SR-402-008 (14)
PCD:SF:AS:JL:BR:f:\cityplanning\share\council\strpt\2004\04app013 (3115-3121 SM Blvd).doc
Council Mtg: April 12, 2005 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal (04APP-013) of the Planning Commission’s Decision Denying a
Conditional Use Permit (04CUP-009) to Establish Two New
Restaurants/Bars That Exceed 50-Seats and Nightclub Uses at 3115 and
3119 Santa Monica Boulevard That Would Operate From 7:00 A.M. to
2:00 A.M., Seven Days a Week with Alcohol Service. Applicant: Anthony
Kling; Appellant: David Naftalin and Anthony Kling; Property Owner:
Anthony Kling.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the subject Appeal (04APP-013).
This action upholds the Planning Commission’s denial of a request to establish two new
restaurants/bars and nightclub uses with alcohol service at the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The appellant proposes to operate a business from the commercial building facing
Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed business includes a bakery, an art gallery, two
restaurants, and a nightclub that are internally connected. The proposal includes
alcohol service during the proposed operating hours of 7:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. seven
days a week for the restaurants and the nightclub.
1
ANALYSIS
The site contains a single-story commercial building fronting on Santa Monica
Boulevard that contains five tenant spaces as well as a two-story structure at the
northeast corner of the site that contains a two-car garage on the ground floor and a
one bedroom residential unit on the second floor. Access to the garage is provided
from the 20-foot wide rear alley.
Extending a depth of approximately 15-feet from the rear façade of the existing
commercial building is a paved area and several mature trees. Beyond this point, and
occupying approximately the rear two-thirds of the parcel, is an area covered with
gravel. While vehicles could be parked on this gravel area, the site does not have a
traditional parking lot with defined spaces and drive aisles. A twelve-foot block wall
extends along portions of the side and rear parcel lines, enclosing the site, except for
pedestrian and vehicular access gates.
Three of the five existing and anticipated uses on the site are permitted uses in the C4
zoning district. These uses include the existing law firm at 3123 Santa Monica
Boulevard, and a proposed bakery and art gallery at 3117 and 3121, respectively.
While a business license has been obtained for the bakery and art gallery, these uses
have not yet been established.
The restaurant and nightclub uses with alcohol service at 3115 and 3119 Santa Monica
Boulevard are the subject of the conditional use permit application denied by the
2
Planning Commission and the subject of this appeal. The Santa Monica Municipal
Code requires a Conditional Use Permit to permit a restaurant with more than 50 seats,
to establish nightclub uses and to serve alcoholic beverages.
The approximate 1,000-square foot tenant space at 3115 Santa Monica Boulevard is
proposed as an over 50-seat restaurant, with 281 square feet of this floor area also
being used as a nightclub use. The proposed floor plan includes 312 square feet of
dining-only area, including 154 square feet of patio dining, and 402 square feet of
support area for the use.
The tenant space at 3119 Santa Monica Boulevard is proposed as an over 50-seat
restaurant that occupies an area of approximately 852 square feet. The proposed floor
plan identifies 248 square feet of area devoted to support operations, 110 square feet
devoted to dining-only area, and 494 square feet of floor area that can also be used as
a nightclub use.
The application indicates that the proposed over 50-seat restaurants would have a total
of 234 seats. Two hundred and nineteen seats are located at dining tables, including
approximately 32 patio-dining seats, and 15 seats are located at a bar. The proposed
floor plan’s legend identifies a bar, however, the area devoted to this use has not been
delineated on the plan. Additionally, review of the floor plan shows that four tenant
spaces will be internally connected through openings in the demising walls between the
tenant spaces.
3
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission considered, and unanimously denied, the requested
Conditional Use Permit application at its October 20, 2004 meeting. The Planning
Commission noted that the submitted plans were inadequate and inaccurate. These
deficiencies, the lack of a clear business plan, and noncompliance with required parking
requirements precluded the Planning Commission from approving the project.
Appeal Statement
On November 3, 2004, the City of Santa Monica received an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision. The appeal contends that the project does conform to the
City’s General Plan and would enhance the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally,
the appellant argues that the Planning Commission’s decision was predicated on false
statements in the staff report and incorrect advice from the City Attorney. The appellant
also argues that the project is deemed complete and approved pursuant to the terms of
the Permit Streamlining Act.
Appeal Analysis
The submitted application materials presented to the City raise two primary concerns.
First, there is no way to provide adequate on-site parking. Second, the applicant failed
to provide clarity as to the floor plan and business operations. Because of these
concerns, the plans are not sufficient to substantiate a review of this project.
