SR-12-A (7)
~
~o '2. r (JOt!
C/ED:PJS:KR:nh
Councll Mtg: January 8, 1985
Santa Monlca, Callfornla
TO:
Mayor and Clty Councll
12-a
.lAl S 19af
JAM 2 ~ ~S
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commlssion Declsion DenYlng DR 275/
Z.A. 4828-Y, To Permit Removal of Three Vacant Reslden-
tlal BUlldlngs and Construct an Outpatlent Surgical
Facllity, 1508 Arlzona Avenue, AppllcantjAppellant:
Jerrold Martln Sherman, M.D.
INTRODUCTION
This lS an appeal from P1annlng Commisslon reVlew of the subJect
pro Ject.
The proposed proJect would replace three vacant, con-
trolled rental unlts with a three story outpatient surglcal
faclllty.
A removal permlt for the rental unl ts was previously
granted by the Rent Control Board. Fol10wlng a public hearlng on
November 5, 1984, the SlX Plannlng Commissloners present fal1ed
to adopt a motlon for or agalnst the proJect, and lt was there-
fore deemed denled.
Staff recommends that the Clty Councll
el ther: 1.) deny the appeal due to confllcts with Land Use and
Clrculation Element pollcles requlrlng Hospltal Master Plans and
a CP Dlstrict Speclflc Plan prior to approval of medical related
proJects; or 2.) lf the Councll flnds no confllct wlth the Land
Use and Clrculatlon Elements, deny the appeal wlthout prejudice
and remand the project to the Planning Comrnisslon to conslder
certaln necessary deslgn modiflcatlons.
BACKGROUND
The 7,491 square foot R-2 Sl te I located on the southeast corner
of 15th and Arlzona, 15 currently contalns three vacant, rent
- 1 -
l~-A
JAI& 6 .~
JAM 2 2 1985
controlled s~ngle fam~ly resldentlal bUl1dlngs. Multi-story
medlca1 faclll tles of Santa Monlca Hospital are located to the
north and northwest across Arlzona Avenue, as well as to the west
across Flfteenth Street. A two story apartment buildlng is lo-
cated dlrect1y to the south and a single story residentlal bUlld-
lng lS across the alley to the east. The proposal consists of a
three story outpatient surglcal faclll ty Wl th subterranean and
ground level parlo.ng for 25 cars. Access to the subterranean
parklng level wl11 be from the alley and access to the parklng at
the ground level wlll be from Flfteenth Street. The second floor
of the facility wl11 house the surglcal rooms and the outpatient
medlcal unlt which includes exaMinatlon rooms. A cast room and
x-ray rooms wlll be located on the thlrd floor. Addltlonal prOJ-
ect details are contalned ln attached appllcation materlals (At-
tachment l) and staff report to Plannlng Commisslon (Attachment
3 ) .
The proJect is deslgned ln a contemporary manner using a combina-
tlon of materlals lncluding plaster. glass block and metal
detalllng on the balconies. The entrances at both Flfteenth
Street and at the alley wlll be landscaped and benches will be
provlded. Addltlonally. planters will be provided on the decks
at the second and thlrd floor levels. A varlance lS requested to
permit a 9 foot front yard setback in lleu of the requlred 20 foot
setback.
- 2 -
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
On November 5, 1984 the Plannl.ng conunission conducted a publlC
hearlng on the proposed project.
Two physicians working 1n the
V1Clnlty of the proJect testlfled that the proposed proJect would
help lower health care costs and they therefore supported the
proJect.
Representatl. yes of Mld Cl ty Nelghbors and apartment
dwellers Ilvlng south of the proJect spoke ln oppositlon. The
concerns they expressed, together wlth concerns contalned ln cor-
respondence to the Clty and the proJect archltect (see Attachment
2) lncluded the followlng pOlnts:
Unsafe condltlons of the eXlstlng vacant rental unlts.
Lack of Justiflcation to support requested varlance for
front yard encroachment.
Conflicts between Land Use and Clrculation Element
pollcies and the 15th Street curb cut.
Inadequate separatlon between the proposed proJect and
the apartment bUl1dlng to the south.
Problems wlth relocatlng a utillty pole near the alley
entrance to the subterranean parklng level.
Conflicts between the proJect and the Land Use Element
POllCY requlrlng a CP Dlstrict Speclflc Plan prlor to
approval of indlvldual proJect wlthin the CP Distrlct.
Following the public hearlng the Plannlng CommisSlon discussed
these lssues at length. The Comroisslon attempted to pass motions
to approve the proJect wlth cOndltlons, to deny the proJect and
to contlnue the proJect for three months. Each motion failed on
3-3 votes Wl th One conunlssioner absent.
