SR-12-A (39)
..
(
..
'I () z ,. {/() 1J
"(.2 -II
SEP 1 0 1985
CjED:CPD:DKW:klc
COUNCIL MEETING: September 10, 1985
Santa Mon1ca, Ca11forn1a
1'0:
Mayor and CIty Councll
FROM:
Clty Staff
SUBJECT:
Appeal of PlannIng COmm1.SSI0n DenIal of
ProJect at 1801 Santa MOnl.ca Boulevard
4901-Y, EIA 783)
Kramer Motors
{ DR 298, Z . A .
INTRODOCTION
On August 19, 1985, the Cl ty Plann1.ng COmml.SS10n conducted a
Publlc Hearlng on a proposed Kramer Motors proJect (Development
ReVIew 298, ZA 4901-Y, ErA 783).
lhe proposed proJect lnvolves
development of a new Honda automob1.1e dealersnlp faclIl. ty at
1801 Santa
Boulevard.
the
Followl.ng
Hearlng,
the
Monl.ca
COmrn1.SSl0n falled to adopt any motl.on concernlng the prOJ ect,
effect1.vely denYlng the appllcatlon.
On August 22, 1985, Sherman Stacey, on behalf of Kramer Motors,
Inc., flIed an appeal of the Plannlng CommlSSlon's actlon and the
matter 1.S now before the Cl ty Councll.
Staff recommendatlon 1S
to grant the appeal and approve the proJect wlth cond1tlons.
BACKGROUND
Exh1b1t 2 1S a copy of the August 19, 1985, staff report to the
Clty Plann1ng ComffilSSlon on the matter wh1ch provl.des a deta11ed
deSCr1.ptlon of the proJect.
ThlS Exhlbl.t also 1ncludes an
12 -II
SEP 1 0 19S5
- 1 -
t · ..
analYS1S of land use and CEQA issues.
Exh1b1t 3 prov1des the
proJect plans, Ident1cal to tnose reviewed by the Plannlng
Commisslon on August 19, 1985.
Exhlbl t 4 IS a summary of the
Plannlng Commlsslon dlScusslon of the project on August 19.
Exhlbl t 6 15 a copy of the FInal Negat1ve Declaratlon, WhICh
Includes the InItial Study, comments on it, CIty staff response
to commGnts, Information concernlng operatIng procedures of the
proposed Honda dealershIp, a number of letters regard1ng the
pro] ect, and 1nformatlon regardlng var 10US env ironmen tal Issues
submItted on behalf of the applIcant.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Over 20 persons spoke at the August 19 PlannIng CommlssIon
HearIng on the matter, all of whom expressed varying degrees of
concern or Opposltlon to the proJect.
ExhIbIt 4 prOVIdes a
summary of the HearIng and dISCUSSIon on the matter.
Issues
ralsed by the publlC Included the following:
Use of solvents, asbestos and other potentIally hazardous
mater1als at the SIte.
AIr qualIty, n01se, glare, crlffie, clrculatlon and parkIng
Impacts.
Slze of the proposed proJect, ItS potentIal as a land use
precedent,
and potentIal
for cumulatIve
1mpacts glven
eXIstlng proJects, proJec ts 1n varlOUS stages of develop-
ment, and poss1ble future proJects.
- 2 -
1 ! ~
Percept10n of lack of appl1cant response to ne1ghborhood
concerns and des1gn recommendations, need for redesl.gn and
further ne1ghborhood l.nput.
Approprl.ateness of the proposed rear-yard var1ance.
Appropr1ateness of a Negatl.ve Declaratl.on for the proJect.
Need for "nel.ghborhood" l.mpact analys1s.
Need for re-examinat1on of Land Use Element poll.cl.es and
~unl.c1pal Code provl.sl.ons regardl.ng automobile dealershl.ps.
Followl.ng the Public Hearing, the Plannl.ng COmml.SS10n cons1dered
the matter. Four Comm1ss1oners were present. Comm1ssioners
Israel, Kl.rshner and Larmore were absent from the meetl.ng.
Comments of Commiss1oners are summarized below:
Commissioner Shearer: Appears clear that the C1ty doesn't
currently adequately deal w1th 1mpacts created by car dealersh1ps
l.ncludl.ng nOl.se, al.r pollut1on and Cl.rCulat1on effects.
Concerned about cumulatl.ve 1mpact of dealershl.p and other
proJects. Bel1eve EIR 15 necessary.
commissioner Hecht: Feel Negat1ve Declaratl.on is adequate and no
ErR 15 needed. Do have maJor deslgn concerns about the proJect
and feel l.t does not comply w1th Land Use Element desl.gn
standards l.n regards to ml.nl.ffil.Zatl.On of neighborhood l.mpacts, use
of the public alley, des1gn of the cl.rculation system, steppl.ng
down of bU1ldl.ng he1ght adJacent to resl.dent1al zones, and
- 3 -
~ ~ ..
prov~s~on of trans~t~on between cornmerc~al and res~dent~al uses.