City staff has worked with the applicant in an effort to resolve parking concerns. In
4
doing so, five different parking plans were reviewed, none of which can be approved.
The proposed mix of uses generates a parking demand of twenty-eight parking spaces.
The current configuration of the available parking area cannot accommodate twenty-
eight parking spaces. The applicant has indicated a willingness to adjust the square
footage of the proposed uses in order to comply with the parking requirements,
however, no revised floor plan has been submitted for review.
Staff has also requested clarification on the floor plan and operations. The submitted
materials do not provide any details about the operational characteristics of the
nightclub component despite requests for that information. It remains unclear how the
nightclub component will operate and whether or not the dining tables and chairs would
be relocated to accommodate the dancing. The proposal does not describe whether
food services are available within the nightclub or indicate the location of the dance
floor. The project describes that music will be available at the nightclub but does not
indicate an area where the live acts will perform. The application materials also
acknowledge a need to incorporate a two-door vestibule at the nightclub use in order to
comply with a provision of the City’s Noise Ordinance; however, the floor plan does not
show how and where this will be constructed. Also, the submitted materials do not
indicate what type of alcohol license will be sought from the California Department of
Alcohol and Beverage Control. This information is customarily submitted by applicants
to inform the City about a business’s operational characteristics. Without this
information, staff cannot make the necessary findings to support approval. Restaurant
and nightclub operations present particular issues associated with traffic, parking,
5
safety, noise, and nuisance problems. The design and operating characteristics at the
proposed project are critical elements in assessing these issues.
The proposed establishments would occupy existing tenant spaces and be arranged
according to the proposed floor plan that includes the diagrammed seating. The
proposal constitutes a change of use. Consequently, a number of Municipal Code
requirements are triggered. Besides a requirement to provide on-site parking, the use
will be required to conform to applicable provisions of the City’s Building Code. This
requires the tenant spaces be upgraded to conform to accessibility, occupancy
(including restroom facilities), and exiting requirements.
As to the appellant’s claim that the project conforms to the City’s General Plan, staff
disagrees. One of the General Plans objectives is that all new development should
provide adequate on-site parking. The proposal does not include an accurate parking
plan that demonstrates compliance with the City’s requirements. The appellant
contends that vehicles can park on the gravel lot behind his building. However, the
plans fail to delineate where these vehicles would park and how access to each parking
space would occur in a manner that satisfies the City’s standards. The appellant also
believes that the staff report cast the project in a negative light to the Planning
Commission and that the City Attorney incorrectly advised the Planning Commission.
Again, staff disagrees. The materials submitted in support of the applicant’s request fail
to provide accurate and meaningful detail about the proposed site/floor plans and
operational characteristics of the business. The staff report fairly presented staff’s
6
concern about the lack of information available to the Planning Commission for their
consideration. During the meeting, the Senior Land Use Attorney advised the Planning
Commission concerning the Permit Streamlining Act’s (PSA) applicability to a motion to
continue. The Commission was advised to take action that evening because the
project was nearing the PSA processing deadline. While new development is clearly
subject to the PSA, it is less clear if the PSA applies to projects that will intensify the use
of a site when not associated with new development. The legal advice provided was
prudent. The appellant also states that the project should be deemed approved under
the Permit Streamlining Act. However, the Planning Commission acted upon the
request within the mandated time frames. Finally, this appeal is not subject to the PSA
and the entire matter is now before the City Council de novo.
Police Department Comments
The Santa Monica Police Department was contacted regarding this proposal and two
representatives met with the applicants. The Police Department’s primary concern is
the ability to purchase alcohol in one area of the proposed use and then to take this
drink into another area since the four tenant spaces are interconnected. There is also a
concern about the proposed floor plan and the Police Department would prefer that it be
improved by separating each of the proposed businesses. Proximity to residential uses
to the north and late night alcohol service is another one of their concerns.
Restaruant/bar and nightclub uses with alcohol service in this area require much
attention. There is another area nightclub, as an example, where many security officers
are employed. The Police Department is concerned that an additional business like this
7
may add to the problems that patrol and vice officers face. For these reasons, the
Santa Monica Police Department remains concerned about the proposed business, its
security, and its impact to nearby residences.
Conclusion
The proposal would bring a retail commercial/entertainment business to the eastern end
of Santa Monica Boulevard. However, the proposal lacks a clear business plan,
sufficient detail about the floor plan, and adequate on-site parking. The Police
Department has advised staff that they have law enforcement concerns related to the
businesses operation, its impact to nearby residences, and security. Since the project
does not comply with Santa Monica Municipal Code regulations and given the lack of
clarity regarding the proposed business operations staff recommends that the City
Council deny the appeal thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s determination.
