail building costs are estimated at $100 per square foot, for a total of $6.2
million.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 10
5.The contractor costs, inclusive of overhead, profit, general conditions, builder’s risk insurance
and contingency allowance, are estimated at 20% of other direct costs.
With these assumptions, the direct costs total to $119.3 million, or $394 per square foot of GBA.
Indirect Costs
TNDG utilized the following assumptions to estimate the indirect costs for the Proposed Project:
1.The architecture, engineering and consulting costs are estimated at 8% of direct costs.
2.Public permits and fees costs are estimated at $16 per square foot of GBA.
3.The taxes, insurance, legal and accounting costs are estimated at 3% of direct costs.
4.The marketing and leasing costs are estimated as follows:
a.The residential marketing costs are estimated at 2% of direct costs; and
b.The retail marketing costs and leasing commissions are estimated at $3.00 per square foot
of retail GBA.
5.A development management fee equal to 4% of direct costs is provided.
6.An indirect cost contingency allowance equal to 5% of other indirect costs is provided.
TNDG estimates the total indirect costs at $26.4 million.
Financing Costs
The financing costs for the Proposed Project are estimated as follows:
1.Land carrying costs are estimated at $2.7 million based on a 5.5% interest rate and a 30-month
development and absorption period.
2.The construction and absorption period interest costs are estimated at $17.0 million. These
costs are based on the following assumptions:
a.The construction period interest costs are based on a 5.5% interest rate, a 24-month
construction period, and a 60% average outstanding loan balance.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 11
b.The absorption period interest costs are based on a six-month absorption period with a
100% average outstanding balance.
3.The financing fees for both the construction and permanent loan are set at 2.50 points. This
equates to $8.8 million in financing fees.
TNDG estimates the total financing costs at $28.5 million.
Total Construction Costs
Total Direct Costs $119,283,704
Total Indirect Costs26,373,587
Total Financing Costs 28,476,425
Total Construction Costs $174,133,716
Per Square Foot of GBA $575.71
Estimated Stabilized Net Operating Income (Appendix B – Table 2)
Residential Net Operating Income
1.The monthly market rents are estimated as follows:
Studio Units $3,540
One-Bedroom Units $4,455
Two-Bedroom Units $5,700
Three-Bedroom Units $5,985
2.A $10 per unit per month allowance is provided for miscellaneous income.
3.The parking rents have been unbundled from the residential and retail rents. The parking
revenues are estimated as follows: Three hundred nineteen (319) parking spaces will be leased
at the estimated market rate rent of $150 per space per month.
4.A 5% vacancy factor is provided.
Based on the on the preceding assumptions, TNDG estimates the EGI for the residential component at
$13.9 million. Operating expenses of $6,000 per unit per year and property taxes of $10,267 per unit per
year yield annual expenses of $4.0 million. The resulting residential NOI is $9.9 million.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 12
Retail Net Operating Income
1.Revenues:
a.The rental rate for the grocery store is set at $50 per square foot of GLA per year, on the
ground floor, and at $18 per square foot for the below-grade space.
b.The rental rate other ground-floor retail and restaurant is set at $75 per square foot of
retail GLA per year.
c.The CAM reimbursements are estimated at $10 per square foot of GLA per year.
2.A 5% vacancy and collection allowance is provided.
3.TNDG estimates the retail operating expenses as follows:
a.The CAM expenses are estimated at $10 per square foot of GLA per year.
b.The management fee is set at 3% of effective gross retail income.
TNDG estimates the EGI for the retail component at $3.0 million, and the operating expenses at
$614,133. Based on these assumptions, the retail NOI is set at $2.4 million.
Total Net Operating Income
Combining the NOI for the residential component and the retail component yields a Project NOI of $12.2
million.
Estimated Supportable Land Value (Appendix B – Table 3)
The valuation analysis prepared by TNDG for the Proposed Project is summarized in the following table.
The 4.69% capitalization rate is derived from a weighted average (by area) of 4.5% for the residential
component and 5.5% for the retail component.
Estimated Net Operating Income $12,222,146
Capitalization Rate 4.69%
Project Value $260,530,969
The resulting supportable land value based on the results of the TNDG analysis is summarized in the
following table:
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 13
Project Value $260,530,969
(Less) Developer Profit (31,263,716)
(Less) Total Construction Costs(181,290,341)
Supportable Land Value $47,976,912
Per Square Foot of Land Area $710.77
Estimated Value Enhancement
The value enhancement created by the proposed increase in height and FAR is equal to the difference
between the land values supported by the Base Zoning Alternative and the Proposed Project. The
following table presents the TNDG estimate of the value enhancement.
Supportable Land Value
Proposed Project
$47,976,912
Base Zoning Alternative
$34,508,439
Estimated Value Enhancement
$13,468,473
As a crosscheck to the land value estimates derived from the value enhancement analyses, TNDG
compiled information for properties that have recently sold within the vicinity of the Site. Given the
limited number of vacant land parcels near the Site, TNDG focused the research on the recent sales of
commercial buildings. The parameters of the property sales survey are as follows:
1.Sales transactions between July 2014 and January 2016 were included in the survey.
2.Non-arms length transactions, multi-property transactions, and transactions without sales prices
were excluded, based on our interpretation of the data.
Based on the search parameters outlined above, TNDG documented five improved property sales
transactions within a 0.5-mile radius of the Site. The survey results are detailed in Appendix D, and the
values per square foot of land area are summarized in the following table:
Property Sales
Minimum Price $355
Maximum Price$690
Average Price $460
As can be seen in the preceding table, the values associated with recent property sales range from $355
to $690 per square foot of land area. The large spread in the values is likely due to the varying quality
and intensity levels of the existing improvements on the properties. The TNDG value enhancement
analyses resulted in a supportable land value of $511.24 per square foot of land area for the Base Zoning
Alternative, and a $710.77 per square foot land value for the Proposed Project.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis –500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 14
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (APPENDIX E)
The City has requested that TNDG provide an analysis of the fiscal impacts of the Proposed Project could
potentially create on the City’s General Fund. TNDG reviewed the City’s fiscal year 2015/16 budget, and
estimated the Proposed Project’s fiscal impacts as follows. Where appropriate, the analysis uses a
marginal increase methodology to evaluate revenues that would increase proportionately with new
development. To calculate these marginal increases in revenue, the analysis calculates per unit factors
that are applied to the incremental development proposed for the project. In this analysis, we have
derived an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) factor, which incorporates a variety of inputs to derive a
factor that represents the City’s resident “daytime population” (employees). Assumptions regarding
each of these populations’ relative effect on the General Fund are provided on Appendix Table 1.
Following from the assumptions summarized in Appendix Table 1, Appendix Table 2 provides the
calculations that convert the proposed development characteristics into EDUs, for purposes of
calculating revenue impacts.
For some revenue categories, the analysis uses a case study approach to estimate project-generated
revenues. For example, property taxes are based on the project’s estimated assessed valuation, while
sales taxes are based on the projected gross sales. See Appendix Table 3 for a summary of the revenue
projection methodology for each revenue category.
Fiscal Impact Analysis Assumptions
The major assumptions used in this fiscal impact analysis can be described as follows:
1.Population estimates
a.TNDG applied an average household size of 1.50 persons per residential unit.
b.The retail employment is estimated at 425 commercial square feet per employee.
c.The employment-based resident equivalent factor is set at 0.5 employees per resident.
2.The total General Fund revenue that could potentially be generated by the Proposed Project is
estimated at $987,376 based on the following assumptions:
a.The property taxes are estimated based on a $260.5 million assessed value for the
Proposed Project, and the assumption that the City’s General Fund receives 17.16% of
the 1.0% base property tax levy. After subtracting current land values ($43.1 million),
TNDG projects the Proposed Project will generate $373,050 per year in additional
property tax revenue.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis 500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 15
b.TNDG estimated the motor vehicle license in-lieu fee (MVLF) revenue that could be
value represents of the total assessed value of properties within Santa Monica. When
this ratio is applied to the $9.33 million in MLVF the City received in the fiscal year
2015/16, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate $65,132 in MVLF revenue
annual.
c.The sales tax revenue that could be received by the City is estimated at $272,007 per
year, based on the following assumptions:
i.
in Santa Monica. This includes the revenue generated by Measure Y.
ii.The expenditu
retail establishments in Santa Monica, are estimated at approximately $17,048
per unit per year.
iii.The taxable sales projected to be generated by the retail component of the
Proposed Project are estimated at $333 per square foot per year of commercial
GLA. This factor is a weighted average that reflects the assumption that a
market (at which only a portion of sales are taxable).
d.The utility tax revenue is estimated at $439.93 per EDU. This equates to $127,580
annually.
e.Parking tax revenue is estimated at $57,420 per year based on the following
assumptions:
i.The project will have a total of 319 residential parking spaces (commercial
parking spaces are assumed to generate no income).
ii.The parking charge for residential tenants is projected at $150 per space per
month.
iii.The Citys parking facility tax is calculated at 10% of total parking income.
f.The business license fee rate is set by the City at $1.25 per $1,000 in gross receipts for
both the commercial components of the Project. The annual revenues are estimated at
$15,981 per year.
Value Enhancement & Fiscal Impact Analysis 500 Broadway
February 25, 2016
Page 16
g.Franchise fee revenue is estimated at $13.03 per EDU. This equates to $3,779 annually.
h.Other license and permit revenue is estimated at $196.35 per EDU. This equates to
$56,942 annually.
i.Revenue from fines and forfeitures is estimated at $53.40 per EDU. This equates to
$15,486 annually.
3.The General Fund expenditures projected to be incurred as a result of the following Proposed
Project are estimated at $760,012 annually based on the following assumptions:
a.Public safety expenditures are estimated at $1,088.29 per EDU, or $315,604 per year.
b.Fire protection services are estimated at $478.06 per EDU, which equals $138,637 per
year.
c.Community service expenditures are estimated at $331.51 per EDU, or $96,138 per
year.
d.Library expenditures are estimated at $165.37 per EDU, or $47,957 per year.
e.Public works expenditures are estimated at $557.50 per EDU, or $161,675 per year.
Fiscal Impact Analysis Findings
The General Fund revenue and expenditures analysis for the Proposed Project is presented in Appendix
D. The results are summarized in the following table:
Estimated General Fund Revenues $987,376
(Less) Estimated General Fund Expenditures ($760,012)
Net Annual General Fund Revenue/(Cost) $227,365
APPENDIXA
BASE ZONING ALTERNATIVE
SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE
APPENDIXB
PROPOSED PROJECT
SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE
APPENDIX B - TABLE 1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
PROPOSED PROJECT - TYPE I/II-A CONSTRUCTION
500 BROADWAY
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
I.Direct Costs
Site Improvement Costs67,500SF Land$15/SF Land$1,012,500
Parking Spaces
1st-Level Subterranean73Spaces$30,000/Space$2,190,000
2nd-Level Subterranean134Spaces$35,000/Space$4,690,000
3rd-Level Subterranean155Spaces$40,000/Space$6,200,000
4th-Level Subterranean162Spaces$40,000/Space$6,480,000
Parking garage total524$19,560,000
Additional est. parking costs associated with relationship of podium to garage$7,460,000
Building Costs
Residential229,012SF Res GBA$285/SF Res GBA$65,268,420.00
Commercial
Ground Floor40,475SF Retail GBA
Below Grade21,960SF Retail GBA
Total Commercial62,435SF Retail GBA$100/SF Retail GBA$6,243,500
Other area11,020$100/SF Retail GBA$1,102,000
1
Contractor Costs20%Other Direct Costs$18,637,284
Total Direct Costs302,467SF Total GBA$394/SF GBA$119,283,704
II.Indirect Costs
Arch, Eng, & Consulting8%Direct Costs$9,542,696
2
Public Permits & Fees/Impact Fees302,467SF GBA$16.00/SF GBA$4,839,472
Fractional Unit AH Fee0.00Fractional Unit/AH Dev Cost$0
Taxes, Ins, Legal & Acctg3.00%Direct Costs$3,578,511
Marketing
Residential2%Direct Costs$2,385,674
Commercial0SF Retail GBA$3.00/SF Retail GBA$0
Development Management4%Direct Costs$4,771,348
Soft Cost Contingency 5%Indirect Costs$1,255,885
Total Indirect Costs$26,373,587
III.Financing Costs100%Avg. Outstanding Bal.100%Avg. Outstanding Bal.
