SR-820427-12EPL:RO:nh
Council Mtg.: April 27, 1982
T0: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
"~~ ~ 99
'Ya~~~
Santa Monica, California -
SUBJECT: Appeal, Interim Development Permit No. DR 046, &
Z. A. Case #321 C.U.P., Building Addition, Fast-Food
Take-Out Restaurant, 1721 Broadway, C4 (proposed R2)
Elizabeth Burns.
Introduction
This is an appeal from the determination of the Planning
Commission granting approval of an Interim Development Permit
and a C.U.P. for a small fast-food take-out restaurant addition
to a commercial building at 1721 Broadway in the C4 District
(proposed to be rezoned R2)
Yannatta Goldway.
Background
The appeal is by Mayor Ruth
The applicant proposes to construct a one story 700 sq.ft, masonry
addition to a 2 story commercial building located on,tYie northwest
corner of Broadway and 18th Street which currently is in use as
a market, commissary, warehouse, offices and trade school. The
building is to be used as a fast-food, take--out restaurant. There
exists a small surplus of parking required by Code taking into
account the 7 spaces which are required for the addition.
Resolution 6385 intends to amend the comprehensive land use ordinance
to rezone this area from C4 to R2. Under Section 9148A1 of the
Municipal Code a conditional use permit may be granted by the
Planning Commission for the establishment of a commercial use in
any multiple residential district if it is part of an existing
~:~s ~ a fit:`
Mayor and City Council -2- April 27, 1982
non-conforming use in addition to certain other findings, Section
13 of Resolution 6385 proposes permitting commercial uses in a
residential district by conditional use permit if the use serves
the direct needs of the surrounding neighborhood and is not
inconsistent with its character but discourages restaurant use
as not serving the direct needs of the surrounding neighborhood
and the uses should not be in close proximity to commercially
zoned property to be considered favorably.
The Planning Commission approved the project with all conditions
recommended by staff except the levy of $570.15 Development Fee
in the event the City prevails in the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners case.
Alternatives
Under Ordinance No. 1220 the City Council may affirm, reverse or
modify any determination of the Planning Commission in regard
to the Interim Development Permit.
Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that consideration of the
Development be deferred until such time that the zone change to
R2 as proposed by Resolution No. 6385 is resolved,
Prepared by: Rex Oberbeck
RO:nh
~`~ ~ b ~ ~,
SANTA ~IONICA
Mayor Ruth Yannatta Goldway
Mr. and Mrs. Aldo Dallope
1521 - 17th Street
Santa Monica, CA
Dear Mr. and Mrs Dallope:
1685 Main Street, ,Santa Monica, (.'alifomia 90401
April 5, 1982
I received a copy of the letter you mailed to the Santa Monica Planning
Commission in opposition to a permit for a fast food restaurant on the
corner of 17th Street and Broadway. I am pleased to inform you that I
agree with your position and have appealed the Planning Commission's
decision to grant this permit. Therefore, the decision to grant such a
permit is stayed and will be heard by the Santa Monica City Council.
I urge you to gain additional support from your neighbors on your street
and hopefully, from the Pico Neighborhood Association. I believe that
if the Council Members are aware of your residential concerns regarding.
the quality of life on your street, the Council will respond more
favorably to you than did the Planning Commission which is still made
up of a majority of members. appointed by previous City Councils.
I will ask our Director of Planning, Jim Lunsford, to notify you of the
hearing date for my appeal and hope that I will see you at that meeting.
Since ely,
ii./.i
RUTN YANNATTA GDLDWAY ~
MAYOR
RYG:cIs
cc: Jim Lunsford, Director of Planning
Fred Allingham, Pico Neighborhood Assn.
:~'.
~~.~.~ ~ ~
c~~.~~
' ~ _ ~~ `%J ?lam c~ ~ / ~?
// h ~
/~ ..{ ~ r/,,,~,,
~ ~~
%/,•'l/ ~/L, /~, / f ,~ °7 : JCS ~''~•~~
///' JJ/// ~ ,(/,
~ . , , .,.
