Loading...
SR-12-A (2) . . 1.2. -14 AUG 1 3 1985 C/ED:PJS:KR:nh Counc11 Mtg: August 13, 1985 Ijp 2 - ~t:> t/ Santa Mon1ca, Californ1a TO: Mayor and C1ty Counc11 FROM: C1ty Staff SUBJECT: Appeal of Plannlng ComrrUSS1on DeC1Slon Approvlng the Removal of a S1ngle Famlly Home and the Construction of a S1X UOlt Condom101um at 1024 Bay Street, C.U.P. 385, Tentatlve Tract 44039. Appl1cant: Grant Wada; Appel- lants: Paul M. Van Arsdell Jr. and H. Allen Evans. INTRODUCTION Th1s 1S an appeal from the Plano10g Comm1SS100 dec1S1on approv1ng Cond1t1onal Use Perm1t 385 and Tentat1ve Tract 44039. The pro- posed proJect is for the removal of a slngle family home and the construct1on of a two story, 6 un1t condom101um on an R2 lot. Followlng the publ1C hear1ng on June 17, 1985, the Plann1ng Com- m1SSlon approved the proJect, sUbJect to the f1ndlngs and cond1- t10ns noted 1n the staff reports and as amended 10 the Statement of Off1c1al Act1on. The appellants' bas1s of appeal 1S that the proposal v10lates the State dens1ty bonus provislons as outllned ln Government Code Sectlon 65915, that the proposal confllcts wlth the pol1c1es of the C1ty'S Land Use Element, that the slte lS not phys1cally sU1table for the proposed development, that the proposed development could cause substant1al envlronmental damage and that the opponents were not gl ven ample opportunl ty to ex- press the1r concerns at the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on's publ1c hear1ng. In that the appllcat10n of State Government Code Sect10n 65915 1n - 1 - 12-4. AU6 1 3 ,. . . thls case Was x:onslstent wlth the method used on prevlous proJ- ects of slmilar Slze, the proposal lS conSlstent wlth the poll- Cles and ob J ectl ves of the Land Use Element, the potentlal en- vlronmental lssues have been addressed In the approved flndlngs and condltlons as amended ln the Statement of Offlclal Actlon, and publlc testlmony was properly taken by the Plannlng Commls- Slon at the publJ.c hearJ.ngs on both June 3, 1985 and June 17, 1985, staff recommends that the appeal be denled and the decJ.s1on of the Plann1ng COmffi1SS10n be affirmed. BACKGROUND The proposal 1S for the removal of a slngle faml1y home and the constructlon of a two story SlX un1t condomln1um w1th one lnclu- slonary unlt per Program 12 of the Houslng Element. Two schemes (Scheme A and Scheme B) were proposed and Scheme B was approved. In Scheme B, flve of the unlts are 1.308 sq. ft. each and the rear unlt. WhlCh has been deslgnated as the 1ncluslonary unlt, lS 1,228 8q.ft. F1ve unlts have two bedrooms and one unlt 18 deslg- ned 1n an open plan wlth no partltlon walls WhlCh wl11 allow the future owner (s) to put partl tlon walls ln locations of thelr cholce. As approved, all SlX unlts wl11 be deslgned wlth mezza- nlnes, patlOS and roof decks. Twelve parklng spaces are provlded ln a subterranean garage wlth access from the alley. The proJect conforms to the Munlclpal Code and Land Use Element requlrements for the R2 zone. - 2 - . . The property, liConed R2, lS located on the south slde of Bay Street between 10th and 11th Streets and currently has a slngle famlly dwelllng on it. The Rent Control Board has granted an exemptlon for thlS un1 t. The surroundlng area, zoned R2, 1n- eludes a two story 5-unlt condomlnlum to the east, a slngle story mul tl-un1 t resldentlal complex to the west, slng1e family homes to the north across Bay Street and slng1e famlly and multl-fam1ly resldent1al bU11dlngs to the south across the alley. The staff reports to the Plannlng Conunlsslon provide addltlona1 detal1s about the proposed proJect (Attachments A and B). ANALYSIS Slnce the proJect was flrst proposed, the developer and hlS ar- chltect met wlth the surroundlng nelghbors on Aprll 30, 1985 In order to addr ess thelr concerns. As a res ul t of the meetlng, Scheme B w1th alley access to the subterranean garage was pro- posed. Addltlonally, the archltect has agreed to provlde an open work rall along the east slde of the parapet wall. The appl1cant also consldered rearranglng the floor layouts of the unlts, however he determlned that Scheme B seemed most compatlble wlth the nelghborhood In that the proJect as proposed lncludes entrles to the unlts and Ilvlngrooms along the west slde of the bUlldlng adJacent to the entrles and 11vlngrooms belonglng to the slng1e story multl-famlly resldentlal complex to the west. Furthermore, the proJect's master bedrooms and kltchens are located along the east slde of the bUlldlng adJacent to the k1tchens and bedrooms of the five unlt condomlnlum to the east. As proposed the master - 3 - . . bedroom and k~tchen w~11 rece~ve morn~ng sunl~ght and the bed- room/den located adJacent to the entry ~n un~ts 1 through 5 w~11 rece~ve rnaX1mum natural 1~ght dur1ng the day. On June 17, 1985 at the Plann1ng Cornrn~sslon's publ1C hear1ng con- cern1ng th~s proJect, opponents from the adJacent condom~nlum ra~sed concerns regard1ng the method of calculatlng denslty bonus un1ts under Government Code Sect10n 65915. The Land Use Element perm~ts a maximum resldent1al denSlty of f1ve un~ts on th1S R2 lot. To sat1sfy Progrdm 12 of the Hous1ng Element, 25% of the units w1ll be made affordable to persons of low to moderate :Ln- corne and 25% of 5 un1ts results 1n 1.25 un1ts. Program 12 es- tabl1shes the rules for round1ng fract10nal unl ts, and 1n th1S case, one lncluslonary un~t ~s requ1red. Sectlon 65915 of the State Government Code provides that the C~ty shall grant at least a 25% denslty bonus to hous:Lng developments of 5 or more dwelllng unlts when at least 25% of the un1ts are affordable. Slnce the Government Code makes no prov1slon for how to treat fract~onal unl ts, staff has conslstently applled the Hous~ng Element ap- proach to the calculat10n of denS1ty bonus unl ts. In th1S case one dens1ty bonus un1t was granted result1ng 1n a 6 un1t proJect. In appeal1ng the proJect (see Attachment D), the appellants con- tend that the dens1ty bonus should only apply to proJects whore at least 25% of the un1ts are affordable, Wh1Ch would requ~re the developer to prov1de two affordable un1ts 1n th1S Cdse. In sup- port of the1r argument, the appellants have submitted a letter from Mark R. Lovlngton, Deputy General Counsel of the State I s Department of Hous~ng and Cornrnun1ty Development (RCD) 1n wh~ch he - 4 - . . states that a developer of a least two unlts as affordable bonus under the provlslons of 5 unlt proJect must dedlcate at In order to quallfy for a denslty the State Government Code. Mr. Lovlngton also stated that thls requlrement does not preclude a local ]urlsdlctlon from developlng l.ts own pollcles concernlng densl ty bonus prov lSlons. Addl tlonally, the developer of the proJect spoke wlth Mr. Lovington on July 25, 1985 and accordlng to the developer, Mr. Lovl.ngton expressed that the State Statute serves malnly as a mechanl.sm to encourage the development of af- fordable houslng and that It does not preclude a Clty from es- tabllshlng ltS own lnterpretatlon (see Attachment Ej. Staff has requested an oplnlon from the Clty Attorney regardlng thls lssue. The opponents of the proJect also expressed concerns regardl.ng the potentlal envlronmental lmpacts that the proposed proJect could have on the surroundlng nelghborhood and partlcularly on thelr adJacent flve unl.t condomlnlum to the east. These concerns centered around shadlng lssues, energy usage lssues and prlvacy lssues. In approvlng the proJect the Planning CornmlSSlon made speclflc fl.ndlngs and lmposed condltlons whlch are contalned In the Statement of Offlclal Actlon (Attachment C) to address these concerns. Condltlons of approval of partlcular note are Condl- tlons 3, 14, 15 and 16. Condltlons 3, 15 and 16 dlrect the Ar- chltectural Revl.ew Board to consl.der alternatlve deslgn solutlons to mltl.gate the shadl.ng l.mpacts on the adJacent condominlum, re- qUl.re that the parapet wall along the east elevatlon be deslgned Wl th an open work ral.l and be sub] ect to approval by both the Archltectural Review Board and the BUl.ldl.ng Department and dlrect - 5 - . . the Archltectural ReVlew Board to reVlew the deslgn artlculatlon of the north and south parapet walls to lnsure that the overall vlsual mass of the bUlldlng lS reduced. Condltlon 14 addresses a securlty lssue by requlrlng securlty gates to be located at the entrances to the subterranean garage and at both the street and alley entrances to the proJect. The proJect was orlglna11y scheduled for the June 3, 1985 Plan- nlng COrr.IlllSSlOn meetlng. Prlor to the meetlng, the proJect ap- p1lcant requested that thls ltem be contlnued to the followlng Plannlng COIllIlllSSlon Meetlng on June 17, 1985. In that this request was made by the appllcant on June 3rd, the Plannlng Com- misslon determlned that l.t would open the hearlng that nl.ght In order to take pub11C testl.mony from those members of the public who were present and wlshed to speak. Fo11owlng the pub11C tes- tlmony, the publl.c hearl.ng was contlnued to June 17, 1985. At the beglnnlng of the June 17, 1985 Plannlng COffimlSS10n meet- l.ng, the Plannlng COIllIlllSSlon approved a motlon ll.mi tlng opening remarks from proJect appll.cants to 10 mlnutes and rebuttal tlme to 5 ml.nutes followlng the publlC testlmony. Desl.gnated speakers for groups of people were ll.ml ted to 10 mlnutes each and other members of the publlC not chooslng to be represented by the deslgnated speakers were 11.mlted to 3 mlnutes each. Opponents of thlS partl.cu1ar proJect appolnted Mr. Van Arsdell as thel.r desl.g- nated speaker and he was alloted 10 ml.nutes l.n compllance Wl th the P1annl.ng COIllIlll.SSl.On's approved motl.On. No other opponents of the proJect requested to speak that evenl.ng. Opponents therefore - 6 - . . had opportun1t1es both on June 3rd and June 17th to present the1r V1ews to the Comm1SS10n. Pub11C notlce was prov1ded for both the orlglnally scheduled hearlng of June 3rd and the contlnued hear- lng on June 17th. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY Under the provlSlons of Sectlon 9148C (SMMC) and Sectlon 9366 (SMMC) the C1ty Councll may aff1rm, reverse or modlfy any deter- mlnatlon of the Plann1ng COIlUTI1SS10n in regard to a Condltlonal Use Permlt and Tentatlve Tract Map and the deC1Slon of the C1ty Councll shall be f1nal. In approvlng an appllcatlon the Councll on appeal must make approprlate f1ndlngs and may add cond:!. t10ns necessary to protect the publlC welfare. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendatlons presented In th1s report do not have a budgetjflscal :!.mpact. RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends thdt the Clty Councl1 deny the ap- peal and aff1rm the dec1s1on of the Plannlng Commlss1on adoptlng the f1ndlngs and cond1t1ons conta1ned 1n the June 17, 1985 staff report, as amended and approved by the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on on June 17, 1985, as 1tS own. - 7 - . . Prepared by: Paul J. Sllvern, Dlrector of Plannlng Karen Rosenberg, ASSlstant Planner Clty Plannlng Dlvislon Communlty and Economlc Development Department Attachments: A. Staff Report to Plannlng Commisslon, June 3. 1985 B. Staff Report to Plannlng Commlsslon, June 17. 1985 c. Statement of Offlclal Actlon D. Letter of Appeal E. Letter of Response from ProJect Appllcant [Note: The proJect flle contalns numerous letters dnd other correspondence about this project, all of WhlCh wlll be avallable for Councll's lnspectlon durlng the hearlng on thlS ltem.] CC30 - B - ~ ATTACH"iE;:\fT A (tt :113 PLANNING AND ZONI~G DIVISION CO"L.'WNITY mw ECO::JOMIC DEVELOP~lENT DEPARTc-1ENT M E MaR AND U M DATE: June 3, 1985 TO: The Honorable Plann~ng Comm~ss~on FROM: Paul J. Sllvern, Dlrector of Plannlng SUBJECT: T.T. 44039. The Removal tion of a Wada. C.U.P. 385, 1024 Bay Street, R2 To Permit of a Slngle Famlly Home and the Cosntruc- SlX Unit Condomlnlum, Applicant: Grant Summary. The proposal lS for a Tentat~ve Tract Map and a Condi- t~onal Use Permlt for a SlX un~t, two story condomlnlum to re- place a s~ngle famlly home on an R2 lot at 1024 Bay Street. One lnclusionary unlt lS requlred. On s~te park~ng totall~ng 12 spaces wl11 be provided. The proposal lS recomnended for approv- al wlth cond~tions. Existing Conditions_ The 50' x 130' lot, slde of Bay Street between 10th and 11th far-uly dwelllng on It. The Rent Control exe~pt~on for th~s un~t. located on the south Streets has a slngle Board has gran teci an The surrounding area, zoned R2, lncluaes a two story 5-unlt con- donlnlum to the east, a s~ngle story multl-unlt reslaentlal com- plex to the west, slngle famlly hor;;es to the north across Bay Street and slngle faml1y and mul'cl-fam~ly resldentlal bUlldlngs to the east across the alley. Proposed project\ The proposal lS for the constructlon of a two story SlX unlt condomln~um. Two schemes are proposed. In scheme A, each of the SlX unlts are 1308 square feet,' w~th flve of the unlts havlng 2 bedrooms and the slxth unlt lS deslgned ~n an open plan wlth no partltlon walls WhlCh wlll allow the future owner to put partitl.on wall s ln locations of the~r chol.ce. ThlS scheme includes street access to the subterranean garage where a total of 12 parklng spaces are prov~ded. Each of the unlts have a mez- zanl.ne level totalllng 175 sq. ft. ~ . Scheme B is designed with alley access to the subterranean garage where 12 parklng spaces are provlded. In thlS scheme, f~ve of the unlts total 1038 square feet and the rear unlt totals 1300 sq. ft. Flve unlts are two bedroom units, and the slxth unlt has an open plan as in scheme A. Mezzanlnes are provided ln unl.ts 1 through 5 and the rear unlt wl.th a third floor wh~ch exceeds the maXlmum number of stor ies perm~ t ted in the R2 zone. The rear unit has been deslgnated as the incluslonary unl.t In Scheme B. - 1 - ~ (e The bUl-ldl-ng is des~gned l-n a contemporary manner w~th separate entrances to each of the unl-ts, patl-os and roof decks. Varl-ed setbacks are provl-ded throughout the proJect. Municipal Code and Land Use Element Compliance. The proJect con- forms to the Munl-cl-pal code and Land Use Element requl-rements for the R2 zone as follows: Category Municipal Code Perml-tted Use 1 unit per 1250 sq. ft. of lot area (would per- mit 6 unl-ts per sections 9108B3a and 9132 (SMMC)) Hel-ght 2 storl-es, 30' Lot Coverage 60% maXl-mUr:l lot coverage Setbacks Fronyard 20' , , Sideyard 5' Rearyard 15' Parkl-ng 12 parkl-ng spaces requ~red Land Use Element 1 unit per 1500 sq. ft. of lot area (would perml-t 5 unl-ts) Same as Munl-cl-pal Code Same dS ~1unl-cl-pa1 Code Same as Munl-cipal Code Same as Munl-cl-pal Code Same as Munl-cl-pal Code Same as Nunl-cl-pal Code ProJect 5 units plus one l-nclusl-on- ary unl-t per densl-ty bonus provl-sion Scheme A: 2 storl-es, 33.6' to top of para- pet Scheme B: Unl-ts 1-4: 2 storl-es, 33.6 t to top of para- pet unl-t 5: 3 stor1.es, 33.6' to top of parapet. Schewe A: 49% Sche!1'e B: 47% 20' 9'4" west side- yard 6' 6" east sl-de yard 16.8' ~, 12 parkl-ng spaces provided Fees. This project is subJect to a condoml-nium tax of $1,000 per ~and a Recreat1.on and Parks (Quimby) fee of $200 per unit. - 2 - (tt. ~ Overall, the proJect prov~des a var~ety of setbacks landscaped areas, and a pedestr~an seat~ng area. The des~gn contr~butes to the m~xture of types of res~dentlal bUlldlngs In the area. Addl- tlonally, the applicant plans to relocate the ex~st~ng Jacaranda tree from the east slde of the property to the front yard. A condltlon of approval d1.rec-c:s the Arch~ tectural ReVlew Board to pay careful attention to the proposed irr~gatlon plan for the roof deck and vin~ng on the bUlld~ng as well as the proposed treatment of the front elevat~on. Overall, the proJect seems to be compatible w~th the variety of architectural styles found in the surround~ng neighborhood. However, the Archltectural ReVlew Board ~s d~rected to pay care- ful attent~on to the proposed balcony and wlndow treatment, the type of bUllding materlals and the landscape plan. Furthermore, it is recommended that add~tional arch~tectural detailing be pro- v~ded along the east elevatlon faclng L~ncoln Boulevard. The parklng and circulatlon plan has been approved by the Traff~c Engineer. Recommendation. Plannlng staff recommends that the Plann~ng Com- m~SSlon approve Tentat~ve Tract Map 43853 and Condlt~onal Use Perm1.t 374 subJect to the rear un~t conformlng to the R2 stan- dards w~th the following f~ndlngs and cond~tlons. Tentat~ve Tract Map Flnd~ngs. 1. The proposed subdlv~s~on, together w~th ~ts prov~s~on for ltS des~gn and lmprovements, lS cons~stent w~th appllcable general and speclflc pldns as adopted by the Clty of Santa Monlca, speclflcally the dens~ty and urban deslgn pollc~es of the Land Use Ele~ent, the clrculatlon pollcles of the C~rculatlon Element and the ~ncluslonary housing requ1.re- ment of the Houslng Element. 2. The site is physlcally sUltable for the proposed type of development in that the proJect w~ll be developed ~n ac- cordance wlth the Land Use Element dens~ ty standards and Hun~clpal Code property developnent standards of the R2 zone. 3. The site is physlcally sUltable for the proposed density of development In that SlX unlts ~ncluding one ~ncluslon- ary unlt w~ll be provlded in accordance with the Land Use Element denslty standards of the R2 zone, Program 12 of the Hous~ng Element and the State's dens1 ty bonus provislon. " ~ 4. The design of the subdlv~sion or the proposed ~mprovements wlII not cause substant~al env~ronmental damage or sub- stant~ally and avoidably lnJure flsh or wildl~fe or thelr hab~tat in that the condomlnlum project is categorically exempt from CEQA. - 4 - ce ce 5. The des1gn of the subd1 V1S1on or the type of w1ll not cause ser10US publ1c health proble~s proposed project 1S a condo~1nlum project development 1n the nelghborhood. improvement 1n that the typ1cal of 6. The design of the subdivis10n or the type of improvements will not conflict wlth easements, acquired by the publ1C at large, for access through, or use of, property w1th1n the proposed subd1v1s1on 1n that the project 1S a condoffi1nium. Conditional Use Perm1t and Use Permlt Find1ngs. 1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good zoning practice, in the publ1C 1nterest and necessary that substant1al Just1ce be done in that a mult1ple family -resident1al condom1n1um 1S tYPlcal of the kind of develop- ment 1n the ne1ghborhood and 15 a perm1tted use in the R2 zone. 2. The proposed use 1S compat1ble w1th eX1st1ng and potent1al uses w1th1n the general area, traff1c or park1ng conges- tion wlll no~ result,. the publ1C health, safety and general welfare are protected and no harm to adjacent properties w111 result 1n that 12 park1ng spaces are pro- v1ded on slte 1n a conmon subterranean garage wlth access from the alley as outllned 1n Scheme B. Other Cond1t1ons. 1. Plans for flnal des1gn and landscap1ng shall be subJec~ to review and approval by the ArCnltectural ReVlew Board. 