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?