24Month Const. Period6-Month Absorption
3
Land Carrying Costs$19,500,000Financed5.50%Interest$2,681,250
60%Avg. Outstanding Bal.100%Avg. Outstanding Bal.
24Month Const. Period6-Month Absorption
Interest During Construction 4$181,300,000\[Max. Financeable\]5.50%Interest$16,951,550
Financing Fees
Construction Loan$181,300,000Financed2.50Points$4,532,500
Permanent Loan$172,445,000Financed \[65% of cap. 2.50Points$4,311,125
value\]
Total Financing Costs$28,476,425
IV.Total Construction Costs302,467SF GBA$575.71/SF GBA$174,133,716
Affordable Housing Costs$7,156,625
Total Construction & Affordable Housing Costs$181,290,341
1
Includes contractors' fees, general requirements, builder's risk insurance and a direct cost contingency allowance.
2
From a recent similar study by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). According to KMA, City staff should verify the accuracy of
this estimate.
3
Based on an 18-month construction period and a 3-month absorption period with a 100% average outstanding balance.
4
Based on an 18-month construction period with a 60% average outstanding balance and a 3-month absorption period with a
100% average outstanding balance.
APPENDIX B - TABLE 2
ESTIMATED STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME
PROPOSED PROJECT - TYPE I/II-A CONSTRUCTION
500 BROADWAY
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
I.Residential Rental Income
Market Rate Units$/Per Unit SFAnnual rent
SF
Studio Units49Units$6.00590$3,540/Unit/Month$2,081,520
One-Bedroom Units124Units$5.50810$4,455/Unit/Month$6,629,040
Two-Bedroom Units51Units$4.751,200$5,700/Unit/Month$3,488,400
Three-Bedroom Units25Units$4.751,260$5,985/Unit/Month$1,795,500
Gross Rental Income$13,994,460
Laundry and Miscellaneous Income249Units$10/Unit/Month$29,880
Parking Income 1 319Spaces$150/Space/Month$574,200
Gross Residential Income$14,598,540
(Less) Vacancy and Collection5%Gross Residential Income-$729,927
Effective Gross Residential Income$13,868,613
II.Residential Operating Expenses
General Operating Expenses249UnitsCap Res. NOIProperty $6,000/Unit/Year$1,494,000
RateTax Rate
2
Property Taxes249Units4.50%$9,865,0001.1435%$10,067/Unit/Year$2,506,806
Total Residential Operating 249Units$16,067/Unit/Year$4,000,806
Expenses
III.Residential Net Operating Income$9,867,807
IV.Retail Income
Commercial
Ground Floor Retail/Restaurant21,308SF Leasable$75.00/SF/Year$1,598,088
Ground Floor Market13,748SF Leasable$50.00/SF/Year$687,408
Below Grade (assumed Market)17,452SF Leasable$18.00/SF/Year$314,133
Total52,508SF Leasable$2,599,629
CAM Reimbursements52,508SF Leasable$10.00/SF GLA/Year$525,078
Gross Retail Income$3,124,707
(Less) Vacancy and Collection5%Gross Retail Income(156,235)
Effective Gross Retail Income$2,968,472
V.Retail Operating Expenses
CAM Expenses52,508SF Retail$10.00/SF GLA/Year$525,078
Management Fee3%Effective Gross Inc.89,054
Total Retail Operating Expenses62,435SF Retail GBA$9.84/SF/Year$614,133
VI.Retail Net Operating Income$2,354,339
VII.Total Net Operating Income$12,222,146
1
The parking is uncoupled from the market rate units and retail space. The space rent is estimated at $150/space/month.
2
Based on a 4.50% capitalization rate for the residential component and a 1.1435% property tax rate.
APPENDIX B - TABLE 3
ESTIMATED SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE
PROPOSED PROJECT - TYPE I/II-A CONSTRUCTION
500 BROADWAY
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
Estimated Project Value
I.
Net Operating Income$12,222,146
1
Capitalization Rate4.69%
Estimated Project Value$260,530,969
II.
Supportable Land Value
$260,530,969
Estimated Project Value
Estimated Project Value
(Less) Developer Profit12%(31,263,716)
(181,290,341)
(Less) Total Construction Costs
III.SF Land$710.77SF Land
Supportable Land Value 67,500$47,976,912
/
Based on a weighted average of: a 4.50% capitalization rate for the residential component and a 5.50%
1
capitalization rate for the commercial component. Rates are based on a recent similar study by Keyser
Marston Associates (KMA), citing the rates published by RERC for the 4th quarter of 2014 and an
adjustment by KMA reflecting the strength of the Santa Monica real estate market.
APPENDIXC
RESIDENTIAL RENT COMPARABLES
Table C-1
Sample of Comparable Apartment Buildings
Monthly Rent $Square Feet$/SF
BuildingAddressStudio1 BR2 BR3BRStudio1 BR2 BR3BRStudio1 BR2 BR3BR
Sway Santa Monica525 Broadway$3,632$6,0666091,233$5.96$4.92
NMS 15481548 6th Street$3,295$3,895688870$4.79$4.48
NMS 15391539 4th Street$3,104620$5.01
NMS 14301430 5th Street$3,995$3,895623852$6.42$4.57
NMS 14271427 7th Street$2,095340$6.16
NMS 15111511 5th Street$1,805333$5.42
NMS 14201420 5th Street$4,395$4,095785853$5.60$4.80
NMS 14101410 5th Street$3,245$4,243656959$4.95$4.42
Arrezo5th/Wilshire$2,810$3,381484871$5.81$3.88
LuganoBroadway/6th Court$2,700$3,295$4,6704886451,365$5.53$5.11$3.42
Positano6th/Santa Monica$3,200$3,047$3,526551697860$5.81$4.37$4.10
Biella7th/Santa Monica$2,834707$4.01
Genoa7th/Santa Monica$3,024$3,213580855$5.21$3.76
San Remo7th/Colorado$3,052693$4.40
Sorrento7th/Santa Monica$2,670$3,492706798$3.78$4.38
Livorno6th/Colorado$3,364827$4.07
Revello6th/Wilshire$3,486847$4.12
San RemoLincoln/Colorado$3,252868$3.75
Venezia6th/Colorado$3,170854$3.71
N/A1502 Broadway$3,295$4,9957511,094$4.39$4.57
N/A1751 Appian Way$7,7951,757$4.44
N/A947 4th Street$11,2492,050$5.49
Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG), based on February 2016 online search of available Santa Monica apartments.
Table C-2
Projected Rent per Square Foot - Studio Apartments
BuildingRentSquare Feet$/SF
NMS 1511$1,805333$5.42
NMS 1427$2,095340$6.16
Arrezo$2,810484$5.81
Lugano$2,700488$5.53
Positano$3,200551$5.81
Percentile85%$5.95
wƚǒƓķĻķυЏ͵ЉЉ
Source: TNDG
Table C-3
Projected Rent per Square Foot - 1 Bedroom Apartments
BuildingRentSquare Feet$/SF
DĻƓƚğυЌͲЉЋЍЎБЉυЎ͵ЋЊ
{ǞğǤ {ğƓƷğ aƚƓźĭğυЌͲЏЌЋЏЉВυЎ͵ВЏ
ba{ ЊЎЌВυЌͲЊЉЍЏЋЉυЎ͵ЉЊ
ba{ ЊЍЌЉυЌͲВВЎЏЋЌυЏ͵ЍЋ
\[ǒŭğƓƚυЌͲЋВЎЏЍЎυЎ͵ЊЊ
ba{ ЊЍЊЉυЌͲЋЍЎЏЎЏυЍ͵ВЎ
ba{ ЊЎЍБυЌͲЋВЎЏББυЍ͵АВ
{ğƓ wĻƒƚυЌͲЉЎЋЏВЌυЍ͵ЍЉ
tƚƭźƷğƓƚυЌͲЉЍАЏВАυЍ͵ЌА
{ƚƩƩĻƓƷƚυЋͲЏАЉАЉЏυЌ͵АБ
.źĻƌƌğυЋͲБЌЍАЉАυЍ͵ЉЊ
ЊЎЉЋ .ƩƚğķǞğǤυЌͲЋВЎАЎЊυЍ͵ЌВ
ba{ ЊЍЋЉυЍͲЌВЎАБЎυЎ͵ЏЉ
tĻƩĭĻƓƷźƌĻБЎіυЎ͵ЏА
wƚǒƓķĻķυЎ͵ЎЉ
{ƚǒƩĭĻʹ b5D
Table C-4
Projected Rent per Square Foot - 2 Bedroom and 3 Bedroom Apartments
BuildingRentSquare Feet$/SF
Sorrento$3,492798$4.38
Livorno$3,364827$4.07
Revello$3,486847$4.12
NMS 1430$3,895852$4.57
NMS 1420$4,095853$4.80
Venezia$3,170854$3.71
Genoa$3,213855$3.76
Positano$3,526860$4.10
San Remo$3,252868$3.75
NMS 1548$3,895870$4.48
Arrezo$3,381871$3.88
NMS 1410$4,243959$4.42
1502 Broadway$4,9951,094$4.57
Sway Santa Monica$6,0661,233$4.92
Lugano$4,6701,365$3.42
1751 Appian Way$7,7951,757$4.44
947 4th Street$11,2492,050$5.49
Percentile85%$4.71
wƚǒƓķĻķυЍ͵АЎ
Source: TNDG
APPENDIXD
PROPERTY SALES COMPARABLES
PROPERTY SALES COMPARABLES
500 BROADWAY BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
Type Address Sales Date Site Size (SF) (2) Sales Price Price / SF Land
Comm./Ind. (1) 1124 Santa Monica Blvd. 7/31/2014 17,500 $6,250,000 $357
Multi-Family 1445 9 th St.9/17/2014 7,500 $3,400,034 $453
Multi-Family 1236 9 th St.10/3/2014 15,000 $7,300,073 $487
Comm./Ind. 626 Wilshire Blvd. 3/31/2015 15,000 $5,326,053 $355
Comm./Ind. 1547 7 th St.7/1/2015 7,500 $3,500,035 $467
Vacant Land 711 Colorado Ave. 7/16/2015 7,500 $3,000,030 $400
Multi-Family 1514 7 th St.7/16/2015 7,500 $3,000,030 $400
Vacant Land 1235 5 th St.10/26/2015 7,500 $5,175,051 $690
Multi-Family 1433 9 th St.12/1/2015 7,500 $3,965,039 $529
Average $460
Minimum $355
Maximum$690
(1) Comparable 1 was taken from VEA 1560 Lincoln Boulevard Memo dated 9-18-2015 by Keyser Marston
Associates, Inc. The remaining comparables were provided by TNDG.
Square Footage values have been rounded. It is important to note that adjustments have not been
applied to sales comparables. Both physical and economic units of comparison could affect how
comparable these properties are to the project location. Some of these factors include smaller property
size, mid-block location in proximity to corner property commercial frontage, purchases with respect to
the improved portions of the property, date of sale, sale terms, lack of parking or other encumbrances,
proximity to beach front, as well as other circumstances that might not permit the highest and best use
of the property.