2. The Arch1tectural Rev1ew Board, 1n thelr reV1ew, shall pay part1cular attent10n to the project I s landscape and 1r- r1gat1on plan, partlcularly for the roof deck, vin1ng on the bUlld~ng, proposed balcony and wl.ndow treatment and the art1cUlatlon of the north and south elevatlons facing Bay street and the alley respect1vely. 3. M1nor amendments to the plans shall ~e ~ubJect to approval by the D1rector of Planning. An lncrease of more than 10% of the square footage or a signlflcant change in the ap- proved concept shall be subject to Plannlng Conun1ss1on Review. Constructlon shall be in substant~al conformance with the plans submltted or as modlf1ed by the Plannlng Conunisslon, Arch1tectural Revlew Board or Dlrector of Plannlng. .. , 4. The appl1cant shall comply w1th all legal requlrements regardlng provlslons for the d1sabled, 1ncludlng those set forth 1n the California Administrative Code, T1tle 24, Part 2. 5. Flnal parking lot layout and speclfications WhlCh shall include alley access uS ind1cated 1n scheme B and shall be - 5 - ce .~ subJect to the rev~ew and approval of the Parklng and Trafflc Eng~neer. 6. proJect deslgn shall comply wlth the bu~ld~ng energy reg- ulatlons set forth In the California Adm~nlstratlve Code, Tltle 24. Part 2. (Energy Conservation Standards for New Res~dentlal BUlld~ngs), such conformance to be ver~fled by the BUlldlng and Safety Dlv~sion prlor to ~ssuance of a BUllding Permit. 7. An openable window or openable skylight shall be provided in at least one bathroom In each un~t. The proJect shall provlde adequate natural llght In the kltchen. B. Street trees shall be malntalned. relocated or provided as requlred in a manner conslstent with the City's Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the speclflcatlons of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser- vices. No street tree shall be removed w~thout the ap- proval of the Department of Recreat~on and Parks. 9. The eXlstlng drl veway and apron, shall be rer:;oved and the eXlstlng standard curb and gutter per the Department of General Serv~ces. loca ted an Bay Street curb cut replaced Wl th spec~flcatlons of the 10. Any outdoor l~ghtl:1g shall be shlelded and/or dlrected away from adJacent res~dentlal propertles. wlth any such light~ng not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of llh:m~nat~on beyond the perlmeter of the subJect property. Tentatlve Tract Map Condlt~ons. 1. The Tract Map shall be revlsed to reflect the condltlons as approved In scheme B lncludlng but not Ilmlted to pro- vldlng access from the alley. 2. All off s,lte improvements requlred by the Clty Englneer shall be installed. Plans and speclficatlons for off slte improvements shall be prepared by a registered clvlI en- glneer and approved by the City Englneer. 3. Before the City Eng~neer may approve the flnal map. a sub- dlvislon ~mprovement agreement for all off slte lmprove- ments requlred by the Clty Englneer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the Clty Attorney's offlce. ~ ~ 4. The tentat~ve map shall exp~re 24 months after approval, except as provided In the prOVls~ons of Callfornia Govern- ment Code Sectlon 66452.6 and sections 9380-Q382 of the Santa Mon~ca Munlcipal Code. Durlng thls tlme per~od the final map shall be presented to the C~ty of Santa Mon~ca for approval. ...) - 6 - , ' ce ce 5. The r~ghts granted here~n through approval of a condlt1on- al use perm~t shall be effectl.ve only when eXerCl.Sea ~n connection with Tentative Tract Map 43853. 6. The developer shall prov~de the Engineerl.ng Department of the Clty of Santa Mon~ca w~th one Dlzal Cloth prlnt reproduction and m~crofllm of each sheet of the flnal map after recordatlon. 7. Prl.or to approval of the fl.nal map, Condomlnlum ASSOCla- tlon By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaratlon of CC & R's shall be rev~ewed and approved by the C~ty Attorney. The CC & R's shall contal.n a nondlSCrlml.natlon clause as pres- ented ~n Sect10n 9392 (SMMC) and contaln such prOVl.S10nS as are required by Section 9l22E (SMMC). B. Payment of the Condom1n~um Tax of $1. 000 per unl.t and QUl.ITby fee of $200 per unlt shall be requ~red pr~or to the issuance of bUlldlng permlts. Inclusionary Unlt Condltlons. CondOIDlniums. 1. The developer shall covenant. and agree Wl. th the Cl. ty of Santa Monlca to the speclfl.c terms, COndl.tlons and restr~ctl.ons upon the passessl.on, use and enJoyment of the subJect property, whl.ch terms, COndl.tlons and restrl.C~lOnS shall be recorded with the Los Angeles Count.y Recorder's offlce as a part of the deeds and Covenants, Condl. tlons and Restrl.ctl.ons of Tract 43853, to ensure that one af- fordable unlt lS prov~ded and mal.:1tal.ned over tlI:le and through subsequent sales of the property. An affordable unlt shall be defined as be1ng affordable to households Wl. th incomes not exceedlng 120 % of the (HUe:) Los Angeles County rnedl.an ~ncome, expendlng not over 25% of monthly ~ncome on houslng costs, as speclfled by t~e Santa Mon~ca Housing A~thor~ty. ThlS agreement shall be executed and recoLded prl.or to the lssuance of bu~ld1ng permits. Such agreerent shall specl- fy 1) respOnSl.bll~ tles of the developer for rnaklng the unlt aval.lable to potent1al buyers and coordlnating that process wlth the Clty of Santa Monl.ca Housing Authorlty, and 2) respons~bilit~es of the City of Santa Monlca to prepare appl~cat~on forms for potent1al buyers, establ~sh ~ Crlterl.a for qualiflcatl.ons, rev~ew appl~catl.ons and pro- vlde el~glble appl~cants to the developer, and enforce the provls~ons of the agreement. Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg Assistant Planner KR:ca tt44039 - 7 - ~ , . " (. A':'TAGH1E'NT B (e ADD END U M PLASNING AND ZONING DIVISION Communlty and EconomlC Development Department M E MaR AND U M DATE: June 17, 1985 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Paul J. ~llvern, Director of Planning SUBJECT: T.T. 44039, C.U.P. 385, 1024 Bay Street, R2. To Permlt The Removal of a Single Famlly Home and the Construc- tion of a SlX Unlt Condomlnlum. Applicant: Grant Wada ,Summary . ThlS is an addendum to the prev10us staff report on th1S ltem and responds to two lssues ralsed at the June 3rd publlC hearing. The proposal is for a Tentatlve Tract Map and a Condltlonal Use Per- mit for a SlX unlt, two story condomlnium to replace a single family home on an R2 lot at 1024 Bay Street. One inclusionary unlt 1S requlred. On site parklng totalllng 12 spaces wl11 be prov1ded. On June 3rd, the proJec't. appllcant requested that thlS ltelTl be contlnued to the June 17, 1985 Plannlng Corr:rnisslon meetlng to enable hlm to present hlS proJect to the full CO:TnU1SS10n since only four Commissioners would be present at the June 3rd meetlng. In that the appllcant requested a contlnuance of his hearing on the eve of June 3rd which gave Plannlng staff l~ttle t1.rne to notlfy interested mer:ibers of the communlty, several neighbors came to the June 3~d hearl.ng and requested an opportunity to present public testl1ll0ny concernlng thls proposal. The Planning CO~lssion responded to thlS request by openlng the Public Hear- ing on June 3rd for the purposes of ~earing the publlC testlmony and contl.nued the hearlng to June 17, 1985. Analysis In order to respond to the concerns raised by the res~dents at the public hear~ng on June 3, 1985, City staff reviewed the proJ- ect to lnsure compl~ance w~th Section 9l22H, CondOmlnl.Um Law of the Santa Mon~ca Munl.c~pal Code. as well as Program 12 of the City of Santa Monl.ca Hous~ng Element and Sect~on 65915 of the Callfornia Government code. - 1 - ((J{J . .. ~ ,I. (e (e Project Compliance with Section 9l22H Condominium Law, Santa Monlca Munlclpal Code Under Sectlon 9ll2H.l. (S~~C) an energy conservatlon plan must be submitted as part of all condomlnium proposals. ThlS plan should include details of the energy conservatlon measures which the proJect wll1 employ. These detalls include but are not llml ted to insulation, water, water heating, heatlng and cooling equip- ment, natural ventllation and passive solar design as well as an estimate of the impact of the project on energy usage in adJacent properties. Based upon the energy plans submltted for this proJ- ect, the developer has adequately addressed heating, cooling and- insulation requirements by designing the bUlldlng with souther:n exposure windows, solar water heatlng and wall fans in each unit' which wll1 move the warm air from the mezzanine area to the bed- room area; As outlined in Condition 7 under Other Conditions, the proJect design must comply with State energy conservatlon standards for new residentlal constructlon, Tltle 24, Part 2 prior to the issuance of a building perrnlt. Additionally a varl.ety of setbaCKS are provided on both the east and west elevations which helps to perml. t the maximum amount of light lnto the sideyards. Furthermore, both the east and west sideyards which are 9'4" and 6'6" respectively, exceed that whl.ch is required by the Municipal Code and therefore adequate open space for 11ght and alr is provlded. The most signlfl.cant affect of proJect shading would be on the west slde of the adJacent con- dOmln1.Um in the late afternoon, espec1.ally durlng the W1.nter' Solstlce. However, this will be mitlgated wlth the lncorporatlon of an op~n work ral1 along the east parapet wall whlch wlll en- able sunllght to filter into the adJacent condom1:nUr.l'S upper level wlndows. Planning staff recommends that the Archltectural ReVlew Board be dlrected to conslder addl tional Inl tlgation mea- sures to address the shading issue. Sectlon 9ll2H. 2. (SMBC) speclfies that all condomlniums shall have access from ga~ages to the first livlng level wlthout gOlng to a publlC street or alley. In this proposal, this requlrement has been accompllshed in Scheme B by having two stftl.rways on the west slde which lead from the subterranean garage to the first floor of the bUlldl.ng. Entrances to the unlts are located on this side of the bUl.ldlng and the area wl.ll be secured wlth security gates. Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus provisions . ~ Program 12 of the Clty'S Housing Element is designed to promote the development of houSlng WhlCh is affordable to low and moder- ate income persons. ThlS program requlres that proJects wlth three or more res1dentlal un1ts provide 25% of these untls to persons with incomes at or below 120% the County'smedian income. If 25% of the unlts result in less than a whole number, it shall be rounded down to the nearest number. Program 12 of the Hous1ng Element also specifles that State Government Code Sections 65915- - 2 - ce (e 65918 perta~n~ng to density bonus provis~ons shall be complied w~th ~n the developMent of ~nclus~onary hous~ng. Sect~on 65915 of the State Government Code prov~des that the City shall grant at least a 25% density bonus to hous~~g developments of 5 or more dwelling units when at least 25% of the un~ts are affordable to persons of low to moderate income. The Cede spec~fies that the density bonus shall not be included when cal- culat~ng the percentage of units which w~ll be affordable. While Program 12 of the Housing Element indicates that if ~5% of the units results in less than a whole number, it is rounded down to the nearest number, Section 65915 of the Government Code is si- lent concern~ng this ~ssue. It ~s the C~ty Attorney' s op~nion that the number of density bonus unlts should be rounded down to the nearest whole un~t if the fraction is under 0.5 and is round- ed up to the next unit if the fraction is 0.5 or above. Addi- tionally, it is also the City Attorney's opin~on that res~dential dens~ties in the Land Use Element are the bas~s for calculation of the dens~ty bonus outlined ~n Sect~on 65915 of the Government Code. Based on these provisions, the maximum density under the Land Use Element WhlCh ~s perrn~tted on th~s lot is f~ve units. To satlsfy Program 12 of the Hous~ng Element 25% of these un~ts are requ~red to be designated as affordable to persons of low to moderate in- come. S~nce 25% of 5 units results in 1.25 un~ts which is less than a whole number, the total number of un~ ts required to be affordable ~s rounded down to 1 un~t. A dens~ty bonus of 1 unlt ~s provlded ~n thls case to meet Sect10n 65915 of the Government Code. Therefore, the developer lS perTI1tted a total of s~x un~ts one of Wh1Ch must be an affordable un1t. Recommendations As noted in the June 3rd report, Plann1ng staff reco~~ends that the Plann1ng corrun~ssion approve Tentatlve Tract l>1ap 43853 and Conditional Use Perm1t 374 for Scheme B, w~th the following amen- ded f~nd~ngs and cOQd~tions. . Tentative Tract Map Findings. 1. The proposed sUbdivis1on, together w~th its provision for its des1gn and 1mprovements, lS cons1stent with applicable general and spec~f1c plans as adopted by the C~ty of Santa Mon1ca, spec~fically the dens~ty and urban ces1gn pol~c~es of the Land Use Element, the c~rculation polic1es of the C~rculation Element and the inclusionary housing require- ment of the Hous~ng Element. .. , 2. ,The slte is phys~cally SU1table for the proposed type of development in that the proJect will be developed in ac- cordance w~th the Land Use Element dens~ty standards and Mun~C1pal Code property development standards of the R2 > _ .~zone.:." __ - 3 - c. Ce 3. The s~te is phys~cally su~table for the proposed dens~ty of development In that six un~ts ~ncludlng one lncluSlon- ary un~t will be provided ~n accordance wlth the Land Use Element densit.y standards of the R2 zone, program 12 of the HousJ..ng Element and the State I s denslty bonus provis~on. 4. The deslgn of the subd~vislon or the proposed improvements w~ll not cause substantial envlronmental damage or sub- stant:tally and avo:tdably inJure f~sh or wildlife or their hab:t tat in that the condom:tnium proJ ect is categorically exempt from CEQA. 5. The design of the subdJ..vision or the type of w:tll not cause serious public health problems proposed proJect is a condom:tn:tum proJect development in the ne:tghborhood. improvement in tha t the typ:tcal of 6. The design of the subd~vision or the type of improvements will not conflict WJ..th easements, acqu:tred by the pUblJ..c at large, for access through, or use of, property WJ.. thin the proposed subd~v:tsion in that the proJect is a condominium. Conditional Use Permit Pindings. 1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good 20n1ng pract:tce, ~n the publ~c ~nterest and necessary that substantJ..al JustLce be done 1n that a multiple famlly residentJ..al condo:;un1um 15 slmllar to other condomln1um development in the nelghborhood and is a perm~tted use 1n the R2 zone. 2. The proposed use is compat~ble with eX1st:tng and potent:tal uses w~thl.n the general area, traffic or park1ng conges- t~on will not result, the publ1c health, safety and general welfare are protected and no harm to adJacent properties w~ll result in that 12 parking spaces are pro- vlded on site in a co~mon subterranean garage wlth access from the alley as outlined J..n Scheme B. other Conditions. 1. Plans for f1nal des~gn and landscaplng shall be subJect to reVlew and approval by the Arch~tectural Review Board. 2. The Archltectural ReVlew Board, in the1r reVlew, shall pay particular attentlon to the proJect's landscape and lr- r1gat1on plan, part1cularly for the roof deck, v:tning on the bU1ldl.ng, proposed balcony and window treatment and the articulatlon of the north and south elevations faclng Bay street and the alley respectively. ..~ 3. The Archltectural Review Board, shall carefully consider alternatlve des~gn solutions to help further mitigate - 4 - c. Ce shadl.ng impacts on the adJacent eXl.stl.ng condoml.nl.u;, to the east. 4. Ml.nor a~endQents to the plans shall be subJect to approval by the Dl.rector of Planning. An l.ncrease of more than 10% of the square footage or a signifl.cant change l.n the ap- proved concept shall be subJect to Plannl.ng Commlssion Review. Construction shall be in substantlal conformance wi th the plans subml tted or as modl.fl.ed by the Plannlng Commissl.on, Architectural Review Board or Dl.rector of Plannl.ng. 5. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements regardlng provislons for the dl.sabled, includl.ng those set forth l.n the California Adminl.strative Code, Title 24, Part 2. 6. Final parking lot layout and SpeCl.flcatlons whJ.ch shall include alley access as indicated in Scheme B and shall be sUbJect to the review and approval of the Parkl.ng and Traffic Engineer. 7. Project design shall comply with the buildlng energy reg- ulatlons set forth in the CalJ.fornla AdmJ.nistratlve Code, Tltle 24, Part 2. (Energy Conservatl.on Standards for New Resldentlal BUl.ldl.ngs}, such conformance to be verl.fl.ed by the BUl..ldlng and Safety DJ.vl.sion prlor to l.ssuance of a BuildJ.ng Permlt. B. An openable window or openable skylight shall be provlded l.n at least one bathroom In each unl.t. The proJect shall provlde adequate natural light In the kltchen. 