On the advice of the
Deputy Clty Attorney, the proJect was therefore deemed denied.
At a subsequent public meeting on December 17, 1984 Cl ty staff
and the Deputy Cl.ty Attorney concurred wlth the project appll-
cant's legal counsel that no Statement of Officlal Actlon should
- 3 -
be adopted by the Planning Commlssion due to the failure to pass
any motlon for or agalnst the proJect, and that the entlre matter
should be consldered by the Clty Councll on appeal (See Attach-
ments 4 and 6).
Staff has recel ved addl tional correspondence
regarding varlOUS aspects of this project which are included in
Attachment 5.
PubllC notiflcatlon about this appeal has been
publlshed in the Evenlng Outlook and indlvldual notlces have been
ma~led to all residents and property owners wi thln 300 feet of
the project Slte.
ANALYSIS
The proposed proJect presents two POllCY lssues to the Clty Coun-
cll.
First, whether conSlderatlon of the proposed project at
thlS tune confllcts wlth POI1CY 1.13.1 of the adopted Land Use
Element~ and second, If the proJect is to be consldered for ap-
proval prior to completion of the two Hospital Master Plans and
the CP Dlstrlct Spec1flc Plan, whether the proJect as proposed
can be approved according to the standards contalned in Ordinance
1251.
Potentlal Conflict W~th The Land Use Element
POllCY 1.13.1 of the adopted Land Use Element states:
Following Cl ty adoption of SpeC1.flC Plans for the area
comprls1ng and l.mmediately surrounding each "hospi tal
campus", allow eXpanslons of existlng hOspltal buildlngs
and constructlon of new medical bUlldlngs in accordance
wlth the adopted Speclflc Plans. The two Clty hospltals
shall each prepare Hospltal Master Plans for thelr
respectl ve lnstl tutlons indicatlng future physlcal and
organizatlonal growth and change over the 10-15 years
follow1.ng adoptlon of the Land Use and Circulation Ele-
ments. (These Master Plans shall be conS1dered by the
Cl ty ln preparlng the Speclflc Plans.) In preparlng
- 4 -
sald Master Plans, each hOSpl tal shall provide oppor-
tunlties for nelghborlng resldents, property owners, and
bUSlness people to partlclpate in Master Plan develop-
ment. Any medical or medlcal-related development pro-
posed by elther hospltal prlor to Clty approval of lts
respectlve Speciflc Plan shall be subject to site rev~ew
and shall be approved only if the development neither
prejudlces the development and lmplewentation of the
Spec~flc Plans, nor adversely affects surrounding neigh-
borhoods. Neither the Speciflc Plans nor any site re-
view shall be adopted wlthout publlC hearings.
In draftlng thlS POllCY language it was staff's lntent that no
medlcal-related development proceed wlthin the Commerclal Profes-
slonal (CP) Dlstrlct untll the two Hospltal Master Plans and the
CP Dlstrlct Spec~flc Plan or Plans were completed.
It is for
thlS reason that the Land Use Element contains no property
development standards for the CP Dlstrict.
The permltted use for thlS property and its applicable property
development standards wlll not be known untll further progress lS
made on Santa Monica Hospltal's Master Plan or the proposed
Speclfic Plan for the entlre CP Distrlct.
It should be noted that St. John's Hospital has already completed
lts Hospital Master Plan, a copy of which has been transmitted to
the Counell and Planning Commlssion under separate cover.
At a
meetlng between representatl ves of Santa Moncia HOSpl tal, Mld
Clty Nelghbors and Clty staff on December 15, 1984, Hospltal rep-
resentatl ves lndJ.cated that Santa Monlca HOSpl tal's Master Plan
could be completed by Aprl1 1, 1985.
Glven the tlmely progress
the hospltals are maklng on thelr respectlve plans, and the dl-
rect re1atlonshlp between those plans and other private develop-
ment wlthln the CP Distrlct, staff recommends that the Clty Coun-
cll conslder denying the appeal, and therefore the project at
- 5 -
thlS time, permitting Dr. Sherman to resubmit his proJect after
further progress is made on the Santa Monlca Hosplta1 Master Plan
and CP D~strlct Speciflc Plan so that the City may properly Judge
whether the proposed proJect wll1 comply wlth the standards of a
CP Dlstrlct Speclflc Plan.
ConSlderatlon Absent Progress On a CP Distrlct Specific Plan
Should the Councll determlne that consideratlon of the proposed
project in advance of the Santa Monlca HOsp1tal Master Plan or CP
Dlstrlct Speclflc Plan does not confllct with the Land Use Ele-
ment, staff recommends re-design of the project to approximate a
20-foot front yard setback and a five foot south sldeyard set-
back. Staff lS persuaded by testlmony presented to the Planning
COrnmlss10n and Commission dlScussion that there are lnsufficient
grounds to support a front yard variance according to Section
9145 of the Munlclpal Code as orlginally reguested by the appli-
cant/appellant. Deslgn modiflcatlons should be made to lncrease
the setback beyond that originally presented to the Comnn.ssion.