CEQA STATUS
The project is not subject to 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.
However, should the City Council provide direction to approve the project or if the
project description changes, additional environmental analysis will be required to
determine if the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or if it
8
requires the preparation of a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact
Report.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was
published in the Los Angeles Times “California Section” and 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 E.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s decision based on the findings below.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The subject parcel is not physically suitable for the type of land use being
proposed. Specifically, the proposed project involves the placement of two
restaurants and nightclub uses on an existing parcel that has deficient parking.
As proposed, the project requires a total of 28 on-site parking spaces and one
loading zone space.
2. The proposed use is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the site maintains inadequate parking facilities. Objective
4.1 of the General Plan Circulation Element states, “All new development should
accommodate project-generated parking consistent with encouraging alternative
9
transportation systems management programs.” While the project scope does
not include new development, the project would generate new vehicle trips to the
project site through the introduction of a new use on site. The proposed parking
layout does not correctly identify existing and/or proposed site improvements
such that City staff can verify the accuracy of the parking layout to the City’s
standards as they are provided for at Santa Monica Municipal Code Part
9.04.10.08.
3. The proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or general welfare, in that the proposed use will adversely affect
the welfare of the neighborhood residents in a significant manner. Specifically,
the proposed restaurant and nightclub uses with alcohol service does not provide
the 28 required on-site parking spaces to accommodate the proposed alcohol-
serving use. Moreover, the proposed project does not include sufficient detail to
identify all potential impacts that may adversely affect area residents. The
inconsistent floor plans and ambiguous project description prevents the Planning
Commission from being able to effectively evaluate the project and determine
whether it would have any adverse impacts, beyond the aforementioned parking
impacts.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
1. The proposed use will adversely affect the welfare of the neighborhood residents
in a significant manner. Specifically, the proposed restaurant and nightclub uses
with alcohol service does not provide the 28 required on-site parking spaces to
accommodate the proposed alcohol-serving use. Moreover, the proposed project
does not include sufficient detail to identify all potential impacts that may
adversely affect area residents. The inconsistent floor plans and ambiguous
project description prevents the Planning Commission from being able to
effectively evaluate the project and determine whether it would have any adverse
impacts, beyond the aforementioned parking impacts.
2. Traffic and parking congestion will result. Specifically, the proposed alcohol-
serving use does not provide the 28 off-site parking spaces required for the
proposed project. The inability to provide required parking will disperse
customers to public streets and result in intrusions to adjacent residential
neighborhoods as customers seek parking to visit the site. This action will limit
the availability of street parking, which is intended to serve a multitude of uses,
and has the potential to disrupt quiet residential streets.
3. The public health, safety, and general welfare are not protected. Specifically,
there is insufficient project information available to ascertain whether the alcohol-
serving component of the proposed use will ensure that the public welfare and
safety is protected. It is clear that the project, as proposed, does not comply with
required parking requirements. Based on this information, it is anticipated that the
10
project would result in commercial intrusions into adjacent residential
neighborhoods as customers seek to find parking to visit the proposed uses. Not
providing on-site parking would further burden existing public parking, which is
intended to serve a variety of business and residents. Using the supply of public
parking to accommodate the proposed project would adversely impact the public
welfare.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan R. Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Appeal Statement
B. Project Description and Plans, Including Most Recent Parking Plan
C. Planning Commission Staff Report Without Attachments
D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
E. Public Notice
11
ATTACHMENT A
APPEAL STATEMENT
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office.
12
ATTACHMENT B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PLANS,
INCLUDING MOST RECENT PARKING PLAN
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office.
13
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
14
CP:AS:JL:SR:BR\f:\cityplanning\share\pc\strpt\04Santa Monica, California
\04CUP-009.doc
Planning Commission Mtg: October 20, 2004
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit (04CUP-009)
Address: 3115 - 3125 Santa Monica Boulevard
Applicant: Anthony Kling
INTRODUCTION
Action: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to establish two new restaurants/bars
that exceed 50-seats and nightclub uses at 3115 and 3119 Santa Monica Boulevard
that would operate from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week. The project does
not comply with required parking standards or noise mitigation provisions for nightclubs.
Recommendation: Deny without prejudice based on findings.
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: November 30, 2004 (with 90 day extension)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a relatively level 14,400-square foot parcel measuring 96-feet
wide by 150-feet deep. The property is located on the north side of Santa Monica
Boulevard between Berkeley and Franklin Streets and contains two existing structures.
