Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Wow, it was kind of amazing. I'm going to move to to wave as many presentations as can be waved. Is that right? I'm also wondering, can we take 8 and 11 together? I feel like the ordinance 8 and 11 is the second and the um DA on everything about digital billboards together. I think it's okay. Well, you can suggest it. They've already combined two. Okay. Good thought. Yeah. See, you'll get them answered

one time. Good thought. All right. I don't know. Are they ready?

I'm not ready. Wait, I have I call this planning commission meeting to order on October 29th at 6:03 p.m. Can we have the pledge of allegiance? And Commissioner Fresco, would you lead us to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [snorts] [clears throat]

Play ball. Let's win. [laughter] [clears throat] We have the roll call. Uh, yes. Uh, Commissioner Fresco here. Commissioner Lampbert absent. Uh, Commissioner Landris here. Uh, Commissioner Reese absent. Commissioner Wasserman present. Vice Chair Choco present.

And Chair Hamilton absent. Uh, before we begin, staff wanted to make a quick recommendation to do a couple agenda management items. Uh specifically, we are suggesting the commission move item 10A, the commission's annual review to the after the public hearing items in order to not disrupt the overall conversation regarding digital signs. Um also uh we are recommending to combine the presentations for 11B and 11C as they are under the same ownership. Uh we would still need to conduct separate public comments for each item and would need separate mo uh motions. Uh, and if the commission agrees, we would just need a motion to agenda manage and a second and we can do a roll call vote.

Before I make the motion, I just have a question. I'm under the impression that we are meeting on November 19th. Is there a reason we have to do item 10A tonight? Could we push it to the 19th entirely? We possibly could. Um, there is a uh there is a request from the city clerk to get that in before the November 19th, but not too much sooner. So if the night goes too long, we can maybe have that discussion. Is there anybody who's Oh, it's you. It's you. So you're you're you're stuck with us no matter what. Okay. Otherwise, I was going to say, could is there someone we could send home mercifully, but sadly no. Okay. I'll make your mo I'll make the motion as you recommend. Second.

Uh we could do a voice vote. Uh all in favor say I. I. I. Great. Motion passes. Great. Can we proceed with the director's report? Oh, that is way too small. Okay. [laughter] Tired eyes. Okay. Um, so at your next uh planning commission meeting, uh we currently do not have items. Um at the November 5th meeting, we have not cancelled it yet. Um just in the interest of you know should there be any um action that comes out of tonight um that might need to be at that meeting. Um November 19th um is your other regular meeting in November and that will be the uh SB 684 and 1123 uh recommendation um on an ordinance and this is codifying council's direction. At the December 3rd meeting, um there will be a recommendation from uh the commission to review um economic opportunity and growth amendments and code cleanup. So, this is sort of a list of um amendments that we've been compiling um you know, sort of a more comprehensive code update related to economic recovery um that will be coming forward. And December 17th currently has no items. Um at the ARB, uh the November 3rd, uh meeting um has been cancelled, I believe, due to lack of items. Um and the next meeting of the ARB will be November 17th, um where it's a housing project at 1320 Pico Boulevard and also their uh boards and commissions review. Um Landmarks Commission at their November 10th regular meeting will also have their annual review. um at the city council last night. Um uh they've they adopted um approval of three uh Millsac contracts um that were up. Um in

addition to that, council also gave direction for staff to return um with more uh information and options, you know, in terms of um how the Milzac project will be, excuse me, Milzac contracts will be administered in the future. They certainly had an interest in understanding you know what is the impact on uh property tax revenue for the city sort of best practices even from other cities such as um Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Diego um who have um mature historic preservation programs and just kind of understanding approaches there. So um you know certainly staff is very familiar with that. We have we did that kind of review about 10 years ago. Um, so we anticipate bringing that back um to the commission or to to the city council in early 2026 before um ju just so any other property owners may be on notice uh with any changes in the program. Um last night also the city council um had extensive discussions around the Santa Monica realignment plan. Um this is essentially a fra a guiding framework um establishing priorities um in the city's work plan for the next two years. um and really focusing around the notions of strategic priorities of um safe and clean uh neighborhoods, economic opportunity and growth. Um developing affordable, livable and secure housing, creating organizational capacity, and building organizational health. Um I think I've talked about you know these these uh these initiatives um that have been ongoing since the start of our new city manager um around our behavioral values of humility, integrity, uh motivation and care um internally. You know that's that's our um guiding post for um the city organization building capacity in terms of um bringing back uh resources both in terms of positions. So strategic investments um in in in positions for example in our code

enforcement division, you know, adding two code officers, allowing us um to have weekend coverage um adding contract services to build capacity within um our uh permit services, you know, to be able to to to sort of um achieve um some um aggressive but not but absolutely achievable um plan check turnaround times. um that's really centered around um the nuclearity um software permitting system but as we know technology doesn't fix everything you know so that will um be in line with um you know process re-engineering will be working across the organization in terms of you know really thinking through what's the most efficient development services process that that serves our community and our customers um and then the C council also adopted um resolutions of intention I'm I'm really speaking to things that are within sort of the planning commission's perview resolutions of intention um to look at development standards, land use and process um for city- owned sites in the downtown and also public and private properties within the former gateway master plan area. These are ideas that are in the downtown community plan. they're being um revitalized um as a means to drive value on you know being strategic with uh city-owned properties and driving reinvestment um in our downtown and in in the leadup to major global events you know that are going to be upcoming in 26 27 and 28. So um really exciting times um you know for for the organization you know really giving us a shared purpose mission and values um and uh you know you can certainly take a look at at last night in terms of um the very expansive um organizationwide work plan but those are some of the the highlights um you know that you'll be hearing about at least from community development um at the November uh 18th um council meeting coming up will be an appeal on a structure of merit designation 112518

street and um the digital sign district ordinance is also anticipated to be at that meeting. Um and we've listed you know depending on the commission's recommendation of course on the development agreements. You know if there is that recommendation it would be anticipated beyond that November 18th meeting as well. So that concludes my report. Thank you. There any questions? Um start with you commissioner.

Thank you. Um yes I am I mean I share in the broad excitement about the um the new plan. Could would it be possible for us to get a presentation on the pieces that affect planning for example? I was really intrigued to read about the a using AI to do plan check. I think it would just be cool to to learn more about it but also good for you know the public to kind of see that in a presentation format. Sure. Yeah. we we'd be happy to to walk through that. Um we may not have all the details. Um this is a sort of like two-year effort. So some things will happen right away and others will come out over a longer arc, but of course happy to highlight um be great. Yeah. Things within the commission's

and also the you know what where you think the how you think the code enforcement is going to play out and some of the some of the other pieces but however we can be supportive. Thank you Commissioner Wman. Uh yeah, one of the items um I'm looking at the agenda from last night says um authorized staff to focus city housing development efforts in the downtown core and concurrently directed staff initiate studies to identify policy options that do not jeopardize housing element certification and also ensures that future development on boulevards achieves compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods. Um so I guess I was wondering that's a separate item at least on this agenda from the two resolutions of intention.

What exactly does that mean and what's the timeline with that one? Yeah, I I mean I think it's just a a request from the council for us to come back, you know, to to really take a look at and you know, I think our guiding star being not jeopardizing the certification of the housing element, but really thinking, you know, are there creative ways um that we could incentivize um um you know, different kinds of of development types? um you know I don't think it would be a re reme-measuring of base standards per se but uh may take the form of for example incentive programs um you know that I think we're really thinking through those ideas so you know we will bring back information about that um you know we don't have everything formulated yet but it's a it's a request to kind of look at that and bring back options

great and then just one comment because I feel like no one else will make it on the realignment plan um one of the things that was minor items was suspending the requirement that businesses survey um transportation demand management, how people get to work. I'm a I work in transportation data. I know that it's a burden, but I am sad that that one little item passed because I feel like we can't measure we can't improve what we can't measure.

Yeah. Yeah. And the the um uh DOT will be coming back with options. That kind of applause will require an ordinance um amendment, you know, so they're they're obviously looking at the options and they'll be bringing that back to council. Any more questions? Do we have any commissioner announcements?

None. Go vote. [laughter] Okay. [sighs] All right. Um, I'd like to announce a few uh procedures regarding speakers. Um, if there are uh speakers who wish to speak on a agenda item, they must submit a speaker request form with a chip that looks something like this and submitted to the commission secretary on my left. [clears throat] And um all these requests must be submitted to the commission on hearing items before they come under consideration. Do we have any speakers who wish to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? Hearing [snorts] none, um we'll move on to the consent calendar which are for minutes only. Um, do any commissioners wish to pull the items from the agenda?

Um, I just Ethan, did I remember to send you my correction? You didn't get it. Then I have to pull it because I forgot to send it in. Would you care to make a motion? I move to pull. Do I have to move it? I can just pull it. Yeah.

Okay, great. Um so on page three of five uh about halfway down it says considerable discussion ensued about how some of the city's incentives designed to preser preserve structures of merit allow for limited waiverss of development standards. And uh basically that was a comment made by Commissioner Ree. And when he said structures of merit, he meant buildings that are worthy. And I actually commented that a structure of merit is a technical term that he didn't mean. So I would like the minutes to uh reflect that. So you could just say structures with merit, something like that. I just didn't want

me anything just not the term from our ordinance. And with that, I move the consent calendar with those changes. Any second? I'll second. Commissioner Fresco moves and Commissioner Wasserman seconds. Uh, I'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Fresco, I. Commissioner Landris, I'm I could abstain, but in the spirit of trusting my colleagues, I'll vote yes, even though I wasn't here. Commissioner Wasserman, yes. Vice Chair Choco, yes. See, Michelle, I do take direction from the city attorney. [laughter] I was going to say it's a vote of confidence. So, thank you.

So, motion passive. That moves us on to the study session.

Do we need uh do we have a staff presentation? Okay, good. Well, for this part, this isn't a DA. This is an ordinance. [clears throat] The ordinance isn't a DA. No. Okay, never mind.

Hi. Thanks for sacrificing your evening here instead of watching the Dodgers game. [laughter] [gasps] I'm sure this is just as exciting. Um, right. Who [laughter] right a big giant billboard to watch the game. That's why we're here tonight is for the digital display district ordinance. Um, so tonight's agenda, we're going to go over the draft digital display district ordinance that was published for public review on October 20th. Um, it's available on this website. I hope you guys all had a chance to take a look at it. Um, so tonight's agenda, we would be providing an overview of this ordinance and then we'd like to receive some um, planning commission comments on this ordinance for council consideration on November 18th. Um, C planning commission comments are not required or mandatory since this is technically not within the zoning ordinance. So, we're providing this as a courtesy review, but we happy to see forward along your comments to council. Uh, so just to give some background information, signage currently is regulated under chapter 9.61 of our municipal code. Um, billboards and off- premises digital advertising is currently permitted. off- premises digital advertising means that you're advertising for services or products that the um store or the retailer does not currently sell or provide. And so um I know the city recently made changes um about I think last year to allow animated signage um to to face onto the prominade. Um these are smaller scale animated signage and they don't permit off- premises digital advertising. So what we're proposing here tonight is completely new. It would allow for on and off- premise digital advertisement and it would be much larger than what would you that is currently allowed on the prominade. Um so today just to give

you some background which um we'll be going over tonight. Um the city has received four development agreement applications for digital signage. Um because the city's sign code does not allow for these types of digital displays. They're being processed as development agreements. Um and this is consistent with the ordinance which I will be talking about. Um so the draft ordinance has also been drafted in response to council direction that was provided on June 10th in the study session. Uh so this is kind of a history of how we got here. Um it started way back in September 2022 where council directed staff to explore a large digital signage program at Santa Monica Place. Um then in 2023 uh there was an adoption of an ordinance to award a franchise to big outdoor for the city's digital kiosk network. Um I mentioned some action recent actions that were done to revitalize the prominade and um the Bayside conservation district. This includes increasing the flexibility for animated signage as I talked about as well as establishing the third street prominard entertainment zone. So in align with those efforts, council on June 10th directed staff to draft a new digital display district ordinance that would encompass the third street prominade and the Santa place shopping center. They also directed staff to begin DA negotiations for these new digital displays. Um so the ordinance itself would serve as the regulatory framework to guide processing of the digital display development agreements. Um, it would provide the standards that every digital display operator would have to comply with and it would set forth the requirement that all of these displays have to be processed through development agreements. Um, so when we drafted the ordinance, it's really guided by four policy objectives which are advancing the city's vision of the downtown consistent with our loose and our downtown community plan. to driving the

economic recovery and revitalization of the third street prominant and Santa Mon shopping center as well as as well as balancing the innovation of digital signage technology with our you know city responsibilities to make sure that you know these digital signage do not overwhelm the neighbor the area. In addition, we want to make sure that these digital signage um provides community benefits as well as cultural en enrichment opportunities. So, in terms of the first objective, uh the ornate supports the city's efforts to reinvigorate the downtown as a our primary entertainment destination. It aligns with the city's uh recent designation of the prominadon as an entertainment zone and it's also consistent with all of our recent efforts to uh amend the zoning ordinance to streamline process and create flexibility for land uses on the prominade so we can get back the prominade to its premier you know destination it used to be. The district encompasses the third street prominade and the Santa Monica Place shopping center which is consistent with the city council's direction. Um they specifically told staff to ensure that the digital display district um only encompasses this area so that signage is not over proliferated in the area. Um there's a number of reasons for this one um the shopping center as well as the prominade are the city's economic heart. So I mean this area generates about 15% of the sales tax revenue. Um and it's the city's only pedestrian uh fully pedestrian shopping area. Um this area has a unique you know mix of uses with dynamic activity day and night and we have a lot of entertainment and cultural uses. So in terms of what the ordinance does it does restrict the digital displays new digital displays to the following locations which are on the corner buildings of the prominade and as well

as on the exterior faces of the shop Santa Mon shopping center. Um with respect to the corner buildings um each display cannot exceed 1,000 square feet. Uh alternatively they could have one or they could have two display faces meaning they you know it's basically two separate displays faces wrap the corner one on each side but together they cannot exceed 1,000 square feet. So it could be one 500 square foot facing Arizona and then one 500 foot facing prominade for example. And on the Sonoma Place shopping center, each of the display cannot exceed 1,000 square feet. So this is really our size limitation on these digital displays. Um these limited locations allow the city to minimize their impacts on surrounding residential uses. Um because outside of the prominade and this district and the shopping center, there's an abundance of residential uses, for example, on Sixth Street, Seventh Street, Fifth Street, and so forth. And so we want to make sure that we minimize impacts on these sensitive light receptor uses. Um also the corner locations allow us to leverage the prime visibilities of these hightra corners. Um these corners are frequently seen by you know pedestrians and cars alike. Um and by limiting it to these locations we we would prevent the oversaturation of digital displays in the downtown district. So based on the corner locations and the four that are proposed at Santa Mona Place Shopping Center, the district ordinance would permit up to 16 proposed digital signs. Um so this is what was studied in the light lighting study that has been attached to your staff report. And so you'll see it's I know it's kind of hard to tell, but it's those pink corners. And so of the 16, we have seven currently proposed under development agreement applications. um which are your next items that you'll be

reviewing. Um the purpose of the another important objective of the ordinance is to drive the city's economic recovery and revitalization of the third street prominade. Um with these digital displays, we can create new ongoing revenue streams um for the city and local businesses. We could also reactivate the storefronts and the facades of these um buildings with dynamic dynamic visually engaging content. We could display art. We could deate display civic news and and content. It also would draw new visitors and investments to the downtown. Um so also allowing these digital signs would encourage um advances in creative uh signage technology as well as allowing the city to display art and creative designs. So the ordinance does is more than just a regulator signage regulatory tool. It's also a placemaking tool. Um within the ordinance, it does require that when a digital display is put up that that building that is mounted on has to comply with specific occupancy thresholds and these occupancy thresholds would be determined per DA. Um this is to allow for account for variability of the sites. Um, also the occupancy thresholds ensures that someone just doesn't slap a sign on a building and walk away. We want to make sure that the downtown build the downtown it remains activated so that there is activity going on where the sign is. Uh, another objective of the ordinance is to balance innovation with responsibility. Um, we're trying to, you know, em embrace new technology with regards to signs, digital signs and digital displays that also respect the existing uses of the area and are aligned with the s city sustainability goals. And so each um under the ordinance each digital display must be processed by development agreement as I

mentioned and the DA itself would establish the terms and obligations of the digital display applicant and operator and all of these digital displays must comply with the ordinance and provide community benefits and per the ordinance design review approval of the digital displays done by the city manager. Uh what's in the ordinance? The ordinance establishes a number of standards. One I mentioned is the size. Um, so it's set at 7 1,000 square feet. Uh, there's also standards with regards to hours of operation. Um, we heard from council they kind of want they want to align with the entertainment zone and so um, hours are limited to sunrise to 1:00 a.m. Um, the 1:00 a.m. just allows us to respect the light sensitive residential uses are in the area. In addition, um recognizing the city's sustainability goals, um the ordinance establishes energy use standard that would require that these displays utilize 100% renewable energy sources. Um right now the city does have this uh option with the clean power alliance. Additionally, uh the ordinance does uh does permit prohibit audio except for when it's approved for city programming and events. Also, the ordinance requires that the displays be maintained in good condition and free from blight um such as rust, disrepair, and graffiti. Uh we also have a content allowance that allows uh off- premise advertising with first amendment compliant content guidelines that would estab. Um and for your information, we've provided some of these content guidelines here. Um, these content guidelines basically restrict things like obscene m obscene material matter, false deceptive material, material that infringes on copyrights, illegal activities, of course, uh, profanity, violence, anything that could be

mistaken for driver's distraction like a traffic signal or could mimic a traffic signal or any kind of traffic display. um we would uh we would prohibit as well as any materials that conflict with law. Um in terms of uh the illumination standards and the lighting standards, um we did contract with a lighting expert um Francis Kra who's here tonight to answer your questions if you have any to study all of the signs that could potenti potentially be bu built in the district. So that's all 16 signs as I mentioned with the corners as well as Santa Monica Place Shopping Center. Um and based on that we came up with these uh standards that would ensure that residential uses are not significantly impacted. So at daytime from sunrise until sunset luminance which is you know the amount of light source that's coming or the amount of brightness that's coming from that light source is limited to 6,000 candelas per meter. And in the evening, um, they have to turn that down to 300 candalas per meter squared, um, until 1 10 p.m. And between 10 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., then it's further reduced to 200 candelas per meter squared. And then after 1:00 a.m., it's required to be shut down until sunrise. Um, also there is a requirement that if there are residential uses nearby that um, the lighting and the luminescence um, cannot exceed the 3.0 0 foot candles. Um, and all of these all of these digital display operators will have to do a lighting study to prove that that they meet these standards. Um, we're also we also have standards to provide safeguards for driver safety and traffic safety. Um, couple of them includes prohibiting directional warning or danger signals. Uh, prohibiting red flashing, blinking, or intermittent lights that could be be mistaken for

warning signals. Also um if a digital build a digital display h is a static display meaning like it's not fully animated that static image transition needs to be at a rate of no more than one per 8 seconds and then the transition fade in from a previous image um from for static or not animated image should not be less than 1 second. In addition we would prohibit strobe effects, flashing images and scrolling text. Um this is to prevent people from becoming distracted trying to either read the digital sign or being you know just or having uh being distracted because they can't see. And um an important an important thing about a highlight of the ordinance is the the opportunity for community benefits and cultural enrichment opportunities within each. Um there will be a fi a financial community benefits section that will outline a revenue share of the gross annual revenues and a minimum annual guarantee whichever is greater. Um so for example it could be 20% of the digital displays gross advertising revenues. Um and it could be a minimum guarantee of let's say I don't know $500,000. So whichever is greater is what the city would receive. Um, we would also require a one-time contribution to be paid upon the display completion. Um, currently we uh an economic study is underway to determine the potential revenue generation of all the digital signs in the district. Um, that is yet to be completed and that will be used as the basis for finalizing our uh negotiations with these digital display operators in in the DA. And we do anticipate that the study will be complete before council hearing on November 18th. And then also an important um an important community benefit that is

written in the DA template um and that we will be discussing is that the each digital display must allocate 20% of its total annual operating time to city and art content. Um and so to ensure that this content is done in a uniform manner, it would be created through a city administered program or it would be curated, sorry, through a city administered program. Um so that we can ensure that everything aligns with our with our city policies. Um the digital displays offer a really unique opportunity for us to expand uh community access to public art and strengthen the economy, the creative economy in line with our arts everywhere, art everywhere program. It could turn basically any storefront into, you know, a piece of art. And so um it will allow us to show rotation of local highlights, cultural event promotions and seasonal showcases. And unlike stag static sorry static digital static art installations um we were able to you know rotate through different pieces of artwork. Um so this is a very important you know contribution to making making this basically an evolving outdoor public art museum in the downtown so that people can walk through and really enjoy a visually activated prominade. Um this program could be implemented similar to West Hollywood's moving image u media art program. Um this is their own kind of program which they do to make sure that all the art is and city content is appropriately displayed. And finally, um, we have received a number of comments and since publication of the draft ordinance, um, these are some revisions I've outlined in the staff report that we plan on making prior to, uh, when we take this back to

city when we take this to city council for final approval. One is to just to clarify the projections, encroachments um, have to be have to comply with requirements regarding hazardous visual obstructions. Another is just to clarify that you know the display limitations for Santa place shopping center. Uh another is just clarification regarding that you know the energy requirement um it applies where the such option is available by the utility provider. Um also maintenance standard is corrected to remove the word weeds. Instead we're putting putting the word rust. Um also lighting standards have been clarified to uh state the transitional requirement of 45 seconds. Um so that when it does transition between kind of the different illuminance and standards that there's a there's a slow transition so that it's not just you know transition from one brightness to another. Um we also have made clarifications regarding the emergency use. So with that, um, happy to answer any questions along, uh, have my, uh, all my colleagues who've also helped draft this ordinance, Susan Colola, Roxan Tennori, and Francis Ky here, as well as Katie Door to answer content guidelines and questions that you may have.

