SR-12-A (5)
L/tJ '2- oo~
(~.A
MAYl 3 "-6
cjED:RAS:SF:KR:nh
Councll Mtg: May 13, 1986
Santa Monlca, CaIlfornla
l2.-A
HAY 2 7 1)86
TO: Mayor and Clty Councll
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning COlnmisslon Declsion Approving
Conditlonal Use Permlt 413, Tentatlve Tract Map 44039,
1024 Bay Street. Appllcant: Grant Wada. Appellants:
Grant Wada, Dana Perry, Glen Small; Paul M. Van Arsdell
Jr., Barbara Wl1tzen, H. Allen Evans.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of thlS report 15 to provlde the Cl ty Council Wl th
lnformatlon pertalning to the appeal of the Planning Commisslon's
approval to remove a s~ngle famlly home and permit constructlon
of a SlX unlt condomlnium.
BACKGROL'ND
On Aprll
7,
1986,
followlng
a public hearing,
Plannlng
Commlssloners on a four to zero vote approved Tentatlve Tract Map
44039, Conditlonal Use Permit 413, for the removal of a single
famlly home and construction of a SlX unit condominlum at 1024
Bay Street subJect to the findlngs and condi tlons noted 1n the
staff report, as dmended ln the Statement of Offlclal Act1on.
Appeals of the Planning CommlSSlon determlnatlon have been
separately flIed by the proJect appllcants, Grant Wada, Dana
Perry and Glen Small and by three lnterested partles Paul M. Van
Arsdell,
Jr. ,
Barbara W1I tzen
and
H.
Allen
Evans.
The
appI1cants I appeal concerns the PIannlng Comm1ssion' s conal tlon
- 1 -
l2 -A
MAY 1 3 19Bfi
l2. -A
HAY % i 1981
requlrlng the ellmlnatlon of the upper level roof garden. Mr.
Van Arsdell's basls of appeal is that the opponents of the
proJect were not given ample opportunlty to reVlew the staff
report prlor to the hearing and express thelr concerns to the
Plannlng Commlsslon, that the appllcatlon before the Plannlng
Commisslon was lnvalld 1n that the appllcatlon fee was walved,
that the Plannlng Commlssion dld not accept the opponents request
to contlnue the hearlng pending the outcome of further ]UdlClal
proceedlngs on the applicant's flrst appllcation and that the
proJect is lnconslstent wLth the Munlclpal Code and General Plan.
ANALYSIS
As proposed, the proJect lS conslstent with the Municipal Code,
ln conforml ty WL th the denSl ty and urban design pol1cies of the
Land Use Element, meets the incluslonary houslng requlrements of
the Housing Element and lS in conformance Wl th Government Code
Sectlon 65915. In approvlng the proJect, the Planning CommlSSlon
requlred the ellmlnatlon of the roof garden above the mezzanlne
level. Thls requlrement was lmposed in response to a concern
from the ne1ghbors who ind1cated that the roof garden would
negatlvely lmpdct thelr prlvacy.
Opponents of the proJect have raised concerns regarding the
amount of tlme they were glven to reVlew the Planning COmmlSSlon
staff report. The staff report was avallable to the public at
B: 00 a .m. Thursday Aprll 3, 1986 followlng the dell very to the
Plannlng Corrmissloners on Wednesday Aprll 2, 1986. Planning
staff recelved wrltten Opposltlon from the neighbors on Frlday,
- 2 -
April 4. 1986.
Th~s ~nformat~on was made available to the
Plann~ng Commlssioners at thelr meeting on Monday. Apr~l 7. 1986.
The opponents also expressed concern about the valldi ty of th1S
appl1cat10n for a Tentative Tract Map and Cond1t10nal Use Permit
because the f~l~ng fee was wa1ved. In that the C1ty was a party
1n the legal Judgement regard1ng the 1nterpretation of the
density bonus provis1ons applicable to the appl1cant's f1rst
appl1cation wh~ch therefore resul ted ~n a slgnif~cant delay of
the proJect. the fee was wa1ved for the new appl1cation.
Durlng the publ1C hear1ng on Aprl1 7. 1986 the opponents of the
prOJect requested that the Plann1ng Comm~sslon cont1nUe the
hear~ng and delay cons~derat~on of the appl1cation unt11 a
decision 15 rendered on Mr. Wada's appeal of the prev10us
application now pend1ng 1n the Los Angeles County Super10r Court.
The opponents also 1ncluded this request in a letter to Chair
Perlman. dated February 25. 1986 (Attachment E) and 1n wr1tten
test1mony to the Plann1ng Comm1s51on dated April 3. 1986
(Attachment F). The C1ty Attorney has advised Planning staff
that the legal act10n pend1ng does not compel the Plann1ng
Commiss10n to defer 1tS decision on the present appl1cation.
As 1nd1cated 1n the Apn..l 7. 1986 staff report (Attachment A).
the proposed proJect lS cons1stent W1 th the Mun1c1pa1 Code and
w1th the pollc1es and obJect1ves of the Land Use Element. In
approv1ng the proJect, the Plann1ng CommlSS10n approved f1ndlngs
and cond1t10ns as amended 1n the Statement of Off1c1al Act10n
(Attachment D) to support the proJect's conslstency.
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under the provlsions of 9148C (SMMC) and Section 9366 (SMMC) the
City Counell may afflrm, reverse or modlfy any determlnation of
the Planning CommlSSlon in regard to a Condltlonal Use Permlt and
~entatlve Tract Map and the declslon of the Clty Council shall be
final.
In approvl.ng an applicatlon the Councll on appeal must
make approprlate flndings and may add condl tlons necessary to
protect the publlc welfare.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recomwendations presented In this report do not have a
budget/flscal lmpact.
RECOMNEKDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the Clty Council deny both
appeals and affirm the decl.sl.on of the Plannlng Commission
adoptlng the flndings and condl tlons contalned In the Aprll 7,
1986 staff report, as amended and approved by the Plannlng
CommlSSlon on Aprll 7, 1986 as ltS own.
Prepared by: R. Ann Slracusa, Dlrector of Plannlng
Suzanne Frick, Actlng princlpal Planner
Karen Rosenberg, Assoclate Planner
Clty Plannlng DlVlSlon
COlnmunl ty and EconomlC Development Department
Attachments: A. Staff Report to Planning Commlsslon, Aprll 7,
1986.
B. Letter of Appeal, Grant Wada, Dana Perry,
Glen Small, A.I.A.
C. Letter of Appeal, and support materlal
SUbrnlttea by Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.,
Barbara Wlltzen, H. Allen EVans. (InCluded
in April 22, 1986 City Council Packet)
D. Statement of Offlclal Actlon.
- 4 -
E. February 25, 1986 Correspondence from Paul M.
Van Arsdell, Jr. to Chairperson Penny Perlman.
F. Apr~l 3, 1986 Correspondence from Paul M.
Van Arsdell, Jr. to Planning Cornrn~ssioners.
[Note: The proJect f~le contains numerous letters and other
correspondence about th~s proJect, all of WhlCh will be ava~lable
for Counc~l's inspection dur~ng the hearing on this ~tem.J
KR:nh
CCCUP413
5-1-86
- 5 -
8XHlpl\ A-
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: Apr1l 7, 1986
TO: The Honorable Plann1ng Commission
FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Tentat~ve Tract Map 44039, Condit1onal Use Perm~t 413,
To Perm1 t the Removal of a Single Family Horne and the
Construction of a S1X Unit Condom1n1um.
Address: 1024 Bay Street
App11cant: Grant Wada
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
SubJect property 1S a 6,500 sq.ft. parcel located on the south
side of Bay Street between 10th and 11th Streets. Surrounding
uses consist of s1ngle fam1ly homes to the north across Bay
Street (R2), single fam1ly and multi-family res1dential bU1ld~ngs
to the south across the alley (R2), a two story 5-un~t condomini-
um to the east (R2) and a s10g1e story mult~-unit res~dential
complex to the west (R2).
Zoning D1strict: R2
Land Use D1str1ct: Low Density Res1dent1al
Parcel Area: 50' x 130' = 6500 sq. ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposal ~s for a Tentative Tract Map and a Conditional Use
Permit for a s~x unit, two story condominium to replace a s1ngle
farn11y home. One inclus10nary unit, wh1ch will be affordable to
low income persons w11l be prov1ded. A total of 12 park1ng
spaces w1ll be prov1ded 1n a subterranean garage w1th access from
the alley. The Rent Control Board has issued a removal permit
for th~ existing s~ngle family home.
EX1st1ng Square Footage: 1,100 sq.ft.
Number of Units EX1st1ng: 1 S~ngle Fam11y Horne
Proposed Square Footage: 7,848 sq.ft.
NUmber of Un~ts Proposed: 6
- 1 -
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed proJect lS consistent wlth the Municipal Code and ln
conformity wlth the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
ThlS proJect lS categorically exempt from the prov~slons of CEQA,
City of Santa Monica Gu~delines for Implementation (Class 3(4)).
FEES
This proJect is subJect to a Condomlnium tax of $1,000 per unlt
and a Recreation and Parks (Quimby) fee of $200 per unit.
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 1985 following a publ~c hear~ng, the Plannlng CommlS-
sian approved TTM 44039, CUP 385 for the removal of the slngle
family home and constructlon of a two-story six unlt condominlum
wlth one inclusionary unlt affordable to persons of moderate in-
come on th~s slte. Subsequently, on June 26, 1985, Mr. Paul M.
Van Arsdell and Mr. H. Allen Evans appealed the Planning Commis-
sion' s determlnat~on. On August L 1985, followlng a public
hear lng, the Cl ty Councl1 denied the appeal and aff~rmed the
decls~on of the Planning Conunlsslon. The Council adopted the
findings and cond~t~ons contained ~n the June 17, 1985 staff re-
port as amended and approved by the Planning Conunlssion on June
17, 1985. On August 21, 1985 the Architectural ReVlew Board ap-
proved the proJect on consent calendar.
Hav~ng exhausted all thelr administratlve remedles, Mr. Van Ars-
dell flIed SUlt in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the
City of Santa I>Ionlca. The laWSUl t was filed on the basls that
the City had lncorrectly applled the densl ty bonus provision on
th~s proJect under Government Code Section 65915. On December
16, 1985 the court ruled that a 25% density bonus under Govern-
ment Code Sect~on 65915 is only applicable to projects of 5 or
more dwelling unlts where a full 25% of the units wlll be made
affordable to persons of low to moderate lncome. Therefore, two
units would have had to have been deslgnated to persons of low to
moderate income ln order for a density bonus to apply in th~s
particular proJect.
Under Government Code Section 65915, a developer ~s also entitled
to a 25% density bonus if 10% of the units are made affordable to
persons of low lncome. This appl~es to hous~ng developments of
f~ve or more dwelling un~ts. Using thlS provision, the applicant
has ref~led his appl~cat~on for a six unlt condom~nLum with one
unl t designated affordable to persons of low income. Therefore
as subm~tted, this proJect meets both Program 12'8 requlrements
and the density bonus prov~s~on under Government Code Section
65915.
- 2 -
CONCLUSION
The overall des~gn of the proJect and number of units has not
been altered since ~t was approved by the P1ann1ng Commisslon on
June 17, 1985 and by the Arch1tectural ReV1ew Board on August 21,
1985. As proposed, the proJect appears to be compatible with the
variety of arch~ tectural styles found ~n the surrounding ne~gh-
borhood. A variety of setbacks, landscaped areas and a
pedestr~an seat~ng area are prov1ded. A total of twelve park~ng
spaces are prov1ded 1n a subterranean garage with access from the
alley. The parking and cLrculat10n plan has been approved by the
Traffic Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION
Plann1ng staff recommends that the Planning Cornm1ssion approve
Tentat1ve Tract Map 44039 and Cond~t~onal Use Permit 413 sUbJect
to the follow1ng flndings and cond1tlons.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subd1v~slon, together w1th its prov~slon for
~ts design and lmprovements, 1S cons~stent w~th applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Monica, specifically the dens~ty and urban design pol~c1es
of the Land Use Element, the C1rculation pol~cles of the
Circulat10n Element and the inclusionary housing requ~re-
ment of the Hous~ng Element.
2. The site is phys1cal1y suitable for the proposed type of
development in that the proJect w1l1 be developed 1n ac-
cordance Wl th the Land Use Element densl ty standards and
Municipal Code property development standards of the R2
zone.
3. The site is physically SUl table for the proposed dens1 ty
of development ~n that six unlts including one inclusion-
ary unit wl1l be provided in accordance with the Land Use
Element density standards of the R2 zone, Program 12 of
the Houslng Element and the State's density bonus provl-
Slon under Government Code Sectlon 65915.
4. The deslgn of the subd~vls~on or the proposed lmprovements
w111 not cause substantial env1ronmental damage or sub-
stantlally and avoldably injure flSh or w11dl~fe or thelr
hab1tat in that the condominium project is categorically
exempt from CEQA.
5. The des1gn of the subd~v~slon or the type of improvement
WLll not cause serious publlC health problems in that the
proposed proJect lS a condominium proJect tYPlcal of
development ln the neighborhood.
6. The deslgn of the subdivision or the type of 1mprovements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
- 3 -
at large, for access through,
the proposed subd1V1S1on in
condominium.
or use of,
tha t the
property within
proJect is a
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use and location are in accordance w1th good
zoning pract1ce, in the publ1C interest and necessary that
substantial justice be done in that a mult1ple family
res1dent1al condominium is typical of the k1nd of develop-
ment in the ne1ghborhood and 1S a permitted use 1n the R2
zone.
2. The proposed use 1S compat1ble with eXlsting and potential
uses within the general area, traff1c or park1ng conges-
tion will not result, the publ1C health, safety and
general welfare are protected and no harm to adjacent
propert1es will result in that 12 parklng spaces are pro-
vlded on slte in a common subterranean garage with access
from the alley.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. Plans for flnal design and landscaping shall be subJect to
reVlew and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
2. The Architectural ReVlew Board, ln the1r reVlew, shall pay
partlcular attentlon to the project' s landscape and lr-
r1gat1on plan, particularly for the roof deck, vin1ng on
the building, proposed balcony and window treatment and
the articulatlon of the north and south elevations facing
Bay street and the alley respectlvely.
3. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Dlrector of Plann1ng. An lncrease of more than 10%
of the square footage or a slgn1ficant change in the ap-
proved concept shall be SUbJect to Planning Commisslon
Review. Construction shall be in substantlal conformance
with the plans submitted or as mOdlf3.ed by the Plannlng
Commission. Architectural Review Board or Director of
Plann3.ng.
4. The appl1cant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding prov1s1ons for the disabled, lncluding those set
forth in the Californla Administrat1ve Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
5. Flnal parking lot layout and speclflcations which shall be
subJect to the review and approval of the parking and
Trafflc Englneer.
6. ProJect des1gn shall comply w1th the bUlldlng energy reg-
ulatlons set forth in the Callfornia Admlnistrative Code,
Tltle 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservation Standards for New
Resldential BUlldlngs), such conformance to be verif3.ed by
- 4 -
the BUlldlng and Safety D1V1Slon prior to lssuance of a
BUllding Permit.
7. An openable window or openable skylight shall be provided
in at least one bathroom in each un1t. The project shall
provlde adequate natural 11ght 1n the kitchen.
8. Street trees shall be ma1ntalned, relocated or provided as
requlred in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS', per the speclflcations of the Department
of Recreat10n and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
9.
The existing drl veway and apron,
shall be removed and the eXlstlng
standard curb and gutter per the
Department of General Services.
located on Bay Street
curb cut replaced wIth
speclfications of the
10. Any outdoor llghtlng shall be shIelded and/or dIrected
away from ad Jacent resident1.al properties, with any such
lightIng not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of 11lumlnation
beyond the perimeter of the subJect property.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
I. All off SIte Improvements required by the Clty Engineer
shall be lnstalled. Plans and specificatIons for off SIte
Improvements shall be prepared by a reglstered CiVl1 en-
gineer and approved by the CIty EngIneer.
2. Before the City Englneer may approve the final map, a sub-
di VIS10n lmprovement agreement for all off 51 te improve-
ments requlred by the C1ty Eng1neer shall be prepared and
a performance bond posted through the CIty Attorney's
offlce.
3. The tentatIve map shall expIre 24 months after approval,
except as provlded ln the prOVIsions of CalifornIa Govern-
ment Code Sectlon 66452.6 and Sectlons 9380-9382 of the
Santa Monica Municlpal Code. DurIng thIS tIme period the
flnal map shall be presented to the CIty of Santa Monlca
for approval.
4. The rights granted hereln through approval of a condItIon-
al use permIt shall be effectl ve only when exercised ln
connectlon with Tentat1ve Tract Map 44039.
5. The developer shall provide the Englneering Department of
the City of Santa Monlca wIth one Dlzal Cloth prlnt
reproductlon and microfilm of each sheet of the flnal map
after recordatlon.
6. Prlor to approval of the final map, Condomlnium Assoc1a-
tlon By-Laws (if appllcable) and a Declaratlon of CC & R's
shall be revlewed and approved by the Clty Attorney. The
- 5 -
CC & R's shall contain a nondiscriminat~on clause as pres-
ented in Sect~on 9392 (SMMC) and conta~n such provis~ons
as are required by Sect~on 9l22E (SMMC).
7. Payment of the Condominium Tax of $1, 000 per unl- t and
Qu~mby fee of $200 per unl-t shall be required pr~or to the
issuance of building perm~ts.
INCLUSIONARY UNIT CONDITIONS
1. The developer shall covenant and agree with the Cl-ty of
Santa Monica to the spec~fl-c terms, condl-tl-ons and
restrictl-ons upon the possess~on, use and enjoyment of the
sUbJect property, WhlCh terms, conditlons and restrlctlons
shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's
office as a part of the deeds and Covenants, Condl tions
and Restrictions of Tract 44039, to ensure that one af-
fordable un~ t ~s prov~ded and ma~ntained over time and
through subsequent sales of the property. An affordable
unl t shall be deflned as being affordable to households
Wl- th l.ncomes not exceed~ng 80% of the (HUD) Los Angeles
County medl-an l-ncome, expend~ng not over 25% of monthly
income on hous~ng costs, as specl-f~ed by the Santa Monica
Houslng Authorlty.
This agreement shall be executed and recorded pr~or to the
issuance of bu~ld~ng perm~ts. Such agreement shall specl--
fy 1) respons~b~l~ ties of the developer for making the
un~ t avallable to potential buyers and coordinating that
process with the Cl ty of Santa Monica Houslng Author 1 ty,
and 2) responslblll tles of the City of Santa Monl-ca to
prepare application forms for potential buyers, establ~sh
crl-ter~a for qualifl-cat~ons, rev~ew appll-cat~ons and pro-
v~de el~g~ble applicants to the developer, and enforce the
prOVl.S10nS of the agreement.
Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg
Asslstant Planner
CUP413
KR:nh
4-2-86
- 6 -
Category
permi t ted
use
Height
Setbacks
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFO~IANCE
Munic~pal
Code
1 un~t per
1250 sq.ft.
of lot area
(would
permit 6
un~ts per
Sect~ons
910883a and
9132 (SMMC)
2 stor~es,
30'
Sideyard 5'
Front yard 20'
Rearyard
Park~ng
Lot
Coverage
IS'
12 park~ng
spaces
requ~red
Land Use
Element
1 un~t per
1500 sq. ft.
of lot area
(would
permi t 5
un~ts)
2 stories,
30'
20'
5'
IS'
12 parking
spaces
required
Draft Code
1 unit per
1500 sq. ft.
of lot area
(would
perm~t 5
units)
2 stor~es,
30'
20'
7'
15'
13 park~ng
spaces
requ~red
(~ncludes 1
V~Sl.tor
space)
ProJect
5 units
plus one
inclusl.onary
un~t per
density bonus
provisl.on
6 units
2 stories,
33 . 2' to top
of parapet
(29.6' to
parapet)
20'
west s~deyard
ranges from
5'8" - II' 9"
east sl.deyard
ranges from
6'2" - 7'10"
16' 5 1/4"
12 parking
spaces
prov~ded
60% maXl.mum 60% maximum 50% max~mum 52%
lot coverage lot coverage lot coverage
- 7 -
e
i''''R 1 -
;c>;, "' ~6
~7S.o0 p~
'/-//" fee.
6"18911-0
fXt+IlSIT 6
APRIL 10, 1986
DIRECTOR OF CITY PLANNING
CITY OF SANTA MOO ICA
CITY HALL
1695 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90406
RE: C.U.P 413, T.T. 44039, 1024 BAY STREET
COMPLAINT APPEALING PLANNING COMMISSION
CONDITION ELIMINATING ROOF GARDENS
DEAR DIRECTOR,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER 'ID COMPLAIN THE SPOT DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION (PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 7, 1986) TO ELIMINATE
THE PRIVATE ROOF GARDENS AT 1024 BAY STREET, AND ASK 'llIAT THIS
MATTER BE SET FOR POBLIC HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE ASK THAT
THE CCNDITIOO 'ill ELIMINATE THE ROOF GARDENS BE REVERSED, BASED ON
THE INDEPENDmT GROUNDS DISCUSSED BELOW:
1. ROOF GARDENS PROVIDE THE LAWFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR CONDOMINIUM
RESIDENTS 'IO ENJOY AN INTIMACY WITH THE SOIL--WITH ALL ITS
FRUITS AND BLOOMS, AND THE MYSTERIES OF REGENERATION--ON A
SCALE AND IN PRIVATE LOCATIONS TRADITIOOALLY UNAVAILABLE 'IO
RESIDENTS OF MULTI-UNIT tWELLINGS. WE HAD HOPED THAT THE
CITY OF S~ MONICA WOULD ENTHUSIASTICALLY WELCOME AND EN-
COURAGE SUCH ECOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
2. THE DESIGN OF THE PRWECT UNIQUELY AND STYLISHLY EXPRESSES
A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS. PLEASE SEE
ATTACHED LE'PI'ER ro PLANNING COMISSION CHAIRPERSON, MS. PENNY
PEARLMAN, FROM GLEN SMALL, AlA.
THE ROOF GARDEN, ALONGSIDE THE GENERAL SOLAR ORIENTATION AND
THE MEZZANINE "VOID," PROVIDE A NATURAL SAFEGUARD AGAINST
FUTURE IMPACTS FROM MULTI-LEVEL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE WEST:
RESIDENTS WILL ALWAYS HAVE PLENTY OF SUNLIGHT, FRESH AIR,
e
e
AND UNOBSTRUCTED VISTAS ATOP THEIR ROOF GARDENS.
ROOF GARDENS PROVIDE A SPECIAL PRIVATE PLACE--OUTDOORS--FOR
CONTEMPLATION, RELAXATION, ETC., A RETREAT FROM THE MADDENING
CROWD--AND THE TELEVISION SET.
3. THE ROOF GARDEN HAS BEEN AN INTEGRAL DESIGN FEATURE OF THE
PROJECT FROM OUR FIRST MEETINGS WITH THE PLANNING DEPT. MORE
THAN A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, AND HAS FIGURED PROMINENTLY IN
THE OVERALL BUSINESS PLAN OF THE PROJECT--ESPECIALLY IN ITS
APPEAL 'ID POTmTIAL BUYERS.
4. OUR PROJECT DES IGN WAS APPROITED-- INTACT--BY THE PLANN ING COM-
MISSION (C.U.P. 385, T.T. 44039) AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING ON
JUNE 17, 1985. SUBSEQUENTLY, MR. PAUL VAN ARSDELL JR. AND MR.
H. ALLEN EVANS APPEALED THIS DECISION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING (I\j AUGUST 1, 1985, THE CITY COUNCIL
UNANIJoK)USLY DmIED THE APPEAL AND UPHELD THE PLANNING COM-
MISSION'S DECISION. ON AUGUST 21, 1985 THE ARCHITECTUAL
REV IEW BOARD APPROVED THE PROJECT CN THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
S. THE PLANNING STAFF REPORl' HAS CONSISTENTLY ROCOMMENDED APPROlJAL
OF THE PROJECT DESIGN--ROOF GARDENS INTACT--BEFORE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL, AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOIUUJ, AND
AGAIN RECOMMmDED APPROVAL--ROOF GARDENS INTACT--AT THE RECWT
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION (I\j APRIL 7, 1986.
6. AT THE RECENT PUBLIC HEARING APR1L 7, 1986, OUR PROJECT CAME UP
FOR DISCUSSICN AT ABOUT 12:30 A.M., APRIL 8, BEFORE A TRUNCATED
COMMISSION (THREE COMMISSIONERS LEFT EARLIER). COMMISSION
CHAIRPERSON PENNY PEARLMAN CALLED FOR A VOTE '10 APPROVE THE PRO-
JECT AT ABOUT 1:15 A.M.--ADDING THE CONDITION THAT THE ROOF GAR-
DENS BE ELIMINATED. WE FEEL THAT THIS CCNDITION WAS SLAPPED ON
OUT-OF-THE-BLUE WITH NO DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS
AND NO DISCUSSION BE'lWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC.
UNFORTUNATELY, AT'IORNEY VAN ARSDELL JR. DRAGGED THE CITY ALOOG
WITH OUR 1024 BAY STREET PROJECT INW THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR
COURT LAST YEAR, CLAIMING THAT THE CITY IMPROPERLY NOTIFIED RESI-
DENTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING, AND ALSO, iHAT THE CITY
MISINTERPRETED THE STATE STA'roTE COOCERNING "DENSITY BCNUSES. n
AS A RESULT, WE HAD ro START AGAIN FROM SQUARE ONE AND RESUBMIT A
NEW APPLICATION, CHANGING THE INCLUSIONARY UNIT, "AFFORDABLE ro
FAMILIES OF LCM TO MODERATE INCOME," TO ONE "AFFORDABLE TO FAMILIES
OF LCM INCOME." IN ANY CASE, OUR REVISED APPLICATION FEA'lURES A
BUILDING DESIGN VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL ro THE PREVIOUS ONE.
e
e
WE ARE EXCEEDINGLY PROUD OF OUR l?ROJECT~ WE BELIEVE THAT IT HONEST-
LY EXPRESSES 'lllE SOCIa-ENVIRONMENTAL CCNCERNS AND IDEALS TIlAT HAVE
INSPIRED AND MOTIVATED US FROM THE BEXiINNING: WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S
UNIQUELY CARING AND HUMANE, STYLISH, CHEERFUL AND SPORTY, THAT IT
IT EXUBERANTLY ACCOMODATES AND BECOMES OUR CITY I S OUTDOOR, SEA? IDE
OUR PROJEC'r ENHANCES THE REAL PRQPERrY VALUES AND THE GENERAL AES-
THETIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
LASTLY, FROM DAY ONE WE HAVE CCNSISTENTLY FOLLCMED THE CITY I S EVERY
GUIDELINE AND SUGGESTION. WE HAVE BEEN PATIENT BEYOND WORDS
THROUGHOUT THE ABSURD, COSTLY, EMBARRASSING LmAL IMBROGLIO MEN-
TIONED ABOVE. PLEASE 'mY AND UNDERSTAND HOW INDIGNANT AND APPN.J.JID
WE FEEL AT 'lllIS TIME, WITH '!HIS LAST DEALING BY THE PLANNING COM-
MISSION. WE NOW HUMBLY ASK THAT YOU OONSIDER THIS MA'I"1'ER RESPONSI-
BLY AND CONSIST~T WITH mE CITY I S OWN RECORD.
RE:JLLY SUBMITTED,
--
. 'h.'
------ ----;~-~,
i G..BANT WADA
'------I024 BAY STREET
~7A_~~
DANA PERRY ,/
1024 BAY S'lREET
ARCHITECT
I
.
GLEN $I'fA!.l. liMA
ARCHITECT ~.SSfJCIAYES
/20 THORNTON _ VENICE, CA 9029/
399-42:52
AprIl B, 19B6
CIty of Santa MOnica Plannmg CommIssIOn ChaIrwoman
Ms Penny Pearlman
510 18th Street
Santa MOnica, CA 90402
Re Plannmg CommIssIon Meeting - Apnl 7, 1986
Decls10n regardmg Agenda Item 7D - 1024 Bay Street..
