SR-400-009 (5)
.
.
t/OO- otJt(
9- ~c.
LUTM:CPD:PPD
word.ppd/work/mwpcc1
COUNCIL MEETING: April 23, 1991
fj Pi) '~l 1 :fl0'
M 1", -~ ,) .;j.., r
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Proposed Modifications to One Year Commercial Moratorium
Work Program and Request for City Council to Authorize
the city Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract
wi th Michael Brandman Associates to Prepare a Master
Environmental Assessment of the city.
INTRODUCTION
On March 19, 1991 the city Council adopted a work program for the
one year commercial moratorium that focuses on the preparation
and completion of a Master Environmental Assessment (MEA),
revising the heights and floor area ratios for commercial
districts, and selecting a preferred traffic methodology and a
definition of a significant traffic impact. At the same time,
the Council requested that staff return with a proposal on how to
include a study of rezoning portions of the C5 district into
residential use. The Council also requested that a study Session
be conducted on the appropriate methodology for the MEA traffic
analysis and that the definition of significant impact be put off
for future discuss ion.
This report provides background on the
proposed C5 rezoning that was prepared in conj unction with the
Growth Management strategy process, discusses how an analysis of
this can be incorporated into the one year work program,
discusses the cost and time implications of selecting a
- 1 -
'J-c.
APR 2 3 1991
.
.
methodology other than the critical Movement Analysis (CMA) for
the Master Environmental Assessment, and requests that the
council authorize the city Manager to negotiate and execute a
contract with Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) to prepare a
Master Environmental Assessment of the City and approve
appropriation of $165,042.00 to finance the contract.
C5 Rezoning and Moratorium Work Program
Among the issues the City Council requested to be studied as part
of the Growth Management strategy process was the possibility of
increasing residential opportunities in the City by rezoning
areas currently designated for commercial or industrial uses.
Council requested that staff consider the C5 district and eastern
portion of the M1 district in order to find large parcels
suitable for redevelopment into residential uses.
The C5 district was selected due to the large parcels of land
under single ownership and the possibility for them to recycle at
one time. This would allow a substantial number of units to be
constructed at once rather than on a lot by lot, incremental
basis. As part of the Growth Management strategy Implementation
Plan specific parcels were identified and future development
scenarios where presented. The parcels identified as suitable
for residential use were proposed to be rezoned to RT,
residential transitional zoning.
- 2 -
.
.
The following general standards for the RT District were
recommended in the Implementation Plan:
Allowed Uses: All uses currently permitted in the R4 zone,
except hotels, would be permitted. Also, neighborhood
serving commercial retail uses would be allowed on Olympic1
Cloverfield, 20th street and Colorado. Retail uses would be
limited to not more than 20 percent of the project size and
new office uses would be prohibited.
Development Review (DR) Thresholds: The DR threshold for the
RT zone would be 25,000 square feet. All projects greater
than 25,000 square feet would require discretionary review
before the Planning Commission.
FAR/Height: proj ect size would be governed by a maximum
floor area ration of 1.25 and a building height not to exceed
four stories and 45 feet. If a development provided 50
percent of the total units as affordable, the height would be
permitted to increase up to six stories not to exceed 84
feet. The FAR would remain at 1.25.
Design standards: Specific design standards would be
developed to ensure that new developments provided
appropriate building stepbacks, and public and private open
space. Lot coverage would be limited to 50 percent on all
parcels. However, no limit on the total number of units a
project provides was recommended. Instead, maximum
- 3 -
e
.
development was proposed to be determined by the lot
coverage, height, and FAR standards.
Initially, staff considered including a larger portion of the C5
area in the proposed rezoning. However, after further study, it
was determined that many of these parcels were either unsuitable
for residential development due to their proximity to large
commercial developments or industrial uses or because a new
development project was located on the parcel, making recycling
of the land unlikely. Other portions of the Ml district were
considered, such as the area west of Cloverfield. However, this
area was eliminated due to the high number of existing industrial
uses that are not appropriate in a residential or residential
adjacent area, and because of the importance of preserving an
industrial employment base in the City.
As proposed in the GMS Implementation Plan, the RT zone was not
structured to displace existing uses within the proposed
boundaries. Rather, existing uses would be permitted to remain
indefinitely. Only a parcel is redeveloped would the RT
standards apply.
The area considered for the RT study consisted of approximately
50 acres. In determining the maximum residential build out for
this area Planning staff made the following assumptions. The
maximum FAR for the area is 1.25. Twenty percent of the total
potential square footage was allowed to be designated for
- 4 -
.
.
neighborhood commercial uses. The average residential unit size
was assumed to be 1200 square feet, including circulation.
Therefore, at maximum build out, 2000 residential units could be
constructed in this area.
Planning Commission and Public Comment
The proposal for the R-T zoning district generated a substantial
number of comments from both commercial property owners and
tenants in the area as well as from residents in adjacent
neighborhoods. In general, commercial tenants were concerned
with losing some of the last affordable artist studio space and
light industrial space available in the city. A number of the
larger property owners in the area, including General Telephone,
papermate and Southern California Gas stated that, although
additional housing in the area that would be affordable to their
employees would be welcome, none of the companies intended to
vacate their sites in the foreseeable future.
citizens in the residential area adjacent to the proposed RT zone
expressed concern over the amount of housing that could
potentially be constructed and the resultant traffic impacts.
other felt that additional low income housing in the City should
be focused in other areas such as the Sunset Park and North of
Wilshire neighborhoods. Concerns were also expressed regarding
the physical compatibility of a high density residential
- 5 -
.
.
neighborhood with the low density character of the pico
Neighborhood.
The Planning Commission had general concerns regarding the loss
of existing industrial space in the city. In addition, given the
location of the proposed RT district, the Commission questioned
whether housing could be marketed in this area of the City and if
the area was appropriate for residential uses given the intensity
of the office and light industrial development. The Commission
also felt, given the significant community concerns regarding
the RT proposal and that three of the large property owners or
lessees stated that they did not intend to vacate their
property in the foreseeable future, that the RT proposal was not
an effective means of increasing housing opportunities in the
city.
Incorporation into Commercial Moratorium Work Program
Due to the comments received from the public and the Planning
commission on the RT rezoning proposal, further study of this
issue was not included in the original commercial moratorium work
program presented to Council on February 26, 1991. Given the
other issues to be addressed, the one year time period does not
afford sufficient time to reach community consensus on the
concept and develop implementation ordinances. However, the
Council directed staff to reconsider this issue and present a
plan for incorporating the study into the one year work program.
- 6 -
.
.
To include a study of rezoning portions of the C5 area without an
extension to the one year moratorium ordinance, Planning staff
proposes to utilize the information prepared as part of the
Growth Management strategy. Using these assumptions / the C5
rezoning will be analyzed as one of the policy alternatives
considered in the Environmental Impact Report prepared to analyze
the various commercial development scenarios. This approach will
provide the Council with information on potential impacts
resulting from the rezoning. After review of the alternatives,
certification of the EIR and the expiration of the one year
moratorium, should Council decide to implement the C5 rezoning,
staff would develop an implementation ordinance for adoption by
Council. This would return to Council upon certification of the
ErR.
If the city Council requests that the implementing ordinances be
in place before the expiration of the commercial moratorium, then
the moratorium must be extended for an addi tional six month
period to allow for ordinance preparation and public hearings.
MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (MEA)
The MEA will compile existing data sources from throughout the
City and region into one comprehensive document that describes
and analyzes the existing and future environmental conditions in
the city. with the exception of the traffic analysis, few areas
of original research and data compilation will be conducted. The
- 7 -
.
.
consultants will, however, identify areas of current and expected
infrastructure deficiencies, if any. The traffic analysis
requires extensive new data collection efforts. Counts at over
161 intersections are already underway and will be completed by
June 15, 1991.
scoping Meetings
The MEA will provide the foundation for future environmental
review documents in the city. Public awareness of the purpose
and scope as well as confidence in the data is critical. For
this reason, a series of community scoping meetings have been
scheduled (see attachment #1) to give the public several
opportunities to comment on the scope of the MEA.
At the first public meeting on the scope of the MEA, the Planning
Commission expressed concern that the one year work program did
not address many of the issues raised by the public and
commission. In particular, the Commission felt the scope was too
limited and should be expanded to address regional,
transportation and housing issues as well as a comprehensive
examination of land use policies. Following the final community
scoping meeting on April 27th, staff will present to Council a
summary of all comments received and indicate what issues will be
addressed in the scope of the MEA. If necessary, staff will
present to council any additional time and budget considerations
that might be required to incorporate new areas of study. It is
- 8 -
.