//AL 1 - /j~ ~//// / xy~
/ // ///
-Z, (/ /d~J/6i //
i ~~~ f
~ /"L~s~' i ~`" Lid ~ /,,G-l~~ ~!//.~C 1~/./'/ J/ t-~ t'''~~/~-~LCL ~`~i~.z
f
~r . J ~„~~ 1/~'.~/:=/~/ A:~ Ef./=~ i ~; ~.; ,l/tip/ , ~ ~~~.~ ~~; L ~ C~~~ L ~f/z"G 1~~ //L ' lZ'L!'l
lc~~/L' ~l~! ~ ,/L~~UJ!:~1 ~~f'Li i< <, ~/~ ~i ~~ .L,, ,%!~, ~11~L-~.tL~Z~ /~~(ii
~/~/ ~ / y /
//~qql~^ -C! ;:.' •.~~Ci,'~1-a~ ~/~~i/,-Ci~ •~ f+%Li~G~~l~ ~ =12~~ %~ ~ /'?~-~-~ -
„~ /
.~, r
~'t~ ,~% ~ ~~~ roc=~ ~~ ,.~1/f!;%~
~,
,- ,~ ,~
~ ~--/ // z>! ~-! -
12-E.
Edwards: I would like to move approval of intermim
development permit #046 with all the conditions,
particularly the hours of operation, staff ---
(don't forget the cleanup), and the clean-up
and the conditional use permit
Reed seconded. (Reed ?)
YG (?)c~I would like to remind council that fast food
restaurants have traditionally under even old zoning
been limited in their use - require special conditional
use permits and I think it's .inappropriate at a time
when we're considering changing this to residential
and at the very least by considering that recognizing
the delicate nature of this area to allow fast food
restaurants. There's no question that there's more
traffic, there's no question that there is more
litter. The gentleman's testimony indicates that
the litter is going to spread throughout the neigh-
borhood because these people are going to on their
feet walking ~ eating at the same time. We've had
letters from residents on this and I think it's in-
sensitive, at the very least, for us to approve this
when we have an opportunity to consider it - this busi-
ness is still operating, their opportunity to expand
this at a later point when we've discussed the implica-
tions. of this possible change of use in more detail is
still possible.,. .We're not changing a developer whose
got a purchase-price. This is something that can easily
be done at some later time and I feel it's very insen-
sitive to the community to approve this interim permit.
I would like move - can I make a ant motion.
~s~~~C ~/
City Attorney, can I make a st~-H-s~ent motion in oppostion?
Attorney: I think you should act on this motion and if
it fails then a motion to deny would be appropriate.
Edwards: If this were a vacant lot, then I might
agree with the mayor in the issue of this being some-
how changed to residential. Somehow I do not see that
little corner of concrete being developed as a residen-
tial use. There is an existing building there that has
been there for suite awhile.. I think the whole. issue
of how many letters constitute a legitimate protest by
the neighbors is one which should be taken into consi-
deration. While I believe that the person submitted the
letter has a right to express her concerns, and there
may be some that are valid. .But to take one letter and
to respond in what I consider to be an inappropriate
response.: As a former City Commissioner, to imply that
somehow the Planning Commission approved this letter
merely because the majority of them are appointed by
prior City Councils is an insult to the integrity of
all cormsissioners on the Planning Commission and other
commissions. I might point out several things: (1)
Commissioner Rhoden. who was supported 'oy this council
voted in favor of this issue. Commissioner Shear who
was. appointed by this Council specifically let the record
reflect that the only reason he was voting against it
was because it dial not have certain conditions. And, I
might also point out, I do not expect,c;now or any time
in the future, any person who I vote for. to be on any
City Commission to go along with my views merely because
they have been appointed by the majority of the Council
I sit on.
Jennings: I think that we should follow the Staff
Recommendation which is to defer this matter until the
Council has had a chance to look at what we want to see
in terms. of the zoning for that area. This isn't, in my
opinion, the same kind of thing as we had earlier where
someone came before us and had been "jacked around" by
the City for some period of time. They had a hole in the
ground and needed to go ahead with development. This isn'
the kind of project that is going to made or broken by
whether we give them something tonight. And, I think that
there are impacts on the community from having a fast
food place there. I live right behind McDonald's on S.M.
Blvd. for some time so I am familiar with fast food
establishments. There are an awful lot of fast food
" of the immediate vicinity of this place.
Not on Broadway, but on S.M. Blvd. It's only a block away..
Frankly, I think it's economically a lousy idea, but I
don't think we're up here to measure the guy's economics
about whether he's goint to go broke or not in his business.
I just don't see that it's going to make or break this
thing to let it wait until we have a chance to look at
what we want this area to be like. I am going to, on
this one, oppose. the motion and I would be willing to
support the re~~~S~~3d~~~ion to go along with the staff
i o ion
recommendation.
Role call: Yes.:. Edwards, Reed, Zane
No: Conn, Jennings, Press, YG
Abstain:
Motion fails
YG - I would like make a motion that we adopt Staff
Recommendation and deny without prejudice the interim
permit and the conditional use permit until further
review..
Second (Press ?)
Role call: Yes:. Conn, Jennings, Press, Zane, Yannatta Goldway
No: Edwards, Reed
Motion carried