Thank you very much for that presentation. Since we have I believe questions from all commissioners, I'm going to start with Commissioner Fresco, switch to Commissioner Wasaman, back to Commissioner Landress, and I'll go last. So, with that, uh, Commissioner Fresco,

um, my first question is, uh, are these contracts, these DA contracts, are they with the property owner or with the service provider? And how does that work if one or the other changes? So, a couple of them. The 11 B and 11 C is the property owner. 11 A is with the operator and then uh 11D is with sorry I'm forgetting what 11D is 11D is with sorry 11D is with the property owner and and uh no 11A is with the property owner Merich that's 395 cinema and there is there is a an agreement that allows them the the receiver to be to uh I could take control here Sorry.

So, [laughter] no, the it's a development agreement which means uh it's going to be like recorded against the property. It will run with the land and so it is with the owner. Um and we have a provision which basically says that the owner even though there is a digital billboard operator. The owner is responsible for ensuring that the operator complies with the agreement. But ultimately it's the property owner that's responsible and it runs with the land. Meaning that if they sell the property, it runs to the next owner.

I see. And so if, god forbid, one of the operators vanishes off the place face of the earth and the sign is abandoned, the owner is responsible for finding a new operator or removing the sign. That's right. Okay. basketball.

Um, just so we all are on the same page about this, when you say the owner, if there is a receiver for a particular property or multiple properties, the receiver assumes all of the obligations of the owner. Is that correct? Well, during the receiverhip, they basically um it's kind of like a conservatorship that they take responsibility for protecting the property, uh managing the property. Ultimately, the property ownership remains, you know, whoever the owner is. It's just that they don't have control of it. And then if there's a foreclosure process, then ultimately there'll be a new owner and the receiver should be out of it. But if there's a disagreement between the receiver or the owner or between the receiver and the lender or lenders during the pendency of a development agreement, um who is the city calling to get a problem solved? That's really like where's the where's the accountability between those parties?

It's still the owner. So if the it's the owner if the bank takes over, for example, then it's the bank. uh if the receiver is kind of the agent for the owner, then they would be the ones, I guess, to implement the owner's obligations, but ultimately it's still the owner because it runs with the land. The owner disagrees.

Well, if the owner disagrees, that's their problem. I mean, it would be our problem ultimately, too, because practically uh if they were to be in default, we would have to, you know, exercise our rights under the development agreement. And of course it's always more complicated when you have a workout situation and a receivership situation, but um and I understand kind of why you're asking this and this is something that recently came up and uh you know so we we need to digest it a little more but we understand what you're asking and ultimately there's going to be a contract. It will be recorded against the property. It theoretically should be enforceable. Practically it may be difficult.

Thanks Susan. Commissioner Fresco, you still have questions. Uh, yeah. So, there was a little reference in the staff report about that the city might be considering doing this beyond the prominade. Is that a thing or was that just in theory? No, that's No, that was not in the staff report. We are taking our cues from city council staff direct city council direction to only limit it to the prominant and Santa Mon shopping center. Just wanted to make sure that and um

this kind of treads a little into discussion, but I just want to ask you is there a I want to say a good reason a reason I would think is good for why there's not landmarks commission review for putting 1,000 square foot signs on landmark buildings. Ultimately um the council will make be will be making the decision on the sign and I would also caveat that you know we are still in the process of completing the SQA analysis. Um and because of that there may be some tweaks to the ordinance. Uh it's just that we've been we've been directed staff has been directed to take this to council as soon as possible. Um and so we are working as fast as we can. we've, you know, we've contracted with all the consultants to get the reports. So, it's all coming. But ultimately, um, because it is a development agreement and because a development agreement contemplates deviation from this, you know, deviation from the ordinance, but recognizing that the city will still have to look at all the same aspects that we would normally look at if it if it were just a a standard ordinance versus a development agreement. So, it's kind of built into the development agreement.

I didn't see it, [laughter] right? I mean, there may be a Yes. Uh, yeah. I mean, our I mean that if you even in the historic preservation element, it says that these things will be reviewed by the public. That's like a a thing. So, it never says everything must go by the landmarks commission, but it does say that the public should have input into changes to landmarks. Right. But the the development agreement does contemplate a streamlined review and so it's not to have sequential discretionary reviews currently contemplated. So

and and and I think the purpose of um sharing the ordinance with the commission. So we actually released the ordinance about a week ago I want to say right um for public review um because the idea is to obviously have a framework established you know that would guide um these uh development agreements which are templates um again you know that was I think in the interest of kind of um you know having um everyone having you know playing by the same set of rules so to speak. So I think certainly we would welcome you know comments from the commission in that regard with respect to um the preservation aspect of this but ultimately you know it is council that will adopt the ordinance and they will take in all the input.

Okay. I I would also just add that they will all be subject to squa. So to the extent that right if it is a landmark building we would have to make sequa determinations. And just to say art is great but history presentations are nice too and it would have made my me feel better if you' remembered to say that in the report. [snorts] [laughter] Okay, that's my questions for now. Thank you. Last one. Thanks. Um first question. All right. How baked are the DAs at the moment? Are you able to are you still in negotiations? Are the comments we make tonight?

So, in items 11, A, B, C, and D, there is a development agreement template provided as an attachment. And so, uh, the terms of the of things like abatement, um, outside occupancy dates, those have been those have been, uh, negotiated. And so, that's what's in the development agreement template. As far as the financial contributions that is still being worked on currently, right? But if if we offer suggestions for changes, is it too late? So the one thing you need to realize is that we in order to maintain a level playing field for all the billboard operators, we need to have uh

provisions that are fairly uniform and standard. So while we can take in whatever suggestions you have uh just recognize that we are dealing with multiple parties and so uh we we do want to avoid a situation where we negotiate one you know one thing with one party and another with another party. Um

sure sure but changes that would affect the template for everybody. Uh well again we are willing to listen to your comments um and then if the comments are substantive we can take them back and talk to the other parties to see if they are open to this and see how far we get.

Great. Um I'm wondering I'm going to throw out an idea and I want you to tell me what's wrong with it. um you take the template from the DA, you pass an ordinance saying ministerially if you meet those points it's approved and you know you don't want the ordinance to be so long and so complicated. So you could say in the ordinance um staff is empowered to develop guidelines but you create a ministerial process where if you meet these qualifications you automatically get approved as opposed to a DA. What have I missed? The DA allows for more flexibility in community benefits. If we were to do an ordinance, uh it would be very difficult to negotiate those community benefits. And that's one of the primary reasons uh my understanding from is that that's why we were doing this and that's why council directed this.

Are there any of the benefits that could legally not be just a part of a checklist ministerial um process? Maybe it would help if you tell me what exactly are you

the the money, the the um minimum guarantees, the percentage of the ad revenue. Is that something that could be um asked of applicants as part of a checklist? So, in order to get your sign approved, you have to agree to this. And if you do agree to that, then you get it approved without having to go through any negotiations. You just meet that criterion. Yeah, I think the the difference between an ordinance and a development agreement is that again the development agreement we do not have to address issues relating to monetary exactions. Uh it is something that gives us more flexibility. So from a legal standpoint it is safer to be in a development agreement than in an ordinance. There's also the length of the term as Roxan was mentioning as well. Does it because of the length of the term? It's a 30-year agreement. So,

Sure. Um, that's that's helpful. Um, the corner parcels, was that what's the order there? Did did staff or council decide we're going to go for corner parcels and on the prominade and then these applications came in or the applications came in they happened to be from corner parcels and then that became the limiting principle. I think it was more of a mutual how we got there because in looking and talking with operators who there was the interest was only really in corners as well and it allows the city to really leverage the prime visibility of these corners getting the vehicle traffic as well as the pedestrian traffic and it allows us to you know basically control these signs so that they don't just overp proliferate along the prominade.

Great. Um the one of the items in in the presentation was talking about sort of the billboards increasing I forget what it said but foot traffic essentially down in the on the prominade. What did you have research other examples of billboards as attracting foot traffic and not foot traffic to a particular store? I've seen some pretty convincing research that they actually do drive sales, but like are people going to come to an area because of a billboard regardless of the content of it or the specific advertisements?

I I have not done research to You're asking about whether there's data that billboards, these digital displays attract visitorship.

Yes. Um, I mean I honestly I did not do that research, but I think you could kind of see in what historic areas like um LA live, New York Times Square, things like that. There was definitely a lot of I think it's really the the the fact that these the prominade and the Santa Play Center already have high levels of foot traffic is what lends itself to being a prime location for these digital displays rather than a reverse. it could attract more visitors as well. Um, as I mentioned, you know, with West Hollywood, you know, they envision these digital displays as kind of their form of outdoor art museum, you know. So, yeah, I would very much say that there is that possibility that these digital displays could be utilized in ways that would activate more of the storefronts and drive more visitors here.

Um, so that you you said the term was 30 years. um years plus two 10 year extensions. How feasible do you think it would be to lower that term from 30 years? 30-year term was also a council direction. Okay. And and what we've seen from other cities because of the significant investments that these digital displays do require they tend to be longer like 25 to 30 years. That is typical of what we've seen.

Um the scrolling text. Um I had email about this. Um do you have research that specifically I mean I understand a bright strobe light is going to distract drivers and that seems self-evident. Do you have evidence that like a little Chiron at the bottom of a screen like on CNN is going to distract drivers significantly?

Right. Well, in terms of what CALR prohibits for their digital displays along the freeways, they don't allow scrolling text. And so, we want to be conservative given that these are new installations. And so, we want to be on the conservative side and not allow these scrolling texts because it could pose somewhat of a hazard. Okay. Um, I have a question on the lighting. Um, I don't know if um you have someone who did the lighting study here. Francis is here. Yeah. Um, uh, foot candles, candelas. I admit I don't have a frame of reference. Um,

what? Yeah, give give me some frames of reference for these numbers.

Well, so, uh, good evening. My name is Francis Craig. uh and just briefly I can explain lighting is evaluated in two different metrics. One is what we term light trespass or light from one property to an adjacent property or a distant property. That light that falls on that second property is measured in foot candles. So if you have a light source in the ceiling and you were to evaluate how much light is at your desk, you would measure that in foot canvas. Luminance [clears throat] is the intensity of the source. So if you look up and you look into one of these light sources, that intensity, which you know we typically call brightness, the lighting technical term is luminance. And it's measured in candelos per meter squared. That really affects our perception of glare. So how bright that source is in your eye, your view from your eye relative to everything around it determines whether you have the sensation of glare, whether it's uncomfortable. In our study, [clears throat] we use a metric that says any source that's brighter than 30 times the background is considered a source of glare. That's a very conservative value. There's research that says that your eye can withstand 100 times, 200 times, but we set the bar very low for the consideration of the study to say that anything that's 30 times would be a source of glare. Um, so those are the two metrics that are used to evaluate the sign.

And I guess what is a in cities like LA that allow digital billboards already? What is a a CALR adjacent a freeway adjacent digital billboard? Um, what's the luminance? [snorts]

Yeah. So the the the uh 300 candelas per meter squared nighttime luminance is widely adopted in the city of Los Angeles, city of West Hollywood, city of Carson, uh many freeway adjacent billboards where there's a concern about uh intensity of light. Um, so [clears throat] I think from our experience that is u it's an effective balance. The signs are bright enough to be legible and successful commercially, but it's not so excessively bright that people find them offensive or they don't project uh inordinate amount of light onto adjacent properties. And do you typically are have you seen examples of other cities of different thresholds for like tall freeway adjacent versus like somewhat pedestrian scale or that's generally the same standards?

Um, no, it's a good question. Um, uh, I think that, uh, typically it's more about the context and the brightness of the adjacent area. So, um, the purpose of the digital display is to make the information prominent. And so, if you're trying to make something stand out in the context of a very bright space, then you need a relatively high luminance. If it's in a darker zone, um, it'll be prominent with a very low luminance. So, I think that's what drives [clears throat] that discussion. Um uh and I would just say that the measurements that we uh uh documented along the third street prominade and surrounding Santa Monica Place this part of the city is already well illuminated. So it's it's a relatively bright context compared to u even Sunset Boulevard. I mean, frankly, the light levels that we measured around Third Street Prominade were in some cases higher than what we've measured in West Hollywood.

Interesting. So, I think [clears throat] the the standards that we've proposed, again, the maximum luminance at night is the same as as as what's used in West Hollywood. The only difference here is that we're recommending a reduced level after 10 p.m. to 200 candelas per meter squared. Great. One more. Um for uh mind if I jump in on a lighting question while you're on this.

Thank you. Um a question about the illuminance standard. I'm just curious since it's measured at not at the source but at the impacted point um and I presume in order to make it enforcable um can you determine where the whatever that foot candle measurement is whether it's actually coming from the digital display or from other sources. Yeah. And is that a factor at all?

Yeah. So actually we have a testing regimen uh that we've developed for the city of Los Angeles and the city of West Hollywood um which is u recognized by um both cities. You know we've we've actually trained their staff in how to conduct these measurements. Basically, we um turn the sign on in its test mode, which is the all white mode. We measure the illuminance at the subject property. And then we turn the sign off and we measure it again. So you have the differential between the intensity of the sign on with and without

and and the intensity without. So it's actually pretty simple and widely used. I see. Um, another general question. I'm, as a relative newcomer to Santa Monica, I've been struck by how at a particular point during the day, you have the sun pretty low in the sky and a very bright almost blinding situation. And since this the luminance is measured based on the background, right,

I'm just curious how that maybe relatively limited period of time, how you address something like that. Well, the daytime luminance is much higher. It's set at 6,000 candelas per meter squared. And I believe most of these digital displays have the capacity to go up to 8 or 10,000 candelas per meter squared. So, um they can be even brighter than the maximum that's been suggested in the regulations. Um, that said, if it's 6,000 candelas, in most conditions, that's still legible in direct sunlight. Now, if you're looking at the sign and at the same time you're looking at the sun, there's no chance that you're going to see the sign because your eyes will be saturated from the sun. So, depending upon the angle that you're viewing, the sign surface, you know, it it may not be visible because of the glare of the sun. But generally I think again 6,000 um candelas per meter squared is widely used um and so I I I feel confident that it can be commercially successful.

Thank you. Back to you commissioner. Yeah. Uh one final question app propo of uh the World Series. Um what's this for? Yes. So, um I I I am not checking. Um the so the the DAS and and the ordinance as I understand it um allow for the city to kind of be flexible about how they use their time and put it together in blocks, separate it in blocks. Um let's say we have World Series or an Olympics where maybe we want to show I mean the Olympics happen, you know, dusk to dawn. that's going to eat up our time for the year.

Correct. Um, is there any provision for mega events? I have no idea how you would define it to change that distribution.

That is, you know, as that would take away from our revenue share. So, obviously, there's a sacrifice. You know, the more content that the city displays, the less we get in the less advertising revenue that is generated. Um, again, I think with these financial as we're still working through DA negotiations, but of course, the more we require these digital display operators to give up kind of their display time, the less they're going to offer us. So, it will affect our MAG, it will affect our revenue share. So, okay, that's useful. I'll save the rest for comments. Great, Commissioner Andrew.

Okay, thank you very much. Um, I'm going to just start with some little Well, I'll just sort of run through my list. Um, Rachel, you and I had talked about this issue around the word adjacent in the draft and it wasn't on your list. So, I just wanted to ask if you could clarify that. I did not. Yeah, I did not put that up here. Um, yes, it is. I believe it's in the staff report though, but the it would be it the actually the text is right there. Um, so illuminescence from any digital display or architectural lights shall not exceed 3.0 foot candles at any nearby residential uses to limit light trespass. So instead of the word adjacent, it says nearby. Okay.

So that is a correction. I believe that's identified in the staff report. Thank you. Yeah. Um, so yeah, that's Sorry. Do you mind if I jump in? Yeah, please. Um, is that ongoing? So if a new residence opens after the billboard, would that then potentially reduce their uh lighting? Yeah, I mean they would have to provide a phototric study every two years. So yeah, they would have to comply with the standard.

So next just a couple of things that we talked about and I and I want to just sort of ask um I'm going to do the I'll do render protections next. So the first thing I understand I'm given to understand that council's current mobility spending plan includes the establishment of no right on red at all of the intersections where the signs are proposed around Santa Monica Place. Um and you and I have talked about, you know, concerns about distraction and a driver looking up here and doing that and there's a bike right next to them. Um, in terms of the timeline for [snorts] this ordinance and when we think the lights would get switched on, is it a fair bet that stuff that's budgeted is going to get implemented before the lights get turned on?

Sorry, can you? So my understanding is that we are putting no right on red in the areas around where the light where the proposed signage will be which would help prevent a distracted driver from looking at a sign and not at the cyclist or pedestrian right next to them. So is your question about the effective date of the ordinance? No, it's like yes and what the timeline would be. Are you talking about the capital improvement on the mobility the the putting in uh implementing the no ride on red? You know what it takes to do that relative to the buildout of the signs from the ordinance?

Exactly. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Like my go like that's bleeding into discussion but my goal is that we have the no right on red activated before the signs are activated. Right. So yeah. [laughter] So the these DAs wouldn't become effective until the ordinance becomes effective. And what we've heard from operators, it takes about one or two years to construct these signs. There is also an outside building permit date as I mentioned where the operators have I think two two years to construct a sign I believe. Um I don't remember what it was but yes it two or three. Uh it's in the next PowerPoint presentation but yes they would it would it does it's not going to be overnight. It does take a year.

And Jane, do you think the CIP is going to get that done well before we hit those dates? Yeah, I mean, if it's included in the realignment plan, right? It's kind of like our work plan over the next two years, you know. So, I mean, I think the intent is to move forward on those things, you know, but can we make a promise as to when those would come online to when, you know, these no right on reds? I can say that it's a it's a priority if it's named in there, you know, that the investments, you know, will be made to implement those as as as quickly as feasible. Um, given the broad work plan.

Okay. I'll come back to it in discussion then because I think it's something I want council to look at. Um, okay. So, what let's talk about renter protections. So, has there been any f since I mean I did my meetings on Friday and we talked on Thursday. So, I'm curious whether there's been any formaliz like any discussion of um how best to protect existing renters who may for health reasons or other reasons have a problem being nearby a a sign and how we can keep the city out of this but we can protect the renters maximally

tenants of existing exactly existing tenants and I want I want to be clear because I think this goes with Commissioner Wasserman's question earlier. It it strikes me that someone who has those kinds of health concerns would not choose to move into an apartment that is nearby a sign that could be problematic. But it also strikes me that there could be tenants who are there now who ha who didn't anticipate there being signs. And we're going to want to make sure that in no case does a sign force that person, god forbid they get a medical reaction, but in no case should it force them out. So

So your your question is about how does the city protect its rights so that we don't get sued by a tenant and how does it pro well how Yes. And how does it protect the tenants? [snorts and laughter] Well, frankly, it doesn't address that. Um, it it is again the way it is addressed is through the like the technical limits on the luminescence and the foot candles. Um, and that is the way uh it is addressing the proximity to residential uses. There would be no way for us to actually figure that out. uh you know

well we know for example that when you go to the movies and there are flashing lights in the movies there's always a warning that says there might be flashing lights in this movie and if you have a medical condition that is triggered by flashing lights maybe you don't want to see this movie. So to the extent that we have no flashing lights and we have light limits and maybe our expert can speak to that. Do we know do we have evidence that the light limits that we have established are at a level of safety for people with medical conditions related to light?