9. Street trees shall be Qal.ntal.ned, relocated or provlded as required J.n a manner consJ.stent wlth the Clty'S Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS}, per the specifications of the Department of Recreatl.on and Parks and the Department of General Ser- Vlces. No street tree shall be removed wl.thout the ap- proval of th~ Department of Recreat~on and Parks. 10. The existing driveway and apron, shall be removed and the eXl.stlng standard curb and gutter per the Department of General Services. located 'on Bay Street curb cut replaced with specl.ficatlons of the 11. Any outdoor lightl.ng shall be shl.elced and/or dlrected away from adJacent resldentlal propertles, with any such lightlng not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of 11lumlnatlon beyond the perlmeter of the subJect property. ~ .. 12. The thlrd floor area of the rear unit shall be reduced so not to exceed 33 1/3% of the floor below and conform with the Uniform Building Code's deflnltlon of a mezzanl.ne. Tentative Tract Map Conditlons. - 5 - ce Ce 1. The Tract Map shall be revlsed to reflect the condltl.OnS as approved in Scheme B includlng but no~ IlIDlted to pro- vldlng access from the alley. 2. All off site improvements requlred by the Cl. ty Engl.neer shall be l.nstalled. Plans and specl.fications for off site improvements shall be prepared by a registered cl.vil en- gineer and approved by the Clty Engl.neer. 3. Before the City Engineer may approve the fl.nal map, a sub- division improvement agreement for all off slte improve- ments requlred by the Clty Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the Clty Attorney's offlce. 4. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provisions of Callfornia Govern- ment Code Section 66452.6 and Sectlons 9380-9382 of the Santa Monica Municlpal Code. During thlS time period the final map shall be presented to the Cl ty of Santa Monl.ca for approval. 5. The rlghts granted hereln through approval of a condition- al use permlt shall be effectlve only when exerclsed in connectlon with Tentatlve Tract Map 43853. 6. The developer shall provlde the Englneerlng Department of the City of San~a Monlca wlth one Dlzal Cloth prlnt reproduction and mlcrofllm of each sheet of the flnal map after recordatlon. 7. Prior to approval of the final map, Condor.linlUm ASSOCla- tlon By-Laws (If appllcable) and a Declaratlon of CC & R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Clty Attorney. The CC & R's shall contaln a nondlscrlmlnation clause as ores- ented In Sectlon 9392 (SMMCl and contal~ such provi~lons as are requlred by Sectlon 9122E (SMMC). 8. Payment of t.he Condom:tnium Tax Quimby fee of $200 per unit shall iS3cance of buildlng permlts. of $1,000 per unit and be requir~d prior to the Inclusionary Unit Condition. L The developer shall COvenant and agree with the Cl ty of Santa Monlca to the speciflc terms, condltions and restrlctlons upon the possesslon, use and enJoyment of the subJect property, WhlCh terms, condltlons and restrlctions shall be recorded wlth the Los Angeles County Recorder 's offlce as a part of the deeds and covenants, Condl tlons and Restrlctions of Tract 43853, to ensure that one af- fordable unl. t is provl.ded and mal.ntained over time and through subsequent sales of the property. An affordable uni t shall be defined as being affordable to households with lncomes not exceeding 120% of the (HUD) Los Angeles County median lncorne, expendl.ng not over 25% of monthly .. ~ - 6 - c. (e income on housing costs, as specifled by the Santa Monlca Houslng Authority. This agreement shall be executed and recorded prlor to the ~ssuance of bUlldlng perm~ts. Such agreement shall spec~- fy 1) responslbl.lit~es of the developer for making the unit available to potential buyers and coordlnatl.ng that process with the Cl.ty of Santa Monl.ca Housl.ng Authority, and 2) responsl.bl.litl.es of the City of Santa ~lonl.ca to prepare appll.catl.on forms for potential buyers, establish criteria for quallfl.cations, review appllcations and pro- vl.de eligible applicants to the developer, and enforce the provisions of the agreement. Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg Assl.stant Planner KR:ca CUP385 . . .. , - 7 - ',' '" "WTACHHENT C ~ STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT. NUMBER: T.T. 44039, C.U.P. 385 LOCATION: 1024 Bay Street APPLICANT: Grant Wada . REQUEST: To Permlt the Removal of a Slngle Famlly Home and the Constructlon of a SlX UOlt Condomlnlum. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 6-17-85 Date. x Approved based on the following flndlngs and subJect to the conditlons below. Denled. Other. Tentative Tract Map Findlngs. 1. The proposed subdlvlslon, together wlth ltS prov1s1on for its deslgn and lrnprove~ents, lS consistent wlth appllcable general and speclflc plans as adopted by the Clty of Santa Monlca, speciflca11y the denslty and urban deslgn pollcles of the Land Use Element, the c1rculation pollcles of the Clrculatlon Element and the lnclus10nary houslng requ1re- ment of the ~ousing Element. . 2. The Sl te is physlcally SUl table for the pr?posed type of development in that the proJect w1ll be developed 1n ac- cordance w1th the Land Use Element density standards and Munlcipal Code property development standards of the R2 zone. 3. The slte is physlcally sUltable for the proposed denslty of development in that six units includlng one incluslon- ary un1t wlll be provlded in accordance w1th the Land Use Element denslty standards of the R2 zone, Program 12 of the Houslng Element and the State I s density bonus provlslon. .. , 4. The deslgn of the subdlvision or the proposed improvements wlll not cause substantlal envlronmental damage or sub- stantlally and avoidably lnJure flSh or w1ldllfe or thelr - 1 - ~ . hab1tat ln that the candominlum proJect 1S categorlcally exempt from CEQA, 5. The deslgn of the subdiv1s10n or the type of will not cause serlOUS publlc health problems proposed proJect is a condoffilnlum proJect development in the nelghborhood. lmprovement ln that the tYP1cal of 6. The design of the subdlvlslon or the type of 1mprovements will not confl1ct Wl th easements, acqu1red by the publ1C at large, for access through, or use of, property Wl thin the proposed subdivlslon 1n that the proJect 1S a condomin1um. Conditional Use Permit Findings. 1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good zonlng pract1ce, ~n the publlC interest and necessary that substant~al justlce be done in that a mult~ple family resldent1al condom~nlum 1S slm1lar to other condomln~um development in the ne1ghborhood and is a permitted use ln the R2 zone. 2. The proposed use lS compatlble w1th existlng and potentlal uses w~thln the general area, trafflc or parking conges- tion w111 not result, the publlC health, safety and general welfare are protected and no harm to ad Jacent propertles wlll result ln that 12 parklng spaces are pro- v1ded on slte ln a common subterranean garage wlth access from the alley as outl~ned in Scheme B. Other Conditions. 1. Plans for flnal deslgn and landscaplng shall be subJect to review and -approval by the Arch1tectural Revlew Board. 2. The Archltectural ReV1ew Board, in the~r reVlew, shall pay partlcular attent10n to the proJect I s landscape and lr- rlgatlon pla~, partlcularly for the roof deck, vin1ng on the bUlldlng, proposed balcony and wlndow treatment and the art1culatlon of the north and south elevatlons fac1ng Bay street and the alley respectlvely. 3. The Archltectural ReVlew Board, shall carefully conslder alternat1ve deslgn solutions to help further mltlgate shadlng 1mpacts an the adJacent eXlstlng condomln1um to the east. .... 4. Mlnor amendments to the plans shall be SUbJect to approval by the Dlrector of Plannlng. An lncrease of more than 10% of the square footage or a slgnlflcant change ln the ap- proved concept shall be subJect to Plann1ng CommlSS10n Rev1ew.Constructlon shall be in substantial conformance wlth the plans submltted or as modlfled by the Plannlng COWIDlssion, Architectural Revlew Board or D~rector of Plann1ng. - 2 - .. " ~ ~ , 5. The appllcant shall comply w1th all legal requirements regardlng prov1slons for the dlsabled, ~ncludlng those set forth ln the Callfornla Admlnlstratlve Code, T1tle 24, Part 2. 6. Final parking lot layout and speclf1catlons WhlCh shall lnclude alley access as lndlcated 1n Scheme B and shall be subJect to the reVlew and approval of the Park1ng and Trafflc Englneer. 7. ProJect deslgn shall comply wlth the bUl1dlng energy reg- ulat10ns set forth 1n the Cal1fornla Adm1nistratlve Code, Title 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservatlon Standards for New Resldentlal BUlldlngs), such conformance to be veri fled by the BU11dlng and Safety D1V1Slon pr10r to issuance of a BU11d10g Permlt. 8. An openable window or openable skylight shall be provided in at least one bathroom in each un1t. The project shall provlde adequate natural light in the kitchen. 9. Street trees shall be malntalned, relocated or provlded as requlred 10 a manner conslstent with the Clty'S Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the spec1f1cat1ons of the Department of Recreatlon and Parks and the Department of General Ser- V1ces. No street tree shall be removed wlthout the ap- proval of the Department of Recreatlon and Parks. lO. The eX1stlng drlveway and apron, shall be removed and the eX1stlng standard curb and gutter per the Depart~ent of General SerVlces. located on Bay Street curb cut replaced wlth speclflcatlons of the 11. Any outdoor Ilghtlng shall be sh1elded and/or dlrected away from adJacent resldentlal propertles, Wl th any such 11ghtlng not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of ll1urranatlon beyond the perlmeter of the subJect property. l2. The thlrd floor area of the rear unlt shall be reduced so not to exceed 33 1/3% of the floor below and conform w1th the Unlform BU11dlng Code's def1n1tion of a ~ezzan1ne. 13. The eXlstlng Jacaranda tree located along the east slde of the lot shall be relocated to the front yard. 14. Securl ty gates shall be provlded at the entrances to the subterranean garage and at both the street and alley en- trance to the proJect. .. " 15. The east side of the parapet wall shall be deslgned Wl th an open work rall and be subJect to approval by the Ar- ch1tectural ReVlew Board and the BUllding Department. 16. The Archltectural ReVlew Board shall carefully review the artlculat10n of the north and south parapet walls to 10- sure that the visual mass is reduced. - 3 - . . ce ce Tentatlve Tract Map Condlt1ons. 1. The Tract Map shall be revised to reflect the condl tlons as approved In Scheme B including but not l~mited to pro- v1d1ng access from the alley. 2. All off slte 1mprovements requlred by the city Engineer shall be ~nstalled. Plans and specif~catlons for off slte lmprovements shall be prepared by a reg1stered C1V1l en- glneer and approved by the Clty Engineer. 3. Before the C1ty Engineer may approve the final map, a sub- d1V~Slon improvement agreement for all off site lmprove- ments required by the City Eng~neer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the C~ty Attorney's office. 4. The tentative map shall exp~re 24 months after approval, except as provlded In the prov1s10ns of Cal1forn1a Govern- ment Code Sectlon 66452.6 and Sectlons 9380-9382 of the Santa Monica Mun~c1pal Code. Durlng thlS t~me per10d the f1nal map shall be presented to the Clty of Santa Mon~ca for approval. 5. The rlghts granted hereln through approval of a conditlon- al use permlt shall be effect1ve only when exerclsed 1n connectlon wlth Tentat1ve Tract Map 43853. 6. The developer shall prov1de the Engineerlng Department of the C1ty of Santa Monlca wlth one Dlzal Cloth prlnt reproduct1on and mlcrofllm of each sheet of the flhal map after recordat~on. 7. Prior to approval of the final map, Condorrunlum Associa- t10n By-Laws (if appllcable) and a Declaratlon of CC & R's shall be revlewed and approved by the C1ty Attorney. The CC & R'S shall contaln a nondlscr1mlnat1on clause as pres- ented in Section 9392 (SMMC) and conta1n such provlslons as are requlred by Sectlon 9l22E (SMMC). 8 . payment of the Condominl um Tax of $1,000- per unl t and QU1mby fee of $200 per unlt shall be requ1red prlor to the issuance of bUllding permlts. Incluslonary Unlt Condlt1on. 1. .. , The developer shall covenant and agree w1th the Clty of Santa Monlca to the speclfic terms, condlt1ons and restrlct~ons upon the possesslon, use and enJoyment of the subJect property, which terms, condltlons and restrlctlons shall be recorded w~th the Los Angeles County Recorder's off~ce as a part of the deeds and Covenants, Cond1tlons and Restr~ctlons of Tract 43853, to ensure that One af- fordable unl t lS provided and malntalned over tlme and through subsequent sales of the property. An affordable unlt shall be def~ned as be1ng affordable to households - 4 - . , . ~ . with lncomes not exceed1ng 120% of the (HUD) Los Angeles County meClan income, expendlng not over 25% of monthly lncome on hous1ng costs, as speclfled by the Santa Monlca Houslng Author1ty. ThlS agreement shall be executed and recorded prlor to the issuance of buildlng permlts. Such agreement shall speC1- fy 1) responslbilitles of the developer for mak1ng the unl t available to potential buyers and coordlnating that process wlth the Clty of Santa Mon1ca Houslng Authorlty, and 2) responslblllties of the Clty of Santa Monica to prepare appllcatLon forms for p i b ers, establ1sh crlterla for quallfications, re ew a licat ons and pro- v1de eliglble appllcants to the d elo ,an enforce the provlslons of the agreement. Qv\.. '~.\cqS ',. ~ () A' / sf c:na1rpe'rson ---- ~ Plannlng Commissi~n Clty of Santa MOTI1Ca KR:nh STCUP385 ,. . .. ~ - 5 - '.i . i\T':'ACHt'ENT 0 . June 26, 1985 Honorable }fuyor and City Councll C!ty of Santa Honlca Cay Hall 1695 Mun Street Santa Monica, Cal!fornia 90406 Reference: C.U.P. 385, T.T. 44039, 1024 Bay Street Subject: Complaint Appealing Ruling of Planning eom.ission Honorable Mayor and City Counc!l: In accordance with Sectlon 9366(b) of the Santa Monlca Municlpal Code and with advice we have recelved from Mr. Paul Sllvern, Director of Plann1ng, we are writing this letter to serve as "a complalnt" as defined by SectlOn 9366Cb) and to appeal the deC!SlOn of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Honlca ("PCCSM") granting the appl1catlon of Mr. Grant Wada ("the developer") for the referenced Conditlonal Use Permlt and Tentative Tract Map, permittlng develop of a SlX unlt condominlum at 1024 Bay Street, Santa MODlca, Callfornla. We ask that this matter be set for public hearing and for oral argument by appel- lants as provlded in Sect10n 9366(b). We appeal on behalf of ourselves, on behalf of all residents of the flve dwell- ings at 1030 Bay Street, on behalf of the Bay Street Townhouses homeowners' aS60- clatlon, and on behalf of all of the other res1dents in the ne1ghborhood who wrote letters or signed petitlons 1n opposit1on to the developer's appllcation that were del1vered to the PCCSM. appeal was made followlng public hearlngs thlS declslon and ask that you reverse 1t by the PCCSM on each of the followlng The declsion of the PCCSM from WhlCh we on June 3 and June 17, 1985. We appeal and remand it for further conslderat1on independent grounds: (1) The actloD of the PCCSM violates Government Code Sectlon 65915 by awarding a dens!ty bonus unlt to the developer, whose proposal for development Joes not dedlcate "at least 25%" of the unlts to lnclusion- ary purposes, as required by Sectlon 65915. (2) The action of the PCCSM violates Section 9363 of the Santa Mon!ca Muni- cipal Code 1n each of the followlng respects: (a) The proposed map is not conslstent wlth app11cab1e general and speclfic plans as specified ln Government Code Section 65451. (b) The des!gn or improvement of the proposed subdlvlslon lS not con- sistent wlth appllcable general and speclflc plans. The alte is not physlca1ly sUltab1e for the type of development. The site is not physically SUltable for the proposed dens!ty of development. (e) The design of the subdlvislon and the proposed improvement are likely to cause substant1al env1ronmental damage. .. , (c) (d) . . (f) The proposed subd~v~5~on ~s ~ncons~stent with appl~cable ord~nan- ces and laws of the Clty of Santa Mon~ca. (3) The actlon of the PCCSM was taken pursuant to hearlng procedures that confl~ct w~th appl~cable prov~slons of the MunICIpal Code, that were fundamentally unfa1r and that den~ed opponents of the development their rights to be heard before the PCCSM. (4) The action of the PCCSM was based on pass~on and pre]UdlCe rather than on a correct application of establ~shed and unamblguous law to proven and undIsputed facts. (S) The actlon of the PCCSM was tainted by the b~as of Commissioner Genser, who should have disqualif~ed h~mself from voting and otherw~se partici- pat~ng in the proceed~ngs by reason of h1S pr10r relat1onsh1p and com- munlcations wlth the developer and h1S architect. (6) The action of the PCCSM was irrat10nally prejudlced by the PCCSM's improper cons1deration of facts relat1ng to the dwell1ngs of the oppo- nents to the development rather than of facts relating to the appllca- tion and to development. (7) The action of the PCCSM was based on f~ndings of fact that were clearly erroneous and wholly unsupported by the evidence and on conclusions of law that were plaln error. In support of our appeal, we incorporate by reference the entire PCCSM file on the referenced matter, includlng wlthout limltat~on the tape recordlngs of the hear1ngs and any transcripts thereof and the following documents attached hereto: (1) Letter dated April 22, 1985 from H. Allen Evans, President, Bay Street Townhouses to Karen E. Rosenberg, Ass~stant Planner, Plannlng Dlv~slon (attached hereto as Exh~blt A); (2) Letter dated May 23, 1985 from H. Allen Evans, Presldent, Bay Street Townhouses to Ms. Penny Perlnan, Cha~r, and Comm~s8loners, PCCSM (attached hereto as Exhlb~t B); (3) Letter dated June 13, 1985 from Mark R. Lov~ngton, Deputy General Coun- sel, Department of Housing and Communlty Development, Off~ce of the Governor, State of Callforn1a, to Paul M. VanArsdell, Jr. (resident at 1030 Bay Street, Unit ~ 1) (attached hereto as Exh~bit C); (4) Transcript of proffered Statement by Opposing Neighbors (parts of transcr~pt were argued at the hear~ng on June 17, i985, and PCCSM refused to permlt full argument to be made) (attached hereto as Exhibit D); (5) Summary of Problems and Requested Solutions, dated June 17, 1985 signed by H. Allen Evans and Paul M. VanArsdell, Jr., submltted to PCCSM on June 17, 1985, on behalf of all nelghbors oppos~ng the development (attached hereto as Exhlbit E). ~ . As the record reflects, the actlon of PCCSM 1S unsupported by law or by fact. The action 1S expl~cable, If at all, only on the basls of passion and preJud~ce, aroused by emotional presentatlons by the developer and his arch~tect and in- flamed by argumentative and irrelevant quest10nlng by Commissioner Genser, who caused the PCCSM to divert lts attention away from the ~llegalltleS and Impropri- eties of the proposed development and toward the characteristics of the dwelllngs of the neighbors oppOS1ng the development. In short, Commissioner Genser lead , , . . the PCCSM to conclude that because the dwelllngs at 1030 Bay Street have some of the same deflclencles as the proposed development at 1024 Bay Street, the PCCSM should ignore opposltion of the entlre nelghborhood, lncludlng the opposltlon of those nelghbors who Ilve at 1030 Bay Street. Commlssloner Censer and the PCCSM eVldently have ruled that two wrongs (of whlch one had been permltted several years ago by the PCCSM) make one rlght. Appellants respectfully dlsagree and ask the City Council to reverse the erroneous declsion of the PCCSM. Respectfully submitted, -:;J.rJ!4, ~ /2;?7(.