SR-12-A (6)
1/02 ' 00,/
/d-~
C/ED:PJS:ca
Counc~l Meetlng: March 12, 1985
MAR 1 2 ms
Santa Monica, Cal~fornia
TO: Mayor and Clty Councll
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Adoption of Flndings for Declsion on Proposed Outpa-
tlent Surglcal Facll~ty at 1508 Arlzona Avenue (DR 275,
ZA 4828-Y)
At ltS meetlng on February 19, 1985, the Clty Counell granted an
appeal from the Plannlng CommlsSlon's actlon on the subJect proJ-
ect and dlrected staff to present flndlngs and condl tlons for
adoptlon at a subsequent Counell meetlng.
ThlS report presents
proposed flndlngs for Councll adoptlon.
RECOMMENDATION
It lS respectfully recommended that the Clty Councll adopt the
followlng flod10gS and condit1ons 10 connectlon wlth Development
Rev1ew Permlt No. 275 and Zoning Administrator Case No. 4828-Y:
FINDINGS
1. The proposed proJect consists of a 14,177 square foot,
three story outpatlent surglcal fac1l1ty to be located at
1508 Arizona Avenue, a 7,491 square foot parcel located in
the Commercial ProfeSSlona1 (CP) Dlstrlct ("the proJect").
2. Jerrold Martln Sherman, M.D. ("Dr. Sherman") lS the owner
of the subJect property and lS the appllcant/appeal1ant ln
the lnstant proceedlng.
/~~A-
MAR 121m
- 1 -
3. On March 15, 1984 the Santa Mon1.ca Rent Control Board
granted Removal Perm1.t Appl1.cat1.on 112R-C, pursuant to the
author1.ty granted the Board In regulatlon Section 50l3{c),
for three uninhabl table 5lngle family dwell1.ng' s located
on the subJect property.
4. On August 13, 1984, Dr. Sherman filed a proper appllcation
for Development Review Permit wlth the Clty'S Plannlng and
Zonlng Dlvislon pursuant to Ordlnance 1251 (CCS).
5. On October 24, 1984, Dr. Sherman flIed a proper appllca-
tlon with the City's Plannlng and Zonlng Di V1Slon for a
varlance of front yard requirement pursuant to Municipal
Code Bectlon 9145 ln connectlon wlth the project.
6. On November 5, 1984 the Santa Monlca Plannlng Conunlss1on
conducted a publlC hearlng on the Development ReVlew
Permit and Varlance appllcatlons. Followlng testlmony
from Dr. Sherman and hlS architect, and from members of
the publlC, the Plannlng COIIUnlsslon failed to adopt any
motlon approvlng, denYlng or contlnulng the applicatlon5.
The applicatlons were therefore deemed denied as a matter
of law.
7. On November 13, 1984 Dr. Sherman's legal counsel filed a
tlmely appeal of the Planning Commlsslon's actlon pursuant
to Ordlnance l251 (CCS).
- 2 -
8. On January 8, 1985 Dr. Sherman's legal counsel submitted a
wrl t ten request to the City Council requestlng that the
appeal hearlng be contlnued to January 22, 1985.
9. On January 22, 1985 the Cl ty Councll conducted a public
hearlng on the appeal, taking test~mony from Dr. Sherman's
legal counsel, Dr. Sherman's arch~tect and interested mem-
bers of the publlC ln accordance w~th adopted C~ty Council
procedures. Durlng the public hearing the Counc~l con-
sldered a staff report prepared by the Dlrector of Plan-
ning wh~ch lncluded the complete record of the Plannlng
Commisslon proceeding, a wrl tten response to the Staff
Report prepared by Dr. Sherman's legal counsel, and a let-
ter from Wlll1am F. Welngarten on behalf of Santa Mon~ca
Mld-City Nelghbors. Dr. Sherman's arch~tect presented
drawlngs and a scale model of the proJect WhlCh included
changes to certaln deslgn features of the project as pres-
ented to the Plannlng Comrnsslon. The Council also con-
sidered a memorandum from the Clty Attorney dated January
22, 1984 statlng that the Councll could grant or deny the
requested varlance due to the Clrcuffistances of the
proJect.
