SR-404-007 (4)
~
e
Ljot//' () {} r
Santa Monica, California, June 8, 1977
.
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal, Tentative Tract 32022, Barclay-Curci Invest-
ment Company, former McDonnell-Douglas site, Public
Hearing June 13, 1977.
Introduction
This report constitutes the staff analysis and recommendations
regarding the Appeal by the Barclay-Curci Investment Company
of the conditionally approved Tentative Tract Map for subdivi-
Slon of the former McDonnell-Douglas site on Ocean Park Boule-
vard.
Backsround
On May 2, 1977 the City Planning Commission conditionally ap-
proved an applicatlon for subdivision of portions of the former
t1.cDonnell-Douglas site. The Tract !1ap approved consisted of a
l2 lot divlslon with three streets designed to provide the flexi-
bility necessary for the Clty and the developer to work out a
possible land exchange involving creation of recreation facili-
ties including a golf course, park or other concept. The design
was such that in the event no land exchange transpired the sub-
divlder could eventually proceed with development of their en-
tire property independently of what the Clty eventually dld with
;
~
the public portion.
The key to a possible land exchange was an agreement by Barc1ay-
Curci that for a period of up to one year no development would
be sought for lots #1 and #11 so that if the City wished to put
e
.
TO: The Mayor and City Councll
- 2 -
June 8, 1977
either of these lots into open space use it could he accomplished.
The trade was to be In ter~s of equal portlons of uniwproved
lands.
The Tentative t1ap came before the Planning Commission with a
staff recommendation for approval wlth a list of 30 specified
conditlons, most of which were minor and to which the subdivider
had agreed. There were, however, several to which they had indi-
cated obJection lncluding the following:
1. The requirement that no buildlng or other permit
could be issued for any development, construction or
use of lots 1 or 11 for a period of 9 months following
approval. (The subdivider wished to have the right to
do gradlng or utility lnstallation as it affected the
whole project).
2. The construction of a waste water reclamation system
to remove a major portion of the effluent in connectlon
with the project wlth only sufficient fluid piped lnto
the City sewers to transport the sludge.
3. Construction of a storm drain system based on a
feasibillty study of r8tention of storm water for irri-
gation or replenishing fresh ground water to counter-
act salt water intruslon.
4~ Dedication of a 100 sq. ft. area for the establish-
ment of a monument cOl~emorating the 'Round the World
Flight of 1924.
5. The dedicatlon and lmprovement of the prolongation
of Centlnela Avenue unless the adjacent area becomes a
golf course.
6. The construction of planted median strips 4' x 60t
~o be constructed on all streets as they approach Ocean
Park and on Ocean Park Boulevard.
Prior to the Planning Commisslon Hearlng, several rnodiflcations
relatlng to these conditions were suggested to the Planning Com-
mission by the staff. These modifications included the following:
l'
e
e
TO: The Mayor and City Council
- 3 -
June 8, 1977
l. The period for non-development of lots 1 and 1l was
raised from 9 months to one year wlth the provision that
the City 1ndicate withln six months its wilJingness to
make an exchange and that permits for grading, utility
installation or other site preparation could be issued.
2. That instead of the construction of an on-site sewage
treatment plant the subdivider would have a feasibility
study completed within 60 days and that the City Council
would subsequently determine the feasibility and respec-
tive cost sharing at the time the final subdlvision map
was considered.
3. That instead of the storm draln system based on the
feasib1lity of retention of storm water for lrrigation or
replenishing fresh ground water the subd1vlder would pro-
vide grading, landscaping and a drainage system to maxi-
mize retention of storm water on site including an over-
flow drainage system.
4. That in lieu of the 100 sq. ft. dedication for a monu-
ment, the subdivider would contribute $1,000 for the place-
ment of a suitable monument approved by the City Council.
5. That instead of the dedication of a 66' right-of-
way for the prolongation of Centinela Avenue and its im-
provement unless the area is a golf course, the subdivider
would ded1cate a road easement for purposes of extending
Centinela Avenue upon which the City could require ~mprove-
ment for a period of one year or until the City decided
to put in a golf course. After one year the subdivider
could not be required to pay for the improvements although
the easement would remain 10 effect.
