SR-12-A (36)
,
fc'Z .r~CJ 2'
/:1. -4
JUL 2 5 1989
C/ED:PB:DKW:LM
council Mtg: July 25, 1989
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Proposed Two
Story/3D', 76,074 Square Foot Retail Commercial Center
to be Located on the Northwest corner of pico and
Cloverfield Boulevards. Applicant: schurgin
Development Corporation. Appellant: Law Offices of
Lurie & Hertzberg, Attorney for the Schurgin
Development corporation. 2233 ~CD
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council uphold the Planning
Commission's denial of Development Review (DR) 432, conditional
Use Permits (CUP) 500 and 501, Variances (ZA and VAR) 5304-Y and
89-008 and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 850 per the findings
contained in the Planning Commission statement of Official Action
dated May 3, 1989 (Attachment B). The Planning Commission denied
the proposal by a vote of 4-1. The law offices of Lurie and
Hertzberg are appealing that decision on the applicant's behalf
(Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 1986, the City and the schurgin Development
corporation entered into an agreement for city participation in
the development of a retail commercial project of approximately
65,000 square feet, including a full service grocery market, to
be located on the northwest corner of Pico and Cloverfield
- 1 -
/2-A
JUL 2 5 1989
Boulevards. The market, per the agreement, was to have a minimum
of 10,000 square feet of sales area.
The City's contribution to the project would be the lesser of 50%
of the sales tax generated by the project, or $300,000 as
follows:
Year 1--$100,000
Year 2--$ 80,000
Year 3--40% of the sales tax receipts from the previous
year.
Year 4--30% of the sales tax receipts from the previous
year.
Year 5--20% of the sales tax receipts from the previous
year.
Year 5--10% of the sales tax receipts from the previous
year.
In exchange for the City's annual contribution, the developer
would agree to a minimum five year lease with a full service
grocery market operator.
The developer would also refund the
City's entire contribution to the pico Neighborhood during years
7-10 of the project.
A more complete description of the
Agreement can be found in Appendix F of the Final EIR.
The agreement was contingent upon the purchase of the property by
the developer, and the developer entering into a minimum 5 year
lease with a tenant to operate a full service market. Both the
purchase of the property, and the execution of the lease would
have to be accomplished by July 1, 1989.
The agreement also
clearly stated that any project contemplated by the developer is
subj ect to the City's normal planning process, which process
includes environmental review as well as review by the Planning
Commission.
(Section 9.)
- 2 -
~
The subject proposal was considered by the Planning Commission on
May 3, 1989. The project was denied based on findings that the
CUP to permit the encroachment of a commercial use into a
residential district and variances to permit the proposed
building to encroach into required front and rear yard setbacks
on the residentially zoned parcel were not appropriate.
Furthermore, the Commission found that the project could be
redesigned so that the CUP and variances were not necessary. The
Planning Commission also found that the proposed amount of floor
area devoted to fast food restaurant uses was too extensive, and
that the proposal to grant a blanket CUP to serve alcohol was
inappropriate.
The Planning commission took no action on the project EIR.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Land Use Policy 1.6.6 permits a 1.5 FAR and 2
story/30' maximum height limit by right, and a 2.0 FAR and 3
story/45, height limit with site review for properties within the
Pico Corridor between 21st and 31st streets.
The subject
proposal has an FAR of .98 based on 76,704 square feet of floor
area, and a parcel size of 77,707 square feet (the R2 portion of
the site is not counted toward maximum FAR), and a 30' height
limit to the top of the roof. Surface level and subterranean
parking will be provided for 352 cars.
The following floor area breakdowns are proposed:
Retail: 31,519 square feet.
Market: 16,350 square feet
Fast Food: 12,000 square feet
- 3 -
Restaurant: 8,000 square feet
Exterior Corridors: 8,205 square feet
A Development Review permit, per ordinance 1321, is required in
that the proposed development is over 15,000 square feet.
A CUP is required to permit the proposed building to be
constructed on a residentially zoned parcel.
A CUP is also
required to permit the on-site sale of alcohol in the 20,000
square feet of fast food and restaurant space, and the off-site
sale of alcohol in the grocery market.
variances are required to permit the proposed building to
encroach into the front and rear yard setbacks of the
residentially zoned parcel, and to allow the use of compact
parking spaces.
A more detailed description of the project may be found in the
Planning Commission staff report dated May 3, 1989, and included
as Attachment C of this report.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission found that the granting of a CUP to allow
the establishment of a commercial use on a residentially zoned
parcel resulted in the unnecessary loss of a parcel that could
potentially
support
25
residential
dwelling
units.
The
commission felt that to find otherwise wwould be inconsistent
with City policy regarding the preservation and use of
residentially zoned land.
- 4 -
The proj ect developers contend that the City is obligated to
approve the project as submitted, in that the need to use the R2
zoned parcel was known at the time the agreement was negotiated.
The June 24, 1986 staff report to the Council on the agreement,
contained as Appendix F of the Final EIR, indicated that a
Conditional Use Permit would be necessary to conduct the proposed
use on the R2 portion of the site. As mentioned above, however,
the staff report further stated that "approval of the agreement
did not constitute project approval, which would remain at the
discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. II
A maj or issue was raised by the Planning Commission regarding
the point at which a project requires environmental analysis.
The Commission felt that prior to City approval of the Agreement,
at which time an overall development concept had been set, an
Initial study or EIR should have been prepared. The actual
environmental analysis for the project as proposed, however, did
not begin until over two years had elapsed, once a development
application was submitted. The Commission felt that the intent
of CEQA may have been compromised.
The Planning commission took no formal action on the project EIR,
however, staff recommended that it be certified. The Commission
chose not to take any action on the EIR since the proj ect was
being denied.
Another maj or concern raised by the public and the Planning
Commission related to the lack of a specific operator for the
market. The neighborhood residents felt that since no major
- 5 -
operator had been obtained, the possibility of finding an
adequate one at this point in the process was minimal. In
addition, the Agreement between the City and Developer, required
that a lessee for the market be obtained by July 1, 1989. As of
this time, there have been no indications from the developer that
a tenant for the market has been obtained.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report would have the
fiscal impact of eliminating the city's $300,000 obligation to
the Developer as required under the agreement if a market was
developed. Conversely, upholding the appeal, and reversing the
Planning Commission's determination, could result in the need to
honor the monetary obI iga tion as outl ined in the agreement, if
the Developer has met their obligations under the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council uphold the
Planning commission's denial of DR 432, CUP 500 and 501,
Variances 5304-Y and 89-008 and EIR 850 with the findings
contained in the Planning Commission statement of Official Action
dated May 3, 1989.
