SR-400-008-01 (13)
.
.
II-A
"11"\\1 1 /. lQD.Q
"'!:
~/l6 -u6J -C I
C/ED:CPD:PB:SF:JG
wjnowcc
COUNCIL MEETING: November 14, 1989
~. --
NOV 2 1 l~d~
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: North of Wilshire Moratorium, Task Force
Alternatives and Staff Recommendation
Introduction
This report reviews the results of the north of Wilshire task
force meetings and outlines the three alternatives staff have
developed to address the concerns of the residents.
It is
recommended that the city council approve the alternative which
will modify development standards and create a construction rate
and management program for the area bounded by Ocean Avenue to
the west, 14th street to the east, Wilshire Boulevard to the
south, and Montana Avenue to the north. In order to accomplish
the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance and implementing the
construction rate and management program, staff is recommending a
seven month extension to the moratorium ordinance.
Background
In April of 19B7 I concerned residents of the north of Wilshire
area came forward to City Council to express concern about the
effect of new development and construction in their neighborhood.
- 1 -
II~A
$" 1 J. loa?
v
NOV 2 1 19~
.
.
specific complaints were about the negative effect of prolonged
construction, displacement of tenants, and the rapid conversion
of lower density blocks to higher densities (see Attachment A) .
A review of development activity in April 1989 showed that
development activity had increased, as it had citywide. Between
the area of Ocean Avenue on the west, Fourteenth street on the
east, Wilshire Boulevard on the south, and Montana on the north,
twenty one residential projects (see Attachment B) were in
development review, had been approved, or were under
construction.
Following a public hearing on the matter, on May 9, 1989 the City
council voted to place a 45-day moratorium on residential
development in the north of Wilshire residential area pending the
formation of a strategy to address problems of development. On
June 13, 1989, the city Council voted to continue the moratorium
for a period of six months, the end date being December 13, 1989.
During the moratorium period, staff was directed to work with a
task force of residents from the neighborhood to develop a plan
limiting construction permits and creating new development and
design standards for the area.
Task Force
To provide input into the formulation of the new development
standards, Council directed staff to work with a task force
comprised of all constituencies that potentially could be
affected by any change to the development standards. A review of
development standards and a program to limit construction impacts
- 2 -
.
.
on the neighborhood requires input from individuals representing
all perspectives of a neighborhood. Therefore, the task force
was comprised of ten members: four resident tenants, two
resident condominium owners, one single family property owner,
one property owner, one ARB member, and one local residential
developer.
Selection of task force members was done by staff with assistance
from the North of wilshire Residents Association. Members of the
pUblic who spoke at the pUblic hearing in addition to others who
expressed interest in the process were asked to participate. In
order to provide the task force and staff with a perspective on
the design and construction aspects of residential standards,
staff included a local residential developer and an architect
from the Architectural Review Board. Achieving a balance of all
perspectives was a primary goal of staff in the selection of the
task force members.
The task force met on a regular basis during the last four months
and identified a number of problems associated with construction
activity in the area. Concerns included the degradation of the
unique character of the neighborhood, density, overburdening the
infrastructure, displacement of elderly and middle income
residents, and substantial noise, nuisance, and construction site
problems resulting from the rapid rate of development.
Task Force Report
A report has been prepared that reflects issues addressed and
recommendations made by the task force (see Attachment C). Task
- 3 -
.
.
-:
force members have reviewed and contributed to the report. In
addition, the task force reviewed the alternatives and staff
recommendation sections of this report, and the majority of the
task force asked that downzoning be studied by staff and
presented to city Council as the preferred alternative.
Discussion of Alternatives
staff, in response to the issues and problems identified by the
task force, developed the following alternatives:
Alternative (1) Rate and Standards Program
Alternative (2) Downzoning
Alternative (3) Interim Standards
Each of the following staff alternatives includes a discussion,
if needed, of task force recommendations if they differ from
staff.
Alternative (1) Rate and Standards Program
To address the issues raised by the residents, in particular, the
scale of new development, the impacts of new construction
activi ty, and the number of construction proj ects in the area,
the rate and standards alternative was developed with the task
force. It consists of three parts Which are outlined as follows:
A. Revised Development Standards
New development and design standards are proposed that
address neighborhood compatibility issues that include
height, massing and stepbacks, front and side setbacks, open
space, distance required between buildings, landscaping, and
- 4 -
.
.
overall architectural standards and features. The following
are the current and proposed new standards:
Height
Current
Proposed
R-4
4 storiesj45 feet
4 storiesj40 feet
Allow 45 feet for
a pitched roof
R-3
3 storiesj40 feet
3 stories/35 feet
Allow 40 feet for
a pitched roof
Front Yard Setback
Current
20 feet
Proposed
20 feet, however, 25% of the front elevation up to 14'
in height shall be setback an additional average of 5
feet.
30% of the front elevation over 14 I in height
shall be setback an additional average of la' from the
required front yard setback .
Rear Yard Setback
Current
Proposed
15 feet
15 feet - no change
side Yard Setback
Current
5 feet + (stories x lot width)
50'
If less than 50 foot width = lO~ nut not less than 4 feet
- 5 -
.
.
Proposed
Minimum: 5 feet + (stories x lot width)
50'
For any portion of the structure between 14' to 28' in
height, an additional 4 foot average setback is required.
For any portion of the structure between 29 I to 38' 1 an
additional 8 foot average setback from the minimum sideyard
setback is required.
Landscaping
Current
50% of front yard is required to be landscaped
50% of one side yard is required to be landscaped
proposed
50% of front yard is required to be landscaped. At least two
24" box trees shall be planted in the front yard.
50% of both side yards are required to be landscaped.
private open space
CUrrent
None required
proposed
Require 150 square feet
consisting of 4 or 5 units
Require 100 square feet
consisting of 6 units or more
for each unit for projects
for each unit for projects
These proposed changes will provide the neighborhood with relief
from the visual impacts of new development that neighbors have
- 6 -
.
.
been e~periencing. New construction within the neighborhood has
been identified as being incompatible in scale with existing
structures. strengthening development and design standards will
address the incompatibility of scale as well as affect the visual
perceptions of building heights and massing.
A majority of task force members agree that the proposed changes
to the current standards would reduce the perceived scale of
buildings and ensure that new construction becomes less intrusive
in the neighborhood. The task force majority would alternatively
recommend heights be reduced to two and three stories in the R3
and R4 districts in lieu of side and front yard stepbacks.
with adoption of the Land Use Element in 1984, heights were
reduced from six to four stories (65 feet to 45 feet) in the R4
district. As proposed in this report the heights in the R3 and
R4 districts would be reduced even further for developments that
do not provide a pitched roof. In addition, implementation of
new development standards that require new buildings to step back
at both front and side yards will address the problem of scale
identified by the task force.
The task force is recommending an increase in the required guest
parking standards to one guest space per three units. Current
parking standards require one guest space per every five units
and two spaces for one and two bedroom units and for each bedroom
over two, an additional .5 parking space is required. Current
standards effectively limit properties within the R4 and R3
district from developing to maximum density. Under current
- 7 -
.
.
standards, an R4 parcel of 50 feet x 150 feet can accommodate a
subterranean garage that will park approximately 14 cars. with
that constraint, an R4 parcel cannot develop to it's potential
maximum density in that 9 units are permitted and only parking
for six units can be accommodated. Under current standards, an
R3 parcel could achieve it I s potential maximum density. staff
recognizes that parking is a problem within the neighborhood.
Requiring additional guest parking will, in essence, further
"downzone" the district but will help alleviate the parking
problem as new development occurs.
B. Construction Rate Program
To control the rate of construction in the neighborhood, the
following program is proposed:
One construction project per block, or within 300 linear
feet in the north and south direction of a proj ect.
This restriction applies for eight months, after which
time another proj ect could begin construction in the
area.
