SR-102682-12A
....
PL:JL:RN:nh
Counc~l Mtg.:
e
Santa M~ca, Cal~forn~a
I ;).-A
October 26, 1982
OCT 2 6 1982
TO: The Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
FROM: Planning Dlvis~on Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Plann~ng Commiss~on den~al of DR 096,
2644 30th Street.
Introduction
This is an appeal by the appl~cant of a den~al by the Plann~ng
CornmlsS1on of Development ReVlew 096, 2644 30th Street, on
September 13, 1982. The proJect was deemed denied on a three to
two yes vote for conditlonal approval (with four votes needed for
passage). The original staff report to the Plannlng Commission
dated August 16 and the letter of appeal are attached for your
reference.
Background
The proJect, as subm~tted, consists of the remodeling and refurbishment
of a 35,000 sq. ft. office bUlld~ng, the restrlping and landscaplng of
an eXlstlng park~ng lot to prov~de III parking spaces and two loadlng
zones, and the demolition of three structures adJacent to the 2644 30th
Street bu~ldlng (see attached plans) .
The Plannlng Commission flrst revlewed the proJect on August 16, 1982.
Following discusslon, the Commisslon cont~nued the matter, requesting
that the applicant return wlth a master plan for the full site,
show~ng the total ownershlp south to Ocean Park Boulevard and
ldentlfYlng what was currently proposed, what buildlngs and uses would
he malntained pend~ng future approvals, and what interlID uses would
occur in areas where demol~tlon took place.
/). -It
OCT 2 6 1982
e
Mayor and C1ty Councll
-2-
e
October 26, 1982
On September 13, 1982, the CommlSS1on rev1ewed rev1sed plans WhlCh
spec1f1ed certa1n buildlngs for demolition, but which otherwise
did not present future uses for the remainder of the property south
to Ocean Park Blvd. The defeated mot1on for cond1t1onal approval
was for staff recommendatlon and condit1ons, with the front (Ocean
Park Blvd.) port1on of the slte to be deemed a separate matter,
landscaplng to be requlred on the south s1de of the bU1ldlng, the Rl
parking use to be rev1ewed in ten years, and accepting demol1tlon of
certa1D bU11dings as proposed. (Aye: Cloke, Hotchk1ss, Katz;
Nay: Ball, Shearer)
Note: At the September 13 meetlng, staff verbally ffiod1fied the
required f1ndlngs stated 1n the August 16 staff report to conform w1th
those required in Ordlnance 1251(CCS) to wit:
1. The development lS conslstent w1th the f1ndings and
purpose of Ordinance 1251(CCS).
2. The eXlsting and/or proposed rlghts-of-way for both
pedestrlan and autornoblle traffic wll1 be adequate to accommodate
the anticlpated results of the proposed development lncluding
off-street park1ng facllities and access thereto.
3. The eXlsting and/or proposed pub11c and/or prlvate health
and safety fac111t1es (including, but not 11mited to, sanitation,
sewers, storm dra1ns, fire protection devices, protective serV1ces,
and public utilit1es) wlll be adequate to accommodate the
anticlpated results of the proposed development.
4. The proposed plans comply with eXlst1ng regulatlons
contained 1n the Mun1c1pal Code.
5. The proposed development will not prejud1ce the abllity
of the Clty to adopt a revlsed land use element.
Alternat1ves
The C1ty Council may afflrm, reverse or modify the declsion of the
Plannlng CommlSSlon.
.
Mayor and C~ty COU~l
-3-
e
October 26, 1982
Recommendat1on
In Vlew of the fact that the majority of the Commissloners favored the
applicat~on and Condition 6 appears to prov~de adequate control over
future development 1t 1S respectfully recommended that the appeal of
the Plannlng Commission's determ~natlon be upheld and that the Clty
Councll approve the project subject to the following conditions:
1. That a 51 to 6' ornamental masonry wall will be placed along
the northerly slde property line, except the height to be
3'6" maximum in the 20' front setbacks requ~red on 29th and
30th Streets.
2. That the exterior remodeling and all landscaping be approved
by the Architectural Review Board.
3. That parkinq lot landscaping include a 5' wide strip of
planting wlth an automatlc lrr~gation system along the
north side of the parking lot, with trees to be placed on
5' centers the full length of the strip (spacing subject
to Archltectural Review Board modif~cation) .
