SR-6-L (2)
.
//~ 2- -otO'/
.
b-L
JON 2 4 1966
californiJUL -1 1986
~~:JSH:jhvanar3
City Council Meeting 6-24-86
Santa Monica,
S'IAFF REPORI'
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Proposed Findings Regarding 1024 Bay Street
At its meeting on May 27, 1986, the City Council denied the
appeal of various neighbors and granted the appeal of Grant Wada
regarding the Planning commission approval of a six-unit
condominium proj ect at 1024 Bay Street.
At this meeting, the
City Council requested that the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact to support the city Council action.
In response to this
direction, the accompanying findings have been prepared and are
presented for City Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the city council adopt
the accompanying set of findings.
PREPARED BY:
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Jonathan S. Horne, Deputy City Attorney
- 1 -
'=>-1-
JOlt 24 1986
JUt - j 1~::
.
.
PROPOSED FINDINGS RE: 1024 BAY STREET
1. On January 3, 1986, Grant Wada ("Applicant") filed an
application for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP 413") with the
Planning and zoning Division of the City of Santa Monica to
permit the development of a six (6) unit condominium project
("project") at 1024 Bay street, Santa Monica, California
(" subj ect property"). The Applicant also filed an application
for Tentative Tract Map Number 44039 ("Tentative Map 44039") for
the project.
2. The proposed project would be approximately 7,848
square feet and include six (6) residential units of
approximately 1,300 square feet each. Five (5) of the units
would be market rate condominium units and one (1) unit would be
an affordable rental unit in compliance with Program 12 of the
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica
("Program 12").
3. The subject property is a 50 x
approximately 6,500 square feet. The subj ect
R-2. Current zoning of the subject property
density of five (5) units.
130 foot lot of
property is zoned
permi ts a maximum
4. The proposed project will include one affordable rental
unit which shall be rented at a rate affordable for lower-income
households as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5.
Because this one affordable unit is more than 10% of the five (5)
market rate units in the project, the project qualifies for the
state mandated 25% density bonus required by Government Code
Section 65915. With this 25% density bonus the six-unit project
would comply with applicable density requirements of state and
local law.
5. The project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Article VII, Class
3, Section 2 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines.
6. The design of the project is identical to the project
which was previously reviewed and approved by the City in
Conditional Use Permit 385 and Tentative Map 43853. The only
difference in the two projects is in the maximum allowable rent
which can be charged for the one affordable rental unit. After
the previous project was approved by the Planning commission and
city council, Paul Van Arsdell, Jr. obtained a writ of mandamus
setting aside the approval. The writ of mandamus was issued due
to an error in interpreting the density bonus required by
Government Code Section 65915 and a failure to provide adequate
notice of an administrative hearing.
7. On April 7, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a
duly noticed public hearing to consider CUP 413 and Tentative Map
44039. The notice was given in the manner provided by law. The
- 2 -
.
.
Planning Commission considered all the evidence in the record
including the public testimony.
8. On April 7, 1986, the Planning commission unanimously
adopted findings of facts and approved the project subject to the
following conditions:
a. Plans for final design and landscaping shall be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
b. The Architectural Review Board, in their review,
shall pay particular attention to the proj ect I s landscape and
irrigation plan, vining on the building, proposed balcony and
window treatment and the articulation of the north and south
elevations facing Bay street and the alley respectively.
c. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to
approval by the Director of Planning. An increase of more than
10% of the square footage or a significant change in the approved
concept shall be subj ect to Planning Commission review.
Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plans
SUbmitted or as modified by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.
d. The applicant shall comply with all legal
requirements regarding provisions for the disabled, including
those set forth in the Administrative Code, Tile 24, Part 2.
e. Final parking lot layout and specifications which
shall include alley access as indicated in scheme B and shall be
subj ect to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
f. Project design shall comply with the building
energy regulations set forth in the California Administrative
Code, Title 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservation standards for New
Residential Buildings), such conformance to be verified by the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of a building
permit.
g. An openable window or openable skylight shall be
provided in at least bathroom in each unit. The project shall
provide adequate natural light in the kitchen.
h. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or
provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree
Code (Ordinance Number 1242 (CCS)), per the specifications of the
Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General
Services. No street tree shall be removed without the approval
of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
1. The existing driveway and apron located on Bay
Street shall be removed and the existing curb cut replaced with
standard curb and gutter per the specifications of the Department
of General Services.
