SR-504-002-
.
-, L-E
5/lr--&t7z.: .,.~. ~ C
SE? 2 7 1988
GS:SES:ME:br 9/19/88
Council Meeting: september 27, 1988
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting a Proposed Site Extension of
the Sunshine Canyon Landfill
INTRODUCTION
This staff report discusses the need for a site extension at the
Sunshine Canyon landfill and requests that the city council adopt
a resolution in support of the proposed extension. The
resolution will be sent to the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors to express the Ci ty' s support for approval of the
permit for site extension.
BACKGROUND
since the closure of the Mission Canyon landfill in 1980, the
Solid Waste Management Division has transported refuse to the
Sunshine Canyon landfill located in Sylmar. The Sunshine Canyon
landfill, operated by Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI), currently
accepts 6,000 tons of refuse daily or approximately 15% of the
nonhazardous solid waste generated in Los Angeles County.
Although the city transports solid waste to a landfill, the city
recognizes that landfills are not the only solution to the waste
disposal problem. Over the past several years, Santa Monica has
actively pursued alternative means of waste disposal and
presently supports an extensive recycling program. The recycling
b-E
SEP 2 7 1988
.
.
program includes newspaper, metal cans, and glass collection from
residents, thereby diverting 2% of the waste stream from the
landfill. In addition, staff will be proposing city composting
once new locations to compost tree branches and grass clippings
generated by city operations are identified. Staff is also
presently investigating the feasibility of a home-composting
program which could reduce the solid waste generated in the City
by 20%. Finally, in fiscal year 1988-89, staff will develop two
proposed waste minimization policies for Council action - one
with the objective of encouraging City employees, residents and
businesses to minimize all types of waste currently generated,
and the second to require new developments to implement on-site
recycling systems to reduce future increases in the waste stream.
While there do exist some alternative means for solid waste
disposal, landfills will continue to be the single most important
method in the foreseeable future. Waste to energy plants, which
presently cannot meet air quality standards, still require that
25% of the solid waste which is not burnable and the 6% of the
waste which becomes an ash by-product be buried in landfills.
Also, unless markets are developed for large scale composting of
municipal waste, staff believes that recycling can divert no more
than 10% of the current waste stream from landfills.
At the present rate of use, and unless BFI receives a permit to
expand the Sunshine Canyon landfill, it is expected that by 1991
only 3 out of the present 12 landfills in use in Los Angeles
county will still be in operation. These three landfills will be
-
.
.
Chiquita Canyon, Spadra and Azusa Western, all of which are a
significantly farther distance from Santa Monica than Sunshine
Canyon. It is difficult to win public approval for new landfills
and the permitting process alone requires an average of 7 years
to complete. As landfills are closed, the city will be forced to
transport its solid waste to more distant landfills. Costs will
escalate as longer distances will require additional vehicles,
personnel, fuel and maintenance costs to ensure the solid waste
is removed from the City in a timely manner. It presently costs
$19 per ton to transport the solid waste from the City's transfer
station to the Sunshine Canyon landfill. This represents 33% of
the total costs of the refuse operation. Therefore, significant
increases in transfer and disposal costs will translate into
significant increases in the rates paid by customers.
The Sunshine Canyon landfill is ecologically one of the best
landfill sites in Los Angeles County as -c.he soil types and
geotechnical structure allow for the safe and long term disposal
of nonhazardous waste. The underlying soil formation is 10 times
less permeable than required by the strictest EPA regulations.
The area of the planned extension will be farther away from the
populated areas near the present site of the landfill. The
extension of the sunshine canyon landfill will allow the landfill
to continue to receive approximately 15 percen~ of the county's
nonhazardous solid waste until the year 2050. In approximately
two months, the application for the extension of the landfill
will appear before the Planning Commission and the application
.
.
VOTE ON MOTION TO CERTIFY EIR:
Ayes: Farivar, Nelson and Pyne
Nays: Mechur
Abstain:
Absent: Hecht and Lambert
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the city of Santa Monica.
signature
print name and title
PC/stcup473
SL:nh
09/14/88
- 2 -
Official Action
of the planning
date
.
AttAc.hmaJt i"
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
M B M 0 RAN 0 U K
DATE: September 7, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planning Statf
SUBJECT: CUP 473, CUP 474, CUP 475, CUP 476, CUP 477, CUP 478,
Vesting TTM 45454, 45455, 45456, 45457, 45458, Vesting
TPM 18719 and EIA 849
Address: 2115, 2722, 2913, 3000 and 3019 Third street
and 2222 Fifth street
Applicant: Oscar Katz Trust
The revision ~o the plans for the above projects (excluding 2222
Fifth Street) resulted in the reduction of eight units (from 87
to 79 units); increase in side yard setbacks; stepping back and
removal of third story on some front elevations; break-up of
massing to alleviate long, street frontage facades of structures:
provision of child play areas; and reduction in shadow impacts.
The architect and environmental consultant both will be providing
additional background addressing the issue of shadow impacts at
the meeting. Although the number of units proposed on these five
sites has decreased by nine percent, there has been no decrease
in the amount of parking proposed.
The supplemental Planning commission packet which was distributed
last Friday included, in addition to the revised plans, several
letters which were received subsequent to distribution of the
original packet. This memorandum provides response to some of
the major issues raised in the letter dated August 31, 1988 from
Heid! Gral!nsk! and Rand! Johnson.
The EIR was prepared to address the Initial Study which was
prepared by staff. Although the city's Initial Study was used to
prepare the EIR, the environmental consultant omitted the Initial
study trom the EIR. The Initial study is attached here for your
reference and for inclusion in the Final EIR.
The letter noted that the 69-room Santa Monica Beach House Inn
was not included on the list of cumulative projects. The
cumulative list of projects is set at the beginning of the
environmental review process based on pending development
applications and, due to logistics of completing an environmental
review, is static and not subject to change later in the review
process as proposed projects are added or deleted. However, in
order to address this concern, the Parking and Traffic Engineer
has examined the impacts that the inclusion of the Santa Monica
- 1 -
.
.
Beach House Inn would have made on the traffic analysis if it had
been included on the cumulative projects list. This information
will be available at the meeting.
The letter questions why no soils impact section was included in
the EIR. In accordance with the City's Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA, grading on land with a slope of less than
ten percent (10%) is categorically exempt (Class 4[lJ) and
grading on land with a slope ot ten percent (10%) or more is
categorically exempt if the site involves 20,000 cubic yards or
'less (Class 4(2]). Each of the sites involves less than 20,000
cubic yards of grading; therefore, the Initial Study did not
require a soils impact analysis. If approved, the projects will
be required to conform to all City codes involving grading and
excavation.
The issue of public safety is raised in the letter. As part of
the internal review of the Draft EIR for this project, the
document was circulated to various departments, including Police
and Fire. No special concerns or conditions of approval were
stated by these departments.
Another concern expressed was the loss of parking spaces on the
street. Although the proposed projects involve the net addition
of one more driveway than currently exists on the combined
properties, neighboring residents most likely have been parking
in front of the existing driveways since they are out of use. In
practice, approximately 10 parking spaces would be lost DY
installation of the new driveways, even though only two spaces in'
theory would be lost due to new curb cuts. Temporary loss of
on-street parking spaces during construction would approximate an
additional six spaces.
The addendum to the EIR shows that the 96-unit condominium
project would result in a total wastewater generation of 20,700
gpd. This number was obtained by using the wastewater generation
factors from the City of Los Anqeles Bureau of Engineering (June
1988). The addendum states that the actual wastewater generation
may be lower based on revised generation factors whiCh, at that
time, were being developed by the City of Santa Monica. Since
the initial preparation of the addendum, Santa Monica has adopted
a Wastewater Control Ordinance which specifies different sewage
generation factors than those used by Los Anqeles, based on Santa
Monica restrictions. Using the Santa Monica factors, the 96-unit
condominium project would have a total wastewater generation of
13,535 gpd, as follows:
Condominium # Units Factor Gallons per Day
1 bedroom 1 100 gpd/unit 100
2 bedroom 64 130 gpd/unit 8,320
3 bedroom 31 165 gpdjunit 5,115
13,535 gpd
The wastewater Control Ordinance specifies two, six-month
allocation periods. The current period is from July 1 through
- 2 -
.
.
December 31, 1988 and permits a total new wastewater allocation
of 86,632 gpd. The allocation is linked to the issuance of
building permits and is assigned strictly on a first-come,
first-served basis. The total generation of 13,535 gpd flow for
the proposed 96 units represents 16% of this total allocation and
8% of the annual allocation. Staff notes that the total number
of units currently proposed has been reduced to 88 units, which
in turn will reduce the wastewater generation. As of this date,
the City has allocated 45% of the available new capacity for the
current six-month allocation period. Therefore, adequate
wastewater capacity exists for the proposed project if building
permits are issued during 1988. Subsequently, additional
wastewater allocation of 173,264 qpd will be available annually.
Prepared by: Shari Laham, Associate Planner
'Attachment
PC/pcmemo
SL
09/07/88
- 3 -
1
.,4
CITY OF SAN~ONICA
CITY PLANNI~IVISION
city Hall, 1685 Main street, Santa Monica, Cal~fornia
.
IS No. 849
90~01-3295
INITIAL STUDY
AND
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STATEMENT
DATE FILED 6L25/87
I . BACKGROUND
"
1.
Name of Proponent oscar Ka~Tr~st
(
2. Address and Phone Number of proponent
3101 Ocean Park Blvd., suite 200, Santa Monica,
California 90405; (213) 450-6015
3. Project Information:
Address
Case Number
condominium
Un~ts
2913 Third street
TTM 45454, CUP 473
23 Units
3000 Third street
TTM 45455, CUP 474
28 Units
3019 Third street
TTM 45456, CUP 475
12 Units
2115 Third ~treet
TTM 45457, CUP 476
20 Units
2222 Fifth street
TTM 45458, CUP 477
9 Units
2722 Third street
TPM 18719, CUP 478
4 Units
4. Initial study Prepared by Richard Mills, Associate
Planner
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required
on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
x
- 1 -
CITY OF SANTA~NICA
CITY PLANNING~VISION
City Hall, 1685 Ma~n street,
.
IS No. 849
Santa Mon~ca, California 90401-3295
b. Extensive disruptions, displace-
ments, compaction or overcovering
of soil?
x
c. Extensive change in topography of
ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering ~
modification of any unique
geological or physical features?
---- -
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or
off the site?
x
x
x
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the bed of the
ocean or any bay or inlet?
x
g. Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, lands11des, mud-
slides, ground failure, or
similar hazards?
x
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Considerable air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
x
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
x
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or
any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
d. Expose the project residents to
severe air pollution conditions?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
x
x:
a. Changes in currents, or the
course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
x
b. Extensive changes in absorp-
tion rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
x
- 2 -
.
CITY OF SANaONICA
CITY PLANNI IVISION
City Hall, 1685 Main street, Santa Monica, California
c. Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but
not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. considerable reduction in the
amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such
as flooding or tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species
or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquati~plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or result in
a barrier to the normal replen-
ishment of existing species?
5. Animal Life. will the proposal
result in:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or number of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or
insects)?
- 3 -
IS No. 849
90401-3295
x
x.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
CITY OF SANT~NICA
CITY PLANNING~VISION
C~ty Hall, 1685 Ha~n Stree'C,
.