4. That substant~ve lnterlffi landscap~ng be provlded south of
the maln bUllding to Ocean Park Blvd., includlng but not
llmlted to areas affected by demol~tlon~ no demolition
permit to be lssued prior to Architectural Rev~ew Board
approval of a landscape plan.
5. That the approval of thlS application does not constltute
interim development approval of any demol~t~ons other than
those indicated on the submitted plans.
6. That existing tenants and businesses (or co~parable type
buslnesses) be permltted to remaln in place and ~n operation
untl1 such t~me as any future development lS approved by the
C~ty. A deed restriction to thlS effect shall be recorded
w~th the County Recorder and be b~ndlng on future helrs and
successors.
Prepared by: Rlchard M1Ils
Mark Tigan
Attachments
e
e
~J 9/21182 -A~~
SANFORD SUGAR
ATTORNEY AT LAW
20C '......ILSt- R~ 90LLC::::VA~D Sl...il-!:: 500
SASTA :>rOXICA. CALIFOR::IT.A 90403
:2'31 829-7797
September 20, 1982
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
Attention:
Mr. James Lundsford
Director of Planning
Re: Request for Appeal from Disapproval of
Application DR096 by the Planning Commission
of the City of Santa Monica
(2644 30th Street, Santa Monica, California)
Gentlemen:
On behalf of our client, Keyoto Ocean, Inc., a
California corporation, the undersigned hereby requests an
appeal before the Ci ty Council of the City of Santa Monica, at
its next scheduled regular meeting, from the disapproval by the
Planning Conunission of the City of Santa Monica of Application
DR096, made for the purpose of obtaining an interim development
permi t in order to renovate and refurb1sh an existing office
building and adjacent parking lot owned by our client at the
above referenced address.
W1 th respect to the proposed development, there
was Ii t tIe disagreement at the Planning Commission hear ing, or
in its staff report, that the contemplated renovation and
refurbishing of the existing improvements are desirable and
should be author1zed. In fact, a majority of the members of the
Planning Commission present, although less than the number
requ1red to approve the Application, voted in favor of the
proposed renovation and refurbishing. However, the Application
was not approved as a result of a few concerns expressed by
certain members of the Planning Commission, which concerns do
not appear to our client to be e1ther fair or reasonable in view
of all of the existing circumstances.
One of the concerns expressed pertains to Lots 77
and 84, the most northerly portion of the subject property.
Although zoned for reSIdential purposes, sa1d lots are the
subject of a conditional use permit author1zing their use, in
perpetuity, for park1ng purposes. Such permit was obtained over
e
e
City of Santa Monica
September 20, 1982
page 2
thirty (30) years ago and has been relied upon in connection
wi th the construction of the existing improvements and the use
thereof. As you are no doubt aware, a conditional use permit is
not personal to the applicant, but runs with the land and
therefore exists for the benefl t of client, being 9ne of the
applicant IS successors-in-interest. Notwithstandlng such clear'
rules of law and the potentially disastrous effect on the
ut ili ty and value of our client' 5 real property, it was stated
as a concern of the Planning Commission that approving our
client I s Application could impact the Ci ty of Santa Monlca IS
ability to cause said Lots to be returned to residential usage.
The validity of this concern was conflrmed by the member of the
City Attorney's Office present at said meeting. As prevlously
stated, this concern is not appropriate in view of the perpetual
nature of the existing conditional use permit and the laws,
rules, regulations and judicial decisions applicable thereto.
The second concern expressed pertained to the
desire of certain members of the Planning Commission to mandate
that our client, which also owns adjacent Lots 79 thru 82,
present an overall plan for the development of the subject
property and Lots 79 thru 82. The subject site was at no time
intended to be developed as part of Lots 79 thru 82. Further,
1n view of the prevailing economic times and existing market
condi tions for commercial and retail properties, it imposes an
extreme hardship and 1S grossly unfair to require that an
overall development plan be promulgated or that a development
agreement be negotiated where no present intent or strategy for
development exists. The mere fact that adjacent parcels are
under common ownership 1S not a proper ground for treating the
real property as a staged or sequential development when no
intent to develop such property In a common or related fashion
is present.
In view of the foregoing, our cllent believes
that it should have been granted an inter im development permi t
and therefore it appeals to the Ci ty Councll of the Ci ty of
Santa MonIca to rectify the faIlure of 1tS Planning Comm1ssion
to do so.