~~.}. Paul M. VanArsdell, Jr. 1030 Bay Street, Unit t 1 Santa Monica, Callfornla 90405 H. Allen Evans, President Bay Street Townhouses 1030 Bay Street, Unit 4 4 Santa Monica, Callfornia 90405 cc: Mr. Grant Wada Ms. Penny Perlman, Chair, Planning Commission . . . ~ \ ' .i . . TEN-THIRTY BAY STREET, NUMBER FOUR SAI'<TA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90405 Apnl 22. 1985 Hs. Karen E. Rosenberg Assistant Planner Plann~ng D~vis~on C~ty of Santa Honlca 1695 Maln Street, Room 212 Santa Mon~ca. CA 90406 Reference: Application for Tract Hap # 44039. 1024 Bay Street K.equelltec1 Chaugu in PLwa for lillilc1iug Dear Ms. Rosenberg: In our meetlng of April 18 you requested that we 8ubm~t a llbt of the' changes wh~ch we owners of units in the condom~n~um at 1030 Bay Street would like to see made ~n the proposed condom~n- ium bu~ld~ng to be bUilt next door to our west at 1024 Bay Street. The list follows: (1) Removal of the to? three feet of the buildin~, includln~ the u~per roof walkway and roof gardens. ThiS will reduce the height of the bUlldlng to legal l~mlts and will prov~de more sunllght (less shadow) for our build~ng, alloWlng most of the upper floor windows to recelve SUnllght on wlnter afternoons. WhlCh lS an lmportant source of interlor heat to us. It will also reduce concerns regardlng prlvacy from persons on the upper walkway. (2) Rautin~ of the u~per-level flre escape route throu~h open- ln~s between the [hlrd-level decks, to allow removal of the upper roof walkway. (3) Reversal <"fllp~lnf!.") of the bUlldln~ plan east to ....eat. sa that the flve-foot unexcavated atrlp and the unlta' entran- ces are on the east. Th~i would allow (see attacbed plan): Savlng of the existing jacaranda tree located an the llne between the two lots, and the plantlng of other simIlar trees along the property llne between the t....o bUildIngs to provlde a "two-story" privacy 8cr~en be- tween the adJa~ent bUlld~ngs. Hare sunllght and air clrculatlon 10 tbe area between the two bUlldlngs due to the Sllghtly wlder separatlon of tbe bUlldings WhlCh this "flippIng" would allow. Thls in turn would help to avold: the necesslty for the Installation of alr condItion- Ing ln the unlts at 1030 Bay, WhlCh now recelve ade- quate summer coollng from the predominantly eaaterly on-shore breezes. and the necessity for greater rel~ance on gas forced-aIr heatlng in the 1030 Bay unlts in the wlnter. because more of the second and first floor windows on the .. , Exhibi t A '\. .' , . ! . . west s~de of the 1030 Bay build~ng would be exposed to afternoon sunl1gnt ~n the w~nter wh1ch, as stated above, i6 an ~mportant source of lnter~or heat~ng. Greater privacy for llv1ng quarters of units 1n both bu~ldings, Since With a "fllpped" plan 1024 Bay's less frequently used livlng areas (second bedroom on first level, llvlng room on second level), rather than lts more frequently used living areas (master bedroom and bath on first level, kltchen/dining on second level), would be opposlte 1030 8ay's more frequently used llvlng areas (see item (4) below). We would have no objection to the non-reversal (leav~ng as presently planned) of the third level (loft and deck) of the 1024 plans, if thiS would help to retalD the solar heating effect of the south-faclng windows on thiS level. (4) Avoidance of directly opposite windows Vis-a-ViS ~he two bU1ldln~s (1030 Bay and 1024 Bay) to protect as much as poss~ble the privacy of living quarters of both bu~ldings. Westerly wlndows in the 1030 Bay bUlldlng allow Views into the l030 Bay unlts' kltchens and fam~ly rooms on the lower level, and the master bedrooms, dressing and master bath areas on the second level. (See attached 10]0 Bay eleva- tion and site plans for locations of wlndows.) - - - (5) Ent~ance to the bUlldln~'s ~arage from the alley, with the ramp located on the west slde of the lot, rather than from Bay street. The westerly ramp lS deslred to reduce the disturbance for the rear Unlt at 1030 Bay. (6) ~cc~ss d.rec~ k9 ~he liyin~ ~r~a9 Qf eac~ 1024 Bay un1t from their respect1ve ~ara~es, rather than through e~terior sta~rways. The garages could be des~gned as separately walled and doored garages for each un~t. as ~n the 1030 Bay bUilding (see attached plan). ThiS would prOVide greater security to 1024 Bay resldents and allow less e~ternal foot trafflC lfitQ and out of the un~ts. . We are s~ncere in our desire to work with the developer to achleve the above changes, which we feel would improve relst~on- ShipS of both bUlldings to one another, and would also probably ~ncrease the marketability of the 1024 Bay Street units once they are completed. If you or anyone else have any questlons regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call me at (2l3) 452-2267. Sincerely, ", --:tJ tMkt~ H. Allen Evans, Pres1dent BAY STREET TOWNHOUSES Homeowners Assoclation ( ( " ( '. . ~ .. BAY S~RRT TO.1iaOU5ES HOHAOWNRU~ ASSOCIATION 1030 BAY STREET, UNIT FOUR SANTA MO~ICA. CALIFORNIA 90405 May 23, 1985 Ms. Penny Perlman, Chair, and Co~~ss~oners Plann~ng Commission City of Santa Monica 1695 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, California 90406 Attent~on: Ka. ~ren K. iDsenberg. Assistant Planner Reference: C.U.P. 385. T.T. 44039. 1024 Bay Street SubJect: Col1cerns i.egardipg Final Plan(s) for CowlomniUIII Dear Ms. Perlman and Members of the Comm~ssion: We w~sh first to thank Ms. Rosenberg for the very professional and helpful manner in wh~ch she has handled this appl~catlon to date. We commend ber ss an example to others in her profess~on, and hope that you are fortunate enough to have other staff members of equal ab~l~ty. We also w~sh to thank Comm~ss~oner Genser for tak~ng t~me to sttend the meet~ng discussed below. BACXGIl.OulW We submltted a letter to Ms. aosenberg 00 Apr~l 22. ThlS letter suggested changes in the plans for the condomlolum proposed for the lot next to ours to the west at 1024 Bay Street. (A copy of that letter is included as Attachment A to tb~s letter.) We belleved tbese changes would be benef~c~al to both bu~ld- ings, and necessary to preserve a min~mum of pr~vacy. Ms. Rosenberg passed our proposals on to the developer, Mr. Grant Wada. She suggested that we meet with Mr. Wada, Mr. Glen Small (h~s architect) and Commis- s~oner Genser to attempt to compromise our differences and to work out a more mutually beneficial plan. This meet~ng was held on Apr~l 30. The results, regrettably, were dIsappOIntIng overall. They are d~scussed in Attachment B to th~s letter. The most l~portant results were: 1. Agreement by developer to consider plac~ng a pipe rail above roof level on the east slde of the roof-level "garden space" walkway. 2. Agreement by the developer to cons~der relocat~ng the second floor w~ndows in the east wall to avo~d a direct line of VIsion into our second floor master bedroom windows. 3. Dismissal by the developer of all other concerns and suggestions expressed in our April 22 letter. On May 9 tbe rieveloper wrote a letter to Ms. Rosenberg. That letter requires our coement, because ~t del~berately misleads by mlsconstru~ng positions taken by UB during the meet~ng. It also may m~scon8true statements made by Comm~5sion- er Censer at our meet~ng. We thus prOVIde a response to that letter in Attach- ment C. The moat important po~nts are: 1. Our primary concern is tbe maintenance of ma~lmum privacy for tbe occupants .. , Exhi bit B . . of both bUlldlngs. In thls regard, we are very concerned about the roof-top "garden" deck and walkway aloIlg the east slde of the roof. 2. We are also concerned about the shadow which the bUlldlng vlll cast on our west side. Removlng the east "parapet" roof deck wall wlll help to allevl- ate this situatlon, although only by a mlnlmal amount. 3. Other important Issues, including the "fllpplng" of tbe proposed plsn to allow 8 tree-plantlng space between the bUlldlngs and greater prlvacy, were not addressed by the developer. Indeed, the developer stated that our sug- gestions were inconsistent with practicablllty, in view of hlS rlghts WIthIn the maximum bounds of permisslble R2 development. With this background established we now proceed to our comments on the devel- oper's "flnal" plan(s) and our pOSltl0n inth regard to them. f ... RE~.AINING CONCERNS AFTER OUR REVIEW OF DEVELOPER'S "FINAL" PLAN (S) We note the following changes: 1. Addition of a Translucent Plastic Screen over the East Second-Floor Win- dows: Whlle thls change may protect the vlsual prlvacy of the occupants of both bUl1dIngs, it lS not a good long term solutIon. as the plastic panel is likely to deteriorate with age and sunlight and be removed and not replaced by the occupants wIthln a few years. A more permanent solutions, such as reducing and relocating the WIIldows, would be preferable. We also question whether such a protruslon from the slde of the buildlng IS allow- able withln the rules for set-back from the slde lot line. Tbe screen pro- jects 2.5 feet from the east wall WhlCh places it wlthin 2.5 feet of the lot line 1n at least SlX places along th1s llne. 2. Chan~e from a Wall to a P1pe(Wire Ralling above the Roof: ThlS change should be requlred only 1f the Commlsslon allows the requested varlance from code requlrements/CommlsSlon policy that would allow the "garden space" roof-top deck and walkway to be bUllt. 3. Alley Entrance to Subterranean Garage ~Plan B): We support this change, WhlCh w1ll alleviate the already overcrowded on-street parKlng and wl1l lessen trafflc on Bay Street. (Let it be noted, however, that the OWIlers of the rear unit of our bUllding do not favor this requirement, because it would create more'trafflc In the alley next to thelr unlt.) We note that the developer and his architect have chosec not to address the fol- 10W1ng Issues. We ask the Commlssion to do so. 1. Disallowance of the Roof-top "Garden Space" Second (Upper) Deck and Unnecessary Roof-top Walkway: We strongly oppose thIS roof-top 11vIng space, for the followlng reasons: Persons utili~lng th1s roof-top access/space will be have difficulty aVOIding looklng dlrectly down Into our master bedrooms, and beyond them lnto our master baths. This potential Invasion of our privacy from an unexpected vantage pOlnt seems unwarranted, and we urge that it not be allowed. Allowing th1S roof-top living apace would slso undercut any mainten- ance of privacy obtained from the 1nstallat10n of the translucent pla5t1C screens or relocatlona of windowa on the secood floor. Roof-top decks have not been allowed, insofar aa we can determlne, .. , ( ( ( . . ~n recent Plannlng CO~lSSlon declsloas, and appear to be ~n vlolat~on of the requlre~ents of the R2 dlstrlct zonlng code. The roof-top walkway is unnecessary, Slnce the gates between the thlrd-level roof decks on the west side of the bUlldlng provlde a fire escape eXltway. Plantings/lawns at roof top level would be very d~fficult to malntaln, there being no adequate place, even beneath the solar collectors, to store larger gardening equlpment such as lawn mowers. It is likely that in some 1nstances there would be little or no ma1ntenance, and the plant10gs would become a publ1C nuisance due to w1nd-blown sOlI. They could also become a potentlal fire hazard: sparks from the nearby chimneys, carrled the very short distance to the "garden" roof by prevailing westerly w1nds, could easlly ignite dried grass or plants on the roof). 2. Requirin~ that Windows in the BUlldin~ Not Be Placed Directly Opposite Windows in Our EX1stln~ BUlldln~: We have provlded the developer's archl- teet wlth scaled elevatlons and floor plans Show1og the juxtaposltion of ~indows between the two buildings. Directly opposite juxtapositions occur in several instances. The new plans reflect no attempt to avoid this situa- tion. While the proposed translucent pIastlc screen over the second floor east windows may not allow line-of-sight visual lovasions of pr1vacy, this is not the only potential problem wlth directly Opposlte windows. The lack of any buffer to sounds between the openlngs (such as is at least partly provided by off-set windows) creates a v1rtual inability to avo1d hearing "what is gOlng on" ln the unlt only tea feet away, This is particularly true dur1ng the warmer months, when most occupants w11l keep their windows open whenever they are at home, lnc1udlng during the night. It would be relatively easy to 1imlt tbe east wlndows in the proposed unlts so tbat they do not d1rectly oppose our windows, Agaln, we wlsh to empbasize that it w1Il be beneflclal to the occupants of both bUlldlngs to prevent the trauma WhlCh can develop when sleep snd pr1vacy are dlsturbed by tbe unwanted 1ntrusion of nOlses and VOlCes from ne1ghboring quarters. privately to me. to only correct and me. I write this letter for we all share concern in this (It w111 not suffice, as Mr. Small offered this problem for the unit owned by my wlfe all of the homeowners 1n our buildlng. and matter.) " 3. Requirin~ a Re-sloplng of the East Roof's An~le to Provlde More Sunlight to Our Second Floor Wlndows: Sunlight comlng througb the south-west faclng windows or our master bedrooms provldes much of the heat for our units dur- ing the wlnter. It is often unnecessary to run the forced-alr heat1ng except for occasional short perlods. The developer's plans show (see sbeet 17) that a 21' 6" shadow would be cast on our hUllding's west side during much of the winter months. (Thls assumes no wall on the upper roof-top deck.) Th1S shadow will cover almost the entire west slde of our building, includlng all of these second-floor Wln- dows (see sheet 1 of .Attachment b). ~ , This complete shadowing can only be alleviated (unless the bU1ldlng's plan is "flipped") by lowerlng the roof Ilne of the proposed buildlag on its east slde. The only way that we can see that this could be done is to posltion tbe mezzan~ne areas three to SlX feet furtber to tbe west and slope tbe roof up to a pOlnt about three feet to the west of tbe east ra1l of the mezza- ( ( . . ( nlne, as sho~n on sheet 2 of Attachnent D. This would re~ove about 2.5 feet of the shadow from our wall, WhlCh would provlde some sunllght. (anoth- er hour's ~orth, perhaps) ln our windows durlng the w~nter. There would be no result1ng slgn1f1cant change to the inter10r of the proposed bUlld1ng. (If the arcbitect lS concerned that th1S would harm "the original bU1ldlng's aesthet1c". the front facade could be reta~ned 1n the shape of the or1g1nal bUllding, below upper roof level.) The only otber solutlon to thiS problem, insofar as we can determlne. would be to "fl1p" the plan. This would result in the angled roof of the deck area allowlng some sun onto portions of our west wall, We are very concerned about thiB 10SB of a natural solar heat source. If a change B~milar to that proposed is not made, we ant1cipate signlficantly higher (probably double) heating bills durlng the winter months. We feel that this is very unfair. 4. Requirin~ that Trees be Planted between the Buildln~s to Provlde an Addi- Ilooal Prlvacy Screen: We have requested that the developer conslder "fllp- p1.ng" the plan for hl& buildlng in order to provide more mutually desirable separation of uses between the two bUlld1.ngs (resulting in more pr1.vacy) and to allow the five-foot-wlde plsntlng atrlp to be relocated to the 51.de yard between our two buildings so an existing Jacaranda tree on the lot line can be saved in that 10cat1.on and add1tional trees can be planted to provlde an additional prlvacy screen. Desp1te tbe developer' 8 assert10n tbat "fl1p- p1ng" is 1Qpracti~able, we st1ll believe this to be the most mutually bene- f1c1al design for the buildlng. Wh1chever Vlew prevalls, we believe it essent1al that dec1duous trees be planted and made to grow (In tubs if ne~essary) between the two buildings. Th1S w1ll provlde an additional visu- al and aural priva~y screen. We request that these trees be requlred. along with an automated watering system and rout1ne ma1ntenance. These are the principal issues w1th Wh1Ch we homeowners at 1030 Bay Street are concerned. It is our hope that the Commlssion may not see flt to grant the appl1catlon, but lf the COwclsslon is lncl1Ded to do so, we ask that the above requests be made specific cond1tions of lts approval. In the course of our reVlew of the plans for the proposed condOmlD1.um, we have not1ced other issues which, Wb1le not of dlrect concern to us. the Commisslon may wish to address. The,se lssues are su=ar1zed 1n Attachment E. "Questlons of General Concern". . If you or any other Commissioner have any questions regarding the above, please do not hes1tate to call me at (213) 452-2267. We wlll also attend the June 3 publlC hearlng on this applicatlon, and w1.11 be ready to answer any quest10ns you may have at that time. Sincerely, ~/~~ H. Allen Evans, Presldent BAY STREET TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION .. , cc: Hr. Grant Wada .:0. . . r..:~..