SR-12-C
Lj () 'Z'" oot/
cjED:PJS:KR:nh
Counell Mtg: February 19, 1985
Santa Monlca, Callfornla
I~ - (,
ft~ 1 ~ -
TO: Mayor and Clty Councll
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Plannlng Comrnisslon DeC1Sl0n Denying DR 275/
Z.A. 4828-Y, To Permlt Removal of Three Vacant Reslden-
tlal BUlldlngs and Construct an Outpatlent Surglcal/
Medlcal FaClll ty, 1508 ArlZ0na Avenue, App11cant/
Appellant: Jerrold Martln Sherman, M.D.
INTRODUCTION
ThlS is an appeal from Planning Commlssion review of the subJect
project.
The proposed proJect would replace three vacant, con-
trolled rental unlts with a three story outpatlent surgica1/
medlcal faclllty. A removal permlt for the rental UUltS was pre-
vlously granted by the
Rent Control
Board.
The proposal
orlglnally was reviewed by the Plannlng Commisslon on November 5,
1984, and follow1ng the publlC hearlng the SlX Plannlng CornmlS-
Sloners present falled to adopt a motion for or agalnst the proJ-
ect and lt was therefore deemed denled.
Subsequently, the proJ-
ect was appealed to the Clty Councl1 by the appllcant.
Followlng
the publlC hear1ng on the appeal Wh1Ch was held on January 22,
1985, the Clty Counell unanlmously denled the appeal without
.
preJudlce and remanded the proJect to the Plannlng Comrnisslon for
reVlew, 10 Ilght of the substantlal changes made to the orlg1nal
proposal.
Followlng a publlC hearing on February 4, 1985, the
SlX Plannlng CommlSS1oners present agalD fal1ed to adopt a motlon
for or against the proJect and the project was deemed denied.
The proJect 15 now before the Councl1 aga1n in exactly the same
t2 - C-
FEB 1 9 1985
- 1 -
form rev~ewed on January 22nd. Staff recommends that the C~ty
Council grant the appeal and approve the proJect, ~nclud~ng the
var~ance, as submitted to the Plann~ng Commiss~on on February 4,
1985.
BACKGROUND
The 7,491 sq.ft. CP site, located on the southeast corner of 15th
and Ar~zona, currently contains three vacant, rent controlled
s~ngle fam~ly res~dential bUlldings. Multi-story med~cal fac~ll-
t~es of Santa Monica HOspltal are located to the north and
northwest across Arlzona Avenue, as well as to the west across
F1fteenth Street. A two story apartment bUllding 1S located dl-
rect1y to the south and a single story resldentlal bU1ld~ng 1S
across the alley to the east. The proposal cons~sts of a three
story outpatlent surglcaljmedical facil~ty with subterranean and
ground level park~ng for 24 cars. Access to the subterranean
park~ng level w~ll be from the alley and access to the parking at
the ground level wlll be from Flfteenth Street. The second floor
of the facll~ ty w111 house rooms related to surgery lnclud1ng
pre-op rooms, minor and maJor operatlon rooms and recovery rooms.
Examinat10n rooms and x-ray rooms as well as a buslness off1ce
w~ll be located on the thlrd floor.
A varlance lS requested to
perm~t a reduced front yard setback of 12'6" in l~eu of the re-
quired 20 I setback. The project 1S des~gned ~n a contemporary
manner uS1ng a comb1nat~on of materlals includlng plaster, glass-
block and metal detalllng on the balconies. Landscap~ng will be
provlded along both the F~fteenth Street and Arizona Avenue
frontages and seat~ng areas wlll be provlded 1n front of the
- 2 -
bUlldlng along Flfteenth Street.
Additlonally, a landscaped
trelllS will be located along the south elevatlon at the f1rst
floor level and planters w1ll be provided on the decks and ex-
ter10r walkways.
ANALYSIS
On November 5, 1984 when the P1annlng Comm1SS1on conducted a
public hearlng on the orig1nal proposal for th1S Sl te I several
lssues were ralsed by representatives from Mld-ci ty Ne1ghbors,
apartment dwellers liv1ng to the south of the project and by mem-
bers of the Planning Commisslon.
These lssues centered around
the follow1ng pOlnts.
1. Whether conslderat1.on of the proposed project prior to
completion of the two Hosp1tal Master Plans conf1lcts wlth
POllCY 1.13.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
2. Unsafe cond1t1ons of the eXlst1ng vacant rental unlts.
3. Lack of Just1flcatlon to support varl.ance for front yard
encroachment.
4. Confllcts between the Land Use and C1rculat1on Element
po1icles and 15th Street curb cut.
5. Inadequate separatlon between proposed project and apart-
ment bUl.ldlng to south.
6. Problems w1.th relocatlng utlllty pole near alley entrance
to subterranean parkl.ng level.
Followlng the publlC hearing I the Plannlng Commis Slon dl.scussed
these issues at length and attempted to pass motlons to approve
the project wlth conoltlons, to deny the project and to continue
the project for three months.
Each motion falled on a 3-3 vote
with one Commlss1oner absent and on the advice of the Deputy C1ty
- 3 -
Attorney, the proJect was deemed den~ed.
ect was appealed to the C~ty Counc~l.