The Council may reverse the Planning Commission's determination,
or conditionally approve the proposal as it sees fit. Under
Ordinance 1321, Section 4(b) the Council on appeal shall approve,
conditionally approve or disapprove the application. If the
Council determines that it wishes to overturn the Commission's
- 6 -
denial, it is recommended that staff be directed to return to
council with findings and conditions based on Council's
discussion at the hearing.
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Associate Planner
D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Attachments: A. Agreement
B. Appeal Letter dated May la, 1989.
C. Planning Commission statement of Official Action
dated May 3, 1989.
D. Planning Commission staff report dated May 3,
1989.
E. Final EIR and Response to Comments
F. project Plans
PC/CCDR432
07/14/89
- 7 -
/'" ~ ir
.'
.4j/
CONTRACT NO. 4699(CCS)
,
~,~ C ~~,! ~:~::!!
') - .1. _ _ ,
I .~_"':I" .. ........... ~ __
I
AGREEMENT
THIS
AGREEMENT,
entered
Into
....,.S1fL q,;; 17 P 3 :m
this 1::L.:-- day of June,
," --.
SANTA MON1CA,a munIcIpal
1986,
by
and between
the CITY OF
corporation
(here Inafter
"CIty"),
and SCHURGIN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
a
CalIfornia
corporatIon
(hereinafter
"Developer"), 15 made WIth reference to the follOWing:
R E CrT A L S:
-- A ~
City
15 a mun IC i'pa 1
corporation duly o~ganlzed and
eXisting under
the laws of the State of CalIfornia With the
power
to carryon ItS bUSIness as
1 t IS now be lng conducted
under
the statutes of the State of California and the Charter
of the City. .
B.
City
IS Interested In
faCilitating the development
of a Full ServIce Market, as defIned In thIs Agreement, In the
PIca Neighborhood.
The development of a Full Service Market
In the Plea NeIghborhood 15 necessary to prOVIde essentIal
servIces and 15 In the best Interests of the City.
_.. lI1i1llA~......! LJ..n......~"~~iV.....,......Y':.
C. Developer 15 Interested In developing a Full Service
Market
on property located In the PICO Neighborhood If CIty
prOVides certain
finanCial
Incentives as set
forth In thIS
Agreement
to assIst In the economIC
feaSibilIty of the Full
Service Market.
NOLI,
THEREFORE,
1 t
15 mutually agreed by ~nd between
CIty and Developer ~s follows:
1
SECT I ON 1.
PROPERTY.
The subject property consIsts of 2.25 acres, located 1n
the PIca NeIghborhood at PICD Boulevard and CloverfIeld 1n
Santa MonIca (the uProperty"). The Property IS presently
owned by Smert & Ir15 CorporatIon and 15 de6crlbed In ExhIbIt
A. Develop~r has obtaIned ~n option to purchase the Property.
SECTION 2.
DEF I NIT 1 QNS .
For purposes of thiS Agreement, the follOWIng words or
phrases shall have the follOWing meanIngs:
(a) PICa Neighborhood. The area bounded by Coloredo
Avenue on the North, LIncoln Boulevard on the West, PICO
Boulevard on the South, and the CIty boundary on the East.
(b) Full ServIce Market. A market WIth eIther a sales
area of not Jes5 than 10,000 square feet or an overall area of
14,000 square feet. The market shall offer for sale fresh
meats,
produce, and other grocery and related Items. At
discretIon, CIty may approver smaller sales or overall
City's
area for the market. The market WIll be a portIon of a larger
.......t.T~--'lO'-retaiI development on the Propety ("Project").
SECTION 3.
QEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY.
The oblIgatIons of City under thIS Agreement shall arIse
only upon the occurrence of each of the follOWing condItIons
on or before July 1, 1989:
(a) Purchase of the Property by Developer.
(b)
Developer enterIng
lnto a lease
wlth a tenant to
operate a Full
Service Market.
The lease sha 11
be for a
2
mInimum term of five years
( "M I n I mu m
the Full Service Market commence~ oper8tIon and
public e'Openlng Date").
SECTION 4.
SAL~~ TAX PARTI~IPATlON.
City coven8nts and agrees to make payments to
not to exceed $300,000.00, as follows:
(a) SIX months from the Opening Date of the
Service Market (t1Flrst Payment Date"), the amount
$100,000.00.
(b) One year from the FIrst Payment Date, the amount of
$80,000.00.
(c) Two years from the First Payment Date, an amount
equal to 40% of the CIty's allocation of the sales tax from
the PrOject for the Reporting PerIod.
(d) Three years from the First Payment Date, an amount
equal to 30% of the Clty.S allocation of the sales tax from
the Project for the ReportIng Period.
(e) Four years from the Flrst
- ~~ ~ :l.:P'IU~ ~eque I
. -.t 0 . 2 0 % 0 f the C 1 t Y I 8 ell I 1 0 cat Ion
Payment 08te, an amount
of the sales tax from
the Project for the ReportIng PerIod.
(f) Five years from the FIrst Payment Date, an amount
equal to 10% of the CIty's allocation of the sales tax from
the Project for the Reporting PerIod.
Except as provIded In thIS Agreement, the payments
reqUIred by thiS Section shall be unconditIonal and shall be
made Without notIce, demand, or setoff.
3
If operation of the Full SerVice Market 15 d15contlnued,
the schedule of payments provided for In this Section may be
extended
for ~ period of not mO~e than
18 months 50 that
Developer may attempt to resume operations of a Full Service
Market.
In
the event operation of e Full ServIce Market 15
resumed,
the Minimum Period
shall be extended by a pertod
equal to the period of such extension.
For purposes of thiS Sect lon, "Report lng Perlodlt 5hall
mean the four preceding State Board of Equalization quarterly
reports of sales tax allocation receIved by the City from all
~
retail sales activIty on the Property.