Definition of block: a block is defined as parcels on
both sides of the street in the same block face and
includes adjacent parcels separated by a street or alley
(see Attachment D).
Implementation of the recommended construction rate program would
control the rate of development in the neighborhood and address
the resident's concerns stemming from numerous construction
projects occurring simultaneously in a given area. This program
would also not place an unreasonable burden on property owners
- 8 -
.
.
and developers wanting to develop parcels within the area. The
majority of task force members also recommend that more time be
required between Type I construction projects as their methods of
construction can require more time than traditional Type V wood
frame construction. After reviewing the issues with the
Building & Safety Division, it was determined that additional
time for Type I proj ects is not necessary and should not be
required.
c. Construction Management Program
In conj unction with other City departments, a Construction
Management Program is proposed for all construction projects
in the north of Wilshire neighborhood. All contractors and
developers will be required to comply with this program
during the period of construction. The program will be
implemented as part of the plan check process and reviewed by
the Building and Safety Division and General Services
Department during the application, approval, and inspection
process. As part of the plan check process, a construction
si te plan will be required and approved by the Building
Officer. The task force identified the following
construction site problems: noise, construction hour
violations, truck routes, sidewalk blockages, dumpsters in
the street, construction site employees parking in
neighborhood, alley blockages, and materials blocking the
street. Although many of the issues are currently addressed
in existing procedures, a construction site plan will be
required which indicates the following:
1) Placement of dumpsters on site,
- 9 -
.
.
2) Material storage and drop off areas on site,
3) Placement of signage specifically stating construction
hours, contractor name and telephone number, and city
construction complaint telephone number (this will
augment the current ci tywide construction signage
program posting the phone number for construction site
complaints),
4) The location of construction site employee parking areas
or a detailed shuttle program for employees for projects
of ten units or more,
5) A requirement for alleys to be posted for loading only.
Alley blockage is prohibited unless arranged by special
permit
6} A plan for truck routes and truck staging,
7) Placement on site of all permits and plans (existing
procedures currently require this)
8) Limitation on the hours for delivery of equipment and
materials (existing procedures currently require this) .
Additionally, prior to issuance of a building permit, a report
will be submitted by the contractor or developer that details the
following conditions that the developer will be responsible for
implementing through the construction period.
1) If demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure
is currently in use, the existing structure shall be
maintained and secured by boarding up all openings,
erecting a security fence, and removing all debris,
bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance
- 10 -
.
.
of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
Officer and the Fire Marshal. Any landscaping material
remaining shall be watered and maintained until demoli-
tion occurs.
2) During construction, a security fence shall be main-
tained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall
be kept clear of all non-construction related trash,
weeds, etc.
3) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the appli-
cant shall prepare for Building & Safety Division ap-
proval a rodent and pest control plan, to include
fumigation prior to demolition, to ensure that demoli-
tion and construction activities at the site do not
crea te pest control impacts on the proj ect neighbor-
hood. In lieu of fumigation, the applicant will be
required to demonstrate that no rodent or pest control
problem exists on the site.
4) Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and pass-
able during the grading and construction phase of the
project (existing procedures currently require this).
5) Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which
need replacing or removal as a result of the project as
determined by the Department of General services shall
be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Department
of General Services. Approval for this work shall be
- 11 -
e
.
obtained from the Department of General services prior
to issuance of the building permits (existing proce-
dures currently require this) .
6) Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from
the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or
other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
7) street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided
as required in a manner consistent with the city's Tree
Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the
Department of Cultural and Recreational Services and
the Department of General Services. No street tree
shall be removed without the approval of the Recreation
and Parks Division (existing procedures currently re-
quire this).
The above program consisting of changes to the development
standards, a construction rate program, and construction
management program, would require an extension of the moratorium
for an additional seven months to July 13, 1990. This is
necessary in order to accommodate Planning commission review and
hearings to amend the Zoning Ordinance and prepare the necessary
ordinances.
Alternative (2) Downzoning
Throughout the duration of this process representatives of the
north of Wilshire neighborhood have maintained that downzoning
was a preferred alternative. A majority of the task force feel
strongly that downzoning should be studied while a minority do
- 12 -
.
.
not agree. The majority is advocating downzoning of both the R-3
and R-4 districts. The following outlines the request the task
force would like the Council to consider:
study downzoning of the R-4 and R-3 districts.
Preferably, extend the moratorium pending completion of the
study or, if interim standards are adopted, pending study
completion, set zoning at R2 for the entire district. The
proposed revision of development standards, construction rate
program, and construction management program all included in
Alternative (1) to this report would also be implemented.
The majority of the task force is requesting a downzoning study
similar to that prepared for Ocean Park. To accomplish this, a
consultant would need to be retained to study the ramifications
and impacts of downzoning and the moratorium would need to be
extended for at least one year and possibly longer to accommodate
environmental review. staff continues to believe that the
negative impacts of new development and construction in the north
of Wilshire neighborhood are primarily the result of a rapid rate
of development and not a function of the area's higher densities.
Further, the current density for the north of Wilshire
neighborhood is appropriate for an area adj acent to the City's
Downtown. Given the area's wide streets and proximity to public
open space and downtown retail services, and adequate
infrastructure, the area is able to support the densities
currently allowed. In addition, the need exists to preserve
densities in this area to meet Santa Monica's housing needs and
maintain a mix of housing and residents.
- 13 -
.
.
The task force maintains that reducing density will stop the
recycling of properties. Staff has analyzed development of
parcels within the district at current and reduced densities. A
preliminary analysis conducted by staff shows that no matter the
density, property owners will develop and the market will absorb
unit costs.
The figures below indicate that the profit margin could be less
depending on the number of units constructed. However, staff
believes a downzoning of the district will not stop recycling of
existing buildings. As demonstrated by the figures below the
construction of a 3 unit condominium development could result in
a profit to the developer. In fact, at R2 standards in the
current R4 zone, it would potentially be as profitable to build 3
high end condominiums costing upwards of one million dollars than
5 moderate condominiums in the range of $400,000. Maintaining
the current zoning would result in more units available at a more
moderate cost.
The following analysis is based on the following assumptions:
(1) Land costs at $85.00 s.f.
(2) Construction costs at $65.00 s.f.
(3) Parking construction at $29,250 per dwelling unit
(4) And sales prices based on a survey of asking prices in
mUltiple listing service book within the area.
- 14 -
.
.
Condominiums (assume/demolition/relocation of one unit)
R4 8 units R3 6 units
Profit $500,496 $243,636
Return on Equity 159% 87%
R2 3 units R2 5 units
Profit $200,109 $79/398
Return on Equity 78% 32%
Densi ties in the area were reduced during the adoption of the
1984 Land Use Element and are now a part of the new Zoning
Ordinance. Prior to adoption of the Land Use Element, the
density for R3 was 1000 s.f. per unit and R4 was 750 s.f. per
unit (see Attachment E). The Land Use Element reduced densities
by 20% for R3 and 17% for R4. Current zoning ordinance densities
are 1250 s.f. per unit for R3 and 900 s.f. per unit for R4.
As mentioned earlier in this report, new parking standards,
included in the 1988 zoning ordinance, effectively reduced
achievable densities in the R4 district. Current densities
allow nine units on a 7500 square foot parcel in the R4 district,
however, the parking standards only permit six units per standard
lot to be developed (approximately equivalent to R3 standards).
Staff believes that implementation of the new parking standards
has effectively downzoned the R4 district achievable densities to
R3. Current parking standards have not reduced the potential
maximum density of the R3 zone.
- 15 -
.
.
Implementation of front and side yard setbacks discussed in
Alternative 1 of this report would reduce the "buildable area" of
a parcel. A combination of increased setbacks with more
restrictive parking standards would reduce the achievable density
for R4 to below R3 density.
