Loading...
SR-402-006 PCD:SF::F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2003\Appeal BonusCW.doc Council Mtg: August 12, 2003 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Appeal 03APP-008 of the Planning Commission’s Denial of Zone Change 02-036, Text Amendment 02-007, and Conditional Use Permit 02-009 to Rezone an OP2 Lot to an OP2A Designation and to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.38.050 to Allow Canopy Structures, Temporary Parking and Wipe-down Areas in Support of Existing Car Wash Operations in the “A” Overlay District, Subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Applicant/Appellant: RTK Architects INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Zone Change 02-036, Text Amendment 02-007, and Conditional Use Permit 02-009. The Planning Commission, at its April 23, 2003 meeting, voted 5-0 to deny the project. The appeal statement is contained in Attachment A and the Planning Commission staff report is contained in Attachment B. BACKGROUND The applicant/appellant proposes to re-zone an OP2 parcel to an OP2A designation and amend the provisions of the “A” Overlay District to conditionally permit accessory structures up to 14 feet in height and wipe-down areas in support of a car wash operation. As proposed, this amendment would only apply to a car wash business that is directly adjacent to an “A” zoned parcel and that has been in operation for at least 15 years. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is also requested to entitle the project, consistent with the proposed text amendment, and is required for the proposed expansion and intensification of a legal non-conforming use. The CUP is required for the main car wash operation and would also apply to the OP2A lot, if the project were approved. 1 The Planning Commission at its April 23, 2003 meeting denied these requests. On May 7, 2003, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision. The appeal, included with this report as Attachment A, is based on the contention that the proposed project does not result in an intensification of use, and that the proposed canopy structure be approved. Despite requests for project plans, the applicant failed to provide plans for the Planning Commission and no plans or additional information was provided for the City Council’s review. DISCUSSION Project Description The project involves applications to expand a legal non-conforming car wash to allow parking and vehicle wipe-down services under an accessory canopy structure on a residentially zoned, OP2 lot. The project includes applications for a zone change, text amendment, and conditional use permit. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission’s determination to deny the project was based on the anticipated impacts that would result from increased vehicular activity and support operations on the residential lot and the project’s inconsistency with the General Plan. Specifically, the Planning Commission believed that the proposed commercial expansion into the residential neighborhood and intensification of use would impair the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood consists of modest single and multi-family residences with minimal commercial intrusions from nearby Lincoln Boulevard. It was believed that the proposed project would further expand commercial operations westerly toward the residential neighborhood causing 2 disruptions to the quality of life and neighborhood integrity. Anticipated disruptions include increased vehicular traffic and noise associated with active vehicle cleaning on a parcel that has historically been used as a passive parking lot and is residentially zoned. Noise from car alarms, the multiple closing of car doors, horns and employees yelling to attract customer attention are activities and noises that would frequently be generated on site. The Planning Commission also cited inconsistencies with the General Plan. Specifically, Land Use Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. Further, the Planning Commission cited an inconsistency with Land Use Objective 1.1, which seeks to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission believed that the project did not provide a proper transition between the commercial and residential land uses and that increased activity on the OP2 lot was an unnecessary intrusion that would undermine the character and enjoyment of the residential district. Appeal Analysis The subject car wash is a legal non-conforming use since it does not possess a CUP, which is now required for the use, and fails to meet certain property development standards such as landscaping, access and circulation. The car wash has historically used the adjacent residential lot (OP2) as a ten-space parking lot, which is also a legal non-conforming use of that parcel. As such, the OP2 lot has been and may continue to be used as a ten-space parking lot in support of the adjacent car wash business, subject to the nonconforming use provisions of the Municipal Code. 3 The applicant proposes to expand the car wash operation to include wipe-down activity on the OP2 parcel, and requests that an existing canopy to shelter cars and employees be authorized. Consistent with SMMC Section 9.04.18.030 (e), staff believes the proposed project is a change to the existing character of operation. Specifically, the request to change the use of the OP2 lot from a passive vehicle parking area to a use that will involve employee activity, vehicle drying and detailing, represents an intensification and expansion of use. The referenced code section states that a legal nonconforming use shall not be permitted to change in mode or character of operation. A legal nonconforming use may intensify and expand provided the use is made to conform with all applicable regulations, including approval of necessary land use entitlements. As