Feel no real prov1.s~on
requ~red loading spaces.
response to ne~ghborhood
recommendat~ons.
made for off-load1.ng of cars or Code-
Also d~spleased at lack of redesign in
and PlannJ.ng Commission requests and
Commissioner Perlman: Support proJect because l.t meets
applJ.cable Land Use Element standards. Environmental analys~s
l.ndJ.cates that there are no substantial ne~ghborhood impacts. Do
feel that although the proJect conforms to the Land Use Element,
it J.S too large and would prefer scaled-down design.
Commissioner Hebald-Heymann: Agree that proJect meets Land Use
Element standards. Can accept encroachment of servJ.ce drJ.ve area
l.f ~t ~s fully enclosed, is below the adJacent apartment w1.ndows,
and 1.5 landscaped. Do not agree w1.th staff that uncovered
serV1.ce dr~ ve could be located 1.n setback area. Concur with
CommJ.ssioner Hecht that redesl.gn would be desJ.rable.
A mot~on by Commiss~oner Shearer to deny the Negat~ve DeclaratJ.on
and require an ErR fa~led for lack of a second. A mot~on by
CommJ.SSl.oner Hecht to deny the proJect was seconded by
comm~ssioner Shearer but fal.led on a 2 yes, 2 no vote. A motl.on
by Comml.ssl.oner Perlman to certl.fy the Negat~ve Declaratl.on and
approve the proJect w~th condl.tions was seconded by Comm~SSl.oner
Hebald-Heymann but fal.led on a 2 yes, 2 no vote.
- 4 -
,..
~
The effective result of the Plannlng Commisslon's actions was to
deny the proJect w~thout preJudlce.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project L5 the flrst new automobile dealershlp
bU1ldlng presented to the Clty SLnce adoptlon of the revlsed Land
Use and CJ..rculatJ.on Elements J.n October 1984 WhlCh, 1n PolJ..cy
1.6.2, outlJ.nes very specJ.fic property development standards
which recognJ.ze the unlque physJ..cal requJ..rements of full servlce
auto dealershJ..ps. POlJ..cy 1.6.2, therefore, estab1J..shes a clear
CLty polley to wh1ch the present proposal 15 a dLrect response.
A prlncJ..ple obJectlve of the Land Use and CJ..rculatJ..on Elements J..S
to mlnimize the impacts of development on resident1al neLghbor-
hoods partlcu1arly where they are located near maJor commercJ..al
streets. The Land Use Element polJ..cles ensure that potentJ..al
J.ncongrultles are addressed, but not elimJ..nated. The standards
requLre much smaller scale, less J..ntense and more sensltlvely
deslgned development than would have been permltted under the
eXlstlng Zonlng Ordlnance.
In addJ.tJ..on to meetJ.ng the standards of POllCY 1.6.2 the proposed
project responds to appllcable Urban Des1gn PolJ.cles. The north
elevatlon attempts to make a transition from its maxJ..mum 50'
height to that of the adJacent two-story apartment bUJ.ldlng
(POllCY 3.2.1 ) although doing so requJ..res an encroachment l.nto
the requ~red rear-yard; the rear-yard setback var~es from 101-0'
to 17' above the f~rst floor (Pol lCY 3.2.2); clear glass and
- 5 -
..
..
landscaplng are provided at the ground floor (pollcles 3.3.1 and
3.3.13); continul ty of the Santa \.tonlea Boulevard sldewalk is
preserved by provlding vehicle access from 18th Street and the
alley (POllCY 3.3.2); and the bUlldlng features deslgn elements
WhlCh break up lts mass and volume (policy 3.3.4). These lssues
wl1l all be the subJect of further reVlew by the Archltectural
Revlew Board.
The proJect also responds to the applJ.cable CLrcu1ation Element
PollcJ.es: access pOlnts w1.11 contal.n traffl.c 1.n and around the
proJect boundarJ.es (Pollcy 4.2.3. 4.3.7 and 4.7.9). Although the
d1.rectl ve 1.n PolJ.cy 4.3.6 to discourage on-street load1.ng and
unloadlng 1.5 not dlrectly addressed 1.n the proJect desl.gn, a
condJ.tJ.on of approval requires that thlS activlty be conducted
off-street, on land also owned by the appllcant at 1344-48 18th
Street, and in a way that ml.nlmlzes any lnCOnVen1.ence to 18th
Street res idents. ApplJ.cat1.on on behalf of Kramer \1otors has
already been made for a parklng lot at thls S1.te which would
accommodate the off-loadJ.ng functJ.on. ThJ.s applJ.catlon 1.5 under
staff review. S1.te studles by the proJect archJ.tect demonstrate
that hav1.ng to prov1.de the off-load1.ng function on site would
ser1.ously comprom1.se the ab1.1ity to house all the other related
dealershJ.p functions on site. Related parking and traffic lssues
are addressed 1.n the Final InLtlal Study.
