Loading...
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. '/