City Council Meeting: May 13, 2008
Agenda Item: 7-A
To: Mayor and City Council
Subject: Land Use Entitlements for the for the
This report recommends that the City Council:
1. Amend the Land Use and Circulation Element to allow neighborhood serving uses in the Civic Center Area; (Exhibit D)
2. Amend the Civic Center Specific Plan CCSP related to the proposed housing development (Exhibit D);
3. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow neighborhood serving uses in the Civic Center Area (Exhibit F) and approving Development Agreement 07DA-008-The Civic Center Village Residential Project, with conditions, requirements and mitigations proposed in the Development Agreement (found at Exhibit G).
Site A- Market rate condominiums and
ground floor retail Site B-Affordable housing, sharing a
common parking garage with A. Site C-Market rate condominiums on a
stand alone site south of the
Site A- Market rate condominiums and ground floor retail
Site B-Affordable housing, sharing a common parking garage with A.
Site C-Market rate condominiums on a
stand alone site south of the
The proposed Development Agreement for the
● 160 Units of affordable housing - 50% of project residences
● Affordable Artist Live Work Units and Public Art
● Child Care Contribution of $500,000 towards operating a future Civic Center Child Care facility in addition to the required Child Care Linkage fee of $92,000
Space, including a publicly-accessible pedestrian street and plaza (
● Aggressive Sustainable Transportation Program including Transportation Demand Management measures, shared parking, and $700,000.00 for transit enhancement
● Infrastructure improvements including Olympic Drive extension and streetscape
In addition to these public
benefits the project provides a unique public/private financing partnership
that leverages the Redevelopment Agency-owned land in the
Four community workshops and a number of public hearings were held before Boards, Commissions and the City Council during 2006 and 2007 to consider the design for the Village. The community encouraged design adjustments to the CCSP when design could enhance public benefits. Based on this input, in August, 2007, the City Council authorized the developer-design team to explore the location of public open space, alternative heights, setbacks, and building stepbacks rather than strictly adhering to the development standards established in the approved 2005 CCSP. In December 2007, the Council reviewed a revised concept, and authorized staff to begin negotiation a Development Agreement. The current proposal is a refinement of the concept which the Council supported in December 2007.
The final design responds to input during the comprehensive pre-submittal review from staff, the community workshops, the Housing and Recreation and Parks Commissions, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and City Council. Related made the following design revisions to address comments received during the design review process:
Modifications to the site plan to increase open space and improve
versatility of the “
● Site A reduction in mass adjacent to the park, and improved articulation.
Site A, early scheme massing Site A, current proposal improved massing and articulation ,
● Redistribution in mass from Site A to Site C, providing increased height on the southwest corner within the context of the adjacent 96 foot high Viceroy Hotel.
● Increased landscape area.
Greater pedestrian orientation and articulation at the
Subsequently, Site C was significantly redesigned with:
● Greater height adjacent to the Viceroy hotel to absorb the redistributed mass from Site A with improved light and air circulation,
● Articulation at street level with pedestrian amenities including plaza and fountain
Articulation to reduce massing from
● Improved views, providing greater opportunity for the market rate condominiums to fully subsidize the affordable housing.
August 2007 Scheme for Site C November 2007 Scheme for Site C
In November of 2007 staff brought forward the revised design proposal for Site C to a community Design Update Workshop, where the new design, noted in the diagram above, met with support from the community members present, many who had participated in earlier workshops. In December 2007, the Council approved this concept, and authorized staff to negotiate a Development Agreement and draft CCSP amendments that would permit the concept.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project at their April 16 meeting and made the following recommendations to City Council with unanimous support:
Market the project to
2. Review parking to ensure sufficient parking for restaurants.
3. Maximize alternative energy opportunities without creating a financial burden.
4. Revise Conditions to maximize permeability and mitigate urban run-off.
5. Consider ARB criteria to allow extra height up to 8 feet for solar panels.
6. Continue to try and negotiate a program that includes unbundled parking without requiring it.
Allow closure of
8. Write deed restriction term to be commensurate with land lease, (99 years).
All of these recommendations have been incorporated into the revised Development Agreement and Conditions.
