1 Attachment C
Planning Commission’s Formal Recommendations Approved on May 18, 2022
1. Revise Amendment to 1992 LUP and Development Agreement Recital N as follows:
If the properties located on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and Second Street commonly referred to as 129 Santa Monica Boulevard, 101 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1327 Ocean Avenue, 1333 Ocean Avenue, 1337 Ocean Avenue (the “Established Large Site”) are redeveloped as a comprehensive project pursuant to a development agreement, then the development standards in Policies 67 and 71 and the corresponding development intensities shown on Map 15 shall not apply to such new project on the Established Large Site, and the project shall instead not exceed 130 feet, with no limitation on the number of stories, and a cumulative maximum 2.95 F.A.R across the Established Large Site, well within the maximum 4.0 FAR for this site in the City’s Downtown Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Update Land Use Plan, Final Draft, October 2018.
2. Add the following new subsection to Development Agreement 2.7.11(c):
(iv) Developer shall report demand for EV chargers to the City as part of its annual Development Agreement compliance reporting required by Development Agreement Section 10.2. If demand for EV chargers increases beyond the number required in Development Agreement Section 2.7.11(c)(i), then Developer shall first install EV chargers in all or some of the EV ready spaces required by 2.7.11(c)(ii) and then in all or some of the raceway/conduit spaces required by Development Agreement 2.7.11(c)(iii) to the extent necessary to accommodate the additional demand. If demand for EV chargers increases beyond this 53% of vehicle spaces, then Developer shall be required to install additional EV chargers to meet the additional demand.
3. Revise Development Agreement Section 2.8.1 as follows to clarify terms pertaining to the five deed-restricted Moderate Income units negotiated as a community benefit:
2.8.1 Community Benefit Units. In addition to the Affordable Replacement Units required by Section 2.7.1(c)(2), five (5) of the Price-Restricted Replacement Units required by Section 2.7.1(c)(2) shall be deed restricted for Moderate-Income Households in accordance with Section 2.7.2(d) (referenced hereinafter as “Community Benefit Units”) and subject to the following conditions:
(a) Any Displaced Tenant who qualifies as a Moderate-Income Household shall have the first priority to occupy a Community Benefit Unit, and the 2 maximum allowable rent shall be the lower of rent in effect at the time of the Displaced Tenant’s displacement plus allowed Annual General Adjustments pursuant to RCL Section 1805 or the deed restricted rent for a Moderate-Income Household;
(b) A Displaced Tenant with household income greater than the income limits for a Moderate-Income Household shall have second priority to occupy a Community Benefit Unit, as follows:
i. Notwithstanding the deed restriction, the Developer and Displaced Tenant shall be subject to the rights and obligations of any Displaced Tenant in a Price-Restricted Unit, as set forth in Section 2.7.1. ii. After vacancy by the Displaced Tenant or if the Community Benefit Unit is never occupied by a Displaced Tenant, the Community Benefit Unit shall be subject to all requirements for a Moderate-Income Household, as set forth in the deed-restriction.
(c) Except as provided in this Section 2.8.1, the Community Benefit Units shall satisfy all of the requirements for the Replacement Affordable Units. (d) City and Developer each understands, acknowledges, and agrees that the total tally of Price-Restricted Replacement Units, Affordable Replacement Units, Affordable Housing Units, and Community Benefit, as required by this Agreement, shall be: eleven (11) Price-Restricted Replacement Units; plus twenty-five (25) deed restricted units (4 – 30% AMI, 4 – 50% AMI, 6 – 80% AMI, 11 – Moderate Income)
4. Add the following sentence to Development Agreement Section 2.8.2(a) at the end of the “Rehabilitation” paragraph as follows:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if evidence of additional character-defining features is discovered during the course of rehabilitation that the qualified historic preservation professional determines potentially warrants additional restoration work not previously anticipated to the Queen Anne Landmark to restore it to its 1906 date of construction and such restoration would not be in conflict with the rehabilitation work approved by the Certificate of Appropriateness to adaptively use the Queen Anne Landmark as part of the Cultural Uses Campus, then that discovery shall be identified to the City Landmarks Commission Planning Staff Liaison (Historic Preservation Officer) to consider whether such further restoration can be administratively approved by the Historic Preservation Officer as a minor modification to the Certificate of Appropriateness. If such restoration work can be approved administratively without causing delays to the construction schedule and is approved, then such further restoration work shall be completed.
Alternatively, where any such in situ discovery does not warrant actual restoration, this newly discovered information shall, at a minimum, be added to 3 the archival recordation documentation required by Exhibit D, Section A, MM-CR1.
5. Add the following sentence to Development Agreement Section 2.8.2(b) at the end of the “Rehabilitation” paragraph as follows:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if evidence of additional character-defining features is discovered during the course of rehabilitation that the qualified historic preservation professional determines potentially warrants additional restoration work not previously anticipated to the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark to restore it to its 1926 date of construction and such restoration would not be in conflict with the rehabilitation work approved by the Certificate of Appropriateness to adaptively use the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark as part of the Cultural Uses Campus, then that discovery shall be identified to the City’s Historic Preservation Officer to consider whether such further restoration can be administratively approved by the Historic Preservation Officer as a minor modification to the Certificate of Appropriateness. If such restoration work can be approved administratively without causing delays to the construction schedule and is approved, then such further restoration work shall be completed.
Alternatively, where any such in situ discovery does not warrant actual restoration, this newly discovered information shall, at a minimum, be added to the archival recordation documentation required by Exhibit D, Section A, MM-CR1.