-&-'::f:::"=~. ~ ~ ( TEN-THIRTY BAY STREET, NUMBER FOUR SANTA MOl'oICA, CALIFORNIA 90405 Apul 22, 1985 ( Hs. Xaren E. Rosenberg Ass~stant Plsnner PlaDD~ng Div~s~on Clty of Santa Monica 1695 Kaln Street, Roo~ 212 Santa Kon~ca, CA 90406 Reference; ~ppliC&tio~ for Txact Hap I 44039, 1024 1&1 Street i.eq~IIUd ChaPiu in p~ for Jhuldi'!~ Dear Ms. Rosenberg: In our meetlng of Apr~l 18 you requested that we .ub~~t a list of the' changes wh~ch we owners of units in the condom~nium at 1030 Bay Street would like to see made in [pe proposed condomin- iu~ building to be bu~lt next door to our vest at 1024 Bay Street. The list follows: (1) ~emoval of the top three feet o( tbe bu~ldin~. includin~ ~e upper roof walkway and roof gardens. ThlS y~ll reduce tbe be~ght of the bu~ld~ng to legal l~m~ts and y~ll prov~de more sunl~ght (le~s shadow) for our building, allovlng most of the upper floor windows to recelve sunligbt on winter afternoons, wh~ch is an important source of ~nterior beat to us. It w~ll also reduce concerns re&ard~ng pr~vacy from persons on tbe upper walkway. (2) RoutinR of the upper-level fire escape route throu~h open- ~RS b~t~een the thlrd-leve\ d~cks, to allow removal of the upper roof walkway. (3) l{ev",rsal <"fl~P?~ni'.") Qf th" bu~ld~n~ plan eHst t,:o ~eHt. 100 tbat the flve-foot une~cavated str~p and tbe un~ts' entran- ces are on the east. ThllO would allow (see attached plan): Savlng of tbe eX1Bt~ng jacaranda tree located on the l~ne between the two 10tB. and tbe plant~ng of other 6i~~lar ttees along the property line between the two bUIldIngs to provide a "two-story" pn,vacy screen be- tween the adjacent bUl1dlng.. . Hare sunlIght and air clrculation in tbe area between the two buildlngs due to tbe Slightly wider aeparat~on of tbe buildings which thi. "flipp~ng" would allow. Tbls in turn would belp to avold: the necess~ty for tbe ~nstallatioD of alr cond~t~on- lng in tbe unIts at 1030 Bay. which now rece~ve ade- quate aummer cool~ng fro~ tbe predomInantly easterly on-ahore breezes, and the necessity for greater reliance on gas forced-air beating ~n the 1030 Ray units in the winter. because more of the second and first floor windows on the .. , ( ( ( ( . < . . A~ACH!-S:-r:' A ~e~t s~de of the 103Q Bay bUL1ding ~ould be exposed to afternoon suollght 10 the wlnter ...hlCh, as stated above, lS ao 1mportant source of lnter10r heat10g, Greater pr1vacy for 1ivlng quarters of units io both bUl1dla&Il, SlDce w1th a Ifl1pped" plan 1024 Bay's leBs frequently used 11Vlug areas (Recond bedroom 00 first level, living room on second level), rather than its mere frequeotly used liviog areas (master bedroom aod bath 00 flrst level, K1tcbeo/d1oing on second level), would be Opposlte 1030 Bay's more frequently used liV1ng areas (see ltem (4) below). We would have DO objectlon to the oon-reveraal (leavlng aa preaently planned) of the th1rd level (loft and deck) of the 1024 plans, if this would belp to retaln the solar beating effect of the south-facing wlodewa 00 thia level. Ayoidanc~ of dlrec~ly oppoai~e ~lnd9ws yia-a-yia ~be ~~o bUildln~a (1030 Bay and 1024 Bay) to protect as much as posslble tbe prlvacy of living quarters of botb buildings, Westerly w1ndows in the 1030 Bay bUlld1ng allow views lUto the 1030 Bay unita' kitcheus aud famlly rooma au the lower level, and the ~ater bedrooms, dressing aod master bath areas 00 the iecund level. (See attached 1030 5ay eleva- tion aprl site plana for location, of windowa,) (5) Rn~ranc~ ~o ~he buildlo2'a 2ara2e from tne allev. W1~p ~he ra~p located 00 ~he west aide 9f the lot, rather than from Bay atreet. The westerly ramp ~i dea1red to reduce the disturbance for the rear unit at 1030 Bay. (4) (6) ^cceas dlrect to tne 11V1n~ areas of each 1024 Bav uni~ frow their re6pect1ve 2ara2es, rather tbsn through e~terlor Mtalrvaya. Xh. garages could be designed as separately walled and doored garagei for each unit, ai in the 1030 Bay building (aee attached plan). This would provide greater security to 1024 Bay resldents and allow leiS e~ternal foot trafflc 10to and out of the uniti. . We are SlDcere i; our deiire to work with the developer to ach1eve the above changes, whleh we feel would ~prove relation- Sh1pB of both bUlldlnga to one another, and would also probably lncrease the ~rketabllity of tbe 1024 Bay Street units once tbey are co~pleted. If you or anyone elae have any questioni regardlDg the above, pleaae do not besltate to call me at (213) 452-2267. Sincecely, ~ , -::u ~6~ H. Allen Evans, President BAY STREET TOWNHOUSES Homeowners A&iOClatlon , , . . A'ITACHMEBT B , , RESL~TS OF TdE MEETING ~ITH rciE DE\~LOPER AND COMMISSIONER GENSER We were very disappointed 1n the uncomprom1s1ng att1tude of the developer and hIS archItect and in the lack of slgn1ficant results at tb1S meet1ng. We were lnformed at the beg1nning of the meetIng that: Commissioner Genser, and possibly a major1ty of the Plann1ng Commiss10n, would support the reqUIrement for an alley entrance to the garage. CommiSSIoner Genser is a former student of Mr. Small's, feels that the building's deSIgn is a good one, snd agreeS WIth Mr. Small that It is "a very caring building". We should expect that the entire neighborhood WIll soon be redeveloped Into condominIums slmilar to the proposed one, since it IS zoned R2, We should have been aware of th1S likellhood when we purchased our homes. The proposed building will be no worse than others WhlCh will soon be built. The developer and his architect had been given "something" pertaining to our concerns about the building by Ms. Rosenberg but that they had not given It any conSIderation prior to our meeting. (Upon preSSlng thlS point, we were told that they had received a copy of our letter, but had eIther not received or not taken the attachments, lncludlng elevatIons and floor plans showing the juxtapOSItion of wlndows between the two buildings, an elevation of the two buildings showing the effect of the shadow of tbeIr bUildlng on ours, and drawings showlng the effect of their "fhppIng" their plan. We therefore provlded them with coples of these attachments at tbe meeting, after explaining and discusslng thelr pOlnts with them.) ( The meeting therefore proceeded 1n an (unfortunately) adversarial mode, in sp1te of our inltlal efforts to conduct It In a spIrlt of accommodation and comproclse. The developer; and partlcularly his architect, seemed to be SImply gOlng through tbe motlons because they had been requested to do so by the City. Thus the results of the meeting were quite 11mited and vague. In addition to the likely reqUirement for an alley entrance to the garage ment10ned above, we understood at the conclu~ion of tbe meetlng only that the developer would: . submit two sets of plans, one with the alley entrance. consider placing a pipe railing, rather than a wall, alo~g the east side of the "private garden space on the upper roof deck", and consider relocatlng the windows on tbe second floor, east wall of tbe bUllding so tbat there will be no direct 11ne-of-slgbt posslble between these windows and our second floor bedrooms. .. , Our other suggestions (See Attachment A) were dism1ssed as beIng either impractI- calor not in accordance With the developer's deSires. We were left wlth the impresslon that the developer and bls architect were steadfast in the1r resolve to construct no only the maXlmum that the law allows but also tbe maXlmum In the way of variances that could be obtalned from the Commisslon. ( . . ATTAr-tOO".l(T C I llESPO!lSE TO DEVELOPn'S FOLLOW-UP LE'I"!Ell. TO APRIL 30 MRKTIBG <- The letter from the developer to Ms, Karen Rosenberg dated May 9, 1985 requ~res our comment, because it del~berately misleads by m~sconstruing posit~ons taken by us dur~ng the meet~ng. It may also misconstrue statements made by Commission- er Genser at our meetlng. We thus offer the following comments on it: l. Alley Access to Subterrane~n P~rk~n~: The real tOplC of these paragraphs is the lncluslonary unlt. We do not recall Comm~ssioner Genser stating "that he would be ~n favor of designating this smaller, rear un~t as a rental un~t." We recall the developer askIng whether tblS unIt might be designated as the inclusionary unit, and Commissioner Genser statIng only that they could pro- pose that, and let the Commission decide, 2. Buildin~ Hei~ht, Parapet Treatment: The developer deliberately misrepresents our concerns here. As we have made very clear. our primary concern is the maintenance of maximum prIvacy for the occupants of both buildln~s. We are also concerned about the shadow cast on our building by the proposed one, and agreed that a ra~l~ng would be better than a wall in tblS regard. But this is not the preferred solution, because there need be DO comprom~Be at all between prIvacy and sunlight. We bel~eve that the roof-top "garden" living spaces and roof-top walkway should be dlsallowed entirely, because they are "fourth-floor" roof-level living spaces in an R2 district. The developer and hIS architect also state that, '''the roof has already been radIcally angled back away from the neighboring townhomes...." It is ques- tionable that a 4S-degree roof angle can be considered "radlcal" We have even shallower angles on the roof of our bUllding. 3. VIS a VlS Wlndows--the PrIvacy Fpctor: ThiS statement reqUires two comments: We understood Comm~ssloner Genser;s expressed preference to be a personal one in terms of h~s own life-style, not one to be un~formly applled in all cases to all such 81tuat~ons. The "bedroollls vis a vis kitchens or bedrooms VIS a vis liv~ng rooms"; issue applIes to tbe secqnd level only. On the ground level the issue ~s k~tchen Oppo8lte master bath and master bedroom or kItchen oppos~te second bedroom/day-use room. It is also noted that these paragraphs do not treat this issue at all, but rather discuss the raising or screenIng of kltchen windows to block a direct view. We feel that aural, as veIl as vlsual, privacy is of concern. 4. Remainder of L~tter: The developer states that "subterranean garages of both bUIldIngs preclude planting" between them. This requires two COmments: This is true WIth the present plan, but not if the plan if "fl~pped", WhICh would leave a fIve foot planting atrip between the two bUlldings, A Jacaranda tree exists in the side yard of 1024 Bay within two feet of our cOmmon lot line. It presently shields views from the two properties. ThIS tree, if preserved, will provide a significant visual and esthetic barTler between the two bu~ldings. Additional trees planted between the two bu~ld- ings would have tbe same effect. Tbe developer suggests that we paint our building white, or perhaps install mlrrora, to reflect more light lnto the space between the buildlngs. We do not feel that thIS would be effectIve, but would only add to the jarring effect that tbe proposed build~ng WIll have on the neighborhood, .. , ( ., ( ~ l '-t- . Q .s: ell '.... A~;C:I~:::'Nr !J . 1-- 8 }, o 0-' .... <. ( I"'!"tr'""l A '-H "'21~ T Al,in..... _ . L . , Il ~ \J ! J.l tJ ~ li ~ I ~ o ", . . Arn~lIiIT K , QUESTIOHS OF Gzn:iAL Gal/CEO about the PWPOSlW COIIDOMTlil1JH. AT 1024 BAY SnxET (1) IncluB~onary Unit Desi~natlon: The developer says in his May 9 letter that, "We are hop~ng thst the Commuaion will accept thH. [aear.\ Braller fun~t! as the incl lonar low/moderate Inco e un~t ,.." e eli~6na lon 0 IiUC a unlt as ~~e Inc!uslonary unlt mUlit ~e questloned on two counts: Can a builder be allowed to build one additional, much larger unit (the "State bonus unit") by delngnatlng a much Iimaller unit as a low- income unit? ( Will this unit be suitable as a low-income unit? The Planning Commis- Slon and City Councll bave stated as City POllCY in tbe Clty'S adopted HousinF'; Element of the General Plan that, liThe City shall encourage the prov~s~on of [incluslonary] unIts with an appropriate number of bedrooClIi and other features so as to best meet the needs of senlor cltlzens, large famllies, disabled persons, and persons with other speclal needs." The rear unit will be a one-bedroom, one-bath unlt (unless the Commisslon accedes to the developer's request to make it a three-story unit), Such a unit would not be suitable to large famllles, or even a family wlth one child. The rear unlt would have most of its livlng space up two or three fllghta of stairs from the garage level, WhlCh lS not condusive to its use by the majorlty of disabled persons or senlor cltIzens. (2) Three-story Rear Unit: The developer's request to be allowed to make the rear unlt a three-story one, wlth an enclosed bedroom and bath on the third level, appears to be contrary to &2 zonIng requlrements, The developer appesrs to be attem~ting to trsde the requIred lucluaionary unit for speclal conceSSIons with respect to height and thlrd-story use. Such concessions would create a precedent WhlCh the Commisslon may not wish to establish. (3) Entrance to UnitB from Gara~e and Concomitant Security and Foot Traffic Problems: The archltect has added indiv1dual private walled garages wlth garage doors to the common subterranean garage. But he has made no pro- vision (Vla a stairway from these prlvate garages into the unit's living area) for direct entry lnto each unlt from its garage. Rather, the occupant must eXlt the prlvate garage via its garsge door, cloae it, and then proceed up a stairway leading to the exterlor of the building, down an exter10r walkway, and into hlS unit V1a hlS front door. Negotlating this procedure all tbe way to a kitchen wlth a couple of sacks of groceries 1n hand would be difficult and frustrating at best. The result may be frequent "double park1ng" ln street or alley while unloading goods from automob1les. In time, the unlts owners may declde that tbe garages are more suit~ble 8S storage space than for parklng, and revert to parking on the street. ,. , ( ( ( . . Nor does th~s design improve the protectIon of occupant's secur~ty over that of the preVIOUS open parkIng space plan. It also requlres that the occu- pants elther carry thelr garage door openers wlth them Into and out of thelr unIts, or not have such openers (relYIng Instead on a lock and key if they wish to maintain the securlty of their prlvate garages). Internal entrances from the units' garages would also reduce the amount of foot traffic along the west SIde of the building. Is this 8 wise design? Should Internal entrances from the units' garages be required? (4) Front Para~et: The front parapet. in our opinion. adds to the generally monolithIC and fortress-like appearance of the structure. It serves no useful purpose if the upper roof "garden"decks are not allowed, except 8S a screen of the solar collector for the front unit. Even here, it is doubtful if much, if any, of this collector would be visible from street level, (5) Unique Envlronmental Features: The developer's Environmental Impact Appli- catlon contains a "yes" answer to the question, "Are any of the natural or man-made features in the project area unique?" (See Part III, item 51.) The developer apparently dld not prOVIde the required supplemental Informa- tlon or elarification of th18 (or other) "yes" answers. To what unique features does the application refer? Do they require special conslderatlon wlth respect to the developer's appllcatlon? . .' .. .. \ . . OEO~(;c OEUKMEJ'A'" Go..wm,,, STATE OF CALIFQllNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LEGAL AFFAIRS OFFICE 921 Tenth Street Sdcra~ento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 323-7283 June 13, 1985 Mr. Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr. 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2466 Dear Mr. Van Arsde11: You have requested an opTn1on from th1S office as to the mln1rnum number of units for low and moderate income famil1es needed to entitle a housing development to a density bonus, as prescribed in Government Code Section 65915, In your letter of June 7. 1985, you presented a scenario of a developer seek1ng a bonus of one additional unit by providing one income- qual1fied un1t for development on a site zoned for a maX1mum of f1ve units. Section 65915 states that a developer is entitled to a dens1ty bonus of at least 25% where the developer agrees to provide at least 25% of the total nu~ber of units for households of the des1gnated-rncome-categories. For a five-un1t development -- which is the minimum needed to qualify for the bonus pursuant to Sectlon 65916(c) -- a developer would have to ded1cate at least two units in order to qua11fy. By the same token, if two units are reserved, the developer would be entltled to at least two additlona1 over the maXlmum allowable density, in this case resulting 1n a development of seven unlts. This is not to say that local zoning ordinances could not provide for a greater density bonus or even establish a right to a bonus with cond1tions imposed on a developer whlch would not qualify for the bonus under state law, But to be entitled to a bonus under the prov1sions of the Government Code, a developer must meet the min1mum standard of a set-aside for low and moderate income families of at least 25% of the total units, One is not at least 25% of SlX. Two is. Ihope thlS letter 1S helpful 1n j'{Iur understandlng of an otherwlse very complex and amb19uouS statute. 