Prlor to the Planning COIDmlssion meetinq the applicants were in
general agreement with these modificat1ons with the exceptlon
of that relat1ng to City Council1s determinat~on of the feaslbil-
1ty of the sewer treatment facility and their allocatlon of the
cost sharing for its construction.
:
Following the Public Hearing the Planning Comm1ssion cond1tion-
ally approved the Tentative Hap with virtually all of the staff
recommendations, 1ncluding the modif1cations ind1cated above,
r c'
e
TO: The Mayor and City Council
e
- 4 -
June 8, 1977
and some additlonal requirements to WhlCh the subdivlder objected
and has subsequently appealed. The additional requirements im-
posed by the Planning Commission were:
1. The inclusion of lots 2 and 3 in addltion to lots
1 and 11 in the exchange agreement.
2. The requirement for a planted median strip 141 in
width to be reduced to 41 for left turn plckets on
Ocean Park Boulevard and on the approach streets as
required by the General Services Department.
3. The requlrement that there shall be no vehlcle access
to Ocean Park Boulevard except the intersecting streets.
~ppea~
On May 13th Barclay-Curci Investment Company appealed the Planning
Commlssion's conditlonal approval. They specifically appealed
the following condltions:
1. The inclus10n of lots 2 and 3 1n the land exchange
agreement.
2. The requirement for a feasibillty study of the on-
site sewage treatment plant and the rLght of the City
Council to decide its feaslbility and allocate the shar1ng
of the costs for its construction.
3. The requirement that sanltary sewer lines be construc-
ted in the streets rather than left to the dlscretion of
the City Engineering staff.
4. Construction of the 14' planted median strip on Ocean
Park Boulevard and the approach streets.
5. The restriction of vehlcle access to Ocean Park Boule-
vard from other than the intersectlng streets.
Addltionally the subdivider ralses two other Ob]ectlons:
1. They believe the Planning Commisslon lntended that
they should pay for off-site improvements, such as
median strips and trafflc signals, only to the extent
that their property was benefited and not the total
cost of the improvements required.
~
e
e
TO: The Mayor and City Councll
- 5 -
June 8, 1977
2. They object to the general development guidel~nes
adopted last year by the Planning Commission calling
for 35' setbacks and 30% coverage.
Under Section 9314 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council
is the Appeals Body for a Tentatlve Tract Map and following a
Public Hearing may overrule or modlfy any ruling or determlna-
tion of the Planning Corrmission.
Alternatives
As indicated the City Council may affirm, modify or reverse any
action or conditlon imposed by the Planning CO~~lssion. The
City Attorney has indicated that ~his power extends to all the
requirements not just those from WhlCh the subdivider has spe-
cifically appealed. Inasmuch as those specifically contained in
the Appeal represent the principal areas of objection, the staff
report is llmited to evaluatlon and recommendations upon those
particular points. These include the inclusion of lots 2 and 3
in the land exchange, the condiTions regarding the sewer treat-
roent plant, the construction of sewer lines in the streets, the
14' med1an strip on Ocean Park Boulevard, the lack of access to
Ocean Park Boulevardi and the objectlons regarding responsibility
for improvements and the applicabil1ty of the guidel~nes. These
items will be discussed and recommendations made individually.
:
1. INCLUSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 IN THE LAND EXCH&~GE AGREEMENT.
The offer by the subdivider to withhold development of lots 1
and 11 pending a decision by the City as to the ultimate use of
the public owned property was based on the desire to allow de-
velopment of open space facilitles includlng a golf course, park
e
e
TO: The Hayor and City Council
- 6 -
June 8, 1977
or some other variation. The proffered lots are entirely ade-
quate to satisfy any of several alternative arrangements. Lots
2 and 3 were not offered and are in fact proposed for other uses.
The subdivider believes the inclusion of lots 2 and 3 to be an
unreasonable demand by the Commission and unfairly restricts the
proposed development of the property.
