SR-6-M (2)
C/ED:PB:DKW:LM
Council Mtg: August 22, 1989
Santa Monica,
~~
California
70? -tit? 2<
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Certification of statement of Official Action for
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of DR 432, CUP 500
and SOl, ZA 5304-Y, VAR 89-008 and EIR 850 for a Two
Story/3D', 76,074 Square Foot Retail/Commercial
Development at 2233 pico Boulevard.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council certify the attached
statement of Official Action for the above referenced appeal.
BACKGROUND
After a public hearing, and careful review of the record and
staff recommendation, the City Council upheld an appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of a proposal to construct a two
story/3D', 76,074 square foot retail/commercial center sUbject to
the findings contained in the attached statement of Official
Action.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council certify the
attached statement of Official Action.
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Associate Planner
D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
l..-M
'j(Z 2 1989
CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: DR 432, CUP 500 and 501, ZA 5304-Y, VAR 89-008
and EIR 850
LOCATION: 2233 pico Boulevard
APPLICANT: Schurgin corporation
REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Pro-
posal to Construct a Two Story/3D', 76,074 Square
Foot Retail/Commercial Center on a Parcel of
115,832 Square Feet. Applicant: Schurgin
Development Corporation. Appellant: Law Offices
of Lurie & Hertzberg, Attorney for the Schurgin
Development corporation.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
7-25-89
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
X Other. Appeal denied and EIR not certified.
planning Commission denial upheld with amended
findings.
FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. There are not any special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the R2 zoned property in-
volved, including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, or to the intended use or development of the
property that apply to other properties in the vicinity
under an identical zoning classification, in that the R2
portion of the site could easily accommodate a residential
development, and provide required setbacks adjacent to all
property lines. The C4 portion of the site is 77,707
square feet in size, and could accommodate the a commer-
cial building without use of the R2 parcel, thereby avoid-
ing the requested variances.
2. The granting of such variance may be detrimental or in-
jurious to the property or improvements in the general
vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
- 1 -
that the requested front and rear yard variances will fur-
ther reduce the amount of light and air available to
residents of the multi-family dwelling to the north.
3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter
would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic
hardships, in that the R2 zoned parcel could be reverted
to a residential or open space use, and the 77,707 square
foot C4 zoned parcel would still be available for
development.
4. The granting of a variance will be contrary to or in con-
flict with the general purposes and intent of this Chap-
ter, or to the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that there is no apparent hardship in-
volved in the sUbject request for variance.
5. The variance may impair the integrity and character of the
district in which it is to be located, in that when as-
sociated with the requested CUP, it will create a burden
on the adjacent residential district by allowing the fur-
ther intrusion of commercial uses into a residential
district.
6. The subject site is not physically suitable for the pro-
posed variance, in that the site is zoned for residential
uses, and the variance to allow a commercial structure to
encroach into a required front and rear yard setback would
result in the increased shading of the adjacent residen-
tial structures.
7. The strict application of the provisions of Chapter 10 of
the city of Santa Monica comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance would not result in unreasonable deprivation of
the use or enjoyment of the property, in that without use
of the R2 parcel, the 77,707 square foot C4 parcel is
still available for development with a FAR of 1.5, or 2.0
with Site Review. In addition, development of the R2 par-
cel with a mUlti-family residential project is still
possible.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of
proposed structures on the site and the location of pro-
posed uses within the project are not compatible with and
do not relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neigh-
borhoods, in that the proposed architectural projections
reach an overall height of 551, which seems out of charac-
ter with the neighborhood. In addition, the location of
the commercial building on the residential parcel further
increases commercial intrusion into the residential dis-
trict, and results in the loss of property that could be
developed residentially.
- 2 -
2. The rights-of-way would be congested by the accommodation
of autos and pedestrians, including parking and access, in
that the proposal is expected to generate approximately
18,540 vehicle trips which could negatively impact the
adjacent residential neighborhoods. In addition, the
mitigation measure proposed to address potential neighbor-
hood traffic impacts would improve traffic at one inter-
section at the possible expense of other intersections in
the neighborhood.
3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and
public infrastructure (e.g. utilities) may not be suffi-
cient to accommodate the new development, in that the pro-
posed number of alcohol outlets may create problems with
respect to the developer's ability to control public
drunkenness, and control noisy patrons leaving the
premises.
