City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 1 of 27
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council and the Culver City Redevelopment Agency
(“The Agency”) consider development program and planning related to the
Washington/National Project.
BACKGROUND:
This report assesses the Washington/National Triangle Site Project and
Washington National Specific Plan and provides recommendations to address
the City Council’s concerns regarding the planning and redevelopment effort
on these projects to date. In 2003, the Washington/ National “Triangle Site”
was identified for potential development as Transit Oriented Development
adjacent to the proposed Exposition Light Rail Transit Station (EXPO LRT).
The site is comprised of blighted and underutilized industrial and commercial
properties and bounded by Washington, National, Exposition, and Venice
Boulevards and the Metro right of way. The Agency assembled 13 properties
at a cost in excess of $23 million dollars.
The total site area is 6.76 acres (5.25 acres in Culver City) and consists of 12
light industrial buildings, one motel, four retail buildings and a parking lot
along Venice Boulevard within the City of Los Angeles. In October 2003, the
Agency issued an RFP for redevelopment of the Triangle Site.
ENA with Urban Partners:
In February 2004, the Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement with Urban Partners for a 270 term with one 90- day extension
i
to
Meeting Date: March 6, 2008 Item Number: J-1
AGENDA ITEM: A Joint Item before the City Council and the Redevelopment
Agency: Discussion of Washington/ National Development and Planning.
Contact Person/Dept.: Sol Blumenfeld Phone Number: 310.253.5702
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Master Notification List (March 3, 2008)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (02/28/08)
Executive Director Approval:
Jerry Fulwood (02/28/08)
Fiscal Impact Review:
Jeff Muir (02/28/08)
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 2 of 27
develop a vibrant, iconic mixed use, transit oriented development. The original
development program proposed by Urban Partners included:
• Phased, mixed use, transit oriented development with elevated Metro LRT
station in Culver City.
• Office (13,460 sq. ft.)
• Retail (30,662sq. ft. ground floor retail)
• Hotel (149 rooms)
• Restaurants (13,650 sq. ft.)
• Residential (56 condominiums, 174 apartment units in an 11 story building
• Open space – 29% of project site with building height trade-off, including 2
bus plazas and paseos. (Without height trade-off 11% of site is proposed
open space).
• Density at 65 units per acre.
• Building Height of 56 feet (except residential tower of 130’).
• Parking: The total number of parking supplied for entire project Is 1,661
stalls including uses proposed in Los Angeles boundaries in four levels
with one on grade, one on deck and two levels subterranean. The total
code required parking is 1,834 parking spaces. The project was short 173
code required parking stalls. The project included a shared parking
program which would have reduced the total number of parking spaces
from 1,834 stalls to 1,563 stalls (difference of 271 stalls). Original plans
included four levels of subterranean parking.
• Project integration of the elevated LRT station.
• Partial 25’ encroachment into Metro right-of-way incorporated in project
development (150’ wide and totaling 2.37 acres in Culver City and .39
acres in Los Angeles). At this time, Metro has neither agreed to lease or
sell 25’ of the ROW.
• Metro parking for 600 spaces on Triangle Site.
Development Program Phase II
The ENA expired and in November 2006 and the Agency entered into a new
ENA for redevelopment of the site with the same terms. Concurrently, the
Agency sought to create a partnership between Urban Partners and major
property owners with a build to suit agreement and to begin to assemble the
northerly portion of the site. These plans were never implemented.
Urban Partner’s project goals were:
To create a new neighborhood from the old industrial area, connecting the
Helms District and downtown to the Triangle Site, infusing the area with “live
work” opportunities, housing for sale and rent, promote the concept of the “ten
minute diamond” to site structures so that each builds on the surrounding City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 3 of 27
pieces, a self sustaining project that can stand alone until the station and
Expo are completed, flexible building design that allows residential conversion
to retail depending upon market conditions, landscaping of public and private
areas with “gardens in the sky.”
The Agency’s project goals as expressed in the RFP were to ensure that:
Architecture, design and development of the site … of a quality to ensure that
the proposed project shall be an iconic gateway to the City and that the
proposed project as developed by the Developer shall be compatible and
equal in quality, style and design to the development of the urban setting in
which the redevelopment of the site is to occur…
Among the terms of the ENA, Urban Partners was to:
1. Furnish up to $148,000 for architectural services provided by Johnson
Fain Partners for site design. Since retaining Johnson Fain to provide
architectural services for the site, $11,559 remains in the fund balance for
architectural services
2. Obtain proof of project funding for an above grade elevated train station.
The 2
nd
ENA was not extended and expired on July 8, 2007 as the developer
did not provide the proof of funding stipulated within the prescribed time frame
(no later than 180 days following the effective date of the agreement -- May 3,
2007). No other progress has been made on assembling the northerly Venice
Boulevard properties.
Triangle Site Design:
The shape of the Triangle Site and its location within two jurisdictions has
complicated site planning and project parking to develop the iconic, transit
oriented development envisioned by the City/Agency four years ago.
Johnson-Fain met with the Agency and staff on several occasions and
prepared a project design for preliminary review in November 2006. Some of
the comments on the preliminary design included the need to provide
additional, useable open space and to open the site up in order to better
relate it with the surrounding neighborhood. Following this direction to the
project developer, the Planning and Redevelopment Divisions moved forward
with the refinement of the project proforma and completion of the Washington
National Specific Plan and Program EIR.
At the March 2007 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning
Commission, the plans were not well received. There were criticisms
regarding project design, open space and poor contextual relation expressed
by the Council and Planning Commission members and there were concerns
regarding density relative to mixed use development. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 4 of 27
The Washington/National Subcommittee reviewed the project in June 2007
and generally expressed concerns regarding the project scale, development
program and site design. These concerns centered upon building height,
architectural and landscape quality, recreation and open space, access to and
within the site, required project phasing for properties fronting on Venice
Boulevard and related reduced commercial development within Culver City,
jurisdictional issues related to the site and off-site improvements, parking and
site design compatibility issues.
In May 2007, the Mixed Use Development ordinance was reexamined by
Council, and the project was put on hold pending resolution of the broader
planning and development issues related to mixed use.
DISCUSSION:
Proposed Design Solutions & Project Recommendations
1. Project Design:
The original project planning and design goal was to create a new transit
oriented neighborhood connected to the surrounding community. This was
the goal in 2004 when the project was envisioned and it should be the goal
today – to create a new neighborhood that fits contextually within the
surrounding community. However, the geometry of the site has challenged
subterranean parking efficiency, the podium parking which rises two stories at
the Metro interface provides a pedestrian barrier at the north-westerly edge of
the site and the walled in effect created by the organization of buildings does
not promote a neighborhood feel for the project.
The project lacks a connection to adjacent streets and sidewalks. The design
does not incorporate iconic architecture and good site planning principles that
will make it an attractive place to live and work. There is little opportunity with
the present design for significant landscaped areas because the entire project
is placed over parking structure instead of partly on grade where it would be
possible to incorporate mature trees and large areas of turf and thereby
encourage ground water recharge. Instead, the design allows little more than
pots of shrubs and shallow planting and the building layout precludes the use
of natural light and air as an amenity for natural heating and cooling. This
TOD project should be a model of green building, good site design and
sustainability, consistent with the environmental promise of bringing housing,
employment and shopping together to enhance regional air quality and
mobility. However, some of the project buildings sit in shadow cast by other
buildings on the site, there are no opportunities for significant areas of turf and
deciduous trees that can be used effectively to heat and cool the project and
the buildings lining the project perimeter act to dam air movement that could City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 5 of 27
otherwise moderate summer heat at the interior of the property. Ironically, the
current building layout precludes some of the new green building technology
now emerging. (See Attachment No. 1 – Project Model Photo)
The original Agency concept to provide a new Culver City gateway with iconic
project architecture has been lost in the site plan by sticking a high-rise hotel
tower within the site interior as a trade off for more open space.