Subsequently, the proj-
Following the publ~c hear1ng on the appeal Wh1Ch was held on
January 22, 1985, the C~ty Counc~l determ~ned that the intent of
Pol~cy 1.13.1 of the Land Use Element ~s not to instl tute a
bu~ld~ng morator1um 1n the CP zone prior to complet~on of the two
HOspltal Master Plans and CP Dlstrict Speclflc Plan, but rather
to requ~re that proJects WhlCh are proposed In the ~nterlm under-
go careful reVlew by C~ ty staff and the Plannlng Commlssion.
Furthermore, 1n this partlcular case the C~ty Councll determlned
that in llght of the substant~al changes made to the orlg1nal
proposal, the proJect should be revlewed agaln by the Planning
Commission at a public hear1ng. The Cl ty Councll unanlffiously
denied the appeal wlthout preJud~ce and remanded the proJect to
the Plann~ng Commlssion for review as recommended by staff.
On February 4, 1985, the Plannlng Commlss~on conducted a second
publlC hear 109 on the rev1sed proposal for thlS 51 te. Three
physlclans worklng In the vlClnity of the proJect testlfled that
facilit~es of this type are the trend throughout the country and
that the proposed proJect would help lower health care costs in
the area and therefore supported the project. Two representa-
tives of Mld Clty Neighbors spoke 1n support of the revlsed pro-
posal ind~catlng that they were pleased wlth the revlsions made
to the orlg1nal proposal. They recommended that the Varlance
findings as noted in the February 4th Staff Report be revlsed to
lnclude approprlate hardshlp flndlngs and to include a flnd1ng
whereby approval of this part1cular proJect will not prejudlce
- 4 -
the development and ~mplementat~on of the CP Distr~ct Speclflc
Plan.
They also requested that Condltlon 13 of the staff report
lnclude alr pollution lmpacts and that Condltlon 14 lnclude
notlflcation to resldents concerning any lnterruptlon of the
utllltles.
Followlng the public hearlng the Plannlng Corr~lssion attempted to
pass a motlon to approve the revlsed proJect as submitted lncor-
poratlng the Flndlngs and Condi tlons noted ln the Staff Report
(Attachment B) wlth the following modlflcatlons.
1. Flndlng 5. Change the 2nd sentence to: "Implementation of
the proJect at thlS tlme will not preJudice the adoptlon
of the two HOSpl tal Master Plans, nor the CP Dlstrict
Speclflc Plan conslstent wlth POllCY 1.13.1 of the Land
Use Element or adversely affect the surroundlng
nelghborhood. II
2.
Add 3 addltlonal findlngs to the Variance
demonstrate hardshlp as outllned in the
Sec. 91458 (1), (2) and (3).
findlngs Wh1Ch
Munlclpal Code
3. Condlt1on 2. Add the followlng: "A landscaped trellls
shall be malntained along the southern elevatlon, plant-
lngs shall be provlded on the balconles and exterlor walk-
ways and the parkways shall be replanted and malntalned.
The Archltectural ReVlew Board shall also reVlew the pro-
posed type of outdoor seatlng to lnsure that it 1S desig-
ned 1n a manner to mitlgate lts potential use for
recllnlng."
4. Condl tlon 3. Change, "an lncrease of more than 10% II to
"an lncrease of more than 300 square feet."
5. Condltlon 5. Add, Compact spaces shall be placed adJacent
to one another where feasible.
6.
Condltlon 11.
ca ted. . . " to
relocated. .."
Change,
"Street
"Street
trees
trees
shall
shall be relo-
be malntalned,
7. Condl tion 13. Change, "... ln order to ellmlna te pos slble
nOlse." to "...lD order to ffilnirnize posslble nOlse and air
pollut1on."
8. Condltlon 14, add: "The appllcant shall also notlfy users
of a necessary lnterruptlon In utlllty servlce."
- 5 -
9.
Condlt1on
llcense,
a..." "II
15: delete, "...appllcation
or other entltlement for use
for a
which
buslness
represent
The motlon falled on a 3-1 vote (Heybald-Heymann, Hecht, Larmore
for: Genser agalnst) wlth 2 abstentions (Perlman, Kirshner) and
One COITUnlssioner absent (Shearer).
No subsequent motions were
made and the proJect was therefore deemed denied agaln.
The ap-
pllcant then flIed a proper appeal for Councl1 reV1ew.
Slnce the project was flrst proposed, the applicant has met
several tlmes w1th representat1ves of Mid C1ty Ne1ghbors and the
ada]cent apartment dwellers 1n order to address thelr concerns.
As a result of these meet1ngs, the bU1ld1ng he1ght has been re-
duced from 45' to 42'. Although th1S has resulted 1U the loss of
one parklng space, the project stlll provides 24 parking spaces
as requlred by the Munc1pal Code.
The applicant was also able to
lncrease the proposed front yard setback from 9' to 12'6".
ThlS
was accompl1shed by moving the bU1Idlng closer to the rear prop-
erty llne and by ad]Ust1ng room Slze and location where poss1ble
under the str1ct programmat1c requ1rements Wh1Ch govern an outpa-
t1ent surglcaljmedlcal facll1 ty of th1S type.
Th1S 1ncreased
front setback 1S more closely related to the setbacks of eXlsting
nearby bU1ld1ngs Wh1Ch range from 10' to 25'.
