Loading...
sr-012682-12cPL:JL:nh Santa Monica, California Council Meeting 1-26-82 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff g. .JAN 2 s ~s$2 SUBJECT: Appeal, Development Review No. DR 002, Conversion of Egg Plant to Offices, Edgemar Farms, 2435 Main Street, CM, Michel Bros. Introduction This report transmits an appeal from the determination of the City Planning Commission granting an Interim Development Permit. Appeal is by Mayor Ruth Yannatta Goldway. Background The applicants operate an existing egg processing business on a 1.2 acre site at 2435 Main Street, part of which is located on R3 property fronting on Second Street. In September 1980, a Conditional Use Permit was granted to demolish 3 smaller buildings and convert the main packing plant to offices and shops. A Coastal Permit and Architectural Review Board approval were subsequently obtained but no building permit had been obtained by April 22, 1981 when the building moratorium was enacted. A vested rights action and hardship application was denied and the applicant advised to seek an Interim Development Permit in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 1220(CCS). On October 19, 1981, the Planning Commission approved an Interim Development Permit with the provision that the parking lot be available to the public during off hours and could be charged for .SAN 2 6 ,1as~ D4ayor and City Council -2- January 26, 1982 by the developers at their actual cost for maintenance and security of the lot. ..Mayor Goldway appealed the Commission's determination on the basis that no consideration was given to fees and whether this was new .construction or renovation and, further, that the Planning Commission had changed the requirements in regard to parking. Recommendation Inasmuch as the proposed project is consistent with the Main Street Plan, Conditional Use Perr<it,and has been approved by the Coastal Commission and Architectural Review Board it is respectfully recommended that the appeal be denied and the determination of the Planning Commission upheld. Prepared by: James Lunsford ~1 , ~~~~ Findings 1. The development as conditioned is consistent with the findings and purpose of Ordinance Number 1220 (CCS). 2. The development as conditioned is consistent with the interim development standards adopted by the City Council. 3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be adequate `to accom- modate 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, sanitary, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices, protective services, and public utilities) will be adequate to accommodate the anticipated results of the proposed devel- opment. 5. The development complies with existing regulations contained the Municipal Code. Conditions 1. Under Resolution Number 6385 (CCS), a development fee of $ 9 G~GOO. would be required in connection with the approval of this project. The City of Santa Monica is currently enjoined from enforcing the provisions of such resolution relating to fees. If the City of Santa Monica prevails in the case of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, et al, v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number WEC 069227, such fee (or any lesser fee required by any subsequently adopted ordi- nance) shall be due and payable within 90 days of the date that the City of Santa Monica is no longer subject to such injunction. 2. That, as imposed by the Planning Commission in approving the interim development permit, VIIR public use of the parking lot in off-hours may be charged for by the developers at their actual cost for maintenance and security for the lot. " ~ ~R ~, '~1~ ,~f.~ll ate,,. ~ .~ T/~~- a~~~,.w2 kroxe .o.~..,.c.G ,C,~ n~~u•,rr..! 7~i.~.v ~~ _ "~7 1 ~ /r~ _~ In ~`2~ ~~ ~~ Ki~ Park 2 49 CENTURY PARK EAST BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES, CAUFORN A 90067 November 23, 1981 Mr. Jack Michel Michel Brothers Egg Co. 2435 Main St. Santa Monica, Ca. 90404 Dear Mr. Michels: Re: Property Parking 2435 Main St. Santa Monica,Calif. 