:s ~;o. 349
Santa Monica, Californla 90401-3295
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered
spec~~s of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
x:
x
d. Deterioration of existing fish
or wildlife habitats?
x
6. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of considerable amount of
fuels or energy?
b. Considerable increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of
new sources or energy?
x
x
7. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources?
x
b. Considerable depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource?
x
8. Noise. will th~ proposal result in:
a. considerable increases in existing
noise levels? During construction?
x
b. Exposure of people to severe
noise levels?
x
9. Light and Glare. will the proposal
produce considerable new light or glare
from street lights or other sources? x
10. Shadows. will the proposal produce
extensive shadows affecting
adjacent uses or property? x
11. Risk of Upset. will the proposal
involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to,
oil, pesticides, chemicals or
- 4 -
.
I
CITY OF SAN1IIt10NICA
CITY PLANNI~IVISION
c~ty Hall, 1685 Main street, Santa Monica, Cal~fornia
radiation) in the event of an
accident or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
12. Human Health. will the proposal
result in:
a. creation of any health hazard
or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
13. Population. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Considerable change in the distri-
but~on, density, or growth rate of
the human population of an area?
b. The relocation of any persons
because of the effects upon
housing, commercial or industrial
facilities?
c. The relocation or dislocation
of employment or businesses?
14. Land Use. will the proposal result in:
a. A considerable alteration of the
present or planned land use of
an area?
b. Demolition, relocation, or
remodeling of residential, com-
mercial or industrial buildings
or other facilities?
15. Housing. will the Proposal:
a. Create a considerable demand for
additional housing?
b. Have a considerable impact on
the available rental housing
in the community?
16. utilities. will the proposal
result in a need for new systems,
- 5 -
IS No. 849
90401-3295
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
CITY
CITY
CJ..ty
OF SANT.NICA
PLANNING DIVISIO~
Hall, 1685 na~n st:reet,
.
IS ~lo. 8~9
Santa MonJ..ca, CalJ..for~ia 90401-3295
or major alterations to the
following utilitJ..es:
po-..;er ~ natural gas?
a. or
b. Com:!tl.un:.caticns systems?
c. Water?
d. S el~er or septic tanks?
e. storm l-,Ta tar drainage?
f. Solid Waste and disposal?
17. Right of Way. will the proposal
result in:
a. Reduced lot area?
b. Reduced access?
c. Reduced off-street parking?
d. Creation of abrupt grade dif-
ferential between public and
private property?
18. Transportation/circulation. Will
the proposal result in:
a. Generation of considerable
additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existJ..ng parking
facilities, or demand for new
parking?
c. Considerable impact upon existing
transit systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail
or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
19. Public services. Will the proposal
have a considerable effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered
- 6 -
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
CITY OF SANTA .rCA
CITY PLANNING rsrON
City Hall, 1685 Main street, Santa Monica, California
IS No. 849
90401-3295
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
.
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facil-
ities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
20. Fiscal. will the proposal have a
considerable fiscal effect on the
city?
21. Recreation. Will the proposal result
in a considerable impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
22. cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruc-
tion of a prehistoric or his-
toric archeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in
adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure,
or object?
c. Does the proposal have the
potential to cause a physical
change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict
existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential
impact area?
23. Aesthetics. will the proposed
project result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic
vista or view open to the public? x
- 7 -
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
CITY OF SANTA M~A . IS No. 849
CITY PLANNING O~SION
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
b. The creation of an aestheti-
cally offensive site open to
publiq view?
x
c. The destruction of a stand of
trees, a rock outcropping or
other locally recognized desir-
able aesthetic natural feature:
x
d. Any negative aesthetic
effect?
x
24. Neighborhood Effects. Will the
proposal have considerable effects
on the project neighborhood?
25. Mandatory Findings of siqnificance.
a. Does the project have the poten-
tial to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal commun-
ity, reduce the nn~her or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
pre-history?
b. Does the project have the poten-
tial to achieve_short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
x
x
x
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
d. Does the project have environ-
mental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
x
x
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project may have significant environmental impacts in
the areas noted above, including the cumulative impact of
developing the six sites simultaneously.
- a -
CITY OF SANTA M
CITY PLANNING
city Hall, 1685
CA
SION
in Street, Santa Monica, Ca1iforn1a
.
IS No. 849
90401-3295
IV. DETERMINATION
An Environmental Impact Report is necessary.
EN28
RM:nh
07/17/87
- 9 -
.
.-
l
ftJh
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
D~TE: september 7, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: CUP 473, CUP 474, CUP 475, CUP 476, CUP 478, Vesting TTM
45454, 45455, 45456, 45457, Vesting TPM 18719 and EIA
849.
Address:
Applicant:
2115, 2722, 2913, 3000 and 3019 Third street
Oscar Katz Trust
SUMMARY
Action: Application for Conditional Use Permits and vesting One-
Lot Subdivisions to allow construction of five new residential
condominium proj eets. (The sixth site, 2222 Fifth Street, is
under separate ownership and its public hearing is continued to
october 5, 1988.) An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
prepared for this project and a resolution certifying the adequacy
of the EIR has been prepared.
The applicant at this time has not provided staff with modified
plans that r-:flect the Planning Co~~ission's direction at the last
hearing. This direction was to redesign the projects to address
the following concerns:
Reduce bulk and scale of project and break up long
building facades at street frontage.
Improve compatibility of architecture with surrounding
neighborhood.
Reduce shadow impacts of structures on adjacent units.
Provide adequate space for child play areas and increase
shared open space.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission has two options regarding action on the
proposed developments. Although the applicant has had a meeting
with staff to verbally describe proposed revisions to the proj-
ects, staff has not received any revised plans.
- 1 -
.(
.,-
\
The options are as follows:
a) Deny the projects since the Planning Commission has not
been provided with a detailed staff review and analysis
of the revised projects.
b) Review any plans and materials which are submitted
subsequent to this report and determine if the projects
should be approved or denied based on whether the proj-
ects adequately address the Commission's concerns as
stated at the meeting of July 6, 1988.
The original staff reports are attached for your review. Due to
time constraints imposed by the State streamlining act, there is
no additional allowance for continuation of these five cases. If
the Commission elects to approve the projects, the attached staff
reports contain the required findings and recommended conditions
of approval. Alternatively, if the Commission votes to deny the
projects, staff is providing the necessary finding below.
~EQA STATUS
The development under consideration includes five of six total
condominium projects proposed (the sixth project at 2222 Fifth
street has been sold to a new owner). Although the proposed proj-
ects would be categorically exempt from environmental review when
considered individually, (Class 3(14) of the city Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA), the applicant requested preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report to ensure that all environmental is-
sues are considered cumulatively for the six projects. Therefore,
an Environmental Impact Report (EIA 849) was prepared for all the
projects together, which consisted of a total of 96 residential
condominium units on six separate sites with~n Ocean Park. Copies
of the Draft EIR were distributed to the Planning commission at
the beginning of the 4S-day public review period. All COllUllents
received and responses to the comments are incorporated in the
attached Final EIR.
As requested by the Planning Commission at the meeting of July 6,
1988, an addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to provide
additional background to demonstrate how the sewage generation of
the proj ect was determined. The addendum provides the actual
sewage generation factors which were used to calculate this fig-
ure. In accordance with CEQA, an addendum need not be circulated
for public review, but can be inCluded in or attached to the Final
EIR. staff recommends approval of the attached resolution cer-
tifying the adequacy of the EIR.
In addition, should any other material be distributed at the Plan-
ning commission meeting, relating to potential impacts created by
the projects, and should the planning Commission conclude that the
information verifies the project will not have any significant
environmental impacts, the Commission may include that information
in the certification of the EIR.
- 2 -
ec
.
REQUIRED FINDING, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIES THE PROJ~CT:
1. The proposed use and location of the residential condomini-
wn developments are not in accordance with good zoning
practice due to their incompatibility with existing and
potential uses within the general area in terms of bulk and
scale of the projects~ incompatibility with the historic
nature and architecture of Ocean Park~ deleterious shadow
impacts created by the proposed structures on adjacent
unitsi and inadequate provision of child play areas and
shared open space. Resultantly, the public health, safety
and general welfare are not protected and harm to adjacent
properties will result.
Prepared by: Shari Laham, Associate Planner
Katz
SL
08/30/88
D.
Addendum to Final EIR
Resolution Certifying the Final EIR
Letters received from applicant, dated 7/13 and
8/23
Protest letters received after the July 6th
Planning commission meeting
planning Commission Minutes (Draft) from 7/6/8S
Original Staff Reports dated 7/6/88 (Items SA,
SB, SCt 80 and SF
Final EIR No. 849
Attachments: A.
B.
c.
E.
F.
G.
- 3 -
.
A#lKhmerJi" i~
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
MEKORANDUM.
DATE: July 6, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Corrections to Final EIR, EIA 849
Katz Condominium Projects
Address: 2115, 2722, 2913, 3000 and 3015 Third
Street and 2222 Fifth Street
Applicant: Katz Condominium Projects
Two corrections are noted to the Final Environmental Impact Re-
port prepared for the above projects. Table 1, "Snm"!'!lary of En-
vironmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures" on page II-4 of the
EIR, under the heading "Traffic/circulation" should state that
nine intersections, rather than five, were analyzed as follows:
The addi tion of proj ect-generated traffic would
not result in significant changes in the evening
peak hour operating conditions at the nine inter-
sections analyzed for this study.
The second correction noted is regarding the Level of Service
(LOS) for the intersection of Fourth and Hill Streets during the
evening peak hour for existing conditions and existing plus proj-
ect conditions. The LOS was incorrectly designated as "A" in
Table 12 on page V-14 and in Table 3 on page 8 of Appendix B of
the EIR. The corrected tables are attached for your information.
Although these two tables were labelled incorrectly, the findings
of the EIR do not change. The correct LOS ratings for cumulative
base (LOS C) and cumulative plus project (LOS C) conditions are
shown in Table 13, page V-16 and Table 4, page 8 of Appendix B.
There are no significant traffic impacts at the intersection of
Fourth and Hill Streets.
At the request of planning staff, the applicant has submitted
corrected floor plans for 3000 Third street (Item 8B)1 3019 Third
Street (Item Be) and 2222 Fifth street (Item BE). These plans
were requested because the original plans for these three proj-
ects inadvertantly omitted the window openings. The layout of
the floor plans has not changed. The only change in the attached
plans is that they reflect the location of the window openings.
Prepared by: Shari Laham, Associate Planner
- 1 -
.
.
eirmemo
SL
06/30/88
Attachments: 1. Corrected Table 12 (page V-14) "Existing Plus
project Intersection Levels of service"
2. Corrected Table 3 (Page 8, Appendix B)
"Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of
Service"
3. Corrected Floor Plans
- 2 -
.
.
Table 12. EX1sting-Plus-Pro~ect Intersectlon Levels of Service
t
I
Even1ng Peak Hour
EX1st1ng Plus
EXlstlng ProJect
Intersection v/e Ratl.o LOS vIe Ratlo LOS
Fourth Street & Pico Boulevard 0.95 E 0.96 E
Main Street & Pico Boulevard 0.72 e 0.72 C
Maln Street & Ocean Park Boulevard 0.67 B 0.67 B
Maln Street & Ashland Avenue 0.61 B 0.62 B
Maln Street & Marine Street 0.61 B 0.61 B
Fourth Street & Hill Street 0.69 ';<<:.B 0.71 ","C
Marlne Street & Second Street 629 (1) A 626 (1) A
Mar1ne Street & Third Street 762 (1) A 747 (1) A
Ashland Avenue & Third Street 826 (1) A 821 (1) A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(I) Aval1able reserve capacity for most constrained turnlng movement.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
79271B/M-l
V-14
C McClelland
r
.
.