- 3 -
.
.
j. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and/or
directed away from adjacent residential properties, with any such
lighting not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illumination beyond
the perimeter of the subject property.
k. All off site improvements required by the city
shall be installed. Plans and specifications for
improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil
and approved by the City Engineer.
Engineer
off-site
engineer
1. Before the City Engineer may approve the final map,
a subdivision improvement agreement for all off-site improvements
required by the City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance
bond posted through the City Attorney's Office.
m. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after
approval, except as provided in the provisions of California
Government Code Section 66452.6 and Section 9380-9382 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the final
map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval.
n. The rights granted herein through approval of a
conditional use permit shall be effective only when exercised in
connection with Tentative Tract Map 44039.
o. The developer shall provide the Engineering
Department of the City of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth print
reproduction and microfilm of each sheet of the final map after
recordation.
p. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium
Association By-Laws and a Declaration of CC & R I s shall be
reviewed and approved by the city Attorney. The CC & R's shall
contain a non-discrimination clause as provided in Municipal Code
Section 9392 and contain such provisions as are required by
Municipal Code Section 9122E.
q. Payment of the Condominium Tax of $1,000 per unit
and Quimby fee of $200 per unit shall be required prior to the
issuance of building permits.
r. The developer shall covenant and agree with the
city of Santa Monica to the specific terms, conditions and
restrictions upon the possession, use and enjoyment of the
subject property, which terms, conditions and restrictions shall
be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as a
part of the deeds and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of
Tract 44039, to ensure that one affordable unit is provided and
maintained over time through subsequent sales of the property.
An affordable unit shall be defined as being affordable to
households with incomes not exceeding eighty (80) percent of the
HUn Los Angeles County median income, expending not over 25% of
monthly income on housing costs, as specified by the Santa Monica
Housing Authority.
- 4 -
.
.
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to the
issuance of building permits. Such agreement shall specify 1)
responsibilities of the developer for making the unit available
to potential tenants and coordinating that process with the City
of Santa Monica Housing Authority, and 2) responsibilities of the
City of Santa Monica to prepare application forms for potential
buyers, establish criteria for qualifications, review
applications and provide eligible applicants to the developer,
and enforce the provisions of this agreement.
s. The developer shall delete the rooftop gardens.
9. Timely appeals of the planning commission action were
filed by both the Applicant and other individuals. The basis for
the Applicant's appeal was due to the condition requiring the
removal of the rooftop gardens. The other individuals, including
Mr. Van Arsdell, appealed on numerous grounds including the
following:
a. Denial of due process because the staff report was
not provided to the public until April 3, 1986.
b. Denial of due process because the Planning staff
failed to deliver the opponents' prepared opposition materials to
the homes of the individual Planning commissioners.
c. The Planning Commission abused its discretion
because the proj ect is "unlawful for numerous and significant
additional reasons" under the Land Use Element and under the
proposed "in-lieu" fee ordinance.
d. The Planning Commission denied due process by
limiting the opposition presentation to ten minutes.
e. Three of the Planning commissioners did not listen
to all the testimony and engaged in an "unlawful, private
meeting" during the hearing.
f. The Planning commissioners were unable to exercise
sound discretion when the matter was decided at 1:00 a.m.
g. The Planning Commission was misled by false
statements in the application and staff report.
h. The application for cup 413 and Tentative Map 44039
was void because the city waived the application fees.
i. The Planning Commission was provided improper legal
advice regarding the "prior action pending" doctrine.
j. The Planning Commission misapplied Government Code
Section 65915.
k. The actions of the Planning Commission in providing
a density bonus denied due process of law, equal protection of
the law, effected a taking of property without just compensation
- 5 -
. .
and was inconsistent with applicable zoning ordinances and the
General Plan.
l.
each of the
Section 9363.
