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