ReportIng period shall
not
Include any perlod prlor
to
the opening of the Full
?erVICe Market) any period follOWing the end of the Minimum
Period, or any period the Full Service Market IS dIscontinued.
( At
Developer's
request,
City shall provlde Developer with
7. acces:!>
to any documentatIon
relied upon by CIty to make
determinations of payments under this Agreement.
For purposes
of
thIS Agreement,
the operation of a Full Service Market
sha 11
not
be
conSidered discontinued
I fIt
15 closed for
4IP -4.4.....t~ J.......,::i,.r,t#8tn1il ~................... _.......,.,._ .........
normal
ho lldays,
annual
InventorIes,
necessary repaIrs or
remodellIng,
es
~
result
of condemnatIon,
destruct lon,
casualty, or during any period of retoratlon thereafter, or
any other reasonable
Inter~uptlon due to events beyond the
control of Developer or Full Servlce Market.
4
SECTION 5.
TERMINATION OF CITY PAYMENTS.
If dunng
the MInImum PerIod the operatIon of a Full
SerVIce Market IS dIscontInued and
re-rented to ~ tenant for
8n alternatIve use for a perIod totallIng more than one year,
CIty'S
payments under
SectIon G of
4
thl~
Agreement shall
ImmedIately termInate.
SECTION 6.
REPAYMENT BY OEUELOPER.
WIthIn
one year after the end of the MInImum PerIod, or
WIthIn one year of the date
the CIty'S payment oblIgatIon IS
~ termInated pursuant to SectIon 5 of thts Agreement, CIty shall
provIde Developer WIth a wrItten statement
of all sales tax
allocated
from the Project durIng the perIod the Full SerVIce
Market
was operated durIng the MInImum PerIod.
If the CIty'S
total
payment to Developer under SectIon 4 of thIS Agreement
was greater than 50% of
such sales tax allocatIon, Developer
:sha 11
pay to CIty the dIfference between CIty'S payment and
50% of the sales tax allocatIon.
If the CIty'S total payment
to Developer under SectIon 4 of
thIS Agreement IS less than
-...... -.. -^ -..---- '5 0 % - 0 of 5 U c Ii 5 ale 5 t a x all 0 cat Ion, C I t Y 5 Ii all pay toO eve lop e r
-
the dIfference between CIty'S payment and ?O% of the sales tax
allocatIon,
except
that
In no event 5hall
CIty'S total of
payments to Developer exceed $300~OOO.OO under thIS Agreement.
Developer's payment to CIty shall made WIthIn 60 days of such
wrItten statement,
but no earlIer than SIX months after the
MIntmum
PerIod or
TermInatIon Date.
CltY'5 payment
to
Developer
sha 1 I
be
made WIthIn 60 days
of
such wrItten
statement.
?
SECTION 7.
PICO NEIGHBORHOOD CONTRIBUTION.
Developer shall provIde grants to ~rtl5ts and non-profit
organizations, selected by Developer and approved by the City,
provIding art,
gro!lffltl
remova I}
or other beautifIcation
programs
In
the Pica Neighborhood of
the City.
The grants
sha 11
be In an amount equal
to City's total payment receIved
by Developer under Section 4 of
thiS Agreement
less any
repayment
requIred of
Developer under Section 6 of thIS
Agreement.
The grants shall
be made
accordlng
to
the
follOWing schedule:
(a)
SIX
years from the First
Payment Date, an amount
not less th~n 10% of the obllgatlon under thiS SectIon.
(b) Seven years from the First Payment Date, an amount
not less than 20% of the obllgatlon under thiS Section.
(c) Eight years from the First Payment Date, an amount
not less than 30% of the obltgat Ion under thiS Section.
(d) NIne years from the First Payment Date, an amount
not less than 40% of the oblIgation under thiS Section.
If In any year Developer makes grants In excess of the
If 11 ll~ I 4_1 'U ~ 1,.. ~ .....'_JI~'lf...~ -I; ....~r._
amount
required,
Developer may take a credIt
age Ins t any
subsequent
year payment
In
the amount by which the actual
grant exceeded the requIred grant.
In the event the Minimum Period 15 extended as prOVided
for
In SectIon
4} the schedule of payments prOVided for In
thiS Section shall be extended by the period of the extenSion
of the Mlnlmum Period.
6
SECTION 8.
ASSIGNMENT.
Developer m~y assign thIS Agreement wIthout epproval of
CIty if the assignee assumes the obligatIons of thIS Agreement
In writing and If the assignee IS e partnershIp, corporation,
trust
or other entity In which Developer, Mark A. Schurgln,
Rosalyn Jonas Schurglnt or any Developer AffIlIate retains
suffICient operational and menagerlel control to assure that
Developer's obligations hereunder are fulfIlled. For purposes
of this Agreement, a Developer AffIliate means any
partnershIp,
corporatIon, trust, or other entity In which any
of Developer.
IndiVidually Or
Mark
A.
Schurgln,
Rosalyn Jonas Schurgln
or controls, directly or
collectively own
~Indlrectly, a maJority Interest.
SECTION 9.
APPROVAL PROCESS.
The development of the Property shall be subJect to the
CIty's normal development approval process. CIty will use Its
best
efforts to expedIte, cooperate,
end assist DeveLoper In
the processing of the development ~ppllcatlon.
:'a.lIJ:.II".""'I~::!.L,,' ~ r f ~'iI"''\..._ -' l'I.....~_~-1O_~_~_ .
7
SECTI ON 10.
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
The off-sIte Improvements descrIbed
In ExhIbIt B shell
be performed by end be
the
fu I 1
responSIbility of
the
Developer.
Developer shall not be
responSible for any other
off-SIte
Improvements as a condItIon of development of the
ProJect.
SECTI ON 11.
NOTICES.
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals to be gIven
under
thIS Agreement, shall be given In wrItIng and be served
\ personally or by UnIted States mall, postage prepaId and
return receIpt requested, addressed as hereInaFter prOVIded.