Um I cannot assure you that someone who lives adjacent to the signs, who can see the signs, would not object to the signs. Of course, for many reasons, right, but right, I'm concerned about health. There is no [panting] uh evidence that I know of that would indicate because the sign ordinance prohibits strobing lights. Okay. Prohibits flashing lights. It it requires the lights to fade at a slow rate. So to your point about those issues, the the ordinance controls them.

Okay.

The the intensity of the light is limited as well, but it's not like it's zero. There is an intensity permitted. And so that's my point is that if that intensity is greater than zero, it will be noticed. And that recognition of it may be caused for people to be uncomfortable, you know, where they reside. It's not, you know, there's no guarantee that the threshold does not prohibit awareness, right? It's it it limits the intensity, but that doesn't mean you won't be able to see it. And if you can see it, there may be some medical condition that I don't speak to. Right.

Okay. So, I thank you very much. I I imagine the operators may have some things to say about this, right? Just want to know what the city's perspective is.

I mean, that would be an issue between the operators of the display as well as the tenant. we, you know, as the city, we should not be involved in trying to mediate legal disputes with regards to, you know, as long as they're compliant with the standards. I don't think, you know, that the city has a standing with trying to mediate between the two parties. And so, but I do know in the city of West Hollywood, some of the operators have, you know, tried to adopt a good neighbor policy where they may, you know, provide the re residents or the tenants of the residential building with blackout shades and so forth. So, I mean that is a question for that you can ask these um applicants.

Okay. Thank you. Uh I'll keep going. Um All right. So, next on my list is um All right. Uh West Hollywood has requires an 8-year technology improvement. Has an ex 8-year technology improvement and I believe some abandonment protections. What are you thinking here? We I don't I looked at I don't believe I see any mandatory updates in the ordinance.

Yeah, we actually did discuss this internally. The eight years um you know we understandably the there is the digital display operators don't have a I mean there's it's very much in their um benefit to try to upgrade and ensure that these digital signage are up to date in terms of technology. um we thought about including a requirement similarly but we just don't know how that looks like because you know technology changes so much we don't know how fast or how slow um I think we do you know we could write into the development agreement um something to the a clause something to the extent that the city reserves to write to uh analyze the digital display um eligibility for technical upgrades. Um but however, we just also don't want to we also don't want to overstep and require these upgrades such that they become economically unfeasible. They can't afford it. So we we didn't want to write it into the ordinance itself because we just don't really know what it looks like and it doesn't really seem like West Hollywood really knows what that looks like either. So,

and what about abandonment? I mean, I can see let me I mean, let me spec out a not impossible scenario. Uh there's an operator, there's an owner, uh there's a technical problem, the sign goes dark, uh the operator runs into financial problems, and the owner goes into receiverhip. And so despite the best of intentions, right, everybody's interning, the best thing is to turn the thing back on so it can make money, but nobody's really in a position to do that. What are the city's rights to let's say remove the sign and put a lean on the property for the cost of that removal or some other remedy?

So I think we can look into the sessation of use but there's sort of a natural inhibitor which is we would still be paid the mag. So they really have a disincentive not to do that. um it would not make business sense and to a certain extent we are relying on sort of common business sense but uh I think we can look at a cessation provision because uh presumably we're both on the same page about uh wanting to keep operating [laughter] righteous if they have to pay us. That's right. So yes.

Okay, that's great. Thank you so much. Um let us now go to something more fun and then I'll come back to something else and that I think is my list. Um, I had an I, so the way you described it, Rachel, with the 20% and the city art program, I believe, you know, I was looking at the MIMA program, which is really cool, uh, on Sunset Boulevard, but I also am of the understanding, and I'm asking this question now because I think it applies to everybody, that there are operators who have independent relationships with established institutions. We have some extraordinary art museums all over the county. uh galleries, right? All kinds of I mean digital media artists,

history nonprofits. History nonprofits. Exactly. Uh photography archives, right? To the extent that an operator has the that kind of cultural access. um how much flexibility would that operator have to bring that into the mix as part of the 20%. Or are they going to end up going to the city and say and the city be like no no no we want you to show our stuff you you you know you can show that on your 80% but not on our 20%. I'd like to have some flexibility there

because this is all brand new. you know, this program hasn't been written yet. And so we would, what we envision is that this city and art content program would be administered internally so that we become the centralized kind of point where, you know, if an operator, like you said, has special relations, of course, we could work with them. And so we could write that into the guidelines. It's just just Yeah. I mean this for now I think we don't want you know Joe Smith over there providing their own art and displaying it on their own you know um things we want to make sure that it is all being done through the city so that it is all centralized and you don't have a mix of you know different artist I mean not different artists but a mix of different implementation of this program

okay I I'm just asking in terms of trying to keep it as flexible

we can consider as we write the guidelines for this Uh and then okay so that my last question has to do with design review. Um and I'll again I'm going to come back to a discussion but I just want to preface this by saying that like I had this moment walking the prominade of realizing how much of my own life you know I think about signs. I think about the signs that we have in Los Angeles and Santa Monica that are that are nominally advertisements but they really are art in many ways. They're they're they are art. And um sometimes when the signs actually complement buildings and are not sort of designed to fade into buildings, they're more fun. They're more whimsical. Um West Hollywood has what to me seems like a really cool design statement of principles. Um our ordinance only says design review by the city manager or designate. I think I see her sitting in the in the room. Um, and I'm wondering if we can be uh sort of what led you to not adopt a kind of a design principle document as is as Hollywood has done or alternatively is there's a wear if there's a way to kind of say if it's not explicitly forbidden it's really allowed and we want to see artistic evolution through signage on the prominade because that's really cool. um West Hollywood's we actually were talking about this before it's the West Hollywood's beauty contest [laughter] and so that actually became kind of problematic for them because you know one digital operator would be like well why is mine not pretty enough and so they would be so it becomes a legal issue you know with denying one because it is you know it is very much subjective as to the design and so the reason why we wrote the design review at this you know by city managers because

ultimately you know it does have to go through a a public process and so the design would be reviewed to the public by council and so forth. So

I I guess I'm I'm asking because I'm asking because I saw one proposed design that had been through a set of reviews and resulted in another design and candidly I liked the first design better. I thought it was more whimsical and more fun. And so I'm wondering what was the pro like people can disagree about what they think is good design or you know it's like how do we how do we provide the freedom within the boundaries so that so that if somebody wants to be a little bit more out there they can and if their sign doesn't work their advertisers are not going to you know

right and I think as you just said you know because one person likes one design versus another person we didn't want to have that beauty contest guidelines because it is very subjective thing. And so, um, these DAs for these digital displays would be going through planning commission as well as Oh, really? Yeah. Okay. And ARB, too. Well, not through ARB, but as development agreements, they are required by state law to go through planning commission.

Huh. Okay. And what about on a landmark? So as um Susan had mentioned right now as the city staff is still writing the ordinance into making revisions um that is up to city council what they decide in terms of landmarks review. I I I think just to put a finer point on that, you know, ultimately the ordinance goes to the city council. These development agreements along with the proposals, the visuals, you know, that have been attached here. Um, you know, they're still being they're still evolving, right? And certainly, you know, city council might see a version um of them. So, it is going through a very um public process uh you know, deliberately. Um I think bringing up West Hollywood, just keep in mind West Hollywood was a very very different program than what we are doing here. Um you know that uh as as Rachel mentioned right it it went through kind of a ju just a fundamentally different process I think than that than than the approach that we're taking in terms of establishing you this ordinance and a framework um and uh you know not having a huge set of principles. And I think the the way that design review is approached here is probably not dissimilar to how it's practiced, you know, in the city. Um, you know, where we we don't um, you know, push a certain set of of principles, if you will, right? We ask that people come with, you know, sort of the best version, you know, of um, what they're trying to create. Um, I think context is important. Um, you know, compatibility with the architecture of the building. I think these are things that are sort of um, you know, baseline when we when we look at these things. So, you know, could it could it evolve over time? Absolutely. But it's written in there deliberately um you know and the city manager you know or the designate to to allow that um to allow the input that we hear from the city council in that public review process taking into account public comment and I think ultimately implementing it. I think it's important to note though that they will be you know guaranteed kind of that like a thousand square feet you

know and that can't be reduced you know through the design process. Um, but if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the designs themselves are going to be part of the package. And so, right, we're not actually having a situation where there is administrative review of a design and then nobody ever gets to talk about it. There's going to be there's opportunities as these designs come forward for them to be talked about at planning, at council, in the community. And so everything is funible until council that is correct. And the parties, you know, come to terms on a DA. Okay, that's super helpful to know. So, um I think those are my questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Fresco, I see you have more questions. Do you mind if I go first, though? I want you to go first. All right. Great. Thank you. Um I have a few questions that are related to the extent to which the ordinance has an impact on the development agreements. Um, there's one slide where you have the locations determined, and I was just curious. I I'm not as familiar with all the locations, but it's noticeable that on the southwest corner of Santa Monica Place, there's no provision for one. Uh, I'm just curious about in the event in the future there's a desire for more, does that mean the ordinance has to be updated or is

that is correct? And currently the locations have been picked and the southwest corner was eliminated because of some known reason. I mean [snorts] that is just what Santa Mon place has decided to propose. These were their locations and so I see. So there hasn't been any provision for No, there is not evolution of that later on.

No, it would have to it would require an amendment or an incident would also require additional SQA study um study as well. I see. Um, sort of on the same lines, but related to the community benefits, um, the staff report says that there's, uh, that the display must allocate at least 20% of screen time for city and art content, though I noticed that some of the agreements are proposing less. So uh could you explain a little bit more about the extent to which the ordinance actually controls that issue and how they will relate to each other?

So each DA applicant provided their own initial um terms sheets when they submitted. This was prior to the ordinance. What we're trying to do with this ordinance is to standardize the requirement. And so this is where the 20% comes in. So it doesn't matter what they initially proposed, they all have to comply with this 20%. So that is intended to be a a firm standard for all the DAs. All of these standards in the ordinance are meant to apply equally um and they are mandatory.

Right. Um I was curious whether there was any discussion about the placement of the sign you know within that maximum size with regard to how far above the height of the building it could go whether there's any discussion on that point. Yes, there are there are in the standards and I don't have it pulled up here on any of these signs, but okay. There is a projections and encroachment um requirements where it has to be above a certain um I think it's 14 ft above a roadway. It is addressed. So, it is written in there as well. So,

got it. Um I was also curious among all these 16 locations, how many are actually involve landmark buildings? I know one of the development agreements does, but six, they're all together six. I see six out of 16. Six out of 16 are landmarks.

All right. Um,

is that all the landmarks on the prominard? Yes, that's what I thought. I think those are [snorts and laughter] those are all my first round. So, uh, Commissioner Fresco, you have uh, sorry, that w that was actually my remaining question was every landmark on the prominade is subject to this ordinance and I'm a little apoplelectic about the lack of landmarks commission review. I feel like it's really I'm sorry, I didn't understand your last question. Are all the landmarks on the promise? I couldn't find a current list to confirm it, but I don't think there are any landmarks on the prominade that are not on corners.

I did not check for that. I'll be honest. I only checked I tried and I couldn't find anything up toate enough to make me feel sure. I see head wheels turning in heads.

Commissioner, would you repeat that? I'm not sure I heard it right. Basically the prominade is a place that in 1984 had an enormous amount of historic character which we have been systematically eroding and it now no longer qualifies as a historic district. There's a very limited number of landmarks buildings that qualify for landmark designation. I believe in the early 2000s, we made an effort to try to systematically designate them. And uh I'm pretty sure that all of the designated qualifying buildings that could be landmarks on the prominade are on corners and could have 10,00

I'm actually looking at a map. There are some midblock. There are a few. Yeah. Yeah, there are. Okay. Sorry. Just saying. But six of them are on corners and that's a lot of historic fabric to cover in digital signage without landmarks commission review. Understood. [snorts]

Are there any more questions? I believe we do have two uh speakers who've signed up for for public comment. Um I'll take them in order. Um the first is Ruthanne Lara. And a quick note, you'll see a a little gizmo on the podium there that tells you the amount of time. I believe it's three minutes. And there only two. Oh, there's only two.

Yeah. Uh before you start uh the second speaker is and I hope I don't butcher the name Gabrielle Ital. Uh you can get ready to speak as well.

Good evening commissioners. Ruth Anne Lair. I'm here on behalf of the Santa Monica Conservancy and um picking up on the commissioner Fresco's last remarks. um here to make a argument for a more robust engagement of the landmarks commission in this process. Six landmarks affected by a single project is a lot really unprecedented and the um the role of a landmarks commission as stewards of historic properties is is a very refined and important role to play. So um the the current proposal suggests that this review would be done solely by staff, but the landmarks commission is charged with uh the protection of of landmarks according to specific guidelines known as the secretary of interior standards and they lay out the template for how you assess alterations to historic buildings. and the landmarks commission has the expertise and the experience to look at this interface. These are really very major facade alterations. Each landmark building has its own character, materials, design, uh size, many many elements of its architectural character which convey its significance and these need to be visible. At the same time, you have an interplay with new signage which is going to be beautiful and artistic and we're going to love it, but we still need to respect the character of the landmark. The landmarks commission is really the the proper venue for having this review and also provides an opportunity for public engagement and public participation in this process. And so we would strongly encourage you to include the Landmarks Commission in their traditional and and ordinanced driven role of granting a

certificate of appropriateness through a public hearing process that they conduct as part of their normal review of alterations to historic buildings. So thank you.

The next speaker is Gabrielle Leali. Uh, hi commissioners. Thank you for having me. I'm here representing 1460 uh Forest Street at the corner of Fourth and Broadway. Um, I'd like to request that our property be considered for inclusion in the city's proposed digital sign ordinance so that our property can also have a digital sign uh as a mitigating factor and because our properties and because of our property's unique location. first as a mitigating measure uh with a digital billboard now proposed directly across from our building at the mall which is across the street on Fourth and Broadway uh which was not our building wasn't even looked at at all when that study was done. There was there will likely be measurable impacts on our leasing conditions. Office tenants who with windows facing a large illuminated sign may find those spaces less desirable, resulting in longer lease up times or the need to offer discounted rents to retain or attract tenants. Allowing a digital sign opportunity on our property would help offset those economic impacts by providing an alternative source of revenue. Secondly, our site is uniquely well suited for this type of signage. were located on a prominent corner at Fourth and Broadway directly facing incoming traffic coming off the 10 freeway and visitors arriving at in downtown Santa Monica from the metro terminal. This orientation minimizes community impacts while still allowing the city to benefit from a wellplaced, well- reggulated display um digital display. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that our our building, 1464th Street, be included in the digital digital sign ordinance as a fair and logical addition that both mitigates impacts from neighboring properties and supports the city's broader economic and visual goals. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Can I can I ask a a question of staff about that?

Yes, please go ahead, Congress. Um it this is a an excellent example of I think what we're sort of learning about as we go in terms of people popping up and saying hey what about us um and um you know some of those folks will be people who see that they property owners who who imagine that they will be affected by the sign or the sign implementation as it is currently and others who may not who may be far from the prominade um would say well we've had a great corner. And so, um, without sort of prejudicing one way or another, what are the implications of a request that comes in? What would have to be done? What would be the timeline? What are the um considerations? Assuming that, let's say this goes through as it's written. Um, what's the what's the pathway for somebody [snorts] else to get in on this?

Yeah. Again, this um ordinance was written with city council direction in mind. They were very specific about limiting this to the prominade as well as the shopping center given our uh recent history um of how we treat the prominad and the shopping center as two very unique economic centers. And if the direction if there is desire by council to broaden that we would have to amend the ordinance as well as do additional SQA analysis. Sorry. So there's a SQA there's a SQA implication. There's is there coastal for stuff west of fourth?

Yes, sort of. I mean all of these would have to be and then and then is there um are additional sign study are additional sign studies needed? I'm just I'm I think I'm asking this because this is a this is a helpful example of what is the Pandora potential Pandora's box that we're opening and I think would be very good to really communicate to the public.

Right. And then there's also the economic considerations. you know, our market study looked at the corners um as well as shopping center because we don't we want to make sure that there isn't a scenario where this area becomes very oversaturated with the digital displays. So, we would have to revisit our market study as well. Um,

commissioners, do we have discussion on this item? Of course we do.

Commissioner Fresco, go ahead. Um, so we're just going over the ordinance first and I will reserve my specific comments on specific places uh for the other part of our discussions. So, specifically in the ordinance, um I just want to point out that the loose says where appropriate, downtown signage, events, art installations, and other uh in activities should include interesting and engaging information that educates the public about Santa Monica's history. So I'm I was just really struck by the omission of that whole aspect of our ordinances and general plan and I thought the ethos of our city. So um you know the talks about the character of the prominade and not to get into the other part of the discussion but there are signs that express the character of Santa Monica by referencing bathrooms and bus stops. So but we'll get to that later. Um, so on page seven where you talk about content uh in the ordinance, it would be great to at least reference the possibility of telling the public about our unique and very interesting history. Um, I know I I appreciate uh there was also a t a thing about um allowing for an exception about roof signs for landmarks. And I can certainly see certain of those very important corner designated landmark buildings where there would literally be no place to put a sign that wouldn't cover someone's important window, for example, and that a roof sign would be the only option.

and that would be great, but it might also allow for creative and interesting solutions for the non-landmark buildings. So, uh I would consider that. I know that there's, you know, at least allowing people to extend above a roof line just to create more dynamics that respond more to the design of buildings and still get to that uh thousand square feet of signage. we promised. Um, as you may have gathered, I'm somewhat beside myself about the lack of landmarks commission review and uh I also think ARB review would help. Um, I did uh in two 2024 I attended a meeting with uh one of these I guess it was XYZ. It was in Ken Kutcher's office and we just looked at the impacts of a design on the J C Penney building and uh we had a lot of discussion and then I know staff looked at it, staff had a consultant, the the uh applicant had a consultant. A lot of people looked at that and I think it made a big difference and I think the way that sign is incorporated is the most Santa Monica approach to the signage. It really feels like it blends in and it reflects what I think Santa Monica should reflect, which is good taste and not a a beauty contest. So, uh, you know, I think multip, you know, that layered review is really important. Um uh I quoted a lot of things in my notes about from various uh planning documents

about historic preservation for example in the HP encourage public comment and participation in preservation decisionmaking that's in our historic preservation element. Um so then when I look at the other signs on the other buildings that are much more modern buildings um I some of them propose removing certain elements of the buildings in order to accommodate the sign design elements and I was really concerned about that. First of all this is while we hope these contracts will last for 30 years and we'll have a long and beautiful relationship. We don't really know and this is really new and if we do have to remove the sign and we've already removed architectural elements from buildings then we have boxes and we're minus. So that concerned me. So I think that incorporating features of buildings and accommodating them, I mean one sign covered two and a half windows of a building for example, things like that were very troubling to me. And um so I did have there are a couple of general standards that I would suggest adding to the ordinance, which is not to remove architectural features. um keep the frames for signs more minimal to avoid fighting with the architecture of the underlying buildings. These are corner buildings. Most of them have design interests. Not all of them, but most of them at least try and fight them. Um, they do I I understand that these signs need to be able to screen mechanical aspects and those screening elements can

respond to the building they're on and we would have tasteful digital signage as much as possible in I know it's all subjective. And then the other thing I wanted to add as a standard was uh to pay attention to the unders sides of signs that are projecting. I don't want pe pedestrians walking up and seeing spiders and thinking they're going to fall on their head. We need to make sure there's a panel or something there so it looks finished from below. So that was something I was concerned about. Um I uh what was this? Oh uh there was also I noted on the J C Penney building that they wanted to reutilize their built-in um uh sign. What's the word that I can't think of right now?

Blade sign.

