SR-12-E (2)
WIll'
t({)z...-()(J~
12-E
,DEe 1 3 lqRR
Monlca, Call1b~nia
C/ED:PZ:DKW:DM
Council Mtg: December 13, 1988
Santa
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City staff
~7,8
(J {\ CO B ( ,
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission Technical Denial of
Development Review 464 to Allow the Construction and
Operation of a 3,106 Square Foot Building to be
Utilized as a Ten-Minute Oil Change Facility.
Applicant: Ken Keatts. Appellant: Ken Keatts.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the subj ect
appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's technical denial of
Development Review 464 to permit the construction and operation
of a ten-minute oil change facility.
The Planning Commission
denied the application in that two motions, one for continuance
and one for denial, failed for a lack of four votes. The
applicant, Ken Keatts, is appealing the denial.
BACKGROUND
The applicant has proposed the construction of a 3,106 square
foot building on a vacant, former gas station site. The
structure would contain three service bays, a small office and
restroom facilities on the first floor and office and storage
space on the second floor. The facility would be operated by
Pennzoil oil Company as a Jiffy Lube Ten-Minute Oil change store.
The proposed application, which was deemed complete on April 28,
1988, is subject to the provisions of Ordinance 1321.
According
- 1 -
\2-E
, ~(,I.o
fjECl
to Ordinance 1321, a Development Review is required for all new
automotive uses. This application is not subject to the
provisions of the new zoning ordinance.
The proposed Jiffy Lube facility would function as a
"drive-through" with cars exiting out the front bay doors toward
pico Boulevard. Access to the site would be provided off the
rear alley and from pico Boulevard. Traffic flow would be from
the alley to Pico Boulevard. The cars would be serviced from an
underground service pit. Automobile service would be limited to
lube and oil change only. There would be no tune-up or repair.
Additional information provided as exhibits attached to this
report include the letter of appeal (Attachment B), the Planning
commission statement of Official Action (Attachment C), a more
detailed proj ect description in the Planning Commission staff
Report (Attachment D), and the project plans (Attachment E).
ANALYSIS
The Planning commission technically denied the applicant's
proposal based on the fact that two motions failed to carry for a
lack of four votes. The first motion was for a continuance of
the item in order to give the applicant an opportunity to
redesign. This motion failed by a vote of two in favor and two
against. The second motion, which was for approval of the
project, failed by a vote of three in favor and one against. On
the night of the hearing, one Commissioner was absent, one
abstained, and one Commission seat was vacant.
- 2 -
The Planning Commission had concerns related to the proposed
proj ect r s on-site traffic circulation, its relationship to the
adjacent residential neighborhood and its potential impact on the
existing Pico/Cloverfield intersection. While the proposed
proj ect did not require any traffic analysis by virtue of its
small size, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
proposed retail center at the northwest corner of the
picojCloverfield intersection stated that the existing Level of
Service for the intersection is "C". The report also projected a
future LOS of "F" with the construction of approved and proposed
projects.
In addition, one Commissioner was concerned about the
concentration of auto related uses on pico Boulevard. Several
members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Public
comment was centered on the traffic congestion which currently
exists at the pico/Cloverfield intersection and the
overconcentration of auto related uses on Pico Boulevard.
Three motions were made by the Commission. The first motion was
made for denial of the project based on the fact that the traffic
pattern proposed would require alley access which intrudes on the
residential area behind the site and that the proposed use is not
screened as required by the Land Use Element. However, this
motion died for a lack of a second. The next motion was for a
continuance of the item in order to give the applicant an
opportunity to redesign the project to address the issues raised
by the first motion. The motion for a continuance failed to
carry by a vote of two in favor and two against. The final
- 3 -
motion was for denial of the project based on intrusion into the
residential neighborhood, lack of screening of adj acent
residences, and the concentration of auto uses on Pico Boulevard.
This motion failed by a vote of three in favor and one against.
Therefore, based on the fact that all three motions failed to
carry, the item was technically denied since four votes are
necessary to approve a project.
staff concerns regarding the proj ect were based on the
orientation of the building. The service bay doors are proposed
to be open to the rear alley as well as pi co Boulevard. Land Use
Element POlicy 1.2.4 encourages the mitigation of impacts of
commercial uses, such as automobile service shops I on
surrounding residential properties. The orientation of the
service bay doors would impact the residential properties across
pi co Place alley to the south. Furthermore, Land Use Element
policy 3.2.2 states that where commercial uses abut residential
areas I there should be an appropr ia te transition (landscaped
setbacks or service alley and screen walls). While there is an
alley between the subject site and the residential properties,
the applicant has not proposed any screen walls or landscaping
which might mitigate the impact of the proposed use.