To determine potential buildout, staff conducted a count of
underutilized parcels in the moratorium area. If the densities
remained at R4 and R3 standards the following was found:
R3 district
If existing zoning (R3) is maintained there could be a
theoretical increase of 460 units
R4 district
If existing zoning (R4) is maintained there could be a
theoretical increase of 347 units
R3 increase = 460 units
R4 increase = 347 units
TOTAL UNITS 807 units
It is important to note that staff did not account for losses of
existing units when compiling the density figures. At the time
the moratorium went into effect 283 units were approved and/or
pending. These 283 units were not considered in the staff count.
Conceivably, these units could be deducted from the theoretical
buildout of 807 units leaving a theoretical increase of 524
units.
- 16 -
.
.
If all the underutilized parcels (R3 and R4) in the district were
rezoned to R2, staff estimates that there could be a theoretical
increase of 444 units and a theoretical loss of approximately 363
units within the district. If all parcels in the R4 were zoned
to R3 and all R3 parcels were zoned to R2, staff estimates there
could be a theoretical increase of 498 units and a theoretical
loss of approximately 309 units in the district.
Alternative (3) Interim standards
A third alternative available to the Council is the adoption of
interim standards. This alternative would implement, on an
interim basis, the three programs explained in the rate and
standards alternate of this report. Implementation of revised
development standards, a construction rate program, and a
construction management program would respond to the concerns the
task force and neighbors have identified as impacting the
neighborhood. By adopting this alternative, the moratorium could
be lifted and construction could occur in the area while the
permanent development standards are being developed and refined.
Both staff and a majority of task force members do not recommend
interim standards. If, however, interim standards were adopted
most members believe any interim zoning above R2 would create "a
undesirable window of opportunity for development".
Other Issues
Apart from the revised development standards and downzoning
request, the issue of senior board and care facilities came up
and was discussed. The task force identified the recycling and
- 17 -
.
.
displacement of senior board and care homes as a growing problem
in the neighborhood. In an attempt to deal directly with this
issue, the task force recommends that incentives be developed to
encourage construction of these types of facilities in the area.
Should downzoning occur, the task force generally felt that board
and care facilities should be allowed to develop at the present
development standards. This sentiment arose out of concern for
maintaining adequate housing opportunities for the elderly.
Addi tionally , the task force has recommended that senior board
and care facilities be exempt from the proposed construction rate
program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
After evaluating all the options discussed by the task force,
Staff is recommending that the Council adopt the rates and
standards alternative.
To implement this program it is recommended that the City
council:
1) Open the public hearing and hear from all members of the
public;
2) Direct the city Attorney to prepare the appropriate
ordinances to implement the rate of construction program and
construction management program as outlined in this report;
3) Direct the Planning Commission to consider a resolution of
intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance in relation to the
revised development standards contained in this report, and
- 18 -
.
.
review the proposed construction rate and management
ordinances.
4) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance extending
the moratorium for an additional period of seven months.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Johanna Gullick, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A - North of Wilshire Petition
B 1987,88,89 Residential Projects
C Task Force Report
D Construction Rate Program "Block"
E Comparison of Development standards for R3 and R4 zones
w/nowcc
11/07/89
- 19 -
1'- ,":'..., 'lL"'~_"''''~~' .}-~.'T.' l~.' 13",;
.. ~~ tt. -;tj..~'!""...~.. -=..:~~-~~-:
...."'~~;>i""f?t~""~~.~~~,~
. _~ '=:f.:~~....,.~~ .'t!~t~
IJ ~f-"0j~", -. .;-" '<-'"
~ .~'.~--:""~it-~~: ~~j:~"7-:~-=l"~~-=-: +~ ~ .
'fI ".' ... ~-- .', ,-~ ,< x l'ltf. .
~ .:,~':~~",--~-."'l;...~... :"~V"-;.L.~. _ . y -- . .. . . 1:~li\; ~l: ... ~ <~...
.:; ."'-'....J--,,(j-.lJ;.::m....';ort..':;t~~..L~_-.::................w:-,I-"""'-+:.-~-A.~~ "" 'Ii'~.... .._ "r 'ff'f!' .... -c
; J ,", ,,- :~;~. "-:. '~-"-",,",,: ~.,,-..:-i~"~.>,'i-'~.!'~Q. J:Jr'ETd!=p L-;:E.;4SE I r4~~_.,::>~ _'~': ;::' ."".' .H~ .', ~.y,t/.:;<:~:,',-:::-jO'C O'
: ~<'- ~':'.', :<:-~-;l'~: ~~:;~;:~i",.'>",~,,;Y~':>'.~_':;?'::~~~'-?~~,^=-.f .;" ~-__:-.>>_;-=: , . ':~~~~!~.:,::__~"
',tV e, the unaer-signCd North of'WiIshire~d~ts, rep~ting the n~ghbOrhood from wilshire to
(Montana, from 5th Street to Ocean Avenue; cherishing the high quality of life in' our Neighborhood
and in our Oty; grateful for the past and current efforts of the City Council; - threatened by
overdeve1opment. parking shortages, and over-aowding of our parks; fearful of Ellis evictions; and
thoroughly provoked by the widespread, relentless, noisy, dirty, insect-spreading construction-in our
Neighborhood, do hereby request the City of Santa Monica to:
1. Place an immediate six-month moratorium on all construction in our Neighborhood, that is, between
Wilshire and Montana, between Fifth Street and Ocean Ave, to provide an opportunity for the
institution of the following measures: ' ,.". -
2. Immediately down-zone the Neighborhood: Lower the maximum density and limit the height of
new construcb.on to two floors above ground level
3. Include the North of Wilshire Residents in Third-Street Mall issues that affect us, e.g., road-
opening hours, new commercial development. and planning.
4. Institute preferential parking in our neighborhood. With the increase in traffic due to commercial
development on and south of Wtlshire, our already difficult parking situation has been critically
..worsened. "i- .~ ~ ~ .:: _,"L_r,..-I-j_..:~b':..!;....!.~:J_-
5. ShOrten ConstruCtion hours in our neighborhood to 9:00 8.m. to 5:00 p.m. Strengthen noise-control
measures. Study the spread of vennin and other negative impacts of construction. Umit truck traffic.
6. Put a stop sign on California at Third Street to alleviate noise and damage caused by.cars crashing
over the dip. ~ _ _
'7. Protect us from Ellis Act abuses which subvert rent control law and have resulted in the eviction of
many tenants in our neighborhood.
8. Cap commercial and residential constIuction for all of Santa Monica.
Si~a~~e - Pnnt N~me i.:- :.~~/;Address Phone ~~:
,- ~,~~~ ~:~<_: :' <bt/;;l)rJ-i?~l:J .>:~ "-/u ~r ) d- J( .J 7".$ ~ l it :(~--
~-'Lf.mjjrl:oj,fk-~~~/25// ~9f-, sty. 39.i~/~!j~
~Yifr'/ b;;7J=:~~ .:$1 ~zM;t A. f?)Yj ~&" (7:37
. <' '.it J.%/r~P;-:-#> /0;1;-1.5 ~F )'11 Jf7347-7___",
~/I~J U*'-~tv~ (OF)')~~~T6t l.{,~..l~~
V'~~ /,o(j-ff ~..,ft.,....'I?? cpl r ~I ,5-/1, 1I///$1
l_ ~~.#J~ /!L;1I~h'Zlr{e.- t/D) {(/1?5tf /f!6-!hJ-11 (";2%71
Jln-.LI.JIJ- ..Do J.lLA~:J'yd '1~"1 .5{t-/.Ir -PIn ->,..".., _::~ .r:- 6.uJ-::"~
t.AAmr/flf-rrj_P.A.~_" ~~ C12'f f7d $I #3 ~qlf../J6~
lJlf4~ 1-kta;J Rci3hJ HOLD(r-,X; 908-S'~ SL -4f"(;, r SNJ\AMOf.JI~ 393.35"70
e.J.P?"k;d i,u. ~C~()IJ ~q ~r~ '5f" 10 4~~-~?