4. The project is not generally consistent with the Municipal
Code and General Plan, in that a CUP is required to permit
the establishment of a commercial use in a mUlti-family
residential district, variances are required to allow the
building to encroach into required front and rear yard
setbacks on the R2 zoned portion of the site, and to allow
the use of compact parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO PERMIT ESTABLISHMENT OF COM-
MERCIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the "City of Santa Monica comprehensive Land
Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that the proposed establish-
ment of a commercial use in a mUlti-family district con-
forms to the requirements of former SMMC Section 9148.
2. The proposed use may impair the integrity and character of
the district in which it is to be established, in that the
loss of potential housing stock, and the intrusion of a
commercial use into a residential district, are factors
which may contribute to the deterioration of
neighborhoods.
3. The subject parcel is not physically suitable for the type
of land use being proposed, in that the R2 site abuts a
one story apartment building and public park, and as such,
should be developed with a use permitted by right, and
with one that serves as a transition between the R2 and C4
districts.
4. The proposed use is not compatible with the land uses
presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses
are to remain, in that the R2 parcel is currently vacant,
and any future use should conform with the General Plan
requirement relating to recycling of residentially zoned
property used for surface parking.
- 3 -
5. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the permissible use for the site is a two story/3D', 25
unit apartment building, and proposed is a two story/3D'
76,074 square foot commercial center.
6. Public access to the proposed use may not be adequate, in
that the alignment of the the driveway on pico Boulevard
with 23rd street will negatively impact residents of that
street by making the street available to through traffic.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is not compatible with and does not relates harmoniously
to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the use of the R2
zoned parcel for a commercial use is not compatible with
the adjacent residential uses, and the building's exces-
sive height, through the use of architectural projections
would not relate harmoniously to the surrounding
neighborhood.
9. The proposed use is not consistent with the goals, objec-
tives, and policies of the General Plan, in that the pro-
posal does not provide the type of neighborhood or service
commercial uses encouraged by Land Use Element. Examples
of such uses encouraged by the General Plan are candy
stores, drug stores, hardware stores, liquor stores, small
restaurants (under 50 seats), all food stores for off-site
consumption (except fast food establishments), barber
shops, beauty parlors, cleaners, gas stations, Laundromat,
shoe repair, tailor/dressmaker, bank/savings and loan,
child care, photo copy shop and repair shop.
10. The proposed use may be detrimental to the public inter-
est, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare, in
that the project related impacts when added to the cumula-
tive impacts will created the potential for negative im-
pacts to the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
11. The proposed use will result in an overconcentration of
fast food and restaurant uses in the immediate vicinity,
in that the proposal includes 20,000 square feet of those
uses. The problems associated with an overconcentration
of restaurants in one location typically relate to an ac-
cumulation of trash in the surrounding neighborhood, and
increases in both traffic and noise within the surrounding
neighborhoods.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
1. "The proposed use and location are not in accordance with
good zoning practice, and in the public interest, in that
the request to allow a "blanket" CUP for all proposed
restaurant space may, in itself, add to an
overconcentration of alcohol outlets in the immediate
area. In addition, the request is contrary to planning
- 4 -
policy, in that each request for a CUP to sell alcohol
must be independently reviewed. The blanket CUP would
allow all 20,000 square feet of floor area devoted to
eating establishments to sell alcohol, which would result
in additional problems associated with traffic and noise.
2. The proposed uses are not compatible with existing and
potential uses within the general area~ traffic or parking
congestion may result; the public health, safety, and
general welfare are not protected~ and harm to adjacent
properties will result in that the concentration of fast
food and restaurant uses will create parking and traffic
problems.
3 . The wel fare of neighborhood residents may be adversely
affected in that the availability of alcohol in such a
concentration may the potential safety problems for those
neighborhood residents.
4. The change in the license will contribute to an undue
concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that the
proposal to sell alcohol within 20, 000 square feet of
restaurant uses, and a 16,350 square foot market is an
overconcentration of alcohol uses in itself.
5. There may be detrimental affects on nearby residentially
zoned neighborhoods considering the distance of the
alcohol outlets to residential buildings (the site
directly abuts mUlti-family residential units),
playgrounds and parks (Virginia Park is located adjacent
to the site), and other existing alcohol outlets (one Type
21 and one Type 48 outlet are located within 500' of the
proposed project) .
VOTE
Ayes: Finkel, Genser, Abdo, Katz, Zane
Nays: Reed, Jennings
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of civil Procedure Section
1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to
Municipal Code section 1400.
- 5 -
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Official Action
of the Planning
signature
date
print name and title
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and
acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit
approval.
Applicant's signature
Print Name and Title
PC/STDR432
nh
07/26/89
- 6 -
..