Dear Ms Pearlman,
I want to take tins opportunlty to thank you and the CommisSIon for your tlme
and patience in hearing this case and for voting to approve the 1024 Bay
Street project
The point of thiS letter 1S to question the last minute change you made to
remove the garden roof deck Being the Plannlng Commission member that
proposed thIS deSIgn change at the very last minute, you have destroyed the
best ldea of thIS project. There was no recourse nor discussIon before you
voted to remove the most innovative ecological item to hit the Santa MonIca
roof scape since underground hOOk-Ups. No time was made avallable to make
known the extenslve drip Irrigation system throughOut the project Irlcludlng
the roof garden area that was deleted last night The ldea 15 so simple, and
has the chance to brlOg greenery to the roofs of Santa MonICa
I recently returned from Mex1co City where 1 stayed m a hotel wlth a garden
roof complete With extensIve grass and plants It was delightful I
personally have been encouraging ecologIcal concerns for 20 years I deSigned
the integrated, ecological, low Income housing project for the CIty of Los
Angeles called the Green Machine. The CIty of Los Angeles has a model of
mine In the fifth floor lobby of City Hall called Turf Town The whOle concept
is to step hlgh rlse development within a solar envelope and to put terraced
gardens on all roofs
In the 1024 Bay Street project we were trying, very hard, With the garden
roof to brmg about token replacement of the natural ground plane on the roof
The roof garden was really takmg condommlums and bringing a positive
enviornmental dimension to them. The idea of using the roof as a deck IS so
obv\ous The French architect, LeCortlus\er, made It popular With the Modern
Movement of contemporary archItecture, but It has been popular WIth
mId-eastern cultures for centuries. As land becomes less available, the roof
is the obvious place to put a garden or planted area
~.
, Apnl8, 1986
Page 2
e
e
In reference to the parapet and railing, refer to your own code per the
attached. The Id~a of viewmg from a roof deck eight feet hIgher or lower,
wlthm the gIven heIght restrictIOns that thIs project conforms to, IS
inconsequentIal unless you are so inclined to elIminate all Windows and decks
that vIew onto any nelghbor(s). Usmg the total roof area IS Important here,
gIVen that roof access IS still required for the mechanical equIpment located
on the roof.
I was shocked that after our scheme had been approved by your own Planning
CommIssion, City Counel and Architectural ReVIew Board last year, that you
could so hastily undo so much good. I feel you are a good person that has made
a hasty declslon
As J grow older, and confront so much negatIvism & Op'posltlon to positive,
productwe Ideas by people WIth a reasonable amount of mtelllgence, my hopes
for progresslVe change are dimmed.
Can you please Inform me how your unfortunate deCISIon regardmg thiS
matter can be rectIfIed?
S me ere Iy,
Glen Small AlA
cc. Ed KIrshner !
Eileen Hecht
Mehrdad Fanvar
Derek Shearer
Margo Hebald-Heymann
Larry I srae I
Karen Rosenberg
t.
.
~ :00 ~~'~'CQ ~ td
C'I) CD ~.. I:tCD.~ ~
, c;t" CP ,'n lU CP CLl, i=: ~
~~ 0 t:S a eo'~:
tQ ~~Cct Q1 ~ i1~,
~ ~ .,-, ~~ ~(1)
's:.'~~'ood' . CD~
~,\..,o J~'~ S ,~. .
~~.:~ S."d'fU.Pt~~
, 'u" ,'"1 =co o....t>>.
, .,.,. " 0 . t-:t
>,~,~t~.::ES. ~I
. \:~ )Ne('),.., ~-'~'ic:.
.', .":'OMS';a to. .jooOe
. . ...........~ ...... l+ C"i'"
" .-, .-(1) "'" .....0...
, ~.' .', '.. ,.\,Ior.......Q.... "
... "I.. J.t o\J I
',,:,;,d'::e~=f'~'~ m,~',
'}P!"~1tI ..: .,,; ~ C\.:' ":r1 c:+r
':'::. SD: C'fo.= 0' tJoI~,
....;,~ ~o'~.. ....
! '" C]) t'i '0 . "
"'SD . g, 0' lo'1:!
,:.~'. '1:0"...... ~ .',
. " , J~f P;' ~.~ CD ~ '. .
,'. CD al [::3 ......0 f-L
,: ~., '. l:j ~ l:j . .
m. ," CD I"I~ M CI) ~
Q..ro-1~'- c:"'. <:)
.... .. ^. . ~ eto~
, .",' p:I CD 0..... P ~
.: .' ~ ''':. ct t:1 · ,
':> ~t-te+cT,~.P' fD
. ~d- .......~~ '1-4t.
· . ....o~o
. "~' (l) ..., ~I"$ .~,
. '. .t:::l CO.'e+oU1 c:+o
". ~:, r ... 1"'\..... ~ ..... p..
.. , ,.~,... ;::: Poi := (t)
.' ~~OQ (') .'('"j......
~', SD ~,C\) ~ ~ ~ 53;
, 'w - \ c+oC"c;.w'
,._, .~ ~~ 0 .- 0 ..... rn."
" .,r ..t-lI 0 0 .....
.,:. SD S "t:1.q =.<
.,. ,p'..:cpo C/'
c :"~;'If7'KIII;;'.J,.~.':
Ul-:JG,. 4 ~ ...~. ilIII
olD"'. itII-- '"
~ fto_::i_ -Q .Q.
_l~ ~ :.~ ~ e: l'T lot ~
~.o~:; ~ ~ ~.g !' S:.
~~~ 0 ~~ ~~ g ~g
n ~::I ~ (I .. I>> Q , Gl
:1"0 1.'111,._ I _
~=-~ ~~ :!;
",;r",. - ~ B_
i~:~::~ ;-~;~
"":r)1,, sa 0
1I-0Dl>>t.. 0.,.,..
n ~ =_ItJ... ~ _ ~
~.,.:r:l= - !:;:~:I
~~~~i; ~..."=
~.,:g.(:~ ~~:S
Q~it=.~ ~ ~ i:'\D
;;~9 ~"'= w a. ~
:~;;:~ ~ C\~\O
..,.-.olQ A. a. AI Q .,8
\,W~ c: ~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~: ~ ~ ~t
0"" "'"3 "'"....."..
:.g-,: ~ ~ ~ ~:..
~. =....cr - ~ sea
~:;~; ~ 0' ;.rJ~
"':.~~ ~ :-... u:a~
:C:a:~ ~ ,. S ~
~ ;';'; ~ Q ~ ~
~ Q.,"':::I ".,:;1.
;;-Q~~:t..~~ !;..
. :J4II'ADI ,c-~ ~
'S'."s: ~ 0 ~
~d ~!.~ ""'~ ~
1"1"0 ng~ .., fI ~WI
[~: QI:r ! ~ ~:
~~i~i ~:: ~~
_a~ 1"'1' .,,_
..c g.CI ...'111( ra:J
~:;>t:J~ ~.a-III~-Pt;:;rll~
;: ;-=~ ~ 0 c; t::""
~tQJr"'-~ ~III '8
~~;;;;" 8~ ~ ~~
. "< ~~~ ""': r"
'"V~ ~ :t ~ 0. ~ g~
., II' -II n 0 HO
.g ;:~ ~'" ~..~.:<
~ g :;-0 . ~ ...
~::~ AI ~ ;"'2. :
~~~~~ ;~ i
~:~S"~ '''g ~ .....
w <:.. a.. ,,::r
-C1I'1) iD C1I A
~~ ... S . ~ c ~
~ n :J 0 ~:: ;~
~: f:: ~:... ".'
!I ~'II;;-2. ~ ~
(1,..-'" m
~~Oc.S.a:-:=' ;:
ft:.t.c ~.~ -g
~=i gor ~~ ~
_0"'111" '!. g
';:;~~~~" ~
~~~~!. ~
~~ ~!il~ ~
Ql ~ -""'0 - 1 .., ....1:
-"_::::1;1 :II
~3~.~ ~
'<~~UlO ~
!~ ~ ~ i tI
0..0. I>> IofI
I~~~;m;
va"aAl .::
"~fi....i! ~ .
-... Erlo't 11'1
C:-~ ;J rf
'ii
c
~
::I
o
..
...
"
n
l!
;::
It,
I.
.
€Xftl~} D
.
DR {."o. ~a.T-
14.~.
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT.
NUMBER: TTM 44039, CUP 413
LOCATION: 1024 Bay Street
APPLICANT: Grant Wada
REQUEST: To Per~~t the Re~oval of a S~ngle Fa~ily Ho~e and
the Construction of a Six Unit Condo~iniu~.
PLANKING COMMISSION ACTION:
4-7-86
Date.
x
Approved based on the fOllowing findings and
subJect to the condit~ons below.
Denied.
Other.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subd~v1s~on, together w1th its prov~sion for
1ts des1gn and ~~prove~ents, ~s conslstent with appllcab1e
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Mon1ca, speclfically the density and urban design policles
of the Land Use Ele~ent, the c1rcu1at1on policies of the
Circulatlon E1e~ent and the ~ncluslonary hous~ng require-
~ent of the Haus1ng Ele~ent.
2. The slte 1S phys1cally sUltable for the proposed type of
develop'Uent 1n that the proJect w1ll be developed 1n ac-
cordance wlth the Land Use Ele~ent denslty standards and
Mun1C1pal Code property develop~ent standards of the R2
zone.
3. The site lS physlcally suitable for the proposed density
of develop~en~ 1n that six un1ts including one inclusion-
~ry un1t wlll be prov1ded In accordance w1th the Land Use
Ele'Uent dens~ty standards of the R2 zone, Progra'U 12 of
the Hous~ng Ele'Uent and the State I s denslty bonus prav~-
sion under Govern~ent Code Sect10n 65915.
4. The des1gn of the subd~vision or the proposed i'Uprove~ents
will not cause substant~a1 environ'Uental da~age or sub-
stant~ally and avo~dably inJure fish or w~ldlife or the1r
- 1 -
.
.
habitat in that the condo~lnlu~ proJect is categorlcally
exe~pt fro~ CEQA.
5.
The deslgn of the subdlvision or the type of
will not cause serlOUS publlC health proble~s
proposed proJect is a condO~lnlU~ proJect
develop~ent 1n the ne1ghborhood.
l~prove~ent
ln that the
tYPlcal of
6. The design of the subdivislon or the type of i~prove~ents
wlll not confl1ct wlth ease~ents, acq,-ured by the publlC
at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed subdlvlslon In that the proJect is a
condo~inlu'll.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use and locatlon are In accordance with good
zoning practlce, in the publlC lnterest and necessary that
substantlal justlce be done in that a ~ultlple fa~ily
residential condo~inlu~ lS tYPlcal of the kind of develop-
~ent In the nelghborhood and lS a per~ltted use in the R2
zone.
2+ The proposed use is co~patible with existlng and potentlal
uses wlthln the general area, traffic or parklng conges-
tlon wlll not result, the publlC health, safety and
general welfare are protected and no har~ to adjacent
propertles wlll result ln that 12 parklng spaces are pro-
vlded on slte In a co~~on subterranean garage wlth access
fro~ the alley.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Plans for flnal design and landscaplng shall be subJect to
revlew and approval by the Architectural ReVlew Board.
2. The Archltectural Review Board, 1n thelr reVlew, shall pay
partlcular attentlon to the project's landscape and lr-
rigation plan, partlcularly for the roof deck, vlning on
the b'.uldlng, proposed balcony and window treat~ent and
the artlculatlon of the north and south elevatlons facing
Bay street and the alley respectively.
3. Plans for flnal design shall include the deletion of the
upper roof deck above the ~ezzan1ne level.
4. Mlnor a~end~ents to the plans shall be subJect to approval
by the Dlrector of Planning. An lncrease of 'IIore than 10%
of the square footage or a slgnlficant change In the ap-
proved concept shall be subject to Plannlng CO~~lSSlon
ReVlew. Constructlon shall be In substantlal confor~ance
wlth the plans Sub~ltted or as ~odifled by the Plannlng
CO~~lsslon, Archltectural ReVlew Board or Dlrector of
Plannlng.
- 2 -
.
.
5. The applicant shall c01J1ply w1th all legal requ1re'tlents
regard1ng prov1s1ons for the disabled, including those set
forth 1n the Callfornla Ad1J1inistratlve Code, Tltle 24,
Part 2.
6. Flnal park1ng lot layout and speclflcat10ns Wh1Ch shall be
subJect to the review and approval of the Park1ng and
Traffic Eng1neer.
7. project des1gn shall co'tlply with the build1ng energy reg-
ulat10ns set forth 1n the Cal1fornla Ad'tl1n1strative Code,
T1tle 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservation Standards for New
Residential BU11dings), such confor1J1ance to be ver1f1ed by
the BU11ding and Safety D1V1S10n prior to lssuance of a
BU11ding Per'tllt.
8. An openable w1ndow or openable skyllght shall be provided
1n at least one bathroo'tl 1n each un1t. The proJect shall
provide adequate natural light 1n the kitchen.
9. Street trees shall be 'tIainta1ned, relocated or provided as
requ1red in a 1J1anner consistent w1th the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the spec1ficat10ns of the Depart1J1ent
of Recreation and Parks and the Depart1J1ent of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be re1J1oved w1thout the ap-
proval of the Depart1J1ent of Recreatlon and Parks.
10.
The eX1sting dr1veway and apron,
shall be re1J1oved and the eX1st1ng
standard curb and gutter per the
Depart1J1ent of General SerV1ces.
located on Bay Street
c1.lrb cut replaced wlth
speclficat10ns of the
11. Any outdoor 11ght1ng shall be shielded and/or d1rected
away fro1J1 adJacent res1dent1al properties, W1 th any such
11ght1ng not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illu1J11nat10n
beyond the per11J1eter of the subject property.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
1. All off slte i'1lprove'1lents requ1red by the C1ty Eng1neer
shall be installed. Plans and spec1flcatlons for off 51te
i'1lprove'1lents shall be prepared by a reglstered C1Vl1 en-
gineer and approved by the C1ty Engineer.
2. Before the C1ty Engineer '1lay approve the final '1lap, a sub-
d1vls1on i1J1prove1J1ent agree'TIent for all off slte l'uprove-
'TIents requlred by the C1ty Eng1neer shall be prepared and
a perfor1J1ance bond posted through the Clty Attorney's
office.
3. The tentative 'TIap shall exp1re 24 '1lonths after approval,
except as provided 1n the prov1s10ns of Cal1fornla Govern-
'1lent Code Sect10n 66452.6 and Sect10ns 9380-9382 of the
Santa Monica MunlC1pal Code. Dur1ng thlS ti1J1e period the
final 1J1ap shall be presented to the C1 ty of Santa Monica
for approval.