The first is a single-story commercial building fronting on Santa Monica Boulevard that
contains five tenant spaces in an area of approximately 4,992-square feet. This building
occupies approximately the front one-third of the parcel. It was constructed in 1956,
followed by a 2,860-square foot addition in 1964. Business licenses were issued to
operate a law firm and an internet company from one of the five units. This summer,
two business licenses were issued to operate an art gallery and a bakery/pizzeria in two
of the remaining units. Although business licenses have been issued, the applicant has
not commenced operating these uses.
A second structure is located at the northeast corner of the property near the rear and
side property lines. It stands two-stories tall and contains a two-car garage on the
ground floor and a one bedroom residential unit on the second floor. Access to the
garage is provided from the 20-foot wide rear alley. This building was constructed in
1922 and occupies an area of approximately 400-square feet at each story.
15
Extending a depth of approximately 15-feet from the rear façade of the existing
commercial building is a paved area and several mature trees. Beyond this point, and
occupying approximately the rear two-thirds of the parcel, is an area covered with
gravel. A twelve-foot block wall extends along portions of the side and rear parcel lines,
enclosing the site, except for pedestrian and vehicular access gates.
The surrounding area includes restaurants with alcohol service, general retail, personal
improvement uses, and a hotel along Santa Monica Boulevard to the west and east of
the project site. Residential uses, which are predominately two-stories and multifamily,
are located immediately north of the rear alley.
Zoning District: C4, Highway Commercial, District
Land Use District: General Commercial
Parcel Area: 96-feet wide x 150-feet deep = 14,400-square feet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Three of the five existing and anticipated uses on the site are permitted uses in the C4
zoning district. These uses include the existing law firm at 3123 Santa Monica
Boulevard, and a proposed bakery and art gallery at 3117 and 3121, respectively.
While a business license has been obtained for the bakery and art gallery, these uses
have not yet been established.
The two restaurants and nightclub uses with alcohol service at 3115 and 3119 Santa
Monica Boulevard are the subject of the proposed application. A Conditional Use
Permit is required to permit a restaurant with more than 50-seats, establish nightclub
uses and to serve alcoholic beverages.
The tenant space at 3115 Santa Monica Boulevard is proposed as an over 50-seat
restaurant, with 281-square feet of this floor area also being used as a nightclub use.
The proposed floor plan includes 312-square feet of dining-only area, including 154-
square feet of patio dining, and 402-square feet of support area for the use.
The tenant space at 3119 Santa Monica Boulevard is proposed as an over 50-seat
restaurant that occupies an area of approximately 852-square feet. The proposed floor
plan identifies 248-square feet of area devoted to support operations, 110-square feet
devoted to dining-only area, and 494-square feet of floor area that can also be used as
a nightclub use.
The application indicates that the proposed over 50-seat restaurants would have a total
of 234 seats. Two hundred and nineteen seats are located at dining tables, including
approximately 32 patio-dining seats, and 15 seats located at a bar. The proposed floor
plan’s legend identifies a bar, however, the area devoted to this use has not been
delineated on the plan. Additionally, review of the floor plan shows that four tenant
16
spaces will be internally connected through openings in the delineating walls between
the tenant spaces.
The applicant proposes to operate all four-tenant spaces as one art center with food
and alcohol service. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. seven
days a week.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project does not comply with the Off-Street Parking and Loading Zone
Chapter of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or the noise mitigation requirement for
nightclubs set for in the Noise Ordinance.
CEQA STATUS
The project is not subject to 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.
However, should the Planning Commission provide direction to approve the project or if
the project description changes, additional environmental analysis will be required to
determine if the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or if it
requires the preparation of a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact
Report.
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY STATUS
,
The existing buildings on the project site were constructed in 1922, 1954, and 1966and
are not identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory. The project’s scope would
not result in the exterior alteration or demolition of any existing structures.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
The subject property has received a commercial property exemption from the provisions
of the City’s Rent Control laws.
FEES
The project is not subject to any special City Planning related fees.
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, prior to application filing the
applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least ten
17
days prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted 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. A copy of the site-posting photograph is contained in Attachment C. It is the
applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting.
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public
hearing was mailed to all owners and tenants of residential and commercial property
located within a 500 foot radius of the subject property 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.
On September 29, 2004, the applicant was notified in writing of the subject hearing
date.
The applicant has submitted an exhibit titled Neighborhood Support in which a number
of nearby properties are noted as supporting the project. In addition, several petitions of
support were submitted containing seven signatures. The applicable neighborhood
organization, Mid-City Neighbors, has ceased meeting for the present time.