The orJ.gLnal proJect presented to staff and ne1.ghbors featured a
canopled two-alsle servJ.ce drLve with1.n the requ1.red 17'-0'
rear-yard area. After rev~ewing the prOJect arch1.tect I 5
al ternatJ.ve site layout dJ.agrams demonstratl.ng that relocat1.ng
- 6 -
.. "
th~s feature to the inter~or of the bu~ld~ng d~d not appear
practlcal, and recognlzlng the value to the adjacent apartment
nelghbors of fully enclOSIng the serVIce aIsle, staff requested
the applIcant to rev~se the deslgn accordIngly.
The current
scheme Includes a fully enclosed serVIce drlve within the
rear-yard,
WhlCh reqUIres a varIance.
IronIcally,
SectIon
9l17B(2){c) would have permlt~ed the entIre rear-yard area to be
used for parkIng or access provIded a 51 to 6' wall were erected
a t the proper ty lIne.
The complete enclosure of thlS area to
substantIally elImlnate any unpacts on the adJacent apartment
bUllding trIggers the VarIance.
Staff recommends that thIS
var lance be supported.
Further analYSIS of land use Issues IS
provIded In the August 19, 1985, staff report to the Plannlng
CommISSIon and In the FInal InItIal Study. One correctIon to the
August 19 staff report IS that under the Land Use Element, auto
dealerSOIps on Santa MonIca Boulevard WIll be allowed to develop
to a FAR of 3.0 and a heIght of 54 feet WIthout SIte reVIew once
a new ZonIng Code lS adopted.
CEQA STATUS
The proposed proJect was tne subJect of an InItIal Study prepared
pursuant to State and local CEQA gUIdelInes.
The Inltlal Study
concluded that the proposed proJect would not have a signIficant
effect on the envlromnent, as meant by CEQA, and a NegatIve
DeclaratIon was prepared.
Prior to the close of the publIC
comment perlod a number of comments on the study were recelved.
- 7 -
.,;
#
These comments, and staff. s responses to them are conta 1ned 1n
the F1nal Inlt1al Study. In general, the publlC.S comments fall
1nto two categorIes: 1) that an EnvIronmental Impact Report
rather than a NegatIve Declarat10n IS reqUIred; and 2) that
certaIn effects dlscussed In the InIt1al Study are pOSSIbly
slgnIfIcant and requIre further analysIs.
CEQA does not mandate that a proposed proJect produce no exter-
nalltles or have no effects on the enVlronment. Rather, It
requires analYSIs to determIne whether any such effects on the
enVlronment are "SIgnIfIcant" or "substantlal". If, after
conducting an InItIal Study, It 15 determlned that the proJect
Will not have d slgnIfIcant effec~ on the enVIronment, a NegatIve
Declaratlon is prepared.
At the PlannIng Commlsslon hearlng on the proJect, the Issue of
the C1ty CounCIl's authority to act on the envlronmental
documentatIon In an appeal sltuatIon was raIsed. The City
Attorney subsequently lssued an opInIon that confIrmed that the
CounCIl was vested w1th such authorIty.
The Clty Councll must reVIew and conSIder the proposed NegatIve
DeclaratIon In connectlon WIth 1ts determInat10n about whether or
not to approve the proJect. If the CounCIl determines there IS
sufflclent data to support a flndlng that the proJect will not
have a SIgnIfIcant effect on the enVIronment, it must adopt the
NegatIve DeclaratIon prlor to or concurrent WIth the decls10n to
approve or disapprove the proJect. If the CounCll determInes
- 8 -
....
there ~s 1nsuffic~ent data to support such a f1nd~ng of no
s1gnlf1cant Impact, 1t must eIther request staff to provide
add1tIonal data or dlrect that an EIR be prepared.
The Coune il
must then postpone Its consIderatIon of whether or not to approve
the proJect untIl add1tlonal lnformatlon 15 provlded and the
NegatIve Declaratlon IS approved, or untIl an ErR is certIfIed.
Cr1tIcal to makIng such a determ1.nat1.on 1S a careful reVIew of
the facts presented In lIght of how CEQA deflnes "slgnlf1.cant" or
"substant1.al" effect on the enVIronment.