Subsequently the high-rise hotel was changed on the plan to an apartment
tower to help recover project development costs and a mid-rise hotel was
proposed along Washington and National Boulevards. Currently, there is no
iconic architecture and no gateway as envisioned by the Agency when the
original project was proposed. The project entry is not distinguished at
Washington and National Boulevards and there is no clear relationship of the
project to the surrounding neighborhood.
The site design should open up to surrounding commercial and residential
neighborhoods with public plazas at each street intersection, providing clear
site lines into the project. Thematic architecture must be developed along the
project perimeter that supports the plazas and invites entry and use of them.
The buildings should be setback from the plazas to create views and a
breezeway into and through the site. The site is an urban space but it does
not have to be devoid of a significant, central green that promotes
sustainability and enhances livability with comfortable places to sit, stroll,
throw a Frisbee or take in the sun.
The proposed plan features office, retail, residential and hotel uses and
contemplates a series of internal public plazas and a transit plaza with
pedestrian amenities connected to the central green. (See Attachment No. 2 –
Site Plan )
2. Building Height, Building Architecture and Plazas and Gateways:
The original plan included a 12 story high-rise tower at the project interior
(later proposed as a mid-rise building fronting National Boulevard). Staff
suggests eliminating the high-rise component entirely from the project and
moving the hotel closer to the Washington at National Boulevards corner to
create the iconic centerpiece and gateway statement that is missing now.
This corner should incorporate architectural features (rotunda, spire, stepped
floor levels or similar features) at Washington and National Boulevards
providing architectural interest and a gateway statement from the north and
east similar to the design intent of Santana Row. Further, a building line
setback of 20 feet is proposed along the project perimeter to accommodate
pedestrian amenities such as colonnades, planted trellis, niches, stepped
building design, building articulation and opportunities for sitting and outdoor
dining. (Attachment No. 3 – Retail Edge, Pedestrian Amenities and
Architectural Element Concepts). City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 6 of 27
Pedestrian plazas and gateway design can include special landscaping,
plazas, crosswalks, paving and lighting. The gateway can be reinforced
visually, reaching across the street onto City owned property and the Czucker
and Brentwood Fairfield development sites to the south and southwest
respectively. The plazas are central to the image of Washington National and
need to be located at each of the project street intersections opening up to the
surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods. At the Venice
Boulevard frontage, the elevated transit plaza provides tremendous design
opportunity. As transit riders debark the train they will pass along an elevated
concourse to an overlook with views to the transit plaza below, then to a
grand set of stairs that are part staircase, part seating, drawing on the great
urban icons of Pioneer Square and the Spanish Steps. (See Attachment No. 4
Transit Plazas and Gateway Concepts)
3. Parking:
The costs of parking are driving the project design with negative results. It is
essential to fix the parking problems above and below grade to make the
project less expensive and “buy down” the project cost of providing truly
usable open space and reducing project density to make the project a more
attractive, livable neighborhood.
The current project parking layout is highly inefficient. Most conventional
rectangular shaped subterranean parking structures require approximately
350 sq. ft. per stall however, the Triangle Site requires 490 sq. ft. per stall. In
general, parking stalls cost approximately $28,800 for the 350 ft conventional
stall, or $82.85 per square foot. The extra 140 sq. ft. required per stall means
that each parking stall in the Triangle site costs an additional $11,600
($40,600 per stall rather than $28,800 per stall in a conventional
development). As each level of parking provides 500 stalls and there are two
levels of proposed parking to accommodate the project, the current parking
costs are approximately $40,600,000.
The parking inefficiency can be resolved by changing the shape of the parking
footprint to make it more rectangular or by increasing the footprint of the
subterranean parking. Since the site is surrounded by streets, bordered by
the City of Los Angeles on one side, abuts private property and the Metro
right of way on the others, it is necessary to encroach into the City right of
way to obtain more parking area and reshape the parking area. It further
enhances the parking efficiency by obtaining a Metro ROW subsurface
easement and incorporating the northerly properties (through sale or
condemnation) to improve overall project design. If necessary, Metro can
acquire the properties through condemnation under Metro authority, adding
an inter-modal component to the LRT station along a portion of the Venice
Boulevard frontage. (See Attachment No. 5 – Current Parking Layout) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 7 of 27
Working with Metro to acquire Venice Boulevard frontage and a subsurface
parking easement for the Metro ROW and incorporating approximately ½ the
subsurface area of National Boulevard, the project can be efficiently parked
and fully assembled for redevelopment. A new Rapid Bus service may be
proposed for Venice Boulevard and the Culver City LRT Expo station can
provide a new service connection with an attractively screened bus turnout
and new joint development opportunities below and above grade that tie into
the rest of the Triangle Site. (See Attachment No. 6 – Proposed Parking
Encroachments Map and Site Plan).
Metro must agree to joint use of the Expo ROW and subsurface
encroachment for Metro station and Triangle Site parking as part of a joint
development agreement between the City and Metro. The Agency should
also work with the City of L.A. on planning and entitlement of the Los Angeles
portion of the project. Successfully negotiating a parking easement beneath
Expo and acquisition of the northerly part of the project now will produce a
better project design and reduce project parking costs by over $6 million
dollars.
Under this plan, approximately 1.20 acres are located within the City of Los
Angeles, and a small area (approximately .13 acres) of Exposition Boulevard
in the City of Los Angeles that must be vacated and acquired by Metro as part
of the development. The area provides important commercial frontage along
Venice Boulevard and including it now, rather then at some indefinite time in
the future, improves site planning opportunities and parking efficiency.
Project phasing problems can also be eliminated by including the properties in
the project now. The Agency should make a concerted effort to work with
Metro and Los Angeles Councilman Herb Wesson’s office to incorporate the
properties on the northerly site boundary in Los Angeles. (See Attachment
No. 7 - Venice Property Acquisition Map).
As one of the most significant cost factors in the project, Urban Partners had
sought to reduce parking costs with a shared parking arrangement that
utilizes peak and off-peak parking demand to set the required parking, rather
than provide code required parking. The shared parking analysis reduces
parking demand by up to 14.8%. A 14.8% reduction from code required
parking means that the project would need to supply 1,563 shared parking
spaces or a reduction of 271 spaces. Parking supplied under the current plan
provides 1,661 spaces. The savings with shared parking total $8.9 million
dollars. Staff is recommending that the reduced parking ratios be abandoned
since it is possible to reduce parking cost by reconfiguring the subterranean
parking layout to gain better efficiency through the following:
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 8 of 27
1. Incorporating the entire Metro ROW below grade. This contributes
2.76 acres to the parking area.
2. Incorporating ½ of National Boulevard contiguous with the project
site in below grade parking (providing no subterranean structures
conflict with proposed parking area - .54 acres)
3. Acquiring the northerly site parcels including Exposition Boulevard
to incorporate subsurface parking encroachment into Venice
Boulevard. (1.77 acres) The total subterranean area added
would be 4.42 acres. This will increase the parking efficiency by
50% and reduces overall parking costs by up to $6.5 million
dollars.