10. At the conclusl.on of the appeal hearing and Council dlS-
cusslon, the Clty Counell voted unanlffiously to deny the
appeal wlthout preJudice and remand the proJect to the
Plannlng Commlssion for the followlng reasons:
- 3 -
a. It was not the intent of the Clty Council ln adopting
Policy 1.13.1 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan to impose a moratorlum on private development In
the CP Dlstrict pending adoptlon of a CP Dlstrict
Speclflc Plan, but rather to subject prlvate develop-
ment to careful scrutlny to ensure that such proJects
will not preJudlce adoption of a CP Distrlct Speclfl.c
Plan and will not adveresely lmpact nelghborlng
resldents.
b. The project deslgn presented to the Clty Council In-
eludes substantlve changes from the verSlon reviewed by
the Plann:Lng Comm:LSS10n on November 5, 1984 and that
these changes have resulted in support of the proJect
by Santa Monlca Mld-City Nelghbors.
e. The proJect proposes a deslreable new dlmension to the
range of health care opportunl ties available to Santa
Monlca resldents.
11. On February 4, 1985 the Santa Monl.ca Plannlng ComrnlSSlon
conducted a second publlC hearlng on the Development Re-
Vlew perI\11 t and varlance appllcatlons, includl.ng design
changes presented to the Clty Counell on January 22nd.
Fo1lowlng testlffiony fro~ Dr. Sherman's representatives and
members of the publlC, and after considerlng a staff re-
port recommending approval with eondl.tl.ons and a letter
from Mid Clty Neighbors expresslng quallfied support for
the proJect as revlsed, the Planning Commlsslon fal1ed to
- 4 -
adopt any motlon
appllcatlons were
law.
approvlng or denYlng the proJect. The
therefore deemed denied as a matter of
12. On February 5, 1985 Dr. Sherman I s legal counsel flIed a
tlmely appeal of the Plannlng Commlsslon's action pursuant
to Ordlnance 1321 (CCS).
13. On February 19, 1985 the Clty Councll unanlmously adopted
flndlngs support~ng lts declsion of January 22, 1985.
14. Also on February 19, 1985 the Clty Council conducted a
publlC hearlng on the second appeal, taklng testlmony from
Dr. Sherman, Dr. Sherman 's archltect and legal counsel,
and lnterested members of the public. Durlng the publlC
hearlng the Cl ty Councll also consldered a staff report
recommending that the appeal be granted and the appllca-
tlons approved with condltlons. The Council also con-
sldered a letter from Wllliam F. Weingarden reiterating
Mld Cl ty Nelghbor I s support for the project as presented
to the Plannlng Commlssion on remand.
15. At the conslUSlon of the appeal hearlng, the C1ty Councll
voted unanlmously to grant the appeal and approve the ap-
pllcatlons for the followlng reasons:
a. The development 15 conslstent w1th the flndings and
purpose of Ordlnance 1321 as set forth below.
- 5 -
b. The phys~cal locatlon and placement of proposed struc-
tures on the slte are compatlble with and relate harmo-
n10usly to surround1ng s~tes and ne1ghborhood ~n that
the overall mass and scale of the bU11ding has been
v1sually reduced by the inclusion of open decks and
walkways Wh1Ch w111 contain planters.
c. The ex~st1ng and/or proposed r1ghts-of-way and fac~ll-
t1es for both pedestr1an and automobl1e traffic w1l1 be
adequate to accommodate the antic1pated results of the
proposed development includ1ng off-street parking
facilit1es and access thereto 1n that the project pro-
vldes 24 parking spaces w1th 13 located 1n a subter-
ranean garage accesslble from the alley and 11 located
at the ground level and access1ble from 15th Street.