5i ncerel y, /f;1d~&~,~ ~ Mark R. LOVlng~~~ Deputy General Counsel MRL.dlc cc: Ronald S, Javor, General Counsel Exhibi t c ~-~ >"'~:I ~. ~. .. , " . . STATE~ENT BY OPPOSING NEIGHBORS (June 17, 1985) Street. My name IS Paul Van Arsdell. I live at 1030 Bay I have lived there for 2-1/2 years and in Santa Monica for five years. At the outset let me thank you for givIng us thlS block of time. As you know from the letters and petItions that I'm told are in you~ packets, a majority of the neighborhood is against the proposed development, at least in its present form. We realize that if each opponent spoke for three minutes, we might have to continue this hearing again because of the length of public comment. This approach allows us to explaIn our opposition in a way that we hope WIll be effiCIent, clear, unemotIonal, and convinCIng. We hope to persuade you that as to thIS proposed development, common sense, the law, and the rIghts of an R-2 property owner to profIt reasonably from his hOldings go hand in hand. We hope that you will agree ~ith us that the proposed development, as presented here tonIght, has not been adequately thought out by the developer and that, as proposed tonIght, the development defies common sense, ... flies in the face of an unambiguous requIrement of state law and of many requirements of Santa MonIca's general plan, and exceeds the rights of an R-2 property owner to Exhibit D . . develop hls property. In short, we hope to persuade you to requlre the developer to go back to the draw~ng board and to submlt a proposal that is not just perhaps academically elegant, but that is practical, carefully considered with respect to its impact on the neighborhood, and lawful in all respects. Toward that purpose we have attempted to suggest a constructlve, workable solution to each problem that we've identlfied in the development as presently proposed. ~ I have three jobs to do tonight for the nelghborhood. F~rst, I'Ve been aSked to supplement the points that were made by the nelghbors who spoke at the last hearing. Second, as I supplement those po~nts, I've been asked to point out some errors in the addendum to the staff report, which was prepared after the last meetlng. Third, I will explain why the development as proposed 1S unlawful under applicable state statutes and under Santa Monlca's general plan as well, I . In connection with my third job, and at the conclusion of our statement of opposition, I'll provide a written llst of suggested changes to the proposed development whlch, if required by you and implemented by the developer, would ellmlnate many .. , of the defects that make his plan unworkable in this ne1ghborhood and unlawful 1n thls City. On June 3, ten neighbors were able to speak in opposition to the proposal before you again tonight. 2 '. . . Other neIghbors who were opposed to the proposal deferred their tIme until tonight. s till others were here to support the neIghborhood opposItion, but did not speak or had to leave before the item carne up for dIscussion. Many other neighbors who were opposed to the proJect could not be present on June 3, and most of them have signed petitions or have written to you of their objectIons. Not one neighbor spoke in support of the application on June 3. The followIng eight pOInts were made by the neighbors who spoke on June 3 and are supplemented by the discussion tonight in the comments we will present tonIght. 1. FIrst, the development as proposed is a three-story building, and it exceeds the City's height limItatIons for thIS R-2 zone. The solution to thIS problem is to requIre the developer to elimInate the roof- deck and the three-foot wall or railIng around it. 2. The proposed development as proposed unduly invades neighbbrs' rights to prIvacy. The roofdeck is a liVIng area deSIgned for use as such. It lS,' in essence, an elevated backyard desIgned for uses IncludIng outdoor barbecuing, sunning, for hot tub recreatIon, and for any other outdoor living use the ultImate purchasers may .. .. choose. From thIS living area, at a height of 33-36 feet above ground in a designated two-story neighborhood, the purchasers of these condominium units can look down into 3 " \- . . almost every faclng wlndow on at least elghteen surrounding dwellings and lnto countless yards. The proposed development further lnvades the prlvacy of the nelghbors who live in the five homes that are less than ten feet away at 1030 Bay Street. The wlndows faclng east in the proposed development are exactly opposite the windows facing west from 1030 Bay Street, and the Vlews into the master bedrooms and bathrooms are vlrtually unobstructed. Apart from the proposed non-permanent plastic screens, which extend three feet into the sideyard and therefore violate the setback requirements, no design effort whatever was made to create noise privacy or visual privacy between the adJacent buildings. The Solutlon to the privacy problem is to require the developer to deSlgn window placements and wlndow treatments that maximize privacy to the residents of both buildings and to elimlnate the roofdeck living , I area. 3. The development as proposed is envlronmentally harmful from the standpoint of eXlsting trees. In that regard, the developer's environmental .. , impact statement is inaccurate and does not reflect the plan before you tonight. The proposed underground garage extends all the way forward on the lot to the Clty'S front sidewalk and will klll the City's tree on the parkway by 4 ~ . . Street, the energy usage of each of WhlCh wlll lncrease by at least 30% as the result of thelr complete loss of solar heat in the winter. Contrary to the suggestlon ln the addendum to the staff report, the Developer has not submitted any analysis of these effects whatsoever, and indeed he appears not to have considered them at all. The solution to this problem lS to require the developer to submit, as the City requires of every developer, an analysis of the effects of the proposed development on energy usage in adjacent properties. Because the developer has never done thlS, the commlssion cannot make an informed ruling on the application until he does. 5. The development as proposed unduly and unnecessarlly restrlcts llght and air to the f~ve adJacent homes at 1030 Bay Street. As des igned, the proposed development casts a 100% shadow over the entlre west side of the homes at 1030 Bay Street on the requlred date. As the shadow dra.wing that we submltted wlth Our letter of , May 23 shows, the substitution of a railing for a wall around the roof deck does not mltlgate this shadow at all, and the addendum to the staff report lS simply mlstaken in its statement to the contrary. Furthermore, the proposed .. , development wl11 vlrtually eliminate the free flow of cool air through the homes at 1030 Bay Street by blocking the prevailing ocean breezes. A partla1 solution to these problems, not once addressed by the developer since 6 " - . neighbors f1rst suggested 1t back 1n AprIl, IS to "fl1p" or reverse the bU1lding, leav1ng 10-15 feet between the buildings instead of the planned five to nine feet. Parenthetically, the staff report addendum is again in error in describing the proposed east sldeyard to be nine feet. In fact, the sldeyard varies from a maximum of nine feet to a min1mum of only five feet. 6. The development as proposed promotes unsafe and insecure housing. Access to the unIts from the underground garage requires residents to cl1mb one of two flights of stairs to a narrow sidewalk connecting Bay Street to the alley, along the west slde of the development. The plan shows no secur1ty gates for e1ther the garage or the sidewalk, ThIS 1S unsafe, unW1se and only technically in compl1ance w1th sections 9ll0blO and 11 of the mun1cipal code, The solutlon to th1S problem is to require the developer to provide interior access from the garages to 'the dwelling un1ts, as 1S common throughout the C i t y, and tor e qui r e the d eve lop e r -t 0 pro v ide appropr1ate security gates to prevent unauthorized entry to the garage and to the sidewalk that connects the alley to the street. .. , 7. Finally, and perhaps of greatest importance to the entire neighborhood, the neighbors that spoke on June 3 pOInted out the single-family feeling in the 7 .. ~ - . nelghborhood, It eXIsts, they thInk, because most of them have not "developed to the edge of the envelope." Although the photos we provided at the last meetIng give the appearance of a single-family neighborhood, few of the homes you see are slngle-family homes. Most are duplexes, or triplexes, or quads, and many have apartments. For as much R-2 usage as there now is in the neighborhood, you can see from the photos we provided and many of you no doubt have seen from driving through the area, the neighborhood has a uniquely single-family feel to it. The neighbors feel very strongly about preserVIng this character. We don't want blocks fIlled with side-by-side condos, like North of Wilshire. We want a mixture. We don't oppose development, but we do oppose the prIson-lIke atmosphere that WIll result from approval of developments such as the one proposed here. We hope that you WIll ask the developer to go back to the drawIng boards and to design a plan that fits our neIghborhood, that fits wIthIn 'p the lImIts of hlS developmental envelope, and that complIes wIth applIcable law. 8. Finally, I want to talk to you for a few minutes about a state law and how it applIes or, more .. , accurately, how it doesn't apply to thIS development as proposed. The development as proposed has six units. The lot size is 6,472 square feet. Let me analyze how the B 1 .' . . developer concludes that he can put six dwell1r.gs on a 6,472 square foot lot. First, the general plan says that the maX1mum dens1ty for this R-2 lot 1S 1,500 square feet per unit, or 4.31 un1 ts. Next, the municipal code says the developer can add in 500 square feet, or .32 un1ts, because the property abuts an alley. That makes 4,63 units permissible. Next, the general plan permits 4.63 units to be rounded up to five. Program 12 of the City's Housing development requ1res the developer to dedlcate 25%, or 1.25 units, of the development to housing for persons of low or moderate income. Inclusionary unltS, though, can be rounded down under Program 12, and the developer has rounded down to one 1nclus1onary un1t. So far, the developer legally has been able to increase his maX1mum denslty by .69 units through rounding up and to decrease his 1nclus1onary obllgation by .25 . . units by rounding down. All of this is technic~lly withln the letter of the law and therefore, not unlawful, even though the net result 1S a gain to the developer of .94 units that he may sell at market price over and above what .. , the C1ty would permit without round1ng, Now comes the rub. At .94 units net to the good because of rounding, the developer claims that because he has dedicated 1 unit for inclusionary purposes, Section 9 . . . 65915 of the government code entitles hlm to another full bonus unlt that he can sell at market price. And so he has submitted a plan for a six-unit condo on a lot that the general plan says is big enough for only 4.3 units, without rounding. Let me read to you what the pertlnent part of Section 65915 says: "When a developer of houslng agrees to construct ~ least 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low or moderate income. . . a city shall elther grant a density bonus or provlde other incentives of equlvalent flnanC1al val'-1e " "At least 25%." Those are the words of the statute. Is one unit of a five-unit development "at least 25%?" Is 20% "at least 25%1" On June 7, I asked those questlons of 'Bob Katai. Mr. Katai is Chief of the Plann1ng nivislon of the office of Local Governmental Affairs in the Office of the Governor in Sacramento. Mr. Kata1 gave me clear answers. He sald "at least 25%" of a five-unit development for purposes of qualifYlng for a ", density bonus is two units, He said two out of five 1S 40%, and 40% is "at least 25%." I asked Mr. Katai whether the statute or regulations or court decisions permitted 10 .. ... . . rounding down. He sald he didn't think so and suggested that I talk to Mark Lovlngton, who is deputy general counsel to the Department of Housing and Community Development in Sacramento, I asked Mr. Lovington what is "at least 25%" of a fi ve-uni t development for density bonus qualification under Section 65915. His answer too was unequivocal: at least 25% of five is two. He said that the phrase "at least" by its plain meaning doesn't permit rounding down. And he said that no regulations or court decislons permit roundlng down, either, I'm sure you agree that one is not "at least two," and I hope you'll agree that 20% is not "at least 25%," just as I am sure you agree that one is not "at least two." Rounding down, if it were permissible under the statute, would make the phrase "at least" entirely meaningless. "At least 25%" means the same thing as "no less than 25%.~ Rounding down is simply not permitted by . the plain language of the statute. Plainly~ as bluntly stated, the only way the statute could prohlDit rounding down more clearly would be to say "at least, and this really, really means at least 25%." ~ , The staff report says that the statute lS Silent on the question of rounding, If this statute is silent on the question of rounding, so also then is the eye of a needle silent on the question whether a camel can pass 11 . . ,. . . through it. That Wh1Ch 1S obvious from the language used need not be repeated ln other words to be effect1ve. The statute is anything but silent on the question of rounding. The language of the statute ("at least 25%") forbids round1ng unequ1vocally and unambiguously. Thus, the developer can't claim a bonus unit under applicable state law unless he designates two of his units for low-income housing. Even if he were entitled to a bonus unit under 65915, he's already received .94 unit ava11able to sell at market prices through rounding permitted under the City's general plan and the zonlng laws. That .94 units may surely amount to what Sect10n 65915 describes as "other incentives of equivalent financlal value." Thus, the developer has already received pursuant to Santa Manlca's laws what Section 65915, even if it appl1ed, would requHe. Section 65915 applies, however, only if the developer dedlcates at least two of the sl~'units to inclusionary purposes. The solution to these legal problems is to require the developer to dedlcate two of hlS six units for incluslonary purposes or to resubm1t a proposal for a five-unit condominium. .. ... In concluslon, we hope you will agree with us that though he may do so 1n the future, this developer has not yet proposed a plan to you that should be approved. 12 ~ . ~. ~ . . We ask that you disapprove the proposal as presented and that you impose conditions with respect to any new plan for this property that the developer may submit. We ask that these conditions produce a new plan for development, one that is well thought out and that complies with applicable law, with common sense, and with applicable limitations on an owner's rights to develop his property. Thank you very much for your time, for your attentiveness, and for your most careful consideration of the issues presented tonight. . . ~ 13 t '. ~ . . Ju,,"e 17, 1985 SlJMMAiY or p~llJ.YW!: ~ iEQoxsm SOLtnlOXS C.U.P. 385. 1024 hAY gTVRYT Prohle~ ~~, I. The proposed development 11 a 3-ltory bUl1alng and exeeeda the c1ty~a he~gbt 1~m1tatlOnl for an &-2 ~ODe. S91utlOU: ~e~ulre the develDper to ellmlD4te the upper roof-top deck a",d the 3-fDot vall or Tall.og around It. Proble~ No.2: The propoaal'a upper roof-top deck and dlreetly Oppollte vludovs unduly lnvade the nelghbora" rlghta to prlvaey. 