SR-6-N (2)
r
e
,/.//)
,:~e ~-
(p- AI
Nov 1 2 r985
lfo z.-- 00 t/
cjED:PC:RM:nh
Councl1 Mtg: November 12, 1985
Santa Monlca, Callfornla
~O: Mayor and Clty Councl1
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Requested Findlngs for Den~al of DR 307, CUP 382 and ZA
4822-Y, 2801 Colorado Avenue, Medlcal Facll1ty.
INTRODUCTION
On September lO, 1985, the Cl ty Councl1 denled an appeal on DR
307, cup 382 and ZA 4822-Y for a reconstructlve and plastlc sur-
gery rnedlcal facl1l ty to be located In the R2 Dlstrlct at 2801
Colorado Avenue. The appllCctnt was Dr. Steven M. Hoefflin.
Staff was dlrected to prepare denlal flndlngs for Council approv-
ala ThlS report transm~ts staff I s recommended denial flndings
for Cauncll approval.
BACKGROUND
The Clty Council makes the followlng flndings of fact based upon
substantial eVldence In the admlnl&tratlve record:
1. On February 27, 1985, the Appllcant flIed with the Cl ty
Plannlng D1Vlsion appropriate appllcations for a Develop-
ment Revlew, Condltlonal Use Permlt and Parklng Varlance
for the proposed proJect.
2. On May 13, 1985, followlng a properly scheduled and
notlced publlC hearlng, the Plannlng Comrnlss~on approved
- 1 -
(P-AI
NQV 1 2~Jfs
e
e
Development Revlew (DR 307), Condl.tlonal Use Permlt (CUP
382), and Varlance (ZA 4822-Y) subJect to certaln
condltlonS.
3. A tlmely appeal of Planning CommisSlon approval was flIed
by the appllcant on May 23, 1985. The appeal was based on
the imposltlon of 2 condltlons relatlng to restrlctlons on
use of a portlon of the subJect bUllding and on a lO-year
tlme Ilmlt on the Condit~onal Use Permlt.
4. On June 5, 1985, the Appllcant requested that the City
Council hearing on the appeal be postponed pendlng Plan-
OlOg COIDmlSS100 review of a request for reconslderatlon.
5. On July 15, 1985, the Planning Conunissl.on tabled further
actlon On the project pendlng resolutlon of the appeal to
the Clty Council.
6. On September lO, 1985, the Clty Councll denled the appeal
and reversed the Plannlng Commlssion's condltlonal approv-
al of the proJect, with a request for staff to return to
the Councll wl.th approprlate flndings for denlal.
7. The proposed medlcal facll1 ty use would be lnconsistent
wlth the Land Use Element of the General Plan in that the
proJect would create an intens1fied commerc1al use 10 an
R2 Res~dentlal D~strlct, 1n confllct with three Land Use
Element obJectl ves: ObJectl ve 1.2--Ensure compa tlb11l ty
of adJacent land use s, Wl th partlcular concern for pro-
tectlng resldentlal nelghborhoodsi Ob]ectlve 1.lO--Expand
- 2 -
e
e
the opportunlty for resldentlal land use whlle protecting
the scale and character of eXl.stlng ne.lghborhoods i and
ObJect~ve 3.2--Protect the scale and character of residen-
tl.al nelghborhoods adJacent to commercial areas.
8. The location of the proposed medlcal offlce use in a
resldentlal dl.strlct would not be in accordance with good
zonl.ng practice or 1n the publl.c l.nterest. The proposed
use would be more 1ntensive than the present fl.lm produc-
tl.on, warehousing and distrl.bution bus~ness now on the
Sl te in that the proposed medlcal use requlres more on-
site park1ng per MUnlCl.pal Code standards and would gener-
ate more pedestrlan and vehl.cular trafflc than the present
use. Such lntenSlfl.ed commercial use 1S not approprlate
in a resldentlal dl.strlct.
9. The reSldentlal portion of the Greenwood Development
Agreement proJect is located to the south across Colorado
Avenue from the Slte, further ampllfYlng the effectlve
lntruslon of a medical office use into a reSldentlal
nelghborhooct.
lO. It was not demonstrated that the eXlstlng on-slte parkl.ng
capaclty of 20 separately accesl;able parking spaces and
f1ve add1t1onal blocked tandem spaces would be adequate to
meet peak hour personnel and patient parkLng demand gener-
ated by the proposed use. Thus, it cannot be found that
- 3 -
e
e
there would be no negat~ve ~mpact detr~mental to the sur-
round~ng propert~es and ne1ghborhood.
11. The locat~on of the proposed med1cal offlce use 1n a
res1dent~al d~strlct 1S not necessary that substantlal
Just1ce be done. Reasonable use of the subJect property
1S not precluded, and the condlt1ona1 use permits and as-
soc1ated rights prev10usly granted by the City are not
affected, by denlal of the proposed use.
12. In approvlng the present conditlonal use permlt on Decem-
ber 12, 1983, the Plannlng Conuni SSlon clearly restricted
cornrnerc1al use of the property to a fllm productlon,
warehousing and dlstr1bution bus~ness and speclflcally
stated that it was not the 1ntent of the COnuIll SSlon to
grant a permanent commercial use of the property. An ad-
dltlona1 condltlon prohlblted physlcal alteratlons Wh1Ch
would prolong the structural llfe of the bUlld1ng. The
proposed build~ng modlf1cations to convert the structure
to rnedlcal use would cost approxlmately $500,000, accord-
ing to the appllcant, and m~ght potentlally prolong the
usable llfe of the structure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommended adoptlon of find~ngs presented 1n th1S report
will not have a budget/flnanclal lmpact.
- 4 -
e
e
RECOMMENDATION
It ~s respectfully reconunended that Counc~l adopt the find~ngs
noted above as the bas~s for den~al of DR 307, CUP 382 and ZA
4822-Y, at 2801 Colorado Avenue.
Prepared by: Suzanne Fr~ck, Act~ng Pr~nc~pal Planner
R~chard M~lls, Ass~stant Planner
City Plann~ng D~v~slon
commun~ty and Economic Development Department
cc38
- 5 -