ANALYSIS
The submitted application materials presented to the City raise two primary concerns.
The first is that the site is unable to provide adequate on-site parking. The second is
that there is a lack of clarity as to the floor plan and business operations. Because of
these concerns, the plans are not sufficient to substantiate a review of this project.
City staff has worked with the applicant in an effort to resolve parking concerns. In
doing so, we have reviewed five different parking plans. At the time of this report, staff
is unable to approve the parking plan (the latest version of which is included for the
Planning Commission’s review). The proposed mix of uses generates a parking
demand of twenty-eight parking spaces. However, given the current configuration of the
available parking area, staff has concluded that twenty-eight parking spaces could not
be accommodated on-site. The proposed mix of uses is too intensive for the site. The
applicant has indicated a willingness to adjust the square footage of the proposed uses
in order to comply with the parking requirements, however, a revised floor plan has not
been submitted to staff for review.
In addition, the submitted materials do not provide any details about the operational
characteristics of the nightclub component. For example, the provided information does
not explain if the nightclub will operate during the same hours as the dining uses or
identify the days/times that the restaurant will close in order to implement the nightclub
use. It is unclear if the dining tables and chairs would remain in place or be relocated to
accommodate the nightclub. The proposal does not describe whether food services are
available within the nightclub or indicate the location of the dance floor. The project
18
describes that music will be available at the nightclub but does not indicate an area
where the live acts will perform. The application materials also acknowledge a need to
incorporate a two-door vestibule at the nightclub use in order to comply with a provision
of the City’s Noise Ordinance; however, the provided floor plan does not show how and
where this will occur.
The proposed businesses would occupy existing tenant spaces and be arranged
according to the proposed floor plan that includes the diagrammed seating. The
proposal constitutes a change of use. Consequently, a number of Municipal Code
requirements are triggered. Besides a requirement to provide on-site parking, the use
will be required to conform to applicable provisions of the City’s Building Code. This
requires the space be upgraded to conform to accessibility, occupancy (including
restroom facilities), and exiting requirements.
The submitted materials do not indicate what type of alcohol license will be sought from
the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the restaurant/nightclub. It
is unclear if alcohol would be sold only at the bar referenced on the floor plan legend
and the Supplemental Application for Alcohol Permits sheet. The plan does not make
clear if alcohol would be available exclusively to people dining at the restaurant and/or
nightclub patrons. As mentioned earlier, the floor plan legend references a bar but it
does not appear on the floor plan as it had in an earlier version. As a result, staff is
unclear about the number of bars proposed for the facility. Perhaps one centralized bar
would service the use’s multiple dining rooms. Because there are internal openings
connecting each of the adjacent tenant spaces, staff is concerned that the project’s floor
plan and description does not address if alcohol service were available to patrons of the
bakery, café/pizzeria, and art gallery. Similarly, there is no description about whether or
not alcohol may be purchased by itself or if it could only be ordered with a meal
purchase. And the alcohol service request is unclear as to whether alcohol can be
purchased during all hours that the business is open (i.e. 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.) or only
during certain limited operating hours.
Police Department Comments
The Santa Monica Police Department has been contacted regarding this proposal and
met with the applicants. The Police Department’s primary concern is the ability to
purchase alcohol in one area of the proposed use and then to take this drink into
another area since the four tenant spaces are interconnected. There is also concern
about the proposed floor plan and they believe that it could be improved by separating
each of the proposed businesses. Proximity to residential uses to the north and late
night alcohol service is another concern expressed by the Police Department. The
19
Police Department notes that these types of businesses in this area require much
attention and cited an area nightclub as an example where many security officers are
employed. The Police Department is concerned that an additional business like this
may add to the problems that patrol and Vice officers face and have indicated that they
are unable to offer an affirmative recommendation for this project at this time.
Community and Cultural Services Department Comments
There are no public parks or playgrounds in the immediate area. Community and
Cultural Services Department has indicated no objections to the proposal.
Code Enforcement
There are no known Code violations at the subject property.
Neighborhood Compatibility
No churches, no schools, and no parks are within 500' of the site. However,
approximately 588 residents live within a 500' radius of the subject parcel. The closest
residential units are located immediately north of the subject property across the 20-foot
wide rear alley. The Woody Kling Center for the Arts is located in a building that
occupies the front 1/3 of the parcel. The rear 2/3 of the parcel would be devoted to the
parking area and are screened from view by a solid masonry wall that stands 12-feet
tall.
