SR-050989-12A
IftJ2-"- 00 r
1:2 _IJ
MAY - 9'19\9
CjED:PB:DKW:DM
Council Mtg: May 9, 1989
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission
Development Review to Allow
Existing Retail Center Parking
Boulevard.
Applicant: Nairn Perry
Appellant: Saleh Shalomi
Denial of a Proposed
a Modification to an
Lot at 2901 Ocean Park
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission I s denial of Development Review
88-002, to allow the addition of an "exit only" driveway to an
existing shopping center at 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard, with the
findings contained in the Planning commission staff report dated
March 15, 1989.
BACKGROUND
At the Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 1989, the
commission denied the applicant's request by a 5-0 vote, with two
absences.
The applicant had proposed the modification of an
existing parking lot to include an "exit only" driveway from the
parking lot, onto 30th Street. The driveway would have allowed
motorists to make a right turn onto 30th street and proceed
south, toward Ocean Park Boulevard. There is currently no access
from the parking lot to 30th Street. A more complete description
- 1 -
(~ ..A
MAY - 9 1~a9
of the proj ect can be found in the Planning Commission staff
report dated March 15, 1989 (Attachment A) .
ANALYSIS
On March 41 19851 the Planning commission approved Development
Review 285 to allow the construction of a 43/000 square foot,
two-story commercial center at 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard.
Planning commission support for the project was based in part on
an agreement reached between the developer and the sunset Park
Neighborhood Association (SPAN). Following detailed discussion
among SPAN and the developer of the site, SPAN agreed to support
the project subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions
agreed to by the developer and SPAN was that the 30th Street
parking lot entrance be eliminated. The following condition was
included in the Statement of Official Action for the subj ect
approval:
"primary vehicle access shall be from Ocean Park
Boulevard. There shall be no vehicle access to the
project site from 30th street, except as required for
emergency access. The 29th Street parking lot entrance
shall be used for ingress only. "Tire Shredders" or an
equivalent type of control devise shall be installed to
prevent unauthorized egress onto 29th Street".
The Planning Commission I s original approval of the proj ect was
based on the condition that there be no access from 30th street.
Land Use Element Policy 4.2.3 states: "Locate new development and
their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged
- 2 -
to utilize local residential streets and alleys for access to the
development and its parking.1I
CONCLUSION
The proposed modification to the existing parking lot does not
conform to the original Planning Commission conditions of approv-
aI, or Policy 4.2.3 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
No new evidence has been submitted by the applicant which would
lead staff to recommend a change from the original conditions and
no new agreement with SPAN has been brought forward.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the council uphold the
Planning Commission I s denial of Development Review 88-002, and
deny the subj ect proposal with the findings contained in the
Planning Commission staff report dated March 15, 1989 (Attachment
A) .
Prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Attachments: A. Planning Commission staff report dated March
15, 1989
B. Planning Commission statement of Official
Action dated March 15, 1989
C. Appeal Letter
D. project Plans
- 3 -
DM
PC/CCDR8802
05/03/89
- 4 -
Ai t11 t-htl1cW t' \ V\,'
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 15, 1989
TO: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: Development Review 88-002
Address: 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard
Applicant: Naim Perry
SUMMARY
Action: Application for a Development Review to allow the
modification of an existing parking lot.
Recommendation: Denial
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: May 25, 1989
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subj ect property is a 51,000 square foot parcel located on
the north side of Ocean Park Boulevard between 29th Street and
30th street having a frontage of 300 feet along Ocean Park
Boulevard. Surrounding uses consist of a two story office build-
ing on the adjacent lot to the north (C2), Santa Monica Business
Park across Ocean Park Boulevard to the south (C5), and one and
two story c01llllercial structures across 29th Street to the west
and 30th Street to the east (C2).
Zoning Districts: C2
Land Use Districts: Neiqhborhood commercial
Parcel Area: 300' X 170' - 51,000 square feet
PROPOSED PROJECT
Proposed is the modification of an existing parking lot to in-
clude an "exit only" driveway from the parking lot, onto 30th
street. As proposed, the driveway would allow motorist to make a
right turn and proceed south on 30th street, toward Ocean Park
Boulevard. There is currently no access from the parking lot to
30th street. No new structures or modifications to existing
structures are proposed.