4. Open Space:
In planning for this future neighborhood, the City should take a nod from the
past and consider a central square or central green for the project interior.
Reworking the parking into a more efficient layout with subsurface
encroachments into the Metro ROW and National Boulevards and the
northerly Venice Boulevard parcels, frees up the center of the site (where
parking is least efficient) for non-parking uses. As the parking shifts north,
east and west from the center of the site, the open space can be located on
grade rather than over the parking garage. This open space design permits
planting depths to accommodate large trees and turf. With the change in the
location of the parking, the site can be reconfigured to provide a large
common green shared by residential, office, and hotel uses. The green can
be designed as a passive space or programmed for events and link with the
proposed urban plazas that ring the site. It will promote livability with a central
space large enough to sit, stroll, throw a Frisbee or take in the sun, creating
the kind of connectivity missing in the current design. Without Venice frontage
however, there is no opportunity to provide the kind of park like open space
recommended in the design revision. (See Attachment No. 8 – Open Space
Photos: Passive and Active)
5. Massing:
The residential use adjacent to the Metro ROW should be reconfigured with a
stepped design fronting the large common green using building setbacks and
off-sets to reduce building massing at the project interior and allow light and
air to interior units. The new parking efficiency (and reduced parking costs)
eliminates the need for the proposed “height exception trade off” to provide
public open space and allows reduced overall scale for the project.
6. Hotel & Residential Changes:
Urban Partners has proposed partnering with HEI Hotels and Resorts through
its Starwood Hotels Franchiser. Starwood is initiating a new hotel concept
called “Aloft” which is part of the W Hotels chain. The Hotel franchise plans
200 hotels within 5 years. Aloft is designed to compete with Four Points City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 9 of 27
Sheraton and Marriott Courtyard, in an “affordable, quality product” and is not
a full service hotel since it does not contain a restaurant. Staff suggests
investigating new hotel operators through a market study and RFP process to
identify full service hotel operators for the project. If a hotel is provided it
should be a higher end boutique, low rise development with room rates of not
less than $150.00 per night fronting Washington and National Boulevards with
views of the street and the substantial green on the project interior. (See
Attachment No. 9 – Boutique Hotel Concepts)
Urban Partners has recently proposed substituting the condominium
component with apartment or office eliminating for-sale units from the project.
Staff recommends that the project include both for-sale and rental housing to
provide more housing opportunities and that the housing be located along the
METRO ROW.
7. Connectivity:
An important part of any Transit Oriented Development is the ability to
connect the station to major employment centers, neighborhoods and other
sources of ridership via walking, bicycling, car and/or municipal bus linkages.
At Culver City’s Washington/National station, the project should connect to:
• Nearby catalytic projects
• Surrounding residential areas
• Helm’s District
• Hayden Tract
• Art galleries on the easterly portion of West Washington Boulevard
• Downtown
In order to facilitate the connections to these areas (Attachment No. #10),
improvements will be necessary as the Washington/National area was not
designed with commuter rail service in mind. These improvements include:
• Improvements to the TOD area (nearby catalytic projects,
surrounding neighborhoods and the Helm’s District) – Due to these
areas being located near the station, those visiting the area or using
the various forms of transportation should be encourage to walk by
developing clean and convenient pedestrian pathways. This will
require enhanced pavement, clearly defined crosswalks, pedestrian
scale lighting, directional signage, street furniture and
enhancements that protect pedestrians from the elements (street
trees, colonnades, etc.).
• Improvements to surrounding areas (Hayden Tract, art galleries on
the easterly portion of West Washington Boulevard, Downtown) - City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 10 of 27
Due to these areas being located further from the station, those
visiting the area should be encouraged to use alternative
transportation such as biking or shuttle bus service ride bicycles
To accomplish this bike paths and related bicycle amenities
(lockers, storage lockers, etc.) should be provided, and the City
should explore implementing a shuttle bus service.
Most of the areas surrounding the Washington/National station are currently
accessible via the City’s bus system. With the new train station, it may be
necessary to add new routes including express routes to serve the additional
riders and facilitate fast, convenient connections.
8. New ENA with Urban Partners or New RFP Process:
If the Agency decides to continue with Urban Partners as the developer of the
Triangle Site, it will need to approve another ENA to complete negotiations for
a disposition agreement. The Agency had been reviewing Urban Partner’s
financial model based upon development program assumptions that would be
obsolete given the recent policy direction of the Council on mixed use
development and the recommended design changes in the attached plan that
dramatically effect the project. Alternately, in preliminary discussions with
Metro, it has been suggested to issue a new RFQ/RFP and opening up the
process to include Urban Partners and several other qualified developers,
taking into consideration the Venice Boulevard joint development
opportunities with proposed inter-modal bus station.
9. EXPO LRT Elevated Station:
The City has successfully worked to establish an elevated EXPO LRT Station.
That effort was recognized by the Metro Board in November 2007 when it
authorized submitting an application for Cal Trans funding for the Culver City
Station. Prop 1B will fund the project. Now that the EXPO line and the City’s
LRT Station is recommended for funding, the Agency should move
expeditiously to develop the Triangle Site working with Metro on mutual
parking concerns and to fully assemble the Triangle Site incorporating the
northerly properties for joint use. The City will provide $4 million dollars to the
cost of the elevated station and may want to consider common parking
facilities with the revised project design as the contribution.
10. Venice Properties and Work with Metro and L.A. City:
Acquiring the Venice properties requires the cooperation of Metro and City of
L.A. Each jurisdiction must focus on areas of mutual interest including joint
development and cost and revenue sharing related to the properties. Culver
City must look more broadly at the site opportunities by expanding the project
to include an inter-modal bus component along the Metro ROW in order to
encourage Metro’s involvement on acquisition and property assembly with
associated joint development opportunities, below and above grade. The City City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 11 of 27
of L.A. must be engaged in mutual planning for the site frontage. The work
with Metro requires:
• Determining precise Metro parking need for LRT on site and off-
site.
• Creating a better interface with Metro regarding elevated Station
platform and at grade with Triangle Site (e.g. transit plaza, retail
concourse, Park and Ride, etc.)
• Identifying legal issues related to shared use of the ROW for TOD
and LRT parking.
• Identifying design issues related to LRT in connection with potential
subterranean parking.
• Integrate subterranean parking design with LRT Station design and
in ROW.
• Exploring Venice Boulevard frontage for integration of retail/office
and potential Rapid Bus service on Venice Boulevard above and at
grade and parking below.
• Determining feasibility and timing for Metro’s acquisition of Venice
Boulevard properties.
• Identifying operational needs for inter-modal operations between La
Cienega and Washington/National LRT Station sites.
• Identifying feasibility locating some or all the inter-modal operations
along the Metro ROW.
In the event that Metro does not partner with the City, other options to
consider include:
1. Annexing the properties and then using eminent domain for
redevelopment – this is an option only if the resulting improvements are for
public purpose (parking in this case). This will require approval from the City
of Los Angeles and LAFCO. This will likely require a revenue sharing
agreement and take two years to complete. Anticipated objection by the
existing property owners may complicate the matter;
2. The Culver City Redevelopment Agency could obtain
redevelopment control from the City of Los Angeles. This will require
approval from the City of Los Angeles and will likely invite opposition from the
County. This will likely require a revenue sharing agreement as well and take
two years to complete. Anticipated objection by the existing property owners
will likely complicate the matter.