As requested
approval being calendared
earliest possible date.
above,
before
we
the
would
City
appreciate
Council at
our
the
.
e
e
City of Santa Monica
September 20, 1982
Page 3
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Very truly ~s,
~+.A~.~~r--
~-.-J \..1 - (\, 1 \1
SANFORD SUGAR -- ~...1
SS:sz
cc: Clerk, City Council of the
City of Santa Monica
e
e
CITY ?LA2'j~I:~G DEPART;.!E:JT
CITY OF SANTA ~ONICA
M E MaR A N ~ U ~
DAT:=::
August 16, 1982
TO:
Honorable Plannlng CO~lsslon
FROM:
Plannl.ng Staff
SUEJ"EC~:
DR 096, Remodel and ~efurblsh Offlce Building and
Parkl.ng Lot, 2644 30th Street, C2 & Rl, Eerbert
~aGel AlA & Partners.
Thl.s is an appllcatlon for an Interl.B Developwent Per~l.t to renodel
and refurblsh a vacant offlce bUl.ld~ng located at 2644 30th Street
1n the C2 D1strlct and restrlpe and landscape a parklng lot
located adJacent to the north l.D the Rl Distr1ct.
EXlstlng Cond1tloDS. EXlstlng lS a 35,000 sq. ft. 2 story empty
offlce bUlldlng bUllt l.D 1955 by Douglas Alrcraft. AdJacent to the
north lS a 120' x 300' paved parklng lot used by the for~er tenant
of the bUlldlng. AdJacent to the parKlng lot lS a new 6 slng1e
famlly residentlal development. The 220' x 300' south port1on of
the property conta1ns 3 bUlldlngs In IDlscellaneous co~erclal and
lndustr1al use or vacant, 3 vacant bUlldlngs apparently bUllt as
dwelling un1ts but more recently used for off1ces for Douglas
Aircraft at 2650 30th Street and not 11sted by the Rent Control
Board, a used car lot and a parking lo.-. The park1ng layout has
been approved by the Park1ng and Trafflc Englneerl_g Depart~ent.
Proposed Developnent. It 1S proposed to deAol1sh all the bUlld1ngs
on tne front 220' x 300' port1on of the 51te, re~odel and
refurb1sh the 35,000 sq. ft. o=f1ce bUllclng and restrlpe and
landscape the parklng lot to prov1de III ?arkl~g spaces and 2
loadlng zones approved by the Parklng & TrafflC EnglDeer1ng Dept.
Recommendat1on. Slnce the parklng lot even though 1n the Rl
District has been In constant use for parkina Sl.r:ce 1949 under a
Use Perffilt granted to Douglas Alrcraft Wh1Ch was renewed indefln1tely
ln 1951 and the 111 parklng spaces provlded for exceeds the number
of parklng spaces requ1red when the bUlldlng was bU1lt ln 1955 and
Slnce there w1ll be no change of use of the building and no lncrease
in the gross floor area 1t 15 respectfully recon~ended that the
app'lcat1on for the Interlffi Develop~ent PerAlt be granted on the
basls that:
I. The developAent lS conslsterrt wlth the rlncings and
purpose of Ordlnance 1220 (CCS) .
e
e
-2-
2. The development 18 conslstent wlth present interim
development standards.
3. The eXlstlng and/or proposed rlghts-of-way for both
peaestrlan and auto~lle trafflc wlll be adequate to accommodate
the anticlpated results 0= the proposed development includlng
of=-street parklng faCllltles and access thereto.
4. The eXlstlng and/or proposed publlC and/or prlvate
health and safety facl11tles (lncludlng, but not Ilmlted to,
sanltatlon, sewers, sto~ dralns, flre protectlon dev~ces,
protectlve serVlces, and publlC utillties) wlll be adequate to
accommodate the anticlpated results of the proposed development.
5. The proposed plans co~ply wlth eXlsting regulatlons
contalned In the Munlclpal Code.
Condltlons.
1. That a 5' to 6' ornamented masonry wall wll1 be placed
along the northerly side property llne except the helght to be
3'6" maXlmum In the 20' front. setbacks requlred on 29th and
30 Streets.
2. That a 5' wlde strlp of plantlng be malntalned along
the north slde property Ilne wlth trees to be placed on 5'
centers the full length of the strlp wlth an automatlc lrrlgatlon
system.
3. That the remodellng and landscaplilg be approved by the
Archltectural Revlew Board.
4. That the approval of this appllcatlon does not constltute
approval of any demolltlons untll such tlme as the development to
replace them lS approved by the Plannlng CO~lssion.