.
expected that many issues will be raised, such as the need for
housing and open space, that are the topics qf other Program and
Policy Development work programs currently underway
simultaneously, but outside of the MEA and moratorium work
program. To the extent that other areas are to be covered by
other on-going planning efforts, staff will recommend that they
be addressed separately so that the one year work program does
not have to be extended.
Traffic Methodoloqy
In response to the City Council request for a study session on
the MEA traffic methodology, staff conducted a special meeting
for all potential MEA traffic subconsultants. The purpose of the
meeting was to request traffic firms to include a discussion of
three traffic methodologies (CMA, rcu, HCM delay) in their
description of tasks and budget proposals. The CMA and lCU are
similar and sometimes called th planning methods. The HCM delay
is often referred to as the operational method. Based upon the
response, nearly all traffic consulting firms indicated that
they have the ability to perform intersection analyses using any
of the three methodologies under consideration. Most firms
provided little differentiation between the CMA and rcu
methodologies and if they made a recommendation, suggested using
the CMA or rcu methodology due to its prevalent use, ease of use
and ability to obtain data, and the intent for which the
alternative methodologies were designed. There is considerable
- 9 -
.
.
debate within the profession as to the appropriate and effective
utilization of these methodologies.
A consistent theme in every comparative analysis of methodologies
was that the HCM requires a significant increase in data
retrieval from the traffic count personnel.
Some of the
additional data that is required at every lane at every
intersection includes:
o signal timing details
o pedestrian activity, including extended green time for
pedestrians
o number of right turns on red
o % of traffic by vehicle type (bus, heavy truck)
o specific geometric conditions (lane widths, grade approach,
length of storage bays
o parking characteristics; permitted areas use patterns
Additionally, the HeM method of analysis requires traffic
engineers to predict future traffic conditions since most of the
data items listed above are not available for future conditions.
As one consultant suggests, the HCM method provides more detailed
information but not necessarily more accurate information. The
HCM method is a more detailed and labor intensive approach.
Selection of this method would increase the MEA traffic budget
(as proposed by the selected consultant) by $13,060 and require
- 10 -
.
.
one additional month to prepare the MEA. This would require the
extension of one month to the moratorium ordinance.
Selection of the HCM method of analysis has significant timing
and budgetary implications for the traffic count process which
began earlier this month. The data being collected for the
counts fulfills the informational needs of the CMA and ICU
methods of analysis and not the HCM delay. If the Council
directs staff to use the HCM delay methodology, the additional
required data will be gathered.
The selected traffic modelling approach will enable the City to
evaluate project-related traffic with an incremental growth
factor for the projected build-out year. Should the LACTC, as a
result of the Congestion Management Plan, determine that another
mOdelling approach is necessary, the selected modelling approach
can be can be modified (at an additional cost) at the conclusion
of this project.
Consultant Selection
On April 2nd, the City received twelve proposals from consulting
firms responding to the MEA RFP. Eight firms were selected to be
interviewed by City staff, and interviews were conducted on April
11th. Based on the City staff review of the proposals and the
consultant interviews, staff recommends the selection of Michael
Brandman Associates (MBA) to prepare the Master Environmental
- 11 -
.
.
Assessment at a fee of $165,042.00. The traffic subconsul tant
will be Meyer Mohaddes Associates (MMA).
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
currently, $100 f 000 is available in account number
01-200-266-00000-5506-00000 for Growth Management studies. The
recommendation presented in this report requires that an
additional $65,042 from General Fund Reserves be appropriated to
this account. However, should the Council direct staff to use
the HCM method to calculate traffic impacts, an additional
appropriation of $13 f 000 will be required for a total increase
from the General Fund Reserves of $78,042.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council authorize the City
Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Michael Brandman
Associates to prepare a Master Environmental Assessment of the
City. Since Council selection of a traffic methodology will
occur at a later date, staff recommends that the City Council
authorize the City Manager to negotiate a contract in the amount
of $178,042 in the event that the HeM methodology is selected.
If the HCM methodology is selected, the City Council will need to
exend the commercial development moratorium for an additional
month to accommodate the increased data collection and analysis
requirements.
- 12 -
.
.
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Liz Casey, Associate Planner
Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Program and Policy Development Division
Attachments:
(1) MEA Community Scoping Meetings Flyer
(2) List of consultants Interviewed
wjmwpcc1
- 13 -
4It ~~~~~~:s~~ =
4It
MASTER ENVIRON,\1ENTAL ASSESS/\1ENT
COMMUNITY SeOPING MEETINGS
The City of Santa l\r~onica IS in the process or preparing a J'Aaster
Environmental Assessment (MEAL The purpose of the J\I\EA will
be to describe in detail the environmental characteristics or the
City by quantifying infrastructure capacities to determine if there
is sufficient capacity to accommodate projected development.
The purpose or these seoping meetings IS to provide concerned
persons with the opportunity to identify issues they reel should
be addressed in the MEA. Copies or the proposed MEA scope of
work are available at the Planning and Zoning Counter located
in Room 111 at City Halt 1685 Main Street.
The following meetings have been scheduled to allow interested
persons to comment on the proposed MEA scope of work:
Thursday, April 11, 1991
7 pm to 9 pm
Fallvlew Branch Library Community Room
2101 Ocean Park Boulevard
Monday, APril 1 5, 1991
7 pm to 9 pm
Ocean Park Branch Library Community Room
2601 Mam Street
Monday, Aprll 22, 1991
7 pm fa 9 pm
Frankl In School Audnonum
2400 Montana Avenue
Saturday, Apn127, 1991
9:30 am to 11 30 am
VirglnJa Pari< CommunIty Room
2200 VIrginia Avenue
If you have additIonal questions, please call AsSOCIate Planners LIZ Casey or
Amanda Schachter at 458-8585.
n
) \.
,''' .
!
;
rf) rl~
~Ilj~~\ J r.!., riri....
.'~ <..",1'1 I.
I~' 1;' Ilrjr;~ ~
i .;T _I, ' 1 ~r--l '"
I( ~ I " _ Y-,,:'
., ! i ~-c::-.' ~;: ,r..::::::!rA\ ~
oJ' ..! ' ,/^\j !', ..... _ ( ,
J I ,:/ '1,./',.......
_~ v:./~
- I: ?...... ....... ..i (, ~
- / -
,
.
.
Attachment 42
List o~ Consu~tants Interviewed
Sheila 3rady Associates
Fug=o McClelland Associates
EIP Associates
Envicom.
Environmental Sc~ence Associates
Gruen Associates
Michael Eran~an Associates
REF & Assoc:.ates
w/list
.
~
.
CA:RMM:rmlist/hpca1/pc
city Council Meeting 4-23-91
Santa Monica, California
LIST OF PENDING CASES TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED SESSION
1. Threatened litigation against the City of Santa Monica
for its enforcement of Ordinance Number 1569 (CCS) which
prohibits the use of cigarette vending machines in the City.
The authority for this closed session is Government Code
Section 54956.9(b) (1).
[Note. Following closed session, the city council may
publicly approve settlements in one or more of the above-entitled
cases.]
.
#
e
,
Santa Monica, California, July 20, 1981
e
TO:
Housing Authority
~~~o~
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Request for Determination of Exemption Pursuant to Section 3(b)
of the Emergency Building Moratorium by Crown Development
Introduction
This report transmits a request by Crown Development for an exemption to the
Emergency Building Moratorium pursuant to Section 3(b). The developers are
seeking the exemption In order to proceed with the construction of two (2)
condominium projects.
Project Description
Crown Development has obtained Tentative Tract Maps and approvals from the
~ Architectural Review Board for two condominium projects to be located on Colorado
Avenue. One project, located at 3207 Colorado, is comprised of five (5) units.
The other, a four (4) unit project, is located across the street at 3208 Colorado.
According to the developer's representative, each of the five units located at
3207 Colorado are projected to sell for $190,000, or for a total of 5950.000. The
anticipated net profit for this project is $109,582. Although comparable information
was not provided for the four unit development at 3208 Colorado, it appears that the
units in both developments are essentially the same. Assuming that the units at
3208 Colorado would sell for the same price. the total gross sales proceeds would be
$760,000 and the net profit would be $87,666. Staff has not reviewed financial
data pertaining to either project.