Clearly, the most efficient and expeditious method of assembling the Venice
property is to partner with Metro through a Cooperation Agreement.
11. Interim Property Use:
The Agency has completed acquisition of all property within the Culver City
portion of the Triangle Site and should move forward with an implementation City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 12 of 27
strategy for interim property use. The strategy includes completing property
demolition and grading, site remediation as required and interim use for
leased parking to the Studios, car dealerships or other large employers with a
temporary need for parking or auto storage. Staff has consulted with Sony
and Culver Studios and both have expressed interest in use of the property
for shuttle serviced employee parking. Two car dealerships have also
expressed interest in temporary use of the property. The most cost efficient
interim use is to make the property available to a car dealerships which will
use the property “as is” and will not require installation of road base or other
temporary paving, fencing, striping or lighting for auto storage. The interim
use also has the added benefit of freeing up space in the city’s parking
structure which in turn produces added parking revenues for the city, since
the dealership currently leases spaces in the Ince and Cardiff parking
structures. The potential revenues are estimated as follows:
Monthly Interim Parking Revenue:
Spaces
Per
Car
Per
Month
Per
Year
Total
200
$25
$5,000
$60,000
The Agency must award contract for the site clean-up and grading,
appropriate funds, draft and execute lease agreements and complete fine
grading and installation of DG surface and temporary fencing which is
scheduled for March 2008.
Proposed Development Program:
The proposed development program for the Triangle site incorporates the
mixed use concept for transit oriented development proposed by Urban
Partners, but with significant differences related to parking and open space.
The additional parking footprint allows increased development of office, retail
and residential at the maximum 56’ height limit and without the need for high
rise development to justify the excessive cost of project parking. Buildings
have been organized around a ½ acre central green that accommodates large
trees and turf at the project interior connecting to plazas and paseos. This
green provides a major landscaped amenity for residents, workers and
visitors to Washington National. Four pedestrian plazas are located around
the site perimeter, three of which are located at the project street
intersections. The building setbacks from these plazas provide a view shed
into the site and make it more visually accessible to the surrounding
neighborhood than the prior plan. The central green and building locations
will support the green principles the city is promoting by reducing heat sink
and introducing shade and ground water recharge at the project interior. The
building layout minimizes the problems of shadows cast upon project City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 13 of 27
buildings within the site, facilitating solar space and water heating and energy
production. Opening the interior and the perimeter of the site with plazas and
building setbacks also allows better air circulation for natural cooling. The
revised plan eliminates the podium parking that sent the westerly portion of
the site two stories above the street elevation and created an insular effect
from the surrounding neighborhood. The project is more than fully parked
without the need for “shared parking”. The project perimeter contains
dedicated space for pedestrian amenities incorporating space for colonnades,
landscaped trellis, benches, outdoor dining and retail and street furniture.
Finally the revised plan contains the opportunity for the important gateway
element missing from the prior plan by reaching across Washington
Boulevard to City property. The gateway can be designed as an art piece,
plaza, landscape element or water feature that highlights entry to the City.
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
The six development alternatives reflect the design approach described
above, but include a varying mix of residential, office, retail and hotel uses.
The alternatives conform to the City’s 56 foot high limit and where residential
is included, densities do not exceed 65 dwelling units per acre. A detailed
breakdown is provided in Attachment 11, Development Scenarios.
Alternative #1 (Max Residential/ Commercial/No Hotel)
This alternative is comprised of 290 dwelling units, 115,000 square feet of
office, 63,200 square feet of retail/restaurant and 1,735 parking spaces of
which there are no surplus spaces.
Alternative #2 (Max Residential/ Commercial/No Hotel)
This alternative is comprised of 175 dwelling units, 180,000 square feet of
office, 80,000 square feet of retail/restaurant and 1,735 parking spaces of
which 6 are surplus.
Alternative #3 (Low Residential/ Commercial/No Hotel)
This alternative is comprised of 150 dwelling units, 150,000 square feet of
office, 80,000 square feet of retail/restaurant and 1,735 parking spaces of
which 148 are surplus.
Alternative #4 (No Residential/ Commercial/No Hotel)
This alternative is comprised of 200,000 square feet of office, 110,000 square
feet of retail/restaurant, a 149 room hotel and 1,735 parking spaces, of which
8 are surplus. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 14 of 27
Alternative #5 (Reduced Site)
This alternative is comprised of 187 dwelling units, 25,400 square feet of
office, 44,200 square feet of retail/restaurant and 719 parking spaces of which
47 are surplus. This alternative does not include the Venice properties and
would be constructed entirely upon the Agency’s land.
Alternative #6 (Max Residential/ Commercial/No Hotel)
This alternative is comprised of 290 dwelling units, 70,000 square feet of
office, 41,500 square feet of retail/restaurant, a 149 room hotel and 1,735
parking spaces of which there are no surplus spaces.
Keyser Marston & Associates (“KMA”) analyzed proposed development
alternatives (below) in order to determine net proceeds to the Agency.
(Continued to next page)
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 15 of 27
Alt #1 Alt #2 Alt #3 Alt #4 Alt #5 Alt #6
Max Res Med Res Low Res No Res Reduced Max Res
Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Site Commercial
No Hotel No Hotel No Hotel Hotel
Hotel
I. Site Size 194,713 194,713 194,713 194,713 125,888 194,713
II. Project
Description
Residential
Units
290 175 150 0 187 290
Office Area
(Sf)
115,000 180,000 150,000 200,000 25,360 70,000
Retail /
Restaurant
Area (Sf)
63,250 80,000 80,000 110,000 44,222 41,500
Hotel Rooms 0 0 0 149 0 149
Parking
Spaces
1,735 1,735 1,735 1,735 719
ii
1,735
III. Net
Residual
Land Value
$19.3
million
$22.60 $7.50 $3.10 $12.40 $4.40
Per Square
Foot of Land
Area
$99 $116 $39 $16 $99 $22
IV. Est.
Venice Prop
Acquisition
($12 million) ($12) ($12) ($12) N.A. ($12)
Maybe offset by metro contribution with joint development
V. Net
Proceeds
$7.3 million $10.60 ($4.50) ($8.90) $12.40 ($7.60)
Per Square
Foot of Land
Area
$38 $55 ($23) ($46) $99 ($39)
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 16 of 27
Each alternative except #5 assumes that the Agency will include the parking
required by Metro in surface parking spaces and in the subterranean garage
included within the development scope. It is further assumed that the project
will bear the cost of providing the spaces to Metro at no cost. This cost
burden is reflected in the residual land values supported by each of the
alternatives except #5. Alternative #5 is based on the assumption that Metro
will provide their own parking in an above-ground parking structure located on
the Metro owned property.
It was discovered that the residual land value is adversely affected by the
presence of a hotel such as the “ALoft” brand. Recognizing the negative
financial impact associated with including a hotel within the project, the hotel
use was deleted from all but #4 and #6 of the alternatives. KMA indicates that
for a hotel to contribute positively to the net land sale proceeds, the hotel’s
price point would need to average $225 per room per night. KMA believes
attracting a high end hotel is difficult and recommends obtaining a hotel
market study to identify the type of the hotel most appropriate for the site. All
of the alternatives except #5 propose a considerable amount of office space.
If the Agency were to pursue one of these alternatives, KMA believes it
necessary that a developer with experience constructing and leasing office be
selected because financial lenders would require that at least 50 percent of
the office square footage be preleased.