As indicated in the beginning the Tentative Tract Map was de-
signed to provide the City with the flexibility of accomplishing
several development alternatlves including a possible land ex-
change to provide a golf course or park facilities. To this end,
lots] and 11 are essential. Extension of park facilities to
Ocean Park Boulevard requlre the exchange of lot 1. Developwent
of a golf course and park can be accommodated with an exchange
involving both lots 1 and 11. ~'lhile it would be desirable to
have the added fJexibility affoLded by the inclusion of lots 2
and 3 they are not essentlal to the development of adequate open
space iacllities and in the absence of an agreement by the sub-
divider to have them included probably represent an unenforcible
requirement according to the City Attorney.
rffiCOMMENDATION. In the matter of the Appeal regardlng the in-
clusion of lots 2 and 3 in the land exchange agreement, the staff
respectfully recommends that the Appeal be granted and reference
to lots 2 and 3 be deleted.
2. ON SITE SE~AGE PLANT. The condition approved by the Planning
Commisslon requires that withln 60 days following approvaJ the
subdivider shall have a qualified engineer prepare a technical
:
e
TO: The Mayor and City Council
e
- 7 -
June 8, 1977
study on the feasib11ity of constructing an on-site sewage treat-
ment plant to remove a major portion of the effluent from the
project, and that following review of th1S study the City Council
shall determlne 1f such a facility is feas1ble from an economic
and practical standpoint and if so, establish the respective
sharing of capital costs by the City and subdivider with the
subdivider to install the syste~s. The subd1v1der bel1eves the
deC1slon by the City Council should be reasonable and not arbi-
trary and that the alloca~ion of the cost of construction should
be spread among all new users wlthin the City and paid for by
sewer connection or hook-up fees. They also believe the uncer-
tainty of their having co pay the entire cost of the facil1ty
is unfair.
This cond1tion was 1mposed based upon the City's critical situ-
at10n insofar as the capaclty of the Metropolitan Sewage Treat-
ment Plant is concerned. The City's current legal capaclty is
11 milllon gallons per day. The Clty'S flow is currently sllghtly
below that level at 10,500,000 gallons per day. In past years
the legal capacity has been exceeded and when thlS happens the
City must pay a sur-charge. The Metropolltan Sewage Treat~ent
District 15 presently in the process of renegotiating the con-
tracts wlth all member clties. Santa Monica au~horit1es do not
~
know at this t1me what new charges and capacity may be. It is
probable that costs will be increased and posslble that capacity
will be decreased. For th1S reason lt 18 essential that the
City take whatever steps are reasonable to assure that any and
all means are taken to reduce flow.
Inasmuch as the Tentative
e
TO: The Mayor and City Council
e
- 8 -
June 8, 1977
Map facilitates a majo~ project representing a high potential,
the requlrement that the feasibility of an on-site treatment
plant to reduce effluent and recycle water for irrlgation 1S not
only not unreasonable but essential. The requirement that the
City Council be the ultimate decislon maker as to whether the de-
velopment of such a facillty is feasible from a practical and
financial standpoint is not unreasonable nor arbitrary in that
this body is charged \,'fth the responslbillty for imposing the
cost of public need~, including sewer connect~on and hook-up fees,
and seeing that they ~re shared fairly by all users.
In Ilght of the seriousness of the sewage
RECOr-l1>1ENDATION.
treatment capacity an0 Lhc subs~antial nature ~Jf the proJect In-
volved, it is respecLfully recommended that tee appeal of this
condition be denied and the requlrements of th~ Planning Corrmnssion
upheld.
3. SEWER LINES IN 5Tl~ETS. The subdivider ap?eals the require-
roent that sanitary sewer Ilnes be constructed 1n streets A, B
and the prolongatlon of Centinela Avenue or their equivalent and
requests the words "or in such other areas as ~~he City's engineer-
ing staff may deem appropriate".