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The project traffic volumes as forecast
as shown on Figure 2 were then added
traffic volumes as shown on Figure 4.
are summarized on Figure 5.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ANALYSIS
earlier in this chapter
to the Cumulative Base
The resulting forecasts
The folowing table summarizes the level of service for existlng
plus project conditions:
TABLE 3
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
lntersection
Fourth Street & Hill Street
Marine Street & Second Street
Harlne Street & Third Street
Ashland Avenue & Third Street
~xistina
vIe LOS
Existing
+ Pro.i ec t
VIe l..QS
0.71 "'1(C
626 (I) A
747 (I) A
811 (1) A
0.69
629 (1)
762 (1)
826 (1)
~'B
A
A
A
(1) Available reserve capacity for most constrained turning
movement
As shown by Table 3, all of the intersections are operatlng at a
Jevel of service A after project traffic is added. Thus, none of
the intersections are significantly impacted by the project USlng
the "significant impact" criteria described in the preVl0US
report.
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ANALYSIS
The fo1owing table summarizes the level of service for existlng
plus project conditions:
TABLE 4
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Inters~ctiQn
Fourth Street & Hill Street
Marine Street & Second Street
Marine Street & Third Street
Ashland Avenue & Third Street
Cumulative
V/C LOS
0.76 C
611 (1) A
752 (1) A
820 (1) A
C~mulative
+ Project
V/C LOS
0.78 C
608 (1) A
737 (l) A
815 (I) A
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
-
..
e<
.(-
on
.
.
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Eeono~ic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 6, 1988
~o: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: CUP 473, TTM 45454, EIA 849, New 23-Unit Condominium
Address: 2913 Third street (Project A)
Applicant: Oscar Katz Trust
StJMMARY
Action: Application for Conditional Use Permit and Tentative
Tract Map to allow construction of a 23-unit condominium project
and a one-lot SUbdivision for condominium purposes. The proposal
meets all applicable development standards. An Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this proj act and a
resolution certifying the adequacy of the EIR has been prepared.
Recommendation: Approval.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The SUbject property is a 31,000 sq. ft. parcel located on the
east side of Third street between Ashland Avenue and Marine
Street having a frontage of 200 feet. The lot slopes up towards
the rear with an overall rise in grade of approximately 28 feet.
Surrounding uses consist of two and three-story mul ti-fam:l.ly
residential (R3) to the north, south, east and west. Two trees
will be removed to permit the proposed construction; however,
proposed project landscaping will more than replace these trees
with significant vegetation.
Zoning Districts: R3
Land Use Districts: Medium Density Housing
Parcel Area: 200' X 155' - 31,000 square feet
?ROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant is proposing a three-story, 23-unit condominium
project with two separately accessed levels of subterranean park-
ing. A one-lot subdivision is proposed to permit the condominium
development. The site is currently vacant.
- 1 -
.
The proposed p~~:t is one large, interc~ted structure con-
sisting of two separate building footprints with above grade
walkways between them. Due to the grade difference on site, the
development actually has five separate levels (including subter-
ranean), but the structure follows the contour of the land so
that at no point does it exceed three levels above average
natural grade.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed condominium project is consistent with the Municipal
Code and in conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attach-
ment A. The project was deemed complete on July 10, 1987, which
was prior to adoption of the ordinance establishing interim
zoning regulations for Ocean Park. A provision of that ordinance
allowed for processing of projects under the existing zoning reg-
ulations when the application for development was deemed complete
by the City on or before July 28, 1987. Therefore, the project
is exempt from the interim zoning standards for Ocean Park and
must be reviewed according to the existing R3 zoning standards.
The applicant has submitted a letter which further addresses the
project's compliance with applicable development standards and
policies (please refer to Attachment C).
CEQA STATUS
The proposed development is one of six total condominium projects
proposed by the applicant. Although the proposed project indi-
vidually is categorically exempt from environmental review,
(Class 3(14) of the City Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA),
the applicant requested preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report to ensure that all environmental issues are considered
cumulatively for the six projects. Therefore, an Environmental
Impact Report (EIA 849) was prepared for this project together
with the applicant's five other concurrently proposed projects
consisting of a total of 96 residential condominium units on six
separate sites within Ocean Park. Copies of the Draft EIR were
distributed to the Planning Commission at the beginning of the
45-day public review period. All comments received and responses
to the comments are incorporated in the attached Final EIR. Ap-
proval of the resolution certifying the adequacy of the EIR is
recommended.
FEES
The project is subject to a Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax
of $200.00 per unit and a Condominium Facilities Tax of $1,000.00
per saleable unit.
- 2 -
e(-
.-
~
ANALYSIS
Project Design
The project is designed with two separately accessed subterranean
garage levels. As required by code, two 20-foot driveways are
provided to serve the project on Third Street. The southern
driveway accesses the lower subterranean garage which provides 28
parking spaces. The northern driveway leads to a subterranean
garage on the rear of the site which has 27 parking spaces. A
total of 55 parking' spaces are prey ided which exceeds the 4 G
spaces required by code. The nine extra spaces results in a pro-
vision of approximately one guest space for every 2-1/2 units.
The rear qaraqe includes a storage area totalling nearly 1,400
square feet and a trash room. The mailroom and elevator are cen-
trally located within the project adjacent to the courtyard.
Overall building height above averaqe natural grade is 33 feet.
Although parapet and stair enclosure projections reach a height
of 39 feet above average natural grade, these projections do not
contribute toward building height, according to the code defini-
tion. Development standards permit a maximum height of 40 feet;
therefore, the project complies with the height standard. (Staff
notes that the south and east elevation labels are transposed on
the submitted plans.) proposed lot coverage is fifty percent and
one-fourth of the site will be devoted to landscaped and court-
yard areas, as required by code.
Eight separate unit plans and their reverses are proposed as
follows:
Unit # Bedrooms # Baths Unit Size Balcony/Patio size
(sq. ft. ) (sq. ft. )
A (7) 2 2 1,402 106
B (3) 3 2 1.,573 91.
C (3) 3 2 1,647 144
0 (3) 2 2 1.,379 102
E (2) 2 2 1,937 140
F (2) 2 2 1,730 152
G (1) 1 1. 1,161 234
H (2) 2 2 1,522 70-76
Proposed exterior materials include stueco plaster walls, alumi-
num windows with clear glass and painted steel handrails. Each
unit has at least one private balcony or patio. Two central
courtyards provide common open space. In addition, landscaping
is provided in all setbacks, including a row of trees planted 10
feet on center along the side and rear property lines to provide
privacy for the neighboring residential units. Primary
pedestrian access to the development is provided on the south
side of the project along a landscaped walkway.
- 3 -
e(
.'-
(
Environmental Issues
The Environmental Impact Report addressed issues regarding traf-
fic and circulation: noise; sewer availability; aesthetics, light
and glare; land use consistency with the General Plan and zoning
ordinance and neighborhood impacts. As reported in the EIR, no
significant environmental impacts would result from the project
with the exception of short-term noise impacts during proj ect
construction. Mitigation measures are offered to reduce these
noise i~pacts and are recommended as conditions of approval of
the project.
Detailed level of service traffic analyses were prepared for nine
intersections in the ~icinity of the projects. Kaku Associates
prepared the analysis for the evening peak hour at the following
intersections:
Fourth street/Pica Boulevard
Main street/Pico Boulevard
Main Street/Ocean Park Boulevard
Main Street/Ashland Avenue
Main Street/Marine Street
Fourth Street/Hill street
Marine Street/Second Street
Marine Street/Third Street
Ashland Avenue/Third Street.
The traffic impact analysis determined that the proposed
projects, considered cumulatively, would not have significant
impacts at any of the nine study intersections. Therefore, no
traffic mitigation measures were proposed.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development of 23 condominium units on the subject
site will be compatible with surrounding development which con-
sists of a variety of low and medium density residential uses.
The plan provides adequate landscaping, including dense perimeter
landscaping; parking which exceeds the code requirement by 20
percent; and private and common open space and amenities to sup-
port the proposed development. The project meets or exceeds all
development standards and will not result in any long-term sig-
nificant environmental impacts. For these reasons, it is staff's
determination that this project merits approval, Subject to the
conditions listed below.
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the Planning commission ap-
prove CUP 473, TTM 45454 and the resolution certifying the En-
vironmental Impact Report, EIA 849, subject to the following
findings and conditions.
- 4 -
e(-
e~.-
'-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDING
1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good
zoning practice; the use is compatible with existing and
potential uses within the general area; traffic or parking
congestion will not result; the pUblic health, safety and
general welfare are protected and no harm to adjacent
properties will result.
TENTATI~ TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its prov~s~on for
its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of santa
Monica.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and
density of development in that the project is an in-fill
of urban land adequately served by existing infrastructure
and proposed on a site having no significant physical
characteristics which would preclude the development.
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage or sub-
stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement
will not cause serious pUblic health problems.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at larg!, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
6. The design of the subdivision does not preclude future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.
SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
1. Construction hours shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday as set
forth in Section 4204 (SMMC) or as amended by Ordinance.
2. Noise specifications for construction equipment shall com-
ply with the City of Santa Monica Noise Ordinance (Ord.
1406 CCS); internal combustion engines shall be equipped
with a muffler; stationary generators shall be fully en-
closed and temporary barriers used between generators and
property lines.
3. A standard sewer hook-Up fee shall be paid to the city.
4. Applicant shall pay for a gauging study of sewer lines
#1349 and #1353 if determined necessary by the General
- 5 -
service.4It!;artment. If linee nee~ be replaced, the
applicant shall be assessed a proportionate share of the
capi tal improvement costs as determined by the General
Services Department.
5. The project shall conform to any program the City adopts
to implement the City of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 163565
regarding connections to the sanitary sewer system.
6. All air conditioning units shall be housed and/or muffled
such that they do not cause an exceedance of an equivalent
80ulnd level of 45 dBA at the property line.
7. The exterior lighting plan shall incorporate low-intensity
lighting and hooded light fixtures orientated away from
traffic and surrounding residential Uses.
s. Should a Traffic Mitigation Fee be developed by the city
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
developer shall be required to pay any required fees.
9. The working drawings shall include a section showing the
overall height of the structures not to exceed 39 1-0"
above average natural grade.
10. Any parking control system shall require prior approval of
the Planning Division to ensure that parking is accessible
for visitor use.
11. A 6-foot, decorative masonry wall shall be constructed
along the north, east ~nd south property lines where no
solid wall currently exists to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division: wall details shall be included on the
working drawings prior to issuance of any building permit.
12. The loft in unit plans Hand H-reverse shall not exceed
one-third the area of the open room below.
13. The Architectural Review Board shall review the project to
ensure that there is an adequate pedestrian entrance
statement made on the front elevation.
STANDARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
1. Plans for final design, landscaping and trash enclosures
shall be subject to review and approval by the Architec-
tural Review Board.
2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning Com~ission
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.
- 6 -
e( e(
3. The Conditional Use Permit shall be of no further force or
effect if the Tentative Map expires prior to approval of a
Final Map for said parcel.
4. The rights granted herein for the Conditional Use Permit
shall be effective only when exercised within a period of
one year from the effective date of approval. Upon the
written request of the applicant, the Director of Planning
may extend this period up to an additional six months.
5. ';rhe applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
'regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
6. Final parking layout and specifications shall be subject
to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened in accordance with Sec. 91273.2-4 (SMMC). Re-
fuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need.
8 . No noise genera tinq compressors or other such equipment
shall be placed adjacent to neighboring residential
buildings.
9. Project design shall comply with the building energy reg-
ulations 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.
10. Natural light shall be provided in at least one bathroom
in each dwelling unit.
11. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
12.
street lighting shall be provided on
adjacent to the project if and
specifications and with the approval
General Services.
public rights-Of-way
as needed per the
of the Department of
13. 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.
- 7 -
e( e(-
14. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of twenty days for the conditional Use Permit and ten days
for the Tentative Tract Map from the date of determination
or, if appealed, until a final determination is made on
the appeal.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
1. All off site improvements required by the City Engineer
shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site
~mprovements shall be prepared by a registered civil en-
gineer and approved by the city Engineer.
2. Before the City Engineer may approve the final map, a sub-
division improvement agreement for all off site improve-
ments required by the city Engineer shall be prepared and
a performance bond posted through the ci ty Attorney t s
office.
3. The tentative map shall expire 24 ~onths after approval,
except as provided in the provisions of California Govern-
ment Code Section 66452.6 and Sections 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.
4. 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.
5. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Associa-
tion By-Laws and a Declaration of CC & RIs shall be re-
viewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC & RIs
shall concain a nondiscrimination clause as presented in
Section 9392 (SM11C) and contain such provisions as are
required by Section 9122E (SMMC).
6. The developer shall provide for payment of a Condominium
Tax of $1,000 per saleable residential unit per the provi-
sions of Section 6651 et seq. of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code.
7. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of
Sections 9330 through 9338 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid
prior to scheduling of the Final Map for City Council
approval.
8. The final ~ap shall be recorded with the Los Angeles Coun-
ty Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit for a
condominium proj ect pursuant to Government Code section
66499.30.
- 8 -
9.
A park.: Recreation FaCilities,"...c of $200.00 per
residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of the residential units on the subject lot, per
and subject to the provisions of section 6670 et seg. of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
INCLUSIONARY UNIT CONDITION
1. 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 Anqeles County Recorder's
Office as a part of the deed of the property to ensure
that three (3) affordable units are provided and main-
tained over time and through subsequent sales of the prop-
erty. An affordable unit shall be defined as being af-
fordable to households with incomes not exceeding 100% of
the (HUD) Los Angeles County median income, expending not
over 25% of monthly income on housing costs, as specified
by the Housing Division of the Department of Community and
Economic Development.
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to
approval of the Final Map. Such agreement shall specify
1) responsibilities of the developer for making the unit
available to eligible tenants and 2) responsibilities of
the City of Santa Monica to prepare application forms for
potential tenants, establish criteria for qualifications,
and monitor compliance with the previsions of the
agreement.
This provision is intended to satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirements of Program 12 of ';he Housing Element
of the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica ("Program
121t) . Developer may satisfy the obligations created by
this Agreement by demonstrating to the Director of Plan-
ning compliance with any ordinance or resolution adopted
by the City within two years from the effective date of
this approval, which is intended to provide an alternative
method for compliance with Program 12. An alternative
method may be, but is not limited to, the payment of a fee
in-lieu of providing the three Affordable Units.
Prepared by: Shari Laham, Associate Planner
CUP473
SL:
06/20/88
- 9 -
.-
&-
,
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Radius Map
C. Letter from Applicant, dated 2/16/88*
O. Resolution Certifying the Final EIR.
E. Summary C.C. & R.'S
F. Protest letters received 6/27/88 and 6/28/88*
G. Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations,
Shadow Diagram, Landscape and Irrigation Plans
H. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 45454
I. Final Environmental Impact Report, EIA 849*
'* In the interest of economy, these attachments were
reproduced only once for all six Katz condominium proj-
ects and may be found attached herein to this staff
report for CUP 473 and TTM 45454.
... 10 -
ec
er-
e...
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Municipal Code
Permitted Use R3: Permits
Condominium
Development
Height 3 stories/
40 feet
Setbacks
Front yard
Sideyard
Rearyard
Lot Coverage
Parking
Density
20 feet
17 feet
15 feet
50%
46 spaces
One Unit/
1,000 sq. ft.
(31 units)
Land Use
Element
Medium
Density
Housing:
Permits
Condominium
Development
3 stories/
40 feet
Same as
Municipal Code
Same as
Municipal Code
Same as
Municipal Code
Same as
Municipal Code
Same as
Municipal Code
One unit/
1,250 sq. ft.
(25 units)
- 11 -
~roject
23-Unit
Condominium
Development
3 stories/
331-0"
20 feet
17 - 35 feet
15 feet
50%
55 spaces
One Unit/
1,350 sq. ft.
(23 units)
..:" 'J I ~~ 1'1 ~ . . < t. ~ ,. '1
t-..... 1.. I J~ II -
~ ~ ~ ..\ .. .f1:- ;,: ..~=utl 1/..,.., tI :.J"
, '. r' I L' n....i ..... u ~, I
," ~:::, .......:., 1~1. - .....~.:. .. '1' "~~..
.' ID ..- '. '"'" ".~' . m tI ':00: ;'_' ". __ n. . ( : r D l= I,
r . MI....~.,._ ICI . ,;': ~ . ~ _I : ~
. ,,"~. f', .", _lll ...,. - I.
. - .. - ,. 1.1. ~.
. D . .:.:. J. ,,;,... . ....... ".-, : r'
: ~;. ~~~~. -: ~ "~~' :-> 'I~'" "~.
,-~-.- · ~> ' " 'I~.';l t~ >-"
~\~ ~~'i · ~'I . 'I" ~.~rt: ::;:1 ~ ;: ~ ~:rit.'j1 :1' - -: '
~'ei ,. = ~ · ~ ~... .. -) ,. ~
-, r\ 'I .. . .. c "8 ~
,: ~. ~ """: - I" .. - " ,,~. .. _.. ....t.
I .
. ..
..
_ I
~ 1..1
.,
'T
I,
. ..
. .
~>,
.
,
, I
.
r,
.
FOURTH
~)
-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOtS 16 lHRU 19. 8LOC~ [, SUU H HACT
C ()P L-/-o
CASE NO .--r /.11 J lr:,LI:::...d
STREET ADDRESS
1913. 1917. 1923 Ind 1917 1HIRD S1A((T
lONE
03
OSCAR UTZ
APPLICANT
DATE
RADIUS MAP FOR
PUBLIC
HEARING
DATE
-? J I,. }Q(?
1.'1 j-
lPU\rNI~~[f{)@ IQ)rn[?~~ifIfJJ~[Mlr
can' 0:;:
S-a- ,Jhc...~
UUJ=i!j) ~fNIJ 1\
I. f.ulIPl-ce
All... Mop
Shul No
\)
( Z 1 . 30 \ 1 D S Z -r ,t,
/"
.(
.rr
t
LA\\'"R E~CE & H.AR DING
A. .IIli!O"'~SSIlJ"'.AL COIUI-OIIA.TION
,ATYOR.....CYS AT L.AW
Il;SO !;lllTH S'''~ET
5,",,'E 300
SAN.,.... MO~ICA CALtYO........JJIo ~040}
Tl:~E..HO..E rzr31 393'00>
.....EL.ECOPIER .2l3~ ..Se....9S9
Ct-lRIS'TQPtoIE.R .... HA1=tCI'toil'G
IItlCN.I\lItC.I\ ~.I\WIltENCE
J(t:NNE'T.... L. I'(VTC.....C,.
t.4.JII:-".J BRES,N..CK
.JOH.... IE. .......c::....lt...m
-KEVIN Y Ill.O.2'AL
February 16, 1988
-
VIA MESSENGER EXPRESS
Shari Laham
Planning Division
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90401-3295
Re: TTM 45~54: CUP 473
TTM 45455; CUP 474
TTM 45456: CUP 475
TTM 45457; CUP 476
TTM 45458; CUP 477
TPM 18719; CUP 478
Our File No. 216.2
Dear Ms. Laham:
This letter summarizes various points which we believe
are important for the Planning Division to keep in mind while
processing the above-referenced Applications for New Condominium
Proposals. It is our hope that this letter will assis~ you in
your preparation of the staff report(s) for these prrjects.
Among the points raised in this letter, the three
overriding themes which we believe to be irrefutable are as
follows:
I. These projects comply with the letter and spirit of all
requirements and guidelines of the Land Use Element, zoning Code
and Draft Zoning Code.
II. These projects provide needed new housing opportunities
in Ocean Park, particularly as to potential family units.
III. The governing bodies have no legal discretion to
disapprove these projects.
LA\\'RE~CE & HARDI~G.(
.~
,
'-
A ",~01't:SSIOHA.1. CQRPORA.T"IOIIi
ATTOFlNE:YS ....T ~W
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 2
I.
Technical Code Requirements and Guidelines
The following is a summary of the compliance of these
projects with the various development standards contained in the
Land Use Element, Zoning Code and Draft Zoning Code.
A. Permitted Uses. Each of the six project sites is
located in the R-3 Multiple Residential District and bears a
land use classification of Medium Density Housing. Multiple
family dwellings such as condominiums are permitted in the
Multiple Residential District. (SMMC i9109A and Draft zoning
Code 19013.2(a).) MUltiple family dwellings are also expressly
permitted in the Medium Density Housing Area. (LUCE, p. 165.)
B. Lot Area. Each lot in the R-J District must have a
minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. (SMMC~ 9109B.l and Draft
zoning Code fi9013.6(d).) The smallest of the subject lots is
6,500 square feet.
C. Lot Dimensions. Each lot in the R-3 District must have
a minimum width of 50 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet.
(SMMC ~9109B.2 and Draft Zoning Code j901J.6(d).} The smallest
width of the subject lots is 50 feet, and the smallest depth is
130 feet.
D. pensity. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 1,000
square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. (SMMC
i9109B.3.a.) The Draft Zoning Code requires at least 1,250
square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. (Draft Zoning Code
59013.6(b).} The Land Use Element requires a minimum of 1,245
square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. (LUCE, p. 165.)
Each of the sites satisfies this density standard. Most of the
sites contain 1,300 to 1,400 square feet per unit. The four-
unit project at 2722 Third street will contain approximately
1,625 square feet of lot area per unit.
A comparison of the actual number of units proposed to
be constructed with the number of units permitted per site per
1,250 square feet of lot area is set forth in Figure 1 below:
LAWREKCE & HARDI~G e[
"
e-
(
'" ."Or-e::SS10NAL CORpoR&.TLON
A'fTORNE:YS AT I....W
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 3
Fiqure 1.
Site Lot Area Permitted Units ~ctual units
Project A 31,000 sq. ft. 25 23
Project B 39,000 sq. ft. 31 28
Project C 15,500 sq. ft. 12 12
Project D 27,000 sq. ft. 22 20
Project E 6,500 sq. ft. 5 4
Project F 11,200 sq. ft. 9 9
TOTAL 104 96
Taken cumulatively, the projects are almost 10% less dense than
permitted in the R-3 District.
E. Number of Stories. No building or structure erected in
the R-3 District may have more than three stories. (SMMC 19109
B.4r Draft Zoning Code fi9013.6(a)~ LUCE, p. 165.) Each of the
sUbject buildings will contain three stories.
F. ~eiqht. No building or structure erected in the R-3
District may exceed 40 feet in height. (SMMC ~9l09B.4; Draft
Zoning Code '90l3.6(a)~ LUCE, p. 165.) Building height is
~easured vertically from the average natural grade elevation of
the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot covered
by the building. (SMMC fi9l02r Draft Zoning Code 19040.3(a).)
Objects such as chimmeys, vents, stacks, ducts, skylights,
steeples, parapets, fire separation walls, open work safety
guard rails, elevator shafts, stairwells and mechanical rooms
(herein generically referred to as tlparapetslt) are permitted to
exceed the height limit. (SMMC 19126B; Draft Zoning Code
i9040.3(b).) The height of all but one of the proposed build-
ings will be 33 feet above average natural grade, excluding
parapets. The four-unit building at 2722 Third Street will be
only 29 feet above average natural grade.