Sect1.on 15382 of the
State CEQA GU1.delInes defInes s1.gnlflcant effect as follows:
S1gn1.ficant
effect
on
the
enV1ronment"
means
a
substantlal, or potentIally substant1.al, adverse change
in any of the physIcal condItIons WIthIn the area
affect<:'!d by the project lncludlng land, alr, water,
ffi1nerals, flora, fauna, amblent noise, and obJects of
h~storlC or aesthet1c SIgnIfIcance.
An economIC or
soclal change by Itself shall not be consldered a
slgn1.f lcant effect on the env lronmen t.
A socIal or
eCOnOffi1.C change related to a phYSIcal change may be
consldered 1n determln1.ng whether the phYSIcal change
1S slgnlflcant.
Sectlon 21082.2 of the State Publlc Resources Code provides
further gUidance:
21082.2.
( a)
The lead agency shall determ1ne whether
a proJect may have a slgn1.ficant effect on the
- 9 -
'"
" ..
enV1ronment based on substantlal evidence ln the
record.
The eXlstence of publl.c controversy over the
env1ronmental effzcts of a proJect shall not require
preparation of an envlronmental lmpact report lf there
lS not substantlal eVldence before the agency that the
proJect
may
have
a
slgnlflcant
effect
on
the
enVlronment.
ThlS sectlon makes lt clear that the slmple existence of publlC
controversy does not 1n ltself warrant preparatlon of an EIR
unless there 1S sUbstantlal eVldence ln the publlC record that a
proJect may have a slgnlflcant effect on the environment.
The response to comments sectlon of the Flnal Inltlal Study
provldes staff I 5 evaluatlon about whether the potentlal lmpacts
r a1sed by member s of the publlC wlll ln fact resul t and 1 f so
whether they exceed the CEQA slgnlflcance threshold.
Staff
concludes that ln all cases tne ant1c1pated lmpacts of the
project are relat1\lely mlnor, and though posslbly annoYIng or
adverse, are not slgnlflcant elther lndlVldually or cumulatlvely
Wl thIn tne meanlng of CEQA.
Supplementary analysls provlded ln
the August 1985 "Env1ronmental and Deslgn Documentatlon" prov1des
further conf1rmatlon of thlS concluslon.
Some persons have suggested that a "mitIgated Negatlve Decla-
ratlon" 15 approprlate for thlS proJect. ThlS would assume that
as proposed, the pro] ec t would resul t ln slgnlf lcant env lron-
rnencal lmpact, but with approprIate conditIons of approval, these
- 10 -
..
"
impacts would be reduced below the "signl.flcant" level.
Staff
does not fInd eVldence in the record of slgn1f1cant env1ronmental
lmpact as a result of the proposed proJect and therefore, a
"mItIgated Negatlve Declaratlon" would not be approprlate.
recommended that the Negatlve DeclaratIon be approved.
It IS
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
SpeclflC flscal impact analYS1S of th1S proJect has not been
per formed, but based on pr lor analYSiS of other pro] ects and
background studIes prepared for the Land Use Element, lt lS
antlclpated that development of the proJect would result ln a
posltlve net fl.seal impact to the Clty, prlnclpally due to sales
tax revenues.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the C1ty Councll:
l~ Conduct a publlC hearIng on DR 298, ZA 4901-Y and EIA 783,
provld1ng the appllcant and any otner 1nterested members of
the publ1C an opportunlty to present informatlon or thelr
V1ews about the proJect and the envlronmental analysls.
2. ReV1EW the comments of the Plannlng Comrnlsslon.
3. Approve the proposed Negatlve Declaratlon.
- 11 -
...
..
4. Approve DR 298 and ZA 4901-Y for a new full serVIce
autornoblle dealersh1p wlth
story serVIce drlve, based
rear-yard var lance for the
on the follOWIng flndlngs
and
one
wlth certa1n standards and specIal condltlons:
Development Review Permit Findings
1. The development IS cons1stent wlth the findlngs and purpose
of Ora1nance 1321 In that a Development ReVIew perrnlt has
been applled for and has been evaluated for conslstency wlth
both the General Plan and Mun1clpal Code as further set
forth below.
2. The phYSIcal lOcatIon and placement of proposed structures
on the Sl te are compatIble WI th and relate harmoniously to
surroundlng sltes and ne1ghborhoods 10 that the proJect wlll
conform to the property development standards for new full
serVlce automob1le deal2rshlps contalned 1n POllCY 1.6.2 of
the Land Use Element and the full rear-yard setback of
171-0" above the ground floor level wlll be malntalned.