APPENDIXE
PROPOSED PROJECT
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Summary of Fiscal Revenue Impacts
Proposed Project
City of Santa Monica General Fund Revenues
Property Tax$373,050
Property Tax in lieu of MVLF 65,132
Sales Tax 272,007
Utility User Tax 127,580
Business License Tax 15,981
Parking Facility Tax 57,420
Other Taxes 76,206
Total City of Santa Monica General Fund Revenues$987,376
Additional Fiscal Revenues to Other Funds and Other Taxing Entities
City of Santa Monica (Non-General Fund) 10,215
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District 527,947
Santa Monica Community College District 223,168
Metro Water District 7,609
Total Additional Fiscal Benefits$768,939
Total Fiscal Revenues to the City of Santa Monica and Other Taxing Entities$1,756,315
Source: TNDG
Appendix Tables
Table E-1: Calculation of City of Santa Monica EDUs
Population (Household) 91,137
Persons Per Dwelling Unit 1.90
Occupied Dwelling Units 47,904
Employees 92,908
Employment Resident Equivalent50%
Employment Resident Equivalents 46,454
Employment Resident / Persons Per DU 24,417
Hotel Rooms
Supply 3,500
Occupancy80%
Occupied Hotel Rooms 2,800
Visitors per Room 1.89
Visitors / Hotel Room 5,290
Visitors / Persons Per DU 2,781
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) 75,102
(1) California Department of Finance
(2) Southern California Association of Government (SCAG)
(3) Santa Monica CVB and PKF
Source: TNDG
Table E-2: Calculation of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) by Project Scenario
Proposed Project
Population (Household) 374
Persons Per Dwelling Unit 1.50
Occupied Dwelling Units 249
On-Site Employees 124
Employment Resident Equivalent50%
Employment Resident Equivalents 62
Equivalent Dwelling Units 41
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) 290
Source: TNDG.
Table E-3: City of Santa Monica 2015 - 2016 Adopted Budget - Revenue Factors
FY 2015-16 Affected by % Variable Variable
BudgetGrowthRevenueRevenueGrowth FactorPro-Rata Factor
Revenue
Property Taxes$48,777,926
Property Tax-Secured 26,715,138YesSpecial ModelSee Table 4
VLF Swap 9,334,156YesSpecial ModelSee Table 5
Other 12,728,632NoZero Forecast
Sales Taxes 53,992,812YesSpecial ModelSee Tables 6&7
Other Taxes 132,040,131
Transient Occupancy Tax 51,410,000YesNot Applied
Utility User Tax 33,039,386Yes100%$33,039,386EDU$439.93
Documentary Property Tax 5,400,000YesNot Applied
Business License Tax 30,870,745YesSpecial ModelSee Table 9
Condominium Tax 20,000YesNot Applied
Vehicle License Fees - Yes100%$0Not Applied
Parking Facility Tax 11,300,000YesSpecial ModelSee Table 10
Licenses/Permits 37,844,117
Franchise Fees 978,698Yes100%$978,698EDU$13.03
Other 36,865,419Yes40%$14,746,168EDU$196.35
Intergovernmental 140,615NoZero Forecast
Charges for Service 37,637,857NoZero Forecast
Fines/Forfeitures 16,041,500Yes25%$4,010,375EDU$53.40
Investment Income 3,500,000NoZero Forecast
Rent 9,787,576NoZero Forecast
Other Revenues 7,840,090NoZero Forecast
Total$347,602,624
Source: TNDG; City of Santa Monica, FY 2015-17 Biennial Budget.
Table E-4: Estimated Property Tax - Proposed Project
Total Units or
Monthly RentSquare FeetTotal
Proposed Project
Residential Rent per Unit
Studio Apartments$3,540 49$2,081,520
1 BR Apartments 4,455 124 6,629,040
2 BR Apartments 5,700 51 3,488,400
2 BR Affordable Apartments 689 - -
3 BR Apartments 5,985 25 1,795,500
Total Residential Operating Revenue 249$13,994,460
Miscellaneous Residential Income
Residential Parking Income - Market Rate$150 319$574,200
Residential Miscellaneous Income 10 249 29,880
Total Miscellaneous Income$604,080
Total Residential Operating Revenue$14,598,540
1
Total Residential Operating Expenses
32.41% 4,730,733
Net Residential Operating Expenses$9,867,807
CommercialRent per SF
Commercial - General Retail / Restaurant$4.13 21,308$1,054,942
Commercial - Grocery 4.13 31,200 1,544,687
Commercial - Fitness Center 4.13 - -
Total Commercial Operating Revenue 52,508$2,599,629
Total Commercial Operating Revenue$2,599,629
Total Commercial Operating Expenses9.44% 245,290
Net Commercial Operating Expenses$2,354,339
Net Operating Income$12,222,146
Cap Rate4.69%
Estimated Project Value$260,530,969
Less Existing Value 43,135,576
Net Project Assessed Value$217,395,393
Total Property Tax$2,173,954
City General Fund Property Tax Share17.16%$373,050
(1) Includes Vacancy, Property Management, Utilities, etc.
Source: TNDG.
Table E-5: Estimated Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF
Proposed Project
2015 Assessed Valuations$31,155,457,336
2015/16 VLF Swap$9,334,156
1
Project Assessed Value (Net)
$217,395,393
Cumulative Citywide AV$31,372,852,729
Share of AV due to Project0.70%
VLF Adjustment Attributed to Project$65,132
(1) See Table 4
Source: TNDG; City of Santa Monica, FY 2015-17 Adopted Biennial Budget;
Los Angeles County Assessor's Office Annual Report, 2015.
Table E-6: Estimated On-Site Sales Tax Revenues
Proposed
Project
Commercial (SF)
Commercial - General Retail / Restaurant 21,308
Commercial - Grocery 31,200
Commercial - Fitness Center -
Total 52,508
Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)
1
Commercial - Above Grade
$12,785
2
Commercial - Below Grade
-
2
Commercial - Grocery
4,680
Total Taxable Retail Sales ($000s)$17,465
Annual Sales Taxes to the City @ 1.25% ($)$218,310
(1) Assumes gross taxable sales of $400/SF
(2) Assumes no taxable sales
Source: TNDG.
Table E-7: Estimated Off-Site Sales Tax Revenues
Proposed
Project
Residents
Total Residential Units 249
Weighted Average Monthly Rent$4,684
Weighted Average Annual Rent$56,203
Annual Rent as Ratio of Household Income30%
Average Household Income$187,342
Aggregate Household Income$46,648,200
% Spent on Taxable Retail Sales26%
Total Taxable Retail Sales$12,128,532
% Captured in City35%
New Taxable Sales in City$4,244,986
Employees
Total Employees 124
1
Average Daily Spend
$7
1
Aggregate Employee Taxable Sales in Santa Monica
$203,237
Less On-Site Capture (75%) (152,428)
Net Employee Taxable Sales (Off-Site, within City)$50,809
Annual Sales Taxes to the City @ 1.25%$53,697
(1) TNDG estimate based on ICSC Employee Shopping Survey (2004).
Source: TNDG
Table E-8: Estimated Business License Tax (BLT) Revenues
Proposed
Project
Gross Receipts by Land Use
Commercial Revenue$12,784,800
1
BLT Estimate
$15,981
BLT Total$15,981
(1) Assumes a BLT of $1.25 per $1,000 in gross receipts
Source: TNDG.
Table E-9: Estimated Parking Tax Revenues
Parking SpacesAnnual Revenue City Parking Tax
Proposed Project
Commercial Parking 205 $0$0
Residential-Market Rate Parking 319 574,200 57,420
Residential-Affordable Parking - - -
Total 524 $574,200$57,420
Source: TNDG.
Table E-10: Property Tax and Voter Indebtedness Property Tax Assessments to City of
Santa Monica Non-General Funds and Other Taxing Entities
Proposed
Project
1
Estimated Net new Assessed Value
$217,395,393
2
1% Property Tax General Levy
Santa Monica Community College District4.26%$92,524
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District17.22%$374,339
2
Property Taxes Above 1%
Voter Indebtedness
City of Santa Monica0.47%$10,215
Metro Water District0.35%$7,609
Community College6.01%$130,644
Unified Schools7.07%$153,607
(1) As estimated in Table 4
(2) Rates were obtained from the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office.
Source: TNDG; Los Angeles County Assessor's Office.
Table E-11: Potential Fiscal Revenue Impact on City General Fund Revenues
Proposed Project
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes
Property Tax-Secured$373,050
MVLF Swap 65,132
Sales Taxes
On-Site$218,310
Off-Site 53,697
Other Taxes
Utility User Tax $127,580
Business License Tax 15,981
Parking Facility 57,420
Licenses/Permits
Franchise Fees$3,779
Other 56,942
Fines/Forfeitures 15,486
Total General Fund Revenues$987,376
Source: TNDG.
Table E-12: City of Santa Monica 2015 - 2016 Budget - Expenditures
Affected by % Variable Variable
2015-2016 BudgetProjectRevenueRevenueGrowth FactorPro-Rata Factor
General Fund
Operating Budget
City Council$925,022NoZero Forecast
City Manager 14,630,309NoZero Forecast
Records & Election Services 2,406,499NoZero Forecast
Finance 12,511,969NoZero Forecast
City Attorney 10,213,362NoZero Forecast
Human Resources 4,238,638NoZero Forecast
Information Systems 9,157,535NoZero Forecast
Planning & Comm. Development 33,195,622NoZero Forecast
Police 81,733,010
Administrative Services 14,844,059Yes100% 14,844,059EDU$197.65
Operations 30,869,538Yes100% 30,869,538EDU$411.03
Strategic Services 20,718,113Yes100% 20,718,113EDU$275.87
Criminal Investigation 15,301,300Yes100% 15,301,300EDU$203.74
Fire 35,903,531Yes100% 35,903,531EDU$478.06
Community Services 26,625,203
Administration & Planning Services 1,727,328NoZero Forecast
Community Recreation 6,435,817Yes100% 6,435,817EDU$85.69
Cultural Affairs 2,818,929Yes100% 2,818,929EDU$37.53
Human Services 15,643,129Yes100% 15,643,129EDU$208.29
Library 12,419,751Yes100% 12,419,751EDU$165.37
Public Works 41,869,033Yes100% 41,869,033EDU$557.50
Housing & Economic Development 5,718,966NoZero Forecast
Non-Departmental 34,477,516NoZero Forecast
Interfund Transfers (6,932,074) NoZero Forecast
Capital Budget 28,487,683NoZero Forecast
Operating Budget$347,581,575
Source: TNDG; City of Santa Monica, FY 2015-17 Biennial Budget.
Table E-13: Potential Fiscal Expenditure Impact on City General Fund
Proposed
Project
General Fund Category
Police
Administrative Services$57,319
Operations 119,199
Special Enforcement 80,002
Criminal Investigation 59,085
Fire 138,637
Community & Cultural Services
Administration & Planning Services -
Community Services 24,850
Cultural Affairs 10,884
Human Services 60,404
Library 47,957
Public Works 161,675
Total General Fund Expenditures$760,012
Source: TNDG.
Table E-14: General Fund Fiscal Impact Summary
Proposed
Project
General Fund Category
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax$373,050
Property Tax in lieu of MVLF 65,132
Sales Tax 272,007
Utility User Tax 127,580
Business License Tax 15,981
Parking Facility Tax 57,420
Other Taxes 76,206
Total Revenue$987,376
General Fund Expenses
Police$315,604
Fire 138,637
Community Services 96,138
47,957
Library
Public Works 161,675
Total Expenses$760,012
Net Fiscal Impact$227,365
Source: TNDG.
APPENDIXF
CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATION PROCESS
This appendix describes the process whereby TNDG estimated construction cost factors for the
Proposed Project and for the Base Case alternative. The Base project is a theoretical 3-story
building, Type V construction over 3 levels of subterranean parking. The proposed project is a 7-
story building, Type I/II-A construction over 4 levels of subterranean parking. TNDG was supported
on this component of the analysis by John Mauk, CPE, of O'Connor Construction Management,
Inc. (OCMI).