- 1 -
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code but
not in conformity with the General Plan.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt per City of Santa Monica
Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Class 1(1).
FEES
The project is not subject to any development fees.
BACKGROUND
On March 4, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Development
Review 285 to allow the construction of a 43,000 square foot,
two-story commercial center at 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard. Plan-
ning Commission support for the project was based in part on an
agreement reached between the developer and the Sunset Park
Neighborhood Association (SPAN). SPAN met with the developer on
January 30, 1985. Following detailed discussion among SPAN and
the developer of the site, SPAN agreed to support the proj ect
subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions agreed to
by the developer and SPAN was that the 30th Street parking lot
entrance be eliminated. The following condition was included in
the statement of Official Action for the subject approval:
"Primary vehicle access shall be from Ocean Park
Boulevard. There shall be no vehicle access to the proj-
ect site from 30th Street, except as required for emergen-
cy access. The 29th Street parking lot entrance shall be
used for ingress only. "Tire Shredders" or an equivalent
type of control devise shall be installed to prevent unau-
thorized egress onto 29th Street".
ANALYSIS
Planning commission's original approval of the project was based
on the condition that there be no access from 30th Street. Land
Use Element POlicy 4.2.3 states: "Locate new development and
their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged
to utilize local residential streets and alleys for access to the
development and its parking.1I Approval of this current Develop-
ment Review application would appear to violate the spirit of
Policy 4.2.3 of the Land Use Element and the original condition
of approval.
CONCLUSION
The proposed modification to the existing parking lot does not
conform to the original conditions of approval as stated in the
statement of Official Action (Attachment A), or Policy 4.2.3 of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan. No new evidence has
- 2 -
been submitted by the applicant which would lead staff to recom-
mend a change from the original conditions and no new agreement
with SPAN has been brought forward.
Several letters and a petition regarding the applicant's proposal
have been received from residents in the vicinity of the project.
Most comm@nts and concerns were related to the possibility of
increased traffic in the adjacent residential neighborhood. In
addition, two letters were received from owners of businesses
within the 2901 Ocean Park Center. These letters encouraged the
approval of the applicant's request based on the view that the
existing single exit from the center to Ocean Park Boulevard may
be dangerous and inadequate. All letters received are attached
for your review.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Development
Review 88-002 with the following findings:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
1. The project is not generally consistent with the General
Plan, in that it does not conform to Land Use Element
Policy 4.2.3 which states: "Locate new development and
their access points in such a way that traffic is not en-
couraged to utilize local residential streets and alleys
for access to the develop1Uent and its parking. II
2. The physical location of the proposed driveway is not com-
patible with and does not relate harmoniously to surround-
ing sites and neighborhoods, in that the driveway could
negatively impact adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner
Attachments: A. statement of Official Action dated 3/4/85
B. Radius Map
C. Project Plans
OM
PC/DR88002
04/24/89
- 3 -
. .
I~ f-mct'101E7U t- -( B ;'
STATE~EN~ OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT:
J --
NUMBER: DR 285, Z,A. 4851-Y, EIA 774
LOCATION: 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard
APPLICANT: Homay Naraghi
REQUEST: New Commerc~al Center
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
3/4/85
Date.
#
DR 285
Approved based on the follow1ng findings and subJect to
the cond~t~ons below,
~,.A~~~~!Y Denied based on the f1ndinqs below.
.J
x Other: ErA 774, ~e9at1ve Declaration, approved.
Qevel~~men~ Review ~p~rova! F1ndi~gs:
1. Tbe development is consistent \Ill. th the find~ngs and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The phys1cal locatLon and placement of proposed struc~ures
on the site are compat1ble with and relate harmon~ously to
surroundLng sites and ne1.ghborhoods 1n tha.t. the proposed
project is in scale with adjacent. buildings. complLes wLth
the Mbuild-to~ requ1.rement for Neighborhood CommercLal
Dist.rict.. and other Land Us. Element pololeies, provides
ample .et.bac~. from the office bUl1dinq to its north, and
will have ita final design and landscape treatment re-
viewed and'approved by the Architectural Review Board.