Section 9305AB requires a Tentative Map to sho~ the approXlmate
width and location of all eXlsting or proposed easements for
=-
drainage, sewerage or public utilities. Section 9306C requlres
that where all ground serV1ce is not provided in public streets,
easements not less than 5' in width shall be provided within the
subdivision along side lot IlDes or rear lot lines. InasI~uch as
"
e
e
TO: The Mayor and Clty Council
- 9 -
June B, 1977
the subd~vider has no~ aS5~gned easements, the utilities are
required to be ~n the street.
RECOMMENDATION. It 1S respectfully recommended that the appeal
of thlS condit~on be d8nled and the require~ents of the Planning
Commission be upheld.
4. PLANTED MEDIAN STRIP ON OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD. The subd1v1der
has appealed the regulrement for planted median strips, l41 1n
w1dth to be reduced to 4' for left turn picke~s on Ocean Park
Boulevard and on the approach streets as requ1yed by the General
Services Department on the basis that this requireMent does not
reflect equal treatment for both sides of the street and east and
\"lest of 25th Streeto 'rhey also believe the s l:.~-ip 1ilOUld have the
effect of preventing parking along the sout-h side of Ocean Park
Boulevard while parkLng would continue to be perm1tted on the north
side.
A median strip to eJlminate the possibility of trafflc generated
by this project from :Ell t_er1ng north through t.he resldential areas
of 29th, 30th, 3lst~ 32nd, 33rd and 34th Streets was ODe of the
principal concerns of the Plann1ng Commission in its evaluation
of ~he Environmental Impact Report for ~his proJect. If heavy
traffic up these residential streets is to be prevented a phys1caJ
barrier 1n the form of a median strip is absolutely necessary.
The minimum width of a medium which will provide left turn pockets
is 14'. Without left turn pockets traffic aPr.~aching the project
from the east on Ocean Park Boulevard will be seriously hampered.
.
TO: The Mayor and City Counc~l
e
- 1Q - June 8, 1977
In the existing right-of-way a 14' medlan strip will leave no
room for parklng on the south slde. If parking lS to be provideJ
on the south side an additlonal 8' of dedication and improvement
would be required of the subdivider.
Additionally, parklng has not been permitted on the south slde
of Ocean Park Boulevard for more than 30 years. The Trafflc E~-
glneer believes that if such parking is allowed, given an addl-
tional 8' of dedlcation, traffic movement wlll be adversely aff(cLed
and the possibility of access other lhun at the intersectlng
streets seriously lmpalred. The nor~h side of Ocean Park Boulevard
where park Lng lS presently permitted dlffers substantially from
the south In -Lerms of zonjng, developPlc-_nt, size and configurat2on.
To treat both sides in the soone fashion on the basis that they
represent sinilar situations would bs contrary to fact and good
planning.
[nasmuch as th8 median strip ~roposed lS the
REcm'lHENDKI'ION.
minimum necessary to provide adequate traffic control generated
by the proposed development, it is respectfully reco~~ended that
the appeal of this condltion be denied and that the requlre~enL
of the Planning Com~ission be upheld.
5. RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD. The subdl-
vider has appealed the Plannlng Co~missionls condition that ac-
cess to Ocean Park Boulevard be li~lted to the lntersecting strests
only, meanlng no driveways entering onto Ocean Park Boulevard.
They belleve thlS condition to be unduly restrlctive and not in
accordance with treatment of other properties in the C~ty. At
e
e
TO: The Mayor and City Council
- 11 -
June 8, 1977
least two lots, 6 and 11i would be land locked parcels unless
interior streets or drlveways were prov1ded. They point out
that in an equal distance on the other slde of the Boulevard
there are seven streets and 14 driveways whereas they would be
limited to two points of access.
