SR-12-B (15)
,-- ..
I/t~- e:;tJ<g
1::l-8
nEe 1 7 1985
C/ED:CPD:DKW:klc
COUNCIL MEETING: 12/17/85
Santa Monl~: CalIfornia
TO: Mayor and CIty CouncIl
FROM: CIty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of PlannIng CommISSIon Approval of Kramer Motors
ProJect at 1801 Santa MonIca Boulevard (DR 298,
EIA 783)
INTRODUCTION
On November 18, 1985, the City PlannIng Commlsslon approved
DR 298, ErA 783 for development of a new car dealershIp at 1801
Santa MonIca Boulevard.
On that same date, the approval was
appealed to the CIty Councll by PlannIng CommISSIoner Derek
Shearer.
Staff
recommendatIon
lS
to uphold
the Planning
CommlSSlon's approval and to deny the appeal.
BACKGROUND
ThIS proJect has a long hIStOry,
as Illustrated by the
attachments to thIS staff report, WhICh Include the Planning
CommISSIon's fIndIngs and condItIons of approval of the proJect,
two November 18, 1985, PlannIng CommISSion staff reports, the
October 22, 1985, staff report to the City CounCIl regardIng an
appeal of the PlannIng Cornmlss 100 IS deolal of the pro] ect, the
September 10,1985, staff report on the same subJect, and the
August 19, 1985, staff report to the PlannIng CommIssion on the
matter.
/2-B
DEe 1 "[ 1985
- 1 -
'\
).:
The matter before the Clty CounCll is an appeal of the Plannlng
Commlsslon's approval of DR 298 on November 18, 1985. The appeal
IS belng made by Planning Commlssloner Derek Shearer, whose
letter of appeal IS attached as Exhlblt 1 to thlS staff report.
The proJect deslgn approved by the Plannlng CommlSSlon includes
slgnlflcant changes from the project last revlewed by the Councll
on appeal. Changes to the proJect lncluded ellmlnatlon of the
covered serVlce drive ln the requlred rear setback and ItS
relocation to the center of the proJect, relocatlon of customer
parklng from the Santa Monlca Boulevard frontage to the rear of
the proJect, relocatIon of the serVlce area from the first floor
to the basement, and varlOUS deslgn and landscaping features
lntended to reduce the visual mass of the bUl1dlng. Changes ln
the proJect lnternallze clrculatlon and lnclude ellnUnatlon of
proJ ect features reqUlr 109 a var iance. A detalled descr lptlon
and envlronmental analysls of changes to the proJect is provlded
in the attached November, 1985, report prepared for the applIcant
by Planning Consultants Research (peR) and approved by City
staff. ThlS analysIs lndlcates that the revlsed proJect wlll not
cause slgnlflcant Impacts as meant by CEQA. Clty staff revlewed
thlS study and concur with Its concluslons.
General Plan and zoning Code Conformance
In addl tlon to conforming to all applIcable regulations of the
Zon1ng Code, the proposed proJect conforms to the C1ty'S General
Plan. The proposed proJect 1S the flrst new automoblle dealer-
Shlp bUlldlng presented to the Clty Slnce adoptlon of the revlsed
Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements 1n October, 1984, Wh1Ch, ln
- 2 -
!
POllCY 1.6.2, outllnes very spec1f1c property development
standards Wh1Ch recognlze the unique physIcal requirements of
full serVIce auto dealershlps. Pollcy 1.6.2, therefore,
estab11shes a clear Clty POlICY to WhICh the present proposal 1S
a dlrect response.
A pr1nc1ple obJect1ve of the Land Use and C1rculatlon Elements 15
to mInlmIze the lmpacts of development on reSIdentIal neIghbor-
hoods partIcularly where they are located near maJor commercial
streets. The Land Use Element pol1cles ensure that potent1al
1ncongruI tIes are addressed, but not ellmlnated. The standards
requlre much smaller scale, less lntensl ty and more sensi t1 vely
deslgned development than would have been permItted under the
eX1stlng ZonIng OrdInance.
In addlt10n to meetIng the standards of POlICY 1.6.2, the
proposed pro] ect respond s to applIcable Urban Deslgn POIlC les.