The Proposed In-Lieu Payment
Section 3(b) of Ordinance 1207 allows the Housing Authority to permit the grading,
e
excavation and construction of multiple dwellings which will include at least twenty-
..
r ~
~ .
e
e
e
e
-
.
Housing Authority
July 20. 1981
-2-
five percent of the dwelling units continually affordable to low and moderate income
households. Crown Development's representative has indicated that neither project
would be fInancially feasible if twenty-five percent of the units were deed
restrIcted as affordable units or if the density of either project was increased to
allow the direct provision of affordable housing. According to the developer1s
representative, the current development plans for both parcels are at the maXIMum
permissible density and thus would not permit the provision of additional units.
As an alternative to the direct provision of affordable housing units. the developer
proposes to make an in-lieu payment of $40.000 to the Housing Authority in order
to obtain an exemption for both projects. This fee would be paid prior to the
issuance of building permits for the condominium developments.
The amount of the proposed in-lieu payment has been calculated as a percentage of
the total gross sales proceeds of the five unit project discounted by 18 percent
for twelve months. Five percent of $950,000 is $47.500. The developer has discounted
thiS amount by 18 percent to reflect the yield possibles available to the City if the
in-lieu payment was invested in Bankers Acceptances or other high yield securities
or, from the developer's perspective. to reflect the cost of providing the in-l leu
payment 12 months prior to the actual sales of the condominiums. The developer's
representative has asserted that the proposed in-l ieu payment is the maximum amount
which can be paid while preserving the economic feasibility of both projects.
Conclusion
If the Housing Authority elects to pursue the developer's proposal. it is recommended
that staff be directed to analyze the proposal pursuant to the Housing Authority's
-- ~
.. ,
e
e
e
Housing Authority
e
~
-3-
July 20~ 1981
instructions and to negotiate a contract accordingly.
Prepared by: Mindy LeIterman
afu ~-"
a .-
-
~ ~~Muti~
<t""j~
..- -...: I /
'<<
--::.
.
TO:
CITY COUNCIL AN
::S;N~~RI~~'
FROM:
JOE PALAZZOLO
SUBJEcr:
EXEMPTION OF 3207 COLORADO and 3208 COLORADO
FROM THE MORATORIUM
Due to the un~que s~tuat~on ~n wh~ch staff found ~tself ~n deal~ng
w~th and prepar~ng thelr staff report for you, they have advlsed
that most of the ~nformatlon WhlCh was presented to them be presented
d1rectly to you at the t~me of the hear~ng. It 15 wlth thlS thought
that the follow~ng lS presented.
The applicant 1n thls case, Crown Development Co., 1S a general
partnersh~p wh~ch was founded solely for the purpose of developlng
the two subject propertles. The prlncipals 1n thlS partnershlp
consist of four brothers who have not, prlor to becom1ng lnvolved
wlth these two propert1es, ever partlclpated s~ngly or as a group
1n any real estate venture.
The purpose and goals sought to be reached by the four brothers
through the vehlcle of thlS real estate transactlon was to ga~n them
the opportunlty and ab~llty to become res1dents and homeowners ln
the Clty of Santa Monica. It was and 1S the lntent~on of the four
brothers to develop both properties wlth the specif~c lntentlon to
sell off the f1ge unlts bu~lt at 3207 Colorado AVe. and then wlth the
help of the prof~ts generated from sald un~ts hopefully be able to
reta~n the four un~t project at 3208 Colorado Ave. to be used as
homes for the four brothers and their fam1l1es.
w~th these facts 1n m1nd, the problems that staff faced beg1n to be
somewhat apparent. From the onset 1t was felt that the four un1t
project would def1n1tely quallfy for a hardshlp exemptlon and that
poss~bly all nlne un~ts 10 both projects mlght qual1fy due to the
hlgh percentage of owner occupancy lnvolved (44%). However, a
hardshlp exernptlon w~th the usual deed restrlctlons as to owner
,
Apr. 14, 1 9 B 0
May 14, 1980
June 5, 1980
July 29, 1980
July 30, 1980
Aug. 6, 1980
Aug. 26, 1980
Sep. 25, 1980
Oct. 17, 1980
Oct. 17, 1980
Nov. 3, 1980
Nov. 7, 1980
Nov. 10, 1980
Nov. 19, 1980
Dec. 81 1980
Dec. 17, 1980
Jan. 2, 1980
-
-
DATE OF EVENTS
3207 COLORADO AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404
Escrow opened on subject property. Contract
entered into for purchase of the sa~d property,
Wl th the following contingency: "Contract
subJect to exemptlon from Santa Monica Rent
Control Board allowing a Dernol~tion Permit to
be issued."
App11cation filed to Rent Control Board for
exemption (slngle faml1y, owner occupled, non-
rental) .
Approval granted from Rent Control Board.
Clvil Englneer engaged to begln work.
Close of Escrow.
Architects engaged to begin work.
Attorney retained to obtaln CC&R's, Bylaws,
648 Form and I-C2 Form.
Relocation of existing unit to a new medium
hOU51.ng s~te.
Application filed for Tentative Tract Map.
Landscape arch1tect engaged to begin work.
Tentative Tract Map approval.
Negative Declaration from Environmental Impact
Review Committee.
Application filed for Architectural Review
Board for approval.
Development of working draw1ngs to meet the
Architectural Review Board's approval.
Fil~ng of Tract Map.
Resubmiss10n to Architectural ReV1ew Board.
Obtalned Department of Real Estate Approval (Pink).
,
~
Page 2
-.-.
e
e
3207 Colorado Avenue
Santa Monlca, California 90404
J an . 21, 1 981
J an. 28, 1 981
Feb. 16, 1981
Apr. 6, 1981
Apr. II, 1981
Final approval of Architectural Review Board.
Structural Englneer appolnted to begin work.
Soil Englneer appointed to begin work.
Working drawlngs completed and submltted to
BU11dlng Department for Plan Check and app11cation
for BUlldlng Permlt.
Condltional approval by BUllding Department, Plan
Check.
#
'-
"
e
,
COST BREAKDOWN
3208 COLORADO AVENUE
SANTA MONICA,_CALIFORNIA 90404
Land $ 155,000
Arch~tecture 4 , 250
Engineering, [C~vil, Soil
Structural, Landscape] 11,250
Legal 2,600
Condo Fees & Permits 6,60B
Adm1nistration 6,000
M1scellaneous 5,000
Interest paid on land purchase
for 8 months, thru June I, 81 3,861
Tota 1 $ 194,569 $ 194,569
Construction
Subterranean Garage,
3900 sq. ft. @ $17.25 67,275
Condo units,
6400 sq. ft. @ $45.00 288,000
Landscap1ng & offs1te,
improvement 5,000
Tree relocation 5,000
Total $ 365,275 365,275
Financ1ng ($470,000 Loan)
Construction points 2.5% 11,750
Construction 1nterest,
7 months @ 21% 57,575
Carrying 1nterest,
5 months @ 21% 41,125
Tota 1 $ 110,450 110,450
Total Development $ 670,294
,
',-
May 8, 1980
May 29, 1980
June 5, 1980
July 29, 1980
August 6, 1980
Aug. 26, 1980
Sep. 5, 1980
Sep. 25, 1980
Oct. 17, 1980
Oct. 17, 1980
Nov. 3 , 1980
Nov. 7 , 1980
Nov. 10, 1980
N ov. 1 9, 1 980
Dec. 8, 1980
Dec. 17, 1980
J an . 21, 1 981
-
e
e
DATE OF EVENTS
3208 COLORADO AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404
App11cation filed to Rent Control Board for
exemption (s~ngle family, owner occupied, non-
ren tal) .
Escrow opened on subJect property. Contract
entered ~nto for purchase of the said property,
with the following contingency: "Contract
subject to exempt10n from Santa Mon~ca Rent
Control Board allowing a Demol1t1on Permit to
be 1ssued."
Approval grnated from Rent Control Board.
Civ1l Engineer engaged to beg1n work.
Arch~tects engaged to begin work.
Attorney reta1ned to obtain CC&R1S, Bylaws,
648 Form and I-C2 Form.
Close of Escrow.
Relocation of eX1sting unit to a new med1um
hous1ng s1te.
App1icat10n f1led for Tentat1ve Tract Map.
Landscape Architect engaged to begin work.
Tentative Tract Map approval.