The Applicant’s detailed estimated construction costs for the proposed project were presented to TNDG
and OCMI in a 2-hour meeting at OCMI’s office on February 5, 2016.Webcor Builders, a large general
contractor represented by Bob Zarubin, presented their conceptual level cost estimate and described
the process used to develop the estimate. OCMI reviewed the estimate in conjunction with the project
drawings and asked pertinent questions regarding scope, cost of materials, logistics, etc. During the
meeting, OCMI reviewed unit prices and systems costs on a $/SF basis to determine the reasonableness
of Webcor’s underlying cost assumptions. Mr. Zarubin explained Webcor’s process for obtaining costs
from subcontractors. Specifically, Webcor received a minimum of three subcontractor quotes per trade
and then interviewed key subcontractors to ensure that they had an accurate understanding of the
project and were providing competitive estimates of costs.
On the basis of this review, OCMI assisted TNDG in developing cost factors to use in the VEA pro
forma for the Proposed Project. In addition to confirming the appropriateness of the cost estimates
for the Proposed Project, OCMI supported TNDG in developing comparable cost factors to use in the
VEA pro forma for the Base Case project. In this regard, TNDG and OCMI were careful to develop Base
Case cost estimates that assumed that the Base Case project would be developed at a comparable
level of quality (in terms of design amenities and other cost enhancements) to what the Applicant is
proposing for the Proposed Project. As such, any differentials in unit costs (i.e., costs per square foot)
would be attributable to differences in construction types necessitated by the differences in building
heights, rather than any material difference in building quality. This approach allowed for an “apples
to apples” comparison between the two development scenarios considered in the VEA.
Subsequent to the meeting with TNDG and OCMI, the Applicant provided a list of what they believe are
features driving per-square foot costs of the proposed project over the theoretical base project.
According to the developer, the major cost-driver differences include the following:
Construction type: Type I/II-A light gauge steel framing versus Type V wood framing.
84-foot building height triggers high-rise construction requirements.
The building form, with four blocks rising out of a podium, results in a significantly higher
ratio of building skin to floor area, which drives up costs.
Extensive rooftop amenities, including a swimming pool, drive up hardscape and landscape costs
as well as structural costs.
compared
20-foot floor-to-floor height on the ground floor drives up building skin costs (i.e. glazing)
to the shorter height of the ground floor in the base case.
Four levels of underground parking bring the parking garage down close to the water table, causing
higher drainage and waterproofing costs. The deeper garage also requires significantly more shoring
costs.
Elevators must serve 4 levels of parking plus 7 levels of residential and commercial, leading to
the need for more expensive elevators.
LEED Platinum increases costs for glazing and mechanical / HVAC systems.
The public open spaces along Fifth Street and Broadway frontages would not be as large and would
not be improved to the same extent in the Base Case project.
OCMI assigned Order of Magnitude Costs to these enhancements and assisted TNDG in determining
which enhancements would be relevant to the Base Case scenario. This enabled TNDG to normalize the
per-square-foot cost factors between the Proposed and Base projects, allowing for an “apples to apples”
comparison between the two scenarios.
Qualifications of John Mauk, CPE. John Mauk is a Certified Professional Estimator (C.P.E.) by the
American Society of Professional Estimators and a Certified Cost Professional (C.C.P.) by the
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE). These certifications,
combined with a background in developing conceptual cost estimates for complex building projects,
provide a strong understanding of how to develop cost estimates at the conceptual level and to review
cost estimates prepared by others. Mr. Mauk’s resume and certifications are provided on the
following pages.
John Mauk,
CPE, LEED AP
Senior Cost Estimator
John Mauk has 25 years of cost engineering experience. He is a
Regional Manager and supervises OConnors Project Estimators
and their subordinates to ensure the highest quality of each
administration, change order analysis, preparing budgets, cost
estimating, and claims analysis and negotiation.
With regard to estimating, John has provided estimates at all levels
of design, from conceptual through construction documents. Johns
project experience includes every type of building and infrastructure.
Project Experience
City of Coronado City Hall and Civic Center
County of Los Angeles Western Regional Public Safety Facility
County of Riverside Perris County Complex
Orange County Fire Authority Regional Fire Operations and Training Center
LAC+USC Medical Center Replacement Hospital
VA Medical Center Condition Assessments
Eisenhower Army Medical Center
Tuscaloosa Federal Building & Courthouse
U.S. Land Port of Entry McAllen, TX
Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort
Hyatt Regency Resort & Spa
State of California 4th Appellate Court
North Los Angeles Federal Building
CSU San Marcos Social and Behavioral Sciences Building
CSU Dominguez Hills Cain Educational Resources Center
University of California, Los Angeles Sproul Hall Housing
Foothill Transit Irwindale Maintenance Facility
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Flight Projects Center
B.S. Construction Management Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Construction Control Professional National Association of Construction Auditors
LEED Accredited Professional U.S. Green Building Council
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kevin Becker, DK Santa Monica, LLC
Tom Paradise, Paradise Development
FROM:
Patrick Gibson, P.E., PTOE
Eugene Tang, AICP
DATE:
February 22, 2016
RE:
Parking Demand Analysis for 500 Broadway
Ref:
Santa Monica, California J1221
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (GTC) was asked to prepare a parking analysis for
the proposed 500 Broadway mixed-use project (Project) in Santa Monica, California. With
interim development standards, GTC researched and developed appropriate parking rates
for development of the Project’s parking demand and prepared a shared parking analysis.
This memorandum presents the findings of these analyses.
PROJECT SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
DK Santa Monica, LLC is proposing the redevelopment of the Project site, located on the
th
southeast corner of 5 Street & Broadway in downtown Santa Monica. The primary street
th
frontage of the site is along the east side of 5 Street, between Broadway and Colorado
Avenue; the secondary frontage is along Broadway. A retail building is located on the
th
existing site, along with a surface parking lot served by two driveways along 5 Street.
The site is located in close proximity to the western terminus station of the future Metro Expo
Line, which is anticipated to begin operation in 2016. The future station is located
approximately a half-block southwest of the Project site.
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the Project site relative to the surrounding streets.
Project Description
The Project will consist of residential units located above ground floor and subterranean
commercial space, with a subterranean parking garage. Upon completion, the Project will
provide 249 residential units and approximately 62,435 square feet (sf) of commercial floor
area (including outdoor dining).
523W.6thStreet,Suite1234LosAngeles,CA90014p.213.683.0088f.213.683.0033
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 2
The residential units are comprised of:
49 studio units
124 one-bedroom units
51 two-bedroom units
25 three-bedroom units
On a floor-by-floor basis, the commercial development is based on:
35,428 sf of ground floor commercial (this includes the areas shown as commercial and
covered loading on the Project plans)
2,790 sf of ground floor outdoor dining area
20,870 sf of Level P1 commercial
3,347 sf of Level P2 commercial
For purposes of the parking demand study, we have studied the outer parameters of the higher
intensity parking uses (general market, eating/drinking establishments \[restaurants\]) and
commercial recreation (health club/fitness center). The commercial land use program consists
of:
Commercial recreation
15,000 sf
O
Eating/drinking establishments
7,000 sf (including 2,790 sf of outdoor dining)
O
General market
30,000 sf
O
Retail sales
10,435 sf
O
Parking Supply
The parking supply totals 524 spaces within the four-level subterranean garage. The first two
levels of the structure (P1 and P2) provide a total of 205 commercial parking spaces, which
consists of 177 non-tandem spaces and 28 tandem spaces. Levels P3 and P4 provide a total of
319 residential spaces, which consist of 157 non-tandem standard spaces, 98 non-tandem
compact spaces, and 64 tandem spaces. The following provides a discussion on the operational
aspects of the parking structure, as configured.
Tandem Spaces.
The Project proposes that 92 spaces of the 524-space parking supply be
1
tandem spaces, where the inside, or forward, spaces are subject to be blocked at times by
another parked vehicle. These tandem spaces are not anticipated to adversely affect the overall
operation of the Project.
1
A total of 92 spaces of tandem capacity or 46 side-by-side spaces with capacity for two vehicles will be available.
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 3
For commercial demand, 28 tandem spaces will be available and are expected to be operated
through a valet or valet-assist system.
For residential demand, up to 64 tandem spaces will be available. Thus, up to 32 residential
units will have the option to lease two parking spaces in a tandem configuration. Based on the
2
number of multi-bedroom units proposed (76), it is anticipated that demand will exist for more
than one residential parking space for at least 32 of the Project’s 249 units. There are a total of
287 non-tandem (side-by-side) spaces available in the residential supply which will be available
for use by the residents. Thus, the 64 tandem spaces are not anticipated to adversely affect the
residential parking operations.
Compact Spaces.
The Project proposes that 98 of the 319 residential spaces (approximately
30% of the residential parking supply) will be provided as compact spaces, which are 7’6” wide
3
by 15’ long. Because residential parking is leased/reserved, the spaces are not as frequently
used as commercial spaces. Parking will be unbundled from the residential lease and tenants
will have the opportunity to lease compact or standard spaces that are appropriately sized for
their vehicles.
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
Development standards are identified in the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC), which
recently adopted updates developed through the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) update process and
become effective in July 2015. The SMMC provides development guidance, including off-street
parking requirements, on a citywide basis except in specifically designated areas.
For those projects located in the downtown area, an effort is underway to establish specific
development standards through the Draft Downtown Community Plan (City of Santa Monica,
February 2016) (the Draft DCP). As the Draft DCP is in the public review process, the
referenced standards described below are subject to change and provided here for reference
purposes. Ultimately, the Draft DCP development standards will supersede citywide standards
where applicable.
Draft DCP
The Draft DCP was developed with a focus on identifying development standards for the
downtown area, while ensuring consistency with the adopted Land Use and Circulation Element
(City of Santa Monica, 2010) (the LUCE) of the Santa Monica General Plan. Off-street parking
standards are one of the zoning categories addressed by the Draft DCP.
2
A total of 76 multi-bedroom units, or approximately 30% of the total unit count, are proposed. Of those units, up to
32 multi-bedroom units will have the opportunity to lease a tandem space.
3
Comparatively, a standard parking space is 8’6” wide by 18’ long.
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 4
The relevant off-street parking standards identified in Chapter 4, Table 4.3 of the Draft DCP
include:
Multi-Family Residential
Studio
o
0.5 space per dwelling unit
One bedroom
o
1.0 space per dwelling unit
Two or more bedrooms
o
1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
Guests
o
1.0 space per 10 dwelling units (or 0.1 spaces per dwelling unit)
Minimum requirements for units with deed restrictions on maximum allowable
o
rent below 120% shall be halved.
Physical Training – Health Clubs, Indoor Athletic Facilities, Exercise/Dance Studios
Space 2,500 sf or less:1.0 space per 500 sf (2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Space 2,501 sf or more:1.0 space per 300 sf (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Less than 2,500 sf:1.0 space per 500 sf (2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Between 2,501 sf and 5,000 sf:1.0 space per 300 sf, (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Greater than 5,000 sf:1.0 space per 200 sf (5.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
If outdoor seating is less than 500 sf,no additional parking
o
If outdoor seating exceeds 500 sf,park at rate associated with interior use
o
Food and Beverage Sales (Convenience Market, General Market and Liquor Stores)
Less than 5,000 sf: 1.0 space per 500 sf (2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Greater than 5,000 sf: 1.0 space per 300 sf (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Retail Sales
Less than 5,000 sf: 1.0 space per 500 sf (2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
5,000 sf or more: 1.0 space per 300 sf (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Santa Monica Municipal Code
Chapter 9.28 of the SMMC was updated through the ZO update process with the intent to
modernize the SMMC and to ensure consistency with the LUCE policies adopted in 2010. While
a citywide standard, the SMMC provides two levels of off-street parking requirements
dependent on the project location. The standards for Parking Overlay Area 1, Downtown
Specific Plan Area, and Bergamot Plan Area were developed to incorporate the unique
characteristics of mixed-use transportation districts not necessarily experienced in other parts of
the City. For the purposes of this analysis, the Parking Overlay Area 1 parking rates are
discussed below.