The north elevatIon makes a transltlon from Its maXlmum helght to
that of the adJacent two-story apartment bUlldlng through the use
of setbacks, landscap1ng and modulatlon of the bUlldlng facade
(POIlCY 3.2.1 and 3.2.2); clear glass and landscapIng are pro-
Vlded at the ground floor (Pollcles 3.3.1 and 3.3.13); contlnulty
of the Santa Monlcd Boulevard s~dewalk 1S preserved by prov~d~ng
veh~cle access from 18th Street and the alley (Pollcy 3~3.2): and
the bUlldlng features deSIgn elements whlch break up lts mass and
volume (Pol ~ey 3.3.4). These Issues w~ll all be the sub) eet of
further reVlew by the Arch~tectural ReVIew Board, as speclfically
dlrected by a number of condltlons of approval lmposed by the
Plannlng CommlsSlon.
- 3 -
.. !It
The project also responds to the applIcable CIrculatIon Element
PolICIes: access pOInts Wlll contaIn trafflC In and around the
project boundarles (POlICY 4.2.3, 4.3.7 and 4.7.9). Although the
d H ective In Pollcy 4.3.6 to dIscour age on-street load Ing and
unload Ing 1S not dlrectly addressed In the proJ ect design, a
condltlon of approval reqUIres that thIS act1vlty be conducted
off-street, on land also owned by the applIcant at 1348 18th
Street, and 1n a way that mInImIzes any 1nconvenlence to 18th
Street resldents.
The proJect also conforms to the heIght and floor area llmlta-
tlons set by POlICY 1.6.2 of the Land Use Element. The bUIldIng
helght of 50', or 5316" includIng the parapet, IS below the 541
helght llm1t set by the Land Use Element auto dealershIp uses.
POlICY 1.6.2 also sets a 3.0 Floor Area RatIO (FAR) for auto
dealership uses on Santa Monlca Boulevard. DR 298 conforms to
thIS lImIt WIth an FAR of 2.9. Under POIlCY 1.6.2, a total of
67,500 square feet of floor area is permItted. DR 298 lncludes
approxImately 65,000 square feet of floor area.
FAR Calculatlon
The lssue of how FAR should be calculated for thlS project was an
Issue at the November 18 PlannIng Comm1ss10n hear1ng. VIeWpOInts
on this Issue were expressed by staff, the CommIssion, the
applLcant and the publIC. WhIle not settIng forth a specIfLc FAR
defInItIon, the CommISSIon consldered the varIOUS lnterpretatlons
and found that the project met the Land Use Element's 3.0 FAR
1lffil.tatIon.
- 4 -
.
The analYSIS WhICh staff presented to the PlannIng CommIsSIon
Lncl uded all at-grade and above-g r ade areas wi thIn the bULldLng
or covered by the bUIldIng, and excluded staLrs, elevators and
ducts wLthin such areas. The roof parklng area and the basement
were excluded from the FAR calculatIon, conSIstent with staffl s
InterpretatIon of the FAR standards descrIbed In the Glossary of
the Land Use Element.
The Glossary of the Land Use Element gIves both a broad ldentIfi-
catIon of floor area and, Ln additIon, prOVIdes speCIfIC examples
of areas to be Included or excluded. The FAR defInItIon of the
Elemen twas wr L t ten pr unar lly for off ice development. A rIg Id
applIcatIon of thIS defLnl tlon to the Kramer proJect produces
IllogIcal results WhICh are InconSIstent with the broad Intent of
the Land Use Element.
In the deSIgn proposed by DR 298, the repair use IS located In
the basement and auto storage IS provLded on the thIrd, fourth
and roof levels. PuttIng parkIng above grade and an actIvLty
area below grade IS the reverse of the typIcal commercIal
bULldLng arrangement. It 15 physLcally necessary to locate the
repaIr actIVItIes ~n the lowest level of the proJect because of
the heavy hydrallC equLpment lt requlres.
The subterranean level shoula not be conslaerea part of the FAR.