The actions
consistency
of the
grounds
Planning Commission violated
required by Municipal Code
m. The hearing procedures of the Planning Commission
were fundamentally unfair.
n. The actions of the Planning Commission were based
upon passion and prejudice.
o. The actions of the Planning commission were tainted
by the bias of a member of the Planning staff.
p. The actions of the Planning Commission were
irrationally prejudiced by consideration of facts relating to the
residence of the opponents.
q. The actions of the Planning Commission was based
upon erroneous findings of facts that were unsupported by the
evidence and on erroneous conclusions of law.
10. The city council noticed a public hearing on the
appeals for May 13, 1986. Because one of the individuals who
joined in the appeal did not get sufficient notice of the appeal,
the city Council continued the appeal hearing until May 27, 1986.
On May 27, 1986, the City council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the appeals of the project. The public notice of this
appeal was given in the manner required by law. The City Council
specifically considered each and every ground for appeal set
forth in Finding Number 9. The City Council read and considered
the testimony given at the public hearing and all the evidence in
the record inCluding, but not limited to, the following:
a. A seven page letter and attached exhibits from
appellants Van Arsdell, et al. to the City Council dated April
15, 1986.
b. A Summary of Selected Problems and Requested
solutions dated May 27, 1986.
c. A document captioned Complaint Appeal ing Planning
Commission Condition Eliminating Roof Gardens dated April 10,
1986.
d. The Staff Report prepared by the Planning
Department staff relating to this project.
e. The administrative record of all proceedings before
the Planning commission relating to this project.
11. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the
City Council has found that Tentative Map Number 44039 and the
design and improvements contained therein are consistent with
- 6 -
tit
.
applicable portions of the General Plan in that the project is
within the development standards of the Land Use Element
established for the R-2 District, the traffic generated by the
project was within the limits contemplated by the Circulation
Element and the project complied with all provisions of the
Housing Element, including Program 12.
12. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the
City Council has found that the subject property is appropriate
for the proposed project in that the project will be developed in
accordance with the density standards established by the Land Use
Element for the R-2 District and Municipal Code property
development standards.
13. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the
City Council has found that the proposed density of the project
1S suitable for the subject property in that it would be
consistent with the density standards of the Land Use Element for
the R-2 District as modified by the density bonus required by
Government Code section 65915 to facilitate the development of
affordable housing required by Program 12 of the Housing Element.
14. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the
City council has found that the design of Tentative Map 44039 and
Conditional Use Permit 413 will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat in that the project has been
determined to be appropriate for a categorical exemption from
CEQA and no credible evidence of any significant environmental
impacts has been presented.
15. The design of the project will not conflict with any
easements.
16. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the
City council has found that the proposed project in consistent
with all ordinances and laws of the City of Santa Monica.
17. The proposed use and location for the project are in
accordance with good zoning practice, are in the the public
interest, and are necessary that substantial justice be done in
that a multiple family residential condominium project is
consistent with the kind of development in the neighborhood and a
permitted use in the R-2 District.
18. The proposed use of the project is compatible with
existing and potential uses within the general area which
includes other multiple-residential uses, will not result in
traffic or parking congestion and the pUblic health and safety
and general welfare will be adequately protected and no harm to
adj acent properties will result in that 12 parking spaces are
provided on site and adequate setback provisions have been
complied with.
19. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the
city Council has found that the Planning Commission conducted a
- 7 -
.
.
fundamentally fair hearing process that provided an abundance of
due process to all parties. The City Council has specifically
considered and rejected each of the enumerated grounds for appeal
set forth in Finding Number 9.
20. The City Council denied the appeal of the Planning
Commission and affirmed the findings and conditions adapted by
the Planning Commission as specifically set forth in Paragraph B
above, with the exception that the City council deleted the
condition which prohibited the rooftop gardens (Condition (s) in
Paragraph 8) .
- 8 -