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 5
The relevant Parking Overlay Area 1 off-street parking requirements in SMMC Chapter 9.28.060
include:
Residential, Multiple-Unit Dwelling (Market Rate Apartment)
Studio, no bedrooms
o
1.0 space per dwelling unit
One bedroom
o
1.0 space per dwelling unit
Two or more bedrooms
o
1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
Guests
o
1.0 space per 10 dwelling units (or 0.1 spaces per dwelling unit)
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation (Small-Scale and Large-Scale)
Small-Scale Facilities less than 1,500 sf (e.g., Yoga Studio/Health Club):1.0
o
space per 300 sf (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
Small-Scale Facilities 1,500 sf and greater (e.g., Yoga Studio/Health Club up to
o
5,000 sf): 1.0 space per 100 sf (10 spaces per 1,000 sf)
Large-Scale Facilities (e.g., Fitness Center exceeding 5,000 sf): 1.0 space per
o
100 sf (10 spaces per 1,000 sf)
Eating and Drinking Establishments (Restaurant)
Less than 2,500 sf:1.0 space per 500 sf (2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Between 2,500 sf and 5,000 sf:1.0 space per 200 sf (5.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Greater than 5,000 sf:1.0 space per 125 sf (8.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Outdoor eating areas less than 200 sf:no additional parking
o
Outdoor eating areas of 200 sf or greater:same as required for restaurant type
o
Food and Beverage Sales (General Market)
Less than 2,500 sf: 1.0 space per 500 sf (2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Between 2,500 sf and 5,000 sf:1.0 space per 300 sf (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Greater than 5,000 sf: 1.0 space per 300 sf (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Retail Sales
Less than 2,500 sf: 1.0 space per 500 sf (2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Between 2,500 sf and 5,000 sf:1.0 space per 300 sf (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Greater than 5,000 sf: 1.0 space per 300 sf (3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf)
o
Table 1 provides a side-by-side summary of the various off-street parking requirements for each
source.
Application of Parking Standards
Both the off-street parking rates adopted in the SMMC and standards identified in the Draft DCP
were developed to generally account for the local conditions in Santa Monica (i.e., travel
characteristics, location, etc.) and recognize that separate land uses generate different parking
demands on an individual basis.
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 6
The Project’s land use program was applied to the parking rates detailed above. Table 2
summarizes the off-street parking that would be required per the SMMC Parking Overlay 1 rates
and Draft DCP rates. As identified, the SMMC Parking Overlay 1 rates would require 632
spaces, whereas the Draft DCP rates would require 496 spaces.
The parking calculations serve to illustrate the difference in the parking standards and reflect the
assumption that each land use would simultaneously generate peak parking demand. The
standards do not reflect the fact that when a mixture of land uses share the same parking
supply, the combined peak parking demand can be substantially less than the sum of the
individual demands because some land uses experience peak parking demand at different
times of the day. This variation in parking demand, over the course of the day, is better
expressed through the concept of shared parking.
SHARED PARKING
In order to account for these effects common to a mixed-use development, the concept of
shared parking should be applied. As part of its national research on shared parking, Urban
Land Institute (ULI) and International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) developed a
computer model that measures the peak demand for every land use within a mixed-use
nd
development. Shared Parking, 2 Edition (ULI/ICSC, 2005) updated the basic methodology for
analyzing parking demand in mixed-use developments by investigating parking demand rates
and accumulation patterns by land use.
Shared parking is the result of two conditions:
1. Variations of the peak accumulation of parked vehicles occur because of time
differences in the activity patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by day, and
by season). For example, a parking facility may be used by office employees during the
day and serve patrons of an adjacent cinema at night.
2. There are clearly relationships among land use activities that result in people being
attracted to two or more land uses on a single automobile trip to a given area or mixed-
use development.
In other words, shared parking recognizes that parking spaces can be used to serve two or
more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The shared parking phenomenon
has long been observed in central business districts, suburban commercial districts, and other
areas where land uses are combined. The assessment of the parking demand for a mixed-use
project is accomplished through the development of a shared parking model, based on the
methodology above.
The model identifies the individual parking demand rates and takes into account the various
adjustment factors which contribute toward reduced parking demand, including monthly
variation, hourly pattern, mode share, and internal capture. These factors were developed
through the data collection efforts used to support the ULI/ICSC parking database and briefly
described below.
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 7
Parking Demand Rate
Identification of the appropriate parking demand rates forms the basis of the parking demand
projection. Generally, the use of industry standard parking demand rates from the ULI/ICSC
national database and adjusted for local conditions is an accepted practice in the absence of
local data; local parking demand data should be used whenever available. The applicability of
the SMMC/Draft DCP off-street parking requirements relative to the shared parking
methodology was evaluated for this Project. Table 2 summarizes the hypothetical application of
these requirements to the Project and illustrates the differences of each standard without
consideration for the effects of shared parking.
As described above, the shared parking model recommends use of the database parking rates
unless local data is available; adjustments to reflect local conditions are also recommended.
While the Project would be typically subjected to specific downtown area requirements, the Draft
DCP has not yet been adopted. In the absence of adopted downtown parking rates, the SMMC
rates for Parking Overlay Area 1 were substituted for most of the proposed land uses
(eating/drinking establishments, general market, and retail sales). Use of the SMMC Parking
Overlay Area 1 rates for most of the proposed land uses is generally appropriate, as they were
recently developed to reflect the local parking demand characteristics of these commercial uses
and, for most of the proposed land uses, the rates are similar to the Draft DCP rates.
Residential Multiple-Unit Dwelling (Market Rate Apartment).
The SMMC Parking Overlay
Area 1 rates were generally utilized for the residential units and guest parking with a
modification for the two- and three-bedrooms units. The SMMC Parking Overlay Area 1 rates
are the same as the Draft DCP except for studio units where the SMMC Parking Overlay Area 1
rate is one space per unit and the Draft DCP rate is 0.5 spaces per unit.
Due to the number of multi-bedroom units in the Project (76 units or approximately 30% of the
residential units) and to account for the possibility of a multi-vehicle household, an adjusted
4
parking ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit for the multi-bedroom units is recommended. With this
adjustment, the parking demand for the residential units is 306 spaces plus 25 spaces for
residential guests, resulting in a total parking demand of 331 spaces for the residential
5
component. This results in an aggregate parking ratio of 1.33 spaces for the residential units.
For the purposes of this Project, the residential and residential guest components of the parking
demand have been separated. The residential guest parking demand (25 spaces) is
incorporated into this shared parking analysis, as those vehicles are anticipated to utilize the
commercial parking supply. However, parking demand for the residential units (306 spaces) is
not included in the shared portion of this parking analysis as there is a dedicated residential
parking supply. Residential parking demand is included here to demonstrate the overall parking
demand of the Project.
4
This adjusted rate represents the average of the Parking Overlay Area 1 rate (1.5 spaces per unit) and citywide rate
(2.0 spaces per unit) for the multi-bedroom residential units. This rate accounts for the possibility that some multi-
bedroom tenants may lease a second parking space despite their location and proximity to transit facilities, as well as
their choice to utilize non-automobile modes for their daily activities.
5
The aggregate rate is calculated by determining the total off-street parking need (306 spaces) and dividing by the
total residential units (249 units) for a rate of 1.23 spaces per unit, plus 0.1 space per unit for residential guests.
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 8
Fitness Center.
The parking rate utilized for the commercial recreation facility was based on
the ULI/ICSC database rate, which is equivalent to one space per 143 sf or one space per 174
6
sf, depending on the day of the week. For comparison purposes, this range of fitness center
parking rates is higher than the Draft DCP rate of one space per 300 sf for fitness centers over
5,000 sf and lower than the SMMC rate of one space per 100 sf for fitness centers over 5,000
sf.
Eating and Drinking Establishments (Restaurants).
The SMMC Parking Overlay Area 1
rates were generally utilized for the restaurant uses with use of the Draft DCP’s exclusion of 500
sf of outdoor dining. Both the SMMC and Draft DCP rates differ based on the size of the
establishment. The size of individual restaurant tenants is unknown at this time. In order to allow
leasing flexibility and provide a conservative projection of parking demand, all of the restaurant
square footage (except for 500 sf of outdoor dining) was parked at the SMMC’s rate for eating
and drinking establishments between 2,500-5,000 sf (one space per 200 sf). Individual tenant
spaces may be smaller than 2,500 sf (where the SMMC has a parking ratio of one space per
500 sf) or larger than 5,000 sf (where the SMMC has a parking ratio of one space per 125 sf.
The Draft DCP proposed that the rate of one space per 200 sf apply to restaurant uses
exceeding 5,000 sf. Thus, the use of one space per 200 sf is consistent with the intent of the
Draft DCP.
The SMMC does not require parking for the first 200 sf of outdoor dining, whereas the Draft
DCP does not require parking for the first 500 sf of outdoor dining. Given the Project’s location
in the Downtown, the City’s desire to incentivize outdoor dining in the Downtown, and the use of
the more conservative SMMC parking rate for the remainder of the restaurant square footage,
the Draft DCP’s exclusion of 500 sf of outdoor dining was utilized.
Food and Beverage Sales (General Market).
Any General Market use in the Project will most
likely exceed 5,000 sf. As a result, the SMMC Parking Overlay Area 1 rate for General Markets
exceeding 5,000 sf was utilized. This rate (one space per 300 sf) is the same as the Draft DCP’s
rate for General Markets exceeding 5,000 sf.
Retail Sales.
The SMMC Parking Overlay Area 1 rates were generally utilized for the retail
uses. Both the SMMC and Draft DCP rates differ based on the size of the establishment. The
size of individual retail tenants is unknown at this time. In order to allow leasing flexibility and
provide a conservative estimate of parking demand, the entire retail sales square footage was
parked at the SMMC’s rate for retail sales areas exceeding 5,000 sf (one space per 300 sf,
which is the highest parking rate for this use) even though individual tenant spaces may be
smaller. This rate (one space per 300 sf) is the same as the Draft DCP’s rate for Retail Sales
uses exceeding 5,000 sf.
6
The range is due to separate weekday and weekend rates identified by ULI/ICSC; these base rates are also
respectively expressed as 5.75 and 7.0 spaces per 1,000 sf.
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 9
Other Adjustments
Monthly Variation.
The monthly variation is inherent to the shared parking model and applied
to the respective land uses. For this analysis, the monthly variation was based on the ULI/ICSC
database with no other adjustments applied.
Hourly Pattern.
The hourly pattern is inherent to the shared parking model and applied to the
respective land uses. The patterns for the eating/drinking establishment, retail sales, and multi-
family residential uses were based on the ULI/ICSC database without other adjustments. The
hourly patterns for the commercial recreation and general market uses were developed from
empirical data compiled from comparable and respective locations.
Mode Split.
The mode split adjustment is directly applied to the parking demand rate. For the
commercial recreation use, a mode split adjustment was applied to the ULI/ICSC parking rate in
order to reflect local conditions. Specifically, a customer and employee mode split adjustment of
40% and 20% were respectively applied to account for the high density of residential units within
the study area, the Project’s location along the Broadway bicycle corridor, and the future Metro
Expo line station on Colorado Avenue. Because the SMMC parking rates were developed to
reflect local conditions, no additional mode split adjustments were applied to parking rates for
the eating/drinking establishments, general market, retail sales, and multi-family residential
uses.
Non-Captive Ratio.
The non-captive ratio adjustment is directly applied to the parking demand
rate, after any adjustments for the mode split. Based on the mixture of land uses at the Project,
adjustments were applied to non-residential uses to account for the interaction described above
and reflect the unique conditions of the Project; the following adjustments express the ratio of
users anticipated to originate from within the Project. A conservative adjustment of 5% was
applied to the eating/drinking establishment and retail sales uses; the general market use was
conservatively adjusted by 10%. A daytime adjustment of 10% and nighttime adjustment of 20%
was utilized for the commercial recreation use; the variation in the daytime and nighttime
adjustments reflects the residential nature of the Project.
In order to determine the parking supply needed to accommodate the peak demand for the
Project, the parking demand patterns of the various land uses were evaluated in conjunction
with the parking demand rates and adjustments discussed above.