S ~nce it 1.S entlrely underground, 1 t does not add to bul k. If
Its functIons were placed on the thIrd or fourth levels and one
of those parkIng levels were placed under-:Jround, the bUlldlng
would have the same bulk and IntenSIty but, because the Land Use
Element explICItly exempts below-grade parkIng, the basement
- 5 -
..
floor area would clearly not be lncl uded in a FAR calculatIon.
SInce the bUIldIng would look the same and have the same
IntensIty as the current deSIgn, from a plannIng perspectIve, the
use produces the same result. It IS unreasonable to InSIst that
the only method to fInd conSIstency WIth the FAR reqUIrement
would necessItate a reversal of upper and lower floors when there
would be no net dIfference In bulk or Intenslty. SInce these
aspects are the obJectIve of the FAR lImIt, the elimInatIon of
the below-grade level from the FAR calculatIon IS conslstent WIth
the Intent of the Element In the context of thIS or Slmllar
proJects.
The other aspect of FAR wh1ch was dIscussed at the PlannIng
Comm1SS1on meetIng IS whether the roof parkIng area should be
Included In the FAR calculatlon. ReVIew of the Element's
def 1nl tIon makes It clear that FAR concept appl ies to enclosed
areas and not to unenclosed areas such as roofs. E11mlnatIng
roof parkIng would not remove the neceSSIty for a roof, would not
change the bulk or VIsual appearance of the buil1dng, and would
not elImInate the actIve uses of the proJect (sales and serVIce).
In addItIon, elImlnat10n of roof parkIng would, for thIS proJect
and slmIlar proJe~ts, requlr~ maIntenance of off-SIte auto
storage lots, a use WhICh the Element 1S trYIng to elIminate, as
called for ~n speCIfIC language In Land Use Element POlICY 1.6.2
on page 90 of the Element.
- 6 -
..
Additional Issues
A number of add1tlonal issues have arIsen In the context of the
Kramer proJect. These are analyzed below.
VarIance.
The redeSIgned proJect elImInates all structures
W1 th 1n the requI red 17 I setback area, thereby elImInatIng the
need for a varIance under the MunicIpal Code. The proposed
parkIng and CIrculatIon use wIthin the setback area IS conSIstent
WI th the C4 dlstr let prOVISIons of the MunICIpal Code, WhICh
state In SectIon 9117 that reqUIred SIde or rear yards may be
used for parking or access.
Internalization of project circulation.
A concern WIth the
previous submIttal was that some use of the publIC alley was
necessary for Internal CIrculatIon between the serVIce drIve and
upper floors of the proJect.
thIS concern.
The redeSIgned proJect elImInates
Off-loading. The proposed off-loadIng plan WhICh prOVIdes off-
loadIng space at 1348 18th Street IS a workable solutIon to this
problem WhICh WIll be conducted on land already used for parkIng
purposes.
Visitor and employee parking. Adequate free VISItor and employee
parkIng for the proJect WIll be prOVIded on SIte, pursuant to the
PlannIng Cornrnlsslonls condItIons of approval.
Environmental Review.
The Issue of whether the November, 1985,
Supplement to InItIal Study report prepared by PlannIng Consult-
ants Researcn should have been the subJect of a new 30-day reVlew
- 7 -
..
perIod has also been raIsed. No new reVIew perIod was necessary
or requIred for thIS proJect. As Indlcated In the Supplement,
the changes to thlS pro] ect have maIntaIned the baSIC scope of
the orlglnal proJect and do not raIse envIronmental issues beyond
those IdentIfIed In preVIOUS enVIronmental analYSIS. Therefore,
a new reVIew perIod would not serve a substantIal useful purpose
and IS not requlred~
The Issue of "cumulatIve Impact analYSIS" has also been raIsed.
CumulatIve effects were consldered In the fInal InItial Study for
the pro] ect. The flnal In1 tlal Study Includes the Apr 11 1985
Inltlal Study, comments and responses on It, and addItIonal
InformatIon. CumulatIve effects are dIscussed on page 50-51 of
the 101 tlal Study's Comments and Responses SectIon, and also on
pages 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 70, 71, 74 and 75 of the same sectIon
of the FInal InItIal Study. CumulatIve effects were fully
conSIdered In the Flnal Inltlal Study and ln tre conclusIon that
no slgnlflcant adverse envlronrnental effects wlll result from the
proposed prOJect.