J. The exi.tinq and/or proposed r1qhts-of-way and faci11t~es
for bot.h ped.str1an .and automobile t.raffic will be ade-
quat.e to ac:conunodate the ant.lc1pated results of the pro-
po.ed development includinq off-street parkinq faC111t~es
and ac:c... thereto in that a Traffic: Impact Study and
det.ailed park1ng and circulation plans have b.en revlewed
and approved by the City Parking and Traffic: Englneer w~th
the f.lnding t.hat. t.he project would not have any signlfl-
cant. ne9ative parking or traffic impact.s.
-
- 1 -
, .
4. The ex~stlng and/o~ proposed publlC and/o~ prlvate health
and safety fac~lltles (includlng but not liml~ed to sanl-
tary, sewers, storm dra~ns, flre protection dev~ces, pro-
tectlve serVlces, and publlC utlltles) wLl1 be adequate to
accommodate the ant~clpated results of the proposed
development.
S. The proposed development is conslstent ""ith the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monlca and the Zonlnq Ordlnance
1 n that the pro j ect , "'10th the cond J. tion. recommended be-
low, ""111 conform to the height, bullt, use and urban
dealgn pol1.ciea for the Neighborhood Commerc1.al Ol.strlct
as SpeC.lfled in the Land Use Element of the General Plan
and conform.to the appropriate C2 Oistrlct standards con-
tained in the Zoning Ord1.nance.
6. An_ lnlttal Study (EIA 774) on this project has found that
the project ""111 have no significant adverse impacts and,
accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
..
~ar~a"-~e_Q~rli.~~_Findin:gs.
1. The proposed 38 '6" height exceeds the 30' maximwn height
limit spec1fled 1n Ne1.ghborhood Commercial 01s~rlct Vol icy
1.7.8 of the Land V.. Element.
2'~ The strict. application of the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance would not re.ult in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardah1pa inconsistent with the general pur-
pose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Article IX, SMMC)
in that the requested height variance is for des1gn fea-
ture. (roof peaks) which are not necessary to develop the
project aa otherwise d..cr1.bed.
D~y~~o~~~~~_R.v~ev ~o~~i~ions_o~_App~Qval.
1. Plana for final d..ign, landscaping, screen1ng, exterlor
lighting, trash enclosure., and signaqe shall be subject
to r.view and approval by the Architectural Review Soard.
Maximum bui14ing height shall not exc.ed 30', as defl.ned
in Sec~1oft 9102, Oefinitions and Standard.. of the
Municipal C04e.
2. The Architect.ural Review Board, in their review, shall pay
pa~icul.r attention to the project'. pedeatrlan orienta-
tion and pedeatrian amenities: scale and articulation of
deSign elements; exterior colors, textur.. and materlals:
window tre.tment: qlasinc:H and landscaping. The Board
shall enaure that the project meets the Land U.e Element's
urban de.i9n recommendations to maximize '"human scale ,.
elem.n~. such aa frequent. ent.rance. and display windows,
awninq., and pede.trian oriented aign.g.. The large
planters in front of the st.reet frORt&qe display windows
shall be significantly reduced in size to min.lmize t.he
physical and visual barriers between the building interl-
ora and the sid.walle. The Soard shall consider pavlng
- 2 -
solut~ons wh~ch would m~nlmize the vlsual effect. of t.he
Ocean Park Boulevard dr~veway.
3. Minor amendments to the plans shall be sub1ect to approval
by the Direc~or of Plannlng. An increase of more than la'
of the square footage or a significant change in the ap-
proved concept shall be subJect to Plann~ng Commisslon
Revlew. Constructlon shall be in SUbstantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as mod.1.fied by the Plannl.nq
Commlssion. Architectural Review Board or Director of
Plann1nq.
4. The rights -granted herein shall be effective only when
,exercised W'iw-th1n a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the appll-
cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up
to_an addit~onal six months.
5. The applJ.cant shall comply with all 1e9'al requirements
req~dinq provision. for the disabled. includinq those set
forth in the Ca.lifornia AdminJ..strative Code. Title 24.
Part 2.
..