PARKING DEMAND PROJECTION
The ULI/ICSC shared parking model was utilized to project the parking demand of the refined
program. The peak month of Project parking demand occurs in December. The overall peak is
projected on a weekday with a demand of 510 spaces, comprised of 204 spaces of commercial
demand and 306 spaces of residential demand. The corresponding peak weekend demand is
projected at 493 spaces, comprised of 187 commercial spaces and 306 residential spaces. The
total parking supply, along with the individual commercial and residential parking supplies, are
anticipated to adequately meet the Project’s peak parking demands. Tables 3 and 4 detail the
overall peak month peak parking demand projections and Figure 1 illustrates the hourly pattern
of the peak month parking demand.
Mr. Kevin Becker and Mr. Tom Paradise
February 22, 2016
Page 10
For the remainder of the year (January through November), weekday parking demand fluctuates
between 480 and 497 spaces and weekend demand fluctuates between 464 and 478 spaces.
The monthly patterns of weekday and weekend parking demand, respectively, are illustrated in
Figures 2 and 3. These results indicate that the parking demand of the proposed land use
program can also be adequately satisfied by the proposed supply of parking throughout the
year.
CONCLUSION
While the off-street parking rates from the SMMC and Draft DCP were developed to reflect the
local conditions of Santa Monica, they do not necessarily reflect the characteristics inherent to
mixed-use developments. As applied, the rates assume that peak demand would occur
simultaneously for all land uses within a mixed-use development and do not take into account
the interaction of these land uses. As applied, the SMMC would require 632 spaces and the
Draft DCP would require 496 spaces, a fairly significant difference. In order to better reflect the
Project’s characteristics, parking rates were developed and applied to a shared parking model
to account for the inherent characteristics of a mixed-use development. The parking rates
developed for this analysis were reasonably adjusted from their base and better reflect the
anticipated parking characteristics of the Project; therefore, the developed rates are appropriate
for use in the context of this Project.
With application of the tailored parking rates and shared parking model, the peak parking
demand is projected to be 510 spaces, compared with the proposed parking supply of 524
spaces. The commercial peak parking demand is projected to be 204 spaces, compared with
the proposed commercial parking supply of 205 spaces. The residential peak parking demand is
projected to be 306 spaces, compared with the proposed residential parking supply of 319
spaces. The results indicate that the projected peak parking demands could be sufficiently
satisfied by the proposed parking supply during the peak month and throughout the year.
The parking supply, as proposed, is anticipated to meet the projected parking demands and is
appropriately sized to the Project.
TABLE 1
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
500 BROADWAY
Santa Monica Municipal Code \[a\]Draft Downtown Community Plan \[b\]
Land Use CategoryRequirementRecommended Requirement
Residential
Multi-family/Multiple Unit - Market Rate
Studio, no bedroom1 sp / du0.5 sp / du
1 bedroom1 sp / du1 sp / du
2 or more bedrooms1.5 sp / du1.5 sp / du
Guest1 sp / 10 du1 sp / 10 du
Commercial
Fitness Center/Health Club
Less than 1,500 sf1 sp / 300 sf1 sp / 500 sf
1,500-2,500 sf1 sp / 100 sf1 sp / 500 sf
Greater than 2,500 sf1 sp / 100 sf1 sp / 300 sf
Eating and Drinking Establishments, Restaurant
Less than 2,500 sf1 sp / 500 sf1 sp / 500 sf
Between 2,500-5,000 sf1 sp / 200 sf1 sp / 300 sf
Greater than 5,000 sf1 sp / 125 sf1 sp / 200 sf
Outdoor seating, less than 200 sfNo additional parkingNo additional parking
Outdoor seating 200-500 sfSame as restaurant typeNo additional parking
Outdoor seating more than 500 sfSame as restaurant typeSame as restaurant type
Food and Beverage Sales, General Market
Less than 2,500 sf1 sp / 500 sf1 sp / 500 sf
Between 2,500-5,000 sf1 sp / 300 sf1 sp / 500 sf
Greater than 5,000 sf1 sp / 300 sf1 sp / 300 sf
Retail Sales
Less than 2,500 sf1 sp / 500 sf1 sp / 500 sf
Between 2,500-5,000 sf1 sp / 300 sf1 sp / 500 sf
Greater than 5,000 sf1 sp / 300 sf1 sp / 300 sf
Notes:
\[a\] Minimum parking off-street requirements for Parking Overlay Area 1 per Chapter 9.28.060 of the SMMC.
\[b\] Minimum parking requirements as proposed by the Draft DCP.
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS
500 BROADWAY
Land Use CategoryQuantitySanta Monica Municipal CodeDraft Downtown Community Plan
RESIDENTIAL
Multi-family/Multiple Unit - Market Rate
Studio49units49spaces25spaces
1 Bedroom124units124spaces124spaces
2 Bedrooms51units77spaces77spaces
3+ Bedrooms25units38spaces38spaces
Guest249units25spaces25spaces
Residential Subtotal313spaces289spaces
COMMERCIAL
Fitness Center/Health Club15,000sf150spaces50spaces
Eating and Drinking Establishments, Restaurant
Interior Seating Area4,210sf21spaces14spaces
Outdoor Seating Area \[a\]2,790sf13spaces8spaces
Food and Beverage Sales, General Market30,000sf100spaces100spaces
Retail Sales 10,435sf35spaces35spaces
Commercial Subtotal319spaces207spaces
TOTAL632spaces496spaces
Notes:
Parking space requirements for each land use were calculated by the applicable rates detailed in Table 1.
\[a\] Per the SMMC (first 200 sf) and Draft DCP (first 500 sf), portions of the outdoor dining area do not require additional parking.
TABLE 3
SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY FOR
THE 500 BROADWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 5 PM, WEEKDAY
Projected Parking Supply:524 StallsWeekdayWeekendWeekdayWeekend
Non-Non-Peak HrPeak MoEstimatedPeak HrPeak MoEstimated
Project DataBase ModeCaptiveProjectBase ModeCaptiveProjectAdjAdjParking AdjAdjParking
Land UseQuantityUnitRateAdjRatioRateUnitRateAdjRatioRateUnit5 PMDecemberDemand12 PMDecemberDemand
Retail Sales, 2,500+ sf10,435sf GLA3.331.000.953.16/ksf GLA3.331.000.953.16/ksf GLA0.851.00280.851.0028
Employee0.001.001.000.00/ksf GLA0.001.001.000.00/ksf GLA0.951.0001.001.000
Restaurant, <5,000 sf7,000sf GLA5.001.000.954.75/ksf GLA5.001.000.954.75/ksf GLA0.751.00251.001.0033
Employee0.001.001.000.00/ksf GLA0.001.001.000.00/ksf GLA0.951.0001.001.000
General Market, 5,000+sf30,000sf GLA3.331.000.903.00/ksf GLA3.331.000.903.00/ksf GLA0.981.00880.931.0084
Employee0.001.001.000.00/ksf GLA0.001.001.000.00/ksf GLA0.951.0001.001.000
Commercial Recreation, 1,500+ sf15,000sf GLA6.600.600.903.56/ksf GLA5.500.600.902.97/ksf GLA1.000.90480.850.9034
Employee0.400.801.000.32/ksf GLA0.250.801.000.20/ksf GLA1.001.0051.001.003
Residential, Multiple Unit Dwelling249units0.001.001.000.00/unit0.001.001.000.00/unit0.851.0000.651.000
Reserved1.23sp/unit1.231.001.001.23/unit1.231.001.001.23/unit1.001.003061.001.00306
Guest249units0.101.001.000.10/unit01.001.000/unit0.401.00100.201.005
ULI base data have been modified from default values.Customer199Customer184
Employee5Employee3
Reserved306Reserved306
Total510Total493
TABLE 4
PEAK MONTH SHARED PARKING SUMMARY FOR
THE 500 BROADWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT
December
Weekday Estimated Peak-Hour Parking Demand
Projected Parking Supply:524 StallsOverall PkAM Peak HrPM Peak HrEve Peak Hr
Monthly Adj.6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PM12 AM5 PM11 AM5 PM6 PM
Retail Sales, 2,500+ sf100%- 2 5 10 18 25 30 33 33 33 32 28 27 25 22 17 10 3
- 28 25 28 27
Employee100%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Restaurant, <5,000 sf100%8 17 20 25 28 30 33 30 17 15 15 25 27 27 27 20 18 17
8 25 30 25 27
Employee100%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
General Market, 5,000+sf100%- 9 23 36 60 68 82 81 81 90 89 88 87 81 60 46 22 -
- 88 68 88 87
Employee100%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Commercial Recreation, 1,500+ sf90%34 42 45 43 45 44 42 38 40 41 40 48 37 34 34 30 15
4 - 48 44 48 37
Employee100%4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 2 1
1 - 5 5 5 5
Residential, Multiple Unit Dwelling100%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
Reserved100%306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306
306 306 306
Guest100%- 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 15 25 25 25 25 20 13
10 5 10 15
Customer42 73 98 119 156 172 192 187 176 184 181 199 193 192 168 138 90 44 21 199
172 199 193
Employee4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 2 1 1
- 5 5 5 5
Subtotal Demand by User Type
Reserved306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306
306 306
GRAND TOTAL DEMAND
383352 409 430 467 483 502 497 486 494 492 510 504 503 478 446 397 351 327 510 483
510 504
ULI base data have been modified from default values. 483510 510 504
Footnote(s):
December
Weekend Estimated Peak-Hour Parking Demand
Overall PkAM Peak HrPM Peak HrEve Peak Hr
Monthly Adj.6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PM12 AM12 PM11 AM12 PM6 PM
Retail Sales, 2,500+ sf100%- 2 3 12 20 23 28 32 33 33 32 30 27 25 22 17 12 5
- 28 23 28 27
Employee100%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Restaurant, <5,000 sf100%3 8 15 23 30 30 33 28 22 13 15 20 23 23 22 10 8 5
3 33 30 33 23
Employee100%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
General Market, 5,000+sf100%- 9 23 41 56 79 84 81 80 90 83 85 72 53 44 35 21 -
- 84 79 84 72
Employee100%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Commercial Recreation, 1,500+ sf90%18 18 30 33 35 40 34 23 25 28 28 27 17 15 11 4 -
- - 34 40 34 17
Employee100%2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
1 - 3 3 3 2
Reserved100%306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306
306 306 306
Guest100%- 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 15 25 25 25 25 20 13
5 5 5 15
Customer21 42 76 114 146 177 184 169 165 169 163 172 154 141 124 91 66 30 16 184
177 184 154
Subtotal Demand by User TypeEmployee2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 - 3 3 3 2
306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306
Reserved306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306
GRAND TOTAL DEMAND
350329 385 423 455 486 493 477 473 477 471 480 462 449 432 398 373 337 322 493 486
493 462
ULI base data have been modified from default values. 486493 493 462
FIGURE 1
PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR
THE 500 BROADWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT
600
Parking Supply: 524 Stalls
Weekday
Weekend
500
400
Parking Stalls
300
200
100
0
Hour
FIGURE 2
WEEKDAY MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND
THE 500 BROADWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT
600
Parking Supply: 524 Stalls
500
400
300
200
100
0
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecLate Dec
Month
FIGURE 3
WEEKEND MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND
THE 500 BROADWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT
600
Parking Supply: 524 Stalls
500
400
300
200
100
0
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecLate Dec
Month
November 10, 2015
To: KRE Capital
Attention:Mr. Tom Paradise
Regarding: 500 Broadway Santa Monica, CA
Subject: Photovoltaic (PV) System
Dear Mr. Paradise,
The following is a load calculation to determine the house lighting and power loads for the
referenced project for the purpose of designing a PV system with an equal power output capacity.
Also included is the recommended size of proposed PV solar system for these loads.
