City Council and
Redevelopment Agency Meeting: June 19, 2007
Agenda Item: 8-B
To: Mayor and City Council
Chairperson
and Redevelopment Agency
From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and
Economic Development
Eileen
Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Concept Plan for the Village Residential,
Open Space and Retail Components of the Civic Center Specific Plan
Recommended
Action
This report recommends that the Redevelopment Agency:
1. Conceptually approve the design concept plan for the
2. Authorize the Related Companies of
This report also
recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize staff to begin Development Agreement negotiations
with the Related Companies of California regarding the Civic Center Village.
Executive
Summary
The proposed design concept
plan for the Civic Center Village (Village) component of the Civic Center
Specific Plan (CCSP) reflects community and commission input and City Council
direction. The Village will enhance the Civic
Center area with approximately 325 residences (affordable family housing,
mixed-use and live-work), public open space and neighborhood-serving retail
services. Public benefits of the proposed
project include:
- 160 affordable residences, nearly 50
percent of the total residences;
- public open space, including a public plaza
connecting with the future Palisades Garden Walk park and a
pedestrian-only walk-street through the site;
- extension of Olympic Drive from
- integrated public art; and
- showcase sustainable design elements.
Several community
workshops and commission meetings were held during 2006 to consider and refine
the design concept for the Village. The
community, Housing and Recreation and Parks Commissions, City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency (Agency) encouraged creativity in preparing a design
concept for the Village, particularly when such design creativity enhances
public benefits. Specifically, the
developer-design team was authorized by the City Council to explore alternative
height, setbacks, and stepbacks in the buildings and the location of public
open space, rather than strictly adhering to the design parameters established
in the CCSP.
Information and
illustrations of the community input process and proposed design concept plan
are provided as Attachment A. The
proposed site plan is shown below.
The proposed design concept has evolved considerably since initiation of the design-oriented community input process. The concept plan responds to input received from community workshops, the Housing and Recreation and Parks Commissions as well as many of the City staff comments raised during the extensive pre-submittal review. The current design proposal establishes the site plan, building massing and housing and open space programs. Detailed evaluation of all building elevations for these sites will occur with subsequent submittals. Sites A and B have been refined, while Site C is less resolved and requires additional development and review as the project progresses.
Subject to the
Redevelopment Agency’s (Agency) general concurrence with the design concept
plan, the developer-design team is ready to submit a Development Agreement
application and begin negotiations with staff.
Issues to consider in the Agency and City Council discussion of the
proposed design concept plan include:
- housing program: massing
distribution, height, setbacks and stepbacks
- open space program: location and integration
- pedestrian access through site
- vehicle access points
There is no direct
budget impact from the recommended actions in this report.
Discussion
Background
The CCSP sets forth a vision for the Village Special Use District
as a mixed-use, urban neighborhood. The
introduction of housing into the Village District is an important objective of
the Plan in addressing citywide housing needs and in transforming the Civic
Center from a single-purpose district into a vibrant district with daytime and
evening activity. The CCSP programs the Village
District as an urban neighborhood to achieve the desired housing program in the
Civic Center, while maximizing the total area available for open space. The CCSP identifies the area as appropriate
for an urban neighborhood due to the existing urban density within the
immediate area (RAND Headquarters, 1733 Ocean Avenue office building and
Viceroy Hotel).
The
Village Special Use District is bounded by Main Street, Ocean Avenue, Pico
Boulevard, and the future extension of Olympic Drive from Main Street to Ocean
Avenue. The proposed concept plan for
the Village discussed in this report refers to the undeveloped portion of the
Village Special Use District.
The
following summarizes the history of the CCSP:
·
1993: CCSP originally adopted;
·
2000: City’s Redevelopment
Agency purchased 11.3 acres of property within the
·
2001: City embarked on
a comprehensive update to the original CCSP;
·
2002: Conceptual
update to CCSP approved; Village District reflected general height limit of 56
feet, but included one vertical element on southern portion next to Viceroy
Hotel, with height limit of 120 feet;
·
2005: Update to the CCSP
adopted; Village district vertical element on southern portion of the site was reduced
to a height limit of 56 feet, while maintaining the original housing program of
325 residences.