All of the alternatives except #5 would be constructed on the Agency’s
Triangle Site, Metro’s property, the property adjacent to Venice Boulevard (in
Los Angeles) and the property beneath National Boulevard via a subsurface
encroachment. The total acquisition cost for the property on Venice
Boulevard is anticipated to be approximately $12 million. The amount
required to be funded by the Agency could be significantly reduced if Metro
were to contribute funds for the Venice property acquisition or for parking on
the Agency’s property.
Alternative #1
This alternative’s residual land value of $99 per square foot is positively
influenced by the number of dwelling units and the amount of office square
footage.
Alternative #2
This alternative’s residual land value of $116 per square foot is created by the
increase in the amount of office and retail area. These increases offset the
value lost by reducing the number of residential units.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 17 of 27
Alternative #3
This alternative’s residual land value of $39 per square foot is negatively
influenced by the provision of 148 excess parking spaces that are assumed to
be used to provide public parking to serve other downtown uses.
Alternative #4
This alternative’s residual land value is $16 per square foot. This alternative
is negatively influenced by the presence of a hotel and the elimination of the
residential component.
Alternative #5
This alternative is located solely on land that is currently owned by the
Agency, and it generates an estimated residual value of $99 per square foot.
This alternative includes residential development at the same density as
Alternative #1, but it provides significantly less office and retail/restaurant
space on a relative basis. This option offers no Metro parking and provides no
“added” value created by including the Venice properties. Including the
Venice property adds value because:
o It creates a more efficient site from a parking perspective (which
reduces parking costs, allows more diverse uses and allows the
creation of meaningful open space);
o It is more aesthetically pleasing because the poorly maintained
Venice property will no longer remain and the Metro parking will not
be provided in an above-ground structure adjacent to the project;
o It creates an opportunity to improve the site’s visibility from Venice
Boulevard; and,
o It allows development of the central open space in all other
alternatives.
Alternative #6
This alternative was included in the analysis because it demonstrates the
financial impact created by including a hotel in the development scope, while
reducing the amount of office and retail/restaurant space being provided.
This alternative’s residual land value of $22 per square foot is a direct result
of these substitutions.
Analysis of Development Alternatives (livability, TOD, sustainability)
From a livability/TOD/sustainability perspective, staff recommends Alternative
#’s 1 and 2 because they offer the greatest diversity of land uses. With
residential, office, and commercial components, a “critical mass” is created
that promotes the concepts of sustainability, livability and a development that
fits within the surrounding neighborhood.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 18 of 27
Proposed Project Timeline
Timeline assumes development of Alternative 1 or Alternative 3, (including
Metro ROW and Venice properties).
February 2008 - June 2008
• Study Design Parameters with Wash/National Subcommittee (Metro,
Venice properties, subsurface encroachments, etc.)
• Collaborate with Metro to understand joint development opportunities
• Obtain Council/Agency direction
• Begin and conclude site demolition
• Execute leases for temporary use of the site (vehicle storage)
• Conduct Council/Agency update
• Obtain Council/Agency approval to execute contracts with environmental
consultants and subs
• Execute contracts
• DEIR recommences with alternatives (traffic, infrastructure,
shade/shadow, noise, etc.)
July 2008 - December 2008
• Metro-City participation agreement
• Begin joint Metro/Agency RFP process
• Select Triangle Site development team
• Begin Metro’s acquisition of Venice property
• Complete DEIR
• Commence with catalytic project entitlements
January 2009 - December 2009
• Conclude Metro’s acquisition of Venice properties
• Begin and complete entitlements for Triangle Site
• Building plan review
• Permit issuance
• Conclude Metro’s acquisition and relocation of Venice properties and
businesses
January 2010 - June 2010
• Begin Construction
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The Washington National project is a transit oriented mixed-use development
that would generate a number of on-going general revenues for the City,
including sales tax, business tax, base-year property tax, transient occupancy tax
(TOT) and utility users’ tax; as well as unrestricted tax increment funds for the
Redevelopment Agency. All of the projections in this fiscal analysis section are City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 19 of 27
in current year dollars ($2008) and assume all residential units, office, retail, and
restaurant space is fully leased and/or occupied, which is projected to be in FY
2011-12. The projection also assumes an average room rate for the hotel
component of $150 per night with a 75% occupancy rate.
Using the project parameters that have been outlined in each of the six
Alternatives, a summary of projected ongoing General Fund revenues is provided
in the table below
iii
. An 8-year total return (FY 2011-12 through FY 2018-19) has
been calculated for long term comparison purposed with projected RDA tax
increment revenue. A more detailed projection for each revenue category is
provided as Attachment 12.
Description
Total
Annual
Ongoing
Total
8-Year
Return*
Alternative 1 $220,000 $1,956,000
Alternative 2 $292,000 $2,597,000
Alternative 3 $270,000 $2,401,000
Alternative 4 $1,100,000 $9,782,000
Alternative 5 $190,000 $1,690,000
Alternative 6 $900,000 $8,003,000
*Assumes 3% annual growth of General Fund revenues.
As previously mentioned, the revenue projections assume an average room rate
for the hotel component of $150 per night. However, considering the location of
this hotel, with easy access to downtown Los Angeles via the light rail system
and close proximity to Sony and Culver studios, it may be able to support a
higher end hotel without competing with the City’s existing hotels near LAX.
In order to ascertain the market demand for a higher end hotel in this area and
the potential impact on the City’s existing hotels, further study is necessary. Staff
recommends that a market study is prepared to identify the potential for a higher
end hotel as part of this project.
In addition to the General Fund revenues identified above, one-time land sale
revenues and ongoing tax increment revenues would be received by the RDA. It
is important to note that the Washington/National project is in RDA Project Area
3, which expires in FY 2018-19. Once Project Area 3 expires, the RDA can only
collect enough tax increment to pay for contractual obligations and debt that exist
at that time. After 2018, no new debt or redevelopment projects can be funded
using RDA tax increment funds, and the RDA will no longer receive tax increment
from that Project Area, once those contractual obligations and debt are fully
repaid. Since tax increment revenues are not projected to be received until FY
2011-12, an 8-year total return has been calculated.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 20 of 27
Additionally, approximately 20% of the gross tax increment revenues are passed
through to other taxing agencies (e.g. CCUSD, County administration, County
flood control, County fire, etc.) and 20% is earmarked for low/moderated income
housing and cannot be used for ‘unrestricted’ purposes. A summary of the
projected RDA revenues is provided in the table below:
* Estimated land value calculated by Keyser Marston Associates.
** Total land sale proceeds are calculated on the square footage in Culver City only.
*** Net tax increment, after deducting County Admin and statutory pass through payments. Includes portion
earmarked for low/moderate housing.
**** Assumes 2% annual growth of Tax Increment revenues.
There are a number of factors and parameters, other than economics, that
constrain the make-up of this project, including lot size and shape, compliance
with the zoning code, parking requirements, traffic/trip generation, etc. However,
from a purely economic prospective, economic diversity within a project is
desirable to protect against a downturn in any one industry.
For example, if a large project has a high concentration of retail uses, then a
slump in retail spending would have a significant negative impact on the
revenues generated from that project. Conversely, a project that has a mix of
retail, restaurant, hotel, and office uses would not be as greatly impacted as the
other uses would offset some of the revenue losses from slumping retail. As the
concentration in any one type of use in a project increases, exposure to market
risk also increases.