This project is located within the Civic Center Specific Plan area.
The CCSP sets forth a vision for the Village Special Use District as a
mixed-use, urban neighborhood. Providing
housing in the Village District is an important objective of the CCSP in
addressing citywide housing needs and in transforming the
Illustrations of the proposed design are provided In the Development Agreement (Attachment G). The following is a summary of key dates in the history of the Civic Center Specific Plan area:
1993: CCSP originally adopted;
2000: City’s Redevelopment Agency purchased
11.3 acres of property within the
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.
Village project 2007
June-July: Joint meetings of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency held; City Council authorized staff to begin Development Agreement negotiations and approved design concept for the Village that includes a portion of the building height on Site C not to exceed 96-feet, for the purpose of reducing some of the massing on Site A per recommendations from Planning Commission and the Architectural review Board, with remainder of building not to exceed 65-feet.
November Design Update workshop to discuss project progress subsequent to the Council authorization to begin DA negotiations, Community supported revised Site C design and noted over all improvements while asking for demonstration of how project meets proposed LUCE principles.
December: City Council reviewed updated design concept for the Village which included revised massing on Site C building with heights varying from 65-96 feet, and approved this design concept.
A full summary of the public participation of the Village design process is included in Attachment B:
Planning Commission Discussion
The Planning Commission considered the project at their April 16, 2008 Public Hearing. The staff report and attachments may be viewed at: http://www.smgov.net/planning/commission/agendas/pc2008/ps2008041609-A.pdf .
At the Planning Commission hearing, staff requested specific attention to four areas of unresolved negotiations:
1. Transit Enhancement Fee- Staff proposed a $700,000 Transit Enhancement fee to be used to support alternate modes of transportation resulting in additional reduction of vehicle trips city-wide. Related proposed providing $350,000 in light of the overall project budget. Trip reduction strategies supported by these funds would include but not be limited to:
● Subsidy to the Big Blue Bus (BBB) operations for the approximately 248 estimated daily bus rides generated by this project. (Projected estimates show the City will provide a total of over $1.76 million in transit subsidy to serve the project residents over the 20 year term of the DA- assuming 5 days a week of bus travel and an average yearly increase in BBB operating costs of 3%, and current subsidy of one dollar per ride.)
Fund potential future
● “Eco-passes” or free transit passes
● Added bus routes
● An organized “children to school” program..
Prior to the meeting Related agreed to provide the full transit enhancement fee.
2. Unbundling of Parking Spaces;- Staff proposed additional trip reduction via marketing parking spaces separately from condominiums (unbundling of parking spaces). Related did not support this concept due to concerns about perceptions of reduced market value for units without parking.
The Planning Commission was divided on the issues of “unbundled parking” and recommended that staff and Related continue to pursue opportunities to allow this progressive measure, while recognizing Related’s concerns. The revised DA language provides for the option of unbundled parking rather than a requirement, and provides supportive measures to allow the future possibility such as leasing options and opportunities for future re-consideration of parking operations.
3. Alternative Energy: Staff proposed provision of 200kW of alternative energy provided with photovoltaics. Related has proposed to provide 100 KWh of photovoltaics, noting that the project budget has not included the cost of alternative energy generation because the original fuel cell concept was to be paid for by Sempra Energy. Related has concerns that the project budget will not support the full 200 kW of photovoltaics.
The Planning Commission recognized the financial implications of additional photovoltaic panels, but supported the concept of maximizing alternative energy where financially feasible, suggesting the pursuit of a tax district or some other mechanism to provide funding for alternative energy. The DA language has been revised to reflect this, providing for a minimum of 200kW if financially feasible, with the opportunity for a Minor Modification to no less than 100 kW with the provision that infrastructure be provided to allow for a additional panels in the future.
