Loading...
SR-830809-12A~~~ PL:JL:lk Council Mtg: August `~, 1983 T0: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff 1aAllG~ i9$~ Santa Monica, California SUBJECT: Appeal, Interim Development Permit No. 146, 2222 Lincoln Boulevard, C4, Mini-Mart and Retail Store, T. W. Layman. Introduction This is an appeal from the Planning Commission denial of an application for an Interim Development Permit for construction of a convenience market at the northwest corner of Strand and Lincoln. Appeal is by the applicant. Background The applicant proposes to construct a 3,244 sq.ft. commercial build- ing containing a convenience market and retail store at the northwest corner of Strand and Lincoln in the C4 District. The proposed structure meets both the current zoning requirements and those proposed by Resolution No. 6385 for the area of Lincoln Boulevard south of the Freeway. The parking and accessways were approved by the Traffic Engineer. Following public hearing on May 16, 1983, at which the application was opposed by several neighbors, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the application on the grounds that it would prejudice the City's ability to adopt a revised land use element. The applicant has appealed this determination. Since the Planning Commission meeting of May 16, the applicant has met with residents of the neighborhood and has indicated to staff that they have developed a list of uses which by mutual agreement ~a. /~ aus a tisea Mayor and City Council -2- August 9, 1983. will not be included in this project as it is leased because of the potential negative effects on the neighborhood. (Exhibit A) Citv Council Authori Under the provisions of Section 6 of Ordinance No. 1251(CCS) the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify any determination of the Planning Commission in regard to an Interim Development Permit and the decision of the City Council shall be final. In approving an application the Commission or Council must find that: 1. The Development is consistent with the findings and purpose of Ordinance No. 1251(CCS). 2. The proposed plans comply with existing regulations contained in the Municipal Code except as noted. 3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be adequate to accommodate the anticipated results of the proposed development including off- street parking facilities and access thereto. 4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health and safety facilities (including, but not limited to, sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices, protective services, and public utilities) will be adequate to accommodate the antici- pated results of the proposed development. 5. The proposed development will not prejudice the ability of the City to adopt a revised land use element. The recommendations presented in this report do not have a budget/ financial impact. Recommendation It is respectfully recommended that this appeal be denied without prejudice .and returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Prepared by: Mark Tigan, Director:, Community & Economic Development James Lunsford, Director, Planning and Zoning Attachment: Letter from Developer's Attorney PORTA~'~TOVA Aivn PEN'SIG A LAW COZ:.PORATZON C'ICTOR E. PORT_~V~OVA PALZ A. PE\SIG PAUL h'. T.TRIS 9460 SYII.SB7RE BOLZE~'ARD, SUITE 520 BE~`ERLY" HZi.LS. CALIFOR\'T-A 90212 f213) 273-0691 ROBERT A LTI3L OF'COIISSEL Carole f~daldrop Planning & Zoning Division Suite 212 - Santa Monica City Ha11 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 July 1, 1983 Re: Proposed Development - La Mancha Development Properties, Ltd. {"La Mancha") - N.4V.C. Lincoln and Strand (the "Project"} Dear ~?s. Waldrop: This will confirm that La Mancha, through its representatives, has met with the Seventh and Strand Neigborhood Association (the "Association"} with respect to the Project and that the Association supports the Project in its configuration as submitted. (i.e. with parking in front) subject to the terms and canditions set forth below. It is my understanding that the Association was sponsored by Ocean Park Community Organization. The following uses will not be part of the project: 1. Liquor sales; 2. 