In order to address the concerns ra1sed about the separatlon
between the proposed proJect and the apartment bU1ld1ng to the
south, the appl1cant has prov1ded Ilghtwells on the th1rd floor
Wh1Ch 1ncreases the setback from the south property llne to 5'.
Th1S 1U part has been accompllshed by reducing the size of the
- 6 -
deck on the thlrd floor.
Furthermore, to help mltlgate the lm-
pact that th1S bU11dlng wlll have upon the llght and alr of the
adJacent apartment dwellers, the appllcant has agreed to use a
lJ.ght colored plaster as the predominate bUllding materlal and
w~ll provlde a 141 h1gh landscaped trell1S along the south eleva-
t1on.
Add1 t1onally, the W1ndows along the south elevatlon wl11
be located above eye level to provlde prlvacy between the surgl-
cal/medlca1 faclllty and the adjacent apartment.
The applicant has also agreed to relocate the telephone pole at
the rear of hlS property, provide speed bumps as necessary along
the alley and notify resldents of possible lnterruptlon of cable
telev1s1on serVlce.
Plannlng staff f.lnds that the appllcant has made a reasonable
effort to mitigate the concerns addressed about thelr orl.glnal
proposal and that the proJect, having gone through a careful
public reVlew process, conforms to the lntent of Policy 1.13.1 of
the Land Use Element and approval wll1 not preJud1ce the adoptl.on
of the CP Distrlct Speclfic Plan.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under the provisions of Bectlon 4 of Ordlnance No. 1321 (CCS),
the Clty Council may afflrm, reverse or modify any determlnation
of the Plannlng COffimlSS10n in regard to a Development Permlt and
the declslon of the C1ty Councll shall be flna1.
In approving an
appllcatlon the Comm1ssion or Council must flnd that:
1. The development 1S conslstent W1 th the flndlngs and pur-
pose of Ordlnance 1321.
- 7 -
2. The physical locat~on and placement of proposed structures
on the slte are compatlble w~th and relate harmonlously to
surrounding s~tes and nelghborhoods.
3. The ex~stlng and/or proposed rights-of-way and facillt~es
for both pedestrlan and automoblle traffl.c wl.ll be ade-
quate to accommodate the ant~cipated results of the pro-
posed development includlng off-street park~ng faClll.tles
and access thereto.
4. The existlng and/or proposed publl.c and/or prlvate health
and safety facl.llties (lncludlng, but not llm1ted to,
sanitatlon, sewers, storm drains, flre protectlon devices,
protectl ve services, and publ1C utlll t1es) will be ade-
quate to accommodate the antlclpated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development 1S conslstent W1 th the General
Plan of the C1ty of Santa Monlca and the Zonlng Ordinance
1n that the proJect wlll conform to the helght, bulk, use
and urban deslgn pol1cles as speclfled 1n the Land Use
Element of the General Plan and conform to the appropr1ate
standards contalned in the Zon~ng Ordlnance.
In that the Land Use Element does not specify helght, bulk and
use standards for the CP Distrlct, staff recommends that the City
CounCll also cons1der a findl.ng to ~ndicate that the proJect will
not pre)udlce the adoptlon of the CP Distrlct Speciflc Plan.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendat1on presented 1n thl.s report does not have a
budget/f1nancial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the Cl ty Councll grant the
appeal and approve the proJect as submltted and dlrect staff to
prepare approprlate fl.ndlngs and condl tions for adoptlon at a
subsequent Councll meeting, such flndings and condi tlons to be
based on those contained in the February 4, 1985 staff report to
- 8 -
the Planning Cornrn1ssion and the change proposed on page 5 of th1S
report.
Prepared by: Paul J. Silvern, Dl.rector of Plann1ng
Karen Rosenberg, Asslstant Planner
Plann~ng and Zon~ng D1viSlon
Comrnunlty and EconomlC Development Department
Attachment:
A. Staff Report to Plann1ng Cornmisslon,
February 4, 1985.
B. ReVlsed Plans for the Outpatlent Surgical
Fac1llty.
C. Letter from Mid City Nel.ghbors.
D. Letter of Appeal.
CC2
- 9 -
~
~
\
iPA
PLA~~ING AND ZONING DIVISION
Comrnunlty and Economl.C Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: February 4, 1985
TO: The Honorable Plann1ng Comrniss1on
FROM: Paul J. S11vern, Dlrector of Planning
SUBJECT: DR 275, Z.A. 4828-Y, 1508 Arlzona Avenue, CP, To Perm1t
the Removal of Three Vacant Res1dentJ.al BUl.ldings and
Construct a 14,177 Sq.Ft. Outpatient surgical Facill.ty,
Appllcant: Jerrold ~artln Sherman, M.D.
Suw~ary. Th1S proposal is a resubmiss10n of a prev10usly denied
project wh~ch was appealed to the City Councll by the proJect
appllcant. The Cl.ty Councll den1ed the appeal without prejud1ce
and remanded the proJect to the Plannlng COtnmlsslon for reVl.ew,
because deslgn mOd1fl.cations have been made Sl.nce the project was
orlglnally proposed.
The project, located 1.n the Cornmerclal Profess~onal zone 1nvolves
the removal of three vacant res1dential bU1.ldlngs and the con-
strUctlon of a 14,177 sq. ft. three story outpat~ent surg1cal
facl1ity. On slte parkl.ng, totalll.ng 25 spaces will be prov1ded.