6. Revise Development Agreement Section 2.8.4(b) as follows:
(a) Except for the Publicly-Accessible Observation Deck, Developer shall generally make the Publicly-Accessible Open Space accessible to the public, without charge, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. (b) Developer shall make the Publicly-Accessible
Observation Deck accessible to the public, at a minimum, from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily from Memorial Day through Labor Day, and, at a minimum, from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. the remainder of the year. Developer may request a voluntary donation from the publiccharge the public up to $1.00 per person (adjusted annually for inflation by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index commencing on July 1, 2023 and on July 1st of each year thereafter) for access to the Publicly-Accessible Observation Deck so long as one hundred percent (100%) of the net income (i.e., income less expenses) is donated to the Santa Monica Education Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, or successor entity. If there is no longer a nonprofit entity that supports Santa Monica public schools in a manner similar to the Santa Monica Education Foundation, then Developer may either (a) select another nonprofit that serves the Santa Monica community to receive the above-described net 4 income or (b) no longer charge the public for access to the Publicly-Accessible Observation Deck.
7. Revise Development Agreement Section 2.8.12 as follows:
Enhanced Transportation Impact Fee. Prior to obtaining a building permit for the Project, Developer shall pay to the City the sum of Two Million, Two Hundred Fifty Five Thousand Dollars ($2,255,000.00) to be used by the City for transportation and mobility infrastructure improvements. This enhanced fee is instead of the Transportation Impact Fee that would otherwise be required for the Project pursuant to SMMC Ch. 9.66. In the absence of an alternative source of funding, up to 25% of the Enhanced Transportation Impact Fee shall be prioritized for the study and/or improvement of multimodal mobility on Ocean Avenue and circulation in the downtown area.
8. Revise Development Agreement Section 2.8.13 as follows:
Economic Equity/Opportunity Fund Contribution. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project, Developer shall make a contribution to the City in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00). The City shall utilize this contribution to support economic equity and opportunity initiatives, or clean and safe Downtown initiatives, including but not limited to seed funding for economic opportunity initiatives to support local entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities, investments in community partnerships and non-profit organizations that support economic equity and opportunity initiatives, and other initiatives as determined by the City or as developed through current and future community processes. The City shall deposit such monies into a separate restricted account to be used exclusively for the economic equity and opportunity initiatives as described above through guidelines established by the City or through current and future community processes.
9. Add the following sentence to the end of Development Agreement Section 2.9.4 (Bicycle Parking):
At least one of the stairways from the B1 level on the Second Street Parcel shall have a bicycle channel/runnel to the ground level to facilitate walking a bicycle up/down the stairway.
10.Modify Development Agreement Section 2.10(i) as follows:
(i) Fences, Walls and Hedges. The location, size, materials, and color of any fences, walls and hedges, as applicable, shall be reviewed in accordance with the Design Review procedures and criteria set forth in Article 6 of this Agreement and the modification and waiver procedures and findings in SMMC ch. 9.43 shall not apply. The Landmarks Commission or ARB (or the City Council on appeal), as applicable, may authorize fences, walls and hedges that 5 exceed the maximum heights included in SMMC Section 9.21.050; provided however that no fences, walls or hedges are allowed in the setback/open space area between the Queen Anne Landmark and Ocean Avenue or the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark and Ocean Avenue.
11.Add a new Development Agreement Section 2.10(m) as follows:
(m) Windows in Bedrooms. All bedrooms in residential units shall have at least one window.
12.Add the following in Development Agreement Article 6:
Reduction in size of the Cultural Uses Campus lobby up to 200 square feet shall not count against design review constraints on reduction of floor area for the Cultural Use component so long as it doesn’t negatively impact feasibility or programming.
13.Revise Development Agreement Section 6.1(b) to allow the Landmarks Commission to appoint the Commissioner it wants to attend the ARB Design Review hearing(s) (rather than limiting it to the licensed architect or architectural historian) as follows:
b. Except as provided in this Article 6, the design of all Project improvements and open space except those addressed in Section 6.1(a) above and as delineated within the red hatching on Exhibit “L” shall be subject to review and approval or conditional approval by the ARB in accordance with design review procedures in SMMC 9.55.120 except that a Landmarks Commissioner as may be appointed by the Landmarks Commission the Landmarks Commissioner who serves as the licensed architect or the architectural historian (or both) shall be encouraged to be present and may participate in discussion and deliberation but may not cast a vote at any ARB hearings for design approval, conditional approval, or denial of the Project improvements not covered by Section 6.1(a).
The ARB’s approval of the Project’s design pursuant to this Section 6.1(b) shall not occur until after the Landmarks Commission’s approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Cultural Uses Campus pursuant to Section 6.1(a); provided however that the ARB’s approval of the Project’s design may occur prior to the Landmarks Commission’s approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Cultural Uses Campus landscape/hardscape design if the Applicant elects to defer the Landmarks Commission’s decision as to landscape and/or hardscape to a later time.
14.Add the following sentence at the end of MMNOI-2 (all mitigation measures will be included in Development Exhibit D, Section A as well as the Final EIR) to clarify the intent of the measure:
6 The Project Applicant shall use good faith efforts to secure the voluntary cooperation of the owner of the Gussie Moran House in allowing the Project Applicant to comply with the requirements of this mitigation measure.
15.Add the following project specific condition in Development Agreement Exhibit D, Section B:
During construction, Developer will use industry standard methods to monitor the effects of the construction on Palisades Park.
16.The Planning Commission recommended that the project include a practical water efficiency plan to reduce water consumption.
17.The Planning Commission recommended that the resolution adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations explain that the EIR’s determination of a significant transportation impact is based on the “level of service” methodology and that, pursuant to SB 743, the City uses the “vehicle miles traveled” methodology for projects commencing CEQA review after the City adopted its VMT screening criteria and thresholds in June 2020.
18.The Planning Commission recommended that their resolution recommending certification of the Final EIR also clearly state that the project is exempt from CEQA.