24 hour stores; 3. Dry cleaning plants (as opposed to "pick-up" stores with the plant off the premises); 4. Uses generating noise or fumes; 5. Automotive uses (e.g. gas stations; auto parts stores); 6. Restaurants which are primarily take-out (e.g. a "Colonel Sanders" or "Swensens" as opposed to a "Denny's"). LamL&SCW.29 Carole Waldrop - 2- J u l y 1 1 9 8 3 The following uses should be encouraged by La Mancha: 1. Professional offices; 2. A bicycle shop; 3. Small retail with regular business hours; 4. Branch financial institution; 5. An ethnic restaurant. La Mancha should agree to the following: 1. To pay (or have the tenants of the project pay) for six years for the electricity for "goose-neck" type lamps hung from the electrical poles on Strand between Lincoln Boulevard and Sixth Street; 2. Encourage the City to earmark development fees arising from the Project for neighborhood uses. The Association agrees with La Alancha that .the present use is an eyesore. The used car lot has generally been kept in filthy condition until the Project was proposed and will probably revert to its former status if the Project is extinguished. The Association further agrees that parking in the front is preferable to parking in the rear becuase parking in the front creates a "noise-buffer" for the neighborhood and also because parking in the rear is simply a breeding place for crime. Last of all, the Association agrees with La Mancha that the San Francisco based consultant's suggestion that pedestrian traffic vrould result on Lincoln Boulevard from parking in the rear is unrealistic. Lincoln Boulevard is a state highway and by virtue of the heavy vehicular load will always be unattractive to pedestrians. Thus, the choice which the neighborhood and the city are confronted with is between and existing eyesore or an attractive improving use. If the Project is not approved by the City it is likely that the present use will remain for many years. This would be sad for the neighborhood. LamL&SCW.29 Carole ti~aldrop - 3- J u l y 1, 1 9 8 3 Please include this letter in your submission to the City Council. I have asked the Association to independently verify the statements contained herein in writing. If I can assist you in any fashion please do nat hesitate *_o contact me. Very truly yours, Portanova & Pensig, A Law Corporation - ; _~_ _ _-- By _~_ Paul A. Pensig PAP:j1m cc: Gilbert Hammer ling ~ ~ - /-~ AUG 9 1983 ~~1,~-~,r ,~~ J (mil ~ ~ /~ ~~~ ~~- D .dam ~~Cs~- , ~Q . ~- _ 0 ~---~ // ~, /0 ~Unarn G7L {2?~c y C'Irn e~r~rt o ~~ _ `' -J c, _~ ~.~ Lf t l ~ ~c v+ a ~ G~f ~ !'yj ~r n ~~ d~ CL,G lC,'cc° lu«a 6l~ ~ 2~~~ ~ ~~ ~~, ~~ ~3 jiJ'I~tnq /zec~~.~~.~g ,~~ J~G,'b(UJrvl ert ( ~ ~ 011i.C~ ~l ~tC( ~ra ~ c~ ~f , n ~~ o ;~a:~-~ ~Z ~~'rin !~- {hurt ~ ~`~' -~ ~/c ~~~,~s~~ S~~ l~ ~~ ~%~. ~~ ~~ ~~ 0 ~- ~i~ ~~ ~L~'~ ae /u~ ~ ~u~ ~n ~~ rC r ~~ ~ ~~~~ . 1~~~, .. 4 -~ ~~~ ~ ~~f~JcSi ~7an- f~-,~} AUG 9 1983 ~~~ ~~~ L~~~- LZr2L~ ` ~/~ ~i ~%~ ~LJ le^ L~tic u~( L,l ~CZ~h ~ ~~aYc, ~L, ~ ~~ , ~, ---~-.~. (~C/l-~yi-r~4Ci~~~~ ) e<~yli`n~ ~~ Gad. f/ ~ ~ L' i~l~~'~~,y r~~-~~~-r~,,~ U ~~ ~~~c~;~~ ~ ~t f ~ t )//~~ 2r1~,..~Lfi.~~ ~~~ ~• ,. r ~~% ~6 ~~~: ~~~Y IG~ 1~, GIJ, Corn e Y' v~ , r~r e~~c. ~G'c-c ;' ~2 ~"~rinaj LazL-L ;~r~„ ~~fu-~1-- C~~ 7`~.k c,~ ~~ C ~~r~ ~t~t ~z i~t, ~rl ~GG 1'i yi t=l, C~c~1i t~'~~u. ~~%n-`7`~-~e;t' C~ ~-C,~2.- L?,~ cS'i "~t tm.. ~, 1 / 7j~ ~J,/~~' j~-~ /~~~c~~ ~ e ~.~ ~ ~ ~ 5,~ ~fT a' Q.~ ~',~N7'A MON~CA DEPAR TMENT OF. COMMUNITY ~4ND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL, 1685 MAIN STRE&7; SANTA'MONJCA. CALIFORNIA 90401-3295 PNONE Q13J 393-9975 OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING UN AVTSO DE UNA AUDhENCIA PUBLICA* TO: Concerned Persons - FROM: The City of Santa Monica , SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing, A Public Hearing will be held by the .City Council. on 2uesday,= ~, August -9, L9.83_ on -the following recsuest: ^~ - ~~=i ApNea1 of"the denial by the Planning Commission of Development ~ev~~w 146 for permission to construct a 3,244 square foot mini mart aritl retail store. Tj.