59lutlOU: RequlTe tbe developer to dealga vindowa to maxlmize prlvaey for realdenta of botb bUl1dlnga and to elualnate the upper roof-top 11vlng apace. Proble~ No.3: Tbe propoaed development ia envlro~entally harmful frDm the atandpolnt of eXlltlDg tTeea, and the developer'a env.roDmental uapaet atatement ia lD4CCurate and doea not effect the plan aa preaeated. Becaule of the garage deugo., the cu.t" " tree on the pa:tkva, vl11 11kely be kl11ed "nd the ":"1"tlo.g 20' Jacaranda tr..e cannot be tranaplanted a" auggeated. Solutlon: iequlre that tbe garage extend DO fartb..r tha", the elty'a front- yard aetbaek requlrement. Alao requlre tbe developer to fllp tbe plan ao aa to leave tbe Jacaranda tree 10. lta preaent "de yard 10eatlon and to allow tbe plantl",g of other treea 10. the "de yard to provlde addlt.onal prlvacy. Proble~ No.4: The proposed development ,. environcentally harmful fro~ the ata",dpo.nt of energy ua.ge. Tbe envlronceotal benef.t. of the pTopo.al's solaT beat lag .yatem are far Qutvelghed by the detr.mental lnCTea.ea (301) of the eo.t of heatlog the flve adjacent dwelllnga at 1030 Ray Street, The developer baa not aUb~ltted the Tequlred analya.a of theae effeeta, and appear. not to have cons.dered them at all. SQ~ut.Qn, iequlre the developeT to aub~lt the c.ty-requ.red analy... of the effecce of the proposed develop:ent on eneray usage 1Q adJacent prapert~e., .0 that the CO~'.'0n can make an ~nfor=ed rullag on the appl.cat~on. Prob~e~ N9'~: Tbe propoaed development leverely re.tricta llgbt and air to the f,ve dvell.e.ga at 1030 Bay Street. The proposed bu.ldlng calta a 100% Ihadow over tbe eatlre west slde of the adjacent reSIdences on the reqUIred meaaurement date, and reduces catursl veo.tl1atlou by blocktng tbe preva.l.ng Ocean breezea. Solut.on: ~equlre the developer to fllp tbe p1aa, leavlug 10 - 15 feet berween the bUlld.ng. loatead of 5 - 9 feet. .. Proble~ NQ. 6: Tbe propo.ed development'. acce.a to its UQlt. from tbe under- ground garage pro~te. unsafe and lnleCUre hoU11Dg. S91ut.on: iequlte tbe prov,.,00 of lntetlOr aceeaa from tbe garagea to tbe dvell1n& unlta aad appropr.are .ecur.ty gate. to prevent unsuthorlzed entry to the garage and to tbe a.de valkvay betweeo alley ao.d atreet. Proble~ No, 7: The proposed development bas a.X un.ta. The max.mum den..ty for tbe lot ,. f,ve un.ta. AppllCable .tate lav provldel a dena.ty bDnu& to permlt a I1X uDlt developmeot only If ~W9 of the uolta are dea.gnated for lov to moderate lDeOme. The developer hea dealgnated only ~ unlt for low to modetate Income. Solutl0n: ieduce tbe plan to flve unlta, lncludlng ooe lov-to-moderate lneome unlt, or, for a I~I-unlt plan. requlre evo low-to-moderate income uo1ta. .. , Problem No.8. be deattoyed by Sglupon: plao that The ..ngle-faml1y appearance and feellng 10 the netghborhood vl11 development. of thl. type. Requ.re the developer to go back to the draw.ag board to dea.ga a flta our nelghborhood aa veIL a. bla developmental envelope. H. Allen Evana Paul M. VaoArldell, Jr, 1030 Bay Street. UnH "4 . Santa Konlea, CA 90405 1030 Ray Street, Un.t , 1 Saata Koa.ea, Cl 90405 ;-....rdloo1+ C" . . A- TT PrCff f{\ EN ,- e:. JULY 8, 1985 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY HALL 1695 MAIN STREET SANTA MONICA, CA 90406 REF: C.U.P 385, T.T. 44039, 1024 BAY STREET SUBJECT: COMPLAINT/APPEAL OF "APPROVAL" RULING BY PLANNING COMMISSION HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING DEPT., YET AT THE RISK OF BF.TAWORING ALREADY BELABORED MATERIAL AND BECOMING SOMmmAT PICAYUNE AND PETTY, WE'D LIKE 'ID RESPOND 'ID THE COMPLAINT/APPEAL (6/26) REGISTERED WITH YOU OF THE RECENT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL (6/17) OF OUR TOWN- HOME PROJECT AT 1024 BAY STREET. PLEASE NOTE THE LANGUAGE: WE APPEAL 00 BEHALF OF OURSELES, ON BEHALF OF ALL RESIDENTS OF THE FIVE DWELLINGS AT 1030 BAY S~ET, ON BEHALF OF THE BAY STREET TOONHOUSES HOMECMNERS1 ASSOCIATION, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE OTHER RES IDENTS IN THE NE IGHBORHOOD WHO WROTE LETTERS OR SIGNED PETITIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEVELOPER I S APPLICATION . . . . "WE," "OURSELVES," "ALL THE RESIDENTS OF . . . ," AND .THE BAY STREET TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS I ASSOCIATION" ARE ESSENTIALLY ONE AND THE SAME PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEXTDOOR TO US IN ']]IE FIVE CONDOS AT 1030 BAY STREET. WHAT FOLLOWS: "ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE OTHER RESI- DENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WROTE LETTERS. . . " SIMPLY AND GROSSLY MISREPRESENTS THE FACTS. AT THE PUBLIC HFARINGS 00 6/3 AND 6/17, AND ALSO THROOGHOUT THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO YOU AND EARLIER 'ID THE PLANNING DEPT., ATTORNEY VAN ARSEDELL AND HIS FELLCW 1030 BAY STREET CONDO HOME- CMNERS HAVE GIVEN THE IMPRESSloo THAT THEY REPRESENT THE "ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD." WEIRE AFRAID THAT OUR NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET (NORTH), BEHIND US ON THE OTHERSIDE OF THE ALLEY (SOUTH), / . . NEXTDOOR 'ro THE WEST, AND ON THE OTHERSIDE EAST OF THE 1030 BAY STREET CONOOS WOULD BE APPALLED BY THIS lANGUAGE. THESE CLOSE NEIGH- BORS HAVE APP~CHED US PERSONALLY AND LET US KNOW IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THEY 00 NOT OPPOSE OUR PROJECT, AND FURTHERMORE, THAT THEY RESENT THE HYPOCRITICAL, AUTHORITATIVE, AND SHAMELESSLY PRE-EMPl'ORY BEHAVIOR OF THE 1030 BAY STREET CONDO PEOPLE. OTHER NEIGHBORS ACROSS AND OOWN BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET HAVE LET US KNOW THAT THEY TOO DO NOT OPPOSE OUR PROJECT. SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORS DID ATTEND THE INITIAL OProSITION RALLY HRT.n AT THE 1030 BAY STREET CONDOS BACK IN APRIL, WHERE "CHECK- OFF AND SIGN- PETITION FORMS WERE PASSED OUT AND IN S~E CASES SENT TO THE PLANNING DEPT.. WE WERE NOT INVITED 'ro PRESENT OR DISCUSS OUR PROJECT AT THAT TIME, AND ONLY LATER LFARNED FROM CONCERNED NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS WHAT KIND OF MONSTROUS EVIL WE WERE TRUMPED UP 'ID BE. SINCE THAT FIRST RALLY, E.VERY NEIGHBOR WHO HAS SEEN '!HE MODEL OF OUR DESIGN, OPENLY DISCUSSED THE PROJECT'S INTENTIONS AND THE SPECIAL FEATURES WHICH MAKE IT HUMANE AND CONTEXTUALLY CARING (FOR INSTANCE: SEPARATE, WALK-IN GARAGE STORAGE ROOMS TO HELP PRE- VENT BULK STORING IN PARKING SPACES AND PARKING ON THE STREET; WITH MORE BULK STORAGE ON THE ROOF> HAS EXPRESSED HIS GENUINE ADMIRATION AND GIVEN US HIS ~COURAGEMENT. ENCOURAGINGLY ENOUGH, THREE NEIGHBOR HOMECWNERS HAVE ASKED US TO HELP THEM RESEARCH THE FEASIBILITY OF UPGRADING THEIR PROPERTIES. STILL ANOTHER, WHO HAS HAD MORE EXPERIENCE THAN OURSELVES, HAS OFFERED 'ID HELP US IN ANY WAY HE CAN THROUGH THE FINAL MARKETING. THIS LATl'ER GENTLEMAN HAD ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSI- TION TO OUR PROJECT AT THE 6/3 HEARING, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER HEARING THE FACTS, CHANGED HIS MIND. AT THE MEETING WE HAD WITH THE 1030 BAY STREET HOMECMNERS IN THE PRESENCE OF COMMISSIONER KEN GENSER BACK AT THE END OF APRIL, ATTORNEY VAN ARSEDELL AS WELL AS HIS WIFE BARBARA AND AL AND LOIS EVANS (PRESIDENT, 1030 BAY STREET CONDO HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION), ALL EXPRESSED THAT OUR BUILDING WAS VERY ATTRACTIVE AND BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED. MR. VAN ARSEDELL HIMSELF REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT HE INDEED THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT BUILDING, FINE DESIGN--BUT THAT HE SIMPLY DID NOT WAN'!' IT GOING UP NEXTOOOR TO HIM. A FEW DAYS LATER HE 'lOlD US THAT HE WAS IN A POSITION TO BUY A PROPERTY ACROSS '!HE STREET AND SWAP IT WITH US. WE TOLD HIM WE DIDN'T THINK THE LOT ACROSS THE S'lREET WAS AS LARGE OR NICE AS OUR OWN. AS AT'IDRNEY VAN ARSEDELL HAS PERSONALLY MADE VERY PLAIN TO US: HE INTENDS, AND HAS THE LEGAL MEANS, TO FIGHT AND FORESTALL OUR PROJECT UNTIL 1989. WE REGRET AND APOLOGIZE FOR THE VALUABLE ., r . . CITY AND PUBLIC TIME UNNECESSARILY SPENT ON '!'HIS BUSINESS. AT THIS TIME WElD LIKE '10 SAY A WORD IN PRAISE AND DEFENSE OF THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ESPECIALLY COMMISSIONER Km GENSER. NEITHER OUR ARCHITECT, GLm SMALL, AIA, AN ORIGINAL FOUNDER AND LONGTIME SOCIO/ENVIRONMENTALlFU'IURIST PROFESSOR AT SANTA MONICA IS OWN SCI ARC (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTI'lUTE OF ARCHITECTURE), NOR OURSELVES HAVE HAD ANY PRAcrlCAL EXPERIENCE TO SPFAK OF IN WORK- ING A PROJECT THROUGH THE ROPES AT CITY HALL: WE BEGAN AS BLIND- MEN DROPPED ONTO ANOTHER PLANET. THE POINT IS THAT WE HAD TO BE TAKEN STEP BY STEP ALOOG THE WAY, RIGHT UP THROOGH THE PUBLIC HEARING. NATURALLY, WE HAVE NOTHING BUT THANKS AND CHEERS FOR ALL THE GUIDANCE AND PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE. AT ONE POINT WE MET WITH PLANNING TO DISCUSS mE REQUEST BY THE 1030 BAY CONDO HOMEOWNERS I THAT CERTAIN CHANGES BE REQUIRED IN OUR PROJECT. AS A RESULT OF THIS MEETING (WITH KAREN ROSENBERG AND CAROLE WALDROP) IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE HAVE A PRE-HEARING MEETING WITH THE 1030 BAY STREET CONDO PEOPLE TO DISCUSS THEIR VARIOUS POIN'IS OF OPPOSITION, AND ALSO TO SHARE OUR INTENTlOOS, AND THE WHY'S AND WHEREFORE'S OF OUR DESIGN. PLANNING ALSO SUG- GESTED THAT WE POSTPONE OUR INITIAL 5/20 HEARING DATE IN ORDER TO GIVE EVERYONE CONCERNED A BETTER CHANCE TO WORK THINGS ooT AND SUBMIT ANY RESULTANT CHANGES. PLANNING RESCHEDULED OUR HEARING FOR 6/3, LATER l<<JVED IT TO mE CIVIC AUDITORIUM, AND THEN SWITCHED IT BACK '10 THE COUNCIL CHAM- BERS. AT THE 6/3 HEARING AT'.IDRNEY VAN ARSEDELL INSINUATED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WE HAD 'MANIPULATED THE DATES AND PLACES OF THE HEARING TO .CONFUSE AND DISORGANIZE THE OPPOSITION." ON 4/30 COMMISSIONER KEN GENSER PUT ASIDE AN EVENING OF HIS BUSY SCHEDULE TO MEET WITH US AND THE 1030 BAY S'mEET CONDO HOMEOWNERS I ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT, AL EVANS, WIFE LOIS, ATTORNEY VAN ARSEDELL AND HIS WIFE BARBARA, '10 HELP ELUCIDATE THE CITY'S GUIDELINES, POLI- CIES, PLANS, AND GENERALLY MODERATE THE DISCUSSION FROM AN OBJECTIVE POSITION. HE DID PRECISELY THAT. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS COMMISSIONER GENSER SAID WAS THAT HE'D. VOTE AGAINST THE PROJECT UNLESS IT HAD ALLEY ACCESS PARKING. THE 1030 BAY STREET PEOPLE ALSO PREFERRED THIS CONDITION, AND WE WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD 00 IT STRAIGHTAWAY AFTER THE MEETING. AS A RESULT OF THIS MEETING WE ALSO: REPLACED THE ROOF WALL PARAPET WITH AN OPEN-WORK PIPE RAILING TO AFFORD MJRE LIGHT IN'lD THE 1030 BAY STREET CONDO WEST WINDOWS, AND DEVISED A TRANSLUCENT SCREENING } . . ELEMENT OUTSIDE OUR KITCHEN WINDOWS 'lU BLOCK ANY VISION ACROSS THE WAY IN'lU THE PRIVACY OF THEIR ROOMS. NEVERTHELFSS, WE HIGHLY COMMEND COMMISSIONER GENSER FOR HIS PROFESSIONALISM AND VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTRIBUTIONS DURING BOTH THIS PRE-HEARING DUTY AND LATER DURING THE FORMAL PUBLIC HFARING. WHAT THE 1030 BAY STREET CONDO PEOPLE CANNOT UNDERSTAND IS HOW MUCH CONSIDERATION FOR THEM HAS ALREADY GONE INTO OUR PROJECT. A WELL DES IGNED BUILDING DOES NOT JUST pop OUT FULL BLCMN LIKE A foDZART IMPROMPTU: AS WE PRESENTED IN OUR MODELS (6/3 & 6/l7), ITIS A PRO- CESS, AN EVOLUTION, AN ADDING AND TAKING AWAY, ADDING SOME MJRE AND TAKING SOMETHING ELSE AWAY, AND SO ON, SCULPTURALLY, CUMULATIVELY, ONE STEP BUILDING UPON THE NEXT UNTIL THE FINISHED PROJECT BEST ANSWERS THE TEN THOUSAND AND ONE QUESTIONS IN THE SERVICE OF FORM AND FUNCTION. FOR INSTANCE, THE EAST MEZZANINE WALL OF OUR BUILDING THAT FACES THE 1030 CONDOS ORIGINALLY S'lUOD STRAIGHT UP AND DOWN, REACHING RIGHT UP TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT LIMIT. LCNG BEFORE WE MET WITH THE 1030 CONDO PEOPLE WElD CHANGED THIS CONDITION: WE ANGLED THIS WALL RADICALLY BACK AND AWAY FROM THEIR BUILDING, EXPRESSLY 'lU AFFORD THEM >>JRE SUNSHINE. WE ALSO DECIDED LONG BEFORE MEETING WITH 'IHEM 'IO PAINT OUR BUILDING A GLEAMING MIKONOS WHITE, PRIMARILY BECAUSE WHITE BEST REFLECTS LIGHT, ESPECIALLY INTO THOSE AREAS BE'lWEm ADJACENT BUILDINGS. SUCH nCONTEXTUALR THINK- ING AND SOCID-ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS HAVE INSPIRED OUR PROJECT FROM DAY ONE. ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT RD. IN EXHIBIT nDR OF THE COMPLAINT/APPEAL, .STATEMENT BY OPPOSING NEIGHBORS, R A'l"l'ORNEY VAN ARSEDRT.r. TRIES AGAIN TO GIVE THE IMPRES- SION THAT HE REPRESENTS nTHE OPlQSTlON OF THE mTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, n THANKING THE COMMISSION FOR GRANTING A RBLOCK OF TIMEn 'IO SPEAK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD I S BEHALF. BE MADE THIS PRESENTATION AT 'mE CON- TINUED HEARING SESSlOO ON 6/17. NO PERSON IN OPPOSITICN TO OUR PROJECT WAS PRESENT, OTHER THAN ATTORNEY VAN ARSEDELL, WIFE BAR- BARA, AND AL AND LOIS EVANS, WHO ALREADY DELIVERED THEIR STATEMENTS OF OPPOSITION 00 6/3, WHERE THEY WERE EXPLICITLY INFORMED BY THE COMMISSION THAT AFTER SPEAKING ONCE (THEIR STATEMENTS WOULD BE RECORDED ON TAPE), THEY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANomER, SECOND OPFOR'IUNITY TO SPEAK AT THE CONTINUED HEARING SESSION (6/17). AGAIN, WITHOUT THIS IRREGULAR nBLOCK OF TIME, n THERE WOUID HAVE BEEN EXACTLY ZERO STATEMENTS OF OPPOSITION ON 6/17. rj . . AT 'l1lE FIRST 6/3 SESSION WE OOLY NEIGHBOR PRESENT 'IO SPEAK AGAINST OUR PROJECT SAID THAT HE WAS NOT AGAINST THE PROJECT PER SE, AND THAT HE WOUWN' T MIND SEEING A FOUR UNIT BUILDING (HE HAS FOUR RENTAL UNITS BEHIND HIS HOUSE). '!WO OTHER OPPOSING STATE- MENTS WERE GIVEN BY PROXY TO AT'IURNEY VAN ARSEDELL AND HIS WIFE BARBARA. THAT MAKES FOR A GRAND TOTAL OPPOSITIONAL VOICE OF THREE PEOPLE, IF THAT, IN ADDITION ro WE RESIDENTS OF THE FIVE CONDO UNITS AT 1030 BAY STREET. RE: THE EIGHT POINTS DISCUSSED IN EXHIBIT nDn . . . 1. OUR PROJECT (THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE 1030 CONDOS NEXTDOOOR) IS '!WO S'lURIES PLUS LOFT AND DOES NOT EXCEED THE CITY'S HEIGHT LIMIT OF 30' (PARAPETS AND PROTECTIVE RAILING EXEMPT). 2. OUR PROOECT DOEs NOT "UNDULY INV1\DE NEIGHBORS' RIGHTS 'IO PRI- VACY. n MANY CONDOS, APARTMmTS, BOMES, ETC., HAVE WINDOWS WITH VISUAL PERSPECTIVES IN'lU NEIGHBORING WINDOWS, YARDS, E'IC.. WE BELIEVE 'mAT WINDOWS CAN LET LIGHT AND AIR INW ONE'S HOME, AND CREATE A SENSE OF CONNECTION TO ONE'S ENVIRONMENT. WE DOUBT THAT THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF OUR BUILDING WILL ABUSE THEIR WIN- DOWS AS INSTRUMENTS 'IO INVADE TlJE PRIVACY OF THEIR NEIGHBORS AT 1030 BAY STREET NEXTDOOR. CONCERNING THE VIS-A-VIS SECX>ND S'IORY WINOOWS BE'IWEEN BUILDINGS, WE FEEL THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF OUR BUILDING ARE ENTITLED TO KITCHEN WINDOWS. THESE KITCHEN WINDOWS ARE LOCATED BELOW THE KITCHEN CABINETS--BELOW EYE LEVEL. ctl THE OUTSIDE WE HAVE A'l"I'ACHED A PERMANENT, TRANSLUCENT PLASTIC SCREEN TO BLOCK OFF ALL DIRECT VISION ACROSS THE WAY. (WE FIND THIS NEW CONDI- TION TERRIBLY UNFAIR TO THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF OUR BUILDING. WE'VE TRIED TO DESIGN A STYLISH, CHEERFUL AND HUMANE BUILDING, NOT A DUNGEOO CELL.) OUR BUILDING IS SET BACK FURTHER IN THE SIDE YARDS THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED BY THE CITY: 6' 6" - 8' TO THE DIVIDING LINE BE'lWEEN THE NEXTDOOR CONDOS. ASSUMING THE 1030 CONDO NEXTDOOR HAS THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SET-BACK, THE SPACE BE'lWEEN BUILDINGS COMES OUT 70 11'6" - 13'. 3. OUR PROJECT IS NOT "ENVIROOMENTALLY HARMFUL FROM THE STANDPOINT OF EXISTING TREES." UNDERGROUND GARAGES WILL NOT DESTROY THE CITY TREE IN THE FROOT OFF THE STREET (BY GOD NOTHING CAN DESTROY THAT THING). A CONDO PROJECT ONE BLOCK AWAY SIMILARLY EXTENDS ITS PARKING A WAYS UNDER THE FRONT YARD, AND THE CI'lY TREE THERE LOOKS TO A LEAF AS HEALTHY AS ANY OTHERS ON THE BLOCK. THE EXISTING JACARANDA TREE IN OUR BACKYARD NOW STANDS THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE 1030 COODO'S SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE, WHICH MFANS THAT THE 1030 CONDOS HAVE ALREADY ABBREVIATED THE JACARANDA'S ROOT SYSTEM. WE PLAN 'lU TRANSPLANT THIS TREE IN THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF THE FRCNT YARD (FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD) --AND IN OPEN, FULLY NATURAL GRADE SOIL WHICH GOES STRAIGHT DOWN 'lX) CHINA. r- i . . 4. & 5. OUR PROJECT IS NOT "ENVIROOMENTALLY HARMFUL FROM THE STAND- POINT OF ENERGY USAGE." THE APPELANTS CLAIM THAT THEIR ENERGY USAGE WILL INCREASE BY AT LEAST 30% AS '!HE RESULT OF A "COMPLETE LOSS OF SOLAR HEAT IN THE WINTER." THEY WILL NOT HAVE A COM- PLETE LOSS OF SOLAR HEAT IN THE WINTER: THEY WILL HAVE REDUCED DIRECT SOLAR HEAT NO EARLIER THAN 3:00 P.M. rn THE SHORTEST, DARKEST DAY OF WINTER. (EVERY OTHER DAY IS BE'l"l'ER--DlRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY. ) IN THE SUMMER OUR BUILDING WILL HELP KEEP THE NEXTOOOR 1030 crnDOS COOLER. OUR PROJECT DOES NOT "UNDULY RESTRICT LIGHT AND AIR" TO THE 1030 CONDOS NEXTDOOR. '!HE '!WO BUILDINGS ARE THE SAME HEIGHT AND MASS, AND THE SECOND S'IQRIES WOULD SEEM TO REL~TE TO EACH OTHER IN MUCH THE SAME MANNER AS '!WO SIMILAR SINGLE STORY HOMES. AGAIN, OUR SIDE YARD SET-BACKS RANGE FROM 616" - 81 TO THE PROPERTY LINE BE'!WEEN THE 1030 CONDOS. THIS CONDITION LEAVES 1116" - 13 I BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS (ASSUMING MINIMAL 51 SET-BACKS ON THEIR SIDE OF THE FENCE.) 6. OUR PROJECT DOES NOT "PROMOTE UNSAFE AND INSOCURE HOUSING." OUR BUILDING WILL HAVE STANDARD SECURITY GATES ON THE STREET AND ALLEY ENTRANCES, AND ALSO AT THE '!WO EXITS COMING UP FROM THE GARAGE 'IQ THE ENCLOSED ENTRY WALK. 7. OUR PROJECT ENHANCES THE GENERAL AESTHETIC AND REAL PROPERTY VALUES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WELL INTmRATED CONSISTING OF MANY APARTMENTS, CONDOS, DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, QUADRAPLEXES, PENTAPLEXES, ETC., AS WELL AS UNA'l"l'ACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. (IN THEIR DESPERATE BID TO KILL OUR PROJECT, ATTORNEY VAN ARSEDRT.T, AND THE 1030 CONDO HOMEaffiERS TRIED TO RALLY THE NEIGH- BORHOOD 'IQ RAMROD A "SPOT" RE-ZONING (FROM R-2 'ro R-2R) THROUGH LEGISLATION. ESSENTIALLY, THEY WERE ASKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD J.' TO DE-VALUE ITSELF, AT LEAST THAT I S WHAT NEIGHBORS TOLD US.) (/f~ {' t WE RECENTLY (7/23) SPOKE WITH BOB KITAI OF THE PLANNING DIVI- SION OF THE OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS IN SACRAMENTO. HE REMEMBERED SPEAKING WITH MR. VAN ARSEDELL ON '!HE MA'l"l'ER OF THE STATE DENSITY BONUS, HOWEVER, HE REMEMBERS BEING UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE LOT IN QUESTION COULD ONLY HANDLE FOUR UNITS <INSTEAD OF FIVE). WHEN WE EXPLAINED THAT OUR LOT ACCOMO- DATES FIVE UNITS, THAT ONE OF THE FIVE HAS BEEN DESIGNATED LOW/ MODERATE INCOME, AND THAT WE WERE PROVIDED A DENSITY BONUS OF I ft1 ~ ' . . ONE UNIT, HE REPLIED THAT HE SAW NOTHING INCONSISTENT OR IRREGU- LAR IN THIS SCENARIO, AND THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK WITH MARK LOVINGTON IN HOUSING LEXiAL AFFAIRS OFFICE FOR LEGALITY DETAILS. WHEN WE GOT IN mUCH (7/25) WITH MARK LOVINGTON, IN mE LEGAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY' DE- VELOPMENT IN SACRAMEN'IO, MR. LOVINGTON TOLD US THAT HE REMEM- BERED SPEAKING WITH MR. VAN ARSEDELL, AND THAT THE LATTER PUT A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION '10 HIM: IS ONE OUT OF FIVE AT LEAST 25%: IS 20% THE SAME AS 25%1 MR. LOVINGTOO ALSO SAID THAT THE STATE STATUTE (SEcrlON 65915) SERVES MOSTLY AS A "BLANKET" ENTITLEMENT INCENTIVE FOR DEVOLPERS ro PROK>TE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THAT IT IN NO WAY PRECLUDES A CITY I S OWN LOCAL INTERPRETATION, NOR DOES IT PRECLUDE A CITY FROM PROVIDING VARIOUS OTHER BONUSES, INCLUDING--AS HE SAYS IN HIS "OPINION LETTER" TO ATTORNEY VAN ARSEDELL (6/13): "A BONUS WITH COODITIONS IMPOSED 00 A DEVELOPER WHICH WOUlD NOT QUALIFY FOR THE BOOUS UNDER STATE LAW" (LAST PARAGRAPH, EXHIBIT "C"). MARK LOVINGTON ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE BELIEVED SANTA MONICA HAD ITS OWN ORDINANCES IN THIS REGARD, IN WHIOI CASE HIS "OPINION LETTER" (6/13) WOULD BE IRRELEVANT. PLEASE FIND A COPY OF MARK I S "OPINION LETl'ER" (EXHIBIT .C") ATTACHED, AND ALSO A COPY OF OUR PRESENTATION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6/17. THANK YOU so MUOI FOR YOUR TIME, PATIENT CONSIDERATION AND UNDERSTANDING. IF WE HAVE APPEARED FLIPPANT AT TIMES, WE ARE GUILTY OF IMPROPERLY VENTING OUR INDIGNATION WITH OUR NEXTDOOR CONDO NEIGHBORS. PLEASE EXCUSE THESE VERY REXiRETTABLE LAPSES. (WE STILL HOPE TO ENJOY LIVING IN ONE OF THE NEW UNITS AT 1024 BAY STREET.) SINCERELY, ~~t ~~DANA PEioo '/1(// I ,/ 1024 BAY STREET U _ '~" 'I . . GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. 