All
notIces,
demands,
requests,
or c!!Ipprovals
from
Developer to'Clty shall be addressed to CIty at:
CIty of Santa MonIca
1685 MaIn Street
Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa
Attn: CIty Manager
90401
A I I
notIces, demands, requests,
or approvals from CIty
to Developer shall be addressed to Developer at:
~~JMll rr'l~."""""""'~_MIN~...~--'o.r
Schurgln Development CorporatIon
3425 McLaughlin Avenue, SUIte 201
Los Angeles, CalIfornIa 90066
Attn: Allen J. Lynch, ASSIstant
VIce PreSIdent
WIth a copy to:
-PIrcher,- NIchols &. Meeks ---
10100 Santa MonIca Boulevard
Los Angeles, CalifornIa 90067
8
SECTION 12.
WAIVER.
A waIver by CIty or Developer of any breach of 8ny term,
covenant, or condItIon contaIned hereIn ~hall not be deemed to
be e waIver of eny subsequent breach of the same or any other
term,
covenant, or condItIon contaIned
heretn whether of the
seme or a dIfferent character.
SECTION 13.
COST OF ~ITIGATION.
I f
any
legal
actIon
15 necessary
to enforce any
provtslon hereof or for damages by reason of an alleged breach
of any provISIon of thIS Agreement, the prevat lIng party shall
be entitled
to
receive from the IOS1ng party all costs and
expenses and 5uch amount
as
the court may adjudge to be
reasonab Ie at torneys' fees.
SECTION 14.
iNTEGRATED AGREEM~NT.
Thl5
Agreement
represents
the
fu 1 1
and complete
understanding of every kInd or nature whatsoever between CIty
and Developer and all prelImInary negotIatIons and agreements
are merged hereIn.
No ve r b a 1
agreement or ImplIed covenant
....."!..:!8 r - JJ B...9 _ ~~..!"'""~~,~~-~----- ~ -- ~
- ""i . -:.. -- .,...... -.... _~
, -,
she 11
be
held
to
vary the prOVISIons
hereof.
Any
modlflcatlon of thIS Agreement shall be effectIve only If In a
wrItIng executed by both CIty and Developer.
SECT I ON -l15:--: RELAT I ONSH I P OF. PAPT I ES. .--:-:-- - -- -----
ThIS Agreement does not
create an ~gency) partnershlp,
or JOInt venture between Clty and Developer.
SECTION 16.
GOVEPNING LAW.
9
. .
Th1s Agreement has been made and shall be construed and
1nterpreted 1n accordance wlth the laws of the State of
Cal1fornHI.
"
1fI...-l.LI1!II 1iI.1 ll~'ltf[. _~~"_"'""J-~~~.z..- -J:T__"
10
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF the parties have caused this
Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a munICipal corporation
J~JJL
8y
JOH~~ JALILI
CIty Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~\,y-.~
ROBERT M. MYERS
" C 1 t Y At tor n e y
-
-<"--r_~ .....--.=.....,....,..,... ~.~~_ .~..,....a.._-....--......-~~-~~,,->+__ ..~'-_ _ _ --1'_____.... ~-_
SCHURG76N EVELOPMENT CORP.
/~
By ,~
- ~EN J. LYNCH
_ L~~ 15 ~_a~~ t ~1_ce Presl dent
RMC268/ca
~ w ~ _~ J!lM!ld._~~~'--~~~r.....,..,-,...---"'-~~--"="-
_____....~...__ ____ _.___..taL-:=---_-:-....--_.........._..._.-__ .........--._____..
......_-~---~ - --- --,,-----...............----.........--...--....
11
lJlUt Lv Li Y Il.:L\
o
LURIE & HEH.Jri:'biERD' I' n~:'~
A P~OF"E5S10NAl. CO~~b~A;ION
1.AW'fERS
9'0'1 WI LSHI RE !30',jLI;;VA'\~t,SU'r}';,_ ~5q n ,~,' 1
BEVERI-Y HILLS. CALIFOR.-m 90"'lOJ5t126. ,
I' ~ Julf III I tlf'l.
P,...ONE ~j;'13) 274-8700
OUR FILE NUMBER
F'AX ~.z13) ~74.27ge
SCHUPL
May 10, 1989
VIA MESSENG'ER
Mr. Paul Berlant
Director of Planning
Planninq commission for the
city of Santa Monica
1685 Main street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Appeal by Schurqin Development companies
Dear Mr. Berlant:
As you are aware, we represent Schurgin Development
Companies ("SOCII). SDC applied to the Planning Commission of
the city of Santa Monica (the "Planning Commissionll) for a
Development Review to permit construction of a two story; 75,074
square foot retail center on the northwest corner of Pico
Boulevarci and Cloverfield Boulevard (the "Sitell) (DR 432); for
Conditional Use Permits to allow the sale of alcohol and to
permit establishment of a commercial use in a residential
district (CUP 500 and CUP 501); for varian~es to permit
encroachment into a required front and rear yard setback on a
R2-zoned parcel and to allow the use of compact parking spaces
(ZA 5304-Y and VAR 89-008), as well as for certification of EIA
850. Each of said applications was denied by the Planning
co~~i~~ic~ on May 4, 1989, and the Plannln~ S~~mission dccli~cd
to certify EIA 850.
On behalf of schurgin Development Companies, we hereby
appeal to the city Council for the City of Santa Monica ("city
Council") the Planning commission's denial of the aforesaid
applications on May 4, 1989, and its refusal tc certify EIA 850.
The Planning Commission'S denial of said application
was improper because, among other things:
(1) The City of Santa :r>1onica (the lIcity")
determined, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, that
9-
.
Mr_ Paul Berlant
May lO, 1989
Page 2
development of a retail center (including a food market) on the
site was necessary and appropriate, and the City entered into an
agreement with SOC, in June of 1986, under which SOC is
expressly permitted to develop a commercial retail center
(including a food market) on the Site, including the R-2 portion
thereof~
(2) EIA 850 is in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, as was determined by the
City Planning Division;
(3) SDC's proposed project complies in all
respects with the guidelines set for~h in the city's General
Plan.
If you require a more detailed recitation of the
grounds for the instant appeal, please do not hesitate to call.
At the time that we issued the instant Notice of Appeal,
findings had not been prepared by the Planning Commission or by
the City Planning Division and so it is quite possible that we
may supplement the foregoing grounds for SDC's appeal.
Enclosed is a check in the sum of $100.00 to cover
processing of tha appeal.