- 3 -
.
.
4. The rlghts granted hereln through approval of a cond~t~on-
al 'lse per'llit shall be effect~ve only when exercised ~n
connection wlth Tentatlve Tract Map 44039.
5. The developer shall provide the Englneering Depart'llent of
the Clty of Santa Monlca wlth one Dizal Cloth print
reproductlon and 'lllcrofil'll of each sheet of the flnal 'llap
after recordation.
6. Prlor to approval of the flnal 'llap, Condo'llin~u'll Assocla-
tlon By-Laws (~f applicable) and a Declarat~on of CC & R's
shall be reviewed and approved by the Clty Attorney. The
CC & R's shall contain a nond~scr~'llinat~on clause as pres-
ented ~n Sect~on 9392 (SMMC) and contain such provis~ons
as are requ~red by Section 9l22E (SMMC).
7. Payment of the Condo'lliniu'll Tax of $1,000 per unl t and
QU~'llby fee of $200 per un~t shall be requlred pr~or to the
issuance of bUllding per'll~ts.
INCLUSIONARY UNIT CONDITIONS
1. The developer shall covenant and agree Wl th the Cl ty of
Santa Mon~ca to the spec~f~c ter'lls, condltlons and
restrlctions upon the possesslon, use and enJoY'llent of the
subJect property, which ter'lls, conditions and restrlctions
shall be recorded wlth the Los Angeles County Recorder I s
offlce as a part of the deeds and Covenants, Condltlons
and Restrlctlons of Tract 44039, to ensure that one af-
fordable un~ t ~s provided and 'lla~nta~ned over ti'lle and
through subsequent sales of the property. An affordable
un~ t shall be defined as belng affordable to households
with inco'lles not exceedlng 80% of the (BUD) Los Angeles
County 'lledian inco'lle, expending not over 25% of 'llonthly
inCO'lle on housing costs, as specified by the Santa Monica
Houslng Authorlty.
This agree'llent shall be executed and recorded prlor to the
issuance of bUlldlng per'lllts. Such agree'llent shall speci-
fy 1) responSlblll ties of the developer for 'llaklng the
unlt avallable to potentlal buyers and coordlnatlng that
process with the Clty of Santa Monlca Houslng Authorlty,
and 2) responslbllitles of the Clty of Santa Monlca to
prepare appllcatlon for'lls for potentlal buyers, establlsh
criterla for quallficatlons, reVlew appllcatlons and pro-
vlde eliglble appllcants to the developer, and enforce the
provlsions of the agree'llent.
I hereby certify that this State'llent of
accurately reflects the final dete~ination
CO'll'llission of the City of Santa Monica.
Official Action
of the Planning
- 4 -
stcup413
KR:nh
4-9-86
.
.
s1gnature
date
pr1nt na~e and t~tle
- 5 -
, '\ V
\ "'
!\
e
eXtt1plT ~ e
fEB 2. 7 1986
PAUL M VAN ARSCELL. JR
S5.S SOLJTr-I ~...OWEj;;! ST~EE~
FO~TY-S:XTr-I F'_OOR
LOS ANGEL-ES. CALIFORNIA Ilt0071-~4ee
February 25, 1986
Ms. Penny Perlman, Chairperson
Plann~ng Commiss~on of the City
of Santa Monica
c/o Santa Monica Planning
Department
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Second Application of Grant wada
T.T. 44039, C.U.P. 413
1024 Bay street, Santa Monica, CA
Dear Ms. Perlman:
We respectfully request the Planning
Commission to defer and stay its consideration of
the referenced application until the conclusion of
judicial proceedings now being prosecuted by the
applicant, Mr. Grant Wada.
On February 20, 1986, I learned that Mr.
Wada has contested an adverse ruling of the
super~or court by pet~tioning the Court of Appeals
of the State of California for an order entitling
hlm to go forward with his first application (T.T.
44039, C.U.P. 385) to develop the same property
addressed by his second application. As you know,
The Plann~ng Commission already has ruled favorably
on the first applicatlon, and Mr. Wada ultimately
seeks the reinstatement of this rUling.
Through his counsel, Mr. Wada also has
advised me that he intends to prosecute his
petltion in the Supreme Court of California and in
e
e
Ms. Penny Perlman
February 25, 1986
Page Two
the Supreme Court of the United States, if
necessary. Thus, Mr. wada has decided voluntarily
to go forward with his first application and to
contest the adverse ruling by the superior court.
Signiflcantly, Mr. Wada has failed to disclose his
decislon and the pending judicial proceedings to
the Planning Commission.
Under these circumstances, it seems
entirely improper for Mr. Wada to ask the Planning
Commission to adjudlcate the second appllcation
while at the same time requiring the courts to
ad)udlcate an lnconsistent prior appllcation to
develop the same property. The tactics that Mr.
Wada is attempting to employ maxlmize the expense
to the Plannlng Commission and to the City Council
as well as to his neighbors whom he knows oppose
his application.
These tactlcs also subject the Clty to
the risk of inconsistent adJudications. If, for
example, the Planning Commission and the City
Council approve the pending application and if the
courts allow the prior application, which tract map
is to be recorded? Which set of restr icti ve
covenants belongs in the deed to the inclusionary
unlt? Similarly, lf the opposing neighbors or the
applicant seeks judicial review of any decisions
made on the second appllcation, that reVlew
probably will be unavailable until the courts
finally resolve Mr. Wada's first application.
In shor t, because Mr. Wad a has decided
to prosecute the flrst application through the
courts, the second application does not present an
issue that is ripe for adjudication by the Planning
Commission. Indeed, were the Planning Commission
to decide to adjudicate the second application,
that decision would subject the City and the
neighbors who oppose the pending appllcation to
irreparable harm in the form of a multiplicity of
administrative and )udiclal proceedlngs, the very
\ ~"f'
e
e
Ms. Penny Perlman
February 25, 1986
Page Three
real possibility of inconsistent results, and the
unnecessary expend1ture of rather substantial
amounts of time and money litigating one battle in
two or more adjudicative forums.
To assist you and the Planning Commission in
dec1ding whether and how to adjudicate the second
applIcation, we hereby incorporate by reference all
transcripts and written materials filed in
connection with Mr. Wada's first application (T.T.
44039, C.U.P. 385), its appeal to the CIty Council,
and all subsequent judicial proceedings, includIng
those now pending. Copies of these materials are
available from the Planning Commission staff and
from the office of the City Attorney. By copy of
thIs letter to the Planning Director, we hereby
request that all these materials be included in the
packets prepared for the commissioners.
Finally, If the Planning Commission is
inclIned not to defer adjudication of the second
application (and we agaIn urge that adjudication
be deferred), please note that the Secretary of the
Planning Commission has provided defective notice
of a hearing to be held on March 3, 1986, regardIng
the second applicatIon. The notice is defective
because It was not published or mailed 1n
accordance with the time limits set forth in
SectIon 9360 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and
because the explanation given in the notice does
not adequately describe or explain the unusual and
complex nature of the Issues to be considered.
Thank you for your consIderatIon of these
issues and for your contInued courtesy.
very truly yours,
;L~.d-~,~.
Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.
cc: Jonathan S. Horne, Esq.,
Deputy City Attorney
Ms. Ann Slracusa,
Planning Director
. .
4
e
8Xtt/plT F-
e
April 3, 1986
BY PERSONAL DELIVERY
Commissioners
Planning Commission of the
City of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Second Application of Grant Wada;
T.T. 44039, C.U.P. 413;
1024 Bay Street, Santa Monica, CA
Dear Commissioners:
The purpose of this letter is to set forth the
position of those neighborhood residents who oppose the
pending application by Grant Wada to develop the property at
1024 Bay Street. Your file on the development of this pro-
perty, which we incorporate by reference, already contains
letters and petitions signed by 80 to 100 neighborhood resi-
dents who object to Mr. Wada's plan to construct a six-unit
condominium on this lot, and this letter summarizes and sup-
plements those materials.
We ask that at the hearing on April 7, 1986, you
make either of two rulings: (1) to continue the hearing,
or (2) to deny the application.
We ask you to continue the hearing for five inde-
pendent reasons:
(1) the enactment of the proposed "in-lieu"
fee ordinance will accommodate the City's policy of
providing housing for persons of low or moderate income
and will eliminate the developer's economic need or fi-
nancial incentive to burden a five-unit lot with a six-
unit condom~nium building;
--------
~
e
e
Commissioners
April 3, 1986
Page 2
(2) the enactment of the proposed comprehen-
sive amendment to the zoning ordinance will make the
proposed development unlawful;
(3) the developer is simultaneously pursuing
judicial remedies to reinstate your ruling on his first
proposal for development;
( 4) the notice of hearing in the c ircum-
stances of this application was legally ineffective;
and
(5) the staff report on the proposed develop-
ment, which restates almost verbatim the report on Mr.
Wada's first application, was withheld by staff from
opposing neighbors until April 3, 1986, effectively de-
priving them of any meaningful opportunity to contest
in writing certain serious errors and misstatements of
fact and of law contained in the report.
If you decide not to continue the hearing and to
consider the merits of the application, we ask you to deny
the application for the reasons expressed in our opposition
to the developer's previous application to develop this lot
(See, e.g., Exhibits E and F) and for the additional reason
that the density bonus unit sought by the applicant is
unlawful in the circumstances of this case.
To assist you in understanding our opposition to
the application, you will find the following materials as
exhibits to this letter:
Exhibit A.
Peremptory Writ of Mandamus (dated
January 23, 1986, directing the Planning
Commission to set aside its decision of
June 17, 1985, which granted Mr. Wada's
first application to construct a six-
unit condominium at 1024 Bay Street).
Order of the Court of Appeal (dated
February 27, 1986, denying Mr. Wada's
petition for a writ to reverse the de-
cision of the lower court and to rein-
state the decision of the Planning
Commission) .
Exhibit B:
Commissioners
April 3, 1986
Page 3
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
e
e
Letter to Chairperson of Planning
Commission (dated February 25, 1986.
requesting the Planning Commission not
to rule on the pending application until
Mr. Wada concludes his judicial prosecu-
tion of his first application in the
Supreme Court of California and in the
Supreme Court of the United States).
Summary of Problems and Requested Solu-
tions (dated June 17, 1985, summarizing
grounds of opposition and proposed solu-
tions) .
Statement by Opposing Neighbors (dated
June 17, 1985, setting forth grounds of
opposition to Mr. Wada's first applica-
tion) .
Letter of November 26, 1985 to City
Attorney from Mr. Wada's lawyer (and re-
buttal thereto dated November 27. 1985)
(purporting to confirm an agreement with
the City to enact emergency legislation
to permit Mr. Wada to construct a six-
unit condominium on his lot by May 26,
1986) .
Petition for Writs of Administrative
Mandamus, Mandamus, Certiorari and For
Injunctive Relief (without Exhibits)
(dated September 11, 1985).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues
and for your continued courtesy.
Very truly yours.
~#(. ~ a'.'r.e.e/;)
Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.
~
LA.I.BAJI .. W.A'IKIR.
A!'1'ORNftB ....., LAw
Lo. Maa1.a.
."-
1 LATHAM & WATKINS
J. Spencer Letts
2 Paul M. Van Arsdell. Jr.
555 South Flower Street
3 Los Angeles, California 90071
4 (213) 485-1234
5 Attorneys for Petitioner
Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
e
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PAUL M. VAN ARSDELL, JR.,
an individual,
Petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA. a
charter city; CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
an agency of the City of Santa
Monica; PLA~~ING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, an
agency of the City of Santa
Monica,
Respondents.
GRANT WADA, an individual,
Real Party in Interest.
The People of the State of California
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 565 342
PEREMPTORY ~~IT OF
MANDAMUS
To The City of Santa Monica, a charter city, the City Council of
the City of Santa Monica, an agency of the City of Santa Monica,
and the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica, an
agency of the City of Santa Monica, Respondents:
LA.nu.. 6; W.l.TIWQI
ATTORN.-D A.-I LAw
....0. ANOKU..
(
e
e
1
Judgment having been entered in this action, ordering
that a peremptory writ of mandamus be issued from this Court,
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED immediately on receipt of
this writ to set aside your decisions dated August 13, 1985, and
June 17, 1985. in the administrative proceedings entitled
Application of Grant Wada, T.T. 44039, C.U.P 385, which proceed-
ings are hereby remanded to you, and to reconsider your action
in light of ~his Court's rulings granting Petitioner's motion
for stw-~ary judgment, and to take any further action specially
enjoined upon you by law; but nothing in this writ shall limit
or control in any way the discretion legally vested in you; and
YOU ARE FURTHER CO}~ED to make and file a return to
this writ on or before {''p-/-,J c/ . l~ setting forth what
- - /
you have done to comply.
.MH23&i6
FfUlNK s. lOLtN. Oaullb' <<M
Clerk
~./.{$. Deputy
;/ t! { YAPKdwlTl
Clerk
LET THE
FOREGOING WRIT ISSUE.
~V,/!il-.
/J J
JOH~LE
Judge of the Superior Court
Dated:
2
-
,e
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
GRANT WADA, an individual,
Petitioner,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
B018978
(Super.Ct.No. C656342)
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent,
~?r.:fir G~ loP;'::;l . SC:J ,J L
IT, l' _
'i' ;, ri ",
l--l d ~ I
PAUL VAN ARSDELL, an individual,
Real Party in Interest.
FEB 2 71986
CLAY ROt;uh~, _ .
~~:..!.. -
THE COURT:
The petition for writ of mandamus, filed February 19,
1986, has been read and considered.
The petition is denied. (Sherwood v. Superior Court
(1979) 24 Ca1.3d 183, 186-187.)
e
e
~AUL M VAN ARSCEL.L.. JR
.~'5- 50U"'''' 'LOW'tcr STArr'
rOIl:n... Sllll:T.... PLooa
1..0. ANOR:LKS c;ALI"O"NIA .Oo'......ee
February 25, 1986
Ms. Penny Perlman, Chairperson
Planning CommIssion of the City
of Santa Monlca
c/o Santa Monica Planning
Department
Ci ty Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Second Application of Grant Wada
T.T. 44039, C.U.P. 413
1024 Bay Street, Santa Monica, CA
Dear Ms. Perlman:
We respectfully request the Planning
Commission to defer and stay its consideration of
the referenced application until the conclusion of
judicial proceedings now being prosecuted by the
applicant, Mr. Grant Wada.