0."""",,, ST~TE OF <;.I,LIFOltNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LEGAL AFFAIRS OFFICE 921 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 323-7288 June 13, 1985 Mr. Paul M. Van Arsdell. Jr. 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2466 Dear Mr. Van Arsdell: You have requested an op1nlon from this office as to the minimum number of units for low and moderate income families needed to entitle a housing development to a density bonus, as prescribed in Government Code Section 65915. In your letter of June 7, 1985. you presented a scenario of a developer seeking a bonus of one additional unit by providing one income- qualified unit for development on a site zoned for a maximum of five units. Section 65915 states that a developer is entitled to a density bonus of at least 25% where the developer agrees to provide at least 25% of the total number of un1ts for households of the designated income categories. For a five-un1t development -- which is the minimum needed to qualify for the bonus pursuant to Section 6S9l6(c) -- a developer would have to dedicate at least two units in order to qualify. By the same token. if two units are reserved. the developer would be entitled to at least two additional over the maximum allowable density. in this case resulting 1n a development of seven units. This is not to say that local zoning ordinances could not provide for a greater density bonus or even establish a right to a bonus with conditions imposed on a developer wh1ch would not qualify for the bonus under state law. But to be entitled to a bonus under the provisions of the Government Code. a developer must meet the minimum standard of a set-aside for low and moderate income families of at least 25% of the total units, One is not at least 25% of six. Two is. r-hope this letter is helpful in your understanding of an otherwise very complex and ambiguous statute. Sincerely, tr~1:~ Deputy General Counsel MRL:dlc cc: Ronald S. Javor, General Counsel Exhibit C ~. ~ . . PRESENTATION BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION, PUBLIC HEARING 6/3/85 GOOD EVEN lNG, MY NAME IS GRANT WADA AND I AM THE APPLICANT AND CMNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 1024 BAY STREET WHERE I LIVE WITH FRIEND DANA PERRY AND BIG DOG MAX, AND ALSO WHERE WE HOPE TO LIVE IN ONE OF THE NEW TOWNHOME UNITS. FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK KAREN ROSENBERG FOR ALL OF HER GUIDANCE AND PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE, AND ALSO COMMISSIONER KEN GENSER FOR HIS VALUABLE TIME AND COMMENTS AT A MEETING WITH THE C(t'oIDO HOMECMNERS ASSOCIATION NEXTDOOR. I' 0 ALSO LIKE TO THANK KAREN FOR SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT LAST TIME IN REGARDS TO THE TERRIBLE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY ATTORNEY PAUL VAN ARSEDELL. AND I '0 LIKE TO FORMALLY APOLOGIZE FOR BO'lH MY NEIGHBOR PAUL AND MYSELF FOR TAKING UP THE COMMISSION'S TIME AND PUBLIC TIME OVER THIS MATTER. NOW THEN, CLEAN SLATE. WE'VE LIVED AT 1024 BAY STREET NCW FOR THE PAST 'lHREE YEARS, AND BEFORE THAT AT 117 PACIFIC STREET tl6, WHERE WE HAVE MANY SAVORY AND UNSAVORY REMEMBRANCES. IN ANY CASE, SANTA MONICA HAS PRETTY' MUCH BEEN MY BACKYARD EVER SINCE MY BROTHERS AND FRIENDS AND I STARTED SURFING OVER 15 YEARS AGO. NOW I'D LIKE TO SAY A LITTLE ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THIS PROJECT, AND ABOUT GLEN SMALL, ARGUABLY THE WORLD'S GREATEST ARCHITECT--AND I SAY THIS AT THE HIGH RISK OF ANTAGONIZING ANY OTHER ARCHITECTS IN THE HOOSE--BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS THE BEST WAY '10 TF.T.r. YOU ABOUT OUR PROJECT'S CONCERNS AND INTENTS. ANYWAYS, I FIRsr GOT IN 'roUCH WITH GLEN TO DISCUSS AN IDEA FOR BIG, AFFORDABLE STUDIO '!OWN HOMES : BIG SHELLS WITH JUST A BATHROOM AND KITCHEN, AND LOTS AND LOTS OF CREATIVE SPACE--'lO BE BUILT UP AND ADDE ro ACCORDING TO YOUR NEEDS, TASTES, FORTUNES, ETC.. I THINK I HOOKED GLEN WITH nlIs IDEA. HE NORMALLY CONCERNS HIMSELF EXPRESSLY WITH BROAD SCALE, MEGASTRUCTURES, AND FUTURISTIC, SOCIO- TECHNO-ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. WELL, ro MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, THE BIG SHELL IDEA 'lURNED IN'IO THE BIG BOMB--NOT AS AFFORDABLE AS WE HAD HOPED. IN THE MEANTIME, MY HOUSE IS FALLING TO PIECES WITH A VENGEANCE, BUT, 1 GET A CHANCE TO PEAK AT SOME OF GLEN'S OTHER PROJECTS. . . AND I AM FASCINATED--AND I AM STILL VERY DEEPLY INSPIRED. HERE'S A . . GUY THAT IS HONESTLY TRYING 'ID CREATE A CLEANER, GREENER, SOFTER, FRIENDLIER, MORE RESPONSIBLE, foKlRE EFFICIENT, MORE ELEGANT, MORE BEAUTIFUL WORLD--IN A WORD, A MORE HUMANE PLACE TO LIVE. GLEN BELIEVES THAT WHAT THE BULLDOZER UPROOTS MUST BE RE'lURNEn, GENEROUSLY, 00' THE GROUND, 00 THE ROOF, DRIPPING FROM THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING. HE BELIEVES THAT WE CAN NEVER BE TOO NEAR THE SOIL THAT NOURISHES '!HE BOONTY OF VEGETATION '!HAT IN TURN NOURISHES US, IN SO MANY MORE WAYS '1HAN WE'RE AWARE. I AGREE. AND I'D LIKE NOW m TALK ABOUT A FEW OF THE FEA'lURES THAT GLEN HAS DESIGNED IN'IO THE PROJECT--'l'HAT COME SO SECOND NATURE TO HIM--BUT THAT I FIND TERRIFICALLY CARING, CHEERFUL, EXCITING, EVEN COURAGEOUS. AND I MIGHT ADD 'IHAT A FEW OF THESE FEATURES AN&WER SOME OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE PROJECT. FOR INSTANCE, WE'VE SPOKEN WITH OUR NEIGHBORS ON 'lHE WEST, IN FRooT, DIRECTLY BEHIND, AND 00 THE OTHERSIDE OF THE 1030 CONDOS NEXTDOOR 'IO THE EAST, WHO HAVE GIVEN US 'lHEIR SANCTION 00 'lHIS PROJECT. '!HEIR BIGGEST COMPLAINT SEEMS TO BE THATY CooOOMINIUMS EAT UP THE ALREADY SCANT STREET PARKING SPACE. AND I ADl'lIT THAT I SEE CERTAIN CONDO HOMECWNERS NEXTDOOR PARKING 00 THE STREET 00 A REGULAR BASIS. I THINK ooE POSSIBLE REASON FOR 'lHIS IS '!HAT CONDO RESIDENTS TYPICALLY SUFFER FROM A LACK OR STORAGE SPACE, AND SOME- TIMES USE SOME OR ALL OF THEIR GARAGE SPACE FOR STORAGE PURPOSES. OUR PROJECT HAS A SEPARATE CUBIC FOOT WALK-IN STORAGE ROOM IN THE REAR OF THE SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE FOR EACH UNIT. ALSO, UP ON THE ROOF, TUCKED AWAY BEHIND THE SOLAR PANELS, WE HAVE ANOTHER 35 CUBIC FEET OF ENCLOSED STORAGE PER UNIT. YOU'LL NOTICE HERE (MODELl THAT THE SOLAR PANELS ARE TASTEFULLY AND FULLY INTEGRATED IN'lO THE OVERALL BUILDING DESIGN, AND NOT JUST PLOPPED DOWN AND TACKED ONTO '!HE ROOF. BACK DOWN IN THE GARAGE, SPECIAL GRATED VENTING ALL ALooG THE FOOT OR 'lHREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING WILL ALLOW MUCH MORE FRESH AIR AND NATURAL LIGHT INTO THAT AREA. I SHOULD MENTION HERE 'mAT WE DELIBERATELY CHOSE NOT TO INCLUDE THE ENCLOSED, NARROW PRIVATE STAIRWAY THAT GOES DIRECTLY UP FROM THE PRIVATE GARAGE INTO THE UNIT. REALTORS HAVE URGED THAT WE DO, CALLING IT A MUST-HAVE-KEY-SELLING-POINT. I GUESS WE BELIEVE THAT PASSING THROUGH A COLORFUL AND FRAGRANT GARDEN AREA EN ROUTE TO YOUR FRONT ENTRY IS A HEALTHIER ALTERNATIVE. WE BELIEVE IN OPEN GARDEN WALKWAYS, AND BUMPING INTO A NEIGHBOR EVERY NOW AND THEN, JUST AS WE BELIEVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. (WE'VE GOT A BIG DOG THAT YANKS US, OR I SHOULD SAY "ME, n OUT 'IWICE A DAY FOR WALKS, AND I ASSURE YOU, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WATCHING.) . . OKAY. ON THE MEZZANINE LE.VEL, GLEN HAS CUT OUT A LARGE, 'IRIANGULAR VOID. AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S VERY DRAMATIC, AND IT ALLOWS LIGHT TO FLOOD IlOWN INTO 'mE LIVING/DINING/KITCHEN AREA BELCW. THIS WILL HELP OUT IN THE DARKER WINTER MONTHS, AND ALSO IF THE LIVING ROOM WINOOWS 00 THE WEST FALL INTO '!HE FUTURE SHADOW OF NEXTOOOR SECOND STORIES. ON THIS NOTE, OUR BUILDING WILL BE PAINTED WHITE, AS WHITE BEST RE- FLECTS LIGHT, ESPECIALLY DOWN INTO THE SHADIER AREAS BE'lWEEN ADJA- CENT BUILDINGS. AS YOU'LL NOTICE, THE MEZZANINE LE.VEL 00 'mE EAST HAS BEEN RADICALLY ANGLED BACK AWAY PROM THE NEIGHBORING CONDOS ON THAT SIDE OF US, EXPRESSLY TO PROVIDE MORE LIGHT TO '!HESE NEIGH- BORS. THE SPACIOUS PATIO DECKS 00 THE MEZZANINE LE\TEL HAVE FULL soom WEST EXPOSURES; '!HAT'S ENOUGH ROOM FOR 'lWO, THREE, OR THE WHOLE FAMILY TO COMFORTABLY STRETCH OUT AND BASK IN '!HE SUNSHINE AND OCEAN AIR 'mAT MAKE SANTA MONICA ONE OF THE MOST DESIRABLE LOCALES AROUND. UP 00 THE ROOF YOU I LL FIND A SPECIAL GARDEN AREA TO GRCW WHATE\TER PLANTS, FLOWERS, OR VEGETABLES YOU CHooSE--aR PERHAPS, SIMPLY, A QUIET, GRASSY SPOT 'ID SIT OR LIE UPON AND CONTEMPLATE AMIDST 'mE MOUNTAINS AND CLOUDS, SO TO SPEAK. AT NIGHT. . . YOU'LL HAVE MAGNIFICENT, UNOBSTRUCTED SPACE SHOTS OF THE INFINITE STARRY HEAVENS. AND I I M GETTING CARRIED AWAY NOW. AND SO I r LL WRAP-UP BY SAYING 'mAT AT VERY LEAST, THIS PROJECT INTENDS 'IO PROVIDE SIX HOUSEHOLDS THE OPPORTUNITY ro ENJOY LIVING IN ooE OF THE MOST PLFASANT NEIGHBORHOODS OF SANTA MooICA, IN A UNIQUELY CARING, STYLISHLY CLEAN, SPORTY DESIGN THAT OPENS ITSELF UP TO AND LOVINGLY ACCOMO- DATES mE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. WE HOPE AND INTEND THAT OUR PRO- JECT WILL ENHANCE AND BECOME THE LIVES OF ITS FUTURE RESIDENTS AND mE OVERALL AESTHETIC AND REAL PROPERTY VALUES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. . OJ .. ..., .... I:l .. ~~;::~~~ o'+< o~ a IlO g ...].g,~ Il:l 13 au ~ 0 a 0.-4 &0 CQ C ..... 'OU'O ...::l1lO ... k c... 0 I:l ' ... GJ 0 1>-.... ;I I:l .. I:l" I:l t!l .o~"GJ ~'f:~.... 21 ~ A : ~.~ '; ~ 1:1 ,&j && GJ,...QI CCI QJ- ~ ~]~ ~ :f~-e II .... 0... Q III ~ a 0 t ~ ~ ...... ~.!. '.. = III ~t-;;..~::t~ I I "1<1.l:C0l<.J 01 .. l:l... '0 .J:: I>-. I>-. 0 >- 01 a:::'~a01= 2 ,~~ u : .. ~ .. ClaN..., QJI..... :> ... "001 """0 !.a~8 '1) ~ a... l>.]1lO<.c I 0" 01 s:l <J o 0 .r4....-1o.&oJ 0....1'1.....01 IlO "0 ., 0 III III :a .~ g.....'~ ~ <J ... =O...~rt 0 c:: QI CD e" "" 01;'" 0 ~ :~~I .]~ .tlA ? ~I.~ g ... I:l 0 .... ~.... 'H ... I:l ... III P, ..... , ..Ill..... Ill,dID III N ON "'1 N ... '" ~ I:l ~ PoOl ....:... II '" ..c:... ;I .. 0.0 r:: ... 01 ""> ...c:lllil g QI "'........ lJI....4Il 01 ::l ... 0....... 1>-.001 l'l <J c:l '" ... <J .. . ;:I III 0.... ~p, . " (. A- J)D -/I J.:1..~ AU6 1 3 '. i'-;&:J le MEMORANDUM OPINION NUMBER 85-82 DATE: August 8, 1985 TO: Paul J. Silvern, DIrector of Planning FROM: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney Jonathan S. Horne, Deputy CIty Attorney SUBJECT: Interpretation of Government Code Section 65915 By memorandum dated July 12, 1985, you requested an opInion regardIng the mInImum number of affordable unIts WhIch must be provided In a SIX unit residential development In order to qualify for the denSIty bonu~ prOVIded by Government Code Section 65915, In this case, staff concluded that the proposed 6 unIt projert must Include 1 affordable unit to satisfy Program 12 of the HOUSIng Element. Staff properly calculated the 25\ denSIty bonus on the baSIS of a fIve unIt proJect. See Government Code SectIon 65915rc) Thus, staff concluded that thIs project must provide 1,25 affordable units to qualify for the denSIty bonus under state law. SInce it IS practIcally impOSSIble to prOVIde a fractIon of an affordable unIt, the issue becomes whether thIS fractIonal unIt should be rounded up or down, Government Code Section 65915 provldes: laJ When a developer of hOUSIng agrees to construct at least (1) 25 percent of the total units of a hOUSIng development for persons and familIes of low or moderate Income, as defIned In SectIon 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or (21 10 percent of the total unIts of a hOUSIng development for lower-income households, as defIned In SectIon 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (3) 50 percent of the total dwellIng unIts of a hOUSIng development for qualifYing reSIdents, as defined in SectIon 51.2 of the CIVIl Code, a CIty! county! or CIty and county shall eIther (11 grant a denSIty bonus or (21 prOVIde other incentives of eqUIvalent fInancial value. (bl A developer may submIt to a CIty, county or ~lty and county a prelImInary proposal for the development of hOUSIng pursuant to thlS s~ctlon prior 1 ADO -I" /J-A- AUG 1 3 ,~ (e (e to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments, zonIng amendments, or subdIvISIon mnp approvals. The CIty, county or city and county shall, WIthIn 90 days of receIpt of a written proposal, notIfy the housing developer In writing of the manner In WhICh it WIll comply with thIS section. The City, county or CIty and county shall establIsh procedures for carrYIng out thiS section, which shall Include legIslatIve body approval of the means for complIance WIth thIS section. (c) For the purposes of this chapter, "densIty bonus" means a denSity Increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise maXImum allowahle reSIdentIal denSIty under the applIcable zoning ordInance an~ land use element of the general plan. The denSIty bonus shall not be included when determInIng the number of hOUSIng units WhICh is equal to 10 or 25 percent of the total. The denSity bonus shall apply to hOUSIng developments conSistIng of fIve or more dwellIng units. fdl If a developer agrees to construct both 25 percent of the total unIts for persons and famIlIes of low and moderate Income and 10 percent of the total unIts for lower-Income households, the developer IS entItled to only one denSity bonus under thIS sectIon although the CIty, CIty and county or county may, at ItS dIscretIon, grant more than one denSIty bonus. The prOVISIons of Government Code SertJon 65915 are applIcable to charter CItIes. Government Code SectIon 65918. As noted by counsel f0r Hen, the denSIty bonus statute is very complex and amblguou~. The statute states that If a proJect prOVides "at least" 25% of the unlt~ at an affordahle rate, a denSity bonus must be reqUired In thIS case, "at least" 25% of 5 unIts lS 1,75 unltS. The statutp IS completely SIlent regardIng how to treat thIS fractIonal unit A rpVIPW of the legIslatIve history has fal1ed to reveal any indIcatIon of legIslatIve Intent on this speCIfIC lSSUP. Counsel for HCD has concluded that-2 affordable unIts are rpqJlIrpd undpr Government Code Section 65915 ba~ed upon the follOWIng logIC: .One IS not at least 25% of 6. Two IS,. :1 (e (e ThIS simplistIC construction problems analyzes the problem 1,25, one must go on to fractional unIts. conclusion masks the more dIffIcult raIsed by the statute. When on~ from the standpoInt that 25% of 5 IS answer the more dIffIcult questIon of Appellant contends that thiS fractIonal unit must be roundpd up to 2 unIts to qualIfy for the denSIty bonus under the statute. Appellant cites no legal precedent or statutory authority to comppl the con,luslon that the fractIon should be rounded up. In effect, appellant argues that this rounding up reqUIrement IS lmplIclt Within the statute. In fact, appellant IS engaging in the act of statutory InterpretatIon whIch IS frequently requIred to make logical sense out of statutory language that is often vague and ambiguous. It IS well estahlIshed that where a statute IS silent, missing terms must be implied in a manner consistent WIth common sense and the obJectIves of the statutory scheme. See Wilson v, Board of Retirement, 176 Cal, App, 2d 320, 324, 1 Cal. Rptr. 373, 376 (1959); Warner v. Kenney, 27 Cal, 2d 626,629, 165 P.2d 889,890 (19461.. The ohjectlve of this statutory scheme expressed: is clearly In enactIng thiS chapter It is the intent of the Lpglslature that thp denSIty bonus or other incentIves offered by the CIty, county or CIty and county pursuant to thiS chapter shall contrIbute signIfIcantly to the economIc feasabIlIty of low- and moderate-Income hOUSIng in proposed hOUSIng developments, Therefore, the CIty should interpret the statute In a manner most conSIstent WIth thIS stated obJectIve. Government Code Section 65915 appears to apply only to proJects which permit at least 5 dwelling unIts under applIcable ZonIng, ThIS conclusion IS supported by the precedIng term of the statute thAt prOVides thnt the d~nsIty bonus unit should not be calculated In determlnlng the percentaQP of units whIch must be affordable. S~e Section 65915rcl ThIS Interprptatlon is also conslstent WIth the advlce letter from the counsel for HDC, If appellants interpretntlon of the statute IS correct, then there would be no pOSSIbIlIty of awardIng a SIngle denSIty bonus to a proJ~ct, The fIve unit mInImum proJect would reqUire 2 affordable unlts and therefore be entitled to 2 additional denSity bonuses. 3 (e le This unreasonable result would not seem to be consIstent with the Intent of the statute of encouragIng low and moderate Income housing In Santa MonIca, the statute would effectively preclude any densIty bonus for developers of S or 6 unIt proJects unless they were prepared to prOVide 2 affordable units, The Interpretation of the CIty, particularly vlew~d In conJun~tlon wlth Program 12 seems far more calculated to produce affordable hOUSIng for the vast maJorIty of parcels In thIS City which are InapproprIate for 7 unIts or more. It would seem emmInently reasonable and conSistent WIth the purpose of the law to employ the SImple rule of reason that fractIons of a unIt shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. RMM:JSH:jho010 4