The following summarizes the history of the Village Concept Plan:
·
Dec. 2004: Council
provided guiding principles for Village (see Attachment B);
·
Sep. 2005: Received
design proposals for developer selection process, including alternate proposals
that diverged from CCSP parameters; conforming proposals could not achieve the CCSP
goal of 325 residences, but alternative proposals achieved 325 residences with
height and massing adjustments;
·
Jan. 2006: Council
approved selection of The Related Companies of California as the developer of
the Village;
·
May 2006: Open house held for
community members to meet the Village development-design team and City staff; written comments from community members were
encouraged;
·
Jun. 2006: Community
workshop held; participants supported flexibility in building massing and location/design
of the public open space;
·
Jul. 2006: Housing
Commission (HC) and Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC) reviewed preliminary Village
design concepts and supported greater flexibility in CCSP design parameters;
·
Sep. 2006: City
Council authorized staff and the design-development team to explore with the
community, building heights to 65 feet, flexible stepbacks and setbacks and location/design of open space;
·
Sep. 2006: Community
workshop held; introduced three variations on location and character of the
public open space; participants supported the relocation of the public open
space;
·
Nov. 2006: Community
workshop held; expanded on the two previous workshops and focused on the
preferred concept plan; participants generally supported the development plan
and open space program;
·
May 2007: Joint meeting of
Housing and Recreation and Parks Commissions held; both Commissions supported design concept
plan and requested that various comments provided at meeting be considered as
the design progresses (see “Commissions Actions” section later in this report
for details);
·
May 2007: Joint meeting of
Planning Commission (PC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) held; based upon
the proposed design concept, the PC and ARB recommended to the City Council
that the Village project begin the Development Agreement entitlement process
(see “Commissions Actions” section later in this report for details).
Proposed
Project Concept
The
following site plan illustrates the proposed concept:
The
proposed design concept fulfills the vision of the CCSP in the following ways:
·
Housing: The proposed
program achieves the CCSP goal of 325 residences by locating family housing
within the interior of the site immediately adjacent to open space, mixed-use
housing along the site perimeter, and live-work housing along the southern edge
of the pedestrian-only street and a portion of the
·
Public open space: The
integration of the open space with the residential and retail uses has been
achieved by the ‘living street’ design, which includes a central plaza with a
strong connection to Olympic Drive and Palisades Garden Walk and a
pedestrian-only ‘walk street’ through the site from Main Street to Ocean
Avenue.
·
Neighborhood-Serving Retail: Neighborhood-serving retail space (not to
exceed 20,000 square feet) is proposed for corners of Olympic Drive/Ocean
Avenue, Olympic Drive/Main Street and Ocean Avenue/Vicente Terrace, and at the
entrance to the public plaza, enhancing the perceived safety and vitality of
Olympic Drive and Ocean Avenue.
·
Extension of Olympic Drive: The proposal includes the continuation
of Olympic Drive from Main Street to Ocean Avenue to match the alignment of the
existing eastern section of Olympic Drive. The northern boundary of the Village
is proposed as the southern boundary of Olympic Drive, including the sidewalk.
·
Public Art: The
design team includes two public artists. The artists participated in the
community design meetings, and will develop their concepts as the design
proceeds to a more detailed phase.
·
Sustainable Design: The proposed development will include
sustainable elements involving building design and materials, possible onsite
energy generation, energy and water use reduction strategies, and recycling of
construction and consumer waste.
·
Diversity: The
proposed development promotes a diverse resident population by including rental
and ownership housing, family housing and live-work housing suitable for
artists. The diversity of housing is
anticipated to minimize or eliminate additional Housing Trust Funds investment into
the Village, because the revenue from the market-rate housing will
cross-subsidize the affordable housing, and finance critical infrastructure
that serves the entire site.
Conceptual Building Design
The adopted CCSP prescribes for the Village a site plan of three buildings
with 56-foot height limits containing 325 residences, setbacks between these
sites, a triangular public open space adjacent to the
One of
the primary design challenges has been maintaining high-quality building
massing and open space while meeting the CCSP goal of 325 residences. The following illustration is a massing
diagram indicating the approximate building volume from the 2002 draft CCSP vertical
element on Site C, which the proposed concept design effectively relocates to
sixth floors on all sites to maintain the CCSP goal of 325 residences.
2002
draa
Building Massing Envelope and Program: The project proposes a ‘village’ of six
residential buildings with approximately 325 residences, and approximately 12,000
square feet of neighborhood serving retail located on Site A and Site C. The following describes units, height and
square footage per site:
Site A: Two
condominium buildings, with ground floor retail on 3 of 4 corners;
Approximately
76 one-bedroom and two-bedroom residences;
Up
to 65 feet high; 144,400 square feet;
Site B Three
affordable apartment buildings, with ground-floor live/work space;
Approximately 32 one-bedroom,
70 two-bedroom, and 48 three-bedroom residences, plus 10 units of live/work
space intended for artists;
Up
to 59 feet high; 193,570 square feet;
Site C One
condominium building, with ground floor retail;
Approximately
89 one-bedroom and two-bedroom residences;
Up
to 65 feet high; 169,130 square feet;
The
following illustration shows the range of building heights.