G. Yards. The minimum front yard setback in the R-3
Oistrict is 20 feet. (SMMC A9l09.5.a~ Draft Zoning Code
i9013.6(e).) Each of the subject buildings provides a 20-foot
front yard setback.
LA\\'RE!\CE & HARDIXG e(
e-
!'
'-
". PIQOV'"i[SSFONAL CO~PORA"no...
"'TTO"N~YS AT LAW
Shari Laham
February 16, 19BB
Page 4
The minimum rear yard setback in the R-J District is 15
feet. (SMMC 19109B.5.c~ Draft Zoning Code 19013.6(f).) Each of
the subject buildings provides a 1S-foot rear yard setback.
The minimum side yard setback in the R-3 District is
the greater of 4 feet or a formula. (SMMC 19109B.S.b; Draft
Zoning Code 19013.6(g).) Each of the proposed projects
satisfies this formula.
H. farkinq. The current Zoning Code requires that at
least two off-street parking spaces be provided per residential
condominium unit. (SMMC fi9129F1.A.) The Draft Zoning Code
requires at least two covered off-street parking spaces per unit
for one- and two-bedroom units, 0.5 covered spaces for any addi-
tional bedrooms, and one space (which need not be covered) per
five units for guest parking in projects consisting of five or
more units. (Draft Zoning Code 69044.4.) The six projects
which are the subject of the pending applications have been
designed to satisfy even the rigorous parking standards which
will be imposed under the Draft Zoning Code. A total of 233
covered off-street parking spaces will be provided with these 96
units.
As shown in Figure 2 (attached), the 233 covered
off-street parking spaces which will he provided with these
projects is 41 spaces more than is r!quired under the current
Zoning Code and 5 spaces more than would be required under the
Draft Zoning Code;
I. Lot Coverage. The area occupied by buildings or struc-
tures on any lot in the R-3 District may not exceed 50% of the
total lot area of the site. (SMMC 19109B.B; Draft Zoning Code
i9013.6(c).) In the pending applications, none of the sites
contains greater than 50% lot coverage.
J. ~andscapinq. The current Zoning Code requires that at
least 50% of the open areas at a R-3 site be landscaped. (SMMC
69l09B.B.) The Draft Zoning code requires that at least 50% of
the required front yard setbacks in all residential districts be
landscaped. (Draft Zoning Code ~9041.6(a).) The proposed land-
scaping will cover 25% of the total site area of each project,
including approxi~ately 75% of the front yard setbacks.
LA\\"'REXCE & HARDl~Ge (
er
\..
A pqO~E.SSION""" CORPORATION
....TTORNEYS A.T ~W
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 5
II.
Policy Issues
On January 25, 1983, the City adopted a new Housing
Element as a constituent part of the City's General Plan. Among
other things, the Housing Element identified the following major
housing problems facing the City and its residents:
A. Inadequate support of local housing needs:
B. Significant losses of families and children
residents: and
C. The need for relief from overcrowding of occupants
in housing units. (Housing Element, p. 16.)
A. POlicy to Promote New Housinq: The Housing Element
establishes a fundamental policy to promote the construction of
new housing in Santa Monica. (Housing Element, p. 32.) In that
regard, the Housing Element identifies various methods intended
to encourage the construction of new housing, including the
following applicable policies:
'provide adequate sites for housing, includinq
gynership housinq;
'Modify density limits if necessary to promote
housing while protecting quality of life goals;
'Ensure that taxes and fees affecting housing are
no greater than required in the public interest;
and
'Support programs geared to increasing housing
throughout the region.
Similarly, the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
adopted October 23, 1984, echoes the policy of encouraging new
housing development. Specifically, Policy 1.10.1 of the Land
Use Element provides:
LAKRE~CE & HARDl!\G e(
er
(,
A p~ort$SION"'L COAPORATIO'"
I'o.TTO~N!:::VS I'o.T LI'o.W
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 6
liEn courage the development of new
housing in all existing residential
districts, while still protecting
the character and scale of neighbor-
hoods. Allowable intensities are
defined in the Land Use Classifica-
tion herein."
Approval of the subject applications will result in a
direct addition of 96 needed new housing units in Santa Monica.
Because each of the sites is presently unimproved, these units
will be added without any loss of existing housing units.
According to calculations provided in the Preliminary
Draft Environmental Impact Report for these projects prepared by
McClelland Engineers, the Program 12 housing fees generated from
this project will amount to $461,592. (See Preliminary Draft
EIR, p. V-54.)
During its study of the in-lieu fees for Program 12,
city Staff determined that the subsidy needed to make an average
unit affordable to low and moderate income households ranges
between $40,000 and $60,000. (See city staff Report on Program
12 to Mayor and City council on February 10, 1987 at p. 15.)
Based on those figures, the number of subsidized units which
will be supported by the in-lieu fees generated from these
projects alone will be between 7.6 and 11.5 units.
Additionally, the development fees for schools
resulting from these projects will total $217,869 as shown in
Figure 3 below:
fiq'ure 3.
145,246 sq. ft.
x $1.50 sa. ft.
$217,869 school revenues from development
of these projects
LAKREXCE & HARDI~G e(
. e,-'"
\..
A 'PI:tCr:E:'SSJi~N"',"- C:OAPO'FU..T10N
"'TTO~NE:YS AT LAW
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 7
B. Families and Children: Between 1970 and 1980, Santa
Monica experienced an undesired decrease in the number of family
households residing in our city. According to the U.s. Censy~,
there were 22,734 family households in Santa Monica in 1970.~
(Housing Element, p. 21.) Those family households made up 56%
of all households in Santa Monica at that time. (IS.) By 1980,
the number of family households in Santa Monica had decreased to
19,547, or 45% of all households. (Id.) (In contrast, family
households constituted 61% of all households in the city of Los
Angeles in both 1970 and 1980. [Id.]) Thus, from 1970 ~o 1980,
Santa Monica experienced a net loss of 3,187 families.
Over that same time period, Santa Monica experienced a
significant loss of resident children under the age of 18.
According the to U.s. Census, there were 17,277 children of age
17 or under residing in Santa Monica in 1970. (Housing Element,
p. 21.) These children made up 20% of the City's population.
(~d.) By 1980 the number of children residing in santa Monica
had declined to 13,747, or 16% of the City's population. (Id.)
(The City's Housing Element observes, uThis is in dramatic con-
trast to the City of Los Angeles, where in 1980 25% of the popu-
lation was 17 or younger, a 12% decline from 1910." [po 21.J)
Thus, from 1970 to 1980, Santa Monica experienced a net loss of
3,530 children. That loss constitutes a 20% decline.
In this regard, the Housing Element states, "It is
believed that housing problems were among the major factors
causing the large loss of children." (p. 21.)
The projects proposed in the current applications con-
sists almost entirely of two- and three-bedroom units. (Only
one of the 96 units will be a one-bedroom unit; there are no
singles or efficiencies.) The construction of these 96 mUltiple-
bedroom housing units will facilitate a desirable increase in
the number of families and children residing in the Ocean Park
Neighborhood. The developer anticipates that well over one-
third of the new occupants of these units will be children.
Consequently, these projects should provide a needed boost to
sagging school enrollment in Santa Monica.
liThe u.s. Census Bureau defines family households as dwelling
units in which two or more related persons reside.
LAKRESCE & HARm~G .(
.~-
'-
.. "ROIF'[SSION....L. COI=t,..ORATtO'"
"TTCF\NEY5 ""'I L"W
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 8
c. OVercrowding: As discussed above, Santa Monica has
adopted a policy to promote the construction of new housing.
(See Housing Element, p. 32; LUCE, POlicy 1.10.1.) The reason
for this policy is that there is an acknowledged shortage of
housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
Data contained in the Housing Element documents the
need for new housing in Santa Monica. For example, in 1970
the U.S. Census counted 1,889 dwelling units in Santa Monica
having 1.01 or more persons per room. By 1980 this number had
increased by 12% to 2,124 dwelling units. (Housing Element,
p. 20.) The Housing Element correctly deduces the fact that the
lack of available housing opportunities has directly contributed
to this increase in overcrowding. (Housing Element, p. 21.)
D. Failure to Meet Goals for New Housinq: State law re-
quires that all Housing Elements prepared in this state, includ-
ing Santa Monica's Housing Element, contain both an assessment
of housing needs, and a statement of the communityts goals,
quantified objectives and policies relative to the development I
maintenance and improvement of housing. (See Gov. Code G65583,
subd. (a) and (b).) The existing and projected housing needs
stated in the Housing Element must indicate the community's
share of documented regional housing needs as determined under
the auspices of the California Department of Housing and Commun-
ity Development. (Id., subd.(d).) The Housing Element must
also contain a five-year plan to implement the policies and
achieve the goals and Objectives of the Housing Element "through
the administration of land use and development controls, provi-
sion of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utiliza-
tion of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy pro-
grams when available." (Id., subd. (c).) Among other things,
the five-year program must U[a]ddress and, where appropriate
and legally possible, remove" governmental constraints to the
development of housing. (~., subd.(c) (3).) Housing needs for
all income levels (very low to high) must be assessed and
provided for. (Id., subd.(a) (1); see also stocks v. City of
1rvine, 114 Cal.App.3d 520, 534, 170 Cal.Rptr. 7~4 (1981).)
In Los Angeles County, the Southern California Associa-
tion of Govermnents ("SCAGn) is responsible for assessing and
allocating particular responsibility for the regional housing
LA\\"REXCE & HARDIKG e<-
If.. PROJ"[$$tQNAL eO'Ft"oR.T~O'N
ez
....~TORNI:Y5 AT LAW
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 9
needs which must be contained in each Housing Element. (Gov.
Code 165588, subd. (b) (1).) Those regional needs are updated by
SCAG avery five years. (Id., subd. (b).) A local government
has 90 days following SCAG's published update of the regional
needs to dispute its allocated share of the regional need.
(Gov. Code 165584, subd. (c).) The Housing Element must be
revised not less than once every five years to periodically
review the appropriateness of its housing goals, the effective-
ness of the Housing Element in attaining those goals, and the
progress of the City in implementing the Housing Element. (Gov.
Code G 65588, subd. (a).)
In 1982, the Southern California Association of Govern-
ments (t1SCAG") prepared an estimate of Santa Monica's growth
projections to 1986, as part of its Regional Housing Allocation
Model ("RHAMIl). The RHAM projected a need for 2,298 new house-
holds in Santa Monica between 1981 and 1986. (Housing Element,
p. 46.) Additionally, SCAG estimated that another 1,839 new
housing units would be required during the same five-year period
to achieve a desired overall 5% vacancy rate, plus 1,122 more
units to replace existing units which should be demolished for
recycling. Thus, the total number of new housing units which
SCAG estimated would be required in Santa Monica between the
years 1981 and 1986 was 5,259. (IQ.) This figure results in an
average requirement of 1,052 new units per year.
Data compiled by the Planning and Policy Section of
Community and Economic Development shows that the actual growth
of housing in Santa Monica during the years 1981-85 was signifi-
cantly below the needed growth levels. For example, between the
time of adoption of the Housing Element in January 1983 and dis-
cussion of proposed amendments to Program 12 of the Housing
Element in February 1987, only 379 new housin~Junits, including
80 inclusionary housing units, were approved.~ (See Attach-
ment 3 of City Staff Report to Mayor and city Council on
Proposed Amendment to Program 12, dated February 10, 1987.)