(continued next page)
Description Est. Land
Value*
per sq. ft.
Total Estimated
Land Sale
Proceeds**
Annual Ongoing
Tax Increment***
Total 8-year Tax
Increment
Return****
Alternative 1 $99 $12,463,000 $1,703,000 $14,600,000
Alternative 2 $116 $14,603,000 $1,444,000 $12,400,000
Alternative 3 $39 $4,910,000 $1,064,000 $9,100,000
Alternative 4 ($112) ($14,099,000) $1,038,000 $8,900,000
Alternative 5 $99 $12,463,000 $1,115,000 $9,600,000
Alternative 6 $22 $2,770,000 $1,611,000 $13,800,000City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 21 of 27
The table below calculates the percent of the entire project (excluding residential)
that each use comprises:
Using the above tables, the following conclusions for each alternative may be
drawn:
Alternative 1: A1 has a high concentration in office and only has three revenue
generating uses (i.e. no hotel component). Alternative 1 generates the
highest tax increment and second highest one-time return to the
Redevelopment Agency, but generates a very low on-going return to the
General Fund.
Alternative 2: A2 has the highest concentration of uses, with 69% of the project
being office, and only has three revenue generating uses (i.e. no hotel
component). Alternative 2 generates the third highest tax increment and
highest one-time return to the Redevelopment Agency, but generates a
low on-going return to the General Fund.
Alternative 3: A3 also has a high concentration in office and only has three
revenue generating uses (i.e. no hotel component). Alternative 3 generates
the second lowest tax increment and third lowest one-time return to the
Redevelopment Agency, and generates the third lowest on-going return
to the General Fund.
Alternative 4: A4 is the most diverse alternative as it contains four revenue
generating uses and no use exceeds 50% of the revenue generating portion of
the project. Alternative 4 generates the lowest tax increment and negative
one-time return to the Redevelopment Agency, but generates the highest
return to the General Fund. In order to make the project feasible for a
developer, the Agency would have to provide a subsidy of approximately $14
Description
% Office % Retail % Restaurant % Hotel
Alternative 1 65% 30% 6% 0%
Alternative 2 69% 27% 4% 0%
Alternative 3 65% 30% 4% 0%
Alternative 4 46% 18% 8% 28%
Alternative 5
36% 44% 19% 0%
Alternative 6 29% 13% 6% 52% City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 22 of 27
million on top of the $25+ million that has already been invested in land
assembly and relocation costs.
Alternative 5: A5 is the third most diverse alternative. It contains only three of
the four revenue generating uses, but none of the uses exceed 50% of the
revenue generating portion of the project. Alternative 5 generates the third
lowest tax increment and second highest one-time return to the
Redevelopment Agency, and generates the lowest return to the General
Fund. This project does not include the Venice properties so it also is the
smallest project.
Alternative 6: A6 is the second most diverse alternative as it contains four
revenue generating uses, with the hotel component slightly exceeding 50% of
the revenue generating portion of the project. Alternative 6 generates the
second lowest one-time return to the Redevelopment Agency, but
generates the second highest tax increment and second highest return to
the General Fund.
From an economic standpoint, the Alternatives that include a hotel component
have the greatest positive fiscal impact on the General Fund over time.
Alternative 4 provides the most positive fiscal impact to the General Fund
(NOTE: it does not provide a residential component). However, it would require
a very large subsidy from the Agency in order for the project to be feasible to
developers and the tax increment return is low as compared to the other
alternatives.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide the Redevelopment Agency with a higher
level of return on the initial investment of assembling the land and relocating
tenants with higher land values and higher tax increment revenues; however,
the return is limited as the land sale is one-time and the tax increment revenues
will start to dwindle after 2018. The on-going returns to the General Fund for
those options are significantly less because there is no hotel component.
Alternative 5 is the smallest project as it does not include the Venice properties.
It provides a modest return for the RDA, but the return for the General Fund
very low. Likewise, Alternative 3 provides a modest/low return to the RDA and
a low return to the General Fund.
Similar to Alternative 4, Alternative 6 may also require some subsidy from the
Agency; however, that subsidy would be much less than Alternative 4 while still
receiving the fiscal benefits of a hotel component. Additionally, the subsidy
would be offset by high tax increment returns (as compared to the other
alternatives). Therefore, the most reasonable alternative from an
economic standpoint is Alternative 6.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 23 of 27
DRAFT WASHINTON NATIONAL SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR
BACKGROUND:
The Draft Specific Plan covers 36 acres in Culver City and includes
approximately 4 acres located in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles parcels are
not regulated by the Draft Specific Plan. The Plan provides development
standards and regulates land use in support of transit oriented development
and prescribes infrastructure and streetscape improvements and financing
mechanisms (assessment district and trip fees) for the area.
The City retained Johnson Fain to prepare the Plan and a related EIR in 2006.
In May 2006 the plan documentation commenced based upon “policy papers”
and “position papers” developed by the firm with public and Council input. In
August and September of 2006 Preliminary and 2
nd
Administrative draft plans
were prepared and revised, but they did not contain important plan elements
regarding Phasing, Infrastructure, Streetscape Design Guidelines and
Financing. The 2
nd
Administrative draft plan was reviewed by the Washington
National Subcommittee and the Planning Commission and a 3
rd
Administrative
Draft Plan was provided to the City Council and Planning Commission for
review in October 2006. The Commission and Council were dissatisfied by
many elements of the Plan and indicated a desire to reduce building height and
residential density, eliminate density bonus and shared parking and parking
reduction provisions related to TOD. On the basis of that input, a 4
th
Administrative draft document was prepared. This document still did not
contain Phasing, Infrastructure, Streetscape and Financing elements and none
of the required plan graphics. (See Attachment 13 – Council and Planning
Commission Comments)
To date, $670,000 has been expended on the draft Plan and draft EIR. The
Plan must incorporate the missing elements and be revised to reflect current
development concepts. The following draft elements must be prepared in final
form:
• Land Use
• Circulation (Streets, Pedestrian, Bus/light rail, Bicycle, Streetscape
Improvements, parks and open space)
• Public Utilities and Infrastructure
• Implementation (Phasing, Financing Mechanism, Public Improvements)
The EIR was intended to be a Project Level EIR for the three Catalytic Projects
(Tier 1) and a Program EIR for the Specific Plan Build-Out (Tier 2). Two
Administrative Draft documents have been prepared. The DEIR is incomplete
and missing the following elements: City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 24 of 27
• Utilities – Requires completion of an Infrastructure Study.
• Technical Studies - Catalytic Projects, Shade/Shadow, Shared Parking,
Phase I.
• Schools – Meetings with CCUSD, School Impacts.
• LA City Planning – Joint Planning Issues.
• Coordination with LA Building, Fire and Police on Response Authority and
Jurisdictional Purview for Triangle Site northerly properties in City of L.A.
Though Johnson Fain was contracted to complete these elements of the
Specific Plan and EIR, the four Plan iteration redrafts have consumed all but
$39,000 of the project budget and there is insufficient funding to complete the
documents. In November 2006, Change Order No. 2 established that the
Planning Division would complete the redrafting of the Plan due to insufficient
funding to perform the work.
In addition, Johnson – Fain was required to complete all outstanding graphic
work in the Specific Plan including but not limited to:
• Streetscape Diagrams
• Land Use Tables and Maps
• Land Use Graphics
• Photographs and Exhibits TOD examples
• Project Description Tables
The remaining balance of funds may be used to cover a portion of these
graphic products.
