SR-820727-12APL:Jh:nh Santa bloni~ California ~~
Council Mtg,: July 9, 198?.
J U L 2 7 1982
TO: The Mayor and City Council
PROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Alternative Submission Proposal, DR 083,'Mi-T Mart, Inc.,
3102 Main Street, CM4, M. Toumajian.
Introduction
This is a carry-over on an appeal by Mayor Goldway of the Planning
Commission's approval of an Interim Development Permit for a
proposed mini--mart and commercial office building at 3102 Main
Street. The matter was previously considered as Agenda Item 12A
on July 6, 1982,
Background
The applicants proposed a commercial building consisting of a mini-,
mart and commercial rental space on the southwesterly corner. of
N;ain and Marine which did not meet the Main Street zoning requirements
in 3 regards:
1. A Conditional Use Permit for a single occupancy in excess
of 75' of ground floor street frontage.
2, Pedestrian Orientation in that 304 of the Main Street
frontage was not improved with commercial space.
3. Landscaping was deficient for. lack .of a 2' wide planting
strip.
The Planning Commission also recommended withdrac~ral of the City's
opposition to the store's application for a liquor license.
• /~ -~
JUL 2 7 1982
,..
Mayor and City Cour l ;,1 -2-
July 27, 1982
Following hearing on the appeal on July 6, 1982 the matter. was
continued for 2 weeks to allow the continued negotiation with
the applicant including the hours of operation and submission of
an amended project plan.
Amended Plan '
An amended plan has been submitted in which the proposed .building
is rotated to the south which overcomes the three deficiencies of
the previous. plan in that 30% of the Main Street frontage is in
commercial space, no single occupancy .exceeds 75' and a 2' wide
planting strip is planned in front of each parking wall. 14_spaces
in lieu of the former 13 are proposed.
Remaining Issues
Inasmuch as the major siting deficiences have been corrected those
issues remaining of concern to the Council appear to include the
building's exterior architecture, pedestrian access, hours of
operation, diversity of stock and limitation, if .any, of beer and
wine display. The applicant's representative has indicated
willingness to compromise on all issues other than hours of
operation, reiterating the position that a 24 hour operation is
essential to economic feasibility. .The 'Chief of Police on the
other hand, believes that a 24 hour establishment at this
particular location, almost directly on the boundary line between
Santa Monica and Venice, could be an attractive crime target
especially after 2:Q0 A.M. He and other knowledgeable persons are
concerned about the sale of alcoholic beverages in the area. And
for these reasons the Chief apposes the project.
Mayor and City Couxt~ll -3-
Analysis
July 27, 1982
Inspection of the applicant's store at 8501 Pershing Drive, Vista
del Mar indicates approximately 120 of shelf space devoted to wine
and beer and 2% to fresh produce. The CM Zoning permits retail
stores with less than 50% of shelf area devoted to liquor and is
silent insofar as hours of operation are concerned. Under Interim
Development procedures the City Council may impose any reasonable
conditions in granting an Interim Development Permit.
Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Interim Development Permit
be granted on the following terms and conditions.
1. That construction be in substantial accordance with the
alternative plans submitted except as modified by the
Architectural Review Board and that the ARB be authorized
to require whatever exterior treatment they consider
necessary or desirable to assure compliance with the Main
Street Plan and the needs of the neighborhood with special
reference to the possibility of additional windows or
doors on the Main Street frontage.
2. That not less than 40a of the structure be devoted to a
convenience market offering a full line of grocery items
including fresh fruits and vegetables, but not necessarily
fresh meat or poultry.
3. That the hours of operation be limited to those between
6:00 A.M. and 72;00 A.M., the business to remain closed
between the hours of ]Z;00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. daily.
4, That no liquor be sold on the premises.
Mayor and City Coup '.1
-4- .July 27, 1982
5. That no vending machines, electronic or video games or
amusement devices of ar.y kind be included or permitted in
the building either as principal or incidental uses.
6. That street trees be planted along both street frontages,
in accordance with the direction of the Recreation and
Parks Department.
7. That under Resolution 6385 (CCS) a development fee of
$34,252.20* would be required in connection with the
approval of the project. The City of Santa Monica is
currently enjoined from enforcing the provisiohs of such
resolution relating to fees. If the City of Santa Monica
prevails. in the case of United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joinders of America et al v. City of Santa Monica., et al.,
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number WEC 069227, such fee
(or any lesser fee required by any subsequently adopted
ordinance) shall be due and payable within 90 days of the
date that City of Santa Monica is no longer subject to such
injunction.