The Planning Commission supported
Related’s request to close the
Building Massing Envelope and Program: The project proposes six residential buildings with approximately 324 residences, and approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial 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
Up to 65 feet
high; measured form
109, 346 gross square feet, (GSF) of residential, 9,930 GSF retail
180 subterranean parking spaces
Site B: Four affordable apartment buildings, with ground-floor live/work space;
Approximately 28 one-bedroom, 56 two-bedroom, and 66 three-bedroom residences, plus 10 affordable units of live/work space intended for artists
Height – Up to 60
feet high measured form the
191, 549 GSF square feet
197 parking spaces
Site C: One condominium building, with ground floor retail; and approximately 98 one-bedroom and two-bedroom residences;
Up to 96 feet high;
159,288 GSF – residential, 7,400 GSF retail
237 total spaces; 13 of those spaces at grade.
The following diagram shows the range of building heights and set backs
Design Review Process and Negotiation
Designing within the parameters set by City Council direction, the Related Company development team participated in a thorough pre-submittal design review with City staff involving the site plan, pedestrian orientation, vehicle access, building massing, and design equity for rental housing.
Site Plan: In response to early staff comments regarding maintaining the broad axes which reflect the intent of the CCSP, the early concept plan was revised to provide:
● A clearer north-south
axis while accommodating the more predominant design element of the
● The public plaza was enlarged to reflect the community comments and enhance the relationship with the future Palisades Garden Walk across the street.
● The location of entrances and community uses on Site B were re-arranged to provide for a greater sense of community space.
North South Axis Olympic Plaza Site B Community Uses
North South Axis
Site B Community Uses
Building Articulation: The design teams spent considerable effort on refining the massing for both Site A and C both before and after the pre-submittal process
Site A-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 of Site A along Olympic Drive. The designers provided the buildings with stepbacks, balconies and off-set top floors to create volumetric variation and maintain a pedestrian scale at street level. The final design reduces the massing on Site A and transfers some of the condominium square footage to Site C which was entirely re-envisioned during the process.
Site C- This site was redesigned several times, initially to provide a small public plaza to improve pedestrian orientation on Ocean Avenue, and in its current design with three building elements separated by open space, to provide greater light and air both from the pedestrian perspective and from upper floor units.
Pedestrian orientation: The design teams paid particular attention to pedestrian access throughout the site.
● The 20 foot wide
required fire access was reconfigured to use Olympic Plaza so that the western
portion of the
● The interior elevation for Site A was refined to improve pedestrian orientation at the ground floor and provide for a simpler layer of privacy screens.
● The architect redesigned
the ground floor building height at Site A and
● The ground floor of site C was redesigned at staff’s request, resulting in an articulated store front system and a small public plaza with a fountain, and a central lobby area that allows pass through to the surface commercial parking, and anchor retail, on the north and south corners of the site.
Skybridge: The skybridge was reduced in scale at staff’s request and narrowed by 10 feet to improve the overall massing perception from the park and to increase the access of light and air to the Site B affordable residences.
landscaping throughout the site has been increased and made lusher in response
to the direction from staff, the City Council, and the Recreation and Parks and
Planning Commissions and the Architectural Review Board. Staff believes that
the landscape design could be further increased and enhanced to meet the stated
intent to provide an environment reminiscent of the bluffs and
Design equity among buildings: The design team responded to staff comments about maintaining visual equity among affordable and market rate buildings by varying materials and redesigning facades. A significant method for achieving visual equity is the use of materials and finish quality which will be specified at the Architectural Review Board review.
Access and Parking:
Pedestrian Access: The
design of the
Parking and vehicle access for Sites A and B: The Village is proposed to include two subterranean parking garages. One garage is shared by Site A and Site B, with a total of 377 parking spaces including residential parking for market rate units and affordable units, and shared parking for commercial and required guest spaces. The CCSP allows for a parking analysis to be conducted to determine the appropriate parking. The parking demand study provided by the applicant and completed in March 2008 shows that existing similarly structured affordable projects in the downtown areas do not utilize all the spaces built, thus the total number of spaces required by the Development Agreement for the affordable housing component is 56 spaces less than the Zoning Ordinance standard. If the Coastal Commission should require that the project be parked to the current Zoning Ordinance standard, the Planning and Community Development Director may make a minor modification to the Development Agreement to allow for the additional 56 spaces to be built. Staff recommends that the City Council support the number of parking spaces demonstrated by the demand study in keeping with the centrally located site with immediate access to non-single occupancy vehicle alternate modes of transportation, and the expressed community values to support sustainable development with multi-modal transportation.