ANALYSIS:
Completion of the draft Specific Plan and DEIR cannot be accomplished with
the remaining budget. The Specific Plan can be redrafted by committing
Planning Division staff, but the streetscape element must be outsourced along
with completion of the DEIR which requires several changes related to project
development programs that effect traffic, infrastructure, fiscal and project cost
sharing analyses.
Completion of the Specific Plan and related technical studies for the DEIR will
take at minimum 6 months to complete.
Infrastructure Study:
An Infrastructure Study prepared by CBM under the supervision of the Public
Works Department evaluates the potential effects on the existing utilities and
public services resulting from development within the Washington/National
Specific Plan. These systems include: water, wastewater, storm water,
electrical, natural gas, communications, solid waste/recycling and school City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 25 of 27
services. The Study is intended to identify necessary improvements to address
impacts of the catalytic projects and build-out scenarios.
A preliminary draft Infrastructure Study has been completely revised based
upon the four prior revised Specific Plans. A final revised Infrastructure Study,
incorporating the prior plan changes and alternative development scenarios
must be prepared and reviewed by the Public Works Department. The
document will require comments from:
• Engineering and Sanitation,
• Water Company
• Gas Company
Traffic Study:
The Traffic Study has been revised three times in connections with the draft
Specific Plan revisions. The final Traffic Study incorporating the latest plan
changes and alternative development scenarios must be prepared and
reviewed by Public Works and Planning Division staff.
Trip Budget and Trip Fees
This study is incomplete and depends upon the building intensity and mitigation
measures required under the Specific Plan and for the catalytic projects. Staff
was reluctant to proceed with the study since a final determination had not
been made about how much development will be permitted. Staff is proposing
to use “alternative scenarios” approach to generate options for trip budgeting
and trip fees to complete the Study.
Fiscal Impact Analysis and Cost Recovery
• The draft Cost Recovery of Specific Plan and EIR was prepared by KMA
and is still being reviewed by staff.
• The draft Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by KMA, must be revised to pick
up proposed project changes.
• The Cost Allocation Plan was originally going to be prepared by HR & A
upon completion of the Infrastructure Study and will include review by the
Finance and Public Works Departments and incorporate the Trip Fees, Cost
Recovery and Assessment District portions of the Specific Plan. Staff
recommends that KMA as they are already retained to prepare the Fiscal
Impact Analysis and Cost Recovery be retained to also prepare the Cost
Allocation Plan with oversight by Finance and Public Works Departments.
Other Possible Action Items:
• Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
• General Plan Amendment
• Zoning Code Amendment
• EXPO DFD Map Amendment City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 26 of 27
• EWO DFD Map Amendment
• Formation of Assessment District
• Exposition Boulevard Street Vacation.
• Modification to Municipal Code as Necessary – Development Impact Fees,
Parkland Fees Public Art Fees.
Proposal for Catalytic Project Entitlements and Completion of the Specific Plan
The catalytic projects are mixed use developments that have been put on hold
pending resolution of the Mixed Use Ordinance. The Mixed Use Ordinance
was approved by the City Council in February. Because of delays completing
the Specific Plan, staff recommends completing the outstanding technical
studies in the DEIR, retaining a consultant to complete the draft document and
then proceeding with the DEIR circulation and a Comprehensive Plan to permit
the catalytic projects to proceed. The DEIR will be used for environmental
review of all of the catalytic projects. Site planning for the Triangle Site can
proceed on a separate track also with a Comprehensive Plan as well as DDA
with the parking, planning and design recommendations incorporated in the
project and to set out the design, planning and development parameters for the
project and the DEIR for environmental review. The Specific Plan or similar
planning tools can be completed thereafter to guide development for the
remainder of the Washington National area.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Photo Project Model
2. Site Plan
3. Retail Edge, Pedestrian Amenities and Architectural Element Concepts
4. Transit Plazas and Gateway Concepts
5. Current Parking Layout
6. Proposed Parking Encroachment Map and Site Plan
7. Venice Property Acquisition Map
8. Open Space Photos: Passive and Active
9. Boutique Hotel Concepts
10. Connectivity and Adjacent Areas
11. Washington National Development Scenarios
12. Fiscal Projections
MOTION:
That the City Council and Culver City Redevelopment Agency:
Consider development programs and planning related to the
Washington/National Project and direct staff as deemed appropriate. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Page 27 of 27
i
The ENA has since expired. The other firms submitting proposals were CIM & Lee Group, Olson
Company, Urban Partners, Culver Crossroads (Walter Marks Realty and Bill Feldman and Creative
Housing), Les Surfas.
ii
1,735 parking spaces are used for all alternatives except #5 because the number represents the
maximum number of stalls that could be constructed on two subterranean parking levels beneath a
combined development site (Metro’s property, the property on Venice in Los Angeles and a
subsurface encroachment into National Boulevard). In #5 there are 719 parking stalls because the
site area is limited to the parcels currently owned by the Agency.
iii The revenue projections include the revenues from the portion in Culver City only and assume a
three party tax sharing agreement for the parcel in Los Angeles between the City of LA, Culver City,
and Metro.
ATTACHMENTS: PAGES
1. Photo Project Model 1
2. Site Plan 2
3. Retail Edge, Pedestrian Amenities and
Architectural Element Concepts 3-7
4. Transit Plazas and Gateway Concepts 8-10
5. Current Parking Layout 11
6. Proposed Parking Encroachment Map and Site Plan 12
7. Venice Property Acquisition Map 13
8. Open Space Photos: Passive and Active 14-15
9. Boutique Hotel Concepts 16-17
10. Connectivity and Adjacent Areas 18
11. Washington National Development Scenarios 19-20
12. Fiscal Projections 21
Meeting Date: 03/06/08 Item Number: J-1
AGENDA ITEM: A Joint Item before the City Council and the Redevelopment
Agency: Discussion of Washington/ National Development and Planning.
Current Plan
massing, configuration, site planning
Attachment 1Attachment 2
Washington National
site planAttachment 3
Retail Edge
conceptPedestrian Amenities
concept
•seating niches
•outdoor dining
Attachment 3aPedestrian Amenities
concept
•colonnades
•planted trellis
Attachment 3bAttachment 3c
Stepped Floor Levels
conceptAttachment 3d
Corner Design
conceptAttachment 4
Transit Plaza
concept
•Light Rail
•Rapid Bus
Conceptual view of Transit Plaza OverlookAttachment 4a
Gateway Plazas
concept
•iconic design
•landscaping
•crosswalks
•paving and lightingAttachment 4b
Gateway Plazas
conceptCurrent Parking
site plan
Attachment 5
Metro Parking – Not a part of Current Triangle Site Parking
METRO PARKINGProposed Parking Encroachment
site plan
Attachment 6Venice Property Acquisition
site plan
Attachment 7Open Space
concept
Attachment 8
•Passive usageOpen Space
concept
Attachment 8a
•Active usage
•ProgrammedHotel
concept
•boutique
•low rise
•high end ($150 - $250+)
Attachment 9Hotel
concept
Attachment 9bConnectivity
adjacent areas
Attachment 10I. TRIANGLE SITE
WASHINGTON NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
OPTIONS
Density Allowed
Density Provided
Office
Retail
Hotel w/ 2000sf mtg rm; 4000sf rest.
Restaurants
Residential
Comm. Bene.