A varlance to perml. t a reduced front yard setback has been re-
quested. Staff recommends approval wlth condltl.Ons.
Existlns
locatlon
The Rent
homes.
Cond1t1ons. The 7,491 square foot site 1S currently the
of three vacant slngle family resldential bUlldings.
Control Board has granted a removal perrnlt for these
The surrounding area is zoned CPo Multi-story med1cal faClll.t~es
are located to the north and northwest across Arizona Avenue, as
well as to the west across Flfteenth Street. A two story
residentlal building lS located adjacent to the property to the
south and a 51ng1e story resident1al building is located across
the alley to the east.
Proposed Pro~ect. The proposal consists of a three story 14,177
sq. ft. outpatlent surgical faClll.ty. Subterranean and ground
level park1ng for 24 cars will be provlded. Access to the sub-
terranean park1ng level w~ll be from the alley and access to the
parking at the ground level wl1l be from Flfteenth Street. The
parking and circulatl.on plan has been approved by the Traffl.c
Engineer.
The second floor of the facl.ll.ty wll1 house rooms related to sur-
gery includl.ng pre-op rooms, minor and major operatlon rooms and
..----.
------
- 1 -
~
~
recovery rooms. Exam1natlon rooms and x-ray rooms as well as a
bUSlness offlce wl1l be located on the third floor.
A variance 1S requested to perm1t a reduced front yard setback of
12'6" ln ll.eu of the required 20' setback.
The proJect is des1gned in a contemporary manner USl.ng a comblna-
tlon of materials lncluding plaster, glass block and metal
detalllng on the balconies. Landscaplng will be prov1ded along
both the Fl.fteenth Street and Arlzona Avenue frontages and seat-
ing areas wl11 be provlded ln front of the bUl1ding along
Flfteenth Street. Add 1 tionally, a landscaped trellis will be
located along the south elevation at the flrst floor level and
planters wll1 be provided on the decks and exterior walkways.
Munlcl~al Code and Inter1m Development Requlrements.
conforms to the Munlclpal Code requirements and
Development GUldellnes from the adopted Land Use
follows:
The proJect
the Interun
Element as
Standard
Category MUnl.Clpal Code
Land Use
Element
GUldellnes
ProJect
Permltted Use Medlcal
FaClllt1.eS
CP zone
requ1.res S1.te
reVlew
conforms,
outpatlent
surg~cal facllity
Height
6 storl.es
conforms, 3
storles, 42'
Lot Coverage
75% Maxlmum
Lot Coverage
65.4%
Floor Area
Rat10
3.3
l.89
Setbacks
Front yard
20'
requested
variance to permlt
12'6" front yard
setback
Sldeyards
none required
north side, none
provlded, south
slde, l' to 5'
provided
Rearyard
none required
4' prov1ded
Park1ng
24 parking
spaces requlred
24 parking spaces
provided.
- 2 -
ce
~
CEQA Status. Th1S proJect lS categorLcally exempt from the pro-
V1SLons of CEQA, Clty of Santa Mon1ca Gu~de11nes for Implementa-
tl.on [Class 3 (3)J.
Fees. Under the new off1ce development mltlgation program, thls
proJect would be exempt from any fee requirement.
Analysls. On November 51 1984 when the Planning Commlss~on con-
ducted a publlC hearlng on the orlgl.nal proposal for thlS site,
several lssues were raised by representatives from Mid City
Nelghbors, apartment dwellers ll.ving to the south of the project
and by members of the Planning Commission. These issues centered
around the followlng po~nts.
1. Whether cons1deratlon of the proposed project prior to
complet1on of the two Hosp1tal Master Plans confllcts wlth
Policy 1.13.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
2. Unsafe cond1tl.OnS of the eXlst1ng vacant rental units.
3. Lack of justlflcation to support varlance for front yard
encroachment.
4. Confllcts between the Land Use and Cl.rCulat1on Element
policies and 15th Street curb cut.
5. Inadequate separat10n between proposed proJect and apart-
ment bU1ld1ng to south.
6. Proble~s wlth relocatl.ng utl.lity pole near alley entrance
to subterranean park1ng level.
Followlng the publ~c hearing I the Plannlng COmm1SSl.On discussed
these lssues at length and attempted to pass motlons to approve
the proJect with condltlons, to deny the proJect and to contlnue
the proJect for three months. Each motlon falled on a 3-3 vote
wlth one Commissioner absent and on the advise of the Deputy Clty
Attorney, the proJect was deemed denied. Subsequently, the proj-
ect was appealed to the Clty Counc11 for the proJect appl1cant.
Follow~ng the publlC hear1ng on the appeal WhlCh was held on
January 22, 1985, the C1ty Councll determ1ned that the intent of
Pol1.cy 1.13.1 of the Land Use Element lS not to instl tute a
bUlldlng moratorlUM ln the CP zone pr10r to completlon of the two
Hosp~tal Master Plans and CP Distrl.ct SpeCl.flC Plan, but rather
to require that proJects which are proposed in the lnterlm under-
go careful site reVlew by City staff and the Planning Commissl.on.