3. The eXlstlng and/or proposed rlghts-of-way and facllltles
for both pedestrlan and automobIle trafflC will be adequate
to accomodate the antlcipated results of the proposed
development includlng off-street parklng facllit1es and
access thereto 1n that the Final Inl tlal Study concludes
tha t level s of serv lce for key 10 tersec tions will remaIn
wlthln acceptable Ilffi1ts, sldewalks and pedestrlan amenltles
w11l be prov1ded, and parkIng sufflclent to meet 100% of
actual demand wl11 be provlded on slte.
- 12 -
4. The eXlstlng and/or proposed publlC and/or prlvate health
and safety faCllltles (lncludlng, but not limIted to,
sanl ta tlon, sewer s r storm dr alns, f lr e pr otectlon dev1ces,
protectlve servlces, and publIC utllitles) wlll be adequate
to accommodate the antlcipated results of the proposed
development In that the proJect lS located along a fully
developed sectIon of Santa Monlca Boulevard wlth all
customary publIC serv Ices ln place and the F1nal 1nl tlal
Study concludes that there wlll be no slgn1flcant adverse
effects related to health and safety.
5. The proposed development lS conslstent wlth the General Plan
of the CIty of Santa Monlca and the Zonlng Ordinance in that
the proJect wIll conform to the helght, bulk, use and urban
deSIgn polICIes
for
the
Santa Monlca
Boulevard auto
dealershlps as specltled in the Land Use Element of the
Gener al Plan and conform to the appropr late C4 standards
contalned In the Zonlng OrdInance, except the rear-yard, for
WhlCh a varlance lS recommended.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. The strlct appl1catlon of the provlslons of the Zonlng
OrdInance
would
result
In
practlcal
dIffIculties
or
unnecessary hardshlps lnconslstent wlth the general purpose
and lntent of the Zonlng Ordlnance (Article IX, SMMC) In
tha t the proposed pro] ec t wlll comblne the full range of
- 13 -
contemporary automoblle dealersh1p functions Wh1Ch, If
requIred
to
strlctly
conform
with
the
C4
rear-yard
requIrement at the ground floor, would not be the most
approprlate use of the Slte.
2. There are except10nal Clrcumstances or cond1tlons appllcable
to th~ property lnvolved or to the lntended use and
development of the property that do not apply generally to
other property 1n the same zone or nelghborhood In that the
lntended development as a full service automoblle dealershIp
requlres ground floor proXlmlty of certaln functlons of
ffilnlffium SIzes that cannot be reasonably accomodated 1n any
other way, and that glven the proxlIlllty of the adJacent
apartment bUl1d1ng- to the north, a fully enclosed serVIce
drlve WhlCh encroaches lnto the rear-yard prov1des the
maXlmum separatlon between dlfferent land uses.
3.
The grant1ng ot
a varlance would not be materlally
detrlmental co the publlC welfare or lnJurlous to the
property or improvements ln such zone or nelghborhood 1n
WhlCh the property 1S located ln that the fully enclosed
serVlce drlve located wIthIn the rear-yard w1l1 contaln all
n01se, fumes and actlvltles WhlCh may be dlsturblng or
annoYlng to adjacent apartment res1dents and the surroundIng
resldentlal property,
and the dlfference
ln elevatlon
between the apar tment bUlldlng and proposed serV1ce dr Ive
WIll malntaln aIr and lIght access to the apartment buildlng
along Its south elevatIon.
- 14 -
Standard Conditions
1.
Plans for
flnal deslgn,
landscaplng,
screen~ng,
trash
enclosures, and slgnage shall be sUbJect to reVlew and
approval by the Archltectural ReVIew Board.
2. The Archl tectur al Rev lew Board, ln the lr rev lew, shall pay
partlcular attent~on to the proJect's pedestr1an orientatlon
and pedestran amenl tIes, scale and artlculat~on of desIgn
elements, exter lor colors, textures and mater lals, w~ndow
treatment and landscaplng, particularly wlthln the rear-yard
area.
3. Mlnor amendments to tne plans shall be subJect to approval
by the Olrector of Plannlng.
An ~ncrease of more than
300 sq. ft. or a slgnlflcant change In the approved concept
shall be SUbJect to Plann~ng COrnm~sslon ReVlew.
Construc-
t10n shall be ~n substantlal conformance w~th the plans
submltted or as mod1f1ed by the Clty Council, Archltectural
ReVIew Board or DIrector of Plannlng.
4. The rlghts granted hereln shall be effect~ve only when
exerClsed w~thln a per loa of one year from the effectIve
date
of
approval.
Upon
the wrItten
request of
the
applIcant, the Olrector of Plannlng may extend thIS perIod
up to an addltlonal SIX months.