Negative Declaration frin Environmental Impact
Rev1ew Comm1ttee.
Application to Arch1tectural Reveiw Board for
approval.
Development of working drawings to meet the
Arch~tectural Review Board's approval.
Fil1ng of the F1nal Tract Map.
Resubm1ssion to Architectural Review Board.
F1nal approval of Architectural Review Board.
.I ,
~
~ .
,
Page 2
.....
e
.
3208 Colorado Avenue
Santa Monica, Californla 90404
Jan. 28, 1981
Feb. 16, 1981
Apr. 6, 1981
Apr. 11, 1981
Structural Engineer appointed to begln work.
Soil Engineer appointed to begln work.
Worklng drawings completed and submltted to
Buildlng Department for Plan Check and
applicatlon made for BUlldlng Permit.
conditional approval by BUlldlng Department,
Plan Check.
.
e
.
HD"JH ML sh
Santa Monica, California, SeDtembe~ 10, 1981
e
o/~-~f
TO: Housing Authority
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Request for Determination of Exemption Pursuant
to Section 3(b) of the Emergency Building Moratorium
By Crown Development (3207 and 3208 Colorado Avenue,
Santa Monica)
Introduction
On July 28, 1981, a request by Crown Development for exemption to t~e Emergency
Building Moratorium was presented to the Housing Authority for consideration.
At that time, the Housing Authority did not elect to take action on the developer's
proposal which entailed an in lieu payment of $40,000 in order to proceed with
the construction of two condominium projects located at 3207 and 3208 Colorado
~ Subsequent to the July 28th meeting, the developer submitted a written communication
to the Housing Authority requesting reconsideration of the proposal This reoort
transmits the develooer's revised proposal to the Housing Authority. Should the
Housing Authority decline to accept the oroposed in I ieu payment, the developer
has asked that the Housing Authority consider two alternatives. (1) That the
City purchase both parcels of land for an amount equal to the amount expended
upon them or (2) that the developer pay an in 1 leu fee of 520,000 and grant the
City an option to purchase all units at 110% of the total development cost. The
developer indicates that these alternatives are necessary to avert fInancial
hardship.
Project Descriotion
Crown Develooment has obtained tentative tract maps and approvals from the Arch,-
tectural Review Board for two condominium projects to be located at 3207 and 3208
e
Colorado Avenue. The former is a four unit Droject and the latter is a 5 unit
project. The developer's reoresentative has indicated that the four unit project
is intended for owner occupancy while the five unit project is intended for sale.
It
e
e
-
.
Housing Authority
-2-
September 10, 1981
The anticipated net profit for the 5 unit condominium to be located at 3207
Colorado is 5109,582.
The Proposed In-Lieu Payment
Section 3(b ) of Ordinance 1207 allows the Housing Authority to per~it the grading,
excavation, and construction of multiple dwellings which will include at least
twenty-five percent of the d'"elling units continually affordable to low and noderate
income households. Crown Development's representative has indicated that neither
project would be feasible if twenty~five percent of the units were deed restricted
as affordable units or if the density of either project was increased to directly
provide affordable housing.
4s an alternative to the dIrect provision of affordable housing units, the de-
veloper proposes to make an In 1 ieu payment of $40,000 to the Housing Authority
in order to obtain an exemption for both projects. The developer1s representative
indicates that $40,000 is maximum amount which Crown Development, a partnership
of four brothers, could afford to pay. The proposed fee, which equals 2.6 Dercent
of the total development cost of both projects, would be paid prior to the issuance
of building permits for the condominium developments.
The developer's representative has indicated in two written communications (attached)
that Crown Development does not have the financial capacity to carry the two parcels
indefinitely. Thus, the developer has proposed that the City purchase the land or
the developed parcels as an alternative to accepting t~e in lieu oayment descri~ed
above. The financial aspects of these options are analyzed briefly as fol1ows'*
l, land Purchase
The develop~~ indicates the willingness to sell both parcels to the City
at a price equal to the amount expended upon them.
*This analysis relies on the financial data supplied by the developer (attached).
e
.
Housing Authority
-3-
Septe~ber 10, 1981
-
3207 Colorado
3208 Colorado
Land and Predevelopment Costs
5230,943
Sl9a,569
Lot Size
46' X 145'
43' X l20'
Lot Area
6670 square feet
5160 square feet
Maximum Density
(current standards)
6 units
4 units
Cost per Square Foot
$34.62
538,491
S37.71
Cost per Unit
548,642
2. Purchase of Developed Parcels
The developer has also offered to make a 520,000 payment in lieu to the
Housing Authority and grant the City the option to purchase both parcels
at a price equal to 110% of the total development cost.
3207 Colorado 320S Colorado
e Total Development (excludes $832,41S $670,29[f
cost of model)
ll0% of Above $915,660 5737,323
Cost per Un it $183,132 S1Sa,331
Proceeds to developer - Both projects $l42,271
Conclusion
The developer has asked the Housing Authority to consider three proposals regar-
ding the properties at 3207 and 3208 Colorado' (l) To grant an exemption for
both projects for an in lieu pay~ent of 540,000; (2) to purchase the land at an
approximate cost of $36.00 per square foot; or (3) to accept an in lieu payment
of $20,000 and obtain an option to purchase the developed parcels at an aoproxi-
mate cost of $183,000 per unit.
Staff does not recommend that the Housing Authority consider the second or the
e
third alternative because neither appears to present a cost effective ~eans of
producing affordable housing in the City. Even without express consideration of
the developer's asking price for raw land, the parcels are too small to achieve
e
.
Housing Authority
-4-
September 10, 1381
e
economies of scale in the building process. The cost of purchasing tne developed
parcels is too high relative to other new construction proposals the Ci:y could
pursue.
With regard to the oroposed in lieu payment, if the Housing Authority elects to
pursue this alternative. it is recommended that staff be directed to analyze the
proposal pursuant to the Housing Authority1s instructions and to negotiate a
contract accordingly.
Prepared by: John Herner
Mindy Leiterman
JH:ML:sh
~ Attachments
e
e
.
~ -- ~L-------. ,
_/"' - - . >....
.,,-
/
/,/
I~/
j........ -
1...",,:/ -"' J..
!I'...., /. ';.1
K -f ~Yl,; .... ).
.~ .: 1;. " ~
c ~t}.:"~;''''''. 5'1
\iJ 'l..::;',,~ -t.....y, ~
'Ir"" ".:1"
'V ....
/~,
///\
~ .
- ::'
e
TO:
Housing Authority
August 17, 1981
FROM:
Joseph Palazzolo
SUBJECT: Development Agreement Re: 3207 Colorado Ave., and
3208 Colorado Ave.
On July 28, 1981, the City Housing Author~ty rejected a
proposal by Crown Development Company, ~hich ~as designed
to meet the needs and desires of the City of Santa ~onica
and at the same time save the four brothers, who are Crown
Developmen t I from going bankrupt.
e
The proposal in brief was to allow the four brothers to
continue to proceed with both the five unit project at
3207 Colorado Ave., which is intended to be sold at market
rates and the four unit project at 3208 Colorado Ave.,
which is intended to be owner occupied. The four brothers
prior to picking up the building permits (which are ready
to he picked up) would contribute the amount of $40,000
to the City Housing Authority fund for the creation of low
to moderate ~ncome housing. (A complete copy of the pre-
vious submittal is attached).
The reason given by the Housing Authority (as spoken by
Mayor Goldway) for taking no action on the proposal was
that since the moritorium will end on October 1, 1981,
it would be of no benefit to the brothers for the city
to enter into an agreement with them.
We have been unable to find any basis for the above stated
reasoning. Even if the moritorium were to end on October
1, 1981, it would still be necessary for a development
agreement to be reached due to the fact it would be im-
possible to change these projects to conform or to ~n-
corporate all the requirements that are being proposed.
The costs of the delay can also be measured in monetary
terms. As you can see on the attached cost schedules,
payments are being made on the land and to the var~ous
people and companies which were hired to bring the projects
to their present point of readiness. Each time a payment
is required, not only is more invested in the present pro-
ject but the funds used to make the payments are lost
forever~ to the productives uses they could otherwise be
directed to.
e
As you can see by the above information and the prev~ous
submittal why it is imperative that a development agree-
ment be reached at the-earliest possible moment between
the City and the four brothers.