Whlle the staff recognizes the Planning Commjssion's purpose ln
reduclng the number of driveways 1n order to lnlprove trafflC
flow, safety and appeaCnIlce, the total prohibition of such drive-
ways may be overly restrlctive in view of the Lo~trols lmposed
in the Site ReVlew Ordl!lnnCe and the medlan strip ~hlCh effectively
li~ltS drlveways to riqht turn ln, rlght turn out by ~aklng it
impossible to turn left into or out of drive~~ys. The ll~ltation
of in and out trafflC tc only the ~ntersectl~g ~~reets wlll not
reduce vehicle activlty but only focus it at ~wo points. It may
well be that controlle~ 2ccess at other thaIl these two points would
result in an improved traffic flow rather ~hdh the opposite. ~here
the Planning CO!f@lSsion aDd Clty Councll hav2 the ongolng means
of controlllng access through Slte Review, the opportunity to
perNit reasonable access should be preserved. To lock out the
optlon entirely would prohlblt the approval of access at a later
time even though it were considered deslrabl~ and approprlate.
RECOtITiENDATION.
In Vlew of the Slte Plan ReVlev procedures ap-
pllcable to developwent in this tract, it lS rc~pectfully recom-
mended that the Clty Council grant the appeal in thlS instance
and not irrevocably e~clude access to other than the lntersectlng
..
e
e
TO: The Mayor and Cl~y Council
- 12 -
June 8, 1977
streets with the stipulatlon tbdL approved drlveways lD no
case may exceed one per lot.
6. RES"PONSIBILITY FOR nWROVEIlENTS. The subdivider's appeal
lndlcates that they belleve it was the Planning Co~~ission's
lntent to limit the obligation::; ,)f the subdlVlder to CO~istruct
or pay for the construction of uff-slte lmprovements only to the
extent that the Tentatlve TracL is bt2nefitted therefrom, It lS
thej1: contention that the Planning Commission intended that if
a traffic signal or sewer would benefit other property as ~elll
then Barclay-Curci would be required to bear only the proportionate
share of the cost representing trle extent that their property
\-,as benefiti:.ed.
It is the r:i~<J.ff position t.hat t:lw otf-site impro\.TGPcr' -, required
are r~qulred only because of thJS project and th2t ~ll costs
connected ~ith such improvementu arc attrlbutable dtre~tly to it.
In -!-he course 0 f the Plannlng CommlSS10n meeting the (}L~estion
as to ~hether the staff intended the subdivider to beu~ the total
cost of all improvements was asked and answered in the affirmative.
In no way did the Planning Com~isslon indicate any lntcnt to the
contrary.
It is respectfully recommended that the Clty
RECO~'ltmxDA'1'ION .
Council deny this portion of t~e appeal and affLrm that the sub-
divJder is expected to bear the full cost of all off-slte lm-
provemen~s.
7. APPLICABILITY OF ~HE GUIDELINES. The subdivlder objects to
the general development guidellnes formulated by the Plannlng
. ..
.
e
TO:
The Mayor and Clty Council
- 13 -
June 8, 1977
CommiSSlon last year paltlcularly as they relate to 35' setbacks
and 30% lot coverage, They urge that the SUb0lvider and staff
wor~ together on revised guldeJlnes to be sub~dLted to the
Plannlng Commission for approval.
Inasmuch as the Planning Co~~ission has complec8d extenslve eval-
uations of the airport area over the past yea;:' a.nd explort:"!d a
number of alternativer'r reVleT,'J of the guidel.L(i')s is not deemed
inapproprlate.
The Slte pIau reVlew ordinan,~ pLovides for formal
adopt.i on of gUldelimc8 upplicable to specifl! s ii ':"5. 'l'he Plannlng
COl'lmi SSlon guidellnes ~'iE~:re never formally adnlJL~d under the Site
ReVlew Ordinance.
RECON1'lE}TDl\TION. It is respectfully recommencl,:(l I:ha t inasmuch as
the guidelines are not part of the subdivlS10. approval and are
SUbj'2ct to review an0 an.v'w:lrnellt by the PlannI i'q COlrlI'<lissio,l and
City Council that the 3~bdividerJs suggestion b~ Qcknowledged and
they bG encouraged to discuss alternatlve gui~elines with the
Planning COIDmlssion.
Prepared by: John JalLl L, JaJl1es Lunsford, SVtll Scholl
JL:bt
1
.
.