d. The eX1sting and/or
health and safety
proposed
fac11it1es
publ1C and/or pr1vate
(lncludlng, but not
11ffilted to, sanltat1on, sewers, storm drains, flye pro-
tectlon devices, protect1ve services, and publlC ut111-
ties) w111 be adequate to accommodate the antlc1pated
results of the proposed development 1n that the proJect
Sl te 1S 1n a developed area of the C1 ty with all ser-
vices readlly ava1lable to the site.
e. The proposed development 1S conslstent wlth the General
Plan of the Clty of Santa Monica and conforms to the
relevant CP standards contalned 1n the Zon1ng Or-
dinance. Implemenatlon of the proJect at this tlme
- 6 -
will not pre]UdlCe the adopt1on of the two HOSpl tal
Master Plans, nor the CP Dlstrlct Speciflc Plan. Con-
slstent wlth POI1CY 1.13.1 of the Land Use Element or
adversely affect the surroundlng neighborhood.
f. The grantlng of a varlance 1S essent1al or deslrable to
the public convenlence or welfare in that lt provldes
al terna tl ve medlcal faclll tles and is not ln confllct
wlth the General Plan ln that lt is permitted use in
the Commerclal Professlonal Dlstrlct. The requested
varlance for a 12 I 6" front yard setback wlll not be
mater1ally detrimental or lnjurlous to the property or
1wprovements 1n the immed1ate area 1n that the build1ng
deslgn compensates for the ground level encroachment by
providing pedestrlan orlentation by including landscap-
lng and outdoor seating along the 15th Street frontage.
g. The strlct appl1catlon of Chapter 1, Artlcle IX of the
Santa Monlca Munlclpal Code would result ln practlcal
dlfflcult1es or unnesessary hardshlps lnconsistent wlth
the general purpose and lntent of Chapter 1 1n that the
requ1rement for a full 20 I -0" front yard setback would
not enable proper development of the site for a li-
censed outpat1ent surgical facll1ty meetlng all lawful
requlrements of the Californ1a Adm1nistrat1ve Code.
h. That there are exceptional C1rcumstances or cond1tions
appllcable to the property lnvolved or to the intended
use or development of the property that do not apply
- 7 -
generally to other property in the same zone or neigh-
borhood in that the subJect property is a 7,491 square
foot parcel on a corner lot, d~rectly abutt1ng a con-
trolled rental unit WhlCh is llkely to rema1n 1n long-
term res1dential use, thereby el1m1nat1ng any oppor-
tunities for an alternatlve des1gn that could 1ncorpo-
rate a uniform 20'-0" front yard setback and still meet
other requirements under state and local law.
1. That the grant1ng of a var1ance would not be mater1ally
detr1rnental to the publ1C welfare or in]Ur10US to the
property or 1mprovements 10 such zone or ne1ghborhood
1n which the property 15 located 1n that front yard
setbacks or slm11ar 51ze propert1es in the general
v1cini ty of the proJect vary frOM 10 I -0" to 20 I -0" and
that the project as designed will encroach 7 I _611 lnto
the required front yard for only 32 '_0" of the S1 te' s
50'-0" frontage along 15th Street.
DECISION
Based upon the foregolng flndlngs, the Clty Council of the Clty
of Santa Mon1ca grants the appeal and approves Development ReV1ew
Perm1t No. 275 to construct a three story outpat1ent surgical
fac111ty and Zon1ng Adrn1nlstrator Case No. 4828-Y to grant a 7'-
6" front yard varlance with the followlng cond1t1ons:
1. Plans for f1nal deslgn and landscap1ng shall be subJect to
reV1ew and approval by the Archltectural ReVlew Board.