As of February 1987, only 124 of these units were actually
completed or under construction, while 255 required further
2/These figures do not include the Sea Colony development or
any of the Community Corporation developments.
LA'\"RE~CE & HARDI~G.(
.t-
'.
.. "AOF'E:S$IONA.. CO~POR"'.'ON
ATTORNE:YS "'T U'oW
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 10
approvals or permits. (Id.) Sixty of the 379 units were
intended to be located in the Ocean Park area. (Id.) It is not
clear ~rom the city's data how many of the 379 units are
intended to replace previously existing housing.
These "actual" growth figures (which include units with
applications and/or construction pending) are 4,880 units short
of the SCAG estimates of needed housing growth for the period.
The 379 units, even assuming all of them are fully approved and
constructed, would constitute only 7% of the needed new housing
in Santa Monica.
The Housing Element, while acknowledging the need for
this number of new housing units, sets substantially lower goals
of 1,500 to 2,500 new units during the same five-year period.
(Housing Element, p. 47.) However, the actual figures for new
housing in Santa Monica fell well short of even those modest
aspirations. As the July 7, 1987 Staff Report to the Mayor and
City Council on the subject of zoning in Ocean Park observed,
tlExcept for the Sea Colony and senior housing complexes, rela-
tively little new mUlti-family residential construction has
occurred in the Ocean Park area."
For example, between January 1982 and JUly 1987, only
55 apartment units and 21 condominium units were built in Ocean
Park (excluding the Barnard Park Villas and Neilson Villas
senior housing projects and the Sea colony condominiums). [See
July 7, 1987 Staff Report to Mayor and city Council regarding
Ocean Park Zoning, pp. 14-16.J That is a total of merely 76 new
privately-initiated housing units in five and one-half years.
Over that same period, eleven residential units were demolished
in Ocean Park. Thus, the net increase in privately-initiated
new housing units in Ocean Park is a paltry 65 units in well
over five years.
As will be discussed in Section III below, the appli-
cant contends that the planning Commission has no discretion to
withhold its approval of these projects which comply with all
relevant aspects of the General Plan, Zoning Code and Draft
Zoning Code. However, the applicant further contends that to
the extent the Planning Commission has any discretion to review
these projects, it must do so in a manner consistent with the
housing goals and needs of the city as stated in the Housing
LA",1{E~CE & HARDlXG .-
.-
'-
JI.. PflOFt.SSIO...."'l" CO'PIIPOIRA'TIO'N
ATTORNeYS ,AT V'oW
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 11
Element. Because the number of new housing projects is far from
meeting the housing needs of our community, the City has an obli-
gatio~ to encourage the pending housing development proposed by
the applicant at its current density.
In this regard, Government Code 165589.5 provides in
full:
"When a proposed housing development project
complies with the applicable qeneral plan,
zoning and development policies in effect at
the time that the housing development project's
application is determined to be complete, but
the local agency proposes to disapprove the
project or to approve it upon the condition
that the project be developed at a lower dens-
ity, the local agency shall base its decision
regarding the proposed housing development
project upon written findings suPPorted~by
substantial evidence on the record that both
of the following conditions exist [emphasis
added) :
"Ca) The housing development project would
have a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health or safety unless the project LS
disapproved or approved upon the condition that
the project be developed at a lower density.
neb) There is no feasible method to satisfac-
torily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact
identified pursuant to subdivision (a), other
than the disapproval of the housing development
project or the approval of the project upon the
condition that it be developed at a lower
density. It
Furthermore, the burden of proof as to this issue is
affirmatively placed upon the city as to these two criteria:
"In any action taken to challenge the valid-
ity of a decision by a city, county, or city
and county to disapprove a project or app~ove
LAKRE!\CE & HARDlXG .(
.:-
"
A PR'OF"~5SID"""1. CO-RPO'P\'''10N
ATTORN1!:YS "T LAW
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 12
a project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density pursuant to
[Government Code) Section 65589.5, the city,
county, or city and county shall bear the
p~rden of proof_that its decision has con-
formed to all of the conditions specified in
$ection 65589.5." (Gov. Code '65589.6~
e~phasis added.)
Because the proposed projects comply with all applic-
able development standards, the Planning co~~ission is legally
unable to deny the projects or reduce their density levels
unless the public record contains subst~ntial evidence that
(a) the projects will have a specific adverse impact upon the
public health and safety and (b) there is not feasible method
to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that specific adverse
impact. In this regard, as the Preliminary Draft Environmental
Impact Report confirms, there is no significant adverse impact
attributable to these projects which cannot be satisfactorily
mitigated. Therefore, the Planning Commission is legally
compelled to approve these projects at their proposed levels of
density.
III.
Lack of Discretionary R~view of These Proiects
The applicant seeks no variances or other discretionary
approvals for these projects. They have been designed in a
manner consistent with all development and land use standards
contained in the Land Use Element, Zoning Code and Draft Zoning
Code. Since no variances are sought, the applicant contends
that the Planning Commission lacks any discretion in its review
of these projects for the following reasons:
A. The law prohibits different treatment of
condominium projects and apartment
projects:
B. The city's past practice has been to
approve all condominium applications
which comply with applicable development
standards~ and
lAKREXCE & HARDl;\G e(
.e(
... P"OF"t-$S.,O......... CO'S:tPO~"T'O....
"'TTORN":YS I60T LAW
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 13
c. The City is obligated to follow its past
administrative practice of approving
condominium applications such as the
applicant's which comply with all
applicable standards.
A. 1reatment of Condominium proiects Like ADartment
Buildinas: The applicant contends that, because they comply
with all relevant development standards of the Land Use Element,
Zoning Code and Draft Zoning Code, the City is legally precluded
from denying his projects. To support his argument, the
applicant relies upon Government Code section 66427 of the
Subdivision Map Act, which provides in pertinent part:
U[N]or shall the governing body have the
right to refuse approval of a parcel,
tenative or final map of such a project
on account of design or location of build-
ings on the property shown on the map not
violative of local ordinances. . ."
Thus, so long as the design and location of SUbdivision
buildings do not violate local ordinances, the City is prevented
by State law from withholding approval of the subdivision. In
the instant case, the proposed condorolnium projects comply with
all relevant provisions of the Land Use Element, Zoning Code and
Draft Zoning Code. Furthermore, the projects are expressly
exempt from the Ocean Park interim development limitations based
on section 2(a) (7) of Ordinance No. 1416(CCS), as the pending
applications were filed and deemed complete by the City prior to
July 28, 1987.
Furthermore, Program 6 of the Housing Element, adopted
January 1983, requires in pertinent part:
"Construction and zoning requirements for
multi-family owner-occupied housing, rental
housing, and cooperatives should be amended
so they will be ~dentical unless compelling
~easons exist iustifyinq different standard~
tor different types of multi-familv housinSf."
(Emphasis added.)
L-\KRE~CE & H.-illDlXGe(
e:-
\..
A PRO"!:SS~O""'A" CORPORATION
A"T"TQI'INEYS A"T L.AW
Shar i Laham
February ~6, 1988
Page 14
Thus, to encourage all types of multi.family housing,
Santa Monica has expressly elected to review all applications
for such housing under identical standards unless compellinq
reasons justify disparate treatment. This municipal require-
ment comports with State law on this subject, which similarly
decrees:
"Unless an contrary intent is clearly
expressed, local zoning ordinances
shall be construed to treat like
structures, lots, parcels, areas, or
spaces in like manner ~egardless of
whether the common interest development
is a community apartment project, condo-
minium oroiect. planned development. or
stock cooperative. (Civ. Code i1372.)
(Emphasis added.)
Santa Monica has not expressed an intent contrary to
the presumption of civil Code Section 1372. Instead, Santa
Monica has elected to declare in Program 6 of its Housing
Element its express affirmation of that presumption.
B. Past Practice: Our law firm has reviewed the City's
Planning Division public files to ascertain the city's past
practice in its review of applications for condominium
projects. We find that there ha'= been 68 such applications
covering 63 different properties, filed with the City since
July I, 1983. Those 68 applications include some applications
which were resubmitted. They also include the six applications
which are the subject of this letter.
We find that of those 68 applications, 41 have been
approved, 17 are pending, 6 have been withdrawn and only 4 were
denied. Each of the four applications which have been denied
failed to satisfy some aspect of the promulgated development
standards applicable to the project. Three of the four
applications which were denied were subsequently approved upon
their resubmittal. Going back as far as July 1983, we can find
no denial of any condominium application which satisfied all
development standards of the General Plan and Zoning Code and
required no variances.
..
L~\\'"REXCE & HARDlKGeC
e-
(
A. PRO'F'E:S510Io.lAL COAIIPORATION
ATTOI'lNE:YS AT LAW
Shari Laham
February 16, 1988
Page 15
C. Qbliqation to Follow Past Practice: It is a cardinal
rule of legal interpretation that contemporaneous administrative
construction of a statute or ordinance by the administrative
agency charged with its implementation and enforcement is of
great significance in determining the appropriate application of
the statute or ordinance. (See Killian v. City and County of
San Francisco, 77 Cal.App.3d 1, 12, 143 Cal.Rptr. 430 (19?S),
and cases cited therein.) Moreover, the degree of deference due
an administrative application of a statute or ordinance depends
upon its consistency with earlier pronouncements. (See Galster
v,~ Woods, 173 Cal. App. 3d 529, 544, 219 Cal. Rptr. 500 (1985).)
If an administrative agency were to fail to apply identical
development standards consistently, it would lose all credibil-
ity with the public and the courts.
Thus, the city is legally obligated to apply its
development standards in a consistent and fair manner to all
projects unless compelling reasons justify a different
application. In the present case, all six projects comply with
the Land Use Element, Zoning Code and Draft Zoning Code in all
pertinent respects. There is no lawful basis for withholding
approval of these projects.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit .hat
these projects merit and deserve your favorable recommendation
to the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
~tvr'L~ ;L~
Kenneth L. Kutcher
for LAWRENCE & HARDING,
a professional corporation
KLK19 : ymk: KATZ 4
cc: Paul Berlant
Laurie Lieberman
Oscar Katz
Bill Brantley
Earl Warren
"
.(
e!-
\..
":'~;..c~ .~ 0
45454
~::~~~~ 2913 Tr~~~ ~t~ee~
?E.S:::: X
(thl~ 5ho~ld ~~ a brlef s~~~ry not Qn l~ce, :0 ~~e c=-~.e:~ ~~:;
CO:I:O~!I:m.;:! AU:C:'Z':; OF WCC~OR.;::C;1
BY'_~;;S ..UD CC':Rs
1. TYj)e of Or!IU1.1Zati.on: ~of~t lII.JtUl!ll bene!lt C:O%"'Xlrat~on a~~"lO
as II ccndcJo'~"Uar manaqenem; as5CC1.ati~.
2. Membe:-sh1.p Each o.lI'ler, lnClu:i.1.ng sW:d.lvJ.der, of a conc'cr.l:UI.:"".
3. Me:::bershl.? Ter=,::.natlQn- ,1wtaTatlc tern>lMt1.tX1 ",'he." the re-.l::er 'lC
lcn;e~ holes al'lV ~;lteren 111 any Llfat.
Class p. - all owners ot.'le:'" thar' T)el;;:larant (ale vot.e ea~"',l .
'. l/ot::.:tg R::.;lo:es r"-lass B - DeclMa:~t (th..-ee votP.s r.er unl";', Class:C ::eases
arC a:rnw..."'ts to Class 1>- Cf) earhe~ of.. Ii) total Class A votes ~~ Class E
5 ~~!i,.i'fe~~) se.::-.:I<"d arouversary.