On February 20, 1986, I learned that Mr.
Wada has contested an adverse ruling of the
super lor court by petitioning the Court of Appeals
of the State of California for an order entitling
him to go forward with his first application (T.T.
44039, C.U.P. 385) to develop the same property
addressed by his second application. As you know,
The Planning Commission already has ruled favorably
on the first application, and Mr. Wada ultimately
seeks the reinstatement of this ruling.
Through his counsel, Mr. Wada also has
adVIsed me that he intends to prosecute his
petitIon in the Supreme Court of California and in
J-
e
e
Ms. Penny Perlman
February 25, 1986
Page TIoIo
the Supreme Court of the United States, if
necessary. Thus, Mr. Wada has decided voluntarily
to go forward with his first application and to
contest the adverse rul ing by the super ior cour t.
Significantly, Mr. Wada has failed to disclose his
decision and the pending judicial proceedings to
the Planning Commission.
Under these circumstances, it seems
entlrely improper for Mr. Wada to ask the Planning
Commission to adjudicate the second application
while at the same time requiring the courts to
adjudicate an inconsistent prior application to
develop the same property. The tactics that Mr.
Wada is attempting to employ maximize the expense
to the Planning Commission and to the City Council
as well as to his neighbors whom he knows oppose
his application.
These tactics also subject the Clty to
the risk of inconsistent adjudications. If, for
example, the Planning Commission and the City
Council approve the pending application and if the
courts allow the prior application, which tract map
is to be recorded? Which set of restrictive
covenants belongs in the deed to the inclusionary
unit? Similarly, if the opposing neighbors or the
applicant seeks )UdlClal review of any decisions
made on the second application, that review
probably will be unavailable until the courts
flnally resolve Mr. Wada's first application.
In short, because Mr. Wada has decided
to prosecute the flrst application through the
courts, the second application does not present an
issue that is ripe for adJudication by the Planning
Commission. Indeed, were the Planning Commission
to decide to adJudicate the second application,
that decislon would subject the City and the
neighbors who oppose the pendlng application to
irreparable harm in the form of a multiplicity of
adminlstrative and Judicial proceedings, the very
e
e
Ms. Penny Perlman
February 25, 1986
Page Three
real possibility of inconsistent results, and the
unnecessary expenditure of rather substantial
amounts of time and money litigating one battle in
two or more adJudicative forums.
To assist you and the Planning Commission in
deciding whether and how to adjudicate the second
application, we hereby incorporate by reference all
transcripts and written materials filed in
connection with Mr. Wada's first application (T.T.
44039, C.U.P. 385), its appeal to the City Council,
and all subsequent judicial proceedings, including
those now pending. Copies of these materials are
available from the Planning Commission staff and
from the office of the City Attorney. By copy of
this letter to the Planning Director, we hereby
request that all these materials be included in the
packets prepared for the commissioners.
Finally, if the Planning Commission is
lnclined not to defer adjudication of the second
application (and we again urge that adjudication
be deferred), please note that the Secretary of the
Planning Commission has provlded defective notice
of a hearing to be held on March 3, 1966, regarding
the second application. The notice is defective
because it was not published or malled in
accordance with the tlme limits set forth in
Sectlon 9360 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and
because the explanation given in the notlce does
not adequately describe or explain the unusual and
complex nature of the issues to be considered.
Thank you for your consideration of these
issues and for your contlnued courtesy.
Very truly yours,
;Z~IA.?L~,~.
Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.
cc: Jonathan S. Horne, Esq.,
Deputy Clty Attorney
Ms. Ann Siracusa,
Planning Dlrector
~
.
June 11. 1985
lwaul or nolLlllS .um UQUUDII IOLDrIOU
e.v.'. In, 1124 MY IDU1'
Problem RD. 1: tbe prope.e' 'evelopaent l' I J-I~or, bUJl'lO& an' exce.', ~be
clt". bellbt ll.ltl~lon. tor en &-2 aone.
Solution. la~uire t.e developer to ellainete tbe upper root-top deck an'
tbe 3-foot vall Dr rai1Jaa aroun' Jt.
Problem RD. 2: tbe prope'll'. upper roof-top deck aDd dlr.ctl, oPpo'Jte vindow.
undul, lIlv.de tb. DlJlbbot.' rilbt. to prJ.ac,.
Solution: le~uJre the dIY.lop.r to d"lln vJndow. to ..a~le privlc, tor
reudentl of botb bUJldlaa' ad to eh.inete the uppar root-top liV10& aplce.
Probln liD. 3: The propond d..elopaent h ,Duro_atlll, IIarafl1l frOll tile
.t'Ddpoln~ of .aJ.tJAI tr.... aD' tile ....loper.. eDvlro~n~.l Japact .t.t"'Dt
i. lDaCCur.te .nd '0.. DOt .ffect tile pl.n .a pre.ented. aec.u.e of tile ,.r..e
de'lln, tbe CJt,'. tr.e DC the parkwl' vill llk.l, be kJlled an4 the 'XJ.tiaa 20'
J.clrandl tr.e ClnDOt be trln.pllDted .. '1JI&e.ted.
Solution: le~UJr' that the ,Ir..e .aten' DO flrtb.r tban the eit,'. front-
,.rd ..tbaek r,~ulr"'Dt. Al.o re~uJre the dev.loper to fllp the pllD eo ..
to Ie... tb. j.e.r.ud. tr.. iD It. pr"'Dt 'Jde ,ar' loc.tlon aud to allow
tbe pllntJa& of otller tr... in tb. .ide ,.rd to provi'e a"JtJoGal pri..c,.
Problem 110. 4: The propon' ...elOpaeDt u 'DVho~Dt.ll, IIaraful frOll the
.tlDdpolDt ot eoerl' u..... The .nVlroDaent.l benefit. of tbe propo.al'. aol.r
beltJDI .,.tea Ire fIr outveJlb.. b, tbe detr~Dt.l incr.a.e. (30%) of the COlt
of be.tlDI tbe flve "JaceDt dvellJO&' .t 1030 .1' Itr.et. The 'eveloper baa
DOt 'UDaltte' tbt re~ulr" lnal,lil of tbele eff.ctl, IDd .pp..rl DOt to ba..
CODll'.re' thea .t .11.
Solutl0D: le~ulre the 'lYeloper to aullait tbe eit,-r,~ulr.d 'Dal,.i. of tbe
.ffectl of tbe propole' 'ev.lopaeut OD ID.rl' uI&le in l.jacIDt propertJ",
10 tllat the CommlllJOD cau ..ke au iDforaed ruliDi OD tbe applicltJou.
Probl... RD. 5: Tbe propole' developaeDt a.verely reltrict. li.ht end lir to tbe
flve dvellJaal at 1030 '1' Street. the propoled lIuil'inl ea.tl a 100% lba'OV
over tbe 'Dtlre ve.t 'lde of tbe adjlcent r..ideDce. oD tbe r.quir.d ....Ur...Dt
date. In' reduce. naturll ventil.tioD b, blocklDl tbe pr.v.illD& oc..n br......
Solution, aequire the dlY.lop.r to flip tbe pl.n. 1..V10& 10 - 15 f..t
b.~veeu tbe bUll'lD&1 JUlt.I' of 5 - 9 f..t.
'robl~. No.6: The propo..' development'l ICC.II to it. unit. from tb~ un',~-
Irouu' Ilrll' pro.ot.. UlIllfe IDd iDI'CU~' bouliDl.
SolutioD: aequire the provi.ioR of JRterior Iccell froa the ..r..el to tbe
dvelllO& lJDitl ID' .pproprilt. .~curit, latel to prevent UDlutbo~l&~' Intr,
to tbe lar..e aDd to tbe li'e .Ilkw., bet.een aile, aDd Itr.et.
Probl" No.7: the propoll' developelellt hat na lJDiu. 'lbe ..xi.... '.nut, for
the lot i. f~ve lJD~t.. Applic.ble It.t. l.v provi'e. I deulit, boUUI to pe~Jt a
lia UDlt dev.lopment onl, if tK2 of tbe UDlt. Ire delilDlte' for low to mod.rlt.
incoae. The developer b.. dtlilGat.d onl, ImI. lJDit for 1"" to _der.t. JDClIIUI.
SolutJon: leduce tbe pl'D to five lJDJtl. iDcludlDi Due low-to-ao'erat. iucome
unlt, or, for. .ix-uDJt pl.n. re~uire two lov-to-.oderlte lncom. lJDitl.
Problem No.8: tbe liRlle-t"ll, appelrance aud fe.llD1 in tbe uei.bborhoo' vill
be '..tro)'ed b)' 'Iyelopaeutl of tbi. t,p..
Solution: lequlre the developer to 10 blck to the dravina lIoard to de.iln a
pl.n that fitl our Dtllbborboo' .. ..11 '1 bl1 deyelope.ntll IDV.lope.
H. Allen Ev.UI
'Iul K. VlliAr,'ell. Jr.
1030 II.)' Street. Out" 4 .
Slnta MoU1C., CA 90405
1030 .., Str..t. VDit I 1
SantI MonicI. CA 90405
e
e
STATEMENT BY OPPOSING NEIGHBORS
. (June 17,1985)
My name is Paul Van Arsde11. I live at 1030 Bay
Street. 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
this block of time. As you know from the letters and
petitions that I'm told are in your 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 hear ing 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 with 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
e
e
develop his property. In short, we hope to persuade you
to require the developer to go back to the drawing board
and to submit 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 constructive, workable solution to
each problem that we've identified in the development as
presently proposed.
I have three jobs to do tonight for the
neighborhood. First, I've been asked to supplement the
points that were made by the neighbors who spoke at the
last hearing. Second, as I supplement those points, I've
been asked to point out some errors in the addendum to the
staff report, which was prepared after the last meeting.
Third, I will explain why the development as proposed is
unlawful under applicable state statutes and under Santa
Monica's general plan as well. In connection with my
third job, and at the conclusion of our statement of
opposition, I'll provide a written list of suggested
changes to the proposed development which, if required by
you and implemented by the developer, would eliminate many
of the defects that make his plan unworkable in this
neighborhood and unlawful in this City.
On June 3, ten neighbors were able to speak in
opposition to the proposal before you again tonight.
2
e
e
Other neighbors who were opposed to the proposal deferred
their time until tonight. Still others were here to
support the neighborhood opposition, but did not speak or
had to leave before the item came 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 neighbors. rights to privacy. The roofdeck is a
living area designed for use as such. It is, 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
~.
e
e
almost every facing window on at least elghteen
surrounding dwellingp and into countless yards.
The proposed development further invades the
privacy of the neighbors who live in the five homes that
are less than ten feet away at 1030 Bay 5 treet. The
windows facing east in the proposed development are
exactly opposite the windows facing west from 1030 Bay
Street, and the views into the master bedrooms and
bathrooms are virtually 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 solution to the privacy problem is to
require the developer to design window placements and
window treatments that maximize privacy to the residents
of both buildings and to eliminate the roofdeck living
area.
3. The development as proposed is
environmentally harmful from the standpoint of existing
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 City's front
sidewalk and will kill the City's tree on the parkway by
4
~e
e
destroying its root system. Because the garage extends
all the way under the front yard, the existing 20-foot
jacaranda tree which is now three feet from the east
sidelot line and which the developer proposes to
transplant to the front yard, will also die when planted
into the two or three feet of earth that will cover the
garage and will constitute a front yard. Indeed, it is
hard to imagine that any substantial trees or other live
landscaping will survive in two feet of earth.
Furthermore, the placement of the underground garage in
the front yard may be inconsistent with the City'S setback
requirements and impermissibly increases the effective
percentage of the lot that is covered by the building.
The solution to this problem is to require the
developer to propose a five-unit development, to nflipn on
reverse the proposed plan so as to leave the jacaranda
tree where it is along the sideyard and to allow the
planting of additional trees in the sideyard to provide
further prlvacy, and to refuse to permit the garage to
extend forward of the City'S setback requirements.
4. The development as proposed is
environmentally harmful from the standpoint of energy
usage. The environmental benefits of the proposal's solar
heating system are far outweighed by the corresponding
detriment to the five adjacent dwellings at 1030 Bay
5
e
e
Street, the energy usage of each of which wIll increase by
at least 30% as the result of their complete loss of solar
heat in the winter. Contrary to the suggestion in the
addendum to the staff report, the Developer has not
submi tted any analysis of these effects whatsoever, and
indeed he appears not to have considered them at all. The
solution to this problem is 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 this, the commission cannot make
an informed ruling on the application until he does.
5. The development as proposed unduly and
unnecessarily restricts light and air to the five adjacent
homes at 1030 Bay Street. As designed, the proposed
development casts a 100% shadow over the entire west side
of the homes at 1030 Bay Street on the required date. As
the shadow drawing that we submitted with our letter of
- May 23 shows, the substitution of a railing for a wall
around the roofdeck does not mitigate this shadow at all,
and the addendum to the staff report is simply mistaken in
its statement to the contrary. Furthermore, the proposed
development will virtually eliminate the free flow of cool
air through the homes at 1030 Bay Street by blocking the
prevailIng ocean breezes. A partial solution to these
problems, not once addressed by the developer since
6
e
e
neighbors first suggested it back in April, is to "flip"
or reverse the building, leaving 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 sideyard to be nine
feet. In fa~t, the sideyard varies from a maximum of nine
feet to a minimum 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 climb one of two
flights of stairs to a narrow sidewalk connecting Bay
5 treet to the alley, along the west side of the
development. The plan shows no security gates for either
the garage or the sidewalk. This is unsafe, unwise and
only technically in compliance with sections 9ll0blO and
11 of the munlcipal code. The solution to this problem is
to require the developer to provide interior access from
the garages to the dwelling units, as is common throughout
the City, and to require the developer to provide
appropriate 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
~ Q~ --.< ~_____ JI!!t...
-
. J
~e
e
neighborhood. 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 single-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
- the limits of his 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
8
-
e
developer concludes that he can put six dwellings on a
6,472 square foot lot.