We request that the hearing on the instant appeal be
scheduled as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
b4.~
stephan A. Mills for
LURIE & HERTZBERG
SAM: go
SCHUPL0589A
Enclosure
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER:
OR 432, CUP 500 and 501, ZA 53 04-Y, VAR 89-008
and EIR 850
LOCATION: 2233 pico Boulevard
APPLICANT: Schurgin Corporation
REQUEST: To construct a two story/3D', 76,074 square foot
retail/commercial center on a parcel of 115,832
square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
5-3-89
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
X Denied.
Other.
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 1707
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
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
- 1 -
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 provlslons 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. 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.
- 2 -
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.
5. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all
adverse impacts identified in Environmental Impact Report,
however, the preparation of an EIR should have commenced
at the time the City and developer entered into a contract
for the construction of a full service market on the sub-
ject site.
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.
5. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
- 3 -
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.
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.
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.
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 welfare 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 -
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 Inarket 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:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Farivar, Kaufman, Mechur, Nelson
pyne
Lambert, Hecht
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.
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
- 5 -
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
05/30/89
- 6 -
e
-
7A
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 3, 1989
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: DR 432, CUP 500 and 501, ZA 5304-Y, VAR 89-008 and EIR
850
Address: 2233 pico Boulevard
Applicant: Schurgin Corporation
SUMMARY
Action: Review of applications for: Development Review to permit
construction of a two story/30', 76,074 square foot retail com-
mercial center; Conditional Use Permits to allow on and off-sale
of alcohol, and to permit the establishment of a commercial use
in a residential district; and, variances to permit encroachment
into a required front and rear yard setbacks on an R2 zoned par-
cel, and to allow the use of compact parking spaces. Certifica-
tion of Environmental Impact Report, EIA 850, is also required.
The subject proposal is being considered under the provisions of
the former zoning ordinance as it was deemed complete on February
3, 1988.
Recommendation: Denial
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: May 4, 1989 (with 90 day
extension granted)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 115,832 sq. ft. parcel located on the
north side of Pico Boulevard between Cloverfield Boulevard and
21st street having a frontage of 317 feet along Cloverfield
Boulevard and 366 feet along Pico Boulevard. surrounding uses
consist of one story multi-family residential to the north (R2),
one story retail commercial and automotive repair to the south
(C4), three story office and two story mUlti-family residential
to the east (R2 and C4), and vacant property, and the Virginia
Park, to the west (R2 and C4) .
Zoning Districts: R2 and C4
Land Use Districts: Medium Density Residential and Pico corridor
- 1 -
,
e e
i Parcel parcel: 38,125 sq. ft.
Area: R2
C4 parcel: 77,707 sg.ft.
Total Parcel Area: 115,832 sq. ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
Proposed is a two story/30', 76,074 square foot retail commercial
center. Surface level and subterranean parking will be provided
for 352 cars. The following floor area breakdowns are proposed:
Retail: 31,519 square feet.
Market: 16,350 square feet.
Fast Food: 12,000 square feet.
Restaurant: 8,000 square feet.
Exterior corridors: 8,205 square feet
A total of 14 ground floor store fronts with 23,694 sq. ft. of
retail floor area, and a market with 12,150 sq. ft. of floor area
and 4,200 sq.ft. of basement storage area, are proposed. A total
of 22 second floor store fronts with 7,825 sq. ft. retail space
and 17,970 sq.ft. of interior restaurant space, and 2,030 sq.ft.
outdoor patio dining area are proposed. A total of 8,205 square
feet of outdoor corridor space is also proposed on the second
floor. It should be noted that the lease spaces could be recon-
figured to meet specific tenant requirements. The subject plans
provide an optimum lease space configuration.
Site plans indicate 102 at grade parking spaces with interior
landscape islands and landscape strips adjacent to all property
lines and public rights-of-way. Parking would be accessed at two
points along Pi co Boulevard, and one point along Cloverfield
Boulevard. The eastern most driveway on pico Boulevard would
provide direct access to 250 subterranean parking spaces. Two
driveways on Cloverfield Boulevard, and one driveway on pico
Boulevard, would accommodate traffic exiting the site. A service
road is proposed along the site's western and northern property
lines to access loading areas and trash bins.
Elevation plans indicate a two story/30' height limit to the top
of the roof. A parapet wall will extend 5' above the roof,
mechanical equipment enclosures and skylights will reach a height
of 44', and architectural "space trusses" will extend to a height
of 55'.
A CUP, pursuant to former SMMC Section 9148, is required to per-
mit the proposed building to be constructed on a residentially
zoned parcel. A CUP is also required to permit the on-site sale
of alcohol in the 20,000 square feet of restaurant space, and the
off-site sale of alcohol in the market.
Variances are required to permit the proposed building to en-
croach into the required front and rear yard setbacks of the R2
zoned parcel, and to allow the use of compact parking spaces.
- 2 -
e
e
..
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project requires the approval of a Variance and CUP
in order to be inconsistent with the Municipal Code, and is in
conformity with the General Plan. The project is inconsistent
with former SMMC Section 9108B.5.a. in that a CUP is necessary to
allow the establishment of a commercial use in a residential dis-
trict, and variances are required to allow the building to en-
croach 91 into the required 20' front yard setback, and 15' into
the required IS' rear yard setback on the R2 zoned portion of the
site. A Variance is also required to permit approximately 31% of
the required parking spaces to not meet minimum stall dimensions
as set forth in former SMMC Section 9l29F3.
since the developer has indicated a fast food component, a Use
Permit will be required for that type of use pursuant to former
SMMC Section 9117. A. 5. No Use Permits are requested as part of
the proposal. If the project is approved, the Planning Commis-
sion should require that when and if a specific fast food use is
proposed, a Use Permit be required at that time.
CEQA STATUS
A Draft Environmental Impact ~eport, EIA 850, was distributed for
public review and comment on September 1, 1988. Comments
received prior to the close of the 30 day review period indicated
certain deficiencies in the Draft EIR. A supplement to the Draft
EIR was subsequently prepared, based on comments received on the
Draft EIR, and distributed for an additional 30 day public review
period beginning on March 15, 1989. Comments received prior to
the close of the 30 review period have been incorporated into the
Final supplemental EIR.