''In ..rLf.lJc~J?)yY>lic /fbS ~ (3)~PtMiJ q & ~ s .~-tif ( 3 q'C{: ;q-5.cr
{)14:-~#-/vd7rt.~Jt4~ royc;JI-~{(eJ=f5 ~ M
~ ~if1" ~II-ev.. (3tA.(6(l q 0 L/ <;:ft., -it Lf S jA.
'"'~~~;;;':,if~: .~- ~~..a~~~:~t::-:~~, ~ =. .-.: .=~ ~ t'~!;'2~~;:;~~;i
~ -~-;'Y'_"~w."--Y;~,"~""'-..:i""""~'::'..t'U-~':'~..-'dW:,.~" -:-r-l.:=.k~:J:-'-&~1 ~ ..--;r=i"'" I ,r..-
:~l~~~-~ ~:. :?;~~;~~F~~ -~.~ ~~ L~:~ :~~~f:;;f~~~lt;i~~'
""'~~~~~ ......~.(: ~~I.- "'t~-7''':.<-''' ~1 ~'''-:!I''o.-I~...-....... ~~::,""N ....~~-....y~~.......____.-
~qy-;j..7Y
~.......... .c:....~ -
,
'. ~ .~ '70
_.~ : ~: :....~~ ,~-', _ _. :~-- ~ '.~;-._ ,.:~~f~~~~",:,.; . ~ h '0
-(v R N'. Ii:). , -p G:ri rjclJ~':'" c. };-L.r:;~;gi.,<it~"7J:Z:i~~~i{~~"\~~~:;
_~-'.J" .-~ J ,~...::_~ '_r_"'" ,J "- _ .. ."......_ ....1 ....--..--.. -
.....,),f$-"t-.- .__;.....-.... -.:.,..J--,.:t.1y-.:I-~_
'. -~ -,~. \, ':l,"':" 1=;.11":~~' : I' S '9', .--. . - p
Project/Type
of Deve10pment
1) Condominium Complex
(3 units)
2) Condominium Complex
(3 units)
3) Condominium Complex
(5 units)
4) Condominium Complex
(4 units)
5) Condominium Complex
(3 units)
6) Condominium Complex
(6 units)
7) Condominium Complex
(5 units)
8) Condominium Complex
(6 units)
9) senior Group
(88 rooms)
10) Condominium Complex
(8 units)
11) Apartment Complex
(23 units)
12) HUD Project
(72 units)
13) Apartment Complex
(12 units)
14) Condominium Complex
(8 units)
.
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING DIVISION
North of Wilshire Residents
March 1989
Residential Projects
1987, 1988, 1989
Location
421 California Ave
427 California Ave
1010 California Ave
1308 California Ave
1314 California Ave
923 Euclid st
1011 Euclid st
907 Lincoln Blvd
851 2nd st
938 2nd st
832-836 3rd st
1121-1135 3rd st
904 4th st
1057 4th st
- 1 -
.
status
pending
bldg permit issued
completed construction
bldg permit issued
planning approvals
granted
bldg permit issued
planning approvals
granted
planning approvals
granted
bldg permit issued
bldg permit issued
bldg permit issued
planning approvals
granted
pending
pending
.
ATTACHMENT B
15) Condominium Complex 957 5th st
(6 units)
16) Condominium Complex 1044 5th st
(6 units)
17) Condominium Complex 1032 6th st
(6 units)
18) Condominium Complex 1024 7th st
19) Apartment Complex 842 11th st
(10 units)
20) Condominium Complex 938 12th st
(6 units)
21) Apartment Complex 1114-1118 14th st
(9 units)
.
planning approvals
granted
planning approvals
granted
bldg permit issued
bldg permit issued
bldg permit issued
planning approvals
granted
completed construction
Note: A total of 283 units are included in the above listed projects
w/nowrres
10/31/89
- 2 -
1. '::11 li:u.rJl j;..ii h .;~f.:~~'b: ~;'i.:':" 'If;li f;, I ~ J L :ll:;I..II~ :; l)~.i ~ I'~:I ~\~ It '~
J L3tJ~ W~ l~1:Jbi:)' :J. ~~. ~w .[ I.. J ~ ~ ~ l . _~ __-- J J "1 i I~ :1
~~~~_~~wr::!l_\~I::_~,: __,__f:~~~_,~\:,.l,:}~ - ~~r; t -l"~oR~l~~lll-~~~ll~ 1 _' Iii i~:
11;11~-I.,I,or'li' ..j;2~; al;:-!,..lIor~~II.t II.. ];~",II7Jlill"I"II;'or ~J~ ~ :iT ~Ii~ rl~ :; ~ C!~ -J.,I :I;~:; :j l;' :"\J! :1 ~ I~;
~~11,S!~I~.".I"l:'Fj~~(>31~ ~~J't.=.jl~-WW"L~..L:l J" J J - _l Jl~_r_' _ _ r (.!~;I 'II
I~O'~~' 1 ~~ 91:11 ~ .,~ ~ ..--. I II I 1,
,. I.', ~!i EL 11 ~- -' J L8 If ' v lG" l:.j ~ 1 C1l8 Gli~ r- ~ ~~~lll- 11\' - tb r ft'T- r - 1. t I ~: i;'
]i r ~,' I ~ i~ '--If]: G'~ "f ~If'~ ~~~ [n' ~I~: "I 1 :;r'~. "~! "I tft ~ ~;:; :;! : ~ ~ I:; I'.::J t"J'i ~ H' :: I!.:; : c .:; .I!: t./ II! I: f.i
tf "', u u .... , r: U. ' I" II 10: '''I '''' or ,or , I l" , 1 'iJ-'"
. ':; ,!.. .- - f 'i )'i I f 1 fi11 i ; :,'
'_ '-, . _ _ J__ L _ _ _ _ L- '. ; J ~ 1 I
, ( -. \~ 'I I'
lOll I r ; 'il' '1 i . : I - l r-l' - ,-.1:, \1 - . ,
'; ,~,:'I : :1 f: ~ q~:,~~ 8~! 8~1 ~Hr,~ r, cll:~ :If; ;1 r~'J.~l o~~~ I ; ; yl. ~ I' ,il
J l~jG.J J - ' ..J~.d L.ll.:] L..,"-,J L"L I Jl J l~Jl~J L lL __ -fJl~L ~;:l. . '_ t I. i 1 i
r-= lr ~1 " ~ 1:; r ~ ,r., r ~ jr · ~ lr ~ t' ~ - .i. ( -;: - i ! ':' ~ -,1 ~: Ji :: 1 II: :1\' " '\- \"~I~I' .., 11 t \ "'; I '
I. . II -' . I . I .;..+..-...;....~~~... l_u.. ...........,\0-1 -j, 1"/,, I "I!a. q
I ; I I~; ! [I ~ -. I I- : i I II i 11 j f '-.. I:!" I : ~ oil tl . "I .... !! - ! !
III, II;;I! 1:;I';I'I::jk'l ~'i:;!l;ll L'II;II "~II"i1I:;jl;11 J;;I~11 t\i:'<: I!:jiill ~ ~ t:, I, ::; ~iJ'JI; 'i : Ii t! ill II
li ~J [JU LL ~ -l L1J [JJ t ~ ~JJ .Jtj L.J UJ~ ~ WLiJ t1JtJ UJlJ; I: ~ ~ I I'
ri \.' 1':1 -~~.~.~~ nn nil n~ : I r-\ 1'-- r.; 1J reo 1- f I' <>~;~ - ') -'lr "In ~: ,I
I! .. :::-- ~ : f I ,'I I - f !! ! ~r -- I ~; N ~ ~ I I .t 1 ! I
.! ~"" :-1 t^ ""j.....; .....t,.....11 -!!;I'< ....,;,.. 1- !...._ I...-.t oP") ....;~ -.~. ...,1.....11..... \...... . ,"'--! -I" .~,. ,'lI...