Santa l~nica, Ca1ifornla, June 9, 1977
TO: The Mayor and Clty CouDell
FRon: The City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal Tentative Tract ~o. 32022, Barcluy-Curcl
Investment COffi?any former :'!cDon::1ell-Douglas site,
PublLC Hearing June 131 1977.
Attached In connectlon wlth the matter of the PUbJ1C Hearing
on the B2xclay-Curcl. Appeal scheculed for 7:30 P.r!. on ~'onday,
June 131 1977 are the fo11o~lng:
1. Staff report1 June 8, 1977.
2. Xotice of A0Pcal, D~rclay'Curcl T~vestrcnt Co~?any,
'{ a y 1 3, 19 77 .
3. ?esolutlon of Approval 1 Tentatlve Trdct No. 32022,
Santa ~loraca P1annlnQ COr,:LiSS1_On, !'!ay 2, 1977.
4. Plannlng Staff Perort, Aprll 27, 1977.
5. [,crOo, Trafflc EngJneer, ~"ay 31, 1977.
AttachJ'lents.
JUH 13 19lf.
lR
e
e
.
,
1
'11,..,_ /
; _' . J-:if)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
2 TO:
3
ci ty of Santa r10nlca
Clty Hall
1685 Maln Street
Santa Monica, California
C?
-;
-0<.
4
5
6
7
90401
'-
--
, ~.~
..-...I .....'r'"""'!I:
- :'~r -
: 5_ .
~
-~J. --
::...
Attent1on: Ms. Joyce Snlder,
City Clerk
(.01
Re:
Tentatlve Tract No. 33022
T o--~"& ^%
~.=t; iT:
o
. ~-.:
Barclay-Curcl
8
I.
PLEASE ACCEPT THIS as the appeal of
9 Investment Co. ("Subdivider") from certaln of the condltions
10 established by the Clty Plannlng Commisslon (the "Commlsslon")
11 with respect to its approval of the captloned Tentatlve Tract
12 given on May 2, 1977. SubdlVlder hereby requests that a hearlng
13 on this appeal be had before the City Councll as soon as possirle.
14
II. ThlS appeal lS Made pursuant to Section 9314 of the
15 Santa Monlca Munlclpal Code and pursuant to Section 66452.5 of the
16
17
Government Code of the State of Callfornla.
I
I
[
i
I
I
i
6; !
III. ThlS appeal is taken from and wlth resrect to the
18
19
following condltions adopted by the Commlssion ln connection with
CommlsSlon approval of Tentatlve Tract No. 33022:
20 ( a) Sectlon 2, Artlcle A, Paragra:;?hs 1, 2, ..., and
.:J
21 (b) Sectlon 2, Artlcle B, Paragraph 5; and
22 (c) Section 2, Artlcle E, Paragraph l.
23 IV. Discussion:
24 ( a) Subdlvlder appeals from Sectlons 2 (A) (1) and
25 2(A) (2) In that Lots 2 and 3 of the Tentative Tract were regulred
26 by the Cornmisslon to be withheld from development as well as Lots
27 1 and 11. Subdivider had offered Lots 1 and 11 to the Clty to
28 satisfy this conditlon, but the CornmlSSlon also sought to lnclude
~:.J~ ~:::o '!-.".;,
-=
1~
e
e
1 Lots 2 and 3. Planning staff did not recommend the inclusion of
2 these two additional Lots.
I
3 I Lots 1 and 11 contain ample area, value and sU1tabillty
4 ! for use as open space or for the construction of any recreat10nal
5 facil1ty Wh1Ch the C1ty m1ght desire. To include Lots 2 and 3
6 w1thin th1S restr1ct1on is an unreasonable demand by the Comm1SS1on
7 I and 1t unfairly restricts Subdiv1der's development of its property.
8
S~bd1v1der further requests clarificat10n of the land
9 exchange rat10 promulgated by the Commission. Subd1vider bel1eves
10 that each parcel which may be exchanged shall have no phys~cal
11 improvements constructed thereon and each shall have dlrect access
12 to a city street.