First, the general plan says that the maximum
density for this R-2 lot is 1,500 square feet per unit, or
4.31 units. Next, the municipal code says tne developer
can add in 500 square feet, or .32 units, 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
requires the developer to dedicate 25%, or 1.25 units, of
the development to housing for persons of low or moderate
income. rnclusionary units, though, can be rounded down
under Program 12, and the developer has rounded down to
one inclusionary unit.
So far, the developer legally has been able to
lncrease his maximum density by .69 units through rounding
up and to decrease his inclusionary obligation by .25
-units by rounding down. All of this is technically within
the letter of the law and therefore, not unlawful, even
though the net result is a gain to the developer of .94
units that he may sell at market price over and above what
the City would permit without rounding.
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
e
e
65915 of the government code entitles him to another full
bonus unit that he can sell at market price. And so he
has submitted a plan for a slx-unit condo on a lot that
the general plan says is big enough for only 4.3 units,
without roundlng.
Let me read to you what the pertinent part of
Section 65915 says:
"When a developer of housing 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 either grant a density bonus or
provide other incentives of equivalent
financial value
"
.
"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%?" On June 7, I asked those
questions of Bob Katai.
Mr. Katai is Chief of the
Planning Division of the office of Local Governmental
Affairs in the Office of the Governor in Sacramento. Mr.
Katai gave me clear answers. He said "at least 25%" of a
five-unit development for purposes of qualifying for a
density bonus is two units. He said two out of five is
40%, and 40% is "at least 25%." I asked Mr. Katai whether
the statute or regulations or court decisions permitted
10
It
ssed ue~ Tawe~ e IQq~aqM uOl1sano aq~ uo ~uaTls aTpaau
e JO ala aql ST uaql oSTe os 'oulpunoJ }O uOllsanb aql
uo 1uaT1s sl aln1e1s S14~}I .ouTPunol JO uOTlsanb aql uo
luaTTs sT alnlelS aql ~eql Shes lJodaJ 1}e~S aq~
u'%SZ lseaT 1e sueaw lTTeaJ 'lTTeaJ
sTql pue 'lsea1 ~eu Aes o~ aq P1nOM ^TJeaT~ aIOW u~op
5uTPunol 1TQT40Jd PTno~ a1n~e1S aq~ };eM hTUO aq1 'palelS
hTlun1Q se 'hTuTeTd 'alnle~s aql }O a6en6ueT UleTd aql
AQ pa1llWJad 10U hldwlS s1 UMOp 5u1punOE u'%SZ ueql ssal
OUu se oUlql awes aql sueaw u%Sl lseaT lVu 'ssatouTueaw
};TaJl1Ua u1seaT leu aselqd aq~ a~ew PTnOM 'aln1e1s aq~
Hlpun _QQTssIWJad .HaM :n }1 'UMOP oUlpunoE u'Ollq lsea1
~eu ~ou 51 auo 1eql aaJ6e no}; aJns we I se lsn[ u'%5Z
lseaT leu lOU s1 %OZ leq1 aaloe TT.noh adoq I pue u'OMl
1seal le~ lOU sT auo 1eql aaJoe nOA alns w.l
'laq11a 'UMOP 6uIPUnoJ
11wJad sU01s1~ap lJno~ JO suoTleTnoaJ ou 1eq1 PIes aq puV
'UMOP oUTPunoJ 11WJad l.usaop 6ulueaw uleld Sll Aq u~sea1
leu aseJqd aql ~eq~ PIes aH .OM~ s1 aA11 }O tSz lseaT
le :TeooA1nbaun seM 001 JaMSUe sTH 'ST6S9 u0110as lapun
u01~eo11TTenD snuoq };~15uap .IO} luawdolaAap ~lun-aAl1 e
}O u%5Z lseaT ~eu s1 leqM UOl6uIAO~ 'JW pa~se I
'oluaWeJOes u1 luawdoTaAaa
.{lJunIUWO;J put! oUTsnoR 10 luawl.H?daa aql 0:; Tasuno,:)
Telaua6 Alndap s1 OqM 'uo:;6uTAO~ >I,JeW 01 >lle1 I ~eql
pa~sa66ns pue os >IU1ql ~.uPTP aq Ples aH 'UMOP oUlPunol
e
e
..........-..--.....,..,~
"""'~~
. .'
. .
e
e
through it. That which is obvious from the language used
need not be repeated in other words to be effective. The
statute is anythlng but silent on the question of
rounding. The language of the statute (ftat least 251ft)
forbids rounding unequivocally 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 available to sell at market prices through rounding
permitted under the City's general plan and the zoning
laws. That .94 units may surely amount to what Section
65915 describes as "other incentives of equivalent
financial value." Thus, the developer has already
received pUrsuant to Santa Monica's laws what Section
65915, even if it applied, would require. Section 65915
applies, however, only if the developer dedicates at least
two of the six units to inclusionary purposes.
The solution to these legal problems is to
require the developer to dedicate two of his six units
for inclusionary purposes or to resubmit a proposal for a
five-unit condominium.
In conclusion, we hope you will agree with us
that though he may do so in the future, this developer has
not ~ proposed a plan to you that should be approved.
12
.. .
e
e
We ask that you disapprove the proposal as presented and
that you impose con~itions 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
e
e
ROBERT K. STEINBERG. INC.
LAW O~~CE8 0'"
II< PROFE.8ISIONAL CORPORATION
ROBERT I( IITEINBERG tHe
RO!lE.RT K .TEIN.ERG
.171 WrL......I"1I!!:' ~UL.IE'V.....O .VITI': Aia...
.EVERLY HILLS. CALIFORNIA 80>10
0" ~ov""" IU..
,.al.) 274-..7.
P' LEE.... ~L.EY
fa. .T.....,.-!: aTMEET
ao_TON: ..........ACHU.ETT& 02'080
NaE:..,.I[." ....A&. .....'"
~
,~
~
U)~
.1>-
~::;
!~ b.
i:~
:lC'
;e;:
n~
~.
"":'
ARTHUR K IINVDER
November 26, 1985
:::;-
Jonathan Horne
Deputy Clty Attorney
1685 Ma~n Street
Room 310
Santa Mon~ca, Ca 90401
['J
'"
-...
~
cO
CJ'>
Re:
Van Arsdell vs. Wada
Case No. C 565 342
Dear Mr. Horne:
ThlS letter lS to conflrm our understanding WhlCh you repeated
yesterday, November 25, 1985, that should Mr. Van Arsdell
prevall on hlS motlons, the c~ty wlll do the followlng:
1. Insure the fact that Mr. Wada will be able to
bUlld hlS SlX unlt condominlum wlthln SlX months
of thlS date.
2. You stated thls wlll be done by emergency legls-
lat~on, If necessary.
If the city falled to glve proper notice of proceed~ngs, and
v~olated a government code, all to Mr. Wada's damage then I know
as you sald It w~ll be set r~ght.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT K. STEINBERG, INC.
A fessional Corporat~on
by: elnberg
cc: Robert Meyers
RKS:rp
e
-v.("I....
CITY c4t
SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE eIT) ATTOR'\EY
....'RITER 5 DIRECT mAL ...t.;'IBER
(213)458- 8336
November 27, 1985
Robert K. Steinberg, Esq.
9171 Wilshire Boulevard
suite 424
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Van Arsdell v City of Santa Monica
L.A. s.C. Case No. C 565 342
Dear Mr. Steinberg:
This responds to your letter of November 26, 19B5 and
clarifies the position of the City with regard to the
above-referenced lawsuit. In the event petitioner prevails in
the lawsuit, the City will take whatever action it deems
appropriate. At no time did I represent that the city would
commit to doing the things set forth in your letter.
Sin~.
J:lTHAN S. HORNE
Deputy city Attorney
JSH/hcd
cc: Paul Van Arsdell, Jr. with enclosure
CITY H~LL, J 685 "14.1' STREET, SA "T A \1O'\lC <\, C <\UFOR"IA 9040 1-3~95
e
e
1 LATHAM & WATKINS
J. Spencer Letts
2 Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.
555 South Flower Street
3 Los Angeles, California 90071
5 Attorneys for Petitioner
Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.
ORIGI~t'L FILEQ
SEP 12 1985
COUtm CLEBI
4 (213) 485-1234
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 PAUL M. V/ili ARSDELL, JR., )
an individual, )
13 )
Petitioner, )
14 )
vs. )
15 )
CITY OF S/iliTA MONICA, a )
16 charter city; CITY COUNCIL )
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, )
17 an agency of the City of Santa )
Monica; PLANNING COMMISSION OF )
18 THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, an )
agency of the City of Santa )
19 Monica; and DOE 1 through }
DOE 2, Inclusive, )
20 )
Respondents. )
21 )
)
22 GRANT WADA, an individual, )
)
23 Real Party in Interest. )
)
fI- .~. *
,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Case No. f5EG342
PETITION FOR ~~ITS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS,
MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
24
25 Petitioner, Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr., respectfully
26 petitions this Court for writs of administrative mandamus,
27 mandamus and certiorari directed to Respondents pursuant to
28 Sections 1094.5, 1085, and 1067 of the California Code of Civil
LA~bIC . W..rl<lH8
........... ..~ LAw
Lft. "N_II:LK.
It
e
1 Procedure and, if required, for injunctive relief. and by this
2 verified petition alleges and represents that:
:3
4
5
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Administrative Mandamus)
1.
Petitioner brings this action to obtain judicial
6 review of, among other things, two adjudicatory acts by
7 Respondents through which Respondents knowingly ignored and
8 failed to apply established and unambiguous law to proven and
9 undisputed facts.
10
2.
First, over Petitioner's objection. Respondent
11 City Council of the City of Santa Monica held a hearing and ad-
12 judicated Petitioner's appeal from a decision of the Planning
13 COilliliission of the City of Santa Monica without having given
14 written notice of the hearing as required by Sections 9360 and
15 9366 of the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Monica. The
16 Municipal Code of the City of Santa Monica requires, among other
17 things, that
18
"(b) Notice shall be given by mail or delivery to all
19 property owners and tenants, including businesses,
20 corporations, or other public or private entities.
21 within 300 feet of the property which is the subject
22 of the application."
23 Respondents mailed no notice whatsoever to anyone, including
24 Petitioner, of the hearing on the appeal of the decision of the
25 Planning Commission. Under ~ead v. City of Redlands, 205 Cal.
26
27
28
Rptr. 443 (1984'. Respondents' failure to give the required
notice constituted a denial of the due process rights of all
1..&.,--&" '= W.&1'lUNa
A.I"MUI'DB AT LAw
I.... "....K.....
2
e
e
1 persons entitled to receive notice~ including Petitioner~ and
2 renders void the purported adjudication of Petitioner's appeal.
3
3.
Second, over Petitioner's objection~ Respondents
4 approved the application of Real Party in Interest to construct
5 a six-unit condominium on a lot that, under the Municipal Code
6 and General Plan of the City of Santa Monica, may be developed
7 to a maximum density of only five units, one of which had been
8 dedicated by Real Party in Interest for low-income purposes as
9 required by the Municipal Code and General Plan of the City of
10 Santa Monica. In permitting Real Party in Interest to violate
11 Respondents' laws regarding housing density, Respondents' misap-
12 plied Section 65915 of the California Government Code and ig-
13 nored its plain meaning. Section 65915 states, in pertinent
14 part,
15 "When a developer of housing agrees to construct at
16 least 25 percent of the total units of a housing
17 development for persons and families of low or
18
19
20
moderate income, . . . a city . . . shall either grant
a density bonus or provide other incentives of
equivalent financial value. .
"
21 Respondents allowed a sixth, bonus unit to a developer who had
22 failed to satisfy the statutory condition precedent. Mr. Wada
23 never has agreed to dedicate more than one unit in his proposed
24 development to low-income housing. One is not "at least" 25
25 percent of five. One is 20 percent of five. Two is "at least"
26 25 percent of five. The Respondents' award of a density bonus
27
28
unit to the developer is not permitted under ~ 65915, and a
LArBAM II: W.ArKIN.
ATTOaJOYB A'f LAw
Loa MGlaLSe
3
e
e
1 six-unit condominium on the developer's lot is forbidden by
2 Respondents' own ordinances.
3
4.
Since December, 1982, Petitioner has owned and
4 resided in the real property at 1030 Bay Street, No. I, Santa
5 Monica, California. The lot at 1030 Bay Street contains a
6 two-story condominium building having five townhouse-style
7 dwellings.
8
5.
Respondent City of Santa Monica (lithe City") is a
9 charter city organized and incorporated under the laws of the
10 State of California.
11
6.
Respondent City Council of the City of Santa
12 Monica ("the City Council") is an agency of the City of Santa
13 Monica charged with responsibility for, among other things, the
14 Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica and determina-
15 tions of appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission of
16 the City of Santa Monica with respect to the issuance of and
17 adjudication of applications for conditional use permits and for
18 approval of tentative tract maps.
19
7.
Respondent Planning Commission of the City of
20 Santa Monica ("the Planning Commission") is an administrative
21 agency of the City and of the City Council charged with respon-
22 sibility for, among other things, granting and denying applica-
23 tions for conditional use permits and tentative tract maps.
24
8.
Real Party in Interest Grant Wada owns and re-
25 sides in the real property at 1024 Bay Street, Santa Monica,
26 California. The lot at 1024 Bay Street contains a one-story,
27
28
single-family home.
LATBAlI . WA.!'KUUI
AT'tOtNftJ, Ja.'r LAw
Lo. AHGII:L.DI
4
-
e
1
9.
The dwellings of Petitioner and Real Party in
2 Interest are on adjacent lots on Bay Street in the City of Santa
3 Monica, California.
4
10.
The area of Bay Street referred to herein is
5 zoned R-2. and multiple-dwelling uses, including allowable con-
6 dominium buildings, are permissible on lots within the zone.
7
11.
Petitioner does not know the true names of Re-
e spondents sued as DOE 1 through DOE 20, inclusive, and will
9 amend this petition to state their true names when ascertained.
10
12.
On a weekend morning in March, 1985, Petitioner
11 and other residents of the five-unit building at 1030 Bay Street
12 (collectively "the adjacent neighbors") saw surveyors measuring
13 the property at 1024 Bay Street. Petitioner asked a surveyor
14 the purpose of the survey, and the surveyor declined to answer.
15
13.