Several letters and phone calls were received by staff regarding
the proposed development. Concerns centered on the potential
traffic impact the project may have on the PicojCloverfield
intersection. Sunset Park Associated Neighbors (SPAN) had been
in contact with the developer. The SPAN Board of Directors
maintains the position that until there is positive action to
- 4 -
improve traffic flow at and near the intersection of pi co and
Cloverfield by the city and developers of already approved
projects which impact the PicojCloverfield intersection, no
further development at the intersection should be approved.
Conclusion
Based on the proposed proj ect ' s incons istencies with Land Use
Element policy, the potential negative impact on nearby residents
and the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, staff
recommends that the council deny the appeal and deny Development
Review 464.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the appeal
and deny DR 464 with the findings contained in the October 5,
1988 Planning Commission Statement of Official Action.
prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner
D. Kenyon Webster, Senior Planner
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by Ken Keatts dated 10/13/88
B. Statement of Official Action dated 10/5/88
c. Planning Commission staff Report dated 10/5/B8
D. supplemental Memo to Planning Commission dated
10/5/88
E. Project Plans
- 5 -
DM
PC/dr464cc
11/21/88
- 6 -
f\J ~wvW 22-, ''1ft
TYE KENDRICK HANSON
7~~~)< rIel") r:lUt1, OaJ.A-, S:oA\1\U' \
. - \... - -
CITY OF S.\\ll 1\ MO!\1'"" 430 BUFDett AnDue #4
CITY p~ ~.\I ,...,~ - SaD Franciscot CA 94131
(415)285-3692
fcz-,r tJt7 ti
.88 OCT 19 P 4 :26
October 13, 1988
c:onorable l:etr.bers of the Cl ty Counsel
City of Santa yonica
Santa l~onl ca, Cal if'ornla
Dear Yembers:
~e are appealing the technical denial by the City of ~anta ~onica
Planning co~mlss1on for Project # D-R-464 on October 5, 1988.
~---=-~d~
. '11' l ~
i},t..e K. Hanson
~~~
:Cenfleth '.,'. Keatts
~
I~
.
I{ cz.... (J()~
II+=-
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: Development Review 464
LOCATION: 2338 Pica Boulevard
APPLICANT: Ken Keatts
REQUEST: Application for a Development Review to allow the
construction of a 3,106 square foot building to
be utilized as a Ten-Minute Oil Change Facility.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
10/5/88
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
X Denied based on lack of four votes.
Other.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed development is inconsistent with Policy 1.2.4
on the General Plan Land Use Element which states:
" Mitigate the impact of commercial uses such as auto re-
pair shops in those areas where an over-concentration of
the use would have, or the operation of such uses might
have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood".
In that the service bays for the autonotive use front onto
pico Boulevard as well as the rear alley, and the proposed
traffic pattern could impact adjacent residential
properties.
2. The proposed development is inconsistent with POlicy 3.2.2
of the General Plan Land Use Element which states:
UWhere commercial uses abut residential areas, there
should be an appropriate transition (landscaped setback or
service alley and screen wall).
In that the applicant has not proposed any type of screen
wall or landscapinq to mitiqate impacts on adjacent
residential properties.
- 1 -
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancy:
L/p~/tJ04
Pyne, Hecht
Lambert, Farivar
Nelson
Mechur
One
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning
commission of th~~ity of santa Xonica.
stdr464
DM
10/21/88
'"
, /.f ~'// /'
/ '. /:. y , !." "'..
l________."v-...-~.---L ~.,~~ ~,~_
signature -
"-2 -;/ /
/~~~~:...r
date
/1 -
,,' .L./C//(;I 1 C' t..U . P( A..../e ~c;E/
print name and title
@ },ct'~-
- 2 -
,r /;7/\
tj~oo~
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 5, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: Development Review 464
Address: 2338 pico Boulevard
Applicant: Ken Keatts
SUMMARY
Action: Application for a Development Review to allow the con-
struction of a 3,106 square foot building to be utilized as a
Ten-Minute oil Change Facility. This application is subject to
the provisions of the old zoning ordinance.
Recommendation: Denial
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 9,012 square foot parcel located on the
southeast corner of pico Boulevard and Cloverfield Boulevard
having a frontage of 90.12 feet along Pica Boulevard and 100 feet
along Cloverfield Boulevard. Surrounding uses consist of Commer-
cial Retail across pico Boulevard to the north {C4}, Residential
across Pi co Place South to the south {Rl}, a vacant lot on the
adjacent parcel to the east {C4}, and Commercial Retail across
Cloverfield Boulevard to the west {C4}.
Zoning Districts: C4
Land Use Districts: Pi co Corridor
Parcel Area: 90.12 X 100 = 9,012 square feet
PROPOSED PROJECT
Proposed is the construction of a 3,106 square foot building on a
vacant, former gas station site. The structure would contain
three service bays, a small office and restroom facilities on the
first floor I and office and storage space on the second floor.