- 8 -
2. The Arch1tectura1 ReV1ew Board, in the1r review, shall pay
part1cualr attent10n to the proJect's pedestr1an orienta-
t10n and pedestr1an amen1 ties i scale and atr1culat1on of
design elements' exterior colors, textures and mater1alsi
w1ndow treatment; glaz1ngi and landscap1ng, as well as the
tranS1 t10n between th1S proJect and the adjacent proper-
t1es. A landscaped trell1s shall be ma1ntalned along the
southern elevation, plantl.ngs shall be provl.ded on the
balconies and exter10r walkways and the parkways shall be
replanted and ma1nta1ned. The Architectural ReV1ew Board
shall also reV1ew the proposed type of outdoor seat1ng to
1nsure that 1 t 1S designed 1n a manner to ml t1gate 1 ts
potent1al use for recl1nlng.
3. M1nor amendments to the plans shall be subJect to approval
by the Director of Planning. An increase of more than 300
square feet or a slgn1f1cant change in the approved con-
cept shall be subJect to Plann1ng Commiss1on Review. Con-
struction shall be 1n substantial conformance w1th the
plans subrn1tted or as mod1fled by the Planning Commisslon,
Architectural ReVlew Board or Dl.rector of Plannlng.
4. The appllcant shall comply w1th all legal requ1rements
regardlng provisions for the dlsabled, includlng those set
forth In the Call.fornia Adm1nlstrat1 ve Code I Title 24,
Part 2.
5. Flnal park1ng lot layout and speclficatlons shall be sub-
ject to the reVlew and approval of the Parklng and Trafflc
- 9 -
Eng1neer. Speed bumps shall be prov1ded along the alley
as determlned by the Traffic Englneer. Parking shall be
provlded free Or through validatlon to bUllding users and
eMployers. Compact spaces shall be placed adJacent to one
another where feaslble.
6. The operation shall at all tlmes be conducted 1n a manner
not detrlmental to surroundlng propertles or residents by
reason of llghts, nOlse, actlvlties, parklng or other
actions.
7. No nOlse generating compressors or other such equ1pment
shall be placed adJacent to nelghborlng resident~al bUlld-
lngs. All roof-level nOlse generatlng equlprnent shall be
screened to baffle any nOlse generated.
8. ProJect design shall comply w1th the buildlng energy reg-
ulations set forth 1n the Callforn1a Admin1stratlve Code,
Tl tIe 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservatlon Standards for New
ReS1dentlal BUlldlngs), such conformance to be verlfled by
the BUlld1ng and Safety Division prior to issuance of a
BUllding Permlt.
9. Openable windows shall be provlded throghout the project,
1n a manner conslstent wlth appllcable bU1lding code and
energy conservation requirements.
- 10 -
10. The eXlstlng drlveways and aprons located on Arlzona
Avenue shall be removed and the eXlstlng curb cuts re-
placed wlth standards curb and gutter per the speclflca-
tlons of the Department of General Services.
II. Street trees shall be malntalned, relocated or provided as
requlred in a manner consistent wlth the Clty'S Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the speclflcations of the Department
of Recreatlon and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
Vlces. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
12. Street and/or alley llghtlng shall be provlded on pub11c
rlghts-of-way adJacent to the proJect lf and as needed per
the speclfications and wlth the approval of the Department
of General Services.
13. The parklng levels shall be deslgned wlth SOlld walls to-
ward adJacent propertles and mechanlcally vented In order
to mln1ffilze posslb1e noise and alr pollutlon.
14. The app11cant shall make every reasonable effort to pro-
tect agalnst lnterruptlon of service for Cable TV users
and shall also notlfy nelghbors of any necessary lnterrup-
tlon ln utlllty serVlce.
15. Any slgnlflcant change of use or change ln intens1 ty of
use from those uses approved as part of thlS Development
- 11 -
Review Permlt shall flrst be analyzed by the City's Park-
lng and Traffic Englneer for impacts on parklng. No bUS1-
ness l~cense or other entl tlement for use which In the
Pakrlng and Trafflc Englneer's Judgement creates addltlon-
al parking demand shall be approved unless such parking
demand lS satisfled on site or such other slte as approved
by the Plannlng Commisslon.
Prepared by: Paul J. Sllvern
D1rector of Plannlng
ZA4828Y
- 12 -