To
accommodate the desired housing program within the height limit, while
maintaining a sense of pedestrian scale and open space, the development-design
team and City staff have focused attention on articulation and design detail to
vary the overall massing along Olympic Drive.
The designers provided the Site A buildings with stepbacks, balconies
and off-set top floors to create volumetric variation and maintain a pedestrian
scale at street level. Further design
development of all sites will be evaluated during Development Agreement
negotiations.
Due to
the critical interplay of open space and building orientation, the conceptual
design for the buildings on the northern portion of the site (Sites A & B) has
progressed beyond the design of the building at the southern end of the site
(Site C), at
Vehicle Access and Parking: The Village
is proposed to include code-required parking at approximately 655 parking
spaces. In addition, the development
team has commissioned a parking study to assess the parking demand for the Village. Vehicle access for Sites A & B is proposed
from
Open
Space and Pedestrian Access
The
public open space program in the proposed concept plan responds directly to commission
and community input about the desire to create space that is inviting, active,
open and safe. The concept plan locates
the public open space and associated pedestrian access through the Village in
the northern portion of the site, closer to Olympic Drive and Palisades Garden
Walk, rather than in an interior, insulated space adjacent to the
The community
and commission input also indicated a preference that interior portions of the
site be designed as protected open space, for use by the families occupying the
adjacent housing. The concept plan
locates protected open space in the interior of the Village site plan, and
conceives this space as a series of outdoor areas that take advantage of the
sloping grade, oriented toward the family housing as terraced gardens and protected
play areas for families and children.
The
community and commission input noted that the concept of relocating the open
space should ensure that the total amount of open space remains the same as
identified in the CCSP. Attachment C is
a comparison of total amount of open space in the original CCSP concept and the
current proposal. The comparison
indicates that the total amount of open space in both concepts is similar.
The
CCSP and the RAND Development Agreement anticipate public pedestrian access
along the north side of the
·
proximity of the
·
technical aspects of extending the pathway to
·
safety concerns associated with pathway leading
to
The
open space and pedestrian access programmatic changes in the proposed concept
plan require City staff, the design-development team and RAND to study pedestrian
access through the area and develop options that are consistent with the
requirements of the RAND Development Agreement and the proposed concept plan
for the Village.
Pre-Submittal
Review Process
Designing within the parameters set by City Council direction, the
Related Company development team has participated in a pre-submittal conceptual
review with City staff involving the site plan, pedestrian and vehicle access,
building massing, and design equity between building types for rental and
ownership housing. As explained
previously in this report, Site C will require further resolution of massing
and design elements. Additional elements
requiring City Council direction and City staff evaluation as the design
progresses are vehicle and pedestrian access, and the skybridge.
The following illustration and narrative describes how the design-development
team has addressed staff’s design comments.
Site Plan: In response to early staff comments regarding
maintaining the broad axes which reflect the intent of the CCSP, a previous
Village concept plan was revised to provide a clearer north-south axis while
accommodating the more predominant design element of the east-west ‘living street’
axis. Buildings on Sites A and B are
placed along an east-west axis to take advantage of natural light and cooling
conditions from the ocean breeze. The public plaza was also enlarged to reflect
the community comments and enhance the relationship with the future Palisades
Garden Walk across the street. The ‘living
street’ concept is intended to create an activated pedestrian street, with
pedestrian access from Main Street to Ocean Avenue passing through the public
plaza.
Design equity among
buildings: The design team responded to staff comments about
maintaining visual equity among rental and ownership buildings by varying
materials and redesigning facades. A
significant method for achieving visual equity is the use of materials and
finish quality to be specified at the Architectural Review Board review.
Previous
Council Actions
Commission
and Board Actions
The Background section of this report discusses Commission actions
during the 2006 community design phase.
In addition, four Commissions reviewed the conceptual design in advance
of this City Council/Agency consideration of authorization to commence
Development Agreement negotiations.
The Housing
Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission held a joint meeting on May
17, 2007 to consider the design concept for the Village. Those Commissions made the following
comments:
·
Carefully consider ratio of paved areas to
planted areas for walk-street and plaza;
·
Incorporate sustainability through features such
as green roofs and solar cells;
·
Ensure that there is enough useable open space
for the children’s play area;
·
Consider integrating affordable and market-rate residences
in the same buildings;
·
Ensure that dwellers of market-rate residences have access to
private open spaces adjacent to the affordable residences;
·
Ensure the walk-street and plaza do not have the
ambiance of a “shopping mall”;
·
Include landscaping along the
·
Preserve access for emergency vehicles;
·
Ensure retail space is occupied by
neighborhood-serving businesses.
The
Housing Commission approved staff’s recommendations regarding the concept plan,
while encouraging the project team to consider the Commission’s comments as the
Village design progresses.