1 of 10
Pg. 2 e
.
e
In the time that has elapsed between our hearing of July
2~, 1981 and the date of this submittal, one additional
alternative has been devised which may be of benefit to
the City and so far as we have been able to determine,
should he feasible in regards to the projects. The follow-
ing are the two previous proposals and the new proposal
for your consideration.
1.) Prior to the issuance of the building permits on
both projects the brothers would contribute the
amount of $40,000 to a fund administered by the
City Housing Authority which would be applied to
help alleviate the problem the City faces due to
a shortage of low to moderate income housing.
2.) That the City purchase both parcels of land with
all plans at an amount equal to the amount expen-
ded on them with no profit added.
e
3.) Prior to the issuance of the building permits on
both projects, the brothers would contribute the
amount of $20,000 to a fund administered by the
City Housing Authority and that the City be
granted an option to purchase all the units at
10% over cost of developing them.
Respectfully yours,
d:::!.z~3~
JP/gw
Attach.
,
e
.
.
2 of 10
e
.
e
SUBMITT:D TO iCJSI~G ~UT~GRITY
~EETI~G JULY 28, '981
TO:
CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AGTHORlTY
FROM:
JOE PALAZZOLO
SUBJEcr.
EX&~PTION OP 3207 COLORADO and 3208 COLORP-.DC
FROM THE ~ORATORIUM
Due to the un~que 5~tuat~on ~n wh~ch staff found Ltself Ln deal~ng
wLth and prepar~ng the~r staff report for you, they have adv1sed
that most of the 1nformat1on Wh1Ch was presented to them be presented
d1rectly to you at the tlme of the hear1ng. It 1S w1th th1S thought
that the followLng 1S presented.
The appl1cant 1n th1S case, Crown ~evelopment Co., 1S a general
partnersh1p Wh1Ch was rounded solely for the purpose of develop1ng
the two subject propertles. The pr1nc1pals 1n thLs partnershlp
conS1st of four brothers who have not, prl0r to becOffi1ng 1nvolved
w1th these two propertles, ever partLclpated s1ngly or as a group
Ln any real estate venture.
~he purpose and goals sought to be reached by the four brothers
through the veh1cle of thlS real estate transact10n was to galn them
the opport~nlty and abLllty to become resldents and homeowners In
the Clty of Santa Monlca. It was and 1S the lntent10n of the four
brothers to develop both propert1es w1th the speclf~c ~ntentlon to
sell off the fl~e unlts bUllt at 3207 Colorado Ave. and then wlth the
help of the praflts generated from sald unlta hopefully be able to
retaLn the four unlt proJect at 3208 Colorado Ave. to be used ~s
homes for the four brothers and thelr famLl1es.
e
W1th these facts 1n ~nd, the problems that staff faced beg~n to be
so~ewh~t apparent. From the onset 1t was felt that the four unlt
project would aeflnltely qual1fy for a hardshlp exempt Lon and that
passlbly all nLne un1ts 10 both projects mlght quallfy due to the
h1gh percentage of owner occupancy Lnvolved (44%). However, a
hardshlp eXempt~on wlth the usual deed restr1ctlons as to owner
occupancy would not serve the purpose for WhlCh ~t 13 lntended. The
four brothers are operatlng on what 1S generally called a shoestrlng
budget and as prevlously ~ent~oned, do not have a trac~ record WhlCh
a lender could rely on. Lenders, prlor to comm1ttlng to a construct10n
loan, requlre that the developer demonstrate that the project penclla
out, that 15 that there ~s enough prof1t bUllt In so as to safeguard
the lender's lnvestment. ro d1sclose to the lender that four of the
nlne unlts could not be sold (or even I of the n1ne units for that
~atter) would Wlpe out any chance to get a constructlon loan. ThlS
SaMe problem ar1ses wlth a cond~t~on of a fee attached to the 1ncorne
der~ved from the prOJects_
It was determ1ned, after d~scuss~ons wxth var~ous lenders and loan
brokers. that any cond~tlons requ1red must not affect the prOjected
returns (wh~ch 1n these two projects are rnarg1nal to begln wLth) and,
that the cond1t1ons be separate and not tled to the prOjects th~~elves.
In an attempt to keep wlthLn the sp1r1t of what the Clty CounCll IS
looklng for and at the same t~me protect the feasablllty of the projects
the following was dev1sed:
?rlor to the Lssuance of bUll~ng permits on both proJects the
brothers would contrlbute the amount of $40,000 to a fund admLn1stered
by the Clty Houslng Authorlty WhlCh would be appl~ed to help allevlate
the problem the Clty faces due to a shortage of low to ~oderate 1ncome
houslng.
3 0= 1:)
e
e
e
e
e
e
SUBMITTED TO HOUSING AUTHORITY
MEETING JULY 28, 1981
It ~s hoped the Hous~ng Author~ty w~ll accept th~s offer ~n the
Sp1rlt 10 wh~ch 1t is made.. If the Houslng Author~ty dec1des not
to accept thlS offer ~t is respectfully subm~tted that the C~ty
agree to purchase the parcels from the brothers at a prlce equql
to the amount expended on them wlth no prof~t added. The reason
that th~s ~s requested ~5 that the brothers do not have the ab1l1ty
to carry these two parcels for any extended amount of tlme and 1f
put 1n a poslt~on where they must do so they w~ll surely go bankrupt~
r have 1ncluded with this report caples or cost breakdowns and schedules
of events fro both parcels WhlCh may help the Hous~ng Author1ty 10
maklng ltS deC1Slon.
RT:::;2W{m~tZ,
tt~ Palazzolo tJ
4 of \ 0
e
e
COST BREAKDOWN
eSUBMITTED TO HOUSING AUT'-lORITY
MEETING JULY 28, 1981
3207 COLORADO AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404
Land
Architecture
Engineering, [Civil, SOll
Structural, Landscape]
Legal
Condo Fees & Perna ts
Adminlstratlon
Miscellaneous
Interest pald on land purchase
for 10 months thru June 1, 81
Total
e
Construction
Subterranean Garage,
4500 sq. ft. @ $17.25
Condo unlts,
7800 sq. ft. @ $42.00
Landscap~g & offsite;
improvement
Tree relocation
Total
Financing (550,000 Loan)
Construction-points 2.5\
Construction interest,
7 months @ 21%
Carrying interest,
5 months @ 21%
Total
Model
Sales CommisSlon (6%)
Total
Total Development
Sales: 5 units @ 190,000
Projected proflt
e
$ 179,500
4,500
11,250
2,600
9,443
6,000
5,000
12,650
$ 230,943
77,625
327,600
5,000
5,000
$ 415,225
13,750
67,375
48,125
$ 129,250
8,000
57,000
$ 65,000
$ 230,943
415,225
129,250
65,000
$ 840,418
$ 950,000
$ 109,582
5 of 10
e
Apr. 14, 1980
May 14, 1980
June 5, 1980
July 29, 1980
July 30, 1980
Aug. 6, 1980
e Aug. 26, 1980
- Sep. 25, 1980
Oct. 17, 1980
Oct. 17, 1980
Nov. 3, 1980
Nov. 7, 1980
Nov. 10, 1980
Nov. 19, 1980
Dec. 8, 1980
Dec. 17, 1980
e Jan. 2, 1980
e
__ SUBM I TTED TO HOUS 1 NG
AUTHORITY MEETING JULY 28, 1981
DATE OF EVENTS
3207 COLORADO AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404
Escrow opened on subJect property. Contract
entered into for purchase of the sa~d property,
with the following contingency: "Contract
subject to exemption fram Santa Mon~ca Rent
Control Board allowing a Demolition Permit to
be issued. II
Application filed to Rent Control Board for
exemption (s1ng1e family, owner occupled, non-
rental) .
Approval granted from Rent Control Board.
Clvil Engineer engaged to begin work.
Close of Escrow.
Archltects engaged to begin work.
Attorney retained to obtain CC&R1s, Bylaws,
648 Form and I-C2 For.m.
Relocation of ex~st~ng unit to a new medium
houslng slte.
Applicatlon filed for Tentative Tract Map.
Landscape archltect engaged to begin work.
Tentative Tract Map approval.
Negat~ve Declaratlon from Environmental Impact
Review Committee.
Appllcatlon filed for Archltectural ReVlew
Board for approval.
Development of working drawLngs to meet the
Architectural Review Board's approval.
Filing of Tract Map.
ResubmlSSlon to Arch~tectural Rev~ew Board.
