Loading...
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 -