6. The parking lot shall be strip.d. screened and landscaped
in conformance with Sec. 9127.J.l and See. 9129.P.7
(SMMC). Parking lot lighting ahall be provided for
aecuri ty purpo.e.. Final parking lot layout and
specifications shall be .ubject to the review and approval
of the Parkinq and Traffic Engineer.
6a. A security plan shall be approved by the Ch~ef of Pol~ce
prior to issuance ot a Certificate ot Occupancy.
7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equ1pment shall
be screened in accordance with Sec. 9117J.2-4 (SMMC).
Refus. are.. .hall be ot a size adequate to meet on-site
need.
8. The operation ahall at all tim.. be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to aurrounding properties or residents by
rea.on ot light. , noi.., a.cti vi ties, parking or other
aC1:;iona. ...
9. Openable windowa shall be provided throughout the project,
1n . III&nner conaiatent wit.h applicable building code and
energy con..rvation requirement..
10. The existing driveway. and apron.. located about the pe-
rimet.er of t.he sit.e, shall be removed and the exi.t~ng
curb cut. replaced with .tandard curb and gut. ter per the
spec1fication. of the Department of General Service..
lOa. There shall be no median break in.talled in the Ocean Park
Boulevard center median adjacent to the project s1te
(i..., trom 29th Street to 30th Street. 1ncluaively).
- 3 -
lOb.
lOco
11.
12.
13.
13&.
14.
pr.lmary vehJ..cle access shall be from Ocean Park Blvd.
There shall be no veh~cle access to the project s~~e from
30th Street, except as requ~red for emergency access. The
29th Street parklnq lot entrance shall be used for .lngress
only. "Tire Shredders" or an equ1. valent type of control
device shall be installed to prevent unauthor1.zed egress
onto 29th Street.
The proJect owner and the managers of all buslnes.es
w~thin the project shall instruct dellvery vehlele opera-
tors to utllize the Ocean Park Boulevard entrance and not
acceS8 the alte Vla local residential streets.
Street tree. ahall be relocated or provided as requlred 1n
a manner consistent with the Cityts Tree Code (Ord. 1242
CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recre-
atj.on and Parka and the Oepartment of General Servlces.
No street tree sha.ll be removed without the approval of
the Department ot Recreation and Park..
Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights-at-way adjacent to the proJect if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the D.par~ment
of General Service.. J ·
On-site parkinC) shall be made aval.lab1e without cost to
employees who work in the building complex.
On-site parkinq, validated if d.sired, shall be made
available without coat to customers and visitors to bUSl-
ne.ses in the complex.
Per Land U.e Element. Policy 1.1.1., a major1ty of the
project t a ground floor street. front.age lease space shall
be ut.ilized for Neighborhood Commercial U.., aa defined ~n
the Land U.e Element.'. Glo..ary. No Busine.. Licens. for
any non-Neighborhood Commercia.l U.. on the ground floor
ahall be i..ued unle.. compliance wit.h t.his condition ~s
demonstrated to ~e .atistaction of the Director of Plan-
ning at ~e time such Licens. ia reque.ted.
"
I-r Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of Santa Monlea
Date
MInh ST285
-
- 4 -
., ..
~
'" --,
Cl !
~ ... ..
~ ~ '! ~
"
.. "
.. ~ ,
':: 4
I!W
-
a
.
... .-
. 31'T
.....
lift
.. S J>
. .
. .
+~
~ :! I&! ::
!
.. .
. .
~ ,
I
... , \ I
... .= I '
... ...
r
1 I
--
. - Iii
!
;"I . -
,. ~ t
I ~--
.. . -~ .. I
"'"
Jj I .'
-. .-.--.~ I I
~
i
tj
tllf
,
~
101
~
111
L-...l
lOl
L-.J --.J
I.
.t
lUll - .nt
~:-= ---
LEGAL Ol:SCRJPTION
M.+9 Gc:;oJ- "2, V ,,",,-E I'S 1.. I ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
i""1-c.yl.. ~ ~4"1. ~Ol ~'I ~2 * AJE'h. Qr CASE NO.
r e:. ~ ~,; --
STREET ADORESS .:/90/ OCI'A1N~;Il(K 8J. VA, ZONE