Tonight Council will hold a hearing of the Appeal on the Planning Commission approved project at 8555 Santa Monica Blvd. Item 3.B.

I am not going to reiterate all of the appeal points but highlight some of the most important, including new information not previously disclosed. This project is a lost opportunity on multiple levels and we all wish we could have a great project built at this site. However, this approval fails to meet code and other requirements on a number of key points.

Utility Easements & Power Lines

Did you know that applicant proposed to rip up West Knoll to move all the power lines currently on their property to under the street? It was news to me and all the neighbors. At no time throughout the application or approval process were the specifics relating to undergrounding utilities and the related interruptions to the neighborhood discussed—despite multiple inquiries.

In response to the Appeal Exhibit A, Item 6 staff replied by including a NEW exhibit O (dated 11/1/2019 but never provided to the public or PC) showing a huge easement (red line) running north and then the length of West Knoll which would require major trenching and shut down of the street for weeks if not months (Westbourne was ripped up for over 3 months for similar project).

1. Why the secrecy?
2. Why did staff agree to this proposed change in existing lines?
3. Why not underground the utilities through the applicant’s property (pale blue line) to connect the two poles (1 & 2) right where they are already located?
4. Where are the two pull boxes (see arrows) on the plans submitted to PC?
5. What about the huge street trees that would have to be removed for the proposed excavation (at least one large Canary Palm)?
6. Who will pay for the disruption of service to the neighboring buildings & businesses?

Appeal should be granted to address utility easements and design changes required for pull boxes and other related elements as well as to make the process transparent to and incorporate the input of the neighboring businesses and residents.

Inclusionary Affordable Housing

Appeal Item 3. The project as approved fails to comply with zoning code in that it fails to identify where each of the affordable housing units will be located, and the square footage of such units.

1. This is not a “typical” project that is a single residential parcel where staff allocation of the housing units would be on a single lot in a single building in a “normal” process. This project’s lots span both commercial (3) and residential (4) parcels of land. Importantly, the applicant is asking for a 10’ bonus on the residential parcels for providing 5 additional affordable housing units but there is no specification that the housing be provided on the residential parcels. City should have clearly stipulated that the 5 units granted be provided in the location that generated the bonus and the additional market rate units. The appeal should be granted and Resolution amended to reflect the requirement that 5 of the inclusionary units be located in the West Knoll residential component.

2. Furthermore, the Resolutions should have stipulated that the affordability mix of those 5 units match the proposed mix of total affordable units. i.e. 3 very low and 2 moderate as that was the basis for the bonus calculations.

3. This brings up yet another problem with the PC approved Resolution, there are two different descriptions of the affordability mix in the resolutions—Moderate v. Low‐ Income. Which is correct?
   
   17.1) This project qualifies for a density bonus for the provision of seventeen affordable/inclusionary units. The affordable units shall consist of (9) nine very low-income units (one studio, three 1-bedroom, and five 2-bedroom units) and eight (8) moderate income units (three 1-bedroom, and five 2-bedroom units). (CHPP, RSHD)
   
   17.7) Within 30 days of approval of the project, the property owner shall execute and record an Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property (inclusionary Agreement). The inclusionary unit shall continuously be made available for rent to very low-income and low income tenants as designated herein for the useful life of the improvements constituting the project. (RSHD)

4. Finally, there are 13 residential parking spaces in unsecured commercial and exterior locations. City should have clarified the Resolutions to not only specify number of spaces for inclusionary housing, but the fact there cannot be a “poor floor” version of parking. Applicant has stated that the car and the spaces (on the interior) will be secured by a pop‐ up mechanical device but that does not address our point that the area is unsecured for the PERSON. They will not be parking in a secured residential garage. They will be in an open‐to‐the public parking garage. One of these unsecured spaces is actually out on the street.
   
