SR-820427-12BPL:JL:nh Santa Monica, California ~
Council Mtg.: April 27, 1982 APR 2 '7 199
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal, Interim Development Permit No. DR 038,
New 3 Story Commercial/Residential Building,
1415 Sixth Street, C3, Haddad and Dunne,
Introduction
This is an appeal from the determination of the Planning Commission
granting approval of an Interim Development Permit for a 3-story
mixed commercial-and-residential building at 1415 Sixth Street in
the C3 District. Appeal is by Councilperson Dennis Zane.
Background
The applicants propose to construct a 3 story and loft structure
49' high containing 5300 sq.ft._of office space and 5300 sq.ft.
residential floor area in 3 separate dwelling units. The
residential units include a 1670 sq.ft. 3 bedroom apartment, a
2100 sq.ft. 1 bedroom and loft unit and a 1460 sq.ft. single unit
with a loft. The parking plan provides 6,388 sq.ft. of parking
area for 5300 sq.ft. of floor area and 6 spaces for the 3
residential units although 3 are tandem which represents a technical
deficiency in that they are not all independently accessible. In
view of the shared parking approval on other projects it does not
appear to be a significant deficiency however.
The Interim Guidelines adopted for this section of the C3 District
indicate the following standards:
1. Height and bulk limit of 4 stories, 56' and 2.0 times
commercially zoned lot area.
a
~QR z 7 9sa2'
Mayor and City Council -2-
April 27, 1982
2. At least SOo of the gross floor area for residential uses.
3. R4 setbacks for the residential portion but not the
commercial.
The Planning Commission approved the project but did not impose
a requirement that the developers agree to pay a development fee
of $69,633.68 in the event the City prevails in the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners case.
Alternatives
Under Ordinance No. 1220 the City Council may affirm, reverse or
modify any determination of the Planning Commission in regard to
an Interim Development Permit.
Recommendation
Inasmuch as the proposed building complies with the standards
included in Resolution. 6385 it is respectfully recommended that
the Interim Development Permit be approved with an additional
condition:
That under Resolution No. 6385(CCS), a development fee of
$69,633.68 would be required in connection with the
approval of this project, The City of Santa Monica is
currently enjoined from enforcing the provisions of such
resolution relating to fees. If the City of Santa Monica
prevails in the case of United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, et al. v. City of Santa Monica, et al.,
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number VdEC 069227, such fee
(or any lesser fee .required by any subsequently adopted ordinance)
shall be due and payable within 90 days of the date that City
of Santa Monica is no longer subject to such injunction.
This is computed on the basis of an estimated $300,000 land costs
and construction costs as follows:
7500 sq.ft. of garaging at 28.40 = $213,300
5300 sq.ft. of offices at 35.10 = $186,030
5300 sq.ft. of apartments at 32.30 = $171,190
Total $870,421 x .080 = $69,633.68,
Prepared by: J. S9. Lunsford
1,2-B
ZANE: I'll make a motion that we approve the interim development
permit #DR 038 for 1415 6th Street with a use restriction on the
residency units - that they continue to be utilized as residen-
tial units ~ for no other purpose. And asking the ARB to assure
the design of the residential portion specifically includes
appropriate bathroom facilities, including ventilation windows
and the like. And, with the Staff recommendations here included.
YG: second. CM REED.
CM REED: Thank. you., Madame Mayor. I was waiting for a motion
to address my concerns. I wonder if the City At orney would
mind illuminating for those of us who have to rely on the local
press the legal status of our deferred billing requirements
on illegal extortion requests.
ZANE: Excuse me, Dladame Mayor point of personal privilege..
I there have been two occasions this evening when CM Reed
has used. unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric and I'd prefer
that she would try to couch her objections to policies a
little more thoughtful manner.
CM REED: Mr. Zane, I'll do it just as much as you do.
In response to your question, the Staff report contains
verbatim language from a court order entered in United Brother-
hood of CArpenters vs. City of S.M.,~hat court order has not
been changed.. Whether it will be changed in the future has
not been decided by Judge Rittenbend (?). The case is under
submission and there will probably be additional hearings.
The City, at this point in time, is free to continue to
utilize language that Judge R, has authorized that the City
utilize.. And, therefore, there is nothing improper with the
motion from a legal standpoint.
YG: Any other discussion on the motion?
CM PRESS: Well, I think that apparently there seems to be
some indication -- I'm get a feel from CM Zane that we are
not in a position to do any kind. of indication about size
at this time. I just want to have it on record that I'm am
really very, very uncomfortable with the fact that this is
a 1,670 sq. ft. 3 bedroom apartment, and 2100 sq. ft.
one bedroom, and a 1460 sq, ft. single unit with a loft.
12-B` 'page 2
I think that it's quite apparent to me that this is not going
to address our concerns for the development in commercial
buildings of low $ moderate income units. The first price of
these apartments will be free from rent control and set by the
owner and I can imagine what kind of rents are going to charged
for 210.0 sq, ft. place. So, I don' think - I just find that to
he very disturbing.
YG: CM Edwards.
CM EDWARDS: My concern in that I don't know how we get around
it. I would never accuse the gentleman of doing it, but I
could see where one might accuse/suspect that the thing was
designed with. the intention of.converting it to an office
building. And I think that the critical issue --
YG: I think that this example meets our intermim guidelines
and that we still have some work to do. We cannot at this
point change it. My understanding is that there was to be
some consideration on parking requirements in these mixed use
bui:Tdings.and that ought to be something the Planning Commission
considers in the future.. May we have a roll call on this motion.
Roll Call: Yes: Conn, .Edwards, .Press, Zane,. Yannatta Goldway
~~ No: Jennings, Reed
CM ~-Bt~A1S$? I would like to suggest that Staff bring back to
us, if possible at the next meeting or asap, recommendations
regarding the tir~.y~ermim guideline5so as to assure that
'{~ resonably designed residential units are part of the residential
requirements in appropriate zones of the City.
PRESS: second
YG: City Attorney
request
CITY ATTORNEY: I s~~~~~~, Madame Mayor, that we may be coming
back with a report on the whole subject of the intermim guidelines
in ordinance #1220 sometime in the next 2 or 3 weeks. And would
request that Council first address the issues. that will be raised
in that report before talking about any specific amendments to
6385.
12-B page 3
CM EDWARDS: Well, I would be happy to accept the recommendation
of the City Attorney if the concerns I've raised are not neglected
r1
in that context. So I'll withdraw my motion.~=