~le: 7:30 pm '~ues<day,_ August 9; 1983 - Location: Council Chamber, Room 213,-City Hall 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica Subject of Hearing: Appeal of DR 146 Property Address 2222 Lincoln Blvd, C4, T.W. Layman and Zoning: You are being informed of this hearing because according to information submitted by the applicant, you are a property owner or a resident-near the project site. If you are no longer the owner of property in this area, please Forward this notice to'the current owner. The City encourages public comment on this and .other projects, You or your representative, or any other person can comment at the public hearing, or by writing a letter. Letters should be addressed to the City Planning Division, Roam 212, City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, Cali~ornia,90401. Zf.ycu wculd like more information, please contact the City Planning. DiCisi Ori at f213) 393-9975, .ext. 341. -~ ~ - *Este es un avisa de una audiencia pubZica de applieaciones para un cambio de zrnia en Santa idoniea quo por Zq cuaZ puede ser de interes para usted. Para mas ir:foranacion por favor ZZame a &arbara Renteria o Mary Teste en City PZara:ing Division al nzonero (2231 393-9975, ext. 34Z. We. the undersigned, strongly object to the development plans of La Mancha Development Properties. Ltd. regarding the N.W. corner of Lincoln and Strand for the following reasons: 1. We agree with the Planning and Zoning Division as to placing .the parking area in the rear of the prospective building so as to avoid the continued disruption of pedestrian traffic. most especially that of the young school children who use Lincoln Blvd. as their primary route between John Muir School and home. 2. We are not in agreement with "La Mancha's" letter to Carol Waldrop, dated July 1, 1983, stating their commitment to the idea that Lincoln Blvd. will always be unattractive to pedestrians and a nuisance to automobile traffic. However, we do believe that there are alternate ways to cope with Lincoln Blvd.'s congested traffic situation other than accepting the self-serving notion that it must always be bad. 3. "La Mancha's" proposal to develop mare than one business [three or four at present] will create additional parking and traffic problems on Lincoln Blvd. and Strand Street. 4. And, finally, we take exception to "La Mancha's" evaluation that only their develop- ment of the said property will insure neighborhood improvement. Surely there are other options, including the further cleaning and improving of the property by the present proprieter [renter}. Although "La Mancha" made an effort to meet with the community, the self-appointed community representative saw fit only to invite a select few to the meetings, and seems to have done so only for the sake of gaining additional street lighting from "La Mancha". ~a ~2 r'l-v~=fT/~i /~V c~ a Of W We, the undersigned, strongly-object tb the development plans of La Mancha Development Properties. Ltd. regarding the N.W. corner of Lincoln and Strand for the following reasons: 1. We agree with the Planning-and Zoning Division as to placing the-parking area in the rear of the prospective building so as to avoid the continued disruption of pedestrian traffic, most especially Shat of the young school children who use Lincoln Blvd. as their primary route between John Muir School and home. 2. We are not in agreement with "La Mancha's" letter to Carol Waldrop, dated July 1, 1983, stating their commitment to the idea that Linboln Blvd. will always be unattractive td pedestrians and a nuisance to automobile traffic. Haweven we do believe that there are alternate ways to cope with Lincoln Blvd.'s congested traffic situation other than accepting the self-serving notion that it must always be bad. 3. "La Mancha's" proposal to develop more than one business (three or four at present] will create additional parking and traffic problems on Lincoln Blvd. and Strand Street. -- ~~(~ 'In~~ ~ tits ~~-~ic~a~ . c~-~~ ~ ~ ~. i 1 .. ~ k . ~ '~_ GCs' J~ ,~,~"/,~- .,~1'Lr//~,'~-'~' `:~ q .