Parking and vehicle access for Site C: Site C provides 13 at grade parking spaces entered from Vincente Terrace and 237 spaces in a subterranean parking structure entered from First Court Alley. This garage also provides shared parking between commercial and guest spaces.
In addition to addressing the goals of the CCSP and City policies which provide affordable housing, the proposed design also addresses community values expressed in the concurrent Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update effort to provide complete neighborhoods and reduce traffic by designing for pedestrian orientation and alternate modes of transportation. The following public benefits reflect how the project addresses the goals of the CCSP, City Policies, and the community goals which have been raised in the LUCE Update process.
● Affordable Housing: The proposed program achieves the CCSP goal of 160 affordable housing units. The proposed development promotes the City’s long standing policy of maintaining a diverse resident population by ensuring a significant amount of affordable housing is incorporated into this development, including family housing and live-work housing suitable for artists. The diversity of housing within this development provides the opportunity to use the value of the market-rate component to subsidize the cost of constructing the affordable component, thereby minimizing or eliminating the need for additional housing trust fund investment into the Village.
● Sustainable Design and Alternative Energy programs: The proposed development will be a minimum of LEED Silver certified and will include sustainable elements involving building design and materials, onsite energy generation from photovoltaic systems and energy savings due to green energy design, energy and water use reduction strategies, and recycling of construction and consumer waste. The DA requires that the project exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by a 30% target and that it aim to provide 200 kilowatts of power via alternative energy systems.
● Public open space: In the early community workshops the community
requested that the open space allocation be reconsidered to allow for a more publicly
accessible plaza and protected play area for children who are residents of the
project. The proposed project addresses this with 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, integrating the public and private with pedestrian
access and landscaping to provide a wide range of interactive opportunities on
the site. The proposed plan programs a public plaza connecting the future
Palisades Garden Walk and an east-west walk-street, named the
The community and commissions 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 proposed 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.
● Public Art and Affordable Artist Live Work Units: The design team includes two public artists who participated in the community design meetings, and have developed designs which contribute to the community experience. There are two public art pieces onsite, located at major pedestrian entrances. Pulse, to be located at the western entrance to the Living Street, allows participants to see their pulse rate transferred to ripples on the surface of a pool as a metaphor for a community “heart spring’, and ECHO, located at the entrance to the Olympic Plaza transfers sounds from waves at Santa Monica Pier to a light projection on the underside of the skybridge over the Plaza entry. The Arts Commission provided positive feedback at their February 25, 2008 meeting and unanimous support for the concepts. The concepts will be refined and return to the Arts Commission for final approval prior to building permit issuance. In addition to the onsite art pieces, the developer is making the required contribution of approximately $540,000 to be in compliance with the Developer Cultural Arts ordinance.
The affordable housing component includes 10
units of live/work space for which artists will receive priority for
occupancy. The live/work spaces are
located on the ground floor with large studio doors opening onto the
● Child Care Fee: To comply with the Child Care Linkage Program ordinance, the project will provide the required Child Care Linkage Fee of approximately $92,000 for capital expenditures related to childcare. In anticipation of the families with young children who will become residents of the project and will utilize the future Civic Center Early Childhood Care Facility, the developer will also contribute an additional $500,000 to be used for design, construction, operation and /or maintenance related to the new facility.
● Sustainable Transportation Measures: In keeping with the community concerns expressed in the LUCE update process, the project is designed to minimize vehicle trips to and from the site. A minimum of 50% of the retail uses on site will be neighborhood- serving, and the project utilizes shared parking between commercial and residential guest uses. The project will participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that has a performance target to reduce trips auto trips anticipated by the EIR by 35%. The TDM Program will be monitored on a bi-annual basis to determine if the identified measures are achieving this goal and, if not, the TDM Program will be revised as feasible in an effort to attain compliance. In addition to the TDM program, the project has extensive provisions for bicycle use, including onsite storage for more than 100 bicycles for residents and employees.