Obtalned Department of Real Estate Approval (P~nk)o
6 of 10
e
e
e
Page 2
e
.
SUBMITTED TO HOUSING
AUTHORITY MEETING JULY 28, 198
3207 Colorado Avenue
Santa Monica, California 90404
Jan. 21, 1981
Jan. 28, 1981
Feb. 16, 1981
Apr. 6, 1981
Apr. 11, 1981
Final approval of Arch~tectural ReV1ew Board.
Structural Engineer appointed to begin work.
Soil-Engineer appointed to begin work.
Working drawings completed and submitted to
BU11ding Department for Plan Check and appl1cation
for Building Permit.
Conditional approval by Bu~lding Department, Plan
Check.
7 of 10
e
.
COST BREAKDOWN
e
3208 COLORADO AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404
Land
Architecture
Engineer~ng, [Civil, So~l
Structural, Landscape]
Legal
Condo Fees & Permits
Administration
Miscellaneous
Interest pa~d on land purchase
for 8 months, thru June 1, 81
Tota 1
e
construction
Subterranean Garage,
3900 sq~ ft. @ $17.25
Condo units,
6400 sq. ft. @ $45.00
Landscaping & offsite,
improvement
Tree relocation
Total
Financing ($470,000 Loan)
Construction points-2.5%
Construction interest,
7 months @ 21%
Carrying interest,
5 months @ 21%
Total
Total Development
e
$ 155,000
4 , 25 0
11,250
2,600
6,608
6,000
5,000
3,861
$ 194,569
67,275
288,000
5,000
5,000
$ 365,275
11..,-750
57,575
41,125
$ 110,450
SUBMITTED TO HOUSING
AUTHORITY MEETING JULY 28, is
$ 194,569
365,275
110,450
$ 670,294
....
8 of 10
e
May 8, 1980
May 29, 1980
J1ll1e 5, 1980
July 29, 1980
August 6, 1980
Aug. 26, 1980
e
Sep. 5, 19&0
Sep. 25, 1980
Oct. 17, 1980
Oct. 17, 1980
Nov. 3, 1980
Nov. 7 , 1980
Nov. 10, 1980
N ov. 1 9, 1 980
Dec. 8, 1980
e
Dec. 17, 1980
Jan. 21, 1981
e
SU~ED TO HOUSING AUTHORTIY
MEETING JULY 28, 1981
DATE OF EVENTS
3208 COLORADO AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, .CALIFORNIA 90404
Application filed to Rent Control Board for
exemption (single family, owner occupied, non-
rental) .
Escrow opened on subject property. Contract
entered into for purchase of the said property,
with the followll1g contJ..ngency: "Contract
subject to exemption from Santa Mon~ca Rent
Control Board allowing a DemolJ..tion Permit to
be issued."
Approval grnated from Rent Control Board.
Civil EngJ..neer engaged to begin work.
Architects engaged to begJ..n work.
Attorney retaJ..ned to obtain CC&R's, Bylaws,
648 Form and I-C2 Form.
Close of Escrow.
Relocation of eXJ..stJ..ng unit to a new medium
housJ..ng sJ..te.
ApplJ..cation filed for TentatJ..ve Tract Map.
Landscape Architect engaged to begin work.
TentatJ..ve Tract Map approval.
NegatJ..ve Declaration frJ..n Environmental Impact
Review CornmJ..ttee.
ApplJ..catJ..on to Architectural ReveJ..w Board for
approval.
Development of working draw~ngs to meet the
Architectural Review Board's approval.
F~ling of the Final Tract Map.
ResubmJ..ssion to ArchJ..tectural RevJ..ew ~oard.
Final approval of Architectural Review Board.
9 of TO
e
-e
e
Page 2
e
tIIMITTED TO HOUSING AUTHORITY
MEETING JULY 28, 1981
3208 Colorado Avenue
Santa Monica, California 90404
Jan. 28, 1981
Feb. 16, 1981
Apr. 6, 1981
Apr. 11, 1981
Structural Eng~eer appointed to beg~n work.
Soil Eng~neer appo~nted to beg~ work.
Working drawings completed and subm~tted to
Build~ng Department for Plan Check and
applicat10n made for Building Permit.
Conditional approval by Building Department,
Plan Check.
10 of 10
e
.
e
e
e
e
e
HD'ML.mh
Santa Monica, Cal ifor~la, Septerber 14, 1981
e
TO:
HouSing Authority
FROM:
City Staff
SUBJECT
Proposed Amendment to ~greement to Impose Restrictions on
Real Property by and Between the Cal irornia Coastal Commission,
the Housing Authority or the City or Santa Monica, and One PICO
Enterprises
Introduction
On Nove~ber 21, 1980, the Housing Authority entered into an Agreement to Impose
Restrictions on Real Property governing the development of twenty (20) condominiums
to be located at One PICO Boulevard, and twelve (12) apartments to be located at
1815 Appian Way. The Agreement provides that the developer must bUIld the
aoartments and make them available for rent at affordable levels to persons of low
~ and moderate income prior to closing escrow on the twenty condominiums. The Housing
Authority's involvement is to certify and refer el iglble tenants to the developer!
owner over the thirty (30) year term of the Agreement
Section 6 of the Agreement specifies that the twelve unit apartment bUilding shall
be comprised of four (4) one-bedroom apartments, four (4) two-bedroom apartments,
and four (4) three-bedroom apartments. However, the developer's plans, which are
currently under review by the Architectural Review Board, prOVide for eight (8)
one-bedroom units, and four (4) three-bedroom units. Because of this disoarity,
the developer is not in compliance with the Housing Authority Agreement, and thus
is not exempt from the E~ergency Building Moratoriu~. To resolve this confl lct,
the developer could modify the plans for the apartment building, or can request,
as she has done, to amend the Housing Authority Agreement.
e
The Proposed Amendment
The amendment proDosed by the develooer (attached) would change the Agreement suc~
e
e
Housing Authority
-2-
September 11, 1381
e
that the require~ents In Section 6 would coincide with the architectural plans for
the bUilding. To comDensate for the loss of two-bedroom units '~hjch would have
been available to famll ies, the amendment also provides that three (3) of the one-
bedroom units will be made available to family ~ouseholds, which are defined as
two or more persons related by blood, law, or custom.
Discussion
According to the developer, the disparity as to the type of units to be provided
has eXisted throughout the planning phase of this project. The plans appended to
the appl ication for Tentative Tract Map which were submitted to the Planning
Department for processing In February, 1980, reflected the eioht (8) one-bedroom,
four (4) three-bedroom plan. A staff report Drepared by the Coastal CowmiSS1on
~ dated May 7, 1980, also refers to this distribution of one and three bearoom
apartments. For unexplained reasons, the phYSical plans fqr the bUilding were
never drawn to the specifications of the Housing Authority Agreement nor was the
agreement, negotiated between the Coastal Commission staff and the developer, worded
so as to parallel the ohysical plans. The Coastal Development Permit does not
specify any particular distribution of unit types.
Analyzing the developer's requested amendment from a perspective of housing need
in the City, it is very unfortunate that two-bedroo~ units ~ave not ~een planned
for this project. Households who are eligible for two-bedroom units and families
in general have been the hardest to assist in the Housing Authorlty's Section 8
Existing program. The developer's Intention to make three of the one-bedroom units
available to family households mItigates this loss to some extent, but due to
~ additional considerations discussed in the follOWing paragraph below, it does not
completely resolve the issue.
e
e
Housing Authority
-3-
September 14, ,981
e
e
The current Agreement provIdes that all of the units will be ~ade aval laDle to
Section 8 certificate holders or to Section 8 eligibles at affordable renti3ls. I:
further specifies that at least four (4) units will be rented to very low inco~e
households if Section 8 assistance is available. If the twelve (12) units ~ere
available for rent today, the Housing Authority would not be able to facilitate
greater partiCIpation in the Section 8 program because there are no one-bedroom or
three-bedroom certificates available. Households who are currently receiVing
Section 8 aSSistance could move to the project. but the number of partiCipating
units would not be increased. Since the contract provides for an alternative
lIaffordablell rent level in the event Section 8 assistance 15 not available, lower
income households (households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median) WI II
still be able to reside in the proJect, but the affordable rent levels would prove
costly to very low Income households (households with Incomes at or below 50% of
the area median).
Recommendation
Although staff would have endorsed the revised unit configuration had it been
proposed initially, staff is aware of no compel 1 ing reason to revise the existing
Housing Authority Agreement which provides for units which better conform to the
City's housing needs.