Conclusion
The proposal would bring a retail commercial/entertainment business to the eastern end
of Santa Monica Boulevard. However, the proposal lacks sufficient detail for staff to
fully analyze the project. Staff’s concerns in this respect are related to a lack of clarity
about the floor plan, the businesses operational characteristics, and deficient on-site
parking. In addition, the Police Department has advised staff that they have significant
law enforcement concerns related also to the businesses operation; impact to nearby
residences; and security. Since the project does not comply with Santa Monica
Municipal Code regulations and given the lack of clarity regarding the proposed
business operations staff is unable to recommend approval of this project.
20
ALTERNATIVES
Other than the recommended action, the Planning Commission may:
?
Deny Conditional Use Permit (04CUP-009) based upon revised findings.
?
Deny Conditional Use Permit (04CUP-009) with prejudice, based upon revised
findings; or
?
Direct staff to complete the environmental review for this project and, if appropriate,
return with conditions and findings approving Conditional Use Permit (04CUP-009)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny without prejudice Conditional
Use Permit (04CUP-009) based on the following findings:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
4. The subject parcel is not physically suitable for the type of land use being
proposed. Specifically, the proposed project involves the placement of two
restaurants and nightclub uses on an existing parcel that has deficient parking.
As proposed, the project requires a total of 28 on-site parking spaces and one
loading zone space.
5. The proposed use is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the site maintains inadequate parking facilities. Objective
4.1 of the General Plan Circulation Element states, “All new development should
accommodate project-generated parking consistent with encouraging alternative
transportation systems management programs.” While the project scope does
not include new development, the project would generate new vehicle trips to the
project site through the introduction of a new use on site. The proposed parking
layout does not correctly identify existing and/or proposed site improvements
such that City staff can verify the accuracy of the parking layout to the City’s
standards as they are provided for at Santa Monica Municipal Code Part
9.04.10.08.
6. The proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or general welfare, in that the proposed use will adversely affect
the welfare of the neighborhood residents in a significant manner. Specifically,
the proposed restaurant and nightclub uses with alcohol service does not provide
the 28 required on-site parking spaces to accommodate the proposed alcohol-
serving use. Moreover, the proposed project does not include sufficient detail to
identify all potential impacts that may adversely affect area residents. The
inconsistent floor plans and ambiguous project description prevents the Planning
Commission from being able to effectively evaluate the project and determine
whether it would have any adverse impacts, beyond the aforementioned parking
impacts.
21
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
4. The proposed use will adversely affect the welfare of the neighborhood residents
in a significant manner. Specifically, the proposed restaurant and nightclub uses
with alcohol service does not provide the 28 required on-site parking spaces to
accommodate the proposed alcohol-serving use. Moreover, the proposed project
does not include sufficient detail to identify all potential impacts that may
adversely affect area residents. The inconsistent floor plans and ambiguous
project description prevents the Planning Commission from being able to
effectively evaluate the project and determine whether it would have any adverse
impacts, beyond the aforementioned parking impacts.
5. Traffic and parking congestion will result. Specifically, the proposed alcohol-
serving use does not provide the 28 off-site parking spaces required for the
proposed project. The inability to provide required parking will disperse
customers to public streets and result in intrusions to adjacent residential
neighborhoods as customers seek parking to visit the site. This action will limit
the availability of street parking, which is intended to serve a multitude of uses,
and has the potential to disrupt quiet residential streets.
6. The public health, safety, and general welfare are not protected. Specifically,
there is insufficient project information available to ascertain whether the alcohol-
serving component of the proposed use will ensure that the public welfare and
safety is protected. It is clear that the project, as proposed, does not comply with
required parking requirements. Based on this information, it is anticipated that the
project would result in commercial intrusions into adjacent residential
neighborhoods as customers seek to find parking to visit the proposed uses. Not
providing on-site parking would further burden existing public parking, which is
intended to serve a variety of business and residents. Using the supply of public
parking to accommodate the proposed project would adversely impact the public
welfare.
Prepared by: Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Notice of Public Hearing, Radius and Location Map
C. Applicant’s Submittal Documentation
D. Parking Layout
22
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
23
7-B. Conditional Use Permit 04-009, 3115 - 3125 Santa Monica Boulevard.
The
applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish two new
restaurants/bars that exceed 50-seats and nightclub uses at 3115 and 3119
Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. – 2:00
a.m., seven days a week. Alcohol service is proposed at 3115 – 3121 Santa
Applicant/Property Owner:
Monica Boulevard. . [Planner: Bill Rodrigues, AICP].