During the following week, one of the adjacent
16 neighbors telephoned the Planning Commission and learned that
17 Mr. Wada had applied for permission to construct a development
18 on his property at 1024 Bay Street. The adjacent neighbors
19 obtained copies of Mr. Wada's plans from the Planning Commission
20 and learned that Mr. Wada already had obtained permission from
21 the Santa Monica Rent Control Board to demolish the
22 single-family dwelling at 1024 Bay Street and had applied for
23 permission to construct a six-unit condominium building in its
24 place.
25
26
27
14.
Although the adjacent neighbors recognized Mr.
Wada's right to develop his property for multiple uses permitted
28
in an R-2 zone, the adjacent neighbors were concerned that Mr.
Wada intended to construct a six-unit condominium building on a
La'J'B..Ul ,. W ArKIN'
A.~...'tLAw
Lo. ~CI.LK.
5
e
e
1 lot for which five units is the maximum permissible density
2 under Santa Monica's municipal code, and the adjacent neighbors
3 were disappointed that Mr. Wada, their neighbor, had attempted
4 to carry out his plans in secrecy apparently without informing
5 anyone in the neighborhood of his intentions.
6
15.
After concluding that the fruition of Mr. Wada's
7 plans not only would result in overcrowding of an already
8 crowded neighborhood but also would devalue each of the five
9 properties at 1030 Bay Street by amounts up to $20,000 for vary-
10 ing reasons, some of the adjacent neighbors proposed to Mr. Wada
11 that they offer to buy his property at his purchase price plus
12 5% appreciation per year for the three years he had owned the
13 property plus a premium of $10,000 to $20,000. Alternatively,
14 some of the adjacent neighbors offered to assist Mr. Wada in
15 finding other property on which he could construct his commer-
16 cial development without injuring their legitimate private
17 interests or those of others. Mr. Wada declined these overtures
18 and stated that he would consider selling his property for
19 around $245,000, over $100,000 more than his purchase price
20 three years previously.
21
16.
The adjacent neighbors held a meeting on April
22 21, 1985, to discuss Mr. Wada's proposal for development with
23 other neighbors living in the area. All neighbors living within
24 300 feet of Mr. Wada's lot were invited, and a large number of
25 them attended. The attending neighbors reviewed copies of the
26 developer's plans that the adjacent neighbors had obtained from
27 the Planning Commission. Reaction to the proposed development
28
was uniform and negative.
L&.1lAK " w...l<V<.
A.1TODi1Tll .A' .LAw
L08 4N.aLS8
6
e
e
1
17.
More than 80 of the neighbors ("the opposing
2 neighbors") living within 300 feet of Mr. Wads's lot wrote
3 letters to the Planning Commission and/or signed petitions filed
4 with the Planning Commission to voice their opposition to Mr.
5 Wada's proposal for development. Their opposition in part was
6 based on the unusually large number of units in the proposed
7 development, its effect on the single-family character of the
e neighborhood, the adverse effect of the proposed development on
9 parking, traffic, and privacy in the neighborhood, and the
10 adverse effect of the proposed development on light, views, and
11 environmental concerns of the neighbors. The letters and
12 petitions of the opposing neighbors became a part of the
13 Planning Cuuooission file on this development and thus a part of
14 the administrative record in this petition, all of which is
15 hereby incorporated by reference.
16
18.
The Planning COffiillission, perhaps in response to
17 this level of neighborhood interest, suggested through its staff
18 that Mr. Wada meet with some of the adjacent neighbors in the
19 presence of Planning Commissioner Ken Genser for the purpose of
20 achieving a compromise design more acceptable to the
21 neighborhood. The meeting occurred on April 30, 1985. At the
22 meeting, Cuwwissioner Genser disclosed that he was a former
23 student of the architect who designed the proposed development
24 and that it was Commissioner Genser's hope that he could help
25 the interested persons work out their differences. Regrettably,
26
27
although the developer and his architect were willing to discuss
28
and to implement minor, cosmetic changes to the building (e.g.,
a rear entrance to the garage, and a plastic shield over one
U'IILUI 6 WATKIN'
A'J"J"Omdn &"1 LAw
Lo. MIiIEL.a8
7
e
e
1 level of adjacent windows), they were unwilling to consider
2 alternative plans to develop the property (e.g., luxury triplex
3 or fourplex, or reversing the placement of the proposed
4 structure to increase significantly the space between the
5 adjacent buildings). Indeed, Mr. Wada stated that all necessary
6 compromises already had been designed into the building (while
7 Mr. Wada's plans were still unknown to his neighbors), and Mr.
e Wada's architect repeatedly stated that because the development
9 was perfectly permissible in an R-2 zone, no compromise was
10 required. The meeting ended without positive result.
11
19.
Pursuant to Section 9360 of the Municipal Code of
12 the City of Santa Monica, the Planning Commission mailed notice
13 to all persons residing within 300 feet of the proposed
14 development that a hearing would be held on May 20, 1985, at
15 7:30 p.m. and that after taking public testimony and due
16 consideration of Mr. Wads's application for a conditional use
17 permit and tentative tract map, the Planning Commission would
18 rule on the matter.
19
20.
After notice had been given, and because Mr. Wada
20 was late in submitting final plans in connection with his appli-
21 cation (allegedly because Mr. Wada was revising his plans to
22 accommodate the desires of the opposing neighbors), the May 20
23 hearing was continued at the request of Mr. Wada to June 3,
24 1985. Although the Planning Commission gave no advance notice
25
26
27
28
of the continuance to the neighbors who had received notice of
the hearing, the adjacent neighbors attempted to do so.
Petitioner does not know how many opposing neighbors attended
UTJUJI . W IoTKINII
ATTOINftB. A1" LAw
Lo. MCJI:L&e
8
e
e
1 the hearing on May 20 only to learn that it had been continued
2 to June 3, 1985.
:5
21.
Mr. Wada filed his final plans, virtually iden-
4 tical to the previously-filed plans for development.
5
22.
Pursuant to Section 9360 of the Municipal Code of
6 the City of Santa Monica, the Planning Commission mailed notice
7 to all persons residing within 300 feet of the proposed
e development that a hearing would be held on June 3. 1985 at 7:30
9 p.m. to take public testimony and to rule on Mr. Wada's
10 application.
11
23.
A large number of opposing neighbors, including a
12 number of elderly neighbors, adjacent neighbors and Petitioner,
13 appeared at the June 3 hearing only to be told by the Planning
14 Commission at about 8:00 p.m. that at Mr. Wada's request, the
15 hearing would be continued again. Petitioner immediately re-
16 quested the Planning Commission not to continue the hearing and
17 informed the Planning Cou~ission that a large number of opposing
18 neighbors were present in the hearing room, that it would impose
19 a great hardship on the opposing neighbors to reschedule the
20 hearing, and that Mr. Wada's request for yet another continuance
21 seemed to be part of an effort to wear down the opposing
22 neighbors and to prevent the Planning Commission from hearing
23 their opposition.
24
25
26
27
28
24.
In response to Petitioner's request, the Planning
Commission decided to bifurcate the hearing procedure, to take
public testimony from opposing neighbors on June 3, and to defer
to June 17 the developer's obligation to present his proposal as
well as the Planning Commission's ruling.
L.t.TILUI . W AI'XfH8
AT1'OUI'arB AT LAw
Loa AN.ELK.
9
.
e
e
1
25.
At about 8:30 p.m. on June 3, 1985, after
2 Petitioner's request that the Planning Commission hear evidence
3 that night. but hours before Mr. Wada's application came up for
4 hearing, Mr. Wada approached Petitioner and several of the
5 opposing neighbors outside the hearing room. Mr. Wada accused
6 Petitioner of having lied to the Planning Commission in opposing
7 the continuance and threatened to Sue Petitioner. By about
a 11:00 p.m.. when public testimony on Mr. Wada's proposal began,
9 many of the opposing neighbors, including some who were present
10 or near when Mr. Wada made his threats, had gone home. Several
11 others of the opposing neighbors, however, gave testimony and
12 urged the Planning Cowroission to deny the application. Not one
13 of the neighbors who received notice of the hearing spoke in
14 favor of granting the application.
15
26.
At the continued hearing before the Planning
16 COlllmission on June 17,1985, adjacent neighbors appeared and
17 testified in opposition to the granting of the application.
18 None of the opposing neighbors exposed to Mr. Wada's groundless
19 threat of suit appeared at the continued hearing. Of those
20 neighbors who did appear, not one spoke in favor of the
21 application.
22
27.
At the hearings before the Planning Commission on
23 June 3. and June 17, the opposing neighbors advanced the fol1ow-
24 ing principal argument in asking the Planning Commission to deny
25 the application: As a matter of law. the developer is entitled
to build no more than five units on a lot the size of the lot at
26
27
28
1024 Bay Street and he is not entitled to a sixth unit density
bonus pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code unless he
W'I'lLUI a WATKIN.
A.t'I"OaNftI- .I." LAw
Lo. MOI:L&8
10
e
e
1 agrees to dedicate "at least 25 percent" of his units, or two
2 units, to low-income purposes. Mr. Wada's proposal seeks a
3 density bonus, but only dedicates one unit, or exactly 20 per-
4 cent, for low-income purposes. In other words, the opposing
5 neighbors argued, one is not "at least 25 percent" of five. Two
6 is. A transcript of one opposing statement proffered at this
7 hearing (parts of which were argued, and the Planning Commission
8 refused to permit full argument to be made) is included within
9 Exhibit B to this petition. Within Exhibit B, pages 8 through
10 13 of Exhibit D address this issue in detail and the materials
11 there were argued to the Planning Commission by Petitioner.
12
28.
The opposing neighbors also advanced a number of
13 other arguments, all of which are contained in the administra-
14 tive record, incorporated herein by reference, and most of which
15 are contained in Exhibit B to this Petition, incorporated herein
16 by reference.
17
29.
On June 17 the Planning Commission approved Mr.
18 Wada's application. A Statement of Official Action of the
19 Planning Commission is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incor-
20 porated herein by reference.
21
30.
Petitioner and another adjacent neighbor duly
22 appealed on behalf of themselves and the other opposing
23 neighbors the decision of the Planning Commission to the City
24 Council. Copies of Petitioner's Complaint Appealing Ruling of
25
26
27
Planning Commission and of the response by Real Party in
Interest are attached hereto as Exhibits Band C and are incor-
porated herein by reference.
28
LA'fIlAJI .. W AtlUNa
A.'I"J'ODinB 1.1' LAw
Lo. AN..u:a
11
I....\T!L\lll . W A1'lWCa
.A1"!"O&KU& .&.1' LAw
Lo. AII.IE~
e
e
1
31.
On August 13, 1985, overruling Petitioner's ob-
2 jection that the hearing could not be held because the notice of
3 the hearing required by Sections 9360 and 9366 of the Santa
4 Monica Municipal Code had not been given, the City Council
5 affirmed unanimously the decision of the Planning Commission.
S Petitioner incorporates by reference the administrative record
7 of proceedings before the City Council.
8
32.
Petitioner has exhausted his administrative
9 remedies and has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
10 ordinary course of law. Respondents' actions, as alleged in
11 this Petition, if executed during the pendency of these pro-
12 ceedings, will allow completion of Mr. Wada's proposal for
13 development in plain violation of law and will result in irrepa-
14 rable harm to Petitioner and to other opposing neighbors through
15 the further overcrowding of an already overcrowded neighborhood
16 and in injury to the legitimate private interests of residents
17 in the neighborhood.
18
19
20
21
22
23
33.
As alleged in greater detail above, Respondents
abused their discretion prejudicially, failed to proceed in the
manner required by law, proceeded without and in excess of their
jurisdiction, and failed to afford Petitioner a fair trial by:
(1) holding the City Council hearing on August 13, 1985, without
having given the notice to residents, including opposing
neighbors, that is required under Respondents' own municipal
code; (Z) misapplying Section 65915 of the California Government
Code in awarding a density bonus unit to Mr. Wada when he had
24
25
26
27
28
not dedicated "at least 25 percent" of the units in his proposed
development to low income purposes as required by the plain
12
.
1
2
;)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LA.1'1U.JI . WlLTK.DO
.A~.or WW
Loa ANGELES
e
e
language of the statute; (3) denying Petitioner's appeal; (4)
granting Mr. Wada's application for a conditional use permit and
tentative tract map to construct a building that is inconsistent
with applicable general and specific plans on a site that is not
physically suitable for the proposed type or density of develop-
ment; and (5) disregarding the arguments made by Petitioner and
by opposing neighbors as set forth in the administrative record
before the City Council and the Planning Commission, all of
which is incorporated herein by reference.
34. Respondents' approval of Mr. Wada's application
and denial of Petitioner's opposition and appeal are not sup-
ported by Respondents' findings.
35. Respondents' findings are not supported by the
evidence.
36. Respondents' findings and decisions are supported
not by a correct application of established and unambiguous law
to proven and undisputed facts, but by Respondents' improper
consideration of facts relating to the occupations and dwellings
of adjacent neighbors. including Petitioner. and by resulting
bias, passion. and prejudice.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Mandamus)
37. Petitioner repeats and incorporates by reference
all allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 36, inclu-
sive.
38. By granting the applications of Mr. Wada and by
hearing and denying Petitioner's appeal. as alleged above. Re-
spondents, and each of them, abused their discretion and acted
13
,
.
1
2
:3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2:3
24
25
26
27
28
Li.rBAK . W ArJWfB
A2'TO&1fDI! A.2".t.Aw
Loa AN..L.&a
e
e
unreasonably, arbitrarily, and capriciously, without due regard
for Petitioner's rights, including his vested right to a hearing
before the City Council after required notice had been given by
Respondents to all neighbors, including opposing neighbors,
residing within 300 feet of the proposed development.
Respondents' abuse of discretion, which would permit completion
of Mr. Wada's illegal proposed development, is prejudicial and
threatens Petitioner with irreparable harm.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Certiorari)
39. Petitioner repeats and incorporates by reference
all allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 38, inclu-
sive.
40. By granting the applications of Mr. Wada and by
hearing and denying Petitioner's appeal, as alleged above,
Respondents. and each of them, exceeded their own jurisdiction.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Injunctive Relief)
41. Petitioner repeats and incorporates by reference
all allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 40, inclu-
sive.
42. In the event that this Court's issuance of the
writ or writs sought by Petitioner would be ineffective to
prevent Real Party in Interest from acting pursuant to
Respondents' unlawful acts as alleged herein and from
constructing a six-unit condominium building on his lot, or if
necessary to preserve this Court's authority and jurisdiction to
provide the judicial review that Petitioner requests herein,
14
. "
,
.