Informational Reports. After remandlng the Kramer matter to the
Planning Commlsslon, the Counell requested lnformatlonal reports
on two subJects: the advlslblllty of a serIes of cul-de-sacs on
neIghborhood streets In the area of Santa MonIca Boulevard, and
the advlSlblllty of a "Program ErR" on auto dealer development.
The response of the General SerVIces staff to the cul-de-sac
Issue IS Included 10 one of the attachments to thIS staff report.
In regard to the Progr am EIR issue, 1 t 15 staf f' s opinlon that
the most approprlate means to address the impact of auto dealer
- 8 -
~
development IS In the context of the auto
establIshed by the CIty PlannIng CommIssIon
ZonIng Code, where specIfIc standards can
Implemented to mItIgate IdentIfIed Impacts.
dealer task force
and the revIsed
be developed and
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
SpecIfIc fIscal Impact analysIs of thIS proJect has not been
per formed, but based on pr lor analysIS of other pro] eets and
background studIes prepared for the Land Use Element, It IS
antIcIpated that development of the proJect would result In a
posItIve net fIscal Impact to the CIty, prIncIpally due to sales
tax revenues.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the CIty Councll:
1. Conduct a publIC hearIng on the appeal of the PlannIng
CommISSIon's approval of DR 298 and EIA 783, provIdIng the
appellant and any other Interested members of the publIC an
opportunIty to present InformatIon or theIr VIews about the
proJect and the enVIronmental analYSIS.
2. Approve the proposed NegatIve DeclaratIon, 10 conslderatlon
of the Apr 11 1985, Inl tlal Study, 99 pages of publIC com-
ments, responses, and addl tIonal InformatIon regardIng the
Inl tlal Study, the May 1, 1985, Addendum to the Corporate
POlICY Manual, the May 29, 1985, letter of WIllIam F.
- 9 -
we~ngardenr the June 13, June 24, and August 13 letters from
John Belsher and Jack Rubens, the August 19, 1985, letter
from Jeff Kraus, and the November 1985, Supplement to
In~t~al Study, wh~ch found that the proJect would result In
no s~gnlflcant adverse envIronmental Impacts.
3. Deny the appeal and uphold the PlannIng Comm~sslonls
approval of DR 298 for a new full serVIce automob~le dealer-
sh~p based on the followIng fIndIngs recommended by staff
and wlth certaIn standard and speCIal condlt~ons, IncludIng
all condItIons lmposed by the PlannIng Commlsslon:
Development Review Permit Findings
1. The development ~s consIstent w~th the fIndings and
purpose of Ord~nance 1321 In that a Development Rev~ew
permIt has been applIed for and has been evaluated for
consIstency w~th both the General plan and Mun~c~pal
Code as further set forth below.
2. The phys~cal locat~on and placement of proposed
structures on the 51 te are compatIble with and relate
harmonIously to surround~ng s~tes and ne~ghborhoods In
tha t the pro] ec t w~ll conform to the proper ty
development standards of 54 feet and 3.0 Floor Area
RatIo for new full serv~ce automobile dealersh~ps
conta~ned In POllCY 1.6.2 of the Land Use Element and
requ~rernents of the Mun~clpal Code.
3. The eXIstIng and/or proposed r~ghts-of-way and facil~-
tIes for both pedestrIan and automobIle traffIC wIll be
- 10 -
adequate to accommodate the anticipated results of the
proposed development IncludIng off-street parking
faCIlIties and access thereto In that the FInal InitIal
Study concludes that levels of serVIce for key
IntersectIons WIll remaIn withIn acceptable lImIts,
sIdewalks and pedestr ian amenItIes will be provIded,
and parkIng suffiCIent to meet 100% of actual demand
WIll be provIded on sIte.
4.