Prepared by. Mindy Leiterman
ML"mh
Attachment
e
e
e
l...'\.TH~"\.1-'I & '\T~~TKI:NS
ATTORN EYS AT l..AW
e
555 SOUT~ F"LCw~~ STR::::E-
~..3,(...;~ ~ WA-K""IS .rI899-19731
DA......A "_A--HAM .-1898-'9-7.4.1
-os ANG::l..ES, CAl..l""CRNIA 9007'
.~e:."iP::Jo~"""f S::AC- :::F=' cs:
-E;:__'::::?-;"CNE 2'31 ":"85- 23..G.
"36c t--~""'.:iI-::Ck"'" :::::....-[:=1 :::::;:: I"" E. SL;I-E 14~':::
.NAS......"'GTON, ;:J .:;. OFFIC::
~AaLE: ADC-:::::!'5:SS _A-~.'NIJ.-
.....:E:;.v;:::c.j:;o- :3!::,;:.~'-i ::A!.. =-OR.... oIlo. 3-~560
13.33 Ni:W ........-...PSI-IIRE AVEjN -oN SL...ITE 200
--"IX 910 3~1-3733
-~L..-==~""O"'::: r4- 7S2-~ CO
-NASi-'INGTO...,,:=: C '20036
-;::..C::::O:llI-::~ ...,.... 753-9891
T::::L.E:::O=I:::R 2f3 6aO-2098
-~Li::PI-IO""'C: -.202: S2B--4..40C
"!"'"!:LEC~PIE;::;! :ZOZI 928-4-0:1-15
September 10, 1981
S.a,..., .:: l::GO Cj:"'='ICE
2550 ...- ;:--..... A.....E.~...:-::::t 5'..11"":: ~12
=AN J-15:CiO. ~A... c-OR.....IA. 92'03
-::!.,.~F=""CN.c: 71...... ii:'.3g-44I";'
-=L:::C.:::=q::::;I '':"14- 239-3824
Housing Authority of the
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Xonica, Californla
Attention: Mindy Leiterman
Re: Amendment to Agreement Imposing
Restrictions on Real Property
Dear Ms. Lelterman.
e
This letter ~s written on behalf of our client,
One Pico Enterprlses, Inc. ("One Pico") for the purpose
of requesting that the Housing Authority of the C~ty of
Santa Monica ("Housing Authorltyll) approve an amendment
to that certain Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real
Property dated as of November 21, 1980 by and among the
California Coastal Commission, the Housing Authority and
One Pico (the "Agreementll) Three copies of the proposed
amendment. all executed by One Pico. are enclosed herewith.
The proposed amendment is necessary in order
to correct an error which was inadvertently made in the
Agreement in the description of the 12 rental units which
One Pico proposes to construct at 1815 Appian Way. Instead
of four (4) one-bedroom units, four (4) two-bedroom un~ts,
and four (4) three-bedroom units as now set forth in
paragraph A(6) of the Agreement. One Plca proposed, and
the Coastal Commiss~on approved, a project involvlng four
(4) three-bedroom units and eight (8) one-bedroom units.
Accordlngly, we request that the Housing Author~ty approve
the enclosed amendment so that the Agreement wlll conform
to the intention and understanding of the parties at the
time the Agreement was executed.
cc
Robert Meyers, Esq
Tim Eichenberg, Esq
Respectfully submitted,
Odi. !(. A ~
Dale K. Neal
of LATHAM & WATKINS
(wi encl )
(w/enel )
e
e
e
e
. WHEN RECORDED MAI~O.
e
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Attention: Legal Department
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
FIRST AL~NDMENT TO
AGREE~~T IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS
ON REAL PROPSRTY
This First Amendment to Agreement Impos~ng
Restrictions on Real Property is made as of the
day
of September, 1981, by and among the CALIFOfu~IA COASTAL
COMMISSION (the "Coastal ComrnissionTl), the HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF SAl'.JTA :.10NICA (the ftHousing AuthorJ.ty") and
ONE PICO ENTERPRISES, E~C (the "Developerll).
RECITALS
A. The Coastal Commission, the Housing Author~ty,
and the Developer have previously entered into that certa~n
Agreement ImposJ.ng Restrictions On Real Property dated as
of November 21, 1980 and recorded on Apr~l 1. 1981
1981 as Instrument No. 81-331103 in the Recorder's OffJ.ce
of Los Angeles County, California (the tlAgreernentll).
B The parties now aesJ.re to amend the Agreement
in the manner described below.
AGREE}IENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that
paragraph A(6) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its
entirety as follows.
It
e
e
e
e~-
"(6) T~at.e:.ght (8) of the units shall be
constructed as one-bedroom, one-bath unlts or at least
600 square feet, and four (4) of the units shall be
constructed as t~=ee-aed~oom, two-bath units of at least
1,000 square feet
- ~
T~ree (3) of the one-bedroom unlCS
shal: be made available for rental to famllies which
are defined as two or more persons related by blood, law
or custom."
:~ WIT~ESS wnE1EOF, che partles hereto have
caused t~~s F~~st ~~en~.ent to ~e entered inco as or the
day and year first above
,~::. tten .
,
,
CALIFORNIA COASTAL CO~1ISSION
By
ONE PICO ENTERPRISES, INC.
3y
Pres:.dent
01 ane Frome' ~
Approved As To
"7 1"j:;'
.....ega_ ..o::-m.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF TP~ CITY
OF SANTA MONICA
3y
C:. ty A:: co !:'ney
2
e
e
e
e
e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) 55.
COUNTY OF LOS M~GELES )
On
before ne, tne unders~gned, a
~otary Public in and for sa~d State, personally appeared
, known to me to be
the Chairperson of the Hous~ng Authority of t~e C~ty of Santa
Monica which executed the wit~in instrument, kno~vn to me to ~e
the person who executed the w~thin instrument on behalf 0= the
Housing Authority and acknowledged to me that such Hous~ng
Author~ty executed the w~thin instrument pursuant to a resolution
of the Housing Authority
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(S~gnature)
(Name)
e
e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
e COUNTY OF LOS A1~GELES ) .
On
before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
, known to me to be the
President of the corporation that executed the with~n instrument,
known to me to be the person who executed the with~n ~nstrument
on behalf of the corporat~on the~e~n named, and acknowledged to
me that such corporation executed the within instrument yursuant
to ~ts by-laws or a resolution or its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
e
- ,
\. -
~- . .OFFICIAL SEAL '
) /;, .....f~, CAROLINE E FEGLEY
Ii :'.:l"~~ NOTARY ou611C - CA.L'eORNIA
1.#."'P;;ij~ LOS ''''GRES COUNTY
. ,~~ ,_--::::'_~ 1'U1I
'. ~ F My comm eXjllres NOV 19. 1983
(S~gnature)
(Name)
e
e
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) 55.
tt COL~TY OF SAN FRfu~CISCO 5
On th~s
day of
, 1981, before me, the
undersigned ~otary Publ~c, personally appeared
, known to me to be the Legal COunsel of the
CalLfornia Coastal Commission, known to me to be the person who
executed the within instrunent on behalf of saLd CODffiLssLon,
and ac~nowledged to me that sald Commission executed the w~thLn
instrument for the purposes there~n conta~ned
IN WrT:ffiSS WFEREOFJ I hereunto set my hand and offLclal seal.
Notary s~gnature
e
Dace o~ COIT~LSS~On Explrat~on
e
.
e
e
j
1.~r .
c.
Ls.Vf'~1)o::::-t.
,
,
i
(
. ,';;--
" '-- ';.-' '-
l~C( Pr::c~t ~ StIF-~
\_'
3...-, . 1-~::-1 .:.C~, ,jL l~f~ll_ 1 _, !
;:;c :'~-L.er L>, 1~~81 3:30 P.i",l. /~
- _____ 1 ./ ./
_.' - " f, ./'7(J ,\.~'..?-<>--?'L__ b
.. '1f= ~ r.- r ~ r"--G _!. J - LJ'. ~-:J r..:_ )
- all T.E'T.t.€ IE
.f:.",. 1;:.1tL Y~l''1c.tt:, G:;l[~ _y,
:-Il~.~-t.t-:ra J: -...Lle C l t~r vo....~ C1- ~
:1 ~:I J: SZ-Ylt~ ~.l:: ll::~,
.i. _ ,~ r ~ J.l: b t r.:- f- t
~{)~c~" ,
-.