1
2
:3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LA,..... .. W"TIUlQ
A1'rourfta.&.'I' LAw
Loa AN.K~
e
e
Petitioner will ask the Court to issue injunctions directed to
Respondents and to Real Party in Interest granting relief
necessary to protect Petitioner's right to meaningful judicial
review of Respondents' decisions, as alleged herein.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that:
1. a writ of administrative mandamus be issued
ordering Respondents, and each of them, to set aside their
decisions; and,
2. an alternative writ of mandate be issued ordering
Respondents, and each of them, to set aside their
decisions; and,
3. an alternative writ of certiorari be issued
ordering Respondents, and each of them, to set aside their
decisions; and,
4. an ex parte order be issued staying Respondents'
decisions, forbidding Respondents from taking any action to
permit development of the property at 1024 Bay Street,
Santa Monica, California, and ordering Respondents to show
cause why an order should not be granted further staying
Respondents' decisions and preventing actions allowing
development; and,
5. an ex parte order be issued prohibiting the Real
Party in Interest from taking any action pursuant to
Respondents' unlawful rulings, permissions, and decisions
as alleged herein; and,
15
,.......-
.
1
2
:5
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UTB.UI 6: WA'I'XlN.
AT'!'OQd!'8"I'LA.w
Loa ANClKLEa
e
e
6. Petitioner be awarded his reasonable attorneys'
fees:
a. pursuant to California Government Code
~ 800. and,
b. pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure ~ 1021.5; and,
7. Petitioner be awarded his costs herein; and
8. Petitioner be granted such other relief as to the
Court seems just and proper.
Dated: September II, 1985
LATHAM & WATKINS
J. Spencer Letts
Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.
By ,d,~-IL~. f.
Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr.
Attorney for Petitioner
16
1320a Santa Monica Mall
Santa Moo,ca, Calitornla 90401
SUite 201
213'394 7836
At>T:J -ro (2. -,a.
MA't13
t91 ~ ~ 'U6
Margo Hebald-Heymann, AlA & Associates, ArchItects
roJ
Arcl'itecture
Planning
InrerlO!'s
6 MAY 86
TO:
Honorable Clty Council
FROM:
Planning Commissioner
Margo Hebald-Heymann
RE:
Appea l: 1024 Bay St reet
Applicant: Grant Wade
Numbar TTM44039, CUP 413
On one of the rare OccaSlons that I have had to leave bafore the close,
r was not oresent to hear the Grant "'ade case for its final aooroval;
although r had reviewed it whan it was oreviously before the Planning
Commission.
My understanding is that a condition was set without any discussion
which orohlblts the use of a roof garden.
In addition to not agreeing with the orocedure in WhlCh this cond,tlon
was l'noosed, I believe that the aoolicant's rights have been unjustly
dented.
A roof garden serves a number of purooses. In addition to prOVIding e
place for the occuoants to sun themselves and exoerience the oleasures
of the outdoors, without being over run by the general Dublic; it can
and does in this project, also orovide a form of natural insulation
against the elements, thereby conservlng energy.
Having viewed the site and the oroposed project, I feel that this roof
garden is well justIfied and a necessary oart of the design.
r strongly recommend granting this Bppeal.
(j7 { ',~~'(: /)'1 C&,l(l rL. (~) "
e~ alt~~;r J
V2ett-1/LJL-J,1'1 -CLlfc.
:tc
Ii ,E
/ J /j L( (7 MUtC\.
C -,', J Y
U
f 5 -ti-fb
? MAT27'9I&
A't>b -ro (;2.-4-
~".(\ ~ \,,~
. ~.-~UJm&a70~@@
'-J I.. >
." t..
'''CO@ TRIP
11\ n
m i~iv\" ~ltb'&- DAn ~h !~b
A 'I
J\\ .l\ h \'q0) i \D~l., !tAJ~)t~Jl tJ\
hv-~.v." GCI W i V,,' (J\.i).PC~ Y - l))j () ,
: (~I\ ,1AQ,~\A.- 11 ~.f\ (11~J9. \ (',
T-r rv'\. '+ 4 U ~~ J I (r 1 v( g c~ ) . (ie, ')
,,) /t-\)\h~+ !, ~ 10 <Ft. f/\ cQl~'{ ,t~bvl>L-
\; ..
/". n
... 5<ONOD ~h l LLUhV
t.- \, ~ ~ ~I J
DAlE
FEOiFOFlM@ 45 465
SIGNED
S~"'O PARTS 1 "NO 3 INTACT
PART 3 WILl 8E RETURNEO WllH REPlY
POL Y PAK /50 5ETSl 4P465
13203 Sarta V011ca tv~'all
Scrt;;. ~.1cnlca. Ca' fc-TIB. 9:J4C1
SL t8 201
213 394 7836
~
rLtlJ~
Il. -A
5 -/3-?~
IDJ
Margo Hebald-Heymann, AlA & Associates, Architects
ArC'1ltec-Lfe
;J13....~1n~
I-Tenc's
6 MAY 86
TO:
~onorable C1ty Council
FROM:
Plannlng CO~~lssioner
Margo Hebald-Haymann
RE:
Anneal: 1024 Bay Street
Applicant: Grant Wada
Number TTM44039, CUP 413
On one of the rare occasions that I have had to leave before the close,
I was not oresent to hear the Grant Wada case for its flnal aooroval;
althouqh I had revll~wed it when it was oreviously before tha Planning
Commission.
My understanding 1S that a cond1tion was set w1thout any discussion
which orohiblts the use of a roof garden.
In addition to nat agreeing with the orocedure 1n which this condition
was imoosed, I believe that the aonlicant's rights have been unjustly
denl ed.
A roof garden serves a nu~ber of purooses. In addlt10n to orovlding a
olace for the occuoants to sun themselves and exnerience the oleasures
of the outdoors, w1thout being over run by the general public; it can
and does in this oroiect, also orovlde a form of natural insulat10n
against the elements, thereby conserving energy.
Havi ng vi ewed the SHe and the 0 rooosed oroj ect. I fee l that thi s roof
garden is well just1fied and a necessary Dart of the design.
I strongly recommend grantlng this anpeal.
//-DD if)
/,)- A
MrJ'~t
MAY 2 7 liS.
-.,I' I _
,~. -'
e
'86 MAY 13 A 4 :37
SAN ii~' ~""Jt" _ t.
May 12, 1986
BY HAND DELIVERY
City Council
City of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: C.U.P. 413, T.T. 44039;
1024 Bay Street
e
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I have learned for the first time today that my
appeal of the captioned matter has been scheduled for hear-
ing at the May 13, 1986 meeting of the City Council. The
purpose of this letter is to inform you that I received no
notice whatsoever of this hearing. Had I received the no-
tice required by your laws, I would have been able to attend
and testify at the hearing, but I am now unable to attend
the hearing because of prior commitments that I cannot re-
schedule at this late date.
As an individual complainant/appellant in this
matter, I understand that I have the right to appear and
give testimony at the hearing on my complaint/appeal and
that to protect that right the City Council of Santa Monica
(the "City") is obligated to mail me notice of the hearing
at least 10 days in advance of the hearing. Despite the
facts that I am a named complainant/appellant in this matter
and that my name and address are set forth on the complaint,
you sent me no such notice.
e
Under the circumstances, I can have no fair hear-
ing on my appeal on May 13, 1986, and I have no choice other
than to insist that you reschedule the hearing to a new date
following lawful notice. I am unwilling to delegate to any
other person my right as a complainant/appealant to appear
tE' &7 ~~~ {-r.,;
e?7j d~~1 Cr /
tf4~~7 (//
lI"b It! /;J-A
MAY 1 3 1911
MAY 27 1111
e
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
May 12, 1986
Page 2
personally and to give my testimony before you, and I be-
lieve that if you rule on my appeal in my absence on May 13,
1986, your ruling will be unfair, unlawful, and void by vir-
tue of the City's failure to give notice to me in accordance
with its own laws.
I swear under penalty of perjury according to the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.
~pectfYllY s~bmit ed,
-Ai ~tii " f\... ~ ~ ~ IItVt t^..--/
J ni er S. Ja son
1 30 ay Stree , No. 5
Santa Monica, California 90405
e
e
e
"IJ/J
-r# /Q/-.4
*'13'.
HAY 2 7 'HI
r); - :
~ ! ' -",'
'86 I'tlW 13 1\ 4 :37
SAklA :-,,-,.\ y' ,
May 12, 1986
BY HAND DELIVERY
Ci ty Council
City of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: C.D.P. 413, T.T. 44039;
1024 Bay Street
Dear Mayor and Counci1members:
I have learned for the first time today that my
appeal of the captioned matter has been scheduled for hear-
ing at the May 13, 1986 meeting of the City Council. The
purpose of this letter is to inform you that I received no
notice whatsoever of this hearing. Had I received the no-
tice required by your laws, I would have been able to attend
and testify at the hearing, but I am now unable to attend
the hearing because of prior commitments that I cannot re-
schedule at this late date.
As an individual complainant/appellant in this
matter, I understand that I have the right to appear and
give testimony at the hearing on my complaint/appeal and
that to protect that right the City Council of Santa Monica
(the "City") is obligated to mail me notice of the hearing
at least 10 days in advance of the hearing. Despite the
facts that I am a named complainant/appellant in this matter
and that my name and address are set forth on the complaint,
you sent me no such notice.
Under the circumstances, I can have no fair hear-
ing on my appeal on May 13, 1986, and I have no choice other
than to insist that you reschedule the hearing to a new date
following lawful notice. I am unwilling to delegate to any
other person my right as a complainant/appealant to appear
c ~ f c:~ ~--r-- [1/
d{ 4t~N---f Ct /
/!Z4~j U /
Ab~ f~ /~-A
}f,.. 1 ~ '1116
MAY 2 7 19ai
e
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
May 12, 1986
Page 2
personally and to give my testimony before you, and I be-
lieve that if you rule on my appeal in my absence on May 13,
1986, your ruling will be unfair, unlawful, and void by vir-
tue of the City's failure to give notice to me in accordance
with its own laws.
I swear under penalty of perjury according to the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.
Respectfully submitted,
lJ ~
'\ _0,,_ ___ '
Ken Stringer
1030 Bay Street, No.5
Santa Monica, California 90405
(
,~St'/ttJl~~
'" ar rn--f1
0"""';:>...... ?? ~ Cl ~
o ~ ~
5-~ro<: ~ ~
~ '1 1-" (J f-'
o III ro en ,..., 0
1-" Jil f-' ~ 1-" 'i:l3: .Q' N
~ '1 t'i '1 ro ~
,.., f-' (1l 0 Ul (1)f-'
~'<:lS..Hl ~ 00 0 o:l
1-" (fJ Hl ~
!l:> '<: It g.g.
"0 "0 ::r en
'1 "0 ("J CD ;:10. III en
Ot'ig' rt~ Ft rt
......, 0 1-1 t'i
~ ili~ ~ ...... III l!l
Cl 0 I'll
rt rort 0 :3: rt
~ III P. I i.,jil 0
;:I rt "'1 ::l g
g.o.rt;:r OQ:j h
::rill 6~ B..
:orort III
~.a H1rt 8'en III ~ en
1ro III ::r t'irt 5- 1-" I
O("Jro '1 ::l
t'i H I'll [J)ro ,..,
ro rt f-' I-"D g ~
0. o 0 rort
rt""'W '1 Ul
o'::r' 0 '1 ("J
'<:lDrt III (1l
::rt;::l >-i
H1'1rolll g ;:l
R~o''<: 1:1
I-' C.
rt::J>-,(f) ......
::JrtOrt ro Z
CD () rl (JQ [;)
rl 0 ;>;"' m m 1-"
Hl ro qg.
0. o'rt
~R=~Cl ~ 0'
a
("J . ~ 0 ,.... '1
t'i ro;:l <: Ctl
~,::<:;rop. III
,.. 8.;:l ~ t'i
(JJ
::l III ......,.... ,...-
III 0;:1 4
rt ,... rt ,...,
~o;:r~ ~
'< g. gj ,..,
'U<:o.:::s ~
'1 (1l [;)
III ..........;.:
() 0 ......rt rt
rt "0 rt ~
,.. ;:to.
n::r-.. 0 III
ro 0-" 0 f-'
UlUl '1 ,......
Ul
/ 2_/;~
~ ~
S- /). '7~F~
(
~J~_
(C~~
f
\
,,-12 ~!)
~-l7~~
) -
_~+cCti~ .
r 7; l'1rh
--- - ~ - ----
"
QQ'. (O~'f ~ ~r~ - ,
10: ~ of S~ Tl~
71lC1\1v\ '. \< ~ sf Y It" 2/ev-
(041 (3~ c;:r.
- - ~ - ~
.1 f~ ~~ -~~ ---
~oH M lOAf 'B~ 'i"~. u_ ----(
r -~ ~ ~ ~ LM-O~ -- ~- - ----~
~ Jv!.~ -tiud I 1~ '_ zt -Jc, -- - - ---- -' - ----
- or -_. ~ Wh ttnf ldu- --- ~ ~ -0-- ------ ~~--
/v.-. :fA I ~:r . ~ ~ ,~:'~~ ------
w~ 6"- .Ai- to toe ~. -- -------- ---- h
-- ~ - -- - - - . -----~ ~------ --
1 rJo L.l.ot - w",^ tv - ~ - - -- - ----
~~~~J ~ ~ ~iY~611:Y ~.
t ,- ~ .J- l'> ~'+~ ---
~ 1'\'" W",-l.. t..u-, r;~ -- -- -
0H_~ ~o.Q .~la..rv-h J "-- r - -- - H"_~n__
WJ-~~~u~~
o-~.~. LJ ~ I. LtuJ- IrJJ>:ti;',P- -
OM- /J ~ ~ '111- W '--~-! _ "::
1W ~ ~ ~ lS r~
.~ Ue0.~ I
(j \.-.. ,_^J .
(fU "VV ~;' s..(
r C0w. ~~ ~ 1d- ~ 'J)!
~ l6"'-&..o tr'^-- ~ t&c-t( ~ ~ ,,>l~
~ 14f 114 ~ s+chtuJ ~/ ,,'V
i:~~