SR-12-A (30)
~ -,.
~,~ "
PL:JL:nh
Councl.l Mtg.:
e ftn'--OO1t
Santa Inica r California ja.-A
L "\ /....,-, '~- ~ ~, "l . (
\..' f f- ~ V F- L,-" i\.J
June 22, 1982
TO:
The Mayor and Clty Councll
:(' r, ~~-;-
~fr
-
~-
-
FROM:
City Staff
LJ' 1
L\O
Development
850 pall.sades
SUBJECT:
Appeal, Denl.al of Zone Change and Interlm
Permlt, DR 013, ExpanSl.on of Parkl.ng Lot,
Beach Road, Jonathan Club.
Introductlon
ThlS lS an appeal from the Planning Commissl.on's denial of a zone
change and Interim Develop~ent Perm1t to accommodate expanslon of
the Jonathan Club's parklng faC1ll.tles. Appeal 15 by the
Jonathan Club.
Background
The Jonathan Club owns and operates a pr1vate beach club faClllty
at 850 Pal~sades Beach Road, Santa Monica. The property 15
525' w1de and the depth of ownershlp l.S 1n d1spute and a matter
of litigatlon with the State. Under a proposed settlement the
Club would take over operatlon of an adJacent parkl.ng lot,
relocate two tennlS courts seaward of thelr present locat1on and
expand the parking lot onto the area formerly occupl.ed by the
tenn1s courts.
The property is zoned R4 to a depth of 190' from pall.sades Beach
Road and RI seaward of that pOl.nt. Proposed expanslon of the
parking lot 15 onto Rl property which does not permlt parkl.ng even
by varlance. parkl.ng lS permltted only ln RIA. Appllcatlons were
flied for a change of zone from Rl to RIA, a variance to allow the
club to operate the tenn1S courts rather than a Public Agency as
A:l-A
"" ""
.~a;:r and C~ty coun~l
-2-
~ June 22, 1982
requlred by code and, thlrd, an Interlm Development Permit to cover
the necessary work.
Followlng a PubllC Hearlng the Plannlng Commlssion denled all
three requests on the basls that they were In confllct with the
Clty'S adopted State Resource Management Development Plan and the
Local Coastal Plan and contrary to the publlc necessity, convenlence,
general welfare and good zonlng practlce. The vote on the motlon
to deny was as follows:
Aye: Cloke, Rhoden, Shearer, Katz
Nay: HotchklSS, Kleffel, Sulllvan
Both the Zone Change and Interim Development Permlt denlals have
been appealed. The Clty Attorney has ruled that the variance
applicatlon could not be appealed to the City COUDCll.
Alternatlves
under the provislons of Section 9149 of the Zoning Ordinance the
Clty Councll may afflrm, reverse or modify any decislon of the
Plannlng Commission as an applicatlon for a zone change and under
the provlslons of Ordinance 1220 may do the same for an Interim
Development Permit.
Recommendatlon
Inasmuch as the declS10n of the Plannlng CommlSS10D was based on
demonstrated conflicts with polic1es and objections for beach
development set forth ln adopted Clty plans it lS respectfully
recommended that the appeal be denied and the act10n of the
Comm~SSlon afflrmed.
Prepared by: J. W. Lunsford