an expansion and intensification of use, the entire site must be made to conform to appropriate development standards and obtain CUP approval. The applicant filed all necessary applications to expand the car wash operation with the intent to bring the site into compliance with applicable codes, however, as previously noted, there remains outstanding compliance with some development standards. The appellant challenges the Planning Commission and staff’s determination that the project represents an intensification of use. The appellant believes the request to construct a canopy on the OP2 lot is not an intensification of use and, provided it complies with applicable development standards, that it should be permitted on the site. This statement, however, mistakenly focuses the appeal on the construction of the canopy and not the applicant’s request to provide car wash support activity, the proposed vehicle wipe-down area, on the OP2 parcel . Moreover, the appeal does not address the larger issues expressed by the Planning Commission concerning the 4 anticipated impacts to area residents and the appropriateness of the proposed text amendment. As specifically stated in the project application, it is the appellant’s intent to use the OP2 lot as a vehicle wipe down area. This action represents an expansion and intensification of use because it would extend commercial operations to the residential lot and significantly change the mode and character of operation of the existing car wash use. The project does not include adequate protections to preserve the quality of life for area residents and incorporates a text amendment that specifically allows commercial activity on a residentially zoned parcel. Although the OP2 lot is legally allowed to have cars parked on the lot in support of the car wash, it was never anticipated or authorized that the car wash operation would expand to the adjacent residential parcel. Allowing wipe- down activities to shift to this location would result in unnecessary impacts to immediate residential properties and the neighborhood in general. CEQA ANALYSIS The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15601 (b) (4) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that environmental review is not required for projects that will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Should the City Council determine that the project merits approval, an assessment of project-related impacts to the environment would be necessary prior to final action. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was 5 mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a 500-foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment D. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. CONCLUSION The proposed project is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan or the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, permitting the car wash to expand further into the residential neighborhood is not consistent with General Land Use Policy 1.2.2 or Objective 1.1. The impacts associated with the intrusion into the residential neighborhood would impair the integrity of the residential neighborhood and, therefore, does not warrant a recommendation of approval. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Zone Change 02-036, Text Amendment 02-007, and Conditional Use Permit 02-009 to rezone an OP2 lot to an OP2A designation and to amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.38.050 to allow canopy structures, temporary parking and wipe-down areas in support of existing car wash operations in the “A” overlay district, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, based upon the following findings: FINDINGS ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS 6 1. The proposed zone change is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that the proposed use of the OP2 lot, along with the proposed applications to allow for such use, conflicts with City-wide objectives and policies established in the Land Use and Circulation Element. Specifically, Objective 1.2 which is to ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods and Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. Furthermore, the rezoning of the OP2 parcel to an OP2A designation would not be consistent with the City-wide Objectives, specifically 1.1 that seeks to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods in that the rezoning along with the proposed text amendment would allow expanded auto related commercial activities directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Anticipated impacts include increased vehicular traffic and noise associated with active vehicle cleaning on a parcel that has historically been used as a passive parking lot and is residentially zoned. Noise from car alarms, the multiple closing of car doors, horns and employees yelling to attract customer attention are activities and noises that would frequently be generated on site. 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of the proposed zone change in that the proposed zone change would extend commercial use of land further into a residential neighborhood thereby creating a situation where residential uses would be further impacted by noise, negative aesthetics, minimal setbacks, and lack of transition. This action would be counter to Land Use Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS 1. The proposed text amendment is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that the proposed use of the OP2 lot, along with the proposed applications to allow for such usage, is counter to the City-wide Objectives and policies established in the Land Use and Circulation Element. Specifically, objective 1.2 which is to ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods and Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. Furthermore, the