. . ..01.. - The P.s!il:Xlat.lal may not CQI'Itract for 9T'Ofesslor.al 1"laMge-e.~t:
!lie-......lceS for a tem excee:.:...,g a'le war \<JJ.t.h:;)ut Il\!)ontr atlO~'a: AA\ S'.JC~
6. ~ t~J t:e terlll1Mt.eC by utter party. Wldath or 1oIlt.."c..;t Cll;':se. Of' 30
... .. , SO \.'$ \-II"lt~~ not:::.c:e, WJ,.Ul:>ut
.-~:roxl:!late_y years. penalt.y fees
7. !::ec::.....:..:y Tu,: 0: and ..u:le::c.-er::s to CC':':i\.5 u-u.tl pe::~'=~~- c!
P::'1;)ect Or' untll Declara~cn revoked. AlTe."'d-e.~o;s rec".;~re 75% a;-r:-:;T\a: of e3C-
class, ge...-.e:-a..:.ly, plus a.-,y other appropnat.e perg:)l"s or en~.lt.....es
B. MaL~:e~a~c~ P~:~s~e~s
a . t:r.1. : s Each owner J.S respc:r,s.l.l:lle.
9.
b . Cc=::~ ;"reas AsSCCI.atlDn UI reSlJl::r.s~le. exceDt. ea::::. "'....e::- :-a...nt.u.....s
heaUl.s ~ a.'.d parlung spaces for tu.s/he~ \lnlt
Damage - Re~a....= or aban~cr..en: ?=o~....s_~ns ~leC to ~wr~~-e ?~s.
s..:b)ect to is vote not to r~ld. COs+...s of repee.:- O\.-er and. aI:c\-e l..-.s:a:--ce
prOl:eeCs are aj:p:Irtl.oned l::e~ awners or. bas:..s of liq'Ja-"1! footage of theu un
Oesc::':,,;:::,o- and olo"l"le=s"'l:'? 0: conco:-:.:':.~.::. Ul.:":S Ele-erts of t.."e pro;ec
that are not 00II'le:! l1l calM:In W1 th the ot.~ In!S't:e: JI."'ld cescr1beC :..n the COrx=o-
!rJ..nllJT' Plan and t:eeds. toes not JJlCll.rle anv exclusl...e use .:....,'n.:.~ area ·
tJesc::':. ~ ::.on, olor."ersh::.? and I.:S e of cer-:crl a ::-eas '!he -'!t':tl::'e nroJec't.
excect the uzu.ts. E'ac:h c::wner has an un:il""l.ded U\1:erest. 1J'l the .:.u...u.' area
.taCh' owner has a f'la'l-excl'.1S1ve ....-e."lt as to the ...-":".,...,r. area.
l'ark1.ng Space .uugn~nc' At least tw:) off-street. pclu.."\I; spClCfi!S per unt.
'lb!!y may not be tIOld, rented. or leased to anyone otler than Q.n'Ie:' or teMJ"t
or o1;i1er l;M'Ie::'5.
Res tr<, !;t1.ons
10.
11.
12.
13.
&. Owner's Financial/Legal Status ~.
b. Use. 1e51.dent1.Al p.rrp::I5eS a'lly.
c. Any Restric~ion$ en Age of Occ~pancs. Naw.
d. Pets' ~~~le h:Iusel'1:lld -pets pernu.t;ta:'.
~ " H1\P:2r-l;
P:-epared by
~ !.. ~tCher
1Hle Mtorneys for Sutd~vlde1-
l)a:e...June 22, 198-
Wkly penon or entlty may p.1r::hase a unlt. ~rs do not l1lC~\Xie peI"s:Jr.s ..r..th
RC\.lrlty l!lte~sts J.n ~ l.tr'.J.ts.
- VI -
..
ec
.1"
\.
Figure 2.
Nt~BER OF PARKING SPACES
site: Number
of Units
Spaces Required Spaces Required
Under SMMC Under Draft Zoning
fi9~29 Fl.A Code 19044.4
Actual No. of
Spaces to be
Provided
Project A: 23 units 46 spaces 46 basic spaces 55 spaces
3 spaces for
extra bedrooms
5 quest spaces
54 total spaces
Project B: 28 units 56 spaces 56 basic spaces 69 spaces
4 spaces for
extra bedrooms
6 quest spaces
66 total spaces
Project c: 12 units 24 spaces 24 basic spaces 27 spaces
0 extra bedrooms
2 quest spaces
26 total spaces
Project D: 20 units 40 spaces 40 basic spaces 52 spaces
8 spaces for
extra bedrooms
4 quest spaces
52 total spaces
Project E: 4 units B spaces a basic spaces 8 spaces
0 extra bedrooms
0 quest spaces
8 total spaces
Project F: 9 units 18 spaces 18 basic spaces 22 spaces
2 spaces for
extra bedrooms
2 quest spaces
22 total spaces
TOTALS: 96 units 192 spaces 228 spaces 233 spaces
(under (under draft code) (actual)
current code)
.
ATtftG.hfVlG1Jt .~.
1
Sept. 2, 1988
C!i'< 6F S~ ~'; ~ ~:,;~,!r!
CITY PLt ~ - '
Santa Monica Planning Commission
1685 Main St.
Santa Monica, CA 90401
-66 SEP 14 A924
Dear Commissioners:
RE: EIR for Oscar Katz Condominiums
We neighbors are concerned to see that there 1S no addendum
to the Katz EIRs with respect to shadowlng.
We had thought Commissioner Hecht requested additional
information about shadowing, and we assumed, when we were
notified that the addenda were complete, that such information
was included. (Hence the erroneous statements in the long
letter from Heidi Gralinsk and Randl Johnson re: the ErR.)
I was therefore surprised when Ken Kutcher, one of the attorneys
for Katz, assured me that no such information had been
requested, and therefore none had been prepared.
However, I have Just received a copy of the ME~ORANDUM from
Planning Staff with respect to these proJects. ThiS Memorandum
includes Planning Commission Minutes from the 7/6 meeting.
In those M1nutes, Commissioner Nelson requests additional
information (bottom of page 6, top of page 7) With respect to
sewage generat10n factors. Th1S is the issue whiCh the exist1ng
addendum to the ErR addresses.
Note that farther down page 7 the follOWing paragraphs occur:
"Chair Hecht stated that she had some difficulty with the
shadowlng sectIon ((of the EIR)) and stated that she would l1ke
some mltigation measures added.
Chair Hecht also stated that she would like to see the
calculations and any back up lnformatlon that was done to
compute ~he fi9ures included as part of the document. (emphasis
added)
Chalr Hecht made a motion to continue the envlronmental aspec~
unt1l the Commission ~ets additlonal informat1on. (emphasis
added)
.
.
.
Doesn't th~s constitute a direct request for addit~onal
informat~on regardlng shadowing? Shouldn't this informat~on
have been provlded? Why wasn1t It?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
hlvl t~
N1ck Kazan
3014 3rd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(213-396-3583)
cc: Paul Berlant
2
.
Dorothy Semenow. Ph.D.
3008 3rd Street
Santa Moni ca. CA 90405
(213) 392-3460
.
CITY OF S,. '"t · M~~:!C '
CITY Pl f l- I, : 'I-r
September 20, 1988
V;.?i..
To Coune i 1 person ffft./1 /) / Ai. ~rYl/111 -15'/ C:;/J
n-rrn' SAC/( J-.eV-i4/Yl
From Dorothy Semenow
"88 SfP 21 All :16
Re
Appeal by Osear Katz Trust of the Plannmg CommlsslOn's denial of
EnvIronmental Impact Report, vestmg tentatIVe mapSj and condltlOnal use
permIts for Oscar Katz condominium projects
1 The present plans for the SUe B project (T1M 45455, CUP474) as
communlcated to me by archltect WIllIam Brantley today are in violation
of the Municipal Code requirement of 17 feet side setbacks for
the portion of the site fronting on 3rd Street 10 the followmg regard
The parkmg structure entered from the 3rd Street frontage 15 mlsleadmgly
characterlzed as "subterranean" because lt IS entered below street level
In actuality. since the lot slopes downward. the parking structure
stands ESSENTIALLY A FULL STORY ABOVE GROUND LEVEL at the
area where it stands adjacent to the lower level living quarters
of my home which is situated immediately to the south of B sHe.
Therefore the parkmg structure, lIke the condommlUm Units themselvesj
must conform to the requlred 17 feet SIde setback requlrement However,
Mr Brantley mforms me that the present plans show the parkmg structure
at substar'ltla\ly less thar'l '7 feet slde setback on tne south slde The 17
feet side setback. for the parking structure must be required to
bring the project Into conformance with the Municipal Code and to
mitigate environmental damage to my property. Please enforce
the 17 feet side setback. requirement as regards the parking
structure.
Tharrk you for your careful consIderatIOn of this matter
5 lncere ly I
.
.
L\\fRE~CE & HARDI~G
C....s:t.STOP...E... ... ......"Oi"'G
Q"C"'-,AoCIO'" =....awqE....CIr"
KIt'tI\,l[TI-I ... "'U'tCHER
"'....~A..J 111lIES....ICI(
K!:"yl N V II(OZ....
AI ""O"CS.iQN"" c-O.-o""T'fi'l
....TTOR..r:'>'S ....T ........... ~ITY OF S~~"'. MONr A
CIT~ PI . - '. '"1-- 'rso SIXTH ST"ttT
SUITt ~OO
SAN'TA "O~.eA. C"L".."'OAI""IIA 80401
.OC t"Lp 21 Pl- T"~t~HO..t Ir'31 3~3 1007
OC' ,)l:, L "~_ECOI'Ir:" (r'~J "!5I!'I~!5~
september 21, 1988
VIA MESSENGER EXPRESS
Laurie Lieberman
Deputy City Attorney
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main street
Room 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Katz Condominium Projects
EIA 849
Our File No. 216.2
Dear Ms. Lieberman:
This law firm represents the Oscar Katz Trust with
respect to the five new condominium projects which he proposes to
construct in Ocean Park.
originally, Mr. Katz proposed six projects in this neigh-
borhood, and an anv ironmental impact report ( "the EIR") was
prepared at our election to study the cumulative effects of all six
projects. The EIR concluded that no siqnificant adverse environ-
mental impacts would result from these six projects.
Mr. Katz has since sold the proposed development site
located at 2222 Fifth Street to a third party, and he continues to
pursue the five remaining applications. As you know, the plans for
these five projects were later modified at the direction of the
Planning commission and with the input of various interested neigh-
bors. As you also know, on September 7, 1988, the Planning
Commission failed to certify the EIR on a 3 to 1 vote, and we have
appealed this technical failure to certify the EIR and the result-
ing technical denial of our vesting tentative maps and conditional
use permits to the city Council. The projects are scheduled for
a public hearing before the City council on september 27, 1988.
At the Planninq Commission hearinq on September 7, 1988,
attorney Josephine Powe, who was retained by several of the neigh-
bors adjacent to these projects, raised certain issues concerning
the adequacy of the EIR. We believe most of those issues were
adequately addressed in my letter of that date to the Planning
Commission. However, Hs. powe also raised for the first time
during the hearing the question of whether the proposed modifica-
tions to these projects necessitate preparation of a revised or
supplemental EIR.
lAv,""RE~CE & HARDIKG .
.