Anthony Kling Esq.
The Commission made the following ex parte communication disclosures
regarding this project: Commissioner Pugh disclosed that he drove by the site on
Wednesday, October 20, 2004. There were no other disclosures.
Urban Designer Stephanie Reich gave the staff report.
Chair Brown asked Ms. Reich why this application is on the agenda if it so
incomplete. Ms. Reich stated that the application is running up against its Permit
Streamlining Act deadline even with its 90-day extension. She stated that staff
has been working with the applicant, however necessary information has not
been provided.
Commissioner Johnson stated that there seems to be three issues of contention:
(1) where alcohol will be served; (2) lack of Police Department recommendation
due to omission of type of alcohol license being applied for; and (3) whether
there is adequate parking on-site.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff what type of alcohol license the applicant has
applied for. Ms. Reich stated that the application does not contain this
information.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about analysis on the separation of uses in
the project and flow of alcohol use. Ms. Reich stated that staff was focused on
resolving the parking issues, so the interior uses had less focus.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there will be dual uses. Ms. Reich stated
that no appropriate responses have been received from the applicant regarding
this issue.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about deeming an application complete and
what is precluded. Mr. Lait stated that applications are deemed complete at the
public counter, however staff may still asked for additional information for
clarification of the application.
Commissioner Dad asked if there is an architect connected with the project. Mr.
Lait stated that there is only the property owner who is also an attorney.
24
Commissioner Clarke commented that there is no dimensioned floor plan. Ms.
Reich stated that this is correct.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff to explain the formula used to determine that
28 parking space are needed. Ms. Reich explained that the square footage
provided for each use was used as the basis for determining that 28 parking
spaces are required.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff if there is currently required parking for the
property. Ms. Reich stated that 11 spaces are required.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff about the current uses on the property. Ms.
Reich stated there is an attorney’s office, the property owner’s office and possibly
a bakery. She commented that three of the five storefronts are vacant. Mr. Lait
stated that staff evaluated the existing uses, reviewed old codes for the site and
regulations pertaining to abandoned uses.
Commissioner Pugh asked staff about the parking layout and the review by TMD.
Ms. Reich stated that the parking plans shows 22 parking spaces, which causes
concern for TMO due to requirements for the opening to the parking lot. Per
TMD, the driveway opening must be 20 feet wide for adequate ingress and
egress, the current opening is only 14-feet wide.
Commissioner Dad asked staff when this application was filed. Ms. Reich stated
it was filed on June 3, 2004. Commissioner Dad commented that she
understands staff’s problem with this application.
The applicant, Anthony Kling, was present to discuss his application.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Arthur Turney,
Anita Badostain, Joel Sender, Michelle Thompson, Louisa Fish, Nina Yagi,
Pejman Partiyeli, Bohdan Futala, Okema Owens, Joon Hyon Yang, and Joey
Minervini (who also spoke for Rosita Bastow).
One member of the public, Doug Newton, submitted a request to speak form, but
was not present when his name was called.
Mr. Kling and Mary Kling spoke in response to the public comment.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Kling about the floor plans and the use of the
middle storefront. Mr. Kling stated that on July 7, 2004, a bakery was approved
for 3117 Santa Monica Boulevard, but it not yet open. He stated there will also be
a pizzeria with table service and take-out. Commissioner Clarke asked if the
adjacent storefronts, which are vacant, are to become additional seating for the
bakery-pizzeria. Mr. Kling stated he intends those units to included mixed dance
and dining (blue area on floor plan) and dining only in the orange area.
25
Commissioner Clarke asked if the kitchen indicated on the plans will serve all the
units. Mr. Kling answered in the affirmative and that there will be several dining
rooms. Commissioner Clarke asked if it is the intention that the spaces will be
operated as one restaurant. Mr. Kling stated that 3115-3117 Santa Monica
Boulevard will be operated as a restaurant, 3119 will be a dining area and 3121
will be the art gallery.
Commissioner Clarke commented on a similar mixed use restaurant recently
before the Commission (Gotham Hall on the Third Street Promenade) and how
the submission differed from the one presented tonight. He explained staff and
the Commission’s frustration with this schematic plan rather than architectural
drawings. Mr. Kling stated that staff’s opening statements had false information
and that his original submission did include a floor plan with seating and scaled
with dimension. He also stated that staff only met with him once and never
provided a list of requirements.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Kling if there is an architect involved with the
project. Mr. Kling responded that there is no need for an architect since there is
no structural renovations to the building except for the three openings between
the units. Commissioner Clarke commented that it would customary to have an
architect or design professional, especially since the use will require additional
restrooms, new electrical wiring and possibly other things. He stated that this
application is not a complete submission.