proposed text amendment would not be consistent with the City-wide Objectives, specifically 1.1 that seeks to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods in that the proposed text amendment would allow expanded auto related commercial activities directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of the proposed text amendment in that the proposed text amendment would extend commercial use of land further into a residential neighborhood thereby creating a situation where residential uses would be further impacted by noise, negative aesthetics, minimal setbacks, and lack of transition. This action would be counter to Land Use Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned 7 residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS 1. The proposed use is not conditionally permitted within the subject district and does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the requested expansion and intensification of the existing legal nonconforming car wash use requires a Conditional Use Permit for the entire site, pursuant to the standards contained in the nonconforming chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the requested expansion to the adjacent OP2 lot is not a permitted use in this residential district. The applicant filed a Zone Change and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow commercial use of the residential property, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The City Council, in its review of the proposed text amendment and zone change, denied this request based upon the detrimental impacts it would cause to the adjoining residential neighborhood and inconsistency with the General Plan. Therefore, the request for a Conditional Use Permit must be denied. Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner Jonathan R. Lait, AICP, Senior Planner Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner City Planning Division Planning and Community Development Department Attachments: A. Appeal Statement B. Planning Commission staff report dated April 23, 2003 C. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, dated April 23, 2003 D. Public Notice E. Planning Commission Minutes 8 ATTACHMENT A APPEAL STATEMENT Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office. 9 ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 23, 2003 10 CP:JT:AS:JL:BM:f:\plan\share\pc\strpt\02\02TA007.doc Santa Monica, California Planning Commission Mtg: April 23, 2003 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Zone Change (02-036), Text Amendment (02-007), and Conditional Use Permit (02-009) Address: 2800 Lincoln Boulevard Applicant: RTK Architects INTRODUCTION Action: Applications for a Zone Change, Text Amendment, and a Conditional Use Permit to rezone an OP2 lot to an OP2A designation and to amend the conditionally permitted uses section of the “A” overlay district to allow canopy structures, temporary parking and wipe-down areas in support of a car wash operation. Recommendation: Deny based on findings. Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: Not applicable to projects that involve legislative action. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The property upon which the car wash operation is located, consists of 21,650 square foot and is located on the west side of Lincoln Boulevard between Ashland Avenue and Raymond Avenue having approximately 211.46 feet of street frontage along Lincoln, 102.88 feet of frontage along Ashland Avenue, and 70.31 feet along Raymond Avenue. Surrounding uses consist of commercial uses in the C4 district to the north and south, a mix of residential and commercial uses in the C4 district to the east, and residential uses in the OP2 district to the west. Existing on-site uses include the car wash structure, which totals approximately 3,928 square feet. Zoning District: C4 (Highway Commercial District) and OP2 (Ocean Park Low Density Multi-family Residential) Land Use District: Service and Specialty Commercial and Low Density Housing Parcel Area: 21,650 square feet for the parcels located in the C4 district 5,650 square feet for the parcel located in the OP2 district PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the following requests: 11 1. Zone Change application to re-zone an OP2 parcel to an OP2-A parcel. This action would allow the parcel to be zoned as a parking overlay parcel rather than strictly a residentially zoned parcel; 2. Text Amendment application to change the provisions of the “A” Overlay District to allow: 1) temporary parking and wipe-down areas in support of a car wash operation if the car wash is directly adjacent to an “A” zoned parcel and the car wash has been in operation for at least 15 years, and 2) to allow canopy structures (not to exceed 14 feet in height) used to protect/shield any temporary parking/wipe-down area in support of an existing car wash. Both uses would be subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; 3. Conditional Use Permit application to authorize temporary parking of wipe-down areas and canopies and to change car wash from a nonconforming use to a conforming use. Note: Applicant failed to provide project plans and other application materials as requested by staff for Planning Commission review. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The subject property is nonconforming with respect to several aspects of the Municipal Code and General Plan. The applicant has submitted the subject applications as a means to remedy these nonconforming conditions. CEQA STATUS The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (4) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that environmental review is not required for projects that will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Should the Planning Commission determine that the project merits approval, an assessment of project-related impacts to the environment would be necessary prior to final action. HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY STATUS The existing building on the project site is not identified on the Historic Resources Inventory and is not proposed for demolition. RENT CONTROL STATUS Exempt; commercial property FEES The project is not subject to any special City Planning related fees. 12 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application prior to application filing. At least eight (8) weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant is required to submit a photograph to verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. The applicant has been advised of the site posting requirement by phone and in writing. As of the date of this report, the site continues to not be properly posted. The failure to post does not prevent the hearing from proceeding since the notice requirements of SMMC 9.04.20.20.050 have been met and staff recommends that the project be denied In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius of the project and published in the “California” Section of The Los Angeles Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment C. The applicant was notified by phone on January 30, 2003 and by writing on February 3, 2003 and March 25, 2003 of the subject hearing date. ANALYSIS Background Bonus Car Wash was established at the subject property in approximately 1972. The car wash operation occupies five parcels along Lincoln Boulevard between Ashland Avenue and Raymond Avenue. A ten-space parking lot, in support of the car wash, was established on a 50 x 113 foot parcel located directly adjacent (to the west) to the car wash property. This parcel, with 50 feet of frontage along Ashland Avenue, was established in the 1960s as a surface parking lot for the adjoining commercial use. At that time, automobile parking lots in multi-family residential districts were permitted, provided the parking lot served an adjacent business and did not extend into the residential district more than 150 feet. The parcel was zoned R2 and subsequently was re-zoned to OP2 in 1989 when the Ocean Park Zoning District was adopted. Code Compliance In July of 2001, the City received complaints about excessive noise being generated throughout the neighborhood by the car wash operation. Upon investigation, the City’s Code Enforcement Division discovered that a canopy structure, a mechanical equipment shed, portable storage containers, and an employee break area covering had been placed upon the parking lot in the OP2 zone without permits. They also determined that the canopy was being used to shelter cars while they were being vacuumed, wiped-down and detailed. Accordingly, two notice of violation orders were issued. Both orders, issued three weeks apart, directed the removal of the canopy and all portable storage containers, and the return of the OP2 lot to its original condition as a ten-space parking lot. Because the applicant did not voluntarily comply with the notice 13 of violation orders, nuisance abatement hearings were conducted on February 21, 2002 and March 6, 2002. The Nuisance Abatement Board determined the operation of the car wash constituted a nuisance and ordered its abatement. Among other actions, the Nuisance Abatement Board ordered the property owner to obtain City approval or remove the outdoor storage container, canopy/ lean-to, and small shed located on the OP2 parcel. A copy of the Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance is included with this report as Attachment A. The Nuisance Abatement action is currently subject to litigation. In accordance with the nuisance abatement order, the applications now being considered by the Planning Commission were filed to legalize the existing conditions. Neighborhood Compatibility The neighborhood in the general vicinity consists of commercial uses fronting on Lincoln Boulevard with single and multi-family uses to the west and east of the commercial zoned parcels. Due to the historic use of the subject property, one 50' x 110' residential parcel is used to support parking for the existing car wash. This is a legal nonconforming condition. However, while previously used as off-street parking, the site has also been illegally converted into a wipe-down and detailing area, and has served as an employee break area. This expansion of the commercial use to the residential property expands the operational boundaries of the site and results in significant adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Area residents have complained of significant noise being generated at the site. Specifically, noise in the form of car alarms, vacuum and wax/buffing machines, and employees yelling has contributed to these complaints. While these are typical characteristics of car washing facilities, it was never anticipated or authorized that the car wash operation would expand to the adjacent residential parcel. Such expansion has a direct adverse impact on the immediate residential property and generally negatively impairs the character of the Ocean Park district. The intensity of uses and encroachment into the residential neighborhood does not serve to protect or maintain the residential neighborhood, does not minimize traffic hazards on residential streets, or keep adjacent uses free from disturbing noise. Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Review Bonus Car Wash is considered a legal non-conforming use since its establishment predates current regulations that require conditional use permit approval. Legal non- conforming uses cannot change in mode or character of operation, or expand unless such changes are in accordance with code requirements. The filing of the aforementioned applications to legalize the current conditions of the OP2 zone would constitute a change in mode and character of operation of the car wash in that the commercial activities would be expanded (i.e. wipe down, vacuuming, detailing). Therefore, approval of a CUP for the car wash operation is required. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.14.130, car wash operations that require a CUP must comply with special standards designed to help ensure they operate in a harmonious manner with the neighborhood. As submitted for the Planning Commission’s review, the plans do 14 not comply with these special standards, including landscaping, access and circulation, and location of activities such as vacuuming. In addition to non-compliance with special development standards, the proposed use of the OP2 lot, along with the proposed applications to allow the lot to be used in support of the existing car-wash, is counter to the City-wide objectives and policies established in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, Objective 1.1 aims to protect the quality of life in all residential districts and Objective 1.2 aims to ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods. Policy 1.2.2 states, surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space. Furthermore, the purpose of Policy 1.2.2 is to ensure that commercial uses in residential zones should transition back to residential to preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods and protect housing from commercial intrusions. Accordingly, staff believes the project is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, the impacts of noise, insufficient landscaping, minimal setbacks, and the lack of proper transition between commercial and residential land uses significantly degrade the quality of life for nearby residents. Zone Change/Text Amendment The applicant proposes to add the following language to SMMC 9.04.08.38.050 pertaining to conditionally permitted uses in the A-Overlay district: (e) Temporary parking and wipe-down area in support of a car wash operation if the following conditions are met: 1. The car wash is directly adjacent to the “A” lot. 2. The car wash is existing and has been in operation for at least 15 years. (f) Canopy structure (not to exceed 14'-0" in height) used to protect / shield any temporary parking / wipe-down areas in support of an existing car-wash operation. In addition to the text amendment, the applicant requests extending the A-overlay district to the subject OP2 parcel, making it an OP2-A parcel, and thus subject to the proposed text amendment. A-overlay districts are intended to provide adequate parking facilities to support important commercial corridors, while ensuring the parking facility does not adversely impact the environment of nearby residents or diminish the integrity of the subject residential district in a manner inconsistent with the General Plan. The subject OP2 property is currently legal nonconforming with respect to its surface parking lot. The parcel is also illegally nonconforming with respect to the canopy structure, break area and the wipe-down/detailing activities, as noted above. It is these structures and activities that the applicant is attempting to legalize with the submitted applications. As previously stated, staff is concerned that proposed use of the residential parcel would adversely impact adjacent residents and is inconsistent with the General Plan. The proposed use of the parcel in a manner other than its historic use, parking, would result in deleterious impacts to adjacent residential property owners and impair the integrity of the Ocean Park district. 15 Conclusion The proposed project is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan or the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore does not warrant a recommendation of approval. ALTERNATIVES Other than the recommended action, the Planning Commission may: 1. Direct staff to prepare environmental analysis in order to consider project approval; 2. Deny Zone Change (02-036), Text Amendment (02-007), and Conditional Use Permit (02-009) based upon revised findings and conditions; 3. Deny Zone Change (02-036), Text Amendment (02-007), and approve Conditional Use Permit (02-009) to establish the legal, conforming use based upon revised findings and conditions. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed Zone Change, Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit based on the following findings. FINDINGS ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS 1. The proposed zone change is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that the proposed use of the OP2 lot, along with the proposed applications to allow for such use, conflicts with City-wide objectives and policies established in the Land Use and Circulation Element. Specifically, Objective 1.2 which is to ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods and Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. Furthermore, the rezoning of the OP2 parcel to an OP2A designation would not be consistent with the City-wide Objectives, specifically 1.1 that seeks to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods in that the rezoning along with the proposed text amendment would allow expanded auto related commercial activities directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of the proposed zone change in that the proposed zone change would extend commercial use of land further into a residential neighborhood 16 thereby creating a situation where residential uses would be further impacted by noise, negative aesthetics, minimal setbacks, and lack of transition. This action would be counter to Land Use Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS 1. The proposed text amendment is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that the proposed use of the OP2 lot, along with the proposed applications to allow for such usage, is counter to the City-wide Objectives