Furthermore, l.n thlS partl.cular case the Clty Council determined
that In light of the substant1al changes made to the orlglnal
proposal, the pro Ject should be revlewed agaln by the Plann1ng
COlT'.mlss10n at a public hearlng. The Cl. ty Counc1l unanimous ly
denled the appeal w1thout preJud1.ce and remanded the project to
the Planning CommiSSlon for reVlew as recommended by staff.
S~nce the proJect was first proposed, the applicant has met
several t1mes with representatives of M1d Cl.ty Nelghbors and the
- 3 -
ce
~
adjacent apartment dwellers in order to address their concerns.
As a result of these meetings, the buildlng height has been re-
duced from 45' to 42'. Although th1S has resulted l.n the loss of
one parking space, the proJect st1ll provldes 24 parkl.ng spaces
as requlred by the Mun1clpal Code. As orlgl.nally proposed, staff
park1ng will be located ln the subterranean level, with access
from the alley and pat1ent parking w111 be located on the ground
floor level, with access from lSth Street. Typically, patlents
will arrl.ve in the early mornlng and depart later ln the after-
noon. The Parking and Traffic Eng1neer has approved the parklng
and circulat10n plan.
The applicant was also able to increase the proposed front yard
setback from 9 I to 12' -6" . Thls was accomplished by movl.ng the
bU1ld1ng closer to the rear property line and by adJustlng room
size and locatlon where posslble under the strict programat1c
requl.rements whlch govern an outpatlent surglcal facl.l1ty of thl.s
type. ThlS increased front setback 1S more closely related to
the setbacks of the eX1sting nearby bU1ldings Wh1Ch range from
10' to 25'.
In order to address the concerns ra1sed about the separat10n
between the proposed project and the apartment build1ng to the
south, the appl1cant has provlded 11ghtwells on the third floor
Wh1Ch lncreases the setback from the south property Ilne to 5'.
Th1S 1n part has been accompl1shed by reduclng the Slze of the
deck On the third floor. Furthermore, to help mitlgate the im-
pact that thl.s bU1lding w111 have upon the light and air of the
adJ acent apartment dwellers, the applicant has agreed to use a
11ght colored plaster as the predomlnate bUllding material and
wlll provide a 14' h1gh landscaped trell1s along the south eleva-
t1on. Add1t1onally, the windows along the south elevat10n w111
be located above eye level to provlde prlvacy between the surgi-
cal facl11ty and the adJacent apartment.
The applicant has also agreed to relocate the telephone pole at
the rear of his property, provlde speed bumps as necessary along
the alley and notify res1dents of poss1ble interruptlon of cable
telev1sion service.
As a result of these modl.fl.catlons, M~d-Ci ty Neighbors has ex-
pressed their support of the proJect. Plannlng staff feels that
the applicant has made a reasonable effort to mitlgate the con-
cerns addressed about thelr orlg1nal proposal and therefore, sup-
port the modif1ed proposal as submltted.
Recommendation. Plannlng staff recommends that the Plann1ng Com-
mlssion approve DR 275 and ZA 4828-Y w~th the following flndings
and COnd1tlons.
Findin9s.
I. The development is consistent with the flndings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
- 4 -
ce
~
2. The physlcal locatlon and placement of proposed structures
on the sl.te are compatlble wl.th and relate harmoniously to
surround1ng sltes and nelghborhood l.n that the overall
mass and scale of the bU1ld1ng has been vlsually reduced
by the lncluS10n of open decks and walkways WhlCh will
contal.n planters.
3. The existlng and/or proposed rights-of-way and facil1ties
for both pedestrian and automoblle traffl.c will be ade-
quate to accommodate the antlc1pated results of the pro-
posed development includ1ng off-street parklng facilltles
and access thereto in that the proJect provides 24 parklng
spaces with 13 located 10 a subterranean garage accesslble
from the alley and 11 located at the ground level and ac-
cesslble from 15th Street.
4. The eXl.st1ng and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety fac~lities (lncluding, but not llmlted to,
sanl.tatlon, sewers, storm dra1ns. flre protection devices,
protecti ve serVlces, and publlC utill.tl.es) will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticlpated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the Clty of Santa Mon1ca and conforms to the ap-
proprlate CP standards contained in the Zon~ng.^~9~nance.
-!I'-,1-:;e c::.. ~~T C~'..l!':~::..l her::> d~termlw;:;:u ~~-.u.-t :::~::;:;~~~~ I of the
project at th1s tlme will not preJudice the adoption of
the two Hosp1tal Master Plans, nor the CP Dl.str1ct
Speclflc Plan.C0I\"'..~t- \,.L)\ ~.\o'\ ex- Q)ci~ ~
~~tV'q re(~~
Var1ance Fl.ndlng.
1.
The grantl.ng of a varlance is essentlal or deslrable to
the publlC convenlence or welfare in that it provides
alternatl.ve medlcal facllitles and 1S not In confllct
W1 th the General Plan in that it is a permitted use in
the Comrnerclal ProfeSSlonal Dl.strict. The requested
var1ance for a 12' 6" front yard setback will not he
materlally detrlmental or inJurl.ous to the property or
1mprovements 1n the ~mmedl.ate area in that the bUl.ld1ng
deslgn compensates for the ground level encroachment by
provid1ng pedestrian orlentatl.on through the inclusion
of landscaplng and outdoor seating along the 15th Street
frontage.