- 15 -
5. The appllcant shall comply with all legal requirements
regardIng prOIJIS10nS for the d~sabled, Includlng those set
forth ln the Callforn~a Adm~n~stratlve Code, TItle 24,
Part 2.
6. F~nal park~ng layout and speclflcatlons shall be subJect to
the rev~ew and approval of the Park~ng and Traff~c EngIneer.
7.
Refuse areas, storage areas
be screened ~n accordance
and mechanlcal equlpment shall
wlth Sectlon 9ll7J.2-4 (SMMC)
Refuse areas shall be of a SIze adequate to meet on-s~te
need.
8.
The operatlon shall
not detr imen tal to
reason of Ilghts,
actlons.
at all tImes be conducted in a manner
surrounding properties or residents by
nOlse, act1vItles, parklng or other
9.
No nOIse
shall be
generatlng compressors
placed adJacent to
or other such eqUIpment
nelghborlng resldentlal
bUlldlngs.
10. project deSIgn shall comply WIth the bUlldlng energy
regulatlons set forth ~n the Callfornla Admln1stratlve Code,
T 1 tIe 24, Par t 2, (Energy Conserva t10n Standards for New
Resldentlal BUlldlngs), such conformance to be ver lfled by
the BUlld lng and Safety 01 v 1S lon pr lor to issuance of a
BUlld~ng Permlt.
- 16 -
..
11. The eXlstln9 driveway(s) and apron(s), located on 18th
Street shall be removed and the eXlstlng curb cut(s)
replaced Wl th standard curb and gutter per the speclflca-
tlons of the Department of General SerVIces.
12. Street trees snaIl be malntalned or provlded as requlred In
a manner conslstent wIth the City's Tree Code (Ordinance
1242 eeS), per tne specIf1catlons of the Department of
RecreatIon and Parks and the Department of General SerVIces.
No street tree shall be removed wlthout the approval of the
Department of Recreatlon and Parks.
13. Street and/or alley 11ghtlng shall be provlded on publlC
rights-of-way adJacent to the proJect lf and as needed per
the specIfIcatlons and w1th the approval of the Department
of General SerV1ces.
14. On-S1 te par king shall be made avaIlable wIthout cost to
bUlldlng customers and employees.
15. Any outdoor 11ghtIOg shall be shIelded and/or dIrected away
from adJacent resldentlal propertIes, Wlth any such 11ghtlng
not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of lllumInat10n beyond the
perlmeter of the subJect property.
16. LoadIng spaces shall be provided conSIstent Wl th Municlpal
Code Sectlon 9130. Loadlng space desIgn shall be subJect to
the reVlew of the CIty Parklog and Traff1c Englneer.
- 17 -
'> .
Special Cond~tions
1. A" tree surgeon" or slmllar pr-ofesslonal Wl th exper tlse In
the care and ma~ntenance of mature str-eet trees shall be
present dur 109 excavatIon for proJect footIng sand durlng
constructlon of the serVlce drlve entrance to ensure that
all eXlst1ng street trees on
protected durIng constructlon.
not be removed.
18th Street are properly
EXlstlng street trees shall
2. A wrltten procedures plan descrlblng how customers and
mechanlCS wl!l be allowed to test drlve automoblles and
WhICh routes wlll be followed shall be submitted for reVlew
and approval to the Clty'S Parklng and Trafflc Englneer
pr lor to Issuance of a Cer tl fIca te of Occupancy. It shall
be an obJectlve of the plan to ffi1nlffilze test drlving on 18th
and 19th Streets.
3. The 18th Street curb cut shall be used for vehlcle lngress
only.
4. If requlred by the Parklng and Trafflc Englneer, the
applIcant shall install undulators In 18th Court at or near
the north and soutn property Ilnes of the proJect slte.
5. Egress from the serv Ice alsle onto 18th Cour t shall be by
r 19h t turn only and the appllcant shall prov lde, Install,
and maIntaIn a slgn to that effect wnlch has been revlewed
and approved by tne C1ty Parklng and Trafflc Englneer.
- 18 -
..,
6. The appllcant shall submlt a plan for vehlcle load~ng and
unloadlng to occur on hlS property located at 1344-48 18th
Street for reVlew and approval to the Parklng and Trafflc
EngIneer ln consultatlon wlth the Director of Plannlng prlor
to Issuance of a Certlflcate of Occupancy for DR 298. It
shall be the obJect1ve of thIS plan to mlnlmlze any impacts
on
18th
Street
traffIc
operatlon,
protect
adJacent
resldentlal uses, and preserve eXlstlng street trees. Plans
for
1mprovlng
the
1344-48
SIte
shall
be
sub) ect to
appllcable C1ty permit requ1rements, lncludlng Ord1nance
1321 and where appllcable, C1ty staff shall condition any
permlt to protect adJacent resIdential areas, preserve
eXlstlng street trees, and mlnlmlze any lmpacts on 18th
Street traff1c operatIon.