Staff further believes that although the Code does not currently
requlre a sldeyard setback in the CP Dlstrict, lt lS important to
note that the adJacent structure, a rent controlled two-story
apartment bUlldlng, will llkely remaln 1n long term resldentlal
use, and therefore good zoning practlce would suggest that Dr.
Sherman I s proJect should malntaln a sideyard setback Slffillar to
that for the multlfamily Dlstr1cts. Addresslng these lssues will
requlre re-deslgn of the proJect. Therefore, it would be ap-
proprlate to deny the appeal wlthout preJudlce and remand the
proJect to the Cornmlsslon for further conslderation. In so
- 6 -
doingl the Councll may w.lsh to offer the Commisslon guidance on
the above or other proJect-related lssues.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under the provislons of Sectlon 6 of Ordlnance No. l251(CCS)1 the
Clty Council may afflrm, reverse or modlfy any determination of
the Plannlng CommlSSlon in regard to an Interlm Development Per-
IDlt and the decision of the Clty Councl1 shall be final.
In ap-
provlng an appllcatlon the Comm~ssion or Council must flnd that:
1. The development lS consistent Wl. th the flndlngs and pur-
pose of Ordlnance 1251.
2. The proposed plans comply W1. th eXlstlng regula tl.ons con-
talned In the Munlclpal Code.
3. The eXlstlng and/or proposed publlC rlghts-of-way for both
pedestrian and automoblle trafflc w1.1l be adequate to ac-
commodate the antlclpated results of the proposed develop-
ment lnc1udlng off-street parklng facllities and access
thereto.
4. The eXlstlng and/or proposed publ1.c and/or private health
and safety facl11ties (lDc1udlng, but not 11rnlted to,
sanltatlon, sewers, storm drains, fire protectlon devices,
protectl ve serVlces, and pub11C utill tJ.es) wlll be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticlpated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development wlll not pre judlce the adoption
of the Land Use Element.
6. The proposed use 1.S compatible with eX1.sting and potential
uses wi thln the general area, traffic or parklng conges-
tlon will not result, the public health, safety and
general welfare are protected and no harm to adjacent
properties wlll result.
Although the Clty Councll adopted Ordlnance 1321 on 12/11/84 to
replace Ordinance 1251, the new Ordlnance does not become effec-
tlve until 1/11/85.
Staff recommends that the Clty COUDCll also
consider a flnd1ng of consistency between the proposed project
- 7 -
and the adopted Land Use Element, as has been the Planning Com-
ITI1SS10n IS practlce for all pro Jects revlewed subsequent to Oc-
tober 23, 1984, the date the new Land Use Element was adopted.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in thlS report does not have a bud-
get/flnancial lmpact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1.) Conduct a public hearlng on the subject appeal, accepting
testlmony from the appellant and any other lnterested
persons;
2.) Elther deny the appeal outrlght due to confllcts with the
Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements, deny the appeal without
prejudlce and remand the proJect to the Plannlng Comnl1.s-
Slon for canSlderatlon of any pro] ect modlficatlons, or
take such other action the Cauncll deems appropriate based
on the record and the appeal public hearlng;
3.) Dlrect staff to prepare approprlate findlngs for adoption
at a subsequent Councl1 meetlng.
Prepared by: Paul J. Sllvern, Dlrector of Plannlng
Karen Rosenberg. Asslstant Planner
Planning and Zoning D1V1Slon
Communlty and Economlc Development Department
Attachment:
1. ProJect Appllcation Materials.
2. Correspondence Recelved Prlor to PubllC
Hearing Regardlng Varlous Aspects of the
ProJect and Certaln Proposed Deslgn
Modlflcatlons.
3. Staff Report to Plannlng CommlSSlon.
4. Letter From Applicant's Legal Counsel
Recommending That no Statement of Officla1
Actlon be Adopted by the Planning Commisslon.
5. Correspondence Received Subsequent to PubllC
Hearlng.
6. Letter of Appeal to City Council.
celO
- 8 -
ATTACHMENT 1
PROJECT APPLICATION MATERIALS
A. Appllcation for Development Revl.ew.
B. Applicatlon for Varl.ance.
C. Appllcant's Descrlpt1.0n of Project.
D. Archltect's Descriptlon of ProJect.
E. Notlce of Rent Control Board Declslon, Case No. 112R-C.
F. ProJect Plans and Elevatl.ons.