A. Lighting Loads
Lighting loads are calculated based on the average allowable per square feet lighting loads by the
2013 State of California Title 24 for each area.
Residential Interior Common Area Lighting = 1940 sf x 0.6 w/sf = 1164 w
Residential Exterior Common Area Lighting = 22964 sf x 0.25 w/sf = 5741 w
Residential Parking Lighting = 231566 sf x 0.25 w/sf=57892 w
Commercial Parking Lighting = 51191 sf x 0.25 w/sf = 12798 w
Public Exterior Lighting = 19183 sf x 0.25 w/sf = 4796 w
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Common Area Lighting Load = 82391 w
The project lighting design will be designed @ 15% below Title 24 allotments;
Total Estimated Lighting Load @ 85% = 82391 x 0.85 =70032 w
B. Power Loads
Residential Interior Common Area Power = 2500 w
Residential Exterior Common Area Power = 7500 w
Residential Parking Power = 5000 w
Commercial Parking Power = 3000 w
Public Exterior Power = 2000 w
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Common Area General Power Load * = 20000 w
Page 2 of 2
500 Broadway SM CA
PV SOLAR SYSTEM
November 9, 2015
C. Total Estimated Common Area Power & Lighting Loads* = 90032 w
*NOTE: Does not include HVAC, pumps, elevator loads.
D. Proposed PV Solar System Capacity
Based on the above lighting & power load estimates, we propose to design & install a PV Solar
System Rated for 100 KW maximum output.
One way to deliver this power capacity would be to install 350 PV solar panels with rated output of
315 watts each which would require approximately 7500 square feet of roof area.
Alternately, panels with higher output and efficiency could deliver the 100 kW maximum output with
a reduced number of panels in a smaller roof top footprint.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information or assistance
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
DAVIDOVICH & ASSOCIATES
Fred Ahi
Senior Electrical Engineer
6059 Bristol Parkway Suite 200
Culver City, California 90230
T: 310-348-5101 ext. 221
F: 310-348-5102
fred@davidovich.com
www.davidovich.com
GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Company Ownership: Davidovich & Associates
, a California Corporation, privately held
Location (1):
6059 Bristol Parkway, 2nd Floor
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone Number:
(310) 348-5101
Facsimile Number:
(310) 348-5102
Date of Founding:
1989
Principal Lines of Business:
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Lighting Design, Fire Sprinklers, Fire Alarm,
Dry Utilities, Low Voltage, Energy Conservation and Commissioning
Consulting Engineers
Days/Hours of Operation:
Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m.
Disclosure of Conditions:
Davidovich & Associates does not have any pending litigation, office closures,
impending merger, bankruptcy or any other condition that may adversely affect our
ability to perform contractually.
Certification:
Davidovich & Associates certifies that the firm has not been debarred, suspended or
otherwise declared ineligible to contract by any federal, state or local public agency.
D&A has a full-time staff of 22 professional Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Project Managers and Administrators.
All have a long history with the firm and are experienced in MEP design. D&A provides Integrated Engineering services
and has earned recognition for an emphasis on sustainable, cost efficient and quality design.
Firm History
Davidovich & Associates
(D&A) is a multi-disciplined LEED certified engineering firm that provides a complete
scope of Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Lighting Design, Fire Sprinklers, Fire Alarm, Dry Utilities, Low Voltage,
Energy Conservation and Commissioning Engineering Services as well as Design-Build and Design Assist solutions
services under one roof. Based in Culver City since its inception in 1989, D&A been in business for the last 25 years and
has earned the trust and respect of development, design, construction and real estate communities involved in higher
education, commercial, institutional, aerospace, aviation and health care industries.
technological advancements and a highly competitive industry. The clients demand comprehensive studies, quick
responses and a no-nonsense performance with an emphasis on cost efficiency. Davidovich & Associates offers more than
licensed professional LEED AP engineers who perform in a timely manner without compromising the quality of the
design. We pride ourselves in our organization where:
Professional engineers check the final plans.
BIM, CADD, NavisWorks and Revit 2013 Environment.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Lighting Design, Fire Sprinklers, Fire Alarm, Dry Utilities, Low Voltage,
Energy Conservation and Commissioning Engineering trades have melded with computer technology into a new
dynamic and creative process called Integrated Engineering.
D&A is well known for promoting and delivering thoroughly integrated construction drawings and taking full
responsibility for all necessary coordination issues between all the dynamic trades that we represent. Our QA and QC
D&A Company Information
Page 2 of 2
system requires all the disciplines to be conflict free internally and properly coordinated with the static trades such as
architecture and structural engineering. Our construction drawings are designed to emphasize the importance of
minimizing change orders and assuring the accuracy, validity and usefulness of our drawings after the construction cycle
has been completed.
As an experienced provider of multifaceted engineering services, D&A is very well versed in different project
delivery systems, including, but not limited to, design-bid, design-assist, and design-build programs. Whether single or
multi-phased design and construction approached is suggested, D&A feels comfortable to become a fully cooperating part
of the team. For instance, during the design and construction of the Mark Taper Imaging Center for Cedars Sinai Medical
Center, 60,000 s.f. of existing functioning hospital needed to be dynamically connected to a new 60,000 s.f. addition that
required a sophisticated multi-phase design and construction approach for a total of 28 months.
Firm Experience
D&A is involved in master planning, creation of development requirements, engineering evaluations, project scope
determination, cost estimating and facility planning studies for both the public & private sector. Long standing
relationships with companies & institutions such as City of Los Angeles, City of Santa Monica, UCLA, USC, LACCD,
South Western University, CalTech, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Manhattan Beach Studios, The Aerospace Corporation,
Century City Hospital, Playa Vista Development, Related Companies,Brookfield Development, Rising Realty etc. have
been developed over our extensive history. Timely production of all the drawings are supported by the fact that D&A does
not employ any drafting personnel and requires all engineering staff to produce their own design and drafting. D&A
engineers provide their own field verification, write their own reports, create on-site analysis, and coordinate all the
information with the design and construction team. This approach eliminates any miscommunications within the office
and allows our partners to connect directly to the person who has performed engineering services. We are perfectly
capable estimating the construction cost of our trades from the engineering perspective and make sure that our design
decisions are always technically sound and economically feasible.
D&A is constantly looking for new ways of improving our design and construction practices. We have developed a
new system of RFPs that allowed us to grade the quality of RFP and COs in a way that reduced unnecessary RFP by 35%.
Our Construction Administration services are structured in a manner that allows the team members to talk either to the
Director of Construction Administration Services or approach the individual eng
Being in design and construction community for the last 25 years, D&A has acquired deep knowledge of all
applicable code, standards and regulations related to different disciplines and types of construction. This experience is
constantly helping us to successfully and timely resolve the challenges presented by different authorities having
jurisdiction as well as power, gas and water utilities.
Community Meeting
A community meeting was held for the project on December 5, 2013 at the Santa Monica Main
Public Library. Thirty-five (35) members of the public were in attendance. The following
comments were provided during the meeting:
1. Positive comments regarding the design approach in breaking the building massing into
four elements, including the podium court openings.
2. Positive comments regarding residential unit mix and sizes, although a higher percentage
of 2 and 3 bedroom units should be considered.
3. Positive comments regarding the proposed widened sidewalks.
4. Building should be further stepped-
5. Consider more sculptural elements to further differentiate buildings, with greater emphasis
along Broadway.
6. Concern with the parking access.
th
7. Landscape concept along 5 Street and within each opening should be unique in efforts
to enhance/activate the street.
ARB Concept Design Review
Overall design discussions between the applicant and the City design team will occur based on
direction from the Planning Commission
pedestrian orientation, and streetscape design. The project was conceptually reviewed by the
Architecture Review Board on February 3, 2014, and the Board provided the following design
comments:
1.
commercial uses.
2. Good design approach of breaking the overall building mass into four separate building
forms.
3. A Board member commented that the project is a good precedent for development of this
scale.
4. Project has good color composition (white-on-white) and contrasting treatments on each
façade elevation.
5. Positive comment on the cantilevered upper floors, and fin extensions beneath cantilevers.
6. Project has sculptural elements that should be continued to the ground level; the legs of
the building are less successful compared to other components of the building.
7. Compositional activity on the Broadway elevation works well.
8. Internal access for residents (including bridges) would enhance the quality of life for
residents.
9. Project appears that it would be very active with visitors and residents.
10. Concerns with north-facing facades looking directly at the south-facing facades in between
buildings. The proposed screens and louvers would somewhat address this concern,
however the glazing could be angled to help further provide privacy.
11. Pay particular attention to the materiality properties of the louver screens (durability,
adjustable, ease of use).
12. Concern with the spacing between buildings 1-2 (from Broadway) that is narrower
compared to other building openings (livability).
13. Particular attention should be made to the interior livability of the units internal to the
courtyard, and the courtyards themselves.
PC Float-Up Concept Review: July 9, 2014
500 Broadway:
Planning Commission Float-Up Review Comments Summary:
1. Design: General support for the overall building design concept.
2. Design: Concerns with the spacing between buildings 1-2 closest to Broadway.
The average spacing between buildings 1-
average spacing between buildings 2-3 and 3-
3.
separate building forms.
(Project floor area and residential units have been reduced on upper floors, resulting in
reduced building mass overall).
4. Design: Each building form should be differentiated to improve the overall visual interest.
(Although the overall building forms are similar in concept, each form includes subtle
th
differences in appearance depending on the floor and location facing 5 Street, consisting
of angled façades and varied building planes on each elevation in an alternating patterns).
5. Design: Rear alley design appears one-dimensional and needs further enhancement.
(Larger windows added throughout the elevation, and additional balconies were added on
upper floors that improve resident views and private open space. Further, the split façade
design consisting of sculptural plaster and fiber cement board were added throughout that
facing elevations, providing a more cohesive design).
6. Design: Resident Bridges: Access bridges connecting residents between building forms
appear to add to the overall building mass.
7. Design: Floor Plate Ratios: Non-compliance with the draft DSP floor plate ratio standards
would be appropriate, given tdesign. Comment added not is support of the
Floor Plate Ratio requirement that requires a reduction in building size as the building
increases in height.
th
8. Design: Corner Design: The corner design of the 5 Street elevation side does not share
the same level of attention (detail, articulation) compared to the Broadway elevation. Face
thth
of the building on the 5 Street elevation side on upper floors at the street corner (5 and
Broadway) needs improvement.
(Additional glazing at the corner added that reduced previous blank façade areas).
th
9. Design: Sidewalks: Relocate the subterranean garage stairwell (midblock 5 Street)
immediately in front of the (market) tenant space that would allow for better open space
for patron use.
(Clear unobstructed path of 12 feet between the garage stairwell and closest tree well, as
shown on project site plan.)
10.
Consider further stepbacks on upper floors from the property lines when reducing the
R.
11. Design: Ground Floor Open Space:
-Comment provided that the ground floor open space shall be increased in size closer to
the 20% requirement provided in the draft DSP (however may not need to fully comply
with 20%).
(Project revised and includes 20% ground floor open space).
-Comment provided that the ground floor open space was appropriate. Comment provided
that the corner plaza was appropriate, providing adequate shade.
-Comment that the corner plaza should be reevaluated: not clear that the open space
would be utilized by all segments of the public.
12. Design: 3-Bed Unit Configurations: Concern expressed that all three-bed units are located
facing the rear alley.
th
(6 three-bed units are located along the front elevation facing 5 Street).
13. Floor Area Ratio:
-Comments to reduce project FAR from 4.5 to 4.0
building size, bulk, and massing, to be more consistent within the context of the Downtown.
Concurrently, increase the amount of open space on the ground floor.
-Comments that the p
the downtown in proximity to light rail.
(Project floor area ratio has been reduced from 4.5 to 4.0, consistent with the draft DCP).
14. TDM: Establish and provide funding for a Transportation Management Organization for
the Downtown area, initiate transit circulator within the downtown.
(DA includes a $150,000 contribution towards Transportation Management Association
programs for the area).
15. TDM: Importance of Trip Reduction: Plan shall focus on trip reduction.
(TDM Plan with measures applicable to both the commercial and residential components
of the project including a 100 percent Transportation Allowance).