..
Conditl.ons.
1. Plans for f1nal deslgn and landscapl.ng shall be subJect to
reVlew and approval by the Arch1tectural Rev~ew Board.
2. The Architectural Review Board, 1n their review, shall pay
particular attent10n to the project's pedestrian or1enta-
tion and pedestr1an amenl. ties; scale and artl.culatlon of
deslgn elements; exterior colors, textures and materl.als;
w1ndow treatment: glazing: and landscaping, as well as the
~Utlt<; L.OlOesl(' tfl ~t"UiI~i~ Cf'I ~.
. ~ ~
U;w1d<<~ i'--n..\b cJI~ ~ et&.BhOVl (, ~
trans1t1on between th1s proJect and
propert1es. ~Cl.J...1.~ ref\~tffi. ~ I\A6l.< I"'vtalned
the
adJacent
3. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Dlrector of Plan9(-ng. An 1ncrease of more than ~ ~ r:p
of- LIlt: ~':iU:a.:L': ~~ot~9'~ v:i a sign~f~cant change ln the ap-
proved concept shall be subJect to Planning Comrnisslon
Review. Construction shall be in substantlal conformance
wi th the plans submitted or as modlfied by the Plannlng
Commisslon, Architectural ReVlew Board or Director of
Plannl.ng.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The appll.cant shall comply wl.th all legal requl.rements
regardlng provlslons for the dlsabled, includl.ng those set
forth in the Californ1a Adml.nistrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
Fl.nal park1ng lot layout and spec1f1cat1ons shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Trafflc
Englneer. Speed bumps shall be provided along the alley
as determ1ned by the Traffl.c Englneer. Parklng shall be
prov1ded free or through valldat10n to bUlld1ng users and
employers.~ SyReS &il~ -lo ~ ~fe.c9.-7)ible..
The operatlon shall at all tl.mes be conducted 1n a manner
not detrl.mental to surround1ng propertles or res1dents by
reason of Ilghts, noise, actlvl.ties, parklng or other
actlons.
No noise generatlng compressors or other such equipment
shall be placed adJacent to nel.ghboring res1dent1al bUlld-
ings. All roof-level noise generatlng equipment shall be
screened to baffle any nOlse generated.
ProJect deslgn shall comply wlth the buildlng energy reg-
ulatlons set forth In the Callfornia Admlnistrative Code,
T1tle 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservation Standards for New
Res1dentlal BUlldings), such conformance to be verl.fl.ed by
the Buildlng and Safety Dlvis10n prior to issuance of a
BU1ld1ng Permit.
Openable wlndows shall be provided throughout the proJect,
in a manner consistent Wl. th applicable build1ng code and
energy conservatl.on requlrements.
The existlng drlveways and aprons located on Arizona
Avenue shall be removed and the existing curb cuts re-
placed W1 th standard curb and gutter per the speclfl.ca-
tl.ons of the Department of General SerV1ces.
valV\~tv'fiJ . .
Street trees shall be~relocated or prov1ded as requ1red l.n
a manner consistent w~ th the City I S Tree Code (Ord. 124~_
CCS), per the speclflcat10ns of the Departme~cre-
ation and Parks and the Department of General Services.
No street tree shall be removed without the approval of
the Department of Recreatlon and Parks.
- 6 -
ce
~
12. Street and/or alley IJ.ghting shall be provlded on publJ.c
rl.ghts-of-way adJacent to the prOJect if and as needed per
the speclf~cat1ons and wlth the approval of the Department
of Gene~al SerVlces.
13. The parklng levels shall be deslgned w1th solid walls to-
ward adJacent propert1es and mechanlca11y vented in order
to ellml.h~e poss~ble n01.se. ~ d-tr r:o'lv+\l~Y'
",^, V'\ \ "'^ \ -r.e.....
14. The appl1cant shall make every reasonable effort to pro-
tect against interruption of service for Cable TV users
and shall notlfy such users of a necessary interruptl.on 1n
serV1.ce. t" . l~Q& ~ u-hIIHes
15. Any dppli':'~-t:~0~ f0!" ;:J. "b~;;;i..t;:o::>,=, - l.i<..:cl-.;:;~, 0r 0-t:l-I~ t;:uL.i Ll-e-
~r for '..:~~ ~::~L::~ ~~i?i-.:::::>t;:ui..S 'a signlficant change of use
or change In l.ntenslty of use from those uses approved as
part of thlS Development Review Permit shall f1.rst be an-
alyzed by the City's Park1.ng and Traff1c Engineer for lm-
pacts on park1ng. No buslness license or other entitle-
ment for use Wh1Ch in the Park1.ng and Traffic Eng1neer' s
judgement creates addlt10nal parking demand shall be ap-
proved unless such park1.ng demand is sat1.sfied on site or
such other slte as approved by the Plann1ng Comm1SSlon.
Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg, Ass1.stant Planner
KR:nh
Attachments: Staff Report, November 5, 1985
Correspondence frow Mid-C1ty Ne1ghbors to
C1ty Counc1.l, January 22, 1985
DR275a
- 7 -
ce
~
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
Comrnunlty and EconomlC Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: November 5, 1984
TO: The Honorable Plannlng Comm~ssion
FROM: Paul J. Sllvern, Dlrector of Plannlng
SUBJECT: DR 275, Z.A. 4828-Y, 1508 Arlzona Avenue, CP, To Perm~t
the ReIPoval of Three Vacant Residential Bu~ldl.ngs and
Construct a 7,191.5 Square Foot Outpatient Surgl.cal
Facllity, Applicant: Jerrold Martin Sherman, M.D.
SUMmary. The proJect, located 1n a CP zone involves the removal
of three vacant res.l.dential bU.l.ldings and the construction of a
7,191.5 square foot, three story outpatl.ent surg1cal facill ty.
On slte parklng, tota11.l.ng 25 spaces w~ll be prov~ded. A
var1ance to permit a reduced front yard setback has been
requested.
Ex~st.l.n9 Condl.tions. The 7,491 square foot slte .l.S currently the
location of three vacant 51ngle famlly residential bUlldlngs.
The Rent Control Board has granted a removal permit for these
homes (see attached dec.l.s~on).
The surroundlng area 15 zoned CPo Multi-story med1cal facilities
are located to the north and northwest across Arizona Avenue, as
well as to the west across F1fteenth Street. A two story
resldentlal builcl1ng 1S located adjacent to the property to the
south and a single story resldentlal build~ng is located across
the alley to the east.
Proposed ProJect. The proposal consists of a three story 7,191.5
square foot outpatlent surg~cal facility. Subterranean and
ground level parklng for 25 cars wlll be provided. Access to the
subterranean parking level wlll be from the alley and access to
the park1ng at the ground level will be from Fifteenth Street.
The parkl.ng and clrculat~on plan has been approved by the Traffl.c
Engineer.
The second floor of the facllity will house the surgical rooms
and the outpatlent medlcal unlt which .l.ncludes examination rooms.
A cast room and x-ray rooms w111 be located on the third floor.
The project is desl.gned ln a contemporary manner using a combina-
tion of materlals includlng plaster, glass block and metal
detailing on the balconies. The entrances at both Flfteenth
Street and at the alley will be landscaped and benches will be
provided. Addl tionally, planters wll1 be provided on the decks
at the second and third floor levels.
- I -
ce
ce
Mun~cipal Code and Inte~im Development Reguire~ents.
conforms to the Mun~c~pal Code requirements and
Development GUldelines from the adopted Land Use
follows:
The project
the Interim
Element as
Category
Standard
Munic~I'al Code
Land Use
Element
Guidellnes
Project
Permitted Use
medlcal
facl.lit1es
CP zone
requires
site review
conforms,
outpatient
surgical
facility
Helght
6 stories
conforms, 3
stories/45,
Lot Coverage
75% maXlmum
lot coverage
conforms, 66%
Floor Area
Ratl.O
3.3
.96
Setbacks
Front yard
20'
requested
var~ance to
permlt 91
front yard
setback
Sl.deyards
none
required
north side,
none prov1ded
south sl.de,
l' provided
Rearyard
none
required
8'6" provlded
Parkl.ng
24 parking
spaces
requl.red
25 parklng
spaces
provl.ded
CEQA Status. ThlS proJect 1s categorically exempt from the pro-
vl.sions of CEQA, C1ty of Santa Monlca GUldellnes for Implementa-
tion [Class 3 (3)J.
Fees. Under the new office development mitigation program, th1S
proJect would be exempt from any fee requirement.
Analysis. In order to meet the programatlc requirements of this
outpatient surgical facillty the appllcant has requested a
variance to perml. t a 9 I front yard setback on Fifteenth Street.
In order to reduce the overall mass of the Flfteenth Street
elevation and impact to the area that this reduced front yard set-
back might cause, the appll.cant has prov1ded landscaping and a
- 2 -
ce
ce
sea t~ng area along the F1fteenth Street entrance as well as a
sem~-enclosed balcony on the second floor and an open deck on the
third level. Add1tionally, the proposal has a Floor Area Rat~o
wh~ch is well below that perm1tted under the Interlm GU1delines.
Plann~ng staff supports thls request for a variance ln that there
are exceptional c~rCUJl1stances which govern the programatl.c re-
quirements of an outpatient surg1cal facility in terms of both
the layout and S1ze of the rooms and that these requirements
could not be achieved wlthout permitting a reduced front yard
setback.
Parklng is prov1ded in excess of that which is requlred by the
MUn1Cl.pal Code. Staff parkJ.ng will be located in the subter-
ranean level, with access from the alley and patient parking w111
be located on the ground floor level, w1th access from Fl.fteenth
Street. Typically, pat1ents w1Il arrJ.ve in the early morning and
depart later in the afternoon. The appl1cant and architects have
met with the adjacent resl.dents and representatlves from Mid-Clty
Neighbors and addressed thelr concerns by completely enclosing
and vent~lating the garage and agreel.ng to l.nstall speed bumps in
the alley. Another concern ral.sed by the nelghbors 1ncluded the
possib~li ty of provid1ng a larger setback on Fifteenth Street.
However, in order to prov1de the needed amount of slope from the
alley to the subterranean garage, the build1ng could only be set
back one add1t1onal foot.