Blade sign. Thank you very much. Um and when we were doing Prominade 3.0 0. A few years ago, the the abandoned 3.0, we talked a lot about bringing back the idea of blade signs and more other kinds of creative signs that are reminiscent of what how the proomenade used to feel just as an opportunity for creativity and liveless. So, I just wanted to give a big thumbs up to that. I noticed in the ordinance that it said there was no bunting allowed. Uh but maybe for the Fourth of July we should make an exception. Just saying. Um and then my last like more substantive note is uh why are we turning them off at 1:00 a.m. Exactly. Um, I I feel like if we create this lively atmosphere and then we turn the lights off at 1 PM, that gives all the unhoused people in the area the cue that it's time to roll out their sleeping bags. I mean, we want to keep it lively and invigorated. I mean, I am a native New Yorker and so I don't think about cities going to sleep. And in terms of the uh foot candles and the all of that aspect, I have one personal experience. I stayed in a hotel in Boston across the street from Femway Park. [snorts] And I didn't know that when I rented the room. I was in the back of the hotel. Everything was fine in the room. And it was only when I looked out the window to my great surprise it was the place is covered with these billboards and I was high up so I could also see all of the scored panels. I mean it was a very bright situation and that light did not come into my hotel room. So it is

possible magic can occur. So there's that. So those are basically my notes for the ordinance, not for the DA. Should I give comments on a standard DA now or save that for the other? Save it. Okay. So basically that's design review a few general standards for design keeping the lights on because we want this prominade to stay alive. Roof projections and uh I guess that was oh and history. Wait clarification. Sorry the DA template is part of this ordinance though right?

No the template itself. No, those were included in all the original the four DAS separate DAS. That's where the templates are. Yes. Yeah. But if Commissioner Fresco wanted to make a comment about something that is going to be asked of anybody applying. Well, the DA the standard DA will end up being changed according to the thing. So, I I had a few suggestions for those, but but yeah, because I have a couple of comments, too. I think it's Commissioner Field, Go ahead. I think you should say that.

Oh, okay. Um, oh, there was an issue about I noticed there was a topic in there about or an item of impairment of use and I just wanted to know how that related to street trees and because our tree canopy is also important to us and are the I mean trees are trees in downtown are they tall enough to matter? You know, who wins when it's between a tree and a digital sign? We need to clarify that. Um uh these were actually uh I was a little bit concerned about operational costs just because uh his uh I mean there was an incident incident in the 1930s where the city had an arrangement like that at the airport for an operator and he just hired a bunch of extra people and paid them and the city didn't make any money on the airport in the 1930s. So, you know, we maybe want to define what operational costs are. I'm sure you know how to do that. [laughter] But, uh, you know, we just want to be able to, uh, make sure not too much is deducted so we get our fair share. Um, impairment of use. And, uh, I think that's it. That's all I have for that. Anyway,

Commissioner Andrew, you want to go next?

Yes, sure. Um, okay. So, these are just my my thoughts and some of these do include things that I'd like to see in the DAS in general. I'm not going to make um you know, we'll we'll deal with the specifics when we get to specifics. Um I'm going to come back on the renter protections. I think as part of the um as part of any negotiation with any sign uh proposal, the city should satisfy itself that the operator has a plan in place. the reason or that the you know the contract parties have a plan in place. I'm looking to keep the city out of this which is part of why I would like the city to have assurances that there is a plan in place that does not involve the city. Um but I also think we ought to be you know encouraging rapid resolution and I again um individual oper individual uh sign operators may have different ways of resolving it but uh as Kissinger said you know I don't know who I call when I call Europe I there are so many parties here that my big concern is that if there is a tenant who is who has an issue that it is very easy for them to communicate and document their issue to somebody with some assurances because then we're going to get into fights between landlords, land owners. I just I don't want to see that happen and I want to see the tenants protected and the city. Um I would like to see uh council give direction. I think that's probably the best approach that the note right turn on red um priorities be implemented prior to turning on the lights. I do not want anybody to get hurt. I don't want anybody to be overly fascinated by what's happening um while they are operating a motorized vehicle uh or any vehicle. And so I think we need to just make sure I'd love to have mobility in

general take a look at these. Uh I think that actually might be a good forwardlooking just to have mobility put eyes on these signs and communicate uh internally uh if there are any concerns. Um the situation on Broadway and fourth is very different um from the situation on say Wilshire and third uh just because of the number of streets and turns possible and I think folks at mobility uh who can who are concerned about multimmodal safety will will have you know the expertise we need. Um I'd love to see clearer messaging in general around the design input. I think there are people who um don't quite know what's happening and uh so I agree in principle with having landmarks and possibly ARB at the table. However, if I remember correctly, we did a whole study session around um objective design review and objective design processes because we were worried about SP35. And you know, I think there's no reason not to be creative here. What if we um had the planning commission, the landmarks commission, and the ARB appoint, you know, two representatives, have those six people get together and give feedback and then report that back out to the planning commission uh and move forward. like let's not have three public meetings around this, but let's make sure that the experts that the city has entrusted um through the commission's process have a voice and that um and that this can happen. I mean, I could just see on a landmarks or ARB agenda, you know, appointment of ad hoc committee members for proposed sign at such and such an address. You know, you get them together, have the meeting, issue the report, bring it back to the planning commission, we move the DA. I I

think that could be um you know if if you can resolve the Brown Act issue there. No, I'm saying I'm not even sure it's that I'm not even sure that Brown Act that would be a Brown Act meeting for those folks like have the hearing at PC but get the input from our landmarks and and ARB commissioners. It's just a thought. Let's brainstorm around that in the spirit of both speed and um you know appropriate input. Um uh cessation provisions. Thank you, Susan, for um thinking about adding those. I think we need to look at um both the cessation provisions and the procedure for how we deal with long-term um non-use uh particularly given the incentive structure um just just also for public input. Uh this is sort of a question and a statement. Um, to the extent that anybody, I know we're, you know, drawing power from the clean power lines, but to the extent that anybody does have solar on their roof, [snorts] I would like it to be clear that they can use those solar panels to power their buildings and their signs. It will likely be grossly insufficient for what's needed, but I just want to make sure that that we do allow that. um you know if there is if if there is self generated solar um again uh I want to encourage council to to discuss enforcability I think um it's not something we can go into great detail about here or potentially in public given conf you know given all the issues but uh I think it would be helpful if on the road to approving this council takes a beat and says says, "What's the reality?" Um, and I and I would encourage staff to sort of ask C.

I mean, I understand there's like a big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Um, but we all want to get to, you know, like we we got to get there and we've for every and we've got to get there in a way that everybody feels good about. So, um, and is is is viable. So, I want to encourage that. Um, this is a general comment. I think um I understand that there are continuing conversations about the occupancy requirements and how occupancy is calculated. I think as we are looking at this ordinance, we have to acknowledge that occupancy means different things to different types of buildings. I don't want to go into great detail here because I think some of this gets worked out in the individual DAS, but I do think we need some equity across the ordinance around how we're treating occupancy. And so I want to name that. I hope that there can be sort of a general principle um that that then gets implemented in uh appropriate sight specific ways. Um, groundf flooror occupancy. Obviously, ground floor, you know, is particularly important. Um, other things that are important to me are where you have a sign that suggests that an area underneath or nearby is accessible or is a way point to somewhere else is that all of that pathway needs to be um sufficiently occupied for pedestrian safety. And you know, it even raises a question of like if a sign is a sign is inadvertently providing light to an area, let's make sure that area stays lit even if the sign is off. Um I'm concerned about safety and um cl sort of visibility. Um, I do want to float, I'll just report back from my conversations with the folks I met with, um, if reaching 50% occupancy above the ground

floor, uh, or including the 100% ground floor, but above the ground floor is a challenge for an operator, I think we should consider, um, granting bonus credits for um, you know, discounted rentals to community serving nonprofits. uh maybe like a 50% bonus or 100% bonus like if they are com you know they're having trouble you know getting to that 50% well let's find a Santa Monica serving nonprofit that needs some office space and if you'll give them 1,000 square feet feet of office space we'll credit you as if you rented 1500 square feet relative to the ordinance or whatever that number needs to be also for city needs it is you know if the city comes along and says we need some office space for whatever reason um maybe give them a little bit of bonus for that uh as a percentage. And then um lastly, I think that um uh I do want to see two lastly. Um Commissioner Fresco spoke to this question of the sign. I think the signs are art themselves um and have the potential to be. And so I do want to see I would love to see creativity. I'd love to see um a little bit of competition between the buildings. Um I'd love to have people come down and say, "What's on this?" like what's this sign happening today? Um uh because I think that'll draw people in. And so I I I do think that, you know, as I've learned from from Nenah over the years, you know, when you do the landmarks, when you do the ex the additions to the landmark buildings, you're marking that they're different from each other, that not that they're the same. And I think that's a good principle here. But I also think a sign could bring a building to life.

Differentiated but compatible. That's what we like. I I like, you know, differentiated but compatible. And on the newer buildings, particularly the sort of wedding cakey buildings, I mean, I don't mind going a little bit, you know, out of the box. Um, and then lastly, I do want to encourage council to give direction on expansion, to be clear with the public, with property owners about what the steps are needed for expansion, to what extent council uh would consider it. uh down the road um what the constraints are, what the possibilities are. Again, um we're o we're opening a door here. Uh I fully expect that other people will want to walk through it and I think we need to set expectations realistically, responsibly, um and uh and fairly. Those are my comments.

You Commissioner Landress, Commissioner Werman,

thanks. Um, I think that it's important to consider with this the use of the revenue um, from this. And I mean, that's not a reason in itself to approve something. I'm not going to improve toxic waste dumps because they're going to give the city revenue. But the the the proposed Santa Monica realignment plan, renaissance agenda, whatever it's being called, has a lot of great things. I mean, I think that this billboard could pay for streets improvements that will save people's lives. Um, and so for that is the primary reason I'm I'm supportive of it. Um, I mean, I I'll say that it was listed last night at city council as I think the third biggest source of revenue. Um, I mean, the city is already kind of counting on it, so I think it's going to be enacted. Um, but I I I do think that's important to consider. Um, that said though, I'm also excited about the prospect of these billboards. I do think they have the potential to be art. They have the potential to be fun. Um, I'm not totally convinced that they're going to attract new people, but I am I do think they will make it lighter. Um, and it's dark. Um, and I think that's a good thing. Um, at least as a pedestrian and someone on the prominade late at night. Um, I I do want to go a few things for the the um in the ordinance and then in the DA template. Um, first, uh, you you brought this up, uh, Commissioner Fresco, the landmarks get an exception for putting stuff on the roof. I'd actually want to remove that exception. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but I I don't want signs that are above buildings. I feel like that gets into freeway billboard territory. We're creating a place. We're not advertising to the 10.

Did you look at which buildings are landmarks? We're not the tall build. I mean,

yeah. Yeah. I I know, but I maybe it's a distinction without a difference. Um I mean I if that ends up being no sign, then that ends up being no sign on those particular buildings. But um oh it's a little point but I think that you know at Times Square they have those news tickers at the bottom and that is like iconic. You know you read news at the bottom of those billboards. Um I mean again I work in transportation research. I do not want them to distract people. But if this could be amended to have some standard that says you know only this percentage of the screen can be taken up by horizontal scrolling text that moves at this speed. could put it in meters per second. Um, but I do think those little chirons that show news are kind of a iconic part of places like Times Square and um, Shabuya in Japan. I'm sure I'm pronouncing that wrong. Um, so I would like that to be an option. Um, as for Yeah, right. Um, I think that's it in the ordinance. Um, as for the DA template, um, I would like to see a shorter time period, and I don't want to put words in council member Terras's mouth, but I watched re-watched in preparation for this the city council hearing, and she moved down from 55 to 30, I don't think, because 30 was a magic number just because she wanted something shorter. So, I would propose something even shorter. um with the idea that my understanding um I don't have an MBA talking to people with MBAs is that given the high interest rates right now um the time horizon that developments like billboards or housing um need to plan out for is shorter and this was pitched as a pilot. 30 years is a very long pilot. Um so I would I would like to see something closer to 10 to 15 year agreements with options to renew. Um,

on the flip side of that, um, there's a a $250,000 early termination fee. Um, I'd actually like to see that removed. I don't want billboards to disincentivize redevelopment where it makes sense. Um, I don't want I mean they're going to be making more money than that probably from the billboard anyway, but I I don't want a place even if it's occupied that might consider selling to a different uh owner, redevelop it in a thoughtful way, um to be disincentivized from doing that because of the early termination fee. Um, on the occupancy standards, I I agree with Commissioner Landress about the definitions of occupancy get a little u squishy depending on the use. Um, but I would say that the the penalty as I read it is a higher um minimum guarantee. I I'd like to see a further level of penalty and obviously not at the same occupancy threshold, but um to order the billboard taken down. I mean, if if the place is just being used for billboards, um, and and it's continually unoccupied and the owner doesn't want to do anything about that, then I think we should have the right to say nope, the billboard comes down in that case. Um, I agree with the

I agree with the the no right turn on red. I Yeah, I I would like I mean would like to see that anyway. Want to see that before the um signs go in. Um, let's see. I think that's about Oh yes. Uh I will offer some disscent on the review thresholds. I I think that the we are trying to promote as as you quoted public participation and I I I don't think that the hearings you know at whatever time they are um promote public participation of the landmarks commission of the architectural review board. Um, I think they can draw on expertise, which is I mean I I don't know about the details. I like your suggestion, um, Sean, of of bringing together people outside of the Brown Act, um, to to get that. I I don't know if adding extra hearings will get us any closer to more public participation and better design. Um, so

expertise is pretty important, though. Yeah, I I I'll leave it I'll leave it there.

Expertise means a lot. I guess the advantage of going last is I don't have to speak for as [laughter] I I believe a lot of what I had to say was already covered. But I I would like to maybe touch on a couple of things. I I actually appreciate the strategic nature of the proposal uh and its attempt to balance multiple goals while trying to raise revenue. Um I want to second I think most of what I heard from my my colleagues here. Uh with regard to the landmark buildings issue, um I do believe that you know for an agreement that lasts for about 30 years where there's the potential to significantly obscure a landmark. That's something that I feel that as a commissioner I would really value some expert input. Um, I I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Wasam that having more hearings isn't necessarily the answer, but some other way in which we as the commission that makes a recommendation to council can actually get the benefit of some substantial uh input from experts would be very helpful and I think I will leave it at that. just clarify one thing

on the the question of the ad hoc committee and I'm again I want the you know I think it's coming to planning one way or another so there's a hearing but um from other contexts I have been given to understand that on an unpredictable timebound specific project that is unique direction to a point an ad hoc does not create a Brown Act requirement because it is not a standing committee. It is not uh repeat. It's not the same. It's not uh cookie cutter uh because it's for a specific site on a specific date with unique participants. So I think that will have to be reviewed and studied. But I do want to say that based on experience in other contexts that this actually could be legal and it could be legal to appoint this very constrained ad hoc of commission representatives and then have that reported in the public forum when it comes to the planning commission on its way to council.

So basically what you're suggesting is that the landmarks commission meet in a smokefilled back room and have this discussion. No, I'm suggesting that the planning commission, the landmarks commission, and ARB each be required to appoint a representative to become a committee of three or committee of six to study the project and that their report be come to the planning commission jointly uh and that the planning commission act on it.

That's to me that's not Landmark's that's not expert landmarks review. That's some people who one person I mean that's like what we're doing now. I happen to know a lot about landmarks and how to review them and but I'm only one voice and I have a particular point of view of what I think is compatible. But when you have seven people weighing all of their points of view on what they think is compatible and they're all experts, you get a much better result than if it's just me by myself.

150%. And if we had the time, like, you know, with all the time in the world and all the and all the scheduling in the world, we'd go to landmarks, we'd go to ARB, we'd bring those reports to planning, and we'd go to council. But these guys are doing all kinds of annual lighting studies and all kinds of they're they're doing so much stuff. They should do this, too. They're these are all the landmarks on the prominade. It's every one of them. [laughter] It's not just like, you know, I'm I'm sorry. I just really can't. All right. [laughter] Just can't go there. Um

it's a study session. We're trying to like think of creative ways to get these voices to the table and also move these projects

along. But some things, you know, we can move and that I don't think I just Anyway, um I did have one other thing that I an idea that I had along the way about uh um best efforts at leasing. Um you know, we talked at this commission when we were doing the housing element. This thing, sorry, Jen, I bring it up all the time and you have to listen to it again today. Um, but you know, I really believe that a lot of these larger vacant retail spaces that we have in the city are just too expensive for local small businesses to rent and are too expensive for them to subdivide and build out either. And that maybe and you know I it was my hope when we do mixeduse buildings that we have groundf flooror retail spaces that were smaller that were built out that way so they would be more rentable to smaller businesses which anyway so as a you know I would I don't know if it's possible if we could include you know once we're getting close to that fiveyear year threshold where we're going to turn their sign off that maybe we ask these building owners to make their spaces smaller and build them out, add that extra restroom in that wall so that a small business might be able to do it. That that would be one of those efforts that we would ask at that right before we turn the sign off. [laughter] So that was one of my ideas.

Great. [clears throat] So, if there's no more discussion, I think we can close the study session. Staff, I presume, has what they need. Yeah. Chair, could we take a 10-minute break before we get into the or five minute break before we get into the uh We've been at it for two minutes. I'm willing to support a fivem minute break. Okay, I'll take a five I want to I want to take a five minute break and I want to give a plea to the applicants. If you've heard us raise issues here, please incorporate your thoughts into your presentation so we don't have to ask you about them and we can move quickly.

Are we ready? Great. Um, can we have a moment of silence for the Dodgers, please? [laughter] Oh, no. We should have built that into the five minutes. [laughter] All right. U, so we'll start the public hearing. Um the first item on the public hearing agenda is item 11A 24 ent 024 development agreement for 395 Santa Monica Place. Uh before we get started I know it's not required but just as good practice I wanted to ask if there were any expert communications. Um I met

I met on Monday with the applicant team on I actually had two meetings. So I met on all the projects that day. Um yeah, I know a whole lot of people in this room in a whole lot of contexts. So um uh I will say I did uh walk the prominade last week and I met with multiple applicant teams. Um and many of the questions that I raised earlier and will raise now are uh based on questions that I had uh as a result of those meetings. Um and I met virtually with the applicants um of all four of these uh Monday and the previous Monday or something like that.

Thank you. And both applicants I believe it was last Thursday. Um all right. So with that uh we are ready to start the item. We have a staff presentation.

Great. So uh transitioning on to the actual development agreements. um relative to the district ordinance. So 24 ent0024 is development agreement at 395 Santa Mon which is the Santa Mon place shopping center and this development agreement is for four digital signs. Um I think you saw those earlier in terms of where they're located at. Um so as I mentioned before the district ordinance is basically the regulatory vehicle that allows these uh digital displays to be processed um with off-remise content. Um however they do are subject to a development agreement and so this development agreement uh ensure process ensures that all digital display operators and the building owners are treated fairly and equally. So staff has drafted a development agreement template um intended to apply universally to all DA applicants. And so um some of these uh just for full disclosure um some of these points are still being negotiated. However, for the purposes of planning commission discussion, we wanted to highlight some of these um terms and these uh uh community benefits to see where um they are still being negotiated, but we thought it would be informative for you. Um so, as I mentioned, all of these uh DA uh templates ensures that all applicants and building owners are treated equally and fairly. It also um allows us to provide a full analysis of environmental impacts in accordance with SQA. Each DA will be modified with minor deviations to account for unique circumstances of the specific site and all the digital um displays must comply with the ordinance as the base including all the standards, lighting standards and so forth and they will become effective um if council does approve them with your recommendation. They will become effective with the effective date of the ordinance.

So, um just to guide planning commission's discussion tonight, um you should considering the following uh these following items in your recommendations to council, including how well the project and its negotiated community benefits advances the city's vision of the downtown consistent with the loose and the DCP. Uh the degree to which the project and its community benefits um drives economic recovery of the prominade and the downtown district as a whole. whether or not the project design is appropriate to the existing shopping center um for these four digital displays in the surrounding context and whether the proposed displays provide innovation with civic responsibilities and whether or not the community benefits and the project supports the city's public objectives for economic investment, revenue generation, cultural enrichment opportunities and activation of public spaces to support community services and needs. So the four uh digital displays for uh for item 1A um this development agreement for Santa Shopping Center um is indicated here as I mentioned um there's one at fourth and Colorado one at fourth and Broadway uh one at third and Broadway and then the other at second and Broadway and so um these four are the four permitted locations um for digital displays in the draft ordinance. The first display is display A. It is at the northwest corner of Fourth in Colorado. And this is the existing um site photo. And you'll see here it's basically this corner um that is right d diagonally across the street from the metro t to metro station. So in response to uh city uh staff comments, this display has been revised in terms of the design. This is the preliminary concept uh design concept for this display. It's about 1,000

square feet. It wraps the corner and it is building mounted with full motion. The size is approximately 50 feet in width and 20 ft in height. Um and you see this because of its placement, it does require relocation of an existing art piece that's behind that glass curtain wall. Um the applicant has indicated that they would re relocate this existing art piece um somewhere on site. Display B is at the southwest corner of Fourth and Broadway. Um it would require the removal of this rusty architectural projection that's at the corner here and it would be actually installed on the parking structure 7 facade. So this is what that looks like in in terms of the concept design. Um it also is 1,00 square feet. Um full motion, same dimensions, 50 square feet or sorry 50 feet in width and 20 ft in height. Um this excludes the architectural wrap that's around that. Um and then it it does project into the rightway 42 in into the fourth street rightway. And as I reme uh sorry that's actually as I as I mentioned um it is on park construction number seven and would require removal of that architectural projection. The third display is at the corner of 2nd Street and Broadway. Um this used to be the existing Nordstrom's which is now vacant. And so this is a a rendering of the display here 1,00 square feet as well with architectural wrap. Um it does project 24 inches into the Broadway rightway and 42 into the second street rightway. Uh lastly is display D. Um the uh this one was the most difficult to work with in terms of design.