1!'ltjt.!-i:i..!.j' ,.1-1' ;-.~1<1.1'1"'~! i. i.~. :._I!_j!i~_[..llJ RZJ-. !_'-j;.' ~ :-i. ,i. ~l:1 0 o-u .!. Il~
: ;'" ~. 'I I" l'" :,' ,. I" II - :..; · ' . 'I . ~ .. <<, :. ". . i ,~ " ;. - ". la ~ .'" .. -, Ii e' ~ 1 ' I.'
! .; ; i ~ ~,j! I " ~ ! [ , ~ H'; Ii. c:o. · ,Lll ! J J ~ UL u I ~ ~ 'I f':
'i1'~ (ll~rl!~'lf;li;!,~.I.:.~flifr,~jll~~.ll~nl~/j"I,~.lhP.il,j'~Ir,j.)~IQllli~lr;;'111~8..;; ~r"II:II'j~~li;~!: !Lt~ .-!);![]= J 'I ~ [\;
1]'" .,.! l:LL1A~~~,:~ ,~ ~~~~II;.<:'~1Jltl~ H~J__~II , ,I" i H., I~: ;;1 . ; ..:~ I: Ilf
J _,,-,u..l l...kL.:j'G;jW'L~J....~..h.~J~;;j'L:..J[;l-L;;'Jl.I(.J'L;;JL;j'L;:;JL~J'L"JL~YL" Jol l~' I ~_.! ::::- ~li. ...l il,fl..., .ll'"
.-.... -..... ~~ I
:l .lr"'l [:YVl r'!J:Fl r":ll~ r<;1''''1 r.;;T';;l f':1r':l [""'='['1 t: ~ rq~ --- - -=-=r;'Tr-===-="-"'~~" ,
Ji~ull,I:li!~;li;II~~r'II!'J~~t:)jjl~~!J~..Jf~1::~I!~:U11 ~1\4;tJ- [~fjr::j; '~~111;jl!;~~:r~~i~~IJI~t~n~ln -.. i \~
~ 1-10.1i....... I I! "I 'll t. 'II I ' :[. '.}. j; il -. (.:...- ...!-- · l. :, \'
, i n'-...li 'J r .! ~ i. ~ '"" - ; L' [ :; I ; \: I . "
'1 '. I" 'l.~ . L_ L- - - - - -- - -. - - -.~ --I ., , \ 1
~~-,-l.' I,' i : Ii II: ,"'-;-tl !: ;'! r .'~..- .. ,r-' ~.:.-~~.:.... :,. ~t:
f ..! -"-ioa " ; ~! I [; i I ! I I, Ii ; , ~ __ _ _ } l~_~_ '.. '{ I ~ \ ~
li nH njP,RJDjlQ-,." '"ilJJj:lf.D.nI."I~,~o,~-~~; __ J\l_~._3J \\ ; \\~
I rn , U lJD [lJ [fll ' t H [[~ [J[~ [1] [1.~ ,~~,~~,. .. wo _."~::-- ~;, I \ \
I i111 HI ~ I-... . . - [==--==---3\1----- -=--.....l.\j... '\\
Ii (,:' i r- i In :" I ;: \ ;; -3\ .. :' \ \ I
. 1_ II, i I i I! J I' . ~. ".--' ==-=--=----=-=-)'" ',. .
l "l'II!'" "iPn~~ 10..8- RI~I'''I!;; :'.l~]f'" 1;~1~~O~! i';n:. n~L_ - -~--~ ~-;.--.5h-,..._.L 1"0 \ \
III j II I I I l .j I I or I! '~lu '!I' ...~..~:: ....;._.:.=~-;-_.~.I\-;\.. \\
U . U L L. ~ '. I · I .' U' ~ ;~- -.- ---'1t\ ; \l '-- "
1 - ~ I .1-r.ll~rlJ(IIJ.II: ~l'.i~'I'Jltt1"J~t8!! ~-11nf ~ oiJil:;-;;i:~.~\jJ'\~ \\
jl : I 'I [[ ~ n I" .. ~1~~ I ~~ L-?--' o..~^.~ ~~ \ -:-:---- j.. \
;;" r "J :lfH~8ii v ;(f1ib;J~ ~ :~r ~ J"-~'- \\\-, \
1 ~ L _ ~_ _ . ~{ ;; \ r/ ~ ~c- \
"* 3~r. - lfS-=-0~.~ / '- ~ ---.;
\~~.~.t3, .l_ _ 'V""~y/ n ~r ~
-r;. J ",,1 ",,;,,, ~ .....~ r; ,~
I ~ ,....."NI~ (}-
I" . / ' \,. _ ~
. \ ('\- I.. a
'. /'.... ..-'~ ":-
'.- -'-/ 1 ~\\f . '1 '~ ~ , 'I ~
(, \\. . ':l ~ ~!tJ)
., - ~\. <. - ,,<:'\
:f: '0- \lo-OI
Y1,~ '( ~
.
.
ATTACHMENT C
October 1989
North of Wilshire Task Force Report
Issues and Problems
The task force identified numerous problems the north of Wilshire
district is experiencing due to a rapid rate of construction.
Those problems included runaway development, overpopulation,
construction noise and dirt, building heights and massing out of
scale with the neighborhood, loss of unique neighborhood
character and compatibility, displacement of seniors in board and
care homes, parking shortages due to overpopulation and
construction site spillover parking, a loss of low and middle
income residents in the neighborhood and a change in the
residency makeup from tenants to owners. The following outlines
the issues addressed by the task force representatives.
Downzoning
The majority of task force members, from the start of this
process, have requested staff study and recommend downzoning to
the City Council. The majority believe that downzoning will
mitigate the problems the neighborhood is experiencing while the
minority do not agree. Discussion concerning downzoning on the
task force has centered around density reduction, economics of
downzoning, preservation of the quality and character of the
- 1 -
.
.
neighborhood, and concern for maintaining the mix of residents in
the district. The following downzoning options have been
discussed:
1) Reduce heights/stories in R4 district from 4 to 2 or 3
stories and in the R3 district from 3 to 2 stories.
2) Reduce number of dwelling units allowed per acre in both
the R4 and R3 districts.
3) Notch down the zoning of R4 to R3 and of R3 to R2.
4) Downzone the entire district (both R4 and R3) to R2.
The majority of the task force recommends a downzoning study of
the entire district. Two options whereby this can be
accomplished are:
1) continue the moratorium, or
2) establish interim standards of R2 for the entire district
pending completion of a rezoning study similar to the recent
Ocean Park Rezoning study.
The minority of the task force recommend the moratorium be lifted
and are against any downzoning or rezoning study and favor the
staff recommendation of the rates and standards alternative
consisting of revised development standards, construction rate
program, and construction management program. The minority of
the task force believe that with the change in parking standards
included in the 1988 Zoning Ordinance, permitted densities in the
R3 and R4 could no longer be achieved and therefore a "defacto"
downzoning has occurred.
- 2 -
.
.
Construction Rate Program
A rapid rate of development has occurred recently in the north of
wilshire district and neighbors are experiencing the impacts of
numerous construction sites per block. Task force members
discussed methods to control the rate of development in a given
area in order to relieve the impacts of construction. A range of
alternatives were considered. Those alternatives consisted of:
1) two years between construction projects within a radius
of 1000 feet.
2) no program at all.
3) upon completion of framing phase or six months, whichever
occurs first, another project could begin within "block"
(as defined below) .
4) one project every four blocks per year.