Building Height
Total Hotel/Porte-cochere Surface Prking
Office (1:350)
Retail (1:250)
Hotel (1.05 per room); Meeting
Rooms/Restaurants (1:100sf)
Restaurant (1:250)
Residential
(2 per du and 1:4 guest)
Metro Below Grade Parking (258 Spaces)
Metro Parking Surface (242 Space)
Total Prkng Reqrd (242 surface & 1,493
subt @ 2 levels = 1,735 supplied)
Excess or Shortage of Parking based on
Parking Supplied (1,735 spaces)
Integration of LRT Station
Intermodal Component on Venice
Encroachment Metro ROW
(150' wide & 2.37 acres [.39 in LA])
Metro Prkng 500 spaces provided
ALTERNATIVE 1
w/ Venice Prop.
w/ National and Expo St's.
w/ Metro ROW
w/ Metro Prkng
w/ Comm. Bene.
65 du/ac
(4.47 ac)
65
du/ac
115,000 sf 53,250 sf n/a 10,000 sf 290 du's
Open
Space -
.47 aces
plus
paseos &
plazas
56' 80 329 213 0 40 653 258 242 1735 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes
ALTERNATIVE 2
Reduced Project
w/ Venice Prop.
w/ National and Expo St's.
w/ Metro ROW
w/ Metro Parking Below Grade
w/ Comm. Bene.
65 du/ac
(4.47 ac)
39.15
du/ac
180,000 sf 70,000 sf n/a 10,000 sf 175 du's
Open
Space -
.47 aces
plus
paseos &
plazas
56' 80 514 280 0 40 395 258 242 1729 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes
ALTERNATIVE 3
Reduced Project
w/ Venice Prop.
w/ National and Expo St's.
w/ Metro ROW
w/ Metro Prkng
w/ Comm. Bene.
65 du/ac
(4.47 ac)
33.55
du/ac
150,000 sf 70,000 sf n/a 10,000 sf 150 du's
Open
Space -
.47 aces
plus
paseos &
plazas
56' 80 429 280 0 40 338 258 242 1587 148 Yes Yes Yes Yes
ALTERNATIVE 4
Commercial Only
(Office,Retail,Hotel)
w/ Venice Prop.
w/ National and Expo St's.
w/ Metro ROW
w/ Metro Prkng
w/ Comm. Bene.
n/a n/a 200,000 sf 80,000 sf 149 rms 30,000 sf n/a
Open
Space -
.47 aces
plus
paseos &
plazas
56' 80 571 320 216 120 0 258 242 1727 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes
ALTERNATIVE 5
Phase I only (Culver City Area)
w/o Venice Prop.
w/o National and Expo St's.
w/o Expo ROW.
w/o Metro Parking
w/ Comm. Bene.
65 du/ac
(2.89 ac)
65
du/ac
25,360 sf 30,662 sf n/a 13,560 sf 187 du's
Public
Parking
56' 80 73 123 0 55 421 0 0 672 47 Yes No No No
ALTERNATIVE 6
w/ Venice Prop.
w/ National and Expo St's.
w/ Metro ROW
w/ Metro Prkng
w/ Comm. Bene.
65 du/ac
(4.47 ac)
65
du/ac
70,000 sf 31,500 sf 149 rms 10,000 sf 290
Open
S[ace -.47
aces plus
paseos &
plazas
56' 80 200 126 216 40 653 258 242 1735 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Over for Notes:Assumes:
1. Alternatives 1 thru 4,& 6 assumes allowable density based upon 4.47 acres (Includes area in Los Angeles and is a larger land area than previous plans).
4.47 acres comprises the Triangle Site and Exposition Street at 2.89 acres, Venice Properties and Exposition Street at 1.12 acres and 25 feet of the Metro
ROW in L.A. and in Culver City at .47 acres.
2. Alternatives 1 thru 4 & 6 assumes encroachment areas of Metro ROW, Expo Street, Venice Properties and National Blvd.
3. 2 levels of parking (including encroachment areas of Metro, Expo Street, National Blvd., and Venice Properties.)
4. Metro joint development with Rapid Bus Intermodal Station turn-out at Venice Blvd. and parking below, retail at grade and office or residential above.
5. City of LA Joint Development for same density allowances and parking ratios as Culver City.
6. Central open space of .47 acres plus paseos and at minimum 4 plazas on site.
7. Alt. No. 5 allowable density based upon 2.89 acres (only triangle site and Exposition blvd street vacation).
8. For calculating parking for Retail and Restaurant uses, a “Shopping Center” aggregate ratio of 1:250 was applied.
9. Assumes 1,735 supplied spaces = 242 surface short term spaces and 1,493 subterranean parking supplied based on land area
of 4.42 acres. This includes Venice Properties & Expo Street (1.12ac), Metro ROW in LA & Culver City (2.76 ac), and
Encroachment into National Boulevard (40' or .54 acres). plus 252 spaces Interior Spaces adj. National; 142 spaces interior core
around central core open space.
10. For Alt 5. - Assumes land area (2.89 ac) in Culver City only - No Metro ROW encroachment for Parking.
Total Parking supplied is 719 spaces (2.89 acres x 43,569 = 125914.41/350 x 2 = 719 stalls).Culver City Redevelopment Agency
Fiscal Impact From New Development
Project:
General Fund Revenues
Description Sales Tax Business Tax Utility Tax
Transient
Occ. Tax Property Tax
Total
On-going
8-year Total
Return*
Alternative 1 $106,500 $41,550 $52,459 $0 $19,000 $220,000 $1,956,000
Alternative 2 $140,000 $71,680 $60,830 $0 $19,000 $292,000 $2,597,000
Alternative 3 $140,000 $59,320 $52,140 $0 $19,000 $270,000 $2,401,000
Alternative 4 $180,000 $83,937 $82,500 $734,198 $19,000 $1,100,000 $9,782,000
Alternative 5 $115,564 $22,005 $33,924 $0 $19,000 $190,000 $1,690,000
Alternative 6 $63,000 $18,677 $65,274 $734,198 $19,000 $900,000 $8,003,000
*Assumes 3% annual growth of General Fund Revenue.
Redevelopment Agency Revenues
Description
Estimated
Land Value
per sq. ft.**
Total Estimated
Land Value
Other
On-going
Revenues Total On-going
Less County
Admin and Pass
Through pymnts
8-year Total
Ongoing Return*
Alternative 1 $99 $12,463,000 $2,184,000 $1,703,000 $14,600,000
Alternative 2 $116 $14,603,000 $1,852,000 $1,444,000 $12,400,000
Alternative 3 $39 $4,910,000 $1,364,000 $1,064,000 $9,100,000
Alternative 4 ($112) ($14,099,000) $1,331,000 $1,038,000 $8,900,000
Alternative 5 $99 $12,463,000 $1,429,000 $1,115,000 $9,600,000
Alternative 6 $22 $2,770,000 $2,065,000 $1,611,000 $13,800,000
*County Admin and Pass Through payments have been deducted; assumes 2% annual growth of Tax Increment revenue.
**Land value per square foot estimated by Keyser Marston Associates.
Washington/National Project
On-going Annual Revenues
On-going Revenues One-Time Revenues
Tax Increment
$2,184,000
$1,852,000
$1,364,000
$1,331,000
$1,429,000
$2,065,000
Fiscal Analysis estimates developed by Budget and Finance staff using assumptions developed in association with Keyser Marston Associates.