The facility would be operated by Pennzoil Oil Company as a Jiffy
Lube-Ten Minute oil Change store.
- 1 -
tjC"l"OO'i,
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in
conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt per City of Santa Monica
Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Class 3(3).
FEES
The project is not subject to any development fees.
ANALYSIS
The proposed application, which was deemed complete on April 28,
1988, is subject to the provisions of Ordinance 1321. According
to Ordinance 1321, a Development Review is required for all new
automotive uses. This application is not subject to the provi-
sions of the new zoning ordinance.
The applicant has proposed the construction of a 3,106 square
foot building to be operated as a Jiffy Lube oil Change facility.
The facility would function as a "drive-through" with cars enter-
ing the building through the rear service bay doors and exiting
out the front bay doors toward Pico Boulevard. The cars would be
serviced from an underground service pi t . Automobile service
would be limited to lube and oil changes only. There would be no
tune-up or repair.
Access to the site would be provided off the rear alley and from
pico Boulevard. Traffic flow would be from the alley to pico
Boulevard. The applicant has obtained approval from the Parking
and Traffic Division for the parking lot layout.
Planning Staff does have concerns regarding the orientation of
the building in terms of the fact that the service bay doors are
open to the rear alley as well as pico Boulevard. Land Use Ele-
ment Policy 1.2.4 encourages the mitigation of impacts of commer-
cial uses such as automobile service shops on surrounding
residential properties. The orientation of the service bay doors
would impact the residential properties across pico Place alley
to the south. Furthermore, Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2 states
that where commercial uses abut residential areas, there should
be an appropriate transition (landscaped setbacks or service al-
ley and screen walls). While there is an alley between the sub-
ject site and the residential properties, the applicant has not
proposed any screen walls or landscaping which might mitigate the
impact of the proposed use.
Several letters and phone calls have
proposed development. Concerns have
tial traffic impact the project
Cloverfield intersection. Sunset
been received regarding the
been centered on the poten-
might have on the Picof
Park Associated Neighbors
- 2 -
t.fo~(JO'b
(SPAN), have been in contact with the developer. The SPAN Board
of Directors maintain the position that until there is positive
action to improve traffic flow at and near the intersection of
Pico and Cloverf ield by the City or developers of already ap-
proved proj ects which impact the Cloverfield/Pico intersection,
no further development at the intersection should be approved.
other letters expressed similar concerns and positions. One let-
ter made reference to circulation Element Policies 4.3.1 and
4.3.2, which state that levels of service on City streets shall
be a criterion for evaluation of new development proposals and
that new development shall be where there is adequate existing
road and highway capacity. Neighbors have expressed a concern
that the cumulative impact of this project and others at the same
intersection could push the level of service to LOS "F". The
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Monica Prome-
nade project at the northwest corner of Pi co Boulevard and
Cloverfield Boulevard projects a future LOS of "F" with already
approved projects.
Conclusion
Based on the proposed projects inconsistencies with the Land Use
and Circulation Element Policy, and the potential negative impact
on nearby residents, staff is recommending denial of the appli-
cants request.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff respectfully recommends that Development Review
464 be denied with the following findings.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed development is inconsistent with Policy 1.2.4
on the General Plan Land Use Element which states:
tl Mitigate the impact of commercial uses such as auto re-
pair shops in those areas where an over-concentration of
the use would have, or the operation of such uses might
have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood".
In that the service bays for the automotive use front onto
pico Boulevard as well as the rear alley, and the proposed
traffic pattern could impact adjacent residential
properties.
2. The proposed development is inconsistent with Policy 3.2.2
of the General Plan Land Use Element which states:
"Where commercial uses abut residential areas, there
should be an appropriate transition (landscaped setback or
service alley and screen wall).
- 3 -
tfo-z,r()OC;
In that the applicant has not proposed any type of screen
wall or landscaping to mitigate impacts on adjacent
residential properties.
Prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner
PC/DR464
DM:dm
08/19/88
Attachments: 1. Letter from SPAN dated 9/26/88
2. Letter from SPAN dated 8/22/88
3. Letter from Laurie Tanner dated 9/17/88
4. Letter from Nancy Nason dated 9/18/88
5. Letter from Pennzoil dated 9/22/88
6. Article submitted by applicant
7. Project Plans
- 4 -
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category
Land Use
Municipal Code Element
Permitted Use Automotive
service allowed
with approval of
a Development
Review, per
Ordinance 1321
Height 2 stories/3D'
F.A.R. 1.5
Parking 1/300 sq. ft. =
10 spaces
- 5 -
t.(t> 1-- ,- tJO ~
Project
Automotive
Service
2 stories/20'
.34
12 spaces proposed