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' ' _. -___...._ ..