93 Spaces Our proposal for management of the above property is as followsc Operating Hours Monday through Friday 6 P.M. to 12 Midnight = 30 hours Saturday 9 A,M, to 12 Midnight ~ 15 " Sunday 10 A.M. to 10 P.M. = 12 " Relief and lunch _ g ~o Total 65 " Costs Labor Week Year 65 hours C~ $4.00 per hour $260.00 $13,520.00 Fringes (approximately 30/) 78.00 4,056.00 Insurance 57.70 3,000.00 Site Costs 38.46 2,000.00 Management Fee 57.70 3,000.00 $491.86 $25,576.00^ Our management fee would be $?.50.00 per month ($3,000.00. per year). Kindly note that our management fee covers manager's home office costs, the services of the manger, off-site supervision, professional consultation, accounting functions, cash control, .monthly reports and financial statements that are required in the operation of the business. If I can be of any further service, please do not hesitate to call upon ~~~ PIDS.t cordially, ~~~ KinPark, Inc. William Mammarella, President ~s" b ~/C~d~ /~LL.~; ~~~/+~.~~-~u-~ ~it,r,~tl,~ ~°~ ~ ~/P.~""'i!_11~. , Licensee of Kinney System lnc. C I 'I' Y O~'~ CA.I.I~'~RNIA DEPARTMENT OF CITI' PLANNINCz 393-9975, ext, 34I November 118 1981 ,~ ~,~'> MON[CA 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, Califoa°ztia 904(1 T NRV 2 4 191. Catherine 1~nderson J A N ~ 2 1982 111? 5th Street, Suite D Manhattan IIeache California 90266 p Dear Mrse Andersan.e This will officially infarsrc yeti that the Santa Monica. JAN ~ 6 1932. City Planning Commissian's approval of 'interim Developanent Review Nos. DIZ ®d2 for aonversion of an egg plant-ta offices at 2435 Main Street„ San'ca Monica. has koeen appealed by Mayor itutka ~'annatta Coldwaym Under the pa-ovisie~ns ~ of Section 5e a:C E?rdi rz~nce No a 1220(CCSB the matter will be placed be£are,tlae City Council at ttie earliest convenient date for a Public Hearing-and determination> you will be natJ..fed of the t9.me and place of the hearingm In the iraterime shaulei you wish any addit:Lana3. infor~ motion ar clarification regarding this item p7_ease let me l~now and 7°11 be happy to assist youo Very truly yours, ~.. mes Lurszerd ireetor of Planning. .7L: nh coo l`Richel Brose Inc, 2435 vain Street San`a Manica8 California `JAN 2 ~ 3cLi?: JAN 1 2 f982 1`~1M ~ .F ~ ~1 1Vove'~nlaer 6, 1981 James ]"~unsford Director of Planning Planning & Zoning 1685 Main. Street Santa Monica, California 9b4b1 Dear Mr~ I,unsford: In accordance with. 'che provi,sioras eaf the, Interim. Permit Ordinance Na~ 122(7(CCB) I herety appeal li.c: Octai~er, 19, 1931, deterniinat~.on of t}~e P1~~nning ~.oxn~tir.:i~s,=;:i~orr i.;~. the following matt.ere Development l~evi.ew l~eav DRw001~. ~Vettx 3-~e>te7ry Offire Building, 701 Banta l!tonics Blvdo, Cie P'ia'c7.in and Dtrorefzk~r Development Review 1Vo~ DR~-b02~. Co?z`jcr~:ior:. of egg plant to offices, ~;dg~2n~tar ~°ar?zts~. 2~i35 JS~.zx7. S~~r_eet, CMr Miok~el arose ~Q~r~ ti~~wria~~~ ~r~~~«~v, r~7.~yb~, Santa F+Ion~.oa C~. .v C;otz~7.o~.1 ,. I ~ _. . ~ ~ r ~ CST4l PLA1Vt11ING DE'PART'MENT _ _._._ CITY OF SANTA MONICA M E M O It A ]~ D U M DATE: October 14, 1981 TO: : Haxaorable Planning Convr~ission FROM: Director of Planning SUBJECT: Development Review Nou DR-•002, Conversion of egg plant to aff~..cesg Edc~emar Farms, 235 IAain Street, C!~° n^iohel L$ros> This is an application for a Development Permit to ~arooeed with _.- .conversion of the Edgemar Erg Processing plant on Main Street to an office development i_n accordance with the Conditional Use Permit granted by the Planning Commission on September 3. "a, 1980. The applicants subsequently obtained Architectural Revie~°.~ Board approval of the project witl~ the added provisions far pedestrian orientation requested by the Commission as well as a Coastal Permit. The project appears to meet the gua_delines established for P'~airi Street by the CorunercialwIndustrial Task Force as approved by the City Council. The primary question is whether this project shall be subject to development fees proposed for the Plain Street area. The Task Force recommendation refers to new construction and to what extent major remodeling should be considered new construction appears to be a policy decision yei: to be established. RECOD~n?ENDATIOPI. In view of the Commission°s prior approval and the Architectural Review