Transit Enhancement Fee: The developer will contribute a $700,000
Transit Enhancement fee for programs such as subsidies to the Big Blue Bus
service enhancements to the
Improvements: The proposed
project includes the extension of Olympic Drive from
Provisions of the Development Agreement
In addition the public benefits and urban design of the project, the Development Agreement includes a number of other provisions. The following is a summary of the key negotiated provisions:
● Article 2.8 Alcoholic beverage permits: The DA authorizes up to 17,500 square feet of interior alcohol serving uses (with up to 3,000 square feet of adjacent outdoor dining area) which shall be subject to Conditional Use Permit approval.
● Article 2.12 (b) Building height measurement: The building height
shall be measured for existing grade on
● Article 3.1 (b) Vesting Period: The right to develop shall be vested for five years after the date of the approval with permitted extensions of one year for Sites A and B (total 6 years)and 2.5 years for Site C (7.5 years) to be granted by the Director of Planning and Community Development
● Article 10 Term: The term of the Development Agreement shall be 20 years.
● Article 2.13 Infrastructure financing: The Development Agreement sets forth the option, at the Developer’s request, to consider establishing a tax district to finance the infrastructure improvements in accordance with the Mello-Roos Community Financing Act of 1982 or equivalent financing provisions as permitted.
● Article 3.2 (a) Minor Modifications: The developer may make minor modifications to this agreement with the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development without requiring a formal amendment process for the following:
o Revision of TDM measures
o Modifications to the number of parking spaces to comply with Coastal Commission approval requirements
o Reduction of solar voltaic kilowatt hours to meet the design requirements of the ARB, and or financial feasibility if necessary.
o Modifications required by new technical building requirements.
o Waiver or reduction of building inspection fees for Site B buildings.
o Reduction of up to 1% of overall public open space.
Amendments to the LUCE, CCSP and ZO
LUCE: The Land Use and Circulation Element will be amended to include the proposed uses of affordable housing and neighborhood serving uses in the Civic Center Area.
CCSP: While the intent and goals of the CCSP are met by the project, certain specifics of the CCSP standards need to be modified to allow for the design parameters of the proposed project as informed by the community process. The key aspects of the CCSP which must be amended are as follows:
Background -Amended to include the community and design processes for the Village project.
The Vision and Open Space-Amended to include the
Development Standards for the Village Special Use District-Amended to include:
● A revised site plan
which incorporates the
● Number of market rate units per site
● Location of neighborhood serving uses to be distributed throughout the site
● Setbacks slightly modified to reduce the street frontage setback to allow greater open space between buildings on the site interior.
● Stepbacks and height modified to allow for providing the required number of units within an acceptable building profile
● Height modified to allow for 65 feet in height on Sites A and B on Site C 68 feet in height stepping up to 96 feet high adjacent to the equally high Viceroy hotel.
Zoning Ordinance: The Zoning Ordinance requires a technical amendment to include the proposed uses of affordable housing and neighborhood serving uses in the Civic Center Area and to allow as conditionally permitted uses to include public recreational and visitor-serving uses such as hotels and commercial recreational uses, restaurants, and private offices.
Public correspondence is included in Exhibit A.
Previous Council Actions
The City Council has reviewed this specific project in broad concept form on two occasions in 2007, as summarized in the “Background” section above and in Attachment B
Previous Board and Commission Actions are summarized in the Background section of this report. Specific comments from these meetings are contained in Attachment C.
An Addendum to the October 2004 CCSP EIR (certified in June 2005) was prepared for consideration with the previous document. The proposed project was analyzed pursuant to CEQA to determine if the changes to the project would result in any additional significant impacts other that those analyzed the EIR. The key areas of evaluation were Aesthetics, with particular attention to shade and shadow in relation the changes in building envelope, and Traffic Circulation due to the shift from two vehicular access points for sites A and B, one on Olympic Drive and one on Ocean Avenue, to one access only from First Court Alley off of Ocean Avenue. The analysis showed that there would be no additional significant impacts. The EIR Addendum is included in Attachment F. The City Council is required to consider this addendum with the 2005 CCSP EIR prior to acting on the project.