FEES
This project is not subject to any project mitigation fees.
ANALYSIS
Background
On June 24, 1986, the City and the Schurqin Corporation entered
into an agreement for city participation in the development of a
retail project of approximately 65,000 square feet, including a
full service grocery market, to be located on the northwest
corner of Pica and C10verfield Boulevards. The market, per the
agreement, was to have a minimum of 10,000 square feet of sales
area.
The city's contribution to the project would be the lesser of 50%
of the sales tax generated by the project or $300,000.00 as
follows:
Year 1--$100,000
Year 2--$ 80,000
- 3 -
- -
, Year 3--40% of the sales tax receipts from the previous
year.
Year 4--30% of the sales tax receipts from the previous
year.
Year 5--20% of the sales tax receipts from the previous
year.
Year 5--10% of the sales tax receipts from the previous
year.
In exchange for the City's annual contribution, the developer
would agree to a minimum five year lease with a full service gro-
cery market operator. The developer would also refund the entire
city contribution during years 7 through 10 of the project. A
more complete description of the agreement can be found in Appen-
dix F of the Draft EIR. Approval of the agreement, by the City,
did not constitute project approval.
The subj ect proposal has received intense publ ic scrutiny over
the past year and a half. Numerous neighborhood meetings have
been held to discuss the project's impact on adjacent residential
neighborhoods, and to discuss the information contained in the
Draft and Supplemental EIR's.
Relationship to General Plan
General Plan Land Use policy 1.6.6 permits a 1.5 FAR and 2 story/
3D' height limit by right, and with site review, a 2.0 FAR and 3
story/45, height limit for properties in the Pico Corridor,
between 21st and 31st streets. The subject proposal has an FAR
of .98 based on 76,074 square feet of floor area and a parcel
size of 77,707 square feet (the R2 zoned portion of the site is
not counted toward maximum FAR). A building height of 3D', to
the top of the roof, is proposed. Portions of the building,
specifically mechanical equipment enclosures, Skylights and ar-
chitectural elements exceed the maximum height limit. These
projections are, however, permitted to exceed the maximum height
limit under former SMMC Section 9126.B.
Policy 1.6.6 states that "because of the low future demand fore-
casts of, and considerinq the varied nature of the land uses ad-
jacent to the street, Pico BOUlevard.., should accommodate neigh-
borhood and service commercial uses, especially small busi-
nesses...". (emphasis added)
The Land Use Element defines neighborhood uses as:
those uses which provide convenience goods and services
for which people generally do not comparison shop, that
are bought fairly frequently, and that cater to the daily
needs of nearby residents. Typically neighborhood commer-
cial uses include, but are not limited to, the following:
(emphasis added)
Convenience goods
Convenience services
- 4 -
e
e
...
Candy store
Drug store
Hardware store
Liquor store
Small restaurants
(under 50 seats)
Plant nursery
All food stores for off-site
consumption (except fast
food establishments)
Barber shop
Beauty parlor
Cleaners
Gas station
Laundromat
Shoe repair
Tailor/dressmaker
Bank/savings and Loan
Child care
Photo copy shop
Repair shop (TV, radio,
appliance)
Movie theater
Service commercial
generally used on a
used occasionally
include:
uses are defined as businesses that are
daily basis by individual residents, but are
by local and regional residents: These
auto repair
plumber
electrician
carpenter
repair shops (appliance, radio, TV)
locksmith
contractors
wholesale businesses with retail outlets
storage facilities
The subject proposal would contain 67,869 square feet of commer-
cial space, and almost 30% of the total floor area would be
devoted to eating establishments. A total of 12,000 square feet
of floor area would be devoted to fast food outlets, and 8,000
square feet of floor area, with 210 seats, would be devoted to
sit down restaurant uses. The inclusion of fast food and res-
taurant uses appears to be in conflict with the broad intent of
the General Plan to provide neighborhood serving uses along the
Pico corridor. In addition, based on the developerls inability
to provide assurances regarding use of the remaining 31,519
square feet of retail space, residents have no guarantee that
neighborhood services will be provided in the project.
Aside from beinq the largest component of the proposal, the res-
taurant and fast food uses would, in all likelihood, create the
largest impact on the adj acent res idential neighborhoods. In
addi tion to the noise, trash and fumes associated with those
types of uses, the Supplemental EIR indicates that the fast food
and restaurant components of the proj ect will alone generate
9,330 average daily trips. This is 50% of the total traffic
volume projected to be generated daily by the entire proposal.
In addition to the applicant's request for 20,000 square feet of
fast food and restaurant floor area, the proposal includes a
request for a I1blanketl1 General on-sale liquor license for the
entire restaurant component. The General Plan contains several
references to limiting the number and growth of alcohol outlets
- 5 -
e
e
.
along Pico Boulevard. Under the Key Findings section of the
General Plan (p. 41), the Pico Neighborhood is perceived as lack-
ing certain neighborhood uses, chiefly a major supermarket, and
excesses of certain uses, such as liquor stores.
The applicant's request for a "blanket" approval to serve alcohol
conflicts with the General Plan, and goes against a planning
policy that requires specific uses be associated with a request
for CUP to serve alcohol. The City generally would not grant a
"blanket" CUP for a site without first knowing the type of es-
tablishment being given the license, the hours of operation, and
number of seats proposed. The request for a "blanket" CUP is
therefore inappropriate.
The General Plan Land Use Element plan principles (p. 53) state
that, "Santa Monica's residential areas are the very core of her
day-to-day life. Residential areas must be protected from com-
mercial and traffic intrusion". Based on the Supplemental EIR
prepared for the project, approximately 180 peak hour trips and
2,300 daily trips are expected to be added to 23rd Street. This
is perceived by many as adversely impacting the adjacent residen-
tial neighborhood. In addition, the mitigation measures proposed
to reduce the traffic impacts on the residential neighborhoods
are viewed by the residents as either not doing enough, or ex-
acerbating the problem.