Board, Coastal Commissa,on and Citsr Council actions it a.s respectfully recommended chat a Development Permit be approved, submitted. snes ~u s ord .Director 'f Planning JL^nh 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Katz at 7:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Herbert Katz, Jr „ Chairman Robert Kleffel, Chairman Pro Tempore Susan Cloke Frank Hotchkiss Tisa McKee Derek Shearer Robert Sullivan Also Present: James Lunsford, Director of Planning Robert Flyers, City Attorney Jonathan Horne, Deputy City Attorney Lyn Kuhl, Planning Department Secretary 3. The Pledge of Allegiance was .led by Commissioner Shearer. 4. The September 21, 1981 minutes were approved with Chairman Katz abstaining because he had been absent durinn that meetirego Prior to beginning the agenda items; Chairman Katz stated he had received a request from the 6Jelton-Becket representatives to move Item 7A to the beginning of the meeting because their traffic engineer had to leave at_9:00 p.m. The Com- missioners discussed the matter acid agreed by voice vote to place the item at the beginning of the meeting. Therefore 7A vaas heard first but shall appear in these minutes in its numerical order. 5, PUBLIC HEARIFdG5: A. Development Review No. DR-001 The Director of Planning read the staff report fora three-story office build- ing proposed for 701 Santa Flonica Baulevard. The project had been granted a hardship exemption by the City Council. at its September 8, 1981 meeting subject to review by the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission. for an interim permit. The Commission questioned the Planning Director and City Attorney about the ne°,v guidelines under which it would be acting. Attorney Myers stated he would provide the Commission vaith copies of the new standards, During the public hearing ~1r. Flatlin, architect for the project,stated the project was within the city's criteria, which he pointed out using an overview of the proposal. F1ichael Miller, owner, also addressed the Commission ,and had questions about the in-lieu fee require menu and procedures. At the hearing°s close, Commissioner Cloke moved staff`s recommendation grantfing a choice-for either on-site construction or the in lieu-of-fee, to be up to the devel- opers; with the payment program to be worked out with the City Attorney, ~R!ith miti- gating factors benefitting the developers; adding that the deve-7opers.must go through standard procedures required by the City with Architectural Review Board reviewing particularly project pedestrian access and amenities, landscaping and material usage. Attorney Myers agreed to work with.the developer but recommended that the developer,.in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, prepare a plan to either provide the housing or pay a fee and that that plan be returned to the Commission for approval within a specified time or requirement. Commissioner Cloke accepted this amendment subject to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. She also clarified that she had finalized the in-lieu fee at the percentages noted .in the staff report in response to a question from Commissioner McKee. She also accepted a recommendation from Mr. Lunsfard that the payment process be worked out prior to the issuance of a building permit. The seconder accepted the amendments and discus- sion followed. The vote of the Commission failed to carry the motion as follows: AYE: Cloke, FicY.ee, Shearer FLAY: Hotchkiss, Y.leffel, Sul"eivan, Katz Discussion continued on the matter and a number of ali;ernatives were considered. Commissioner Sullivan moved to grant an interim development permit for this case subject to the following findings: that this project meets or exceeds the. require- ments set forth in Ordinance fdo. 1220, subsection C1 through C5; that at this time the fees as recommended in the staff report are not to be accessed; that the build- ing be required to go through all normal city processes such as the Architectural Review Board, and meet all city building codes. Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded for discussion, noting he would like 'to see additional public use in the first floor court-yard area not to exceed one-fiftfl of the open space. (See also the Ndvember 5, 1981 minutes, second paragraph of Item 4 for additional comments.) Greg Broughton, speaking for the applicant, expressed his belief this proposal might not be functional or beneficial to pedestrians and that there were virtually no pedestrians in that area. Commissioner Sullivan stated it was not his intent to impose anything not economically feasible. Commissioner Kleffel expressed his belief that open space in itself is attractive and beneficial. Commissioner McKee stated she svould oppose the motion due to the needs in the City for lo4a and moderate income housing. Commissioner Cloke agreed with this view as in compliance with the. intent of the interim ordinance. The vote on the matter carried as follows: AYE: Hotchkiss, Kleffel, Sullivan, Katz NAY: Close, McKee, Shearer B. Development Review No. DR-002 The staff report was made by h1r. Lunsford concerning a request by fiichel Brothers to convert an egg plant into offices for Edgemar Farms at 2rJ35 Plain Street. A con- ditional use permit had been granted by the Commission September 15, 1980 and the Architectural Review Board had approved. the project subject to provision for pedes- trian orientation as required by the Commission. The project also was granted a Coastal Permit. Attorney Myers noted the requirements for the project were stated in the Task Force's recommendations, Comm~dssioner Hotchkiss stated that the Commis- sion had not been given this information. Durina the hearing, Cathy Anderson spoke as the Michel Brothers representative. She displayed renderings of the project, stated the Architectural Revievr Board had approved the proposal which complied evith old and new Main Street requirements. She stated no additional footage r~~ould result from the remodeling which involved only. the center portion of the existing building with the required 30% retail area or public-servicing-groups-type offices on their Main Street side. Ms. Anderson then responded to questions about the use of the parking lat after business hours. She stated the lot would be open to the public from 5;00 p.m. during week days and all day on weekends and holidays. She did not know if a fee would be charged but believed a small fee would be in order 'to mitigate additional security and attendant costs. At the hearing°s Close, Commissioner Close moved to approve the request as presented subject to Item LI-A of the latest "lain Street requirements even though the project is a remodel; erith the requirement that they bear the cost of maintaining and serving and making their parking lot available to the public vahen the business is closed. Seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss for discussion, the Commission continued to con- sider the matter of evening parking requirements. The motion did not go to vote. Thereafter Commissioner Kleffel presented a substitute motion t!iat file develo17ment permit be granted subject to all staff recommendations, adding that public use of parking lot in off-hours may be ci;arged for by the developers at their actual cost for maintenance and security for the lot. .4t the City Attorney's request, an amend- mentnoted the project must be .consistent with the reouirements of Section 5(c) of Gity Ordinance 1220. Seconded by Chairman Katz, the motion carried as follows: AYE: Hotchkiss, Md<ee, Kleffel, Sullivan, !:atz NAY: Cloke ABSENT: Shearer C. Development Review No. DR-003 The staff report was presented by the Director of Plannino, noting a request to convert a portion of an office building at 2321 lJilshire Boulevard to a studio for dance/exercises proposed by Janice Darling. Ms. Darling spoke for the request, noting that she eras one of the partners in the "sweatshop." She responded to questions concerning the parking situation. .October 19s 1981 Santa Monica Planning CommS.ssion Council Chambers City Halls ~8oom 213 1685 Main Street Santa Monicas California Gentlemen® Reo Development Permit [~R®B02s Conversion of egg plant to offices and retail asses 2435 Main Streets GMs Edgemar Farmss Michel 8ros® As an owner:~of property at 2409 Main Sta in fiche same blook of the Edgemar F°arms I ~sish to express my support of the development of the property above mentionade We need this development in north Main 5t~ if we are to be a part of the Main Stm growths and the growth of Santa Monica as A whole® I am unable to attend the meeting this evening$ but my support of the Miohaels brothers is 150,~w ,.