A majority of task force members agreed that the framing phase,
which takes approximately four to six months, of construction is
the most intrusive phase. consideration of a IIbreathing space"
of two months after completion of the framing phase would allow
the neighborhood a brief period of quiet before start up of
another project. The majority of task force members has
developed and proposes the following construction rate program to
control the rate of construction:
One construction project per block, or within 300 linear
feet in the north and south direction of a project. This
restriction applies for eight months, after which another
project could begin construction in the area.
- 3 -
.
.
Definition of block: a block is defined as parcels on
both sides of the street in the same block face and
includes adjacent parcels separated by a street or alley.
Additionally, the majority of task force members would like to
have more time required between Type I projects and others. Type
I construction commonly involves poured in place concrete or
steel frame construction which can take longer to construct than
Type V, wood frame construction.
The proposed construction rate program represents a consensus and
compromise of task force members. A minority of task force
members still would like no rate program at all but prefer it to
downzoning in relieving the neighborhood from construction
impacts. Minority members of the task force question the
prolonging of construction in the district through implementation
of a rate program. They believe it will mean years of noise and
construction impacts for the neighborhood. They believe allowing
the construction to take place at one time will allow for a
shorter period of construction impacts as opposed to stretching
out that period over possibly years.
Development Standards
New development and design standards have been developed jointly
by staff and the task force in order to integrate new development
into the existing neighborhood.
A majority of the task force agree with the development standards
recommended by staff which include increased front and side yard
- 4 -
.
.
setbacks, landscaping, private open space and reduced building
height. Four exceptions to those standards are:
1) Heights should be lowered to two and three stories
instead of three and four stories
2) Parking standards for guest parking should be increased
from that presently required. The recommended standard
is: for everyone to three units require one guest
space, for every four to six units require two guest
spaces, i.e. one guest space for every three units.
3) The proposed side yard and front yard setbacks only make
big buildings look small. Heights and densities should
be lowered.
4) It is also the recommendation of a majority of task force
members that these standards be adopted citywide for the
R3 and R4 district.
A majority of members recommended that an additional alternative
include a reduction in height of one story for both R3 and R4 and
no stepbacks at front or side yard. They think this accomplishes
a reduction in scale but not density.
A minority of the task force believe:
1) No reduction in height from the current standards should
be made as the R4 area has had heights reduced 30% since
1980.
2) Front and side yard setbacks should remain the same as
the current standards.
- 5 -
.
.
3) Landscaping: 50% of one side yard, or 25% of both side
yards should be required.
4) Parking standards for guest parking should be decreased
from those presently required. The recommended standard
is: for every three units over six, require one guest
space.
5) Parking standards for resident parking should be
decreased from those presently required. The recommended
standard is: one space for each one-bedroom unit and two
spaces for each two- or three-bedroom unit.
Minority members believe current parking problems are caused by
(a) the lack of one space per unit in older buildings,
(b) assigned parking spaces not being used when street parking is
available, (c) use by non-residents while visiting the nearby
beach and/or park, (d) cars stored on street and moved only for
street cleaning. Two solutions to the current parking problems
are permit parking and/or the recycling of older buildings.
A minority of the task force would suggest that required private
open space be set at 50 s.f. per unit and all task members agreed
that utilization of sideyards be allowed at the ground floor to
fulfill the private open space requirement.
Construction Management Program
In discussing the issues of construction problems experienced in
the neighborhood, it was the consensus of task force members and
City staff that a construction management program should be
- 6 -
.
.
developed. The majority of the task force recommends adoption of
the staff recommended construction management program that
requires all developers and contractors to comply with
construction site conditions and regulations that address site
noise, construction hour violations, truck routes, sidewalk
blockages, employee parking in neighborhood, alley blockages,
demolition, and other similar construction site issues.
The task force majority would additionally recommend that a
construction management program should be instituted citywide for
all construction sites.
Moratorium Extension/Interim Standards
The task force was presented with the three alternatives staff is
presenting to Council. Two alternatives include extension of the
moratorium to allow for further study. The third alternative
proposed implementation of interim standards to allow
construction to occur while staff develop the permanent
standards.
A majority of task force members support an extension of the
moratorium for one year during which time further study and
development could occur on downzoning, revised development
standards and the rate and construction management programs. A
minority of members expressed a concer~ that if the moratorium is
to be extended and a rate program instituted, an undue time
burden relating TO construction projects would be placed on
developers and property owners wanting to develop parcels in the
district.
- 7 -
.
.
If interim standards are to be adopted, a majority of the task
force recommends that the interim zoning be R2 throughout the
district. A majority of members believe any interim zoning above
R2 would create "an undesirable window of opportunity for
development". The task force minority think that an interim rate
program would mitigate any feared land rush.
Summary/Recommendations
As mentioned throughout this report, the task force has not come
to a consensus on all the issues. The construction management
program developed by staff is the one area of unity and
consensus. Everyone agrees that construction sites should
attempt to be good neighbors.
The majority of the task force members support downzoning and
think it will encourage construction that is compatible with the
neighborhood; it will limit heights/stories and lower the scale
of projects in the neighborhood; it will lower density and solve
the overpopulation problem the neighborhood is experiencing; and
slow down the rapid rate of construction experienced under the
current zoning.
The task force majority recommends:
1) A study of downzoning for the entire district.
2) Extend the moratorium for an additional year pending
completion of downzoning study.
3) If interim standards are adopted, allow only development
at R2 standards throughout the district pending
completion of downzoning study.
- 8 -
.
.
4) Develop the revised development standards and consider
two options:
a) lowering heights from four and three stories to three
and two stories or
b) increase side and front yard stepbacks.
5) Implement the construction rate program.
6) Implement the proposed construction management program.
The minority of task force members do not support downzoning and
think that the district has already had a "downzoning" in 1988
with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance that reduced
allowable heights, stories, and densities as well as adopted more
restrictive parking standards which effectively restrict density
on most R4 and R3 lots in the north of Wilshire district. The
task force minority recommends:
1) The area remain at the current zoning.
2) Implement revised development standards that do not lower
heights or reduce side yard setbacks.
3) Do not implement a construction rate program.
4) Implement a construction management program.
5) Do not extend the moratorium.
NORTH OF WILSHIRE TASK FORCE
Ken Breisch/Condominium Owner
Dane Chapin/Developer
Nancy Desser/Tenant
Carolyn Guillot/Property Owner
Kelvin Jones/Tenant
- 9 -
.
.
Eric Parlee/Architectural Review Board
.
CoCo Reynolds/Tenant
Ronald Sampson/Property Owner
Linda Wilson/Condominium Owner
Allan Zahner/Tenant
w/nowrtask
11/07/89
- 10 -
=
~
u
o
-
r:D
=
E
as
...
C)
o
...
c..
CD
...
as
a:
c:
o
.-
...
u
::s
...
....
o
c:
o
o
Ci
~
z
~
Z
::c:
u
<
E-f
E-t
..x:
i DO
I
I'll ><:B',
'" I
oS
~
ZDO/:l
:r:
51
51
8
:r:
:;:
II
51
~
z
~
51 -,
51
l/
II
i
a
-- <if
- -~~- ~
c:>
, (,
.. "'J
~,' :1
~
3nN:l^V~.
o
'oef i ~m>~
j;""8! ~g
- O'i -~ _~ -j _:o!i -
..
:;; 0 :i1
o
.
I"
~ r
I
~ O';l
...
~
<:>
r-
<=>
....
..
.'s
..
0--
'" '"
'"
"
"
i
~....~I~~z~
:t5o-;i .:-s ; ~
W
..J
D..
~
<(
><
w
~'dl' --'
IX I ~'j:
L'': z'
-I -
-.::. I C'i
'>-
? ><: 8,
~><~ ~
;::s. O'!i co;
....
..
,,.
:;:
51 ..,
~ ,
:;:
:i1 ...,
c
9.
o.