13
(b) Subd1vider appeals from Sect10n 2(A) (3) 1n that
14 the feasib1l1ty of the on-site sewage treatment plant should,
15 first, be determined by the Clty Council in lts reasonable and not
16 arbltrary Judgment; and second, the allocation of the cost of con-
17 struction of such fac1lity, includlug the purchase prlce of the
18 land on wh1ch same is to be constructed, should be made amongst
19 all new users with1n the City. This cost could be funded by the
20 impositlon, at the time any new building permits are 1ssued In the
21 C1ty, of a sewer connection or hook-up fee. The cost of this
22 system should be shared equally by all new users 1n the C1ty,
23 includ1ng Subdivider. However, the uncerta1nty of perhaps having
24 SubdlVlder pay for the entire cost of the faCllity is unfair.
25
(c) Sect10n 2(A) (6) 1S appealed from since the
26 1nstallatlon of san1tary sewer Ilnes mayor may not be appropriate
27 in streets A and B and in Centinela Avenue. The words nor in such
28 other areas as the C1ty'S engineerlng staff may deem approprlate"
-2-
Ii
d
Ii .
'I
1ljTract.
2 i Flrst, ln several of the Commission's conditions, no
3 I limitations were placed on Subdlvlder's cost burden. SubdlVlder
4 believes that it was the Commission's intent to limit the obllga-
e
~
e
~
5 tions of Subdlvlder to construct or pay for the construction of
6 off-slte lmprovements only to the extent that the Tentatlve Tract
7 is benefitted therefrom. In other words, lf a traffic signal or
8 a sewer 1S to be 1nstalled which would beneflt other property, then
9 Subdivider would only be requlred to bear the cost of any such
10 serVlce or system to the extent that Subdivider's property was
llibenefitted. It is suggested that staff and Subdlvider submlt an
12 I agreed-upon cost-sharing to the CommlSSlon for approval.
13 Second, Subdivlder obJects to the general development
14 gUldelines proposed by the Cornmlssion to apply to the Tentatlve
15 Tract. These guidellnes were formulated last year when the
16 posslbility of commerclal development was stlll belng considered
17 and in several lnstances have been superseded. In other maJor
18 instances, the guidellnes are too restrlctlve, such as calling for
19 35-foot setbacks and allowing only 30% of a parcel to be covered
20 by improvements. Many well-received industrlal/buslness parks In
21 Southern Californla have been developed wlth much less strlngent
22 requirements. The gUldellnes need to be reworked. It is urged
23 that the SubdlVlder and staff work together to formulate revlsed
24 guidelines and submlt same to the Cornmlssion for approval. In any
25 event, Subdivider obJects to any gUldelines WhlCh inflexlbly set
26 forth standards which are not meaningful. The Commisslon, through
27 ltS slte plan reVlew procedures, has the abll1ty to conslder the
28 appearance and locatlon of all buildlngs to be constructed on the
-4-
11
e
tit
.
..,
'.
1 Tentative Tract. In some instances, 30% coverage and a 35-foot
2 setback may apply; ln others, lot coverage may be 50% and the
3 setback 15 feet. It should be noted that Subdivider proposed
4 the meanderlng, landscaped blcycle path along the Ocean Park
5 Boulevard frontage. Further, parking should be permitted in the
6 setback area so long as lt 1S screened properly from the Boulevard
7 by landscaplng, berms, masonry walls or comblnatlons thereof.
8 To do a truly attractive and well-integrated development, Subd1vide
10 stifled by constraints. The early verSlon of the gUldel1nes are
9 and staff need to work together and plan together. Imag1nation 1S
11 constralnlng. Thus, Subdivider urges the opportunity be afforded
12 to staff and to Subd1vlder to develop a revised set of guidelines.
13 Respectfully submitted,
14 BARCLAY-CURCI INVESTMENT CO.
15
16
17
///- //~
By -;.1 0:;-,.- /~/ t _ ~~~- 7 -
Partner
._--______ I
~-- '-L
I--
I
I
,
18 DATED:May 13, 1977
19
20
21
22
23
24 :1
25
26
27
28
-5-
L
'I