*Fee is calculated as follows:
Land Cost...... ........... ..... .,....5465,000.00
(9300 sq.ft. @.$50 per sq.ft.}
Building... ....... .....,. ........... 159,300.00
(.5400 sq.ft. @ 29.50 per sq.ft.)~
Total Cost $624,300.00
6% of $624,300.00 .............................$ 38,058.00
loo reduction for 2 credit points 3,805.80
(Santa Monica employees and less than
maximum bldg.)
$ 34,252.20
Mayor and City Council -5- July 27, 1982
It is also recommended that the City Council not withdraw the
City's letter of opposition to the requested liquor license.
Prepared by: Mark Tigan
James Lunsford
Y °^...
r~
CfTY OF SANTA M,, NfC,4 r ':~n1CA
~.Q. ~,pr.~1CE
~1~'; itAn! ~cl:
JuL 15 ~ e~, : ,
DATE: • :. July 15, 1982
~.
TO:"~ John H. Alschuler Jr, - City Manager
FROM: James F. Keane Chief of Police
SUBSECT: Proposed Mini-Mart at Main and Marine Streets.
It has recently cow to my attention that amini-market is being
considered for construction at Marine and Main Streets.
Although I understand there is a need for a market in this area,
I would like to point out a rnm~ber of factors that might have an
effect upon police service.
Any twenty-four hour establishment that is staffed by one or just
a few employees is an attractive target for robbers. In this
case this is especially true because the establishment is a7rmst
on the boundry line between Santa I~lonica and Venice. This fact
is well known to the criminal element who make a habit of com-
mitting acrime "just across the border" and then fleeing to their
own neighborhood.
They feel, and probably with some validity, that their chances
of escape are enhanced when they cross the city line.
Any establishment that is open. and stocks alcoholic beverages,
yet is prohibited from selling them after 2:00 am is inviting
problems from "customers°' who are under the influence, and
wish to continue drinking. This would result in an increase
in the ntnnber of disturbance calls to the police department.
The area that would be served by this market abounds with a1co-
holic vagrants from both Santa Monica and Uenice. As far as
Santa Monica is concerned, there has been a concentrated effort
to encourage stores to restrict the sale of °'cheap alcoholic
beverages", which is usually wine, in an effort to displace
these people to other areas. If the Mini-Mart has a beer and
wine license it might make an already bad problem worse.
For these reasons the police department would oppose the con-
struction of the proposed P-ti.ni.-Market.
JFK/MPL/pra
>~-~~~~
12-A Conn makes n ion to grant permit.,.. t vhe're Jennings
;..,
makes his motion
CONN: Madame Mayor, members of the council., I'd like to say that I
prefer the changes in this design that we have before us and I would
like to support the staff recommendation. So I am going to move
that we grant the interim development permit with the condit~ io _
i\` n '~ e s a r roe o r t • ('r,,,, .~..~ r r~~ ~. GLbr-,^~-^~-~= ~- , F.'~~ _.c- ~~ ~ G~i~~
PRESS:. second y~„~, ~ ~' ~- „--~
YG: Moved by Conn, seconded by Press.. City Attorney,
ATTORNEY: One of the objections that was raised in the letter
~---•-
of Christopher Harding indicated calculation of the fee, And I
think i;t should be pointed out that the fee that the staff
recommendation contains is generally based upon a calculation
without credits - and the credits will be assessed at the time
of the certificate of occupancy so that that sets the upper limit.
And by no mean does it indicate that the developer will not be
able to establish any credits that would be provided that would
be provided by Resolution 6385, assuming that it can be enforced
at the time of certificate of occupancy.
CONN: That was my understanding, Thank you,
~ Any other discussion on the motion. CM Reed, and, then Zane
and Jennings.