Ple<-'.s€ repro,lUC'8 ::-. co;y ;'cr Ecccl: nf';ioer
"< 2.;" -j c...ll :r t, ~~--~~.s _-~- ._---
/ --:-.-'-~-:-;. 1", -"~Tj.". :-;-.
..( t'tt-,J, ,t~. VI ~. '7~--~<"- -~'~"<--',-- t L~ LC ".'./(( J'CC:/~t X ../, '- .!..0/;(/: ..
t I ;';:)[0'-, ( ) ~"1:N'c-r~s, ( ) PrE~.S, () :{ee'l - 'J!1,,::'K [.oatp-ess,
.s=::n~
GS~l:~0~r lE.:..
(
(
(
) L.a:1e,
) Jel n 1:-~::; - .
t ..-..
h:::.:.~
f.~er
~-::~e
::f tte ll;:_t etc.
) All rcP"1ter." r.i' t'lE FL--rlr::.r-"L C'Jr.MlEElGL/,.:_L("re~::.-t€;.c; c ri""lttE~;.
( ).A.- -' ~ ~ (~:~"" -?y{,~,e /-- L'~..d/ ~~:,~---- ,f l {L J #.' 'J) ,
SubJ€ct: The ~eu~l~C ~lF-~:~ ~~d Ol~lr~Lce~ to follt~.. ,
Ple&..:'€ :
- I
'/
Cor,Sl2-pr t.hE> i ';;dct C1 the S;[al:i. El: FIe '..i.Lit parcel of undf;veIare.-:
~) ~ t 1- : v~_-" -= ?::/_~ ~_~.~:"1 C~~ !- ~ L _~~ _ ~ urro tl"~Li l~ L
.
.. :::r";'ier c..:C: v.ell e~ '[,o:..bl~she;..-: P! 1:... ~T~
p:::,,~?.prtJ~ Oy tLc: ....~c- ertJ-!" :.'1 to lS
~~~E~~:.e.r 1~. c. t :.~~!..~(": l.oLr~d€r
LUl::"rL. _d . ::-~-_'C.D:. c:o"e~.
I ~~dve r.:)t- ;1~~ tLf" ti~e to rec~;: ~r_d ..J~t.e"L -: ~ll 1-..!E ;~~'~;-'v~~Ll.:- ~Ircl:'"
l:.~ve "::" "Ci'~ -1.Q.:~_ t-:'lS ev'='. l; f' I co.....l::: :'~t t, "~~e the tl.P t~ :~::.'o;:er:.r
::E~~..:'; -~ ~c: ti-~ r;.tt t....::.s ;:':..:.rt. I feel t:lE~Y ~-:...::.e ~tcOl'~':l~:;dtor~yn
'Ir~!-EC.[':_.:_~~ utc:-r...i._B crp i~rror.pr. ....--Ile- t L-..re :={~l..A. '=e~:r:!.v=-::.:. the .--, .. e2;:-3 :,f
fu..ll..y :Jep lc ~.-~':S. "':";:.LIcels ;:1 IJ'~€Y" ~r.::--o~ E.xtr~c:t. "1--: 11.F7l f€e~ d.. 0... .~2~~
l rS~--:'....'l~ -...1. u.;::t'f-l,.'c-: .~ :enj Ct~vs2... ~Er :'.c ':"il~-:.:::~r ~:,,--Ul. ~..:...:r~ ~~t G'-l( 1 l~fG::"-:
"---=-~./ EVt?:'~-J.c-~lj- ;:r..ho :--(-#t..LL..o. ~::.Jn ~ ~J.l ~l"'l\'_~P ~~::'._#t-Llt.y?
~'t"!"ltt.. -:,r...e E~ :::--ct----e..: ~ c,f i{.::ll t ~~...: tl~=- \~E v.......Ul'" - ,;r.-'-il~ - c:.::::"'Ul:::l ce[
t:Lt !':.2" c,--rstructlcn ',<,oul,: :.'jt 'Cf-'..:.':e-:.+sd. -'j';d't a f""lE'e:'lcod. :r;w yeu
co:.e fo::::.t\.l t:i...t:: l -:"'ltre ~r;._rt~eE: 1... ~~Ls:tJ'r C-:.~ 'L1t.nt ll~ lta 1!~~""'i st dll
ZJ es - ~lffcrp"tc?te1 to in sxtert t~~t p~operty u~rers c: le:T ~Evlce~
let"eer tte-~~lies - fOl :rE~r c~r erscral self ltte~e~t~ - aL~ grE~t~n€
:' i: t:1E l.~;e -- ,-cL:_ti~c..1 vlct_-r~. f:.r J'CL;l'~clve2 IT :{~1.~r .ro;-r,,'-
cf ~ocl~l r~"'"'..:r~;. --"c.-l-"', I 3~.:llL "-:;y;r C;~:rl'~~, jl~&-~,,- r2rtL::.::'~ ~Ar2 \:e:1 :::cle
tc :- 1 tr-.:.:'::-~tE ..__ ""u~h O~ .._::E-- ~~S r:-~Y"J ~Jl:f€r:.~~ €_:... tCt..-~:: tlle.32 .,::C!J.i.-' -6 -
tut r:dlt '":! - i.ord of 'l€:r If'lC:::': CE 1'" ut:c:r€li It:. thiKat re,>rc...
_"b~l', I - rli ht 6.1o~ l> ' 1 t,r.. ~ s."J o-:her E:'lall ?r:::-[-ert,y if rs - fee 1
thate hctve ~~ cc~trol over cur ~e~t~rey - rc V~l~E 0: CC~8=~US~CE_
to oOtte:::--1E:.1C jo~r :ar:'c, _:olnt~ ',-~ Vlew. :,1.1 ":nlt 113:03::. I _u
or-ly t,rJ-' I re"1:r:nc' y:,u t~L2t I?, -' ~ :-., '--I L~ .re .:.:. _".1(:;, ,,1-' l!:le L tE:.'f'::::t
lL to'C lu~1-j1 c..2, c, ",L ~"}"C 1..0:.l::::e <.r 1 <:. ~'1.~~'If'X, 'In ".;'..c ~- t-",1::' 181,.:. t~._t
C'u:::'rel,tlj 2..C'~'TS -.<:J l~ 'J'::;clj.J: 1 ~,y.c -ol ;:..::'e tE: .r-t. Let', ac'u-:c:..{t'--
~.:'2 Uli:;tl 2tl'e':E':ul tlf'(,S -" :r.-=::"i per~_r.:..1 Ilves. nr'_, c.:.ct'';'cdly, 01-1,y
tL.€ -SYOl~~ty -....;l_:~ -::......3 z...1:~fE=c;:,e": 1.1. ff- :... crEe. or L~ll~l-~ sene ~.r_s,jlc :12. e
c....dY r-C:J~.r Y(:-lce 1 ";!:e-l;:... -;?:- ~UCl'L as ~r::ll ~urlP2 t.l.J .:-:cOlj8se. 'I~I 2.1 t~ ~c-..n
::-1..",,;)-':;0 'c..c,,' up :o..r:.,~ r-J.n. 'i'Iley hd. e "-0 10, e;, t"'"'r- l:"ve~t c,.t to :ycte.:.;t.
C"-lJ t: E-' 1 lli'e ~ ty16 to toO; _v ,-; :. e" Wl tho 1'0 t:'et 't:] s 11 j.... _ I,:": l 3
I '.l"t ':'o-C~~ U.J:' "--1 Lte d 10 L l_',::"le I'lC'e tc Clt~t i~ll ~,':o!e ":.tG~' 1"...
I ~eg of you, ~o~~l~er ~y
trye~ tc ,c' vey to y~u fio'
J'~~r ;~~r~~~l~ t~:f .-:.
''C ocL.' ~c,.2. (1111 ~e l~ : r
OpE- ~
c stc<tE;-eLt, tfiE '1'c..::iY 5:' tE lliCnt-., I heYP \.
t1 ,-
t::' ~e ; " :~: ,"r,;j l}~ ~~~ .'JJ ~~j~' t .~ ~ ( !
I . ~ -_ ~. ' -; ~ ~, . ~ ~{.cA _ ~~~. f': _ . ~ _ ~ f_
r . ... i- ~ l. rv.r.'!.
1, L,.c- f.j
?:/
(
- ) ~
/ l
c: ~ 1.
'/