Neighborhood groups have asked for the application of General
Plan Circulation Element Policies 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 to this and
other projects. Policy 4.3.1 sets a Levels of Service of "e" for
collector streets and liD" for arterials as acceptable. Policy
4.3.2 indicates that: "the first priority for new development
shall be where there is adequate existing road and highway
capacity, and where residential streets will not be impacted by
traffic generated by the new development.1t
It is staff. s contention that Policies 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 provide
only general guidance in the development review process, and that
project's impact on traffic and circulation should be determined
through specific analysis, as performed in the EIR. since the
project's traffic related impacts can be mitigated, the ap-
plicability of policies 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, as grounds for project
denial, are not appropriate.
Finally, General Plan Land Use Objective 2.1 "Encourage[s]
citizen and neighborhood participation in the City Planning pro-
cess to ensure realization of the goals of the Land Use Element'..
The citizens of the pico Neighborhood and Sunset Park have held
numerous meetings with the representatives of the City and the
developer to discuss the project's impacts, potential tenants of
the building, and alternative uses for the site. It appears to
be the general consensus, based on numerous letters and conversa-
tions with local residents, that the development as proposed does
not respect the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Specifical-
ly, the residents feel that the market is too small, the floor
area devoted to restaurants and fast food too large, and the im-
pacts on traffic, especially neighborhood streets, is too great.
- 6 -
(
e
e
.
Project Relationship to Municipal Code
A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the proposed build-
ing to encroach into the R2, mUlti-family residential, district.
Under SMMC section 9148, the Planning Co~mission, or Council on
appeal, may grant a CUP for the establishment of a commercial use
in a residential district provided that:
1. The site for the proposed use is contiguous with, or is sepa-
rated by an alley from, and immediately adjoins an es-
tablished commercial or industrial district, or is an exist-
ing non-conforming use wi thin a multiple residential
district.
2. The uses permitted are limited to:
a. Those uses permitted in the adjoining established commer-
cial or industrial district:
b. A legally non-conforming use formerly permitted in a mul-
tiple residential district~ or,
c. Such other similar uses as the Planning comlnission, or
City Council, on appeal or review, shall determine are com-
patible with adjoining uses and will not be detrimental to or
adversely effect properties, or the permitted use thereof.
3. In no case shall commercial or industrial uses be extended
more than 500 feet into the any adjoining multiple residen-
tial district.
The Municipal Code requirements pertaining to the establishment
of a commercial use in a multiple residential district can be
met, however, under General Plan Land Use Element Pol icy 1. 2 . 2
"surface parking lots, zoned residential, adjacent to highway
commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for
residential use or public open space on the surface (use for
underground parking is acceptable)."
Loss of the R2 portion of the site, based on a maximum permitted
density of 1 unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area and a parcel
size of 38,125 square feet, would remove the potential to add 25
dwelling units to the city's housing stock.
The use of a CUP to allow the establishment of a commercial use
in a multiple residential district necessitates the granting of
variances to allow the building to encroach into both the re-
quired front and rear yard setbacks. A 20' front yard setback is
required, and a 2' setback is proposed. A 15' rear yard setback
is required, and a 0' setback is proposed.
A variance is also necessary to allow the use of compact parking
spaces. Under SMMC Section 9129F.4, a minimum stall dimension of
8'-611 X 191 is required. The SUbject proposal includes approxi-
mately 30% of the required number of parking stalls at 7'-6" X
15' .
- 7 -
e
e
.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address
various project related impacts. The following topics were an-
alyzed in the EIR: land use, transportation/circulation, air
quality, acoustic environment, waste water, aesthetics, and
neighborhood impacts.
As a result of co~ments received on the Draft EIR, a Supplemental
EIR was prepared. The Supplemental EIR focused on
transportation/circulation, air quality and acoustic environment.
Transportation/circulation
Ten intersections were studied as part of the EIR review process.
They were: 1) pico BI. and cloverfield Bl., 2) Pico Bl. and 23rd
st., 3) Pico BI. and 20th st., 4) Pico BI. and 28th st., 5) Ocean
Park B1. and Cloverfield Bl., 6) Ocean Park B1. and 23rd st., 7)
Cloverfield BI. and eastbound I-IO, 8) Cloverfield Bl. and west-
bound I-10, 9) Cloverfield BI. and Olympic B1., and 10) Clover-
field Bl. and Colorado B1.
The proj ect would be expected to generate approximately 18,540
average daily trips, including 1,445 trips during the afternoon
peak hour (745 in and 710 out).
According to the City's guidelines, a project is expected to have
a significant impact if the addition of project related traffic
to an intersection results in an increase of .02 or greater in
the volume to capacity ratio (V/C), and the intersection is ex-
pected to operate at a level of service (LOS) of E of F. Based
on that definition, the proposed project will have a significant
impact on the intersections of Pico and Cloverfield, Ocean Park
and 23rd, cloverfield and the I-IO eastbound on-ramp, Cloverfield
and Olympic, and C10verfield and Colorado.
The Supplemental EIR, Section 3.2.3, (page 10) indicates that the
following mitigation measures will reduce the project related
impacts to insignificant levels:
1. Provide a left-turn lane on Pico Boulevard for traffic enter-
ing the project site.
2. Improve the intersection of Pico Boulevard and Cloverfield
Boulevard by adding a northbound left-turn lane and a south-
bound through lane on Cloverfield and a eastbound to north-
bound double left-turn lane on Pico Boulevard.
3. Place a stop sign on the service road where it merges with
the subterranean parking ramp, and enhance visibility by
eliminating any visual barriers.
4. Participate in traffic improvement fee program to be used for
local transportation and signal improvements.
- 8 -
~
e
.
5. Upgrade traffic signal at the intersection of pico Boulevard
and 2Jrd street.
6. Impose movement restrictions at the project driveway which
would prohibit vehicles from traveling straight through the
intersection between the project driveway and 23rd street.
This could be done by signing and striping or by constructing
a center median on pico Boulevard. If signing or striping
were to be used, the restrictions could be relaxed during
non-peak hours to provide residents the opportunity to travel
directly to the site from 23rd street.
The following mitigation measures would reduce cumulative impacts
to an insignificant level:
L Provide an optional right-turn/through lane from northbound
Cloverfield Boulevard onto eastbound freeway on-ramp.
2. Widen the intersection of Cloverfield Boulevard and Olympic
by adding a northbound and southbound through lane on Clover-
field, an eastbound and westbound through lane on Olympic,
and right-turn lanes on all approaches.
