SR-402-009 (2)
CjED:PB:DKW:DM
PCjDMCCMEMO
Council Mtg: November 7, 1989
'II? 2--- P{) 9
Santa Monica, California
fl.. ~.
NOV
L(o~ - 06q
t
,
S-...A
7 1989
,
.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning commission Technical Denial of
Conditional Use Permit 89-036 to Allow the Construction
of a 3,500 Square Foot Meeting Hall with One
Residential Unit and parking for 42 Cars at 2119
Virginia Avenue.
At the ci ty Council meeting of October 17, 1989, the Council
reviewed an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
construction of a 3,500 square foot Jehovah's Witness Meeting
Hall with one residential unit and parking for 42 cars at 2119
Virginia Avenue. The item was continued to the November 7, 1989
meeting in order to ensure that proper notification procedures
had been followed. The City council also asked staff to revise
the Conditional Use Permit findings contained in the Planning
Commission staff report. The revised findings are attached for
your review.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council reverse the
Planning Commission's technical denial of cup 89-036 and approve
the proposal subject to the conditions contained in the Planning
Commission staff report dated August 16, 1989 and the attached
findings.
Prepared by:
David Martin,
Paul Berlant,
Associate Planner
Director of Planning;ll.. -I. 5'"'-A
- 1 - NOV ,l~tj~
.
.
-..............
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land
Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that residential uses are
permitted and places of worship are conditionally permit-
ted in the R2 District.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established
or located, in that the proposed use would be located in a
multi-family residential district where places of worship
are conditionally permitted and adequate provisions have
been made to ensure that the use is compatible with adja-
cent properties.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed, in that the proposed project con-
forms to the lot coverage and density requirements for the
R2 District.
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses
presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses
are to remain, in that there are no land uses presently on
the subject parcel.
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the use conforms to the requirements for the R2 District.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that the proposed development is an in-fill of urban
land adequately served by existing infrastructure.
7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in
that the subject site is adequately served by existing
streets.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood, in that all setback and lot
coverage requirements for the R2 District have been met.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that places of wor-
ship are permitted in the Low Density Housing area.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare,
in that the projects conforms with the regulations for the
R2 District.
- 1 -
.
.
----
~
11. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable per-
formance standards contained in Subchapter 6, Section 9050
and special conditions outlined in Subchapter 7, Section
9055 of the city of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use
and Zoning Ordinance, in that the proposed use does not
require a Performance Standard Permit.
12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that there is
not an overconcentration of such uses in _ the immediate
vicinity.
- 2 -
~
.
.
DM
PC/DMCCMEMO
10/31/89
- 2 -
.
.
"
r-- !
, ;
J
,
./
. .,
MEMORANDUM OPINION NUMBER 89-36
DATE:
November 7, 1989
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Joseph Lawrence Assistant city Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy city Attorney
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission Technical Denial of
Conditional Use Permit for Jehovah's witness Meeting
Hall at 2119 virginia Avenue
In light of the possible First Amendment issues posed by
the proposed Jehovah's Witness project, the City council must be
fully cognizant of the legal constraints that control evaluation
of this project.
The c?nstitutionality of the City's Zoning Ordinance
provisions 1n this area, which allow places of worship in
residential zones pursuant to a conditional use permit, is not in
question. Such zoning schemes have long been upheld by the
courts. Matthews v. Board of Supervisors of the county of
Stanislaus, 203 Cal. App. 2d 800, 21 Cal. Rptr. 914 (1962).
These ordinances neither tend to "establish" a religion nor
inhibit the "free exercise" of religion.
However, while the City can lawfully require a church to
proceed by CUP, the City cannot arbitrarily deny a church the
right to locate within a residential zone. For instance, in
Redwood City Company of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. City of
Menlo Park, 167 Cal. App. 2d 686, 335 P.2d 195 (1959), the Court
of Appeals overturned Menlo Park's denial of a CUP to a church.
In that case, the court concluded that it was improper to deny
the CUP because it was clear that the church complied with all
parking and other technical requirements of the zoning code, a
conclusion concurred in by the Menlo Park City Attorney and
planning staff.
Significantly, the court rejected the conclusion that the
church would not serve "the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience and general welfare" and "would be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvementfl in
the neighborhood. The court did so because other churches
existed in the neighborhood and there was no evidence in the
record to indicate how this church would be of harm to the
community. Indeed, the court noted that it would be "difficult
to believe that a court would sustain a finding that a church
would be detrimental to the morals of a community or except as to
- 1 -
.
.
the traffic problem, would be adverse to the community's health,
safety or comfort. It Id. at 691, 335 P.2d at 202. Since, as
noted, unquestionably the church complied with the technical
requirements of the zoning code, there existed no legal basis to
deny the CUP.
According to the Planning Division staff, the proposed
project meets all Zoning Ordinance, including parking,
requirements. On that basis, the staff has recommended approval.
Three of the four Commissioners present at the Planning
Commission meeting where this project was considered found the
project meritorious.
Should the city Council decide to uphold the appeal and
deny the proposed project, it must make very clear findings
explaining the basis for such a decision. Any such findings must
be based on evidence in the record. It is not sufficient to deny
the CUP based on a finding that there are "too many" churches in
the neighborhood or that, even though the technical zoning code
requirements are met, those requirements fail to adequately
protect the neighborhood.
11662jhpc
- 2 -