Um because of that the applicant is still undergoing redesign of this um display. What you see before you is what they had originally submitted. Um, in response to city comments, they're revising this design uh to see how it could better integrate into the building. Uh, just for your consideration, it's a few things um to note with regards to this development agreement is that digital display D um which is the one that above the Tesla building does face um onto upper level residential uses to the north. Um these are the residential uses that set back a bit um above the Lululemon building. Um so um Francis earlier had talked about the lighting standards that this these digital displays would be required to comply with and so uh we analyzed this display um and with the standards it would minimize light impacts such that would not exceed the 3.0 foot candles. Um in terms of what's in development agreement template um which you know is still in in the works um what's currently being proposed um is a 30-year term with option for two-year extensions. Um there's also terms in written in the template about major modifications to the displays. Um, if there is a major mod modification, meaning if the if the sign gets bigger or if it's moved location or anything that's not consistent with the ordinance, then it is subject to a D8 amendment. Um, also the development agreement has an outside building outside permit issuance date, meaning like it has to be constructed within two years after the effective date of the DA or the digital display has to be constructed within two years. Um also this outside permit issuance date could be extended for 12 months if uh the director approves and these are all

terms that's written in development agreement template. Um one thing that is still being worked on of course is the I mentioned the financial community benefits. Um what the orice does contemplate is a re revenue sharing structure of um the gross annual revenues and a minimum annual guarantee whichever is greater as well as a one-time contribution to be paid upon the display completion. Um as I mentioned a market study is currently underway to determine what we should be asking for all these signs. Um and so that takes into account all 16 signs and what uh the financial community benefits should be. This study will be completed prior to council hearing on the 18th. Uh we talked a little bit about the 20% total allocation time for city and art content. Um that equates to about 12 minutes per hour. Uh content would be created through a city administered program that I mentioned. Um these digital displays again could display art, local history, civic news as well as um you know kind of emergency uh uh not notifications as well. Another thing that is in the DA template, development agreement template that will be um that is will be negotiated. Um and Santa Mon place um we anticipate these will probably change um recognizing planning commission's comments earlier. Um the right now what's written in the DA template is the 50% of the rentable floor area in the of the existing building. Um recognizing that the shopping center, you know, could be multiple buildings. So, but there's also a in the DA template a ground floor occupancy threshold of 100 100%. And if the standards are not are not met

um then for more than 12 months then the MAG increases by 25% on a non-compounded per routed daily basis. uh the city has the right to shut off the display if that those occupancy thresholds are not met within three years and the city can also terminate the DA if they are not met within five years. Um there are built-in exceptions if the building is undergoing major repair or remodeling. So with that um we would like planning commission to make the following findings that is necessary for approval or for approval of the development agreement by council. Um and also these findings are provided in the staff report. So, um staff recommends that, uh planning commission recommend council approval of development agreement with the findings set forth in the staff report. Um as well as direct staff to forward the written recommendation as provided in the staff reports. [clears throat]

Uh yes. Should we start with Commissioner Andrew this time? I've just um this thank you for making this clear and straightforward. Um Was there any I'm I'm just wondering and thinking back to my earlier comments about the renters. Um have renters who live nearby this sign this set of signs or any other set of signs been given any notice about these hearings? Uh yes, we did mail out notices to anyone within 750 ft of the signs. So, they were given notices as well as a community meeting was held by the applicant when this application was first submitted.

Okay, great. And um will the will the will they receive notices of the council hearing? Yes, they should have been sent out already, I believe. Okay, that's great. And do we know how many people showed up for anything? Uh for this one, I am not sure. You'll have to ask the applicant. Okay, great. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Commissioner Westwin. Uh yeah, just on the occupancy standards, um to my earlier point, does um terminating the DA include removal of the billboard at the owner's cost?

You know, I think you've highlighted a a good point and we are going to add that to the DA. At least we will negotiate that as part of the DA. Thank you, Commissioner Fresco. Uh, I wanted to know why that one sign sticks out sticks out 42 in. I thought that was a typo when I read it. That's really far. That's like almost four feet. Yeah, I think it has to do with the how it required to be mounted to the building and but you could ask the applicant that. Okay. Yeah, I think there there is some equipment behind the display that they need to accommodate.

Okay. Yeah. Power lines and so forth. Just to piggyback on that question. So, did I hear you right that it projects into the rightway and so there's an encroachment property line? So, there's an encroachment agreement of some kind as well. Uh, yes. What's written in the ordinance is that they would require encroachment permit if it extends more than certain amount out. So,

right. Uh just a quick clarification. I think it was the one at Second and Broadway where um because I think it's projecting out. I couldn't tell whether it's actually extending above the building or not. So it it is per the orice. The orance does allow the display to go up um believe five feet into above the facade, the top of the facade or the roof, whichever is greater. Um architectural projections are exempt from that standard. Yeah, those

question. Sorry, I just forgot to turn off. Good evening, commissioners and staff. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight on behalf of the Santa Monica Place Mall. Uh I am with Triil IVL who is the courtappointed receiver for the mall and I wanted to clarify some of the questions that were asked earlier. A receiver is 100% responsible for the property. They do not need consent from ownership or lenders or anything else to make decisions on behalf of the property. They are completely independent. And so I believe the question was on responsibility and the receiver would be responsible for the appropriate implementation of all of these issues. Um, I have with me tonight Ben Anderson as a project architect to speak with you. I also have several representatives from outdoor um, folks because technically speaking, I'm not your gal. But I did want to say that we are here and understand the importance of the Santa Monica Place Mall. We understand its importance to the community and how it integrates with the threads of Santa Monica as a whole and we are committed to revitalization efforts to attract new tenants and in fact you would have some of their speakers here tonight but they are meeting with major tenants in New York to try and attract them to the mall. So this signage display is definitely part of that program. I see it as a ladder approach. Um, I'm sorry to say that the 1980s mall concept is not really successful anymore. It was it

was my day, but we have to look at new and innovative ways to revitalize the center. And with that, if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them or I will bring Ben Anderson up. Ben, good evening. Ben Anderson, um, co-founder and principal at Office Untitled, the design lead on the project. This always happens with my height and low mics. [snorts] Um, just see if we can get this. Um, in addition to me, Bill Tagerry, the president of Big Outdoor is here with some of his associates if we have any technical questions. [snorts]

um staff did a very good job and in the interest of time I'll I'll try to be brief on some of the fundamentals but yeah we're presenting total of four four locations um one um thing to point out is display D for various reasons has been reduced and it's proposed size from uh 1,000 square feet to 650 um and we view these as sort of a a collection or um a collection of signs not just individual ones um so to kind of start here. Um, we were involved with the, uh, Santa Monica digital displays on the design. Um, and we started that conversation about what they could and should be by looking at some recent publicly serving design projects within Santa Monica. Um, and I think they're still relevant today. So whether it's uh the rebranding of the city's website which you see on the upper left um kind of highlighting some of the iconic elements of Santa Monica um down below in Tongva Park whether it's referencing very organic forms um the beach the ocean uh the mountains um or the uh architectural murals at the Santa Monica Beach restroom pavilions uh that are able to kind of tell stories and provide a little bit of a um snapshot of history for each individual location and and kind of referencing neighborhoods within Santa Monica. Um or the um the way that the big blue bus bus stops were uh designed and implemented as a design competition I think is very relevant and that um is Santa Monica is a very creative city. So, um, to distill that, you know, I think what where our inspirations came from, um, was not restrooms and, uh, bus stops, but the example of Santa Monica finding a creative way for to beautify the urban environment. Um, you know, some of those things can be seen as urban infrastructure um, and a bit of a blight on a city. And the example of Santa

Monica leading with design and bringing thoughtful gestures through design to publicly serving parts of the Arun environment I think is um is is worth pointing out and and also worth referencing. So for us to start off uh we were really enamored with you know the sort of famous beach culture of Santa Monica uh wave forms of waves and the you know flow of sand on the beach and combined that with the example of an architectural mural which is achieved via perforating metal panels. So you're able to kind of capture a graphic an image that can speak to the history um or the kind of what icon various iconic elements of Santa Monica. Um so to try and walk you through that uh staff also did a wonderful job of just describing the basics. Um what we're doing here in wrapping the corner is creating a more dynamic screen. This allows uh various three-dimensional uh uh advertising content to be displayed on it rather than just a flat panel. And we are framing all the LEDs uh boards with this perforated graphic uh wave form frame that helps us kind of augment the design um and also adjust to some you know idiosyncrasies of each individual location in the attempt of integrating a little bit better. Um to one of the questions the commissioners asked about projection into the rightway. Um the the signs themselves are angled. They're not kind of necessarily always parallel to the street. So, it's sort of a maximum condition of 42 in that falls within the threshold of the um draft ordinance. Um and as mentioned previously, uh the the kind of double height or almost triple height lobby of the former Blooming Dales, which is now going to be the gym. Um it these don't block any existing windows or views. There's no views out of that third story of the lobby. For display B, um it's a little bit more pedestrian oriented and that this is a scramble uh crosswalk. Uh so it's a

little bit lower. Uh the draft ordinance does provide the ability to go higher. Uh but at the moment it sits kind of right at that threshold of the parking garage screen. And as mentioned, it it does replace uh an aging and somewhat disrepaired architectural feature at the corner. The site of the former Nordstrom's. Uh again, we're kind of placing it over an already blank uh fairly uh overly simplistic box. Um, and then in places where we do need to provide access, the things behind the LEDs are obviously structure, but there's catwalks, um, and various utilities. And so the goal here is that these are not accessed via the front, meaning you'd have to close the sidewalk, close down the street. These are all intended to be accessed from either within the building um, or from the roof down. So in some cases, we're just really kind of out of space. The buildings were were built quite quite close to the property line. And then the last one, uh, this is an update. This is kind of done in concert in close collaboration with staff, um, of trying [snorts] to find a way to do a um, a vertical board kind of at the terminus of the third street prominade. Uh, which is pretty extraordinary. The sight lines will be great. Um, but also integrate with the architectural screen of the test now the now Tesla building. Um and then as an example, this is the proposed 650 ft rather than the thousand um in part because of the proximity and concern for the residential uh residential uses above the Lululemon building. And that's it. If there's any questions, we're happy to answer them. We'll give you seven and a half minutes back.

Questions? Commissioners? Go ahead, Commissioner. Um, I don't think this is a question for you. Um, but it's about the the financials. Is what would a 10 to 15 year length of the DA do to the financials for this um proposal? I'm gonna let Bill answer that. Don't [clears throat] go far.

Good evening. Um, I'm Bill Tagly, president of Big Outdoor. Um you know for us when we when we approach these projects there's a lot of capex that goes into them initially and a lot that goes into building out these structures bringing in the infrastructure of the electricity and everything else. So when you talk about financials you know there is this kind of payoff period and a and a kind of amorization of those signs over time. So when we approach these projects that's why we look for longevity in an agreement. And how how long would it take for you to or how long do you plan to depreciate it? Um

so uh the it really depends on you know what we end up uh finalizing and the structure behind it. Is it does there have structural integrity behind there? How how much we have to bring in and different items along that. Um but you know as well as you know the longevity of the screen I know we kind of touched on that before. Is it eight years? Is it seven? So we're trying to futureroof this for a long time. So we're kind of being mindful of that as we're approaching these projects. But it's anywhere from a three to five year period. But we always look for longevity as as we're approaching these projects. Thanks. That's it. Okay. Commissioner Fresco. Um I had a question for you, please.

I didn't mean to make fun of it because it Well, I did make fun of it be with the bathrooms and the bus stops, but I didn't mean to insult you. I just wanted to apologize. No insult taken. But I also observe that uh three of these signs plus the one on is the AMC yours also they're the same. And is that a cost thing? Is that a is there a reason for that? Or could you modify proportions to be more responsive to building forms and details or is that an option?

It certainly is. Um you know there there are I wouldn't say they're all the same. And there's very subtle differences in terms of, you know, how they're realigning to a building, how they're kind of meeting the plane of a certain portion of the building. Um, but you're you're correct. They're all um with the exception of displayd if we're talking about the AMC as well, they are corner kind of wrapped conditions. And that's uh partly a function of value. There's a lot of value right now in the ability to take the image from 2D, you know, and and go into the third dimension, especially at pedestrian locations like this. Mh.

Um, and the other thing is I think we kind of brought the sensibility of they're a kind of a collective. They have some shared similarities, but the opportunity to kind of bake in a graphic that I think the restroom pavilions or the murals at the restroom pavilions are a good example that, you know, the Ocean Park Boulevard, the story about its history that it's telling is different than the one at Arizona. So you could have some subtleties that make those that kind of collective of elements um a bit more of a kind of sibling relationship to each other. Um but we also see the value in five boards within this district that kind of have their own brand if you will and having done or having completed a number of projects in West Hollywood. um we're actually seeing you know when the kind of 20% of public art comes in a lot of um value and artists sort of launching on a board that has some character. So we sort of feel like keeping the character within this sort of collective there's a value there both for the you know future artists that are being uh featured but also for the advertisers and content

and but the proportions of those boards I mean even though there's if they remain similarly branded you could change the proportions make you know like the one on the Tesla building is elongated and you could still have it wrap but be tall you I'm just well I mean my comments will be very much about responsiveness to the underlying architecture and compatibility and that's kind of where I'm going with this which is why I'm asking if the similarity in the proportions is an important part of the program or if there's leeway to adjust proportionality to be responsive to the underlying architecture. Um I I would say the answer is yes that there's there's some flexibility at a at a certain point you enter a zone of kind of the the content that gets put on there has to be custom created and there's a lack of efficiency or revenue and um

and making five different proportions. So the fact that you have four roughly 50 by 20 signs makes it much more appealing and easier for advertisers. Right. Um, but I I hear you and that I think there's an opportunity for within that zone of flexibility to be more responsive to the buildings as well as maybe being more thoughtful about how the frames align with or maybe tighten up or get a little bit wider in places where it makes sense. Thank you.

Um, I have a Yeah, I'm just going to pick up the design question. I mean, you anticipated and answered my question about why, you know, maybe they could be slightly different shapes. And I also think that there's sometimes, you know, a um a slightly non-rectangular shape can provide some directionality, right? Like coming off the metro at at fourth in Colorado, you know, what does that wrap look like? And is it drawing people is it drawing people toward Santa Monica Place and up the prominade? And what what design features could imply that kind of directionality rather than being, you know, sort of like a stop sign, right? Um, [snorts] and I hope that you would think about that uh in terms of but I recognize again the 50 by 20. Um, I do wonder on D if we can bring it back uh because you mentioned that they're not always parallel to the street.

So the way this is lit I mean I'm trying to read 3D off of a 2D image. Is this angled away from the apartments? So the portion um can I is that a curved screen? Uh to the right it is, but the left portion of it is essentially parallel to Broadway. So it sort of it curves open both to follow the geometry of the base building behind it. Yeah.

But also to sort of just be a little bit more opening and welcome to the sort of the gateway of Santa Monica Place. Could you could you bring the what is to us on this image the left side further forward so that it is not perfectly parallel with Broadway and therefore not perfectly opposite the apartments and I'm not talking about a huge angle but just enough that that the that the sort of perpendicular force of the lights is actually just heading slightly

off the apartments. I it's technically achievable. You know, this is not maxed out at the 42 in which is the current threshold provided for public realm uh public rightway encroachment. Um so yeah, you could angle it a little bit kind of hit that max out point and then yeah, let it continue to curve. Would you consider doing that? Yeah.

Okay. I mean I think I just collective efforts to avoid direct hitting directly hitting those apartments. I also think I had this I'll just sort of share I had you know in in walking up the prominade for my visits I was looking back down right um from a variety of positions and I think having that there the the trees actually uh would block are going to block a lot of what can be seen from further away if it's you know the more it's angled ultimately the more it's going to be visible to more of the prominade um as you're going further and further away from it. So I think it would create this this kind of opening rather than

you know being too far a field. Yeah. But thank you.

I have a brief question just about the I I guess what I'm going to call the missing corner of the of at Second and Broadway. I was just curious about uh whether that was ever considered and what factors led to not including it. Uh it's a it's a great question and we were talking about it as you mentioned the comment as well. Um that is we we've we've looked at this property multiple times throughout the years and trying to figure out ways. Uh I think it was mainly because of a vehicular traffic and the one way that's there and that's why that corner wasn't perfectly for us. Uh we've looked at other portions of it, but we thought that by asking for these four was the best way to approach it. Thank you.

Sure. One more address. Yeah. I think um I see huge volumes of people at that intersection. I just want to say I mean more than cars really to be to be honest. So I you know like I I would encourage you to count the people not just the vehicles. Um, so talk to us about your um, blackout shade budget. Like tell like more than that, tell more not in a less flip way. You do this in a lot of places, you've obviously encountered lots of different kinds of challenges.

Um, in your experience, what is and particularly given my request to staff to have like a templated statement of like let's work the you know have a plan. What is your best practice for working with existing tenants who may have medical concerns about um science?

Yeah, absolutely. Um and it's funny because it it this is I think we've we've been doing this I've been doing this for Big Outdoor 15 years. I've been in the business for two decades. This is the first time that question's actually come up and we haven't we have no history of that happening. So kudos to you for bringing that up. Um but so we we develop signs all over the country. We have digital signs. We work very closely, you know, in some of the neighboring West Hollywood and everything else. Um most of the time a lot of that's flushed out through some of these community board meet community meetings, city council. So we see people that come up and do that. We work very closely with neighbors and want to make sure we're a good neighbor as well. Um we've kind of we are the franchise partner in the kiosks, went through a lot of the community board meetings then. So we know the neighborhoods, we know them really well. We have staff members that live in Santa Monica that that their job is working with the community. So for us, um we kind of address them, you know, like we try to get as much upfront as we can. We try to make sure that everyone's involved in these. And you know, there's always going to be somebody that says they don't like a sign or there's too much light that comes in because there was never light there before. Um, but we address them as they come up. We work closely with the property owner as well as the tenant to make sure that they're doing that. Um, we haven't had to provide blackout shades and we don't have a budget for it, but we would always be happy to work work for, you know, with somebody with that, but we're very transparent and, you know, I think if you ask anyone in town, we want to make sure that everyone's comfortable with our approach. Thank you.

I had one other question. Yes, Commissioner F. Um, I just wanted to ask you about the uh uh panels underneath. If it sticks out 42 in and you're walking underneath, what are you going to see when you look up? Yeah. So, if you ask anyone on my project management team, I'm crazy about the details. Even Ben and we work very closely together. We're crazy about those details. I don't want to look up and see anything ugly. I don't want to see the catwalk or anything behind it. Um, so we will we will work with staff as we're going through it and the design committee to make sure there's

hidden perforated metal that should that's kind of cladded to to block it or make sure of it. There's no bird entry or anything like that. So we are very crazy about the details of these signs to ensure that when you're walking under it, you're having just the experience as you have as when you're in front of it, right? So you won't have spiders falling on your head. We we do our best of keeping spiders out. Yes. Cool. Thank you. No problem. Any more questions for the applicant? Those are my questions.