"
'"
os
..
Sl c.. ~
51
51
51
:;:
a. S
5l
51
51
a.
os
"',
:-.;
00
a
~
:;.
f3
:;:
!!-
51
51
::::
uJ
os
o
os
u :it
Of'
."
s.
0'"
...
51
,<JS'
0<
..
j~
r
;;:
;
~
t"
I
is
f.
I,
i-
f,
r
:;. iii
--'
~
-'
s
..
os'
><:
:;:
><:
51
51
Z 51
'"
os
....,
~
s
51
o :;:
--,
..
os
"',
:;:
'S
~
S!
a.
51
os
o
51
:::J
~
51
Cl
is!
I
s; 19
..
..'
-,
<.J
u
5<
51
51
51
>
0'
os'
,
j.s:
,
~ IOf lOGr
3nN3^V:
""
COO
Ie- ~.
r
i DO
l:r:
\ ii'
.,
51
""
<C
:r:
51
~
><'
t\
.{
:r:
><
1
<C
><
><
'"
..
....
<>
r-
~
'-&>
-=-
<.P
o.
~ ~
:i1 ~
:' : ~
t
I
...
()t;1'P' I
13;
I:
....
,.
.5
"
ic
r.
,51
I
IS
151
I
..
5<
~
....
a
~
~
a
~
51
L
51
:i1
...J
...J
...
""
:;:,...
.5
" t..,
'"
z
5l
l!
s
51
!il
51
:z
'"
:z
51
""
DO
0"
..'
os
"
Utt1
-,
II
:;:
51
:;:
:l.
o
S'
51
o
"")
o
...,
L,lh
..
:-SI
..
os
!51
a.
Jl
is.
::r:
:l;
'"
51
OI,
0;;-
-
.... 51
....
51
51 5l
w
ij,
,....
51
II<
'"
,,'"
o
o
51
5<
51
51. 51
::l 51
51
:::>
:::J
51
:z
~~51 5
...,~v
z Z
::;9 ~ 9 ::i
,
l\ K .
., f1, J Oi..
e.J i08
'3 ntH A'Q' ~
:t=
~ ~
UJ
~ ~
(/)
l}- 51 J
0&..,.
e./ 108
c
....
..
..,
51
u
51
s:. i5'
;I:
" ~ !:r:
tf}
[o,IOD", s:
~ II lOR'
c
<.D
51 s;
;c.
:;.~r51
"'~
~ .,F
:>
"'
.,
~~I'
~ r.
(l:.:-t
;
~
SI
.os
.s
SI
><
~
l'
~
. .
[I] 't1 0
- Ql 't1 :>1-1-l
tIl 'r-i ItS 14
CI J..l 0 p..
~ 0 <D-I-l ::l
-I-l J..I [I]
CI ~ 0.. Ul 0 >.~
:ij CI-I Itt S.c:: J..l~
.c:: ::e: M o 0
E-I 10 ---. .c::~ J..lro~U"I
tIl '" J..l . . ~ 0. D' 0 OQ)Ul..-l
........ Q)~ ~'dQ) C4J 4-J
CJ1 l/J. o.~ 11-I -r-i '0 -..-I Q) [l]H'O\I-.l
::> Q) 0 . . :3: 4-JQ) 0. Q)OS::O
CJ 0 -..-I ro.J.J lji Of . 011-I .a.J ::l -..-I ~ N
. H H ........ -..-I Ul {/) ...., -..-I <D J..l .
X :> 0 ::l C .a.J'l-I HO <D . 0 .Q))<
.\Of4 .J.J '0::10 OCI-I .a.JN \l-I .IoJ .a.J4J>1tS
X COp:( tf.l to 0 0 * {/) CI-I [I]~OS
. 0\ ~ CO..-it'- 000 a -..-I k 10 .Q
tIl ..-i ........ \0 10 ........ IOIO..-i 10 00 ..-I 10 MNroltS
0\
co 4J
0\ 0
.-i .c:: s::
>' .J.J
H '0 4J
::> -..-I ::l
~ ~ A
:>-t ItS .a.J df'
~ <J) 0 0
~ J..I r-i r-I
ItS II
:1 >: ..c
::> ~ r-t +>-
CJ ~ OQ) Ul '0 .
:Z;j tf.I ~ 11-I 00 Q) ..-I~
ro::Ii tf.I O'\J..I ..c -..-I :3:11-I
;:e::: 0 O\z 10 10 .t::.a.J l-l
::r::i ~ CCH "'" J..lo.. . 4J 0.. 0 '">1'
CJ 0\0 ........ Q) .a.J'dQJ 4J .a.J
Ill: ..-ip::; 11) o.~ ~ -.-i '0 tI) ~s::
8 ~ 0 <J) 0 0 . ~ 10
8 E-I .,; IO~ Of .a.J 4J + o.c:: -
,:C E-I Zt.!J H ........ -..-I . tJl ..a.J <J) Q) IO~
tf.I filZ 0 ::lC+J .a.J\l-I Q) Q) . ^
p:jH ..., 'l:l::l~ O~ ~ Il-I +J Ul
8- p:jZ tI.J . 0 a * Il-I If-lUl
Z 00 CO..-ilji 000 a 0 lO -..-I Q)
J:il CJN "'" ~""""l/J. LOLOr-I LO N ..-i lO -r-1
::e::
p...
0
H
r.q
:> E-i
rz:l
0 CJ
filH
....:10:
PfE-i
Htf.l J:il
E-IH t.!J
HO ~
~- :>-t
E-i Ii:l
1....:1 H :>
:>-t,c( {J) 0
E-tH Z ~ U
HE-i E-i rz:I N
mz :x:: 0 H H
Zfil t.!J U,I fil tf.l
filO H 8 t> ~
OH I'iI H 8 ~ U
tf.l :1: Z S .<CE-i
::r:~ p Pf ~Z ~ ~
t.!Jp:j 0 E-IO Q
H Z ::E: ~ :s 140: Ii:l H
:1:>' H ~ i {/)~ p:j {/)
-H Cl
H H H H H 0
"'r~ H ><= Z :x: ~
D ~ H ~
O:~ a:l ::e: ~
.
.
.
Poi
::J
U
I
U)
o
''CHil ~
CZ Z
00 0
UZ :z;
+'
C
.!<: Ql
0 0
ItS ItS U)
.Q -n U)
+J '0 III
Ql ItS 0
rJ.I U
~1tS
'0 III
~ .-Itrl
ItS .-IC
~ 1tS-.-'4
.!o::
+' +J U) l--l
~ C -..-I Id
. 0 t10
01 ~ .-I
rJ.I ~ Q) Q) N
0 rn
0 II-l ~ ::I
0 0 Id
0 o..+J
tiN> U)
to 0 ~::I
N to HJ;;
::s:
~
H
:>
l'a [/J
p:; Cf.l
~
E-t U
Z U
r:LlCl r..:r oe(
SI-=i p...
P-tO oe( Cl
O::c: u Z
I-=IUl Ul H
rLlfLI CI ~
:>~ z ~
rLl:I: j
08
N
I .
~
.
.
-
to
0
~ 0.
0 .J..l
Z Il-4 Id
or:( ::0: Ai
8 0
tI) 0:;1' ~-iJ tJl P
......... QJIl-l .J..l- C+l ()
tI) Ul ~. lI-lO ...-1 QJ
. ::J QJ o lJ'I . In +l(l)
U 0 -..-I ltI -iJ Ul t::l1 O~ +l
. H ~ ......... ..-1 Ul X ...-1 (l) Ul
::::: :> 0 :::1 CO ~O Q) 0
. U) ~ +l '0:::10 00 +IN ~ !Xl "CIril ril
::E:COP:: Ul 0 00 '*' Ul :i1 CZ Z
. 0'1 P-l 0:;1'.-1.-1 0.-1 0 ..-1 $4 an 00 0
Ul .-I ....... M 0:;1' ....... In ....... It) 00 .-I Ul UZ Z
0
ltl
.........