7. All mechanlcal vent11atIon, locI ud 109 that for the serv 1ce
drlve area, shall be dIrected to upper story exhaust vents
Wh1Ch do not face the adJacent resIdentIal property. The
ventIlatlon system shall comply With applIcable Unlform
Mechanlcal Cod~ sectlons and shall be deslgned and equlpped
to m1nlffi1ze audlble sound beyond the limits of the proJect
property llnes.
8. The serV1ce drIve roof and walls shall be deslgned and
constructed such that sound tr ansmi ssion from the serv Ice
aIsle to the exter10r lS mlnlmlzed.
- 19 -
.., s ~ r
9.
Appl~cant
shall
file
and
maIntain
a
Toxic
Chemical
Dlsclosure Form as may be requlred under Sectlon 5300 et
seg. of the Munlclpal Code and such other lIstIng of
chemlcals, solvents and the llke Wh1Ch may be requlred by
the CIty'S FIre Marshall.
All such substances shall be
scored, maIntaIned and used In ac.:ordance wIth appllcable
local, State and Federal laws.
10. The automob~le serVIce operatlon shall ut~l~ze a brake
washer cleanIng macnlne to ensure that any potent~al
asbestos em~SSlons are mInlm~zed.
11. Parts clean~ng solvents, carburetor cleanlng solvents, waste
rad1ator coolant, eng1ne 011 and waste 011 from the serVlce
operatlon shall be stored In accordance wlth appllcable
regulatlons and recycled or removed from the slte by
quallfled personnel.
12. The north elevatlon of the structure shall be enclosed below
the roof level.
13. No loudspeaker publ1c address system shall be ut1llzed on
the roof deck of the proJect.
14. No gasolIne storage tank shall be permItted anywhere on the
premises.
15. At least th1rty parklng spaces shall be ma~nta1ned for and
marked as employee parkIng spaces wlthln the bUllding.
- 20 -
'1. - ~ r
Employees shall be requlred to park on-site. At least f1ve
additlonal spaces snaIl be malntalned for and marked as
customer parklng WIthIn the bUlldlng.
16. At least elght parklng spaces shall be ma~ntalned for and
marked as customer parkIng on the ground floor outdoor auto
d1splay area.
17. The Archl tec turdl Rev lew Board shall consider the proposed
landscaplng plan and the need for additonal landscaping with
partlcular attentlon to the serVlce drIve roof area.
18. The Arch~tectural ReVlew Board shall conslder requlrlng that
the outdoor parkIng area be paved wlth a materIal other than
asphalt such as textured concrete.
19. The Archltectural ReVIew Board shall consIder requ1rIng
lIght-colored surface treatments and other deslgn elements
to reduce light absorbt~on and percelved bUlldlng mass, WIth
partIcular
attent~on
to
the
north
elevatIon
of
the
structure.
20. Any exterlor stairs on the north elevatIon shall feature
outslde walls at least 7 '-a II h1gh for the1r full length
along the outsIde of the bUIldlng.
21. The length of 18th Court lmmedlately adJacent to the proJect
SIte shall be resurfaced or otherWIse lmproved as specIfIed
by the D1rector of General SerVIces.
- 21 -
"\ .
22. The serv lee dr Ive shall be opened for customer par king and
waItIng at least thirty minutes before serVlce hours begIn
In the mornIng, but in no event earlIer than 6:30 a.m.
23. The second floor mechanlcs' lunchroom area shall contaIn no
wlndows dlrectly facIng the adJacent apartment bUlldlng to
the north.
Exhibits: 1. Letter of Appeal.
2. August 19, 1985, Planning CommlSSlon staff report.
3. ProJect plans.
4. Summary of August 19, 1985, Plann1ng Cornmlssion
dlScUSSlon
5. August 30, 1985 letter of Elleen Hecht
6. FInal Inltlal Study wlth the follow1n3 added
attachments
located
after
the
Responses
to
Comments Sect1on:
a. May I, 1985 Addendum to Corporate POlICY
Manual
b. Letter from SherIDan L. Stacey to DIrector of
Plannlng dated May 29, 1985.
c.
June
3,
1985,
letter
from
WIlliam
F.
Welngarden.
d. June 13, 1985, letter from John Belsher and
Jack Rubens.
e. June 24, 1985, letter from John BeIsher.