Great. Uh we do have two folks who sign up for public comment. Um and if you would both come up please. Uh the first is Hunter Hall and the second is Gabrielle. just falling asleep. [snorts]

Hey everybody, how's it going? Uh Hunter Hall. I'm the executive director of the Main Street Bid. Fun fact about me, I live in a historic house. My wife has zero LEDs in this house. I also sleep outside three months of the year. And so you would not expect me to show up and advocate for digital signs, right? And yet here I am. Uh we have several of these kiosks on Main Street. Uh we think they're great. Honestly, we wish there was more. We wish there were bigger. Uh there was some apprehension at the beginning before they went in. Uh fears about oh it's going to be Vegas this and that. Uh none of that came to be true and uh to be honest we've had a lovely experience with the applicant Big Outdoor. They invited us uh to give feedback on the prototypes before they went in. They were super responsive. Uh they've been great the entire uh the entire way. Uh obviously they put our event stuff on there. They help us out when we need to. we have a lovely uh relationship with them which is which is rare for a tech company or any company for that matter after they get what they ask for. Um so yeah, I mean we all know that the realignment plan is the way that we're moving forward. Uh we think that these uh that these signs are consistent with that. Uh we think that it's where the city needs to go um culturally and obviously there's the revenue. Um, I don't think that it's contradictory to anything Santa Monica stands for and so we urge you to support them. Thank you.

Thank you, Gabriel Pali.

Hi there. Thank you again for having me. Um, just a reminder, I'm here representing uh 1464th Street, which is on the corner of Fourth and Broadway, uh, across from what is now, I guess, uh, sign or the sign B, um, which directly faces our building and and our office tenants. Uh, we've reviewed the lighting study prepared originally by Francis Cray. I haven't seen any further studies that have been done since that. While the study notes that these signs can be visible from a thousand feet away, it doesn't address our building which sits only 60 feet away. Um, and just to make note, we have, you know, various tenants in our building, two being prominent uh, Santa Monica nonprofits. Um the study defines sensitive use properties as residential only. But given our proximity and the potential for disruption to our tenants, we believe our office building and office in general should also be considered as a sensitive use because office tenants also work into the evenings. Um unless the goal is to drive out office tenants out of downtown, which I don't think that's the goal. In today's leasing environment, visibility, comfort, and tenant retention are critical. Excessive light exposure could neg ne negatively affect all three. We respectfully request that specific parameters be included in any development agreement to mitigate these impacts to our building and office building and I'm assuming many office buildings in the area that probably don't even know that um what is being proposed tonight. We have had our own consultant review and provide reasonable parameters that have been used in other cities to mitigate impacts but still allow for digital signs to be effective. We have formally submitted our public comment via email earlier today with a list of those recommendations. We can get into it further later on. Um and lastly, um we are surprised that we were not included in any conversations about the proposed digital signs. Since the

proposed digital signs directly shine directly into our office building, um we should have been approached and included in any and all community outreach process. Thank you for considering these risable measures. We ensure that the to ensure that the project remains compatible with its surrounding uh surroundings and respects adjacent properties. Thank you. Commissioner Andrew, you have a question. Yeah, just a couple of questions. I understand your earlier public comment was, you know, broadly about the ordinance and this is spec. Now, I want to sort of ask you specifically about this. So, you were not noticed for the community meetings because we just heard from staff that I was just noticed a week ago when this was first being brought up for this hearing.

But not you didn't get invited to the community meeting. Okay. And have you heard from um anybody at Santa Monica Place as a neighbor? Okay. So, um I I'm But would you be open to conversations with them? We're not looking to try to prevent this. We understand the goals. We're supportive of that. We just want to make sure that us as an office building is also considered because that hasn't even been brought up at all. It's all been about just residential. Um, office tenants also matter in downtown. We have office other office buildings. Um, I don't even know if they even know what's going on. Um, so I just want to make sure that's being faced.

I appreciate that. But I mean I I think we're trying to avoid getting into you know relationships between land owners but I do think um you know your concerns have been noted and I if I may I would like to ask staff briefly related to this if we've heard from any other property owners um facing any of the signs really anywhere but but you know this is the Santa Monica Place hearing so have we heard from any other property owners facing Santa Monica place. Thank you very much. Facing this particular sign or any sign operated by the Santa Monica Place. So, right, second and Broadway.

A couple comment letters submitted by tenants. Um I believe there's like one or two that were submitted by tenants that are across the way. Yes. But not not property owners or business owners. I mean um not property owners of whole structures. I think she's representing the whole building. Yeah. Right. So, okay. Thank you. The applicant has an opportunity for any rebuttal or any additional comments if you'd like to.

A couple of quick comments. Um, we have been discussing and I can commit to you here today that prior to turning on the signs, uh, we will leave notices on all of the doors facing any of the signs so that if they have an issue with it and to Commissioner Landers's question, they know exactly who to call and how to get a hold of someone that can discuss the signs in depth and consider any adjustments to be made and those types of itms. items. As far as the office uh building across the street, I understand their concern. We do value office. I have several office buildings in downtown LA in my portfolio. We understand that those are uh people that deserve to be heard as well. And if you leave your contact information with me, we'll get together with you. I know you sent in some data and things and we'll take a look at that. make sure the big outdoor takes a look at it as well and see what we can do.

Could I just encourage you to try to have those conversations before this hits council? Um because I think it would be to everybody's advantage. Yes. You know, if you reach some understanding, fantastic. And if you don't, it's equally important that for the record everybody knows where everybody stands. Do we have some commission discussion on this before we move to a vote?

I always have I can always say something. Um, so I was I mean I don't think they should all look alike. I mean, I understand what I was what the applicant explained and, you know, about the branding of the signs, but I think that the buildings are important. And when, you know, when I look at these buildings, uh, the building a, the former Bloomingdales building for example, I mean, that's kind of the most designed building of the four that they're working with. and it has several pieces of public art incorporated into the building and it's it's kind of stylish. It was Bloomingdales and it gets the same sign as everybody else and it to me it looks kind of stuck on and not harmonious with the building. And to me that's not Santa Monica. I think it would be better if it was designed for that building in some way. And I'm not going to design it for them, but I don't think that the that same design that looks a lot like the beach bathrooms uh belongs on every building. It just to me is not harmonious. And so that one in particular uh has that, you know, falls in. And then the next one, uh, which by the way, the parking structure, that's where the original Rand building was after they left Douglas Aircraft and before they moved over there. Little history for y'all. Um, just for fun.

[snorts]

Uh but that building, you know, I'm I know that design element is rusty and old, but if God forbid this whole thing, this pilot, this 30-year pilot program doesn't pan out and they remove that sign, then our parking structure is just it, you know, it looks like an old picket fence instead of something with a thing on it. I mean, you know, I just really want to make sure that, you know, I [clears throat] mean, do we ask them to store that thing somewhere on the roof and put it back if they take down the sign? I don't know. But I'm just really uncomfortable with removing building features for a sign. You know, in preservation, we call that incremental degradation. when you have a building that was designed a certain way and you start chipping away at its features until it turns into a box and then it gets demolished because nobody cares about it and you know I mean there's times to tear things down but not because we chip away at them. So, uh then when uh we get to the north and of course it has that same thing which this one has a very rustic, you know, it looks like a you know a fence basically and it yet it has the same design which is not okay. Then we get to Nordstrom's which is a really plain building which is I don't know I feel like it's a huge opportunity to just I don't know there there it opportunity and by putting again pretty much the same sign there and it's a brick building and it's just looks like it was put there. It's not part of the building. It's just a sign and you know we want these signs to be part of the prominade. They're invigorating invite

revitalizing the proomenade and I feel like the incorporation is going to be part of what makes them feel good to us when we see them and we focus on the content and we don't think oh there's a thing oh it has content. It's about what's on the sign and not about the sign itself. And then the the Tesla building, I actually liked that one the best. That's where I thought the application worked really well. Um, I liked the verticality was refreshing, especially after all the sameness of the other ones. And uh, and I liked the subtle curve was just, you know, it that was I just like that one the best. So, I would really encourage more creativity and more compatibility. Um, I know I have a very strong historic preservation background, but those ideas of differentiation and compatibility really apply here too, even though we're not talking about historic buildings. And I think that's how we'll get the harmony with the city. That is a great platform for the content that these signs are going to be delivered. That's my spiel.

I' I'd like to just pick up on some of the things Commissioner Chris Fresco that you said. Um I think I appreciate all the points you made. Um, but some of the the other thoughts that I have, I mean, one of my impressions from seeing the images is that the framing is important in a subtle way, but I also feel like the what's going to be displayed on that 1,000 square ft is going to be the primary focus. And a lot can be done with what's displayed and the art that is displayed to um have a huge visual impact on the building as well as to relate to the surroundings in some way. Um but I also feel that uh when it comes to buildings um while buildings do particularly large buildings like Santa Monica Place when they when they they have some variation on them to respond to the different corners and surfaces but there is some element that usually ties everything together in the architectural scheme. And so I can see also an argument for having something uh to the extent that that frame is seen and appreciated that it be a unifying element of some kind as well. So those are my thoughts on that. But I do think the the way you articulated your points make a lot of sense. I also think that the verticality of the one on the Tesla building was in some ways the most appealing. Commission Hendris.

Um, I wonder I'm I'm in a in in an ideal world, we'd have screens that were different shapes, somewhat different shapes. And I totally get it. And I also am thinking about because of the size limit, you know, if we want to keep the 5x2, if you want to be able to deliver a 5x two um landscape orientation image, right, for consistency, then if you if you want to create a screen that's sort of bigger on one side and smaller on the other, you're ultimately reducing the size of that image because you've got to it's got to come from somewhere to keep your thousand square feet. Um, however, I'm not sure that the same is true for the uh the articulated backing that the um that the screen is sitting on. And so one recommendation that I might make is to make sure that those backings, the way that the the way that the um uh on the sides or above and below maybe have some variation even if the material is the same, maybe have some different shapes uh of the backing. It's not perfect, but potentially there could they could if they're not everything's not a a box, right? Everything's not a rectangle. Maybe it's a little Maybe there's just some energy there, some directionality to it. Something else. Uh I do want to um uh I do want to ask for the further angling of the um of the Tesla sign or the Tesla building sign um as we discussed and I'm appreciate the applicant being open to that in terms on the on the left side. So it's just that much less directly to the tenants um across and more articulated toward the um toward the

prominade [clears throat] up the prominade. Um and um I mean I made my comments earlier about the um about the uh uh the question of like renter protections and stuff. Um, I just I think this is one of the two projects where there's existing tendencies across the way and so I do want to make sure that um the DA provides a a good pathway for people who have concerns. Um but I'm broadly supportive of this and uh oh oh I do want to add one other thing which is that I hope that the occupancy requirement can be worked out in a way people use Santa Monica Place for parking and they walk through Santa Monica Place to get to the prominant. This is not this is something I discussed with the applicant when we met. Um, however occupancy is defined, I want to make sure there's 100% occupancy for anybody walking through Santa Monica Place to the parking lots. I want to make sure that there's that there's life if if there's if they have vacancies along this. I know that I understand the leasing and occupancy um nuances here, but I just from a this perspective, you know, if there's empty space on the second or third floors down the walkways, I am less concerned about that than I am about somebody having the experience of safely and in a well-lit way walking past the sign through the walkway to however they're going to get to their car um or where their bike is parked or whatever. Uh because there's bike parking, there's a bike valet on the on the unsigned corner. Um uh I want to make sure that that is that that is welcoming and well lit and safe. Thank you.

I move that we recommend the this first DA1A uh with our comments to the city council for approval. I'll second can I ask staff if the comments that we've made since it seems like we're all agreeing with each other if those can be incorporated into our recommendation. Are they pretty clear? Anything you want clarity from us? I believe so. Okay. Rachel recommendation just to make sure that we have um written recommendation to the council. They're all provided in the staff report just so that we're we've dotted our the written recommendation incorporating our comments.

Correct. Okay. That's so moved. So moved. Seconded. Great. Great. Uh Commissioner Fresco. Yes. Commissioner Landress. Yes. Commissioner Wasserman. Yes. And Vice Chair Choco. Yes. The item is approved.

Okay. So, we move on to item 11B on the public hearing agenda for um the DA at 301 Arizona Avenue uh and 1253rd Street. I'll say I'll add that we are going to sorry chair just for the record we are taking the commitments that were made by the applicant in our Q&A as commitments from the applicant. I just want to note that on the record uh cuz we didn't you know there was some back and forth. They made some representations. I think our motion was predicated on those representations. If city attorney if that's not a if that's problematic we can take another motion but uh that should be fine.

Okay. Thank you. And it'll be reflected in the uh the report of what happened at the meeting for the recommendation. Thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioner Andrew. So, uh moving on to the next public hearing agenda item. I understand that 11B and 11 C will be covered together in the staff presentation as well as the applicant's presentation. Correct. But the votes will be taken separately. Yes.

Please proceed. So um as you mentioned these are two separate de development agreement applications um same applicant United XYZ um also same operator digital billboard operate display operator and so we thought it would be easiest just to take them together with two separate votes um recommendations uh first one is at 301 Arizona Avenue um 12253rd street prime this is the foot locker building uh and the proposal is for one full motion digital display. And then the second location uh for development agreement 25 ENT 0021 is for 12023rd Street Prominade. And this is the John Reed Fitness Center building. Um as a reminder, the district ordinance um applies here. And so both of these de digital displays would be required to comply with the standards that's in the ordinance. And they're also being processed through a development agreement consistent with uh the ordinance. And so this ensures that all the digital displays and the building uh operators and building owners are treated fairly and equally. Um again the attachment that is in the the staff report is a development agreement template that's intended to apply universally to all the DA applicants. uh ensures that there's fair treatment and also provides um full analysis of environmental impacts in accordance with SQUA so that when we are doing these DAS all the impacts are fully analyzed um so each DA will be modified with minor deviations to account for unique circumstances of the site um and we talked about build building occupancy thresholds so we will be working on those separately for San M and for this one though this building occupancy thresholds has been negotiated and So what is being presented tonight in terms of the building occupancy thresholds has been agreed to by the applicant. Uh again these are the following

considerations um in your recommendations to council. How well the project and the negotiated community benefits advances the city's vision of downtown. The degree to which the project features in the community benefit drives economic recovery. Whether or not the project design is appropriate to the existing building and surrounding context. whether or not each of the proposed display provides innovation with civic responsibility and whether the project and its community benefits support the city's public objectives. So the first um sign digital display as I mentioned is at 301 Arizona Avenue which is above the foot locker um built which is above the foot locker storefront. Um this is a three approximately three level building with has a lot of setbacks. Um it's it's currently um has office uses at the top. This is one of the permitted corner locations in the draft district ordinance. Uh what is being presented before are two design options. Uh the first one was what the applicant had submitted um with their application. Uh it's approximately 1,000 square feet um full motion. uh it varies in terms of its uh height uh because there is that curved linear edge to evoke kind of the coastal waves that's synonymous with the city of Santa Monica's um coastal setting. Uh it does jut out six feet in terms of projection into the third street prominade for this design option and six feet into the Arizona rightway. with design option two. It's more of a modern uh contemporary uh design that that integrates into the existing uh building architecture style and it's approximately 66 feet in width and approximately 19 feet in height. Uh this one has a projection of 10 feet into the existing third street rightway and 8 feet into the Arizona Avenue rightway.

Uh the second digital display is uh at 1202 street prominade. I mentioned this is the um John Reed Fitness Center building. This is also a landmark building um that is you know that has a late streamline mon style and so one of its key features is its fluted tower. This location is one of the permitted corner locations in the ordinance. And here you see here a rendering of the digital display. It does wrap the It does wrap the corner and it does cover up a portion of the fluted tower. Um, it is 1,00 square ft, 49 ft approximately in width and 19 ft in height. Has a 5-ft projection due to the third street rightway. This is the night vantage. Uh the proposal also includes the reactivation of the historic blade sign and what you see is kind of the historic photo of what that building had previously looked like with that old um blade sign that said J C Penney. So uh the applicant would reactivate that blade sign to reflect the existing tenant that is um in place. What is in the development agreement template is a proposed 30-year term with an option for two year 10 two 10-year extensions. As I mentioned, uh there's also provisions that if major modifications are made to the digital display, it would be subject to a DA amendment. Um also has terms with regards to uh outside permit issuance date, meaning that they have two years to construct this digital display um after the effective date of the DA. Uh this may be extended for 12 months with director approval. Uh right now as I mentioned community benefits are are being negotiated u contingent upon a market study that's

currently underway that will analyze all the revenue from the all 16 signs that could potentially be built under the ordinance. And so that market study will be used to inform our negotiations. Um however we do anticipate a revenue share um of gross annual revenues and a minimum annual guarantee whichever is greater. Um and it would also include a onetime contribution to be paid upon display completion. We talked a lot about the 20% total allocation uh sorry 20% allocation time for of the total annual operating time that would be devoted to city and art content. uh also talked about the how that program would be administered. Uh certainly we would be drafting guidelines for this program and we could include guidelines that address working with you know um uh artists that the artists that the um operators may have relations with or and drafting guidelines requiring uh showcasing of local history and things like that. Uh this these building occupancy thresholds have been agreed to by the applicant of both of these digital um displays. Uh they have agreed to a 50% uh occupancy threshold um for the entire building and all of the entire ground floor of the existing building. This was this is consistent with uh city council direction. And if the standards are not met for more than 12 months, the minimum annual guarantee is increased by 25% on a non-compounded daily basis. Um, as mentioned before, we have a right to shut off the display if the occupancy thresholds are not met within three years. And then within five years, we can terminate the development agreement. And there are exceptions built in if the building um has to undergo major repair or reconstruction or remodeling. Key consideration with respect to 301 Arizona is that a portion of the digital

display does face onto upper level residential uses to the south. These are the criterion prominent apartments sets above Victoria's Secret. Um the display um the way it's been if you see the wrapping of the corner has been deliberately designed so that it is angled away from the prominant away from the residential uses and towards the prominade. Um, this is to minimize the lighting effects. However, this display may require features such as louvers and things like that to minimize the light trespass. Um, consistent with the ordinance, they still have to meet all those standards. With respect to 120 street prominade, um, as I mentioned, the landmark building has a character defining feature of the fluted tower. Um, this display would wrap the bottom of the fluted tower. uh in a collaboration with the historic preservation consultant, the display has been carefully designed to ensure that the upper portion of that tower does remain visible. And so with that, I leave you with the findings um that is provided in the staff report that we're required to make. And these are the actually you could delete number two. I'm sorry. Um oh no, I'm sorry. This is two separate recommendations. So yes, we would need two separate recommendations for the one at 301 Arizona as well as 1202 Third Street Prominade in order to move forward to uh city council.

Yep. Questions? Y Commissioner Andrew, thank you. Um was there outreach to these residents? Did you hear from them? There was a community uh meeting held uh online Zoom. There was 12 attendees I believe and I was not in attendance but uh the applicant was and they were there were comments provided and the applicant was responsive etc etc I believe so and you can ask him

okay great um I am curious uh can you go back to the image that shows the fluted tower um I'm wondering if staff like if you or Stephanie have thoughts about I mean how to how to show that this exists um behind the sign, right? Like you know one thing that comes to mind is I know that there are lights on the roof um surrounding the tower and so the techn there's the technical capacity for example to light it um potentially in a way that is compatible with whatever is happening on the sign. There's but there's there are also what I understand to be um Nina's going to correct me. I'm going to get the wrong the wrong terminology. Character definfining features. Did I get it right? Okay, good. There they're these two sort of um they're not pillars, but below the sign they run up the side of the building. There are these two character defining um features at the bottom and they're kind of lost. So, I'm just wondering if there had been conversation about how to how to not completely um so overshadow them. Uh because I understand we're putting signs on on buildings that are landmarks as well, but um you know, are there I just wondered if there had been thoughts about how to kind of make them pop a little bit,

those features. difficult because it is a 10,00 sign. Um they

they have revised this design to remove a lot of the features that would have kind of detracted away from that fluted tower. So it has been designed to be as minimal as possible. And so that is a you know this is kind of the outcome of our uh comments is that to minimize the architectural elements around it and to allow like at least the portion of the tower to be visible. In addition the way that it's curved around the tower um kind of helps to redesi define its um that tower a bit. But yes it is it's it's difficult because it is a sign on top of a flug tower. Could we include a picture of the B building as it used to look as part of their particular 20% arts program?

Oh, sorry. [laughter] 30 30 seconds every hour you just show a picture of what's behind the Yeah, there you go. That's really good. Um, okay. And then, uh, that's really good. I was thinking of like a picture on the walkway, too. Just an old picture of the thing. Um, is there Sorry. Um when we go up uh Second Street, those those apartments are way far away, right? Correct. Okay. So, we haven't heard from anybody there. No. Okay. Uh past what is that?

Past. Yeah. What is that? Is it demos or that's still there? Right. Be just past demi. Those are office buildings. And then just past demos, there's there's residential. And we did analyze that as part of the lighting study and those weren't significant in terms of um light trespass. Okay. But we I did not hear from any residents in that area. And you didn't hear from any since we came up last hearing, you didn't hear from any office uh property owners or office tenants across the street? Not me personally, [snorts] no. I think you would have to ask the applicant if they have heard through their community meeting. I don't know who exactly attended their community meeting, but they may have an idea.