   17.7) Affordable/inclusionary units shall be provided with the same number of parking spaces
   provided to market rate units of the same unit type based on bedroom count at no cost to the tenant.
   This resolution should be amended to require inclusionary parking to be of equivalent QUALITY to all other parking.

5. FYI, Staff and applicant have explicitly chosen to deprive the city of the 3 additional affordable housing units that would otherwise be required relating to the 12 Live/Work units. County Building & Safety classifies L/W as R2 residential occupancy. Just because code allows L/W in a commercial zone (the same as SROs) and calculates parking requirements based on the commercial needs, doesn’t mean it isn’t a residential use. Why would we actively give up affordable units?

Height

Applicant is asking for an additional 19’ of height (total 74’ from Santa Monica Blvd) beyond the code allowed height plus state HAA bonuses. Code: all project heights are calculated from a “number of feet above and parallel to the existing grade.” (gold lines) In other words, if you tore down the Collar & Leash and other buildings, what would the property look like? Answer, one big, flat lot and two smaller stair step lots that are flat at the Blvd. and another flat parking lot above. There is NO SLOPE except on West Knoll in the street itself. The fact that the sidewalk slopes around the curve of the street is irrelevant. That is PUBLIC PROPERTY, not the applicant’s property.

The Sloping Height method is only to be used as an exception to address a hardship that the Parallel Plane method would cause “only on sites with slopes of five percent or more. There is no slope on any of these parcels. Applicant does not get the option to choose the method that is most favorable to them. Staff’s assertion about the “perception” problems from West Knoll make no sense. If you build a 2 story, 10 story, or 50 story building, it is going to sit on the site exactly as the current buildings do. There is no “perception” problem except from Santa Monica where it is a 74’ building (red line) instead of 55’ (blue lines). It is just a bigger building.

If applicant sold the Collar & Leash parcel to you tomorrow the city would require you to develop it using the Parallel Plane Method. Why not this applicant?

1. 16 of the staff report states that “sloping site method takes into account the exterior boundaries of all corners of the project site” which is contrary to the code which points to “existing grade” not some miniscule inches of soil at a corner, if any. There is no “natural grade”, there is no slope.

Staff explained it to PC as follows (if you can follow):

Keho: … sloping site issues, so let’s… the idea is how does the building sit on the land after it’s finished? So, after the building is built, how is the building perceived? And, you know, West Knoll, the side street is definitely sloping. And so, from the perception of anybody after the building is built is it’s a building on a sloping site because the sidewalk slopes down, the street slopes down, and so when we create the building, we’re trying to fit it to the site. And the property in the middle of the site is going to be gone because, of course, it’s either going to be excavated if there’s a hill there or in this case it’s already been excavated. But in any case, the land in the middle of the property on a sloping site is going to be gone and replaced by floors. And so, the concern is about how is the building perceived from the property lines, from the edge, from the outside? And so the idea is to make sure that the building is the same, you know, isn’t exceeding the height requirements at the top of the hill, at the bottom of the hill, on the side of the hill. And then how do you connect those lines? Because those are going to be, you know, since it’s not a flat site, you can’t just connect it with a parallel line. And so, the code provides the two different ways to try to figure out how to connect the height limits when they’re very different because the property has sloped, overall. And so, again, it’s about the perception of how the building is when it’s built and it’s perceived from everyone around making sure that it’s still at those property lines at the height requirements. In the middle of the property, it might be taller because it’s in the middle of the property where the, you know, the ground has been excavated. But at the front it meets the height requirement, at the back it meets the height requirements, and on the side, it meets the height requirements. (p. 185‐187 of PC minutes)

60,000 sf. Ft. minimum lot size

On September 11, 2016 when staff deemed this project application complete, the lot size was only 45,268 sq. ft. and only included one residential parcel. (Note: the EIR scoping meeting was held on August 22, 2016 PRIOR to Deemed Complete Date. How is that possible?) The project did not meet the objective minimum standards to QUALIFY for a mixed-use project spanning commercial and residential as it was far below the required 60,000 sq. ft. minimum. This was neither a hardship, the applicant hadn’t purchased enough property to meet the minimum standard (waiver), nor an impediment to building affordable housing (concession). The project simply did not meet the minimum requirements to qualify as a project. It should never have been deemed complete.