- 22 -
.. .,
prepared by:
f. August 1985 "Env1ronmental and Des1gn Docu-
mentatlon"
prepared by P1annlng Consul tants
Research.
g. August 1985 "Index to D1SCUSSIon of NeIghbor-
hood Impacts"
prepared by Clty Planning
staff.
h. August 13, 1985, letter from John Belsher and
Jack Rubens.
1. August 19, 1985, letter from Wllllam F.
Welngarden.
J. August 19, 1985, communlcatlon from Jeff
Kraus.
D. Kenyon Webster, ActIng Senior planner
Clty Plannlng DlVlSIon
CommunIty and EconomIC Development Department
- 23 -
.. ., . ~
A[l;'Tto-tLl,:r -.. GR'EENBEFOIG
1=1"'111.. P GlUSKEA
510....[......,,) ""'","CHTlNGtFt
S.,..E.......E;"'lI C~.......;lrt.N
BERTf;''''~ ~'EL('IS
"'AR\l(:v ~ (Ir"IEOMAN
!3-(RN....QO SI"'IE.o*'R1[1q
...iON.: ~.AL_O
I=IA-:JLA.,.J j;lE':"'[:~
....,CHAEL. K. COL.LENS
JO"'H L ::'HILO
BAR"~"" G wEST
C 8P'UCt LEVI...,€:
...ICHA.EL.... GR'EEHE
~ICH""EL. 5 SHERMAN
JOSEPH.... CAt'tN
"3-ARR'ETT:;.. .....ANKEN
....0 RMAN H. LE.....NE
"'I" 1..,- ....1'04 A. H....L.J'.....'"
_IAM€.S E HCR""tST[,IN
::JoCSERT:5 CHAPhIIAN
':;-0 BERT .... ~ACHSHt'"
.Q-:::a-ERT F" MAR'S,..ALL.
"09E""'E SE""ETT,JR
M~RC s. COlof!:N
CHARLES....... S-t-[PwAA'O
STEPH"""-E C SILvERS
CE.....,.IS e. EI.LMA,..
eXfJ""t I
l-AW OF"F"ICES OF
,- ~ _ - ~ '-16
a 7~, ~o ~ elu.~s
c 8751"-
GREENBERG. GLUSKER. FIELDS. CLAMAN & MACHTINGER
GAAT i.. I'tAPLA~
CA",- PRIOONO"""
F" P,.T'I=i!ICIA MUD'E
C.HRt5TlMA..... -JACOBS
DAVIO A MIt.LE.R
LOUtSA l.... "'El..SON
BEN cOx: ~."i'RETT
CAROL A. JOH"'tSTON
......CMAEL v 1!!I....L.f:S
BER...ARQ J CARTOON
O",IV(R G Hess
LEE A ORE511:
DEBBY A ZURIOl..O
v....CENT p ZUAZOLO
rRANt( A. PtCCOLO
ROSERT w.. 8AIltNE3
WI LLIAM L RAMSEYi:R'
€LoIZABETH G CHILTO"'II
A'u SSE:LL iN.. CH ITTENDEN
...:U.L "" COSSIYIAtf
MARTA T....O["ANEA
LAWRENCE... 151:R
ROGER L ~U"K
JILL.., 9E~\.I"ER
Il;U.qT EGGERT
JEF"FRF;Y ... GALOWICH
.fiOO ....vlt...v& 0" THt: STARS
SUITt 2000
LOS ANGltl..E5, C:,O,L'F"ORNIA ~ooe7
TELE;PHONE: (2.3) ~~3-3610
TEI..EX ITWlCj: filO 0480-112&
TELEC::OF>II!:R. t2'31201-7048Z
WRITER'S O.RECT OIAI.. NUM8ER
(2'3)201- 7419
OUR F".LE NUMBER:
50342-000.09
OF'" COliNSEt..
RoeERT.J.. FELJXSON
August 22, 1985
Clty of Santa Monlca
1685 Maln Street
Santa Monlca, Callfornla 90401
Dear Slr:
Re:
DR 298, ZA 4901-Y, EIA 783
Kramer Motors, Inc.
1801 Santa Monlca Boulevard
On behalf of Kramer Motors, Inc., I hereby appeal the
fallure of the Santa Mon1ca Plannlng Commlss1on to render a
declslon ln Case Nos. DR 298, ZA 4901-Y and ErA 783,
relatlng to a new automobl1e dealershlP at 1801 Santa Mon1ca
Boulevard. A check 1n the amount of $75.00 ln payment of
the appeal fee 15 enclosed.
SLS:dl
Enclosure
cc:
Very truly yours,
~n1's~~
Mr .
Mr.
Robert Kramer
James Mount