It. It'IiIO~ESS.O""''''1,. CORP-~PA"".O'"
oO.TTCRN&YS AT ~W
Laurie Lieberman
September 21, 1988
Page 2
Because the proposed revisions only further mitigate the
impacts of these projects and because none of the impacts of the
original projects was found to be significant in the Draft EIR, it
is clear that no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required under
Public Resources Code Section 21166 of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"). Our analysis of this issue is explained more
fully below.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MITIGATION OF PROJECTS
As noted above, our client originally proposed six
projects. Each of the sites is located in Ocean Park, and none of
the sites is presently developed. Ninety-six units were proposed
for the six sites. The total square footage proposed for these 96
units was 145,246, plus 12,637 square feet of balconies and patios.
Twenty-two townhouses and 74 flats were proposed. The six projects
consisted of 1 one-bedroom unit, 64 two-bedroom units and 31 three-
bedroom units. Nearly all buildings, other than the project
proposed for 2722 Third street, consisted of three stories. (Even
as originally designed, 2722 Third street is to be only two stories
above average natural grade.)
On April 22, 1988, Kr. Katz sold the site located at 2222
Fifth Street to a third party. That left 87 units for considera-
tion at the July 6, 1988 Planning Commission hearing. At the
conclusion of that hearing, the Planning commission requested that
we explore various design issues with the surrounding neighbors,
including the following concerns: relocating the Third street
driveway from the southeastern boundary of 3000 Third street,
breaking up the three-story facade at the street level of each
si te, changing the architectural style to a variety of more
traditional residential designs, and further evaluating the shade
and shadowing impacts of t.he project proposed for 3019 Third
street.
After severtl neighborhood meetings, the plans for four
of the five projects were changed in the following Significant
respects:
1. The nu~her of stories facing the street has
been reduced to two stories or to a combina-
tion of two and three stories. In the process,
the density on each of the four sites has been
1/ The proposed four-unit project at 2722 Third Street remains
essentially unchanged for purposes of the EIR.
L\"'~E"CE & HARDlXG .
.
"
A IIRO,I,$510I'llA" CQ~POR""'IO"
ATTO~"'EYS AT LAW
Laurie Lieberman
September 21, 1988
paqe 3
reduced by two units, resulting in a reduction
of density to 79 units. Eighteen townhouses
and 61 flats are now proposed, consisting of
55 two-bedroom units and 24 three-bedroom
units.
2 . The total nUlIIber of parkinq spaces remains
unchanged, resulting in additional quest
parking spaces because of the reduction in
density.
3. The floor area has been reduced to 125,394
square feet, plus 9,506 square feet of porches
and balconies.
4. The driveway at 3000 Third Street has been
relocated from the southeastern property line
to the interior of the project, as requested
by the neighbors.
5. Setbacks have been expanded further for the
benefit of adjacent neighbors.
6. The architecture of the projects has been
changed from the original contemporary design
to a combination of San Francisco townhouse
features.
7. The shade and shadowing impacts of the project
proposed for 3019 Third Street have been
further mitigated, and the reduced shadow
impacts have been thoroughly analyzed by use
of a computer program which calculates solar
impacts.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The appellant contends that no new, revised or supple-
mental EIR is required for these proj ects because the proposed
changes merely further mitigate the environmental effects of these
proj ects -- effects which were determined by the EIR to be
insignificant in the oriqinal projects.
Section 21166 of CEQA specifically provides in pertinent
part :
LA\fRESCE & HARDI~G .
.
It. IDRO"E:$$IOHAL- COR'OAATlOH
ATTORNEYS AT .....W
Laurie Lieberman
September 21, 1988
Page 4 .
"When an environmental impact report has been
prepared for a project pursuant to this
division, no subsequent or 8upp~emental
environmental imoact report shall pe .~qu~;~d
by the lead agency or by any responsible
agency, unless one or more of th. followi~q
"vents occ;:urs:
Ca> Substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require ma;or revisions of
the environmental report. II CEmphasis added.)
Similarly, CEQA Regulation 15162, subdivision (a),
provides in pertinent part:
"Where an EIR or Negative Declaration has been
prepared, no additional EIR shall be Dr~pared
ypless:
( 1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the
project which will require important revisions
of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new sicmificant
environmental impacts not considered in a
previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the
project I . . . II (Emphasis added.)
In the case of the Katz EIR, no "new significant
environmental impacts" will result from the revised projects, and
no "major" or "important" revisions to the EIR are required by the
additional mitigation measures reflected in the revised plans.
The case of city of Lomita v, City Qf Torrance, 148 Cal.
App. 3d 1062, 196 Cal, Rptr. 538 (1983), is analogous. In that
case, the city of Torrance, in August of 1976, certified a final
EIR which studied the effects of a master plan relating to
development of its municipal airport. Eight months later, Torrance
elected to modify the master plan in certain respects, including
the following: (1) the navigational aids project was changed~
(2) the City of Lomita was excluded from the Airport overlay Zone;
(3) the proposed runway widening was changed; (4) the proposed
runway lengthening was changed7 (5) the midfield exit taxiway was
changed 7 (6) the midfield crash rescue facility was changed;
(7) the comprehensive service road was changed~ (8) the aircraft
wash rack facilities were expanded: and (9) the nu~her of possible
fuel pits was expanded. ~. at 1069, n.2.
...
L-\~'RE~CE &: HARDlXG .
.
It. PAO"ES~UOto.l;AL. COFtPORATIO"'"
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Laurie Lieberman
September 21, 1988
Page 5
~he trial court found that these changes were ~ade in
response to public input and that they merely resulted in a scaled
down project:
"The Torrance Municipal Airport Master Plan,
during its further development in 1977, was
subj ected to several public hearings before
the City Council. .. During this process,
the ambitious Dlans for the exoansion of
aircraft oDeratlons were scaled down con-
siderably in response to criticism by the
city of Lomita, among others. Thus, certain
changes were made from the draft plan in exis-
tence at the time of final EIR approval. . .
The various ehanaes in DIane w.re not
sianificant in this context and were wi thin
the scope of the final EIR in a general way."
xg. at 1066 (emphasis added).
The Court ot Appeal held:
"Nothing is shown, however, nor is any
adequate reference to the record otherwise
made, to demonstrate the changes alluded to
were substantial in comparative terms or that
to the extent they were they would require
major revisions of the EIR. [Citation.]" ,Ig.
at 1069.
Therefore, the Court held that no subsequent or
supplemental EIR was required pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21166.
The case of Bowman v. Citv of Petaluma, 185 Ca1. App. 3d
1065, 230 ca!. Rptr. 413 (1986), is also instructive. In that
case, the Court held:
"Whereas section 21151 [of CEQA] requires an
EIR if the project 'may have a significant
effect on the environment,' section 21166
provides that an agency may not require
preparation of another EIR unless 'substantial
changes' in the project or its circumstances
will require 'major revisions' to the EIR.
[Footnote omitted.)" ~. at 1073 (emphasis
in original).
--
L\\\'"RE\"CE & HARDr~G .
.
.. P~O"'ESSION"L. CO~POA..tLON
....TTQFI..EYS ....T ......"""
Laurie Lieberman
September 21, 1988
page 6
The Court set forth a detailed analysis of Section 21166:
If [S]ection 21166 comes into play precisely
because in-depth review has already occurred,
the time for challenging the sufficiency of
the original EIR has long since expired
[citation], and the question is whether
circumstances have chanqed enough to justify
repeatina a substantial portion of the
process. [Emphasis in oriqinal.] Thus, while
section 21151 is intended to create a 'low
threshold requirement for preparation of an
EIR t [citation] , section 21161 indicates a
qui te different intent, namely, to restrict
the powers of agencies 'by prohibiting [them]
from requiring a subsequent or supplemental
environmental impact report' unless the stated
condi tions are met. [Ci tation. ] Section
21166 is intended to provide a balance against
the burdens created by the environmental
review process and to accord a reasonable
measure of finality and certainty to the
results achieved." ll. at 1073-74.
Finally, the case of Lena Beach Sav. , Loan Ass'n v. Lona
Beach Redevelopment Aaency, 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, 232 Cal. Rptr:
772 (1987), is of note. In that case, mitigation measures were
imposed following completion of the environmental review. The
Court held:
"We tind nothing in CEQA commanding
respondents to circulate for public review
additional mitiqation measures made in
response to comments by those who oppose the
project. [Emphasis in original.] To allow
the public review period to proceed ad nauseum
would only serve to arm persons dead set
aqainst the project with a paralyzinq weapon
-- hired expert who can always · discover'
tlaws 1n mitiqat10n measures. As previously
noted, the purpose of CEQA is to inform
qovernment decision makers and their
constituency of the consequences ot a qi ven
project, not to derail it in a sea of
administrative hearinqs and paperwork." ~.
at 263.
LA'fREXCE & HARDlXG.
.
lit .ROFESSIO"(A.. COJlll!POFU,"'~O'"
"'TTORNEYS A.T uo.W
Laurie Lieberman
September 21, 1988
Page 7
Based on the statutes and cases discussed above, it is
clear that the mitigation measures which have been proposed require
no further environmental study. A thorough EIR has already been
prepared and circulated for public comment on these projects. The
EIR concludes, after careful analysis, that no significant adverse
impacts would have resulted from the original design of the
projects. The projects have since been modified merely to further
mitigate concerns expressed by the neighborhood. For these
reasons, it would be onerous, unfair and unnecessary to conduct
additional environmental review of these projects.
In the present case, Ms. Powe suggests that the City
prepare a new EIR to study the effects of the mitigation measures
proposed to address concerns raised by her clients, among others.
However, the EIR has previously determined that no significant
adverse impacts would have resulted from the larger and denser
projects originally proposed. Ms. Powe has presented no evidence
to contradict the substantiated findings contained in the EIR, and
those findings compel the conclusion that no significant adverse
environmental impacts will result from these projects. It is
apparent that Ms. Powe's strategy to challenge the EIR is solely
designed to delay these housing projects as long as possible.
CONCLtJ$I Olf
For the foregoinq reasons and for the reasons described
in my attached letter of September 7, 1988, we recommend that the
EIR be certified for these projects.
Respectfully submitted,
~}~~
Kenneth L. Kutcher
for LAWRENCE & HARDING,
a Professional corporation
KLK:ymk:mdb:XATZ2
cc: Oscar Katz
William Brantley
Paul Berlant (Via Messenger)
Suzanne Frick (Via Messenger)
Shari Laham (Via Messenger)
Chris Stabenfeldt
Josephine Powe
.
...
..
..
.
CITY OF SA ~ .. t Mm~\C I'
CITY PL AN~ 'Y F:( '-
3015 3rd St. #5
Santa Monica,CA
September 21,1988
Planning Staff,
-88 SEP 21 P 1 :38
As of this writing I remain concerned about the proposed Katz
development on Site C. Among the issues which I hope you would
investigate are the elevations and height of the proposed
structure, the proximity to the structure on 3015 3rd, and the
resulting sign1ficant shadow impacts and impacts on air and open
space.
I realize that two un~ts from the front of the proposed
structure have been removed. I realize also that the front of the
proposed structure has been moved approximately 6' south. But I
fail to understand how this m~tigates our concerns (see EIR p.V-36
and Figures 39 and 40). In examining the plans currently
submitted by the architect, there have been no changes in the
elevations of either the front or back IIfootprints" of the
building. The back "footprint" is 11' away from the property l1ne
and is at least 8' taller than the hiohest oeak of this existing
structure (approximately 13'to 20' taller than the average
existing roofline).
The shadow studies presented by the architect are not in
agreement with those prepared by McClelland Engineers in the
Environmental Impact Report. This discrepancy does not seem to be
explainable by the modifications mentioned above, therefore, I
question the accuracy and/or validity of either findings.
Please pay careful attention to these areas when making your
recommendations. Your best professional judgment is appreciated.
Sincerely, b
1ILripr:(,~Af/.
J.Heidi Gralinski
cc: City Council members