Okay. And then just because this came up in the my meetings with them, this particular operator, uh it's a different operator than it's not big, it's OBM. Um they are the ones who talked about having independent arts relationships. And so again, I think that's I mean that's what prompted my question for everybody. But you know, how can we le how can we leverage those relationships for the best for the for the city's benefit,

right? And and we can certainly as we're developing that this program, we could keep that in mind. We didn't want a program where it would be kind of unmanaged and uncoordinated with so many digital operators. So we we knew that with this city and art content program, it would have to be managed and administered by the city. But certainly we can work with the um operator of this digital display to see what their thoughts are on this and then um program or and draft a program in that in a way that ac accommodates that.

Okay. And my last question I'm going to bring up prominade 3.0. Thank you for the trip down memory lane earlier. Um we did such good work and then it all went away. Um obviously the and I the applicant referred to this in his letter. This block is the block that needs the most help, right? We've got some great uh we've got some great uses that have come in and out over the years, but drawing people north to the 1200 block has always been a challenge for the prominade. Just help us like do you have observations about these two bookends of the of the of that block? um you know how they relate to each other, how they're going to how the programming is going to is going to help kind of bring life to that block from a design standpoint. Um

what's written in the orange is as I as I mentioned um the city's right to create blocks of time so that we can decide let's say if there was a special event going on like Halloween we can essentially take over the entire third street prominade anchored by the Santa place and have a coordinated display of you know festivals and dis and and anything to promote whatever event that there is. So that that is why there is an advantage to having the anchor of Santa Monica Place as well as this northern end of Thirsty Prominage which as you said does need to be activated. And so I think this creates the opportunity to have that as well as like you know an out as I mentioned an outdoor evolving public art museum where people could walk from one block to the other and continue on. So um I think this gives us a lot of opportunities. Would we have the right within the context of these two DAS to because that's one it's a different operator right so there's that the BIG has got AMC and and and Santa Monic place but this block it's OBM would we have any kind of an opportunity from from our understanding of how these DAS are structured to think about programming for the block even if it's not for the whole prominade

yes okay because I think that could be really cool if we've got the same operator programming on two properties with the same property owner to do something that with that. Yeah. I mean, even if it's not the same operator, we would have the right to do that.

Yeah. So that's I think a key component of of this art on art content program. You know really the drafties include sort of like the bones or framework of that and really it's work with um our colleagues in recreation and arts department you know who do have actually extensive experience you know in in terms of digital media and organizing um a program that would be administered in partnership you know with operators and kind of coming up with you know cohesive displays and things like that. So absolutely the DA does anticipate that. I think just to speak to your question about the activation of the promod generally although 1200 block has been the focus of a lot of discussion just as part of the realignment plan I think it's important to highlight um that you know there is an event strategy you right both um within the city you know with a focus around the downtown certain of the beach um prominadon thinking of it more cohesively um and the city recently entered into um a contract um you know with a sort of um promotions you know, events, production, um, you know, the the Dodgers rally and, you know, the watch parties are sort of a beginning

of that piece and I think, you know, more partnerships um and bringing more activations, more regular and routine um things, you know, to um build on the um entertainment zone and, you know, really the the digital displays are a component, you know, of this bringing um livelihood um bringing, you know, sort of community and uh you know, events and things like that um back to the prominade, you know, and beginning to sort of radiate um from there. So, it is part of sort of a more cohesive strategy and not just, you know, wholly relying on signage.

Okay. And I Yeah, I mean that the opportunity to sit at one of those cafes on the corner of Arizona and and third or the farmers market, like to have to have farmers market programming, have somebody preparing a meal on a digital sign while you're at the farmers. I mean that you know so while the street is closed so it's it's safe right that's really cool uh and I you know I like the idea of having that of that having that activation cool thank you commissioner fresco

um I just have one question which is uh you showed us pictures of the coastal wave version for the foot locker building and you also showed us the modern version are we supposed to opine on those two certainly you could yeah Okay, that's all. I will when it's time. [laughter] I I had a very quick question about the slides that you just brought up. So, the two options that are shown here, uh these are both options that are still under consideration by the applicant or

right what has been shown the council is design option one. Um and so design option two is as another option. Um if you would like if you if you want to opine on any of these again um we would ultimately it's council's decision um as to which one but I think you know if you want to provide if you want to provide a recommendation you could certainly so the second option was the second option was done in design it was in done in response to city staff comments

city staff comments got it thank I don't do anything, do I? Okay, good. Great. Right. Um, good evening commissioners, city staff. Uh, thank you all for this time tonight to come together to talk about signs for a few hours. Um, we're really eager to see these signs progress. Yeah. And and not at home watching the Dodgers. Um, so we really appreciate the time and everyone's p patience. Uh, we are doing both of ours together to hopefully reclaim a little bit of that time. Um, so my name is Klay Colette, senior development director with Orange Barrel Media. Um, we are building the sign and working with the property owner, uh, Daniel Nagari. So, we'll be building the sign, um, operating the sign, and we designed the sign inhouse. So, we have an in-house architecture studio. So, all the designs you see before you tonight, uh, we created in house. Um, a note about Daniel. Uh, he is the founder and owner of XYZ, Inc. He owns both of these properties, 1223rd and 301 Arizona. His company is headquartered here. Um, he is from here. Uh I think it's we're really excited to be working with him because uh you know he's been in Santa Monica for quite a while. He's seen the prominade evolve. He's seen multiple iterations of it and I think he's really proud to have become such a significant stakeholder in the prominade and in its future and he's always thinking about ways to revitalize his properties and I think contribute back to the public realm. And we're happy to play one small role in I think his vision and the city's vision for what uh really could be a more activated 12200 block. Um, rounding out our project team here, uh, also I I wanted to call out we've engaged Robert Chattel, a historic preservation architect. We know there are

sensitivities around the landmark building a 12023rd. And so we've worked, I think, really carefully with him, with the city, um, and engaging with other stakeholders as well to come to a design that I think, you know, doesn't impact the character defining features, uh, and reaches the level of compatibility that we're going for. Uh, and we'll talk through that a little more when we get to that rendering. Quick note about us. We're uh also a 20-year-old media company. Um and uh headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. I lead our LA office here. So we'll So we're local here, too. Um we have about 170 employees across the country. We operate in the top 30 cities all across the country. What we focus on is non-traditional urban media. So the best way to explain that is probably by explaining what it's not. It's not sign on a stick that says 1800 lawyer. There's nothing wrong with that. That's just not really what we focus on. What we tend to do are signs that are more creatively shaped. Uh, you know, in their formal architecture, they tend to be a little unique and I think, uh, I hope you'll find match the context and match the building. Um, we also offer unique programming. And so, as the commission has referenced and staff have referenced, all of our signs across the country, whether it's a requirement or not, display public art. And that's something that we we work with artists and collectives to procure ourselves. And we can also work with city provided or preferred artists, too. Um, we also show nonprofit content, historical content, uh, and so try to really show a digital program that's a little bit more than just advertising. U, the history, I think, is well covered on how we got here. Uh, in in June 10th, there was a a float up item and council unanimously voted to work with us on our DAS and direct staff to work with us and also develop the ordinance in parallel. The only thing I'll add to give context to that timeline, we submitted these DAs I think at the end of 2024 for both properties and have had a lot of engagement since then. I think a lot of good public feedback, a lot of good private expertise as well. So, we we did hold a community meeting. I think it was maybe 12 or 15 people came, which

doesn't sound like a lot, but for signs, it's pretty good. Um, we have talked to the conservancy for 1223. We've met with a handful of landmarks commissioners. Um uh and we have you know our mailing radius for the community meeting was 750 ft. We did have a couple residents contact us including the property manager at the residence across from 31 Arizona. So we are engaged with them directly and uh and and going to continue to do that. Um so these are the two properties. Uh the top uh image you see here 1202 uh 3rd Street. The tenant is John Reed Fitness. The building was built I think in 1948 49 just after World War II. Uh, as Rachel mentioned, it's a great example of streamlined Modern architecture. Used to be one of the first J C Penney. I remember shopping at Pennies when I was a kid. Um, and so it's a really cool building and something that we wanted to try to celebrate its historical significance with our design and and when I get to that in a moment, I hope you'll agree with me. Um, the bottom sign is uh 301 Arizona. So, the main tenant on the ground floor is Foot Locker. Um, to use Commissioner Lander's note, it's sort of like our layer cakey building. And so, um, there are actually a lot of tenants here. there about tenant 10 tenants here and so it's office on the second, third and fourth floors and they do have access to those patios as well. Um and so we took all of that into account when coming up with our designs.

So I I think the challenge with this building uh right away from a design perspective to just give you a little bit of our intent uh there's a lot going on. It's a very busy building. A lot of articulation, windows, storefronts, layer cake elements uh and we have tenant operations. So, we do have uh office tenants using these patios and so we couldn't build something that was going to and I don't think it's a good policy objective to build something that harms the tenant goals either. And so, we also have residential right across the street. And so, a lot of that went in and I'm showing you design option two uh which we're we're more than happy uh OBM and Daniel to build either of the two options in front of you. We just we've publicly shown both so we thought it was fair to bring both. Um, but the way that we responded to this design challenge, these are three squares, different planes that operate in plan and sort of different orientation and also different heights. And so we think that kind of playfully brings some of this articulation in the building out onto the sign element as well. And uh, the framing element that you see at the bottom is sort of like a nickel finish. It would be steel that we paint with like a nickel finish. And we like that because it'll be able to pick up ambient light. Really subtle way. No glare created by that sort of element that I think adds a little bit of visual interest to the sign. And so three sign faces, so to speak. It'll all operate as one continuous image like you're seeing here. Um uh and I think it's really important to call out we have sort of clipped the right side of the sign. You see we don't have any sort of return going down Arizona. That's to try to avoid any impact to the residents above the Victoria Secret Building. Um, we can also install custom louvers. We uh will operate within the code. And I think the ordinance that that staff and Francis have put together is is really a best-in-class version of how these things are done. Um, and and we'll remain consistent with those standards. We also we will absolutely set up a system with the city where they can call us directly. We already know them, but for any others that might have an issue, they should be talking to us directly

and and we will be addressing their problems. Uh the original design um that uh Rachel summarized as well really was just pulling from there's so much playful signage in Santa Monica. If you drive around, most of it tenant signage, but it's so creative. It's so playful. I think it's really fun for a beach town to have that kind of symbology up in the sky. And so we uh you know, we wanted something that spoke directly to the ocean. That being said, we like both designs. So we'll you know, we would love to hear your feedback on that. But we're happy with both. um 1202 uh third. So this one uh you know we had a really interesting time and I think it's really cool when you look at a pro at a project like this to go look at the old photos and it's really cool to see the prominade evolve from a driving street to a pedestrian street and to see this building evolve. One photo that we flagged here that we just found really interesting was a historic JC Penney photo. Um, and they actually used uh the, you know, the most prominent element of the building being this fluted sign tower as a sign tower. And you can see the JCP logo and you can see the sale signs there as well. Um, so the design that we're proposing to you now, we tried to keep very simple, very subtle. Um, and uh, what you see is a thousand square feet of LED. Both signs are thousand square feet as as staff mentioned. Um, and we are horizontally oriented, wrapping around the corner. Um, we have metal paneling that is, we're calling it ribbed because we don't want to call it fluted. We're not trying to mimic the building. We're trying to sort of be in conversation with it. And so, we have this metal ribbing on the side. Um, which adds a little bit of design intent, but the thing I'll note is that it's also necessary to hide our structural elements. So, because this is a historic building, we took a we worked with our structural engineer and took a lot of great care to make sure that everything that we're doing and proposing is reversible. And so, structurally, we'll actually be mounting to the roof of the building and hanging

steel beams over that we can attach a subframe to. We'll have to have connection points to the facade due to wind loads, but all of those are going to go in non-original stuck up. And so if the DA terms, if it expires early, whatever reason, we and our obligation to Daniel and the city would be that we have to remove the sign at the end of these agreements and restore the property back to the way it was before. Um, Commissioner Landris, you had a great question, I think, about lighting and sort of bringing prominence back to the the fluted element. That's part of our proposal. So there are existing lights there. I think they're out of date. We're going to refresh those as part of our buildout. And so, um, we are, uh, doing our best to maintain, I think, the bottom part of the fluted element as well as the top. And we'll light up all of that so that it looks really cool at night. We've also talked to the conservancy and the history museum, and they're already ready to dump a bunch of content on us. And so, our goal, whether it fits in city 20% or not, our commitment would be and anytime we don't sell the space available, we would have some images to upload and make that a really cool event for the community. Uh we are revitalizing the blade sign that Pennies used to have. Uh the structure is actually there as part of the building wall. When you get on the roof and look at it, it's kind of interesting. Um and so we'll be rebuilding that for the benefit of John Reed or whatever other tenant might follow. Um the other thing that we're proposing here that I don't have a rendering of because we haven't quite figured out what it is and we want feedback on this is uh we always think it's cool when you do uh one of these projects on a historic property to do some sort of pedestrian activation element. You know, you see that a lot in like sidewalk castings or plaques that attach to the building or to columns. That's something that we are committed to doing as part of this project. Uh, and I think we want, you know, expert advice on what really is going to be cool here. But that's something that would be included. Uh, our original design is shown on the

left. I think the, uh, staff nailed kind of the evolution of where we started and where we are. We've taken a lot out of the design. We've taken a lot of the the enhancement and embellishment out of the design and that really is just to reveal more of this historic facade, make it more compatible with its context. Um, I mentioned some of the, you know, uh, doing a pedestrian activation at 122 uplighting for the drum. Uh, I do think these signs will add vibrancy. We've been a part of sign districts all across the country. I think uh Commissioner Wasserman, you had a question of like do you have data showing that people come to see the sign? I don't know that that exists, but I think that we our view of this is that it operates similar to a storefront sign bringing in a customer. If we're promoting the farmers market, if we're promoting activated events, if we're promoting even the entertainment district and things like that, then that and and especially at 1223rd, which is the gateway to the prominade, we're going to be inviting folks, hey, cross the street on Wilshire and come and see what the prominade has going on tonight. um 20% of the time as staff as mentioned is dedicated to uh city content, public art, and we're more than happy to work with them in a manner that city picks the art, we pick the art, get it approved by city commission. There's a lot of ways to do that the right way. We're open to coordinating the two signs so that you've got a 1200 block activation. I think there's a lot of really cool ideas to work with with that. Um we're totally on board with the occupancy requirements set out in the DA. We've worked a long time with staff to get those right. I think it's really important for us as a land use principle that you know these be activated and it's good for business like an empty building that's vacant doesn't do do a lot for us us either. Um the money so this is still obviously being worked on with city staff and they've hired a financial expert to advise them. But our proposal um was [snorts] uh and you see this aggregated here that we would share the greater of 20% of the gross revenues generated by

each sign annually with the city. The greater of that number or minimum annual guarantee which would be in the first year a half million dollars per sign. In addition, we've offered a go live bonus of a half million dollars when each sign turns on. And so when you put that together in the first year across these projects, the city's guaranteed $2 million. And we think, you know, over the life of the deal that 20% will be the more valuable stake in this partnership. Uh and we're projecting over 30 years for that to be three million on average and just under 95 million total. Uh that's what I have. Uh um we thank you for the time here to answer any questions and hopefully you'll support.

We'll start with Commissioner Fresco. I just have one question. Um, on the Foot Locker building, are you going to remove the canopy to put up the sign? I think we will have to. There's like that black nose of the building. I think we will have to remove that or else we would be projecting really really far out over the rightway. Um, but our commitment actually in our lease with Daniel is that if for some reason the sign were to go away, we would build that back to its original condition. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Wasserman. Um, yes, same question. Um what would 10 to 15 years uh as a term instead of 30 do to your financials?

I don't know that we could make the offer that we have. Uh I think Bill summarized this too from big I think so we make a tremendous investment in the capital cost of the signs up front and then the other thing that I think is you know not as obvious is 8 to 12 years you got to replace the whole LED screen and that's another million plus investment and so plus there's ongoing maintenance operations things like that and so you know I I don't want to say it's a black line but it certainly wouldn't be the compelling offer that you have here. Thanks

Andrew. Um, just want to come back to the 301 Arizona. Um, I'm curious about, so I'll admit I kind of liked option one better, except I don't like those extra squiggly lines. I said that at the meeting. I I like the playfulness. I know there's a lot going on on that building. That having been said, what bothers me about I can live with option two except I have two questions. Um, one is it's a it's an angled there's like the the angle on the corner is really articulated and I'm wondering if that could be curved um more gently. And the other is the I yes to all the advantages of the cladding, but to me that cladding at the bottom kind of puts a like I'm somebody who doesn't buy glasses that have the bar across the top. Like I just don't like the the the forcehortening that happens when you have that much cladding. So, I'm wondering if you're not covering something, could that be substantially reduced just to give because with the layers, it all sort of flattens the thing. And I'm and I would love it to feel freer. Um, just a little bit more open.

Yeah, we we'd be happy to look at both of those. I don't know that we're wedded to either of those. That's great. Thank you. Just can I just interject one thing? I think the opposite of what he thinks. [laughter] Fair enough. So, we're gonna let Commissioner um Wasserman and Vice Chair Chako work it out and they'll get back to you. [laughter] If you could go to the slide you had for the landmark building where you showed them side by side a couple of options that I think indicating how you addressed some concerns. Could you maybe spend a minute on pointing out what specifically changed on those two?

Yeah. Uh, and so on the left is our original design. And I think what you see is more not on the LED area, the actual square of the LED. So we actually took inspiration from sort of like 1950s car culture post World War II and sort of tried to draw shapes out of like metal shapes and fins out of that. And so you see kind of all around the LED, you've got uh these like fluted elements and you know metal geometry that kind of curves around. And our goal there was to try to balance. So we're not because of the the driving angle and the visibility angle of the sign, we're not symmetrical to the corner and the and that corner is so symmetrical. And so what we wanted to do was try to balance the sign and balance its weight. And I think we carried that intent over of having some balance into the current design which still has that ribbed metal to the right of the [clears throat] LED face. But the feedback we got from, you know, the conservancy folks, I think from commissioners and and our own consultant was sort of the the less is more when we're dealing with a historic facade like this, it was, you know, let the facade kind of breathe through. There is one other point too I I I forgot to make and I think it's sort of like, you know, when you look under under this sign, what is the pedestrian vantage? Um, uh, there won't be spiders. We'll make sure it's cleaned and maintained, but uh we want to keep it a little bit separate from the building. So the way that our subframe is going to hang over, if you're walking down the prominade, you'll still get to see the facade and you'll see our four small attachment points, but other than that, the sign won't be flush against it.

And the lighting will help as well, I guess. Exactly. All right. Um very briefly, go back to those option one, option two slides again for the other location. Um, I I'm still open-minded about it, but I I have to mention that I think the the more interesting, playful shape of the option on the left seemed kind of intriguing to me. Um, and particularly at the bottom edge. So, I just want to mention that.

Thank you. Well, I haven't made my I haven't said what I actually think. Wait, Nina has yet. Okay, we can have some discussion now. Do you want to start? I do.

Yeah. Um, so this building, first I just have to say that as much as putting a 1,00 square foot digital sign on a historic building makes me want to weep, I think that you did the best possible job that could be done. And I think it's the best of all of these signs. And I wish all of them were all seven of them were designed with that care and sensitivity to the buildings they're on. So that's kind of where I'm coming from. So when I look at this building without the sign, I see the early 90s when we just started the pro the farmers market and the prominade was soaring and Santa Monica was the leader of the free world and it was incredible and you know so I I feel like this is a building that tells a story and I have a lot of trouble with that curving sign that is just completely oblivious to the building it's on and especially the way that it actually overlaps two and a half windows that just that's just the OCD in me maybe but I really have a problem with that [laughter] and the other sign the reason I feel like it's better first of all I think from one of the views I saw that it only overlaps two windows which is much better. But those windows are like these tilted boxes of glass and they have angles and there's the wedding cake. And I just think it just responds to the building a 100,000 times better. And I think you do have to have some mechanical uh covering whatever on there. Um

if it can be thinner, you know, fine. I mean, less is always more and just being responsive and minimalist and we're adding a thousand square foot sign, so why do we need to add so much more? So, uh, those are my main comments. Um, the curve, not the curve. No, I like angles. You like the angles? I like the angles because they're responsive to the angled windows and the tilts and the angles because those windows, they tilt like this and then they're like little boxes of glass that stick out. That's I'm sure there's better architectural ways of describing that, but Okay. Yeah. I mean, they're like cant delivered. I mean, it looks

Yeah. So, you know that and with the irregular three panels, it it kind of responds to those windows and so it feels like it was made for this building and wasn't didn't just drop down from a spaceship. So, okay, that's you know, and then in terms of uh so I hope that the DA will say that if the sign goes away that there is a canopy that needs to be restored. I would like to see that. And um the idea of an interpretive plaque or something on the ground level just makes me feel joy. Um and uh here

huh. No, no, on the other one. No, I'm just talking about both of them at the same time. Oh, yeah. And I was kidding before, but then it actually would be really cool every hour to have 30 seconds where that screen just showed exactly what was behind it. So you know yeah so that's all I don't know that was just part of the interpretive display that's everything any other discussion yeah go ahead

thanks I'll just I'll leave most of the designing to Nina um I've I I my initial instinct was to prefer the original design but I've also been described as completely oblivious so [laughter] I'll take that one. Um, I mean, there are um curved elements as I'm looking at the building um on the the front and beneath what the sign is covering. Um, but yeah, I'll leave it at that and echo the points you made first on the the J C Penney, the John Reed building. Um, I agree that that's a a very nice design um for a very difficult challenge to fit it on a historical building.