Notice of the proposed City Council hearing and ordinance language
was published a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing in The
The project provides
a unique public/private financing partnership that leverages the Redevelopment Agency-owned
land in the
The project must have all entitlements including Coastal Commission approval in place prior to the October 2008 Multifamily Housing Program funding deadline in order to qualify for approximately $10 million dollars of assistance for the affordable housing component. Extending the project’s entitlement timeline beyond the funding application deadline of October would likely result in failure to secure the MHP funding for the affordable housing component, thereby requiring an additional City subsidy to make the project financially feasible.
The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, will have a positive fiscal impact on the City, in that the project will provide contributions of $592,000 to child care and $700,000 to enhanced public transit and transit programs, and an approximate $540,000 Developer Arts contribution towards capital funding for arts and culture, and will provide 160 units of affordable housing subsidized by the market rate development, therefore reducing the City’s overall affordable housing obligation.
In addition, there will be long term energy cost savings for the future residents for the buildings with alternative energy systems.
Development Agreement Findings
1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and the Civic Center Specific plan, in that the proposed project is consistent with the Civic Center Specific Open Space Policies OS-12 to provide a network of pathways and promenades, OS-13 to create continuity in the network of and bicycle pathways through the Civic Center in that the proposed project will provide pedestrian access through the Civic Center site, create a large public plaza at Olympic Drive and small public plaza on Ocean Avenue, and will provide restaurants to serve residents, and will address Land Use Element Objective 1.5.4 which aims to "encourage day and night with pedestrian activity along the street frontages on Main Street and Ocean Avenue" by incorporating restaurants in the project.
2. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located, in that the subject property is located in the CCSP district which allows for the development of a residential village to include a minimum of 324 units with a minimum of 160 affordable units within a setting which will enhance and enliven the Civic Center Area and addresses the CCSP policies related to housing circulation and open space. The CCSP Development Standards addressing the Village Special Use District, VD-1, location of residential units, VD-2 density of residential units, VD-3 and VD-5 development of 160 affordable units, and VD-6, development of up to 20,000 square feet of commercial uses are all specifically addressed in the proposed development.
3. The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices, in that it implements the vision established by the Civic Center Specific Plan for the construction of a residential use in the CCSP district which will include 160 units of affordable housing and provide additional public benefits including: public art, 10 units of artist live/work space, alternative energy production and sustainable building design and transportation measures as outlined in CCSP Sustainability policies S-1, S-2 and S-4 to ”Establish a compact and mixed-use pattern of development that reduces dependence on the automobile and that enhances viability of other transportation modes...that are less consumptive of non-renewable resources” and S-10 “Employ green building practices…”, as well as contributions of $500,000 to child care and $700,000 to enhanced public transit.
4. The proposed Development Agreement, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, in that it allows the development of uses that are consistent with the CCSP land use designation, which allows for the development of a residential Village and neighborhood serving uses as well as providing both pedestrian and vehicular circulation through the former ”superblock”, and for which the proposed sustainability measures of green building, public transit incentives and improved circulation have the potential to enhance quality of life in Santa Monica.
5. The proposed Development Agreement will enhance the orderly development of the property, in that the Development Agreement facilitates planning and development by granting vested rights to the developer as permitted under the Development Agreement Statutes.
6. The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, will have a positive fiscal impact on the City, in that the project will provide contributions of $500,000 to child care and $700,000 to enhanced public transit and transit programs and will provide 160 units of affordable housing cross subsidized by the market rate development which therefore reduces the City’s affordable housing obligation.
Exhibit A Public Correspondence
Exhibit B: Public Participation in Village Project
Exhibit C Boards and Commission’s 2007 Actions
Exhibit D Draft LUCE, CCSP and ZO Amendments
Exhibit E EIR Addendum
Exhibit F Ordinance Approving Development Agreement
Exhibit G Draft Development Agreement (including renderings, project plans)