The Recreation & Parks Commission approved the Village concept
design, and while commending the design team’s response to the Commission’s
previous concerns regarding open space, requested that the following additional
concerns be addressed:
·
the integration of affordable and market-rate residences
in the same buildings;
·
animation of central streets by creation of
comfortable environments;
·
use of rooftops as green space;
·
incorporation of a sustainable plant palette;
·
use of reclaimed storm water;
·
maximization of usable open space for families.
The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board held a
joint meeting on May 30, 2007 to also review the design concept for the Village
and consider whether to recommend to the City Council that the Village project
begin the Development Agreement entitlement process.
The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board
recommended that the Village concept plan be forwarded to Council. They discussed the challenge of achieving the
CCSP’s 325-unit desired housing density without having the 120-foot height
option on the southern corner of Site C that was envisioned in the 2002 draft
CCSP. Their discussion noted that
redistributing this massing within the 56 to 65-foot height range throughout
the site has resulted in greater massing and a loss of visual access through
the site. Motions from both the Planning
Commission and the Architectural Review Board recommended that the Council
should re-evaluate the relationship of height and massing to provide greater
variation in building articulation and improved access to light and air. Options discussed included increased height
adjacent to the Viceroy Hotel on the southern portion of Site C, and
redistribution of massing with a possible reduction of several units.
The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board recommended
that the City Council authorize staff to commence negotiations of a Development
Agreement with the Related Companies of California based on the proposed design
concept plan for the Village, and to consider the following points during the
design and negotiation process:
·
Provide bicycle lanes or paths on Olympic Drive or the adjacent
park and throughout the project;
·
Emphasize environmentally sustainable elements and the requisite
affordable housing;
·
If the skybridge is retained on Site A, design it as visually open
as possible; use light glassy materials and provide a narrower silhouette;
·
Incorporate sustainable transportation elements;
·
Provide safe and friendly bicycle access through the site and to
the beach and pier, bicycle and electronic cycle parking in the retail space area,
and bicycle and smart/mini-compact car parking and charging stations for electric
cars in subterranean garages;
·
Articulate Site A and avoid a “wall effect” on Palisades Garden
Walk by eliminating two or more top-floor market-rate units; allow for greater
height in an economically feasible manner on southeast corner of Site C
(Viceroy adjacent), with the option of allowing transfer of some housing units from
Site A to C;
·
Consider varying massing on Site C by increasing height beyond the
concept plan proposal of 65 feet;
·
Realize the ‘living street’ character and experience through more
landscape, tree canopy, base plantings, sidewalk tables, and a detail level
that avoids monotonous hardscape and glass by using interesting materials;
·
Provide more sustainable energy items including photovoltaic cells
on roofs;
·
Provide neighborhood grocery store(s) convenient to residents;
·
Direct negotiators to protect public access, identify open space area
in agreements, clarify obligations to provide required infrastructure for
Olympic Drive, sidewalks on Ocean Avenue and related amenities (e.g. street
lights) and negotiate shared and equitable parking construction costs between the
market-rate and affordable housing components;
·
In negotiating financial terms, clarify timing of financing flow
from market-rate housing to affordable units to ensure funding and concurrent construction
of affordable units; ensure development of threshold of 160 affordable units
before project may proceed.
Although
not expressly incorporated into the above-described motion, in discussion of
the motion the Architectural Review Board emphasized the following points:
·
Vary heights on the northern elevation (Olympic Drive) of Site A;
mitigate wall effect and address repetition across the front of Site A by
inserting individuality and scaling texture;
·
Shift massing on Site C to provide better articulation and visual
flow-through;
·
Ensure variation of materials on Site B and the ‘living street’;
·
Make linkage to park clearer;
·
Find economic feasibility and site planning balance between making
Site A more articulated and Site C denser; strong emphasis on adding density to
Site C;
·
Ensure sustainability;
·
Design roofs, which are visible from upper-level units, to be beautiful
and avoid flat plain roofs – incorporate photovoltaic cells;
·
Mitigate scale of exterior buildings; while interior buildings
look well resolved, outside edges of the site plan need further consideration
regarding adjacent context.
Public
Outreach
The public outreach for the design of the Village has involved
extensive community input opportunities.
These opportunities involved several community workshops and public
hearings over the last year. Notification
of these events involved direct mailings, and public notices in local
newspapers, City libraries, and the City’s website. This community input process is summarized in
the Background section of this report.
Budget/Financial Impact
There
is no direct budgetary impact to conceptually approving the Village design
concept plan, authorizing the Related Companies of
Prepared
by:
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
Agle, Director Housing
and Economic Development |
|
P. City Manager |
|
|
||
|
Eileen
Fogarty, Director Planning
and Community Development |
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Design Concept Plans