SR-831025-12AC/ED:Jh:nh
``Council Mtg.: October 25, 1983
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
Santa Monica, California
SUBJECT: Appeal, DR 189 and C.U.P. 356, 2937-2939 Main Street,
CM2, Change of Use, Appliance 'S ales to Catering and
Delicatessen, Ambrosia Catering;.
fy,.: ,
~2
OCT 2 5 1983
Introduction
This is an appeal from the Planning Commission's determination on
an Interim Development Permit for a catering and delicatessen business
at 2937-2939 Main Street. Appeal is by Councilmember David Epstein
and is specifically on the condition prohibiting tables and eating
on the premises.
Background
The applicants currently operate a highly regarded catering and
delicatessen business on Pier Avenue just off Main Street. They wish
to move into larger facilities at 2937-2939 Main Street formerly
occupied by Barrett's Appliances.. The plans submitted included eight
tables in a front terrace suitable for sitting and eating food
purchased on the premises. The Planning Commission approved the
project on condition there be no tables and no food consumed on the
premises. Councilmember Epstein appealed this condition.
Main Street Zoning
The CM Special Main Street zone prohibits more than two restaurants
per block and there are already five restaurants in this block.
Inclusior. of tables and eating facilities proposed clearly creates
a restaurant in conflict with the CM zoning. Planning staff has
~Z°/°f
OCT 2 5 1983
Mayor and City Council -2- October 25, 1983
consistently told interested parties that restaurant use of the
subject premises was prohibited by the Main Street Plan. If a
restaurant is to be considered, the proper course of action is a
variance proceeding, rather than simply an Interim Development Permit.
Alternatives
In the matter of an appeal on an Interim Development Permit, the
City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the determination of the
Planning Commission and the decision of the City Council shall be
final. Approval of an Interim Development Permit requires findings that:
1. -The development is consistent with the findings and purpose
of Ordinance 1251.
2. The proposed plans comply with existing regulations contained
in the Municipal Code.
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
anticipated results of the proposed development.
5. The proposed development will not prejudice the ability of the
City to adopt a revised land use element.
Recommendation
In view of the Main Street Plans' clear limitation in regard to
restaurants, it is respectfully recommended that the appeal be denied
and the action of the Planning Commission affirmed on the basis that
the inclusion of tables would violate current zoning regulations and
prohibit approval of an Interim Development Permit.
The recommendations presented in this report do not have a budget/
financial impact.
Prepared by: James W. Lunsford