Although the overall mass of the bUllding has been reduced wlth
the add1tlon of balconles and decks as well as landscap2ng around
the entrances, the transition between this bU1lding and the adJa-
cent resldent1al buildings should be carefully reviewed by the
Archi tectural Rev1ew Board. In their reVlew the Architectural
Review Board should pay partlcular attentlon to the proposed
bui ld l.ng materials, the treatment of the south elevation, the
proposed landscapl.ng, and further efforts to reduce the mass of
the Arizona elevation.
Recommendatl.on. Planning staff recoromends that the Planning Com-
mlSS10n approve DR 275, Z.A. 4828-Y with the following flnd1ngs
and conditlons.
Flnd1n9s.
1. The development lS consistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1251 as set forth below.
2. The proposed plans comply with existing regu1atlons con-
tained 1n the Municipal Code in that the project wlll be
developed in accordance with the standards of the CP zone.
3. The eXlst1ng and/or proposed rights-of-way for both
pedestrian and automobile traffic will be adequate to ac-
commodate the antl.cipated results of the proposed develop-
ment incluchng off-street parklng facilities and access
thereto in that the project prov1des 25 parkl.ng spaces
wl.th 13 located in a subterranean garage accessible from
- 3 -
ce
~
the alley and 12 located at the ground level and acces-
Slble from Flfteenth Street.
4. The eXlstlng and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety fac1l1ties (including, but not lim1ted to,
sanitat1on, sewers, storm drainsl fire protection devl.ces,
protect1 ve services, and publ~c util~ ties) wl.II be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the adopted
Land Use Element in that the proJect prov1des a health
care facil1ty 1n a CP zone, an area WhlCh 18 also desig-
nated by the Land Use Element for health care faclll.t~es.
Variance F1ndings.
1. The grantlng of a variance is essential or desirable to
the public conven1ence or welfare 1n that it provldes al-
ternat1 ve medical facil1 ties and is not ~n confllct with
the General Plan 1n that l.t is a perm1tted use in the CP
zone. The requested variance of front yard setback wl.Il
not be materl.ally detr1mental or inJurious to the property
or lmprovements ~n the immediate area in that the building
design compensates for the ground level encroachment by
provlding pedestr1an orientat10n through the lnclusion of
landscaplng and outdoor seating, the structure is set back
on the second and thlrd floors and the setback line es-
tablished by the adJacent resldential property lS also
less than 20'.
Cond1tions.
1. Plans for flnal design and landscaping shall be subject to
reV1ew and approval by the Archltectural Revl.ew Board.
2. The Arch~tectural Review Board, in their review, shall pay
partl.cular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta-
tl.on and pedestrian amenities; scale and artl.culation of
des~gn elements; exter10r colors, textures and materlals:
wlndow treatment; glazing; and landscapl.ng, as well as the
transition between this proJect and the adJacent
properties.
3. Mlnor amendments to the plans shall be subJect to approval
by the Dl.rector of Planning. An increase of more than 10%
of the square footage or a sign1f1cant change in the ap-
proved concept shall be subJ ect to Planning Comm1ssion
Revl.ew. Construction shall be in substant1al conformance
Wl th the plans subm1 tted or as modl.fl.ed by the Plann1ng
Comrnlssion, Architectural Review Board or Dl.rector of
Planning.
4. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the d~sabled, includlng those set
- 4 -
ce
~
forth ln the California Admin1stratlve Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
5. F~nal parklng lot layout and speclficatlons shall be sub-
ject to the reVlew and approval of the Parklng and Traffic
Engl.neer. Speed bumps shall be provlded along the alley
as determined by the Traff1c Engineer. Parking shall be
provided free or through validation to bUlld~ng users and
employers.
6. A 5 to 6 foot solld masonry wall shall be provided along
property lines wh~ch abut residential property in accor-
dance w1th Sec. 9127.1 (SMMC).
7. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of Ilghts, noise~ activities, parking or other
actions.
8.
No nOl.se
shall be
buildings.
generat1ng compressors
placed adjacent to
or other such equipment
neighboring res1dentlal
9. ProJect desl.gn shall comply w1th the building energy reg-
ulatl.ons set forth in the California Admlnlstratl.ve Code,
Tltle 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservation Standards for New
Residentlal Build~ngs), such conformance to be verifled by
the BUlldlng and Safety Division prior to lssuance of a
Build1ng Permit.
10. Openable windows shall be provlded throughout the proJect,
in a manner consistent with applicable bU1lding code and
energy conservation requl.rements.
11.
The eXlstlng
Avenue shall
placed with
tlons of the
dr1veways and aprons located on Arizona
be removed and the eX1stlng curb cuts re-
standard curb and gutter per the specifica-
Department of General Services.
12. Street trees shall be relocated or provided as required 1n
a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code (Ord. 1242
CCS) ~ per the specifications of the Department of Recre-
ation and Parks and the Department of General Servlces.
No street tree shall be removed without the approval of
the Department of Recreat10n and Parks.
13. Street and/or alley Ilghting shall be provided on public
rights-of-way adJacent to the project if and as needed per
the speciflcations and wlth the approval of the Department
of General Services.
14. The parkl.ng levels shall be designed with solid walls to-
ward adjacent propert1es and mechanically vented in order
to el1minate possible nOlse.
- 5 -
ce
Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg
Ass1stant Planner
KR:nh
D R. :J. IS'
- 6 -
~