REED: I have some grave reservations about these points that
Mr. Harding .raises in his letter vis a vis unequal protection
under the law.. The fact that we are here with a land use action,
attempting to regulate both. hours of operation and the things that
the store will sell when in fact the zoning .and the other regulatory
actions that the City have taken in the recent past, do not address
those considerations at all, And that the City has never before
on a case by case basis made this kind of a requirement on a
potential developer. And it seems to me that if the Council wishes
to control liquor licenses, the appropriate way to do it is to
have some sort of a zoning overlay which establishes areas where
they will be legal and establishes other areas where they will not
be legal, But basically you're in the position of saying you are
going to regulate this one little parcel of land in a different
manner than every other parcel developed previously on Main Street.,
has been regulated,. And it seems to me that a very good argument
could be made against us with regard to our possibly protecting
the existing buisnesses that are on Main Street by trying to ~
exclude this one. Also pointing out the fact that we have in fact
bent over backwards for some immediately previous cases to remove
the City's objection to a beer and wine license and allow people
to go forward and get a beer and wine license. And I think that
it is not fair nor is it appropriate, ner is it probably legal
to proceed in this manner on a land use mction. Now 3 or 4 weeks
ago, when they need a variance, I couldn't have made :that argument
because a variance allows for a wide latitude of discretionary acts
on the part of the body judging the variance or the conditional use
permit. But they have now redesigned their project according to our
requests, they have brought it completely within all of the regulations
12-A (Reed con't)c of the City. They don't need a variance
and they don't need a conditional use permit. They have a legal
project here. And we're trying to stick them with. conditions that
we haven't stuck. anybody else with., And I d.on"t think that will
stand up in court and I can't vote for this - the way you've got
i .
ATTORNEY: It is the opinion of the City Attorney's office that
the conditions in this case a.re legal and. appropriate. What the
developer is required to secure, is an interim development permit.
One of the findings in adopting Ordiance 1251 wa.s the necessity
to protect the public peace, health., safety and welfare. The
record before the City Council which consists of a memorandum
from the Chief of Police indicates a serious and significartt public
safety concern because of the. location of this project on the border
b.etwePn Venice and Santa Monica. The fact that Venice area, south
of SM borders, does have a crime rate. There are a number of
legitimate a.nd reasonable concerns concerning public safety. And
it certainly i.s not inapprapriate for the City of Santa Monica in
the context of granting a discretionary permit, to impose reasonable
cond.itions.in order to avoid significant public safety concerns
that the Police Dept, in lx&a~~xh~acx the City has. And therefore,
the conditions are within the Police. power of the City of SM.
The equal protection argument we don't think. has any merit. liand
use decision are constantly changing in response to changing
circumstances. The fact that one property owner may have been
permitted. to build a. en story building, 10 years ago, and a
current property owner can only build a si_x story building doesn't.
indicate that there is a violation of equal protection. What it
indicates is that govt through the constant evolutionary process
of decision making is responding to different concerns at different
points in times and the concerns that. the Chief of Police has on
this. project is a public safety concern. And it would appear to
be within the Counci 's discretion if it so desires to impose
conditions.
ZANE: I have been - was inititally supportive of the notion of this
project. I think that the memorandum from the Chief has convinced
me that the conditons suggested by Staff are appropriate and I intend
to support the staff recommendation.
JENN, INGS__ I'll move an amendment to the motion ;to delete condition
number 3 relating to hours of operation. .-~:-..-e ~~~~-<4-, ~-"" ~ ~-
----
YG: second. CM Edwards. ~ ~~`"','~'""~-
. %J
~ED~~ry`u ncerned about the Chi.ef's letter -s omeone
who I respect very much.. And there is the unique problem of it
being right on the border. I think it's misleading to get into a
discussion about the quality of the wine as if that's an issue. I
think. what Mr. Schonlau will probably be informing us of in a few
minutes is that substance abuse is not limited merely to those who
are homeless and have a taste for thunderbird. .It's a problem in
all parts of the City. It's a problem on the northside
12-A -Mayor moved to'continue with 12-A ... to beginning pf 12-A
YG: The next item is 12-A
CLERK: Appeal from the decision of the Planning Comm. to grant......
MANAGER: CM - we have the 11 items that you passed by....
~G: My intent was to do them last, but if you..,.
MANAGER: If we could postpone 11-B til next week, and action on 1-C
we would hope would be perfunctoxy and we could get that out of he
way. And my hope is that would also be the case with 11-D since
that item has already been acted on by the Council previously and
we're simply dealing with the contract. So, ....
YG: City Attorney, there are no people who wish to speak on item
11-C and D - can we just vote them? Councilmembers - is it agreeable -
we will hear items 11-C $ D and postpone 11-B,
ED4VARDS: Are there people here to speak on those items.
YG: No.
EDWARDS:? If the Staff's concern is that we don't get to them, we
should just commit ourselves to get to them and take the items that
have public comment first.
YG: I move that we continue with 12-A and get back to the others later.
ZANE OR EDWARDS: second (sorry - can't tell on second - could be anyone)
YG; All those in favor. Unanimous.
12-A ---