~k~aw~s Ynus fj ~~~- cq bath A® Goldman C_.--~ J9sJ9 Gapy to; Michaels Brothers ~, i i j CITY 0~ >-:,~JTA C~ONICA PLANNING COMMI~-LION ~ ApPga~°ATION VFE~_E?C31vNT_~E.~~.x~ ~• FILE N0~ ~,,,J B~ ~' ~o ~-- REVIEF~ DF~TE: MOND~Y,~ ~ ~ ° E~1~'~~ AT ~:~0 P,M~ -- SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~-.~ ~G~~ ~'EAIP3 STF~EET 0 APPLICANT: I C; N ~= L. ~ ~ ~ ~CCx.~ ~~~t2-S __,_. Ti ZTLE ___-_ APPLICANT'S ~DDkZESS: ~L'1 ~5 ~~~"'~- PEiC?NEw NGE ~'~~°~~` DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS:_,~__~ ~ ~ .~ ~ _ _ ~~ DEVELOPMENT CLASS : Ae-_.____~~._. B ~~_.~. C~a m._._ DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: CHANGE OF USE ~m____'`~~ _r.,_eq. FROt~~~ ~` ~0____~~~~-ct~__ ADDITION OVER ~.0~.____V NE4~ CONS'1t2U(;'T ION..,~ SITE AE~EA- ~__ ___._ Z3UI~DING E,EIGH"I°. LOT COVERAGE ~ NUMBER OF S'IORIES~~ Gf:OSS FL.OOF~ .RE~E/~ TYPE OF BUILDING: OFFICE INDUSTRIAL.~~_ CiE.TAIE.~, QTFdER COMMISSION ACTION: a,.~ _ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED _. ~.^_. APPROVED VIITE~E COC~EDITIC7NS LISTED E3hLOt~ ---- f k~ISAPPROVED &~OR R.EASONS E~ESTEIJ 1~E1~0E~1 CONT I NClED CLAIM :~,gIESTED RIGHTS/HARDSF;IP E ~~?TION :+~~`~ NOTIC.n r DECISION OF THE CITY CUT L OF THE CITY OF SANTA A9ONICA CLAIAS NO: M°°064 CLAIMANT:, Michel Brothers, Inc. NAILING ADDRESSo 24.35 Main Street, Santa Monica 90405 PROPERTY ADDRESS; 24202438 Second Street and 2421°2439 Main Street_- DATE OF tIEARINGe September 8, 1981 DATE OF DECISIONa September $, 1981 A hearing was held in the above~re£e~°enced claim and the following decision ~,ras renderedo 1. CLAIM ~'OR 'i7ESTED RIGHTS Q ~ claim Ps granted ~ claim is denied 2. CLAIM FOR fliARDSHIP EREMPTIONo ( 5 claim is granted ~x~ claim is conclitionall~ granted*** ( } claim is denied ***Conditions of exemption: ~.llowed to proceed s~*itYa demolition witkz requirement that other permits be obtained through interim ~~~.• Findings of fact ( ~ are attached P`x'~ Euill be forthcoming ( ~ the attached staff report is incorporated and adogted , ~s findings of the.~ity Counoil The derision of the City Council is a final decision. S'ursuant to Section 1094.6 of the Co3e of Cavil Procedure as incorporated bti Section 1400 of the Santa Monica Municipal Codee judicial review must be sought v~~ithin ninety f90) days of the date of decision as stated above. ` ~~~ ~c~ NOV 2 4 t98t MICHEL BROTHERS 24]5 MAIN STREET SANTA MONK A, CALIFORNIA 90405 TELEPHONES: 796•PSI - 870-J 091 November 24, 1981 The Honorable City Council City of Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90406 Dear Council Members: Kindly consider this letter our request to continue until January 12, 1982, the administrative proceedings hearing on item 126, case Intrim Development Review 002, scheduled for hearing on November 24, 1981. We waive any time requirements caused by this delay. Meaningful and accurate cost figures are not available at this time. Respectfully yours, MICHEL BROTHERS ~~ / 1 /1n William J. Michel WJM/lkl to /` /ZJ; CITY OF SANTA MONICA iTE- EPA 1 E t E DATE: T0: FROhS: SUBJECT November 24, 1981 Mayor Goldway Planning Director Estimated Development Fees, Edgemar Egg Plant The estimated Development Fees on the Edgemar Egg Plant Conversion if applicable would be $96,000 based on 8°s of $1,200,000. This amount could conceivably be reduced to some extent by development credits for Santa Monica resident employees but other credits don't appear likely. Absolute maximum reductions would be 25o if half the total employment were residents. If the cost rises to 1.3 million the fees would be $104,000 and if it drops to 1.1 million the fee would be $88,000. These fees are in the Main Street requirements, rather than the in-lieu housing fees. - i~ is r ~c~~ 1 2 ',93?