16. TDM: Bike Parking: Bike parking should be consistent with draft DSP requirements.
(Bike parking is consistent with draft DCP requirements).
17. Parking: Provide a parking study that identifies the actual parking demand for the project.
Comment that less parking would be encouraged.
(Parking demand study concludes the proposed amount of parking is appropriate).
18. Community Benefits: Cross Court: Driveway should not be considered either open space
or a community benefit.
19. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Comment that the project should fully comply
with AHPP requirements, specifically with the bedroom and size requirements, and
amenities (2-bedroom units @ minimum 850 SF).
(64 unit off-site affordable housing project proposed at 1626 Lincoln Blvd).
20. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Comment to consider doubling the AHPP
requirement when considering the appropriate number of affordable units exceeding
AHPP considered as community benefits. Quantity needs to be appropriate based on the
size of the building.
(64 unit off-site affordable housing project proposed at 1626 Lincoln Blvd).
21. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Community benefit units shall consist of all
residential unit types provided in the 500 Broadway project.
(64 unit off-site affordable housing project proposed at 1626 Lincoln Blvd, consisting of 1-
3 bed units).
22. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: On-Site versus Off-Site:
-Two Commissioners expressed preference of affordable housing on-site, however would
consider off-site option provided the right opportunity and service environment, and that it
would be worth more to the City compared to the on-site option.
-If off-site, two Commissioners expressed preference of the affordable housing units
provided within the Downtown area.
-If off-site, one Commissioner expressed that the affordable units may be provided
anywhere in the City, and one Commissioner added that the units should be located in
proximity to transit.
(64 unit off-site affordable housing project proposed at 1626 Lincoln Blvd, owned in whole
or in part and operated by CCSM).
23. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: If affordable units are provided off site, the
investment should be the same (equivalency) as if they are provided on-site.
-site property located at 1626 Lincoln
Boulevard would be $16.3M, exceeding the minimum land value of $7.45M, thereby
satisfying the AHPP obligation).
24. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Provide financial study that demonstrates
equivalency in investment (see above comment), include in financial studies for the
project.
(See TNDG Financial Studies)
25. Community Benefits: Consider requirement that a market shall be provided within the
project.
(See DA section 2.25 Priority General Market Uses).
26. Community Benefits: Sustainable Design: Project shall achieve a LEED Platinum
Certification in its building design.
(Project shall achieve LEED® Platinum certification v3).
27. Applicant should review residential access on upper floors with the Building and Safety
Department to ensure proposed elevators and stairwells as proposed complies with
building code access requirements.
(Per Building and Safety comments, each building form includes a minimum stairway to
comply with accessibility standards).
28. Applicant should study angles of residential unit windows facing each other in between
buildings to further ensure privacy between residential units.
(Applicant has reviewed, further, Condition No.2 recommends the ARB pay particular
attention to the use of louvers/screens or angled glazing to ensure privacy between
north/south facing units).
29. Council Recommendation: Recommend that Council proceed with DA discussions and
negotiations with the caveat that other important issues/discussions related to the
downtown have not been studied/resolved that can impact the project, (such as the
discussion on appropriate recreational open space, and surplus parking). The Planning
Commissi
Plan.
City Council Float-Up Concept Review: October 14, 2014
500 Broadway:
City Council Float-Up Review Comment Summary:
1. Design: General support for the overall building design concept.
2. Design: 4.5 FAR would be appropriate considering the location of the site in proximity to
Expo station and the downtown area.
(Project floor area ratio has been reduced from 4.5 to 4.0, consistent with the draft DCP).
3. Design: Ground Floor Open Space: Meaningful ground floor open space should be
provided and increased overall, however should balance with other project components,
such as designing to accommodate a market use. Consider providing additional Open
Space contribution if amount of ground floor open space is less than appropriate.
Cantilevered areas over open space would be appropriate given the height clearance
proposed.
(Project revised and includes 20% ground floor open space. In addition, the DA would
provide an enhanced Parks and Recreation contribution of $1.7M).
4. Design: Floor Plate Ratios: Non-compliance with the draft DSP floor plate ratio standards
would be appropriate, given t. Council discussed preference of having
design guidelines and less prescriptive design standards for the DSP.
5. Design: Enhance cross court design relating to pedestrians and consider enhancing the
alley experience for pedestrians.
(The pedestrian orientation at the driveway corner has been improved. The width of the
th
cross court driveway connecting 5 Street and the alley has been reduced, allowing for
additional open space for pedestrian circulation, outdoor seating, and short-term bike
parking at the driveway corner).
6. Design: All commercial tenant space and residential units shall be individually sub-
metered for potable water.
(See DA section 2.8.4(i). All commercial tenant space and residential units shall be
individually sub-metered for potable water.
7. Design: Cross Court Driveway: The cross-court driveway should not be considered a
community benefit or ground floor open space.
8. Design: Project should include an art component.
(See DA section 2.7.6. Project shall provide on-site
Cultural Arts obligation (significant project feature).
9. Land Use: Discussed the importance of having a full service market use component of the
project, and that the market should be an affordable market. Consider late night
commercial uses that would support nearby hotel visitors and light rail commuters.
(See DA section 2.25 Priority General Market Uses. Further, the market is required
participate in the Calfresh program,federally known as the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) that provides nutrition benefits to low-income individuals and
families that can be used at markets to purchase food. This would allow the market to be
more accessible to low-income individuals and families).
10. TDM: Establish and provide funding for a Transportation Management Organization for
the Downtown area, initiate transit circulator within the downtown.
(DA includes a $150,000 contribution towards Transportation Management Association
programs for the area).
11. TDM: Importance of Trip Reduction: Plan shall focus on trip reduction.
(TDM Plan with measures applicable to both the commercial and residential components
of the project including a 100 percent Transportation Allowance).
12. TDM: Establish trip caps for the project.
(See DA section 2.8.6 (a)(3)(1)(iv) PM Peak Hour Trip Cap).
13. TDM: Bike Parking: Bike parking should be consistent with DSP requirements. Consider
bike parking for all bike sizes.
(Bike parking is consistent with draft DCP requirements).
14. Parking: Parking demand study should demonstrate the appropriate number of parking
spaces for the project. Project should include unbundled parking and unreserved parking
for public use provisions. Parking pricing for unreserved space should be established.
(Parking demand study concludes the proposed amount of parking is appropriate. DA
section 2.8.6 includes provisions for unbundled residential and commercial parking, and
DA section 2.8.9 includes provisions for unreserved parking).
15. Circulation: EIR should study one-way streets being considered in the Downtown and how
it affects the project.
16. EIR should address construction impacts through construction mitigation plan.
(EIR provides a construction mitigation plan (MM HAZ 1a-1b, MM NOI-1, MMT-1).
17. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing:
housing could be provided off-site, transit-adjacent within the Downtown area. An off-site
project operated by an affordable housing provider that can provide a range of services to
project residents would be beneficial.
(64 unit off-site affordable housing project proposed at 1626 Lincoln Blvd within the
Downtown area, owned in whole or in part and operated by CCSM that would provide a
range of services to project residents).
18. Community Benefits: Affordable Housing: Provide a percentage of the units available for
seniors and the disabled.
19. Community Benefits: Local Hiring Provision: Ensure ongoing local hiring outreach efforts.
20. Community Benefits: Establish a local preference marketing plan for rental units that would
hospitals, healthcare providers, and school districts.
(See DA section 2.8.6(e)(3)(v) Local Preference Marketing Plan).
21. Community Benefits: Sustainable Design: Project shall achieve a LEED Platinum
Certification in its building design.
(Project shall achieve LEED® Platinum certification v3).
22. Council Recommendation: Recommend that staff and the applicant proceed with the
proposed project and DA negotiations.
Planning Commission Formal Review: March 9, 2016
500 Broadway:
Planning Commission Formal Recommendation Summary:
The Planning Commission reviewed this development agreement on March 9, 2016 and
voted 6-1 to recommend that the City Council approve the project and adopt the proposed
Agreement with the following recommendations:
1. The development agreement should include a provision that prohibits all
commercial office use in the project. The applicant has agreed to this
recommendation, and language prohibiting all office uses including Business and
Professional, Creative, Medical and Dental, and Walk-in Clientele are prohibited
\[DA Section 2.5.1(c)(7)\].
2. The project should provide 20 additional long-term bike parking spaces for
employees. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and an additional
20 long-term bike parking spaces for a total of 64 spaces are provided in the project
as shown on the project plans.
3. The project should provide at least 3 electric charging stations within the EV ready
parking spaces provided for the project. The applicant has agreed to this
recommendation, and 3 electric charging stations within the EV ready parking
spaces will be provided in the project as shown on the project plans.
4. The number of unreserved commercial parking spaces available for public use
should be increased from 135 to 145. The applicant has agreed to this
recommendation, and this change has been revised in the Agreement \[DA Section
2.8.9(a)\].
5. The commercial parking demand shall be analyzed commencing two years from
Certificate of Occupancy to determine whether any additional commercial spaces
up to 55 additional spaces (200 in total) may become unreserved spaces available
for public use. The applicant agrees in concept to this recommendation, however
proposes language that is not agreeable by staff. Pending further discussions with
the applicant. \[DA Section 2.8.9(b)\].
6. The project should provide space within the subterranean garage for the storage
of fuel cells that will be used to store energy for an anticipated pilot program by
Southern California Edison for a public shuttle system in the Downtown. The
applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and a provision in the Agreement
has been added accordingly \[DA Section 2.8.20\].
7. The developer should provide a transit subsidy between 25-50% of the cost of a
monthly regional transit pass for 1-3 months for new project residents electing not
to obtain the resident transportation allowance prescribed in the Agreement. The
applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and proposes a transit subsidy of
25% of the cost of a monthly regional transit pass for 3 months for new project
residents \[DA Section 2.8.6(e)(3)(ii)\].
thth
8. The cross court driveway connecting 5 Street and 5 Court Alley shall remain
open at all times. Condition No. 7 has been added reflecting this recommendation.
9. Increase availability of the community room for public use from 2 to 4 times per
month. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation, and DA section 2.8.10
has been revised accordingly.
10. Allow the ARB to have design flexibility in amount of floor area reduction that may
result from the Architectural Review Board design review procedures no greater
than a 2% reduction in ground floor commercial area and no greater than a 5% in
upper residential floor. The applicant does not agree to this recommendation and
maintains their proposal of 2% specific for the residential floor area only. The
applicant expresses concerns with additional reduction in floor area, considering
-up review, including reductions in
floor area (4.5 to 4.0), and increased ground floor open space. This item remains
pending for discussion. \[DA Section 6.1\].
11. The ARB should pay particu
it may affect Project and neighboring uses. Condition No. 2(e) has been added
reflecting this recommendation.
12. The ARB should pay particular attention to ensure that the publicly-accessible
open space immediately west of the main residential lobby is usable by the public
and contributes to the pedestrian environment of the surrounding publicly
accessible open space. Condition No. 2(f) has been added reflecting this
recommendation.
13. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council should further
support the use of SMURRF water for this type of project.
A-3B
A-1B
A-1B
A-2B
A-2BA-2B
A-1B
A-1B
A-1B
A-3BA-3B
A-1B
A-1BA-1B A-1B
A-1B
A-1B
A-2B
A-1B A-1B
A-1B
A-2B
A-1B
A-1B
A-1B
A-1B
A-1B
A-1B
A-3B
A-3B A-1B
A-1B
A-1BA-1B
A-1B
A-2B
A-2BA-2B
A-1B
A-1B
A-2B
A-2BA-2B
A-1B
A-1BA-1B
A-St
A-St
A-StA-St
A-St
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ON-SITE OPTIONS
A49
CITY COUNCIL
4/21/2016
wĻŅĻƩĻƓĭĻʹ
wĻƭƚƌǒƷźƚƓ
bƚ͵
ЊЉВЎЍЊЉВЎЏΛ//{Μ