Um, okay. So yeah, I can I can live with the angles and I can live with the with the the the uh design. Number two, I really would like that cladding to be less less less less as little as possible. Um talking about the bottom

the bottom just the bottom. Um yeah, cuz it's compete the it's just one more sort of it's not quite the first floor. It's not it's above the first floor. It's above the foot locker kind of facade and then it's below the second. Like I'm really confused. How many stories does this building have? My OCD is being triggered by the multiple levels um that it suggests. Um okay, so um over the summer I uh had the chance to uh visit the Dollali house and what one discovers when you go and see a lot of Salvador Dolli art at the same time is that you reach your Dolli limit. There's a moment like twothirds of the way through the museum where you're like, I get it. [laughter] So, if going into this DA, we're on um I don't know what is this, the sixth rectangular. I I will give fair shakes to the AMC building, but sixth rectangular shape. I am reaching my rectangular limit um on designs. And I have to say I can accept that this version one is not right for this building. I really would like I'm just a general comment. I would like to see some some creativity in sign shape particularly on these single sign buildings. Uh like where it's one not like Santa Monica Place where it's where it's for you know where they have to do a program. This is a building the other one is a building. Um, I I echo Commissioner Fresco uh in appreciation for what's being done uh I mean it's a beautiful redesign up on up by Wilshire and I think you've done a great job with it and with the lighting that you've talked about I think it actually could make some of this pop even more than it is now. Um and at the sidewalk level it would be great to have a photo of the original and um you know some historical

context. I mean, I my parents took me to buy like undershirts there in the '7s. So, you know, if you want to bring back those those brick podiums that I played on, that's fine, too. Um, but I, you know, um, no other notes. Thank you for being responsive to the neighbors across the way and continuing to work with them uh, on their lighting needs, too. So, yeah,

appreciate that. Um, I'd also say that my gut sense was to lean towards the option on the left, but after hearing Commissioner Fresco's very aerodite explanation of how the alternative evolved and kind of changed my mind, I mean, particularly about, if to correct, correct me if I'm wrong, that the angling of those faces echo the angles of the window space. Is that what your understanding was? they respond to it. Respond, echo or respond. It's three to one and the motion fails, I guess. [laughter] I'm fine with that.

All right. So, I think that's all I have to say on that. Um, if there's any more discussion hearing none, I think we're ready for a vote. We'll be taking two votes. One for each of the properties. One, we'll take two motions like one for the uh for each of the buildings. All right. So, we'll begin with the vote on the 301 Arizona Avenue/1253rd Street Prominade. Can we see the um We have a motion.

Yeah, I'll move as soon as I see what I'm supposed to move. [laughter] I'll be very happy to move uh the Well, I I believe it was item one that was in front of us. like it was number one and number and the and number three. Yeah, you'll do number three with each. Yeah. So, um there we go. Okay. So, I will start by moving recommendation one and recommendation three. Second second. Great. Incorporating our thoughts and comments and the fact that Nina with her one vote overruled the three of us [laughter] that uh Okay. Uh, Commissioner Fresco,

yes. Commissioner Landris, yes. Commissioner Commissioner Rossman, yes. And Vice Choco, yes. Great. That passes. And so, accordingly, I will move recommendation two and recommendation three. Second. Great. Uh, again, Commissioner Fresco, yes. Commissioner Landris, yes. Wasman and Vice Chair Choco. And same note about the comments, but I didn't think we had many on that. Thank you. All right, we can move on to the next item which was um for the development agreement at 1202 Third Street Pinad. We have a motion. No 13. Oh, did we we voted on both of them together?

Okay, great. Thank you. Efficiency. One more.

All right. Home stretch. [clears throat] So, a lot of this stuff is repeated. So, um, for your sake of mine, I will try to be brief. [laughter] All right, we're here for the fourth one of the night. Not certainly not the last day for um for digital signage. Um, so this one is for 1310 prominade. This is the AMC building. And so staff uh recommends that planning commission review and recommend the city council approval of the development agreement with findings for 1310 street prominade. Uh so again this is the fourth uh display digital display DA that we've received. Um certainly there will be more in the future. Again, this uh what has been provided to you is a development agreement template that is intended to apply universally university to all the DA applicants. Just to note that we have not um a lot of these terms that's in the development agreement template have not been reviewed fully and vetted fully by the applicant. And so things like building um occupancy thresholds and things like that are um still to be determined in the development agreement template or to be de determined in the development agreement for this building. Uh these are the same considerations. So, getting to the project, uh, this is the AMC theater building. As you can see, uh, it's on the corner of Third Street Prominade in Arizona, diagonally away from the Foot Locker building that, uh, we just reviewed. Again, one of the four one of the four corners of uh, Thy Pman, Arizona. And here's the design of the display. This again has been redesigned in response to city staff comments. Um uh this of course you could see a familiarity here

in terms of the design to the Santa Mon place digital displays um because it is the same architect. So it is a 1,00 square foot uh s display. It is building um mounted. It's also full motion with a width of 50 feet and 20 feet in height. It does project into the right of way of three and a half feet onto Third Street as well as two feet into Arizona. Again, this uh development agreement template provides a 30-year term with options for extensions and a building uh outside building permit issuance date. Uh also, it would be expected to provide uh financial community benefits uh in the form of gross avenue uh a revenue share of the gross annual revenues as well as a MAG, whichever is greater, a one-time contribution. Again, uh the amounts to of financial community benefits are still to be determined. Also, uh allocated community content is 20% pursuant to the ordinance. Um this equates to approximately 12 minutes per hour as well. And it would also be administered through the city uh through a city administered program for digital digital city content and art building occupancy thresholds. Um this has had these have not been vetted fully by the applicant. However, what is in the template right now is 50% of um the entire building. Of course, this is a single single tenant of course. So, it would be the entire ground floor of the building um that would have to be rented um based on the template that's in within the based on the what is provided in the DA template. So with this one also it faces the residential uses that's above the Victoria Secret. Um most of the display faces away from the residential uses

though it's been uh designed to curve around the building. Again, we ask that you make the findings um that's provided in the staff report with the same recommendations but for 1310. Commissioner Andrew.

Thank you. So um just before I ask my question I want to note that I think and particularly for Susan I think this is five DAs in this period of six or seven weeks maybe two months and four DAs in a single night that's got to be a record it I mean um yeah like you know the 20110s are calling [laughter] um this is this is something okay so same question about the community meetings um were that these were not joint community meetings. So there was a separate community meeting for this one,

right? So this one was the last of the development agreement or not the last but this was the most recent development agreement that was submitted this year and so because of the quick timeline um the community meeting was actually held this week on Monday. Okay. [laughter] I think one person showed up I believe um because it was also during the Dodgers game. Oh, [laughter] so so there was a rally downstairs, right? Yeah. Right. But um this this display of course um is on the other opposite diagonal of the Foot Locker building as well. So but yeah, the community meeting was just a recent thing that happened.

Okay. And no, have not heard from any believe there is one residential. I don't know if it was the one across the street at the criterion that may have okay and um this is a little bit above our pay grade, but I just want to ask for the sake of process. Um I have been given to understand that in fact this building now has this property now has a different representative than it had 48 hours ago. Um we we're confident in our proceeding uh with this.

Yes, it is under yesterday went under receiverhip. So we did receive an email from the receiver authorizing to proceed with Okay. So yeah, we got authorization from both the applicant as well as the receiver. So I I just think that's important to have on the record and resolve for anybody. So, okay, great. Thank you so much. Any other questions for staff? No, we have the applicant presentation.

Hi everybody. Uh, Bill Tagy Fairy again from Big Outdoor. We'll make this as brief as possible. We appreciate everyone's patience kind of sitting through this. We appreciate staff and everything they've done to get us to this point. Um, I'm joined today by uh by Ben Anderson who's be being here on the architect that's going to help us walk through some of the designs. And I think before we kind of go through through Ben's, we hear you loud and clear about maybe a little bit more minimalistic and less is more. So I think as we go through this, we're going to uh really come back and understand that a lot of the comments, a lot of the design that we did had in mind some of the orientation that was put in place because of the residential, also the framing. That was some feedback that we worked on with staff. But we hear you and we're open to any of the conversation with that as well. We're also joined by Spencer Call from Alam Atkins. If there are any more questions about the property or the receiverhip, Spencer can answer those as well. But I'll hand off the mic to Ben and I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Hello again. Um, okay. So, how to make this uh relevant but quick? Um, let's start on the next I think it's slide eight, please. Oh, wait. Never mind. Okay. So, um what makes this site a little bit different? We have a uh the AMC building, a kind of a classic '90s, uh postmodern design. Um as you just heard, the receiverhip, the ten the tenant AMC [clears throat] um is in the building until 2029. And so what we began talking about as it relates to the individuality versus the collective um is that there's a high likelihood that a renovation might change the the building style. Um and so we're cautious to get too specific with certain elements. Obviously, if it's a landmark building, it requires much more sensitivity and those those elements aren't going to change. Um but as it relates to the design, you know, I think we're supportive obviously supportive of because we're proposing to do it. um kind of stay in line with this collective of of the um kind of waveform signs. Uh the sign is split uh roughly 5050 um facing the prominade and facing Arizona. Um and totals uh a thousand excuse me 1,000 square feet. Um dimensions are roughly 50 by 20. So, um, it one kind of unique challenge here is the the building itself has a a lower parapit and then steps back obviously to the higher height of the of the uh upper level cinemas. Um, the the draft sign ordinance limits us to 14 ft above street level. So, we begin to as it relates to kind of the the horizontality of this, there are some kind of thresholds that we're bumping into that

begin to guide us in terms of the overall and final orientation. Um I think we've we've kind of heard that it what what we feel is supportive of this type of waveform and kind of graphic through architectural um murals uh that we can do here. And then I'll just sort of speak to this. This is unfortunately um I'll own this. This is a slightly older slide. So I may once I present this ask to jump back to the um one of the final slides from from Rachel. I think it's a great example of um working really well with staff who have been incredibly responsive uh in getting us here. So um you know wanting it to to feel very much like it's part of this collective of the waveform signs. It it's wrapping the corner. Um that radiused edge does give us again the kind of opportunity for 3D content which um you know such a pedestrian rich opportunity like this um certainly warrants it. Um I think where this one um you'll see the difference is is that the amount of the amount of framing was was pretty generous. Um although the sign is purposely sort of caned away from the Arizona facade to create a little bit of visual interest. That's a purposeful playoff of the relative simplicity of the box it sits on top of. Um but the framing itself um I think in working with staff felt like maybe was a little too uh simple or a little bit too much like the previous one. So, if we can jump to that other presentation, I'll just sort of talk through uh the last round of improvements. Apologies. There we go. Um, so what changed? Uh, the the frame itself is no longer kind of a given in terms of the width as Bill mentioned.

Um, so the the frame now varies. There are portions of it that are very slim and slender, kind of letting the screen itself um kind of be featured. And then there's places where u it's it's purposely a little bit more additive. Um what that is also doing is creating a sense of forced perspective on the top. um that further kind of plays up that idea of the caned um sign surface and then along Arizona you're seeing that waveform align with and almost become co-planer with the box behind it. So as it relates to kind of how does this become specialized per its context? how does this reflect the building it's on and not just the collective it's a part of is I think we were focused more on kind of the base geometries that are likely to not change um if it or when um a substantial renovation of the base building occurs and with that I'll leave it to questions and

yeah um I'm so It's I like this design better than the original. Um there's a lot going on, but I appreciate that it's not a rectangle in terms of the framing. Really appreciate that. Um, I know you can't commit to this because but I'm sort of hoping that that very 80s um fake sunrise is going to go away on the Arizona side because part of my what I'm reacting to design-wise is those two. You've got the one archway which is the way into the theater which is a lot harder to renovate. I mean, you can, but it's harder to renovate. But that to me, it's pretty jarring. So, um, my kind of question is as you think about simplifying the structure around the sign, maybe please keep the keep that shape. I I do like that shape and that kind of the way it pops. But yeah, I'm really hoping that that that the '8s elements go away. [laughter] And I was a teenager in the 80s. I mean, you know, I I don't know like I don't that's that's sort of the relationship that I'm curious about and how you see I know you can't speak to a renovation that hasn't happened, but

Sure. But I can speculate as a designer and what I might want to do. And some of the some of these conversations were had with staff as well as the the opportunity you're [clears throat] speaking to is just the relative superficiality of the facade along Arizona. So, you know, I could see if you're doing a modest renovation. That's one place where you could make impact a lot of change without a lot of cost. Uh the archway obviously on the third street prominade is is more substantial, but would ultimately be up to, you know, the next design team coming through. Any other questions?

Commissioner Fresco, I think that this whole theme idea works better on this building than any of the others. I mean, I because this build Well, I guess there's just curve linear things. It just sort of looks it's okay, you know? It it it works to me and it, you know, I mean, this because that building is so quirky and plain, something, you know, outside of, you know, it can handle something different. That's all. I've lost my I can't be articulate anymore. I'm done. But it's fine.

If we lose the If we lose those lines, right, that show up, then this pops better, right? No. then that building becomes a really plain white box. I'd rather wait until somebody comes along and redesigns the whole building than to just erase elements of a building. I mean, it's a 1980s building and that's what it is and let's live with it. And this is a this sign on this building. The sign looks kind of interesting and quirky and fun and wavy and it's doing what it's Yeah.

It's giving Max Headroom. Yeah. Yeah. This wasn't the 80s world I lived in in the 80s. I just have to say it was much cooler where I was in the 80s. Commissioner Wasserman.

Yeah. I mean, well, to pick up on that redesign the building, the the the comment I made earlier about this disincentivizing this whole program disincentivizing redevelopment is this one stands out to me. um the AMC uh Broadway uh closed and maybe you can't have two movie theaters in such close proximity, but um having watched a lot of Netflix and not gone to the movie theaters in a while, I I don't and and I guess I didn't know this about the receiverhip, I I don't know the financial longevity of inerson movie theaters. I I don't think that's ours to speculate here, but my broad concern with, you know, regardless of the design is that this is going to make it harder that this site or a comparable site um be redeveloped into something else, more pedestrian friendly retail, like that is a slab on the sidewalk. Um housing, I I don't know what you want to put there, but I don't I I'm worried this is I mean, we have the occupancy standards. Um, I'm still concerned. I mean, I I think it's fine to go forward in the context of the broader program. This one just the use of the building has has me concerned.

I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion here. So, um, can I for you?

Yeah. I actually want to I'm I was hoping Commissioner Wasserman was going to ask his question again. Um because in this particular case, when do you want to I mean it strikes me that they want to put this up before 2029, right? And then at some point there's going to be a rena. Um let's assume there's a rena. Let's assume there's some sort of redevelopment. To my mind, that is an argument. You know, you're going to incur costs uh taking off the sign and putting it back. So, I guess this is a great I'm curious from your perspective. This is a great example of what happens when a sign goes offline midcontract. Um, let's just spec that out for a second. Uh, let's assume that let's assume for a moment a an an inextremist scenario. AMC leaves in 29. property owner decides that a substantial renovation is needed, you have a 30-year DA on a sign that you put in two years earlier to be up in in time for the Olympics or, you know, and the Parolympics and everything else. So, talk to us about how that works for you and how that plays out with the, you know, the relationship with the city.

Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, before I think it's it's something to note that every DA that you're going to go, if it's 30 years, you're going to have turnover of a building and renovation of a building. Sure, if it's 10 years, there's going to be a tenant that comes in and out. So, as we're looking at at Santa Monica where we have Nordstrom, that's, you know, on its way out or out. So, I think every property you should be thinking about that on. There are ways of building around signs, but you could keep them up during renovation where you could do that. Um, depending on how severe it is and who who the new tenant is coming in, you would take down the sign and then you could put it back up and what that disturbance is. We would work together on figuring that out. Obviously, it's going to be for the better good because we're coming in and refacing an entire building. So, um, I think that, you know, we've actually built a building around the sign in Chicago as a rooftop sign. We held the sign up. We built an entire building around. I have pictures of it. It's the most amazing thing. Everyone thought we were crazy, but there are ways of doing it. So, um, you know, regardless of what happens with AMC in 2029, you are going to experience this on every other property you're talking to. We have ways of being flexible around it. And ultimately, if the sign has to come back down and be reintegrated into a new facade, we're happy to work along those lines.

Is there anything that you need in this agreement? I'm sorry, we're sort of reopening the hearing here, but is there anything that you need in this agreement that could streamline the process with us? Like, is there any aspect of that renovation that would trigger a reopening of the DA so that we might want to prevent it coming back? You know, if you're just literally lifting off the sign, putting it in storage for a minute, and putting it back, you know, I'm I'm making this up. That's it's the same sign. We've we will have approved it, you know, this month. But, you know, do you see a world where the sign might have to change because of the Renault?

Yeah. And and I I think what we could do is we could almost make it our option, right? It's easy if we want to go back into the original footprint that we that we were approved upon, then that's just kind of an administrative way of going about it. Or we could say, hey, this is the new facade, but we have even a cooler way of integrating the sign into this new facade that's going to make it different. And then work alongside of that. So I think I think maybe having the option of saying, you know, build it back to where it was or let's work together and do something different, you know, now kind of future proofing this as we go along. So I think as far as the option, I think that'd probably be the best way to approach it. Okay. Just sort of a note to staff. I get it's already it's in there. Okay. Okay, great.

Thanks. Great. I'm ready to move. All right. The item. Um, do we have a motion? Sure. I'll move number one and number I guess it's number one and number two. Um, I think we all indicated a preference for the ren the revised design and we're happy with the if staff is happy with the, you know, the implications of a potential rena that's sooner than we we all imagine anywhere else. I think we're good to go. So, I'll move one and two. Second. Uh, Commissioner Fresco, yes. Commissioner Landris, yes. Commissioner Wasserman, yes. And Vice Chair Choco, yes. And we're done with science. [laughter]

All right. So, we can move on to the administrative items and review and discussion of the planning commission's 2425 report and questionnaire. If there is an appetite to do this at the next meeting, I can be swayed. [laughter] It's your choice obviously, but uh we do we would want to visit this at the next one. Do you want to do it at the November 19th? Okay. Are we are we going to be together on the 19th? The goal is yes. At the moment that is what we were planning on. Um I hope we have at least four of you on the 19th. It's a regular meeting. I mean yeah,

you know, well for you, right? you know. Um but yeah, we we could table this to the 19th as it appears we will have a quorum as well. All right. I move to continue item excuse me uh item 10A to November 19th. Second. We can do a voice vote. Uh all in favor say I. I. Great. All right. So the do we have a we have a planning commissioner discussion item? Commissioner, do you want to say anything about

this from Leslie? She shares an shared an article every time. So I'll share an article um about planning and immigration. We are not um removed from that as planners. Um thinking about the wall and our role. So just something to reflect on. Um and I did have an adjourning motion. I don't know if that's in order. Yeah. Okay.

Um, recently, last week, um, Brad Lipshi and Mora Cohen were killed on the streets of Santa Monica, um, very close to where I live. Um, I didn't know them. From what I've heard, they were major, you know, contributors to our city, to its vibrancy, and any life lost on our streets is is too many. Um, mayor Grete did a a much more thoughtful uh motion at at the city council meeting last night, but I just want to adjourn in their memory. Thank you.

Ajourn at 10:31. Thank you everyone.