J. widen the intersection of Cloverfield Boulevard and Colorado
by adding a northbound and southbound through lane on Clover-
field Boulevard, and an eastbound and westbound lane on
Colorado.
4. Restripe the westbound Ocean Park approach to 2Jrd Street to
have a left-turn lane and two through lanes. This would re-
quire that parking be removed from the north side of Ocean
Park for a distance of at least JOO' form the intersection.
Widen the eastbound Ocean Park approach to provide a right-
turn lane.
5. Implement a coordinated signal control system along Clover-
field Boulevard.
6. Upgrade the traffic signals and detection equipment along
Cloverfield Boulevard.
7. Implement Transportation Demand Management (TOM) programs for
all developments.
The project developer would be expected to pay a fair share of
making the above traffic improvements to reduce cumulative
impacts.
Parkinq
The project will require 352 parking spaces base on the following
floor area breakdowns:
Retail:
31,519 sq. ft. @ 1 space/JOO sq. ft. of floor area - l05
spaces.
- 9 -
-
e
,
Market:
12,150 sq. ft. of sales area @ 1 space/1S0 sq.ft = 81
spaces. 4,200 sq.ft. of storage area @ 1 space/1,000
sq. ft. = 4 spaces.
Fast food: 12,000 sq. ft. @ 1 space/100 sq. ft. = 120 spaces.
Sit down
rest.
8,000 sq.ftj210 seats @ 1 space/5 seats = 42 spaces.
Total parking required: 352
Total parking provided: 352
Wastewater Generation
The EIR estiroates that the project would result in a wastewater
generation of approximately 4,702 gpd. This represents an in-
crease of less than .03 percent of the average citywide flow, and
.002 percent of Hyperion Plant's treatment capacity.
Conclusion
The proposed project does not provide services that are generally
viewed as serving the needs of the adjacent residential neighbor-
hoods. The inclusion of 20,000 square feet of restaurant space,
together with a request to serve alcohol, would appear to be an
overwhelming burden on a neighborhood, and would not directly
benefit the residents of that neighborhood.
In addition, the proposal to allow the establishment of a commer-
cial use in a residential district, by CUP, would result in the
loss of approximately 25 dwelling units that could be added t.o
the City'S housing stock. The R2 zoned parcel should be recy-
cled. as stated in the General Plan, to either park space or
residential uses.
Finally, the proposal has been vigorously opposed by the Pico
Neighborhood and Sunset Park residents. The General Plan, as a
basic tenet, requires the solicitation of public input in the
planning process, and the realization of that input in the end
design and use of a specific site. The amount of public input,
and the intensity of that input, would indicate a need to ques-
tion the project as proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission certify the EIR
850 and deny DR 432, CUP 500 and 501, ZA 5304-Y, and VAR 89-008
subject to the following findings:
FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FINDINGS
I. 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
- 10 -
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
-
-
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 easily accommodate the a
commercial building without use of the R2 parcel, thereby
avoiding the requested variances.
The granting of such variance may be detrimental or in-
j urious to the property or improvements in the general
vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
that the requested front and rear yard variances will fur-
ther reduce the amount of light and air available to the
residents of the mUlti-family dwelling to the north.
The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter
would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not including econoDic 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 77,101 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.
- 11 -
e
e
6,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
L 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 55', which seems out of charac-
ter with the neighborhood, and the location of the commer-
cial building on the residential parcel is not
appropriate.
2. The rights-of-way would be congested by the accommodation
of autos and pedestrians, including parking and access, in
that even though adequate parking has been provided, and
the Parking and Traffic Engineer has approved the circula-
tion plans, the proposal is expected to generate approxi-
mately 18,540 vehicle trips which is viewed by many resi-
dents as contributing to high traffic volumes, and an
overall unacceptable level of service in the area. In
addition, approximately 2,300 trips will be directed to
23rd Street, which is residential in nature.
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-
posal is would be perceived as being a potential source of
crime due to the potential abundance of alcohol outlets,
and the developer's ability to address the resultant prob-
lems is unsubstantiated.
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.
5. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all
adverse impacts identified in Environmental Impact Report.
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
- 12 -
e
e
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.
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/30', 25
unit apartment building, and proposed is a two story/30'
76,074 square foot commercial center.
6. Public access to the proposed use would be adequate, in
that all site circulation plans have been approved by the
Parking' and Traffic Engineer, however, there have been
many concerns voiced regarding the overall amount of proj-
ect related traffic, and potential impact of that traffic
on the adjacent residential neighborhood. This specifi-
cally relates to the alignment of a driveway with 23rd
Street.
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
co~mercial uses encouraged by Land Use Element.
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,
- 13 -
e
-
in that the proposal includes 20,000 square feet of those
uses.
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, create an
overconcentration of alcohol outlets.
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 welfare 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).
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Radius Map
c. Certification of Adequacy of EIR
D. Resolution Certifying EIR
E. Correspondence
F. Final EIR
G. Project Plans
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Assistant Planner
LM
pC/DR432
04/25/89
- 14 -
Category
Permitted Use
Height
Setbacks
Front yard
Sideyard
Rearyard
F.A.R.
Parking
e
-
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Municipal Code
Retail stores
and businesses.
Fast food
restaurants
wI Use Permit.
Land Use
Element
Project
31,519 sq. ft.
retail~ 16,350
sq. ft. market;
12,000 sq. ft.
fast food;
8,000 sq. ft.
restaurant; and,
8,205 sq. ft.
ext. corridors.
Neighborhood
and service
comm. uses,
esp. small
businesses.
2 storiesj30'; 2 stories/30'
wI site review
3 storiesj45,
(w/ service
commercial) .
20' on R2
portion of site.
0' on C4 portion
of site.
2' proposed.
16' from R2
prop. line.
30'
15'on R2
portion of
site.
0'
L 5; 2. 0 wI
site Review
.98
352 parking
spaces
required.
1 space/300
sq. ft. retail;
- 105; 1 space/
150 sq. ft.
market ::z 81;
1 space/lOa sq.ft
fast food.. 120;
I per 5 seats
restaurant = 42;
1 space/l,OOO
sq. ft. storage = 4.
352 parking spaces
proposed.
- 15 -