;:l J,J
"CI
..c:: 0
>r +l C
p::; QJl+-I '0
~ ~O ..-1 .J.J ..!a::
0 ~ :;j 0
ItS . .tl ~
::J .J..l +J ,.Q
Ul kll-l 0 '* -iJ
OJ . .-1- 0 Q)
Ul OdJ' 0..-1 Ul
0 tIl X LO II
p:; m ..c:: 'U
~ ~ -t-JO tIl .JJ }..f
0 U -iJ -..-I LO OJ 'd- Id
Z Z ll-l CN ...-1 ..-1 .JJ >t
~ ~ :;j .-i - ..c:: k ~Il-l .
E-t O'\Z 0 ltl .c:.J..l 0 .JJ -iJ
Ul COH 0:;1' lJ'l~QJ . ~ ~ +J '0:;1' lH C
0'\0 ......... C QJ k -IJ't$QJ Ul +J . 0
E-I .-Itxl tIl ..... 0. ltl 14-l ..... 't1 lH I:: 0" k <"'l
Z 0 (]) .-I .~ ltl Ul lI-l
~ 8 -rl .-I.J..lr-t lJ'I .JJ .JJ + O..c:
:E: ZCI k (J).rl (I) Ul .-iJ (J) (J) m-iJ 0 lI-l
tl! ~Z 0 ~,::O .JJlI-l (I) (l) . ^ 0 0
0 P::H .J..l 'O:;jk all-! lI-l 4-1 -iJ Ul It)
H P:::Z; Ul ltl 0 0 tN' lI-l lHUl tN'
]::I:':l 00 10.-10. 000 0 0 IJ) H(I) N 0
>- UN M M- LOI!}.-I 10 N r-l LO -...... N I!}
ril
0
1:L18
l-lU
I).{H
Hp:j
88
HUl fi:l
~t: 0
~ ~
)-i.-.. 8 r.::I
8H H :> s:
Hor:( tIl 0 ril
UlH :z; fi:l U H
Z8 8 rxl N :>
rxlZ ::r: 0 H H ril
Oril 0 [J) ~ C!) p:;
0 H 8 U ::.::;
~~ r.::I H 8 ~ U 8
:r: z 3 o<:C8 Z S
H~ P InZ ~ \i:1 rilO ~ :::l
Op:j CI 80 0 ~H Ai tIl
ILl Z ~ ~ ::E: li:1P:: riI H ~o < tIl
:::::>r H ~ ~ tIl~ p::- C!) O:r: CJ tI) C
.......H CI HUl CI.l [J) rtI
H H H H H 0 rilr>:! 0 ril +J
7~ H >= Z :x: ll:i >-p:; Z U 1Il
C"'l t::> ~ H ~ .-:t: rxl:r: j u 'i'
I p:;rx. CO ::::: ?I 08 .c:e
1=1
..
.
CI)
Cl
~
Cl
~
E-t
CI)
CI)
o
C) 0
. H
::?:: ::>
. \D ril
:;E:COO::;
.enD-!
tIl rl -
.
.
Ul
Q}
o
1\'1
Poi
Ul
l.I4 Q,I~....... ~Q,I
0'10 III kW NO'oO~
~ k I WOW ........t:: ro
.,.-i1\'10WU~s~O -..-11\'1:1
r-i (J) t:: ltl.,.-i 0 0 r-i Q,I t)i
lJ'I r-i k -lJ 0 p.. t:: ~ W '" ;3: r-i k tIl
s::tVltlQl to::30!-l -lJQlI\'1
-..-I~ Ql"CI 1\'1~;3: 0
.!:< "CI C Ii-l t:: - lJ'I lt1 ;j 1tI .. 'tl l:= 0
k lt1 ltI N t:: aJ t7l..r:: +J ltI 0'1
Itl!-l Ql .........,.-i k Ul +J tV k
PoiQl..c:k(J)r-I..-llt1 Q)Ql..c:s::
p.. ~ ltI C 'r-l 0 \11 l\-I ~ 4-1 lIS
- .,.-i::30...-lQ}Cmtf.l -..-I..c:
N[/l~tr' -;3:ttI\OQ.lQ}Ul~~
........ (I) tIl.. 'tl ....... k Q}
U~ UlIi-I .cr::: <<lO+'Ql~
o ro:...-I 0 Ul....... !-l +J n:1.J.l ::3 <<l-..-I k Q)
~ p" s:: m Q) rcl OJ'..-I.c ;:::l' 0' 0. t:: 0 OJ
8 tIl ~\Or-l~ o..~~.Q U\ U\ o;j g~
b1
C~
-..-I .,.-i
~s:::
k;j
ro
p,,!-I
<1.1
N!:ll
U,I
+J
1tI tf.I-,.-i ~ II-l
~ k Q.l C 0 0
~ ~ ...-1 ::l 0
+JX .-I !-I II-l
Cl -..-I Q) O-IQ,I "CI Ql..-l
s:: 0-1'-' Ql tH .o<<l
:z ;jk Itl 0 .Q 0 ..r::
o<l; (J) -s r-!
M ko. <<l Ul ...-lk .
::t: OJ [/l !-l kUl+J roro+J
Am ~O +l+JO .cwo
p:;l ClI Q) -r"'I +J X -..-I Ql rnk...-l
01 Ul1JO r:::m -,.-i Q) s:: 'n-
~I rcl Q) l\'1 =' C ::3 0 rn O'oa>.......
I 0-100.. lj..f ::1'-1 k+' c..r:: l\'1
~I [/l <<l If.I LOO Q,I 1.0 0.. - r-! -..-I +J -..-I
0.. k 0.. C ~ +J
"tjUl'tl !-Ita Ql kO:1 kac
P:;, Q) Q,I Q)+J o..UlQ)+J <<l-r-! al
..:;. k'tlk a.U a> alo.. (I) 0.. '0
Cl -<:t
:z; Q) Q) (I) Ql OUlO tlI !-l 'tl -,.-j
~ :;. k > S(]}-n <<$Qll\'1Q)Q)O Ql Q) (/J
8 0(1)0 000 0.. 0 0.. O.r'! S o "CI Q)
o > 0 Olt!!-l Ul<<ltll<<l....... nj-.-l k
f.fJ 0 !-lo..o. 0. o.o.k l!-l:;'
0 oOm"l:1[/J omlOmo..O HOC}
Z . . Q} 0 . . <<l :::1k.c::
H ..-lNO..o.-t+J .-tNOr-/-lCl CIl 0. +l
::.::;
p:;
o<:C
Ui
.......
ro
.r{
+l
m N s:: N
a Ql a
0 k "dO k
0 Ql -..-I 0 Ql
ril I-l > m I-l >
U '0 mo tl) Q}'Otl) 0 tD
~ Ql S Ql kQlS Q)
".0 os 0 ..oOS 0
o\z tf.I 00 n::l >t o 0 <<l
co H SOkO 0. ..-lOkO Pi
O\Cl ::l C "CI I-l tf.I -,.-i s:: 't:l H Ul
..-Ill:: -..-I Ql"d S Q)'O III
0 s:: ~.Q Q) l-I ro ~..Q Ql k '0
E-l -..-I 0 ..0 0 lj..fO ..00 +J
Zt-' S.,..j N +J I -.-l N +J (/)
r:<:IZ 0'0 ..c:: ..-i -r-! "d .c:: -..-I 0'1
-<:t ~~ "CI;:l~O Ul +,;:l~OIll ..!<:
I t::+J m -,.-i ..-l+J m.,..j 0..
~ 00 OCllI"""IJ';r;:l :> ;:lCll..-l~> ~
QN C) ::E:
.
! on