~ .- i,, ~ ~ ~ ~'J7~i `?i ~v 6 ~',t.o' ~f C t' '~~ x 5;~:`17~.: ttil ~ ai.i i ['~ : t ? /} j ~ ~` - ~ ' ] ` _ ~ r J g~ ~ L ~3 -7 r - ¢ i : ~' ~ r5 f.7~ /c/ vvr -, - , t l! ~ V J ,~ G~. .. 6// /-t `YTI~' T °'~/~ :r"G7~G l ~- ~ /~ ----.. ,_. r ~ ~~--~ ~ ~ ~ ~r ~~ nt S l ~`'t ~ ~®fl,.~ ~` ~ /Jib ~ ~,r~_ ~~~~ '~~%i 4. And, finally, we take exception to "La Mancha's" evaluation that only their develop- ment of the said prbperty will insure neighborhood improvement. Surely there are other options, including the further cleaning and improving of the property by the present proprieter (renter]. Although "La Mancha" made an effort to meet with the community, the self-appointed community representative saw fit only to invite a select few to the meetings, and seems to have done so only for the sake of gaining additional street lighting from "La Mancha". ~ ~/~ ~ 5 ( ~L~~ ,._ nn moved to authorize the City Attorney's office. to participate, on behalf of the City, its residents and phone users, in the 1983 General Telephone Rate increase proceedings. The motion failed for lack of a second. Further discussion was held. Mayor Pro Tem ore Press moved to approve the staff recommendation adding direction to staff'to return to the Council with information as to their recommendation before taking a position. Second by Councilmember Conno After discussion, the motion was approved by the following vote: Council Vote: Affirmative: Councilmembers Conn, Jennings, Press, Zane and Mayor Edwards Negative: A recess was held at 11:13 F.M. with all members present. Councilmembers Epstein and Reed The meeting reconvened at 11:20 P.M. 12-A: INTERIM DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF STRAND AND >INCOLN: Presented was an appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of an application for an Interim Development Permit for construction of Mini-D1art, a retail store and convenience market at the northwest corner of Strand and Lincoln and a staff recommendation to .deny the appeal without prejudice and return it to the Planning Commission for consideration. Councilmember Reed moved to deny the appeal based on the appellant not being present. Second by Councilmember Press. During discussion, Councilmember Reed suggested that a motion to reconsider denial could be made at the next meeting iz" a valid explanation for the absence is present. The motion was approved. by the Following vote: Council Vote: Unanimously approved 7-0 14-A: BUILDING AND SAFETY COIdMISSION: Presented was the matter of an appointment of a member to the Building and Safety Commission. Mayor Edwards opened nominations. Councilmember Epstein nominated Eleanor Wells. Mayor Edwards nominated David D. Be11. .The vote on the nominations was as follows: David Do Bella Councilmembers Conn, Press and Mayor Edwards Eleanore Wells: Councilmembers Epstein, Jennings, Reed and Zane Therefore, Eleanore Wells was appointed to the Building and'Safety Commission for a term expiring June 30, 1984. 14-8: FILMING LIGHTS IN CHAMBERS: Presented was the request of Counci me er Jennings to iscuss filming lights in the Council Chambers. Councilmember Jennings moved to direct staff to adopt a policy to notify filming personnel to turn off bright lights when not actually filming. Second by Councilmember Reed. The motion was approved by .the .following vote: - - 13 August 9, 1983 ~~~ ~ ~ - ~~- ~' ,_ r- :, --~- ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ _... r, ;, ,~ ~l~ ~ r ~y-;~~A~'~; ~i'~~! i .-5-° F..1- ^ - - r~. -- ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ;, E ~ ~~3 ~ (>y.~' , ~~, '3 ~~ a 2~ z a ,~ `` ;.__. ._ a ~ } G~_ _:_ ~'^ S' ~~, ''.'~.__ -_._._ ~_ `7~g ~s - - -----______-_____--~! ~X~ . ,' E t 1~ / j n / Yc r ,~ ~~.~ ~~~~~cs~-~ ~v~Qs _ ~~ 3 s ~p ,~ ____ __ ___ fl~ ~tA~'z'o4i~ ,v 2. Z~ ____________ +' ~ ~ ~ Z.. i ~ ~'C~r.,1L1 ~ -~ ----- -_~_~?• ~ ~r '1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~--~ _ ~" ; ~~ ti f ~ ~ r y' ' _. -___...._ ..