Respectfully submltted,
/"\ .
(, ~,,'
I --l ' t ,> --
L .... '. C:::, I \__
""0-' [, \:::: \:- \....'
Rex Oberbeck
Associate Planner
RO:nh
- .
e
e
CITY PLA..'l~ING DEPART}IE~T
CITY OF SA~TA MONICA
~ E M 0 RAN D G ~
D.=l.TE:
August 16, 1982
TO:
Honorable Plannlng Comnission
FROM:
Plann1ng Staff
SUEJ:E:C'I:
DR 096, Remodel and Refurblsh Offlce Building and
Parking Lot, 2644 30th Street, C2 & RI, Herbert
~adel AlA & Partners.
This is an appllcatlon for an Interl~ Developwent Permlt to remodel
and refurbish a vacant oiElce bU1ldLng located at 2644 30th Street
in the C2 Dlstrict and restr1pe and landscape a parklng lot
located adjacent to the north 1n the RI Distr1ct.
EX1st1ng Cond1t1ons. EXlstLng 1S a 35,000 sq.ft. 2 story empty
off1ce bU1lding bULlt 1n 1955 by Douglas Alrcraft. AdJacent to the
north 1S a 120' x 300' paved parking lot used by the for~er tenant
of tne bU1ldlng. AdJacent to the parkLng lot is a new 6 slngle
famlly residential development. The 220' x 300' south portlon of
the property contalns 3 bU1ldings 1n m1scellaneous commerc1al and
1ndustr1al use or vacant, 3 vacant buildlngs apparently bU1lt as
dwelling units but more recently used for offices for Douglas
A1rcraft at 2650 30th Street and not 11sted by the Rent Control
Board, a used car lot and a parking lot. The parklng layout has
been approved by the ParkLng and Traffic Eng1neerlng Department.
Proposed Development. It lS proposed to demol1sh all the buildings
on the front 220' x 300' portlon of the slte, reTIodel and
refurbish the 35,000 sq. ft. office bUlld1ng and restripe and
landscape the park1ng lot to prov~de III parK Lng spaces and 2
loadlng zones approved by the Park1ng & Traff1C Eng1neerlng Dept.
Recommendatlon. Slnce the parklng lot even though 1n the Rl
Dlstrict has been In constant use for park1ng Slnce 1949 under a
Use Perm1t granted to Douglas A1rcraft WhlCh was renewed indefln1tely
ln 1951 and the 111 parklng spaces provided for exceeds the number
of parkLng spaces requ1red when the buildlng was bUllt In 1955 and
since there w1ll be no change of use of the bUlld1ng and no lncrease
in the gross floor area lt is respectfully recoIT~ended that the
appllcatlon for the Interlffi Development Per~lt be granted on the
bas1s that:
1. The development is Co~slstent wlth the flnc1ngs and
purpose of Orclnance 1220(CCS).
.
e
.
e
-2-
2. The development 1S consistent with present lnterim
development standards.
3. The eXlsting and/or proposed rlghts-of-way for both
pedestrlan and automDlle trafflc w111 be adequate to accommodate
the antlclpated results of the proposed development includlng
off-street park1ng facllltles and access thereto.
4. The eXlstlng and/or proposed publlC and/or prlvate
health and safety facllltles (lncluding, but not 11ffilted to,
sanltatlon, sewers, storm dralns, flre protectlon dev~ces,
protective services, and publlC utllltles) wlll be adequate to
accomroodate the antlclpated results of the proposed development.
5. The proposed plans comply wlth eXlstlng regulatlons
contalned In the Munlc1pal Code.
Conditions.
I. That a 5' to 6' ornamented masonry wall wlll be placed
along the northerly side property line except the helght to be
3'6" maXlmum ln the 20' front setbacks required on 29th and
30 Streets.
2. That a 5' w1de strlp of plantlng be rnalntalned along
the north slde property Ilne wlth trees to be placed on 5'
centers the full length of the strip wlth an automatlc lrrlgatlon
system.
3. That the remodellng and landscaplng be approved by the
Architectural ReVlew Board.
4. That the approval of this appllcat10n does not constltute
approval of any demolltlons untll such t1me as the development to
replace them 1S approved by the Plann1ng Corr~lssion.
Respectfully submltted,
/"\
- ( ) , t~...... tf ~-
V"- "',.' l - \--
r~...--."'" '<""- ,..,~
Rex Oberbeck
ASSOc1ate Planner
RO:nh