During the subsequent two years the developer purchased two more residential properties and amended the project to 55,138 SF. Still not enough, and when brought to PC it became clear that the project would not be approved due to this objective standard and applicant asked for a continuance. In Council’s staff report they admit that it did not satisfy the code requirement and then lament that applicant should not be penalized for becoming “more compliant”.

“It has been the City’s practice to allow an applicant to amend a project; in this case, by acquiring an additional parcel to add to the overall project scope to satisfy the code required 60,000 square‐foot lot size requirement for mixed‐use projects spanning commercial and residential zones. … Applicants should not be penalized for making the project more compliant,” p. 9

And in the findings included in the PC Resolution SECTION 2. State that a “waiver is no longer required.” Which is false, it never qualified for a waiver.

This project was incorrectly deemed complete (see Mark Lehman memo), appeal should be granted.

Parking

Applicant’s representative gave false information when questioned by PC about the lone parking space outside the building on West Knoll. P. 95-96 of PC Minutes of January 19, 2023 (Attachment E) exchange between Commissioner Kim Copeland and the applicant’s representative:

Copeland: Okay. It looks like on the plans that one of the parking spots appears to be outside of the parking gate on the West Knoll side. Is that… could you explain that for us? Yes. Right there. MD, the 88. That one.

Fischer: Yes. Yeah. Right. This, this spot is intended to be leasing visitor parking. So, someone that wants to take a tour of, of a unit can park here and walk up to the leasing office.

…

Copeland: Okay. Not for residents at all then?

Fischer: Right. Guest parking.

There are 175 required parking spaces for Residential Units (no guest parking!) Space 88 outside the building is one of those required 175 spaces. This is a completely false statement by the applicant on the record at the hearing. Staff did not correct the applicant. Commissioner Copeland, the PC and public were told false information. Staff explicitly said there is no guest parking. See above comments re: Affordable Housing Parking

Hydrology

There is significant evidence that the properties neighboring this project have already experienced damage due to subsidence. This project should not have been approved without the requirement that the applicant providing documentation (photographs and surveys) of the existing structures and a bond to cover any settlement and cracking damage caused by construction.

Given the extraordinary rains this winter and the related rise in the water table, a minimum precaution should be additional borings and water table studies prior to building permits being issued.

Noise

Construction noise has NOT been adequately addressed. The proposed sound barriers do not indicate WHERE they would be located nor is there any explanation as to why the key words from the General Plan EIR that the barriers “break the line of sight between the source and receptor” were excluded from the PC approved Resolutions. See Mark Lehman’s letter. Appeal should be granted and Resolutions modified to address critical unavoidable impact.

Permeability

Staff report p. 29 “project site is highly urbanized and almost entirely covered with impervious surfaces, and would remain so under the project.”

This is patently false, fully 30% of the project site is currently residential, single-family homes with large amounts of native soil and trees that will be 100% destroyed and not replaced.

“The project also will have a “green” roof to capture and filter a portion of runoff…”

Again, false. This is not a green roof by any measure. Less than 10% contains a few pots of plants and trees. Frankly this is insulting. See the wide swaths of green on this roof? No? That is because all the yellow is mechanical equipment etc.

Finally, and not relating to the appeal, it is deeply disappointing that staff’s memos continue to reiterate the site is in “disrepair and underutilized” as a cudgel when it is 100% the responsibility of the applicant to maintain their properties. All this does is encourage future developers to let sites run to rack and ruin as a way to gain more rapid approval of projects.

Applicant’s appeal should be granted and the numerous items identified corrected and addressed to assure the community of a transparent process, a code compliant project and the best project possible for the community with the maximum amount of affordable housing.