Commissioner Johnson commented that staff states 28 parking spaces are
required and the current plan shows 20 –22 parking spaces. Mr. Kling stated that
“the staff report is incorrect” and referred to TMD’s letter from Michelle Glickert
dated October 12, 2004, which states that 23 parking spaces are required.
Commissioner Johnson asked if this includes the loading zone. Mr. Kling
answered in the affirmative and that the letter says the application is “close to
approval.” He also stated that the applicant has agreed to reduce the size/square
footage of his business to meet the parking requirements.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kling to respond to the Police Department’s
concern regarding “the area requiring much attention.” Mrs. Kling stated that she
spoke personally to Vice Officers Flores and Rodriguez, showed them the
premises and they were thrilled to have our business coming to Santa Monica.
Their only question was regarding where alcohol would be served.
Chair Brown asked Mr. Kling what type of alcohol license is being applied for. Mr.
Kling stated it is the one required for dining, perhaps a Type 48. He did not know
the exact type number. Chair Brown asked where alcohol will be served. Mr.
Kling stated alcohol service will be at 3115 and 3119.
26
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Kling where the required parking spaces for the
other units is provided. Mr. Kling stated there are no parking requirements for the
existing units, but he is willing to provide the spaces required by TMD.
Chair Brown asked Mr. Kling how many seats are proposed for the restaurant.
Mr. Kling stated that initially he proposed more seats, however
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pugh stated that he is having a problem with the inaccurate plans
and is unable to make a rational judgment on the application. As an example,
Commissioner Pugh cited the plan for 3117 Santa Monica Boulevard, the support
area kitchen and bakery is 7-foot wide in a 17.3-foot wide space. He stated that
the figures cited do not scale out correctly. He also noted that the site is not ADA
compliant, nor are their sufficient restrooms and the parking lot does not denote
wall widths, which effect back-up maneuverability. Commissioner Pugh stated
that there is not sufficient information for making a decision, then made a motion
to deny the project with staff’s findings.
Commissioner Johnson made a substitute motion to continue.
Commissioner O’Day seconded Commissioner Pugh’s motion to deny.
Commissioner Clarke asked if a continuance is an option. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum commented that it is not clear whether the Permit
Streamlining Act (PSA) applies because there are cases where an applicant is
not seeking development changes, then PSA does not apply. On the other hand,
PSA does address changes in intensity, which this project may bring about.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum further commented that the applicant
contends that PSA does apply in a letter submitted to the Commission. He noted
that a PSA extension, which the applicant alleges he was coerced into granting.
The new PSA deadline is November 20, 2004. He recommended that the
cautious path to take would be to act on the application at this hearing.
Commissioner Johnson withdrew his substitute motion.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the applicant has made
additional allegations regarding when the application was deemed complete,
issues with the submittal information and whether there was sufficient notice to
the applicant regarding required information.
Commissioner Clarke expressed support for the motion. He advised the applicant
to retain a design professional to create clear plans to meet Code requirements
and meet required parking for the revised proposal.
27
Chair Brown commented that for whatever reason this lack of clarity exists, it has
rendered the Commission unable to act on the application.
Commissioner Johnson stated that successful projects meet the requirements
and present clear plans, have neighborhood support and, for alcohol permits,
have Police Department approval. He encouraged the applicant to meet with
neighbors. He then expressed support for the motion. He stated that if the
applicant chooses to reapply, the plans needed to rendered by a professional, as
well the parking plan, and mitigation of noise and trash also needs to be
addressed.
The motion to deny the CUP was approved by the following vote:
AYE: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson, O’Day, Pugh; ABSENT: Hopkins.
[Item 6-B was voted on at this time, then the regular agenda was resumed.]
28
ATTACHMENT E
PUBLIC NOTICE
29
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Appeal 04-013
3115 and 3119 Santa Monica Boulevard
APPLICANT: David Naftalin and Anthony Kling
PROPERTY OWNER: Anthony Kling
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal 04APP-013 of the Planning Commission’s Decision Denying a Conditional Use Permit 04CUP-
009 to Establish Two New Restaurants/Bars That Exceed 50-Seats and Nightclub Uses at 3115 and 3119
Santa Monica Boulevard That Would Operate From 7:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M., Seven Days a Week with
Alcohol Service.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005, 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 04-013
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 contact Bill
Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at bill.rodrigues@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.
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:
___________________________
AMANDA SCHACHTER
Planning Manager
30