and policies established in the Land Use and Circulation Element. Specifically, objective 1.2 which is to ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods and Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. Furthermore, the proposed text amendment would not be consistent with the City-wide Objectives, specifically 1.1 that seeks to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods in that the proposed text amendment would allow expanded auto related commercial activities directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of the proposed text amendment in that the proposed text amendment would extend commercial use of land further into a residential neighborhood thereby creating a situation where residential uses would be further impacted by noise, negative aesthetics, minimal setbacks, and lack of transition. This action would be counter to Land Use Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS 1. The proposed use is not conditionally permitted within the subject district and does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that the OP2 zone does not allow auto washing uses and would require a Zone Change and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow them subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that the car wash site does not comply with the special standards for automobile car washes. 17 Prepared by: Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner Attachments: A. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance B. Radius and Location Map C. Notice of Public Hearing BJM F:\PLAN\SHARE\PC\STRPT\02\02TA007.doc July 5, 2007 18 ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION, DATED APRIL 23, 2003 19 City of Santa Monica City Planning Division PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT CASE NUMBER: Zone Change 02-036, Text Amendment 02-007, and Conditional Use Permit 02-009 LOCATION: 2800 Lincoln Boulevard APPLICANT: RTK Architects PROPERTY Dipu Haque OWNER: CASE PLANNER: Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner REQUEST: Applications for a Zone Change, Text Amendment, and a Conditional Use Permit to rezone an OP2 lot to an OP2-A designation and to amend the conditionally permitted uses section of the “A” overlay district to allow canopy structures, temporary parking and wipe-down areas in support of a car wash operation. CEQA STATUS: The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15601 (b) (4) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that environmental review is not required for projects that will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 4/23/03 Date. Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below X Denied. 20 Other. EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: 5/8/03 EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: N/A LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES: Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit. N/A ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS 1. The proposed zone change is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that the proposed use of the OP2 lot, along with the proposed applications to allow for such use, conflicts with City-wide objectives and policies established in the Land Use and Circulation Element. Specifically, Objective 1.2 which is to ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods and Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. Furthermore, the rezoning of the OP2 parcel to an OP2A designation would not be consistent with the City-wide Objectives, specifically 1.1 that seeks to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods in that the rezoning along with the proposed text amendment would allow expanded auto related commercial activities directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of the proposed zone change in that the proposed zone change would extend commercial use of land further into a residential neighborhood thereby creating a situation where residential uses would be further impacted by noise, negative aesthetics, minimal setbacks, and lack of transition. This action would be counter to Land Use Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. 21 TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS 1. The proposed text amendment is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that the proposed use of the OP2 lot, along with the proposed applications to allow for such usage, is counter to the City-wide Objectives and policies established in the Land Use and Circulation Element. Specifically, objective 1.2 which is to ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods and Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. Furthermore, the proposed text amendment would not be consistent with the City-wide Objectives, specifically 1.1 that seeks to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods in that the proposed text amendment would allow expanded auto related commercial activities directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of the proposed text amendment in that the proposed text amendment would extend commercial use of land further into a residential neighborhood thereby creating a situation where residential uses would be further impacted by noise, negative aesthetics, minimal setbacks, and lack of transition. This action would be counter to Land Use Policy 1.2.2 which states, “surface parking lots zoned residential adjacent to highway commercial corridors when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or public open space on the surface”. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS 1. The proposed use is not conditionally permitted within the subject district and does not comply with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that the OP2 zone does not allow auto washing uses and would require a Zone Change and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow them subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that the car wash site does not comply with the special standards for automobile car washes. VOTE Ayes: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Brown, Moyle NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is 22 governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010. I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. _____________________________ _____________________________ Darrell Clarke, Chairperson Date 23 ATTACHMENT D PUBLIC NOTICE 24 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Appeal 03-008 2800 Lincoln Boulevard APPLICANT: RTK Architects APPELANT: Bonus Car Wash PROPERTY OWNER: Prince Investment Inc. A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request: Appeal 03APP-008 of the Planning Commission’s Denial of Zone Change 02-036, Text Amendment 02-007, and Conditional Use Permit 02-009 to Rezone an OP2 Lot to an OP2A Designation and to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.38.050 to Allow Canopy Structures, Temporary Parking and Wipe-down Areas in Support of Existing Car Wash Operations in the “A” Overlay District, Subject to a Conditional Use Permit. DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003 AT 6:45 p.m. LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California HOW TO COMMENT The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting. Address your letters to: City Clerk Re: Appeal 03-008 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 MORE INFORMATION If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner contact at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at jonathan-lait@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall. 25 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing. ESPAÑOL Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ JAY M. TREVINO, AICP Planning Manager F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\03APP008.doc 26 ATTACHMENT E PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 27 8-C.Zone Change 02-036, Text Amendment 02-007, and Conditional Use Permit 02-009, 2800 Lincoln Boulevard. Applications to allow a Zone Change, Text Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit to rezone an OP2 lot to an OP2A designation and to amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.38.050 to allow canopy structures, temporary parking and wipe-down areas in support of existing car wash operations in the “A” overlay district, subject to a Conditional APPLICANT: RTK Architects. Use Permit. [Planner: Bradley J. Misner, AICP] PROPERTY OWNER: Dipu Haque. Prior to the Commission’s disclosures on this project, the applicant’s attorney, Jeffrey Aaron Cohen, asked the Commission to continue this project for reasons cited in his letter to the Commission. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum read the Zoning Ordinance code section pertaining to requests for continuance. He also stated that there is, as Mr. Cohen stated, a law suit pending between the property owner and City regarding a Nuisance Abatement Order, however that suit has no bearing on the land use issues addressed in the staff report. The Commission had nothing of substance to disclose on this matter. Associate Planner Bradley J. Misner gave the staff report. Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Misner if he understood the applicant’s request correctly that they wanted to change the OP2 portion of their property to an “A” overlay zone, which is a designation the City tries not to use, and then permit the applicant to add a permanent structure to that parcel. Mr. Misner answered in the affirmative, adding that the structure would require a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant’s team spoke in the following order: Jeffrey Aaron Cohen (attorney), project architect, Steve Bacchetti of RTK Architects; and Caleb S. Grodsky (attorney). During the testimony, the timer was stopped and a brief break was taken from 12:53 a.m. to 1:03 a.m. Testimony resumed with Mr. Grodsky’s comments. Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Grodsky about the covered parking. Mr. Grodsky stated that there will be a parking area, but not covered parking. Chair Clarke expressed concern regarding the parking history of the property. Mr. Misner clarified for the record that in 1987 the Architectural Review Board approved a site plan for the car wash with ten parking spaces on-site. Photographic evidence shows that a covered structure was in place in 1961 and it was subsequently demolished. In 1968, surface parking was permitted, providing that it did not encroach into the residentially zoned portion of the 28 property. He concluded by stating staff’s belief that a “wipe down area” constitutes an expansion of the car wash use. Chair Clarke asked staff about the car wash’s parking entitlements. Mr. Misner stated that they are approved for ten parking spaces. Commissioner Dad commented on the thoroughness of the staff report and presentation and thanked staff for providing information on the entire process for this application. Commissioner Olsen made a motion to deny the applications per staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. Commissioner Olsen commented that the parcel in question is a residential lot, but he will not oppose staff’s contention. He stated that the zoning cannot be changed to intensify the use and he could not make the necessary findings to approve the project. Commissioner Olsen stated for the record that the Text Amendment finding regarding the welfare of the community must be made. He stated that the only choice is with the staff report recommendation. The motion to deny the applications was approved by the following vote: Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; ABSENT: Brown, Moyle. 29