The eXIstIng
heal th and
lImIted to,
and/or
safety
proposed
faCilitIes
publIC and/or prIvate
(IncludIng, but not
sewers, storm draIns, fire
san1.tatIon,
protection deVIces, protective serV1.ces, and publIC
utilities) will be adequate to accommodate the
anticipated results of the proposed development in that
the project IS located along a fully developed sectIon
of Santa MonIca Boulevard with :=oIl customary publIC
serVIces In place and the FInal InItIal Study concludes
that there WIll be no SIgnificant adverse effects
related to health and safety.
5. The proposed development IS consistent With the General
Plan of the CIty of Santa MonIca and the ZonIng
Ordiance In that the project WIll conform to the
heIght, bulk, use and urban deSIgn polICIes for the
Santa Monica Boulevard auto dealershIps as speCifIed in
the Land Use Element of the General Plan and conform to
the appropr late C4 standards conta~ned ~n the ZonIng
Ordlance. The proJect conforms to the 541 height Ilmlt
- 11 -
set by POI1CY 1.6.2 of the Land Use Element and to the
3.0 Floor Area Ratlo (FAR) Ilmitat10n also establlshed
by POI1CY 1.6.2 1n that the un1que comblnatlon of uses
1n the proJe(:t, WhlCh places car storage and park1ng
uses on upper levels of the structure, produces an
equivalent bulk and 1ntens1ty of use for this proJect
as would placement of car storage and parklng 1n the
basement and service uses on an upper floor. It 15
unreasonable to ins1st that a reversal of upper and
lower floors for th1s proJect would be necessary, Slnce
there would be no difference in bulk or 1ntens~ty of
use for thlS proJect. S1nce these aspects are the
obJ ectl ves of the FAR Ilm1 t, the pro] ect' 5 conf 19ur-
a t10n of uses and floor area is cons1stent Wl th the
lnt2nt of the Land Use Element FAR provls1ons.
Further, the exclus10n of the roof car storage and
par king area from the FAR calcula tlon 1S also
consistent wlth the Land Use Element, 1n that the
Element's deflnltlon of floor area pertains to enclosed
areas and not to unen~losed areas such as roofs.
Standard Conditions
1.
Plans
trash
reV1ew
for flnal deSIgn, landscaplng, screenlng,
enclosures, and slgnage shall be subJect to
and approval by the Archltectural ReV1ew
Board.
2. The Archltectural ReV1ew Board, 1n the1r reV1ew, shall
pay partlcular attentlon to the proJect' s pedestrlan
- 12 -
or1entat1on and pedestr1an amen1ties, scale and art1cu-
lat10n of des1gn elements, exter lor colors, textures
and
mater1als,
wIndow
treatment
and
landscaping,
part1cularly wIthIn the rear-yard area.
3. MInor amendments to the plans shall be subject to
approval by the DH€ctor of PlannIng. An increase of
more than 300 square feet or a slgnIf1cant change 1n
the approved concept shall be subJect to PlannIng
CommIss1on RevIew. Construct1on shall be ln substan-
t1al conformance wIth the Plans subm1tted or as
modIfIed by the Clty Councll, Archltectural ReVlew
Board or DIrector of Plannlng.
4. The r1ghts granted hereIn shall be effective only when
exerclsed W1 thIn a per lod of one year from the effec-
tIve date of approval. upon the wrItten request of the
applIcant, the DIrector of PlannIng may extend thIS
perlod up to an addltonal SlX months.
5. The appllcant shall comply wlth all legal requlrements
regrdlng provislons for the dIsabled, includIng those
set forth 1n the CalIfornla Admlnlstratlve Code, TItle
24, Part 2.
6. FInal parklng layout and speclflcatlons shall be
subJect to the reVIew and approval of the Parking and
Traffic Engineer.
7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanlcal eqUIpment
shall be screened ln accordance WIth SectIon 9l17J.2-4
- 13 -
1
( SMMC) .
Refuse areas shall be of a s~ze adequate to
meet on-site need.
8.
The operat~on shall at
manner not detrImental
resIdents by reason of
all t~mes be conducted In a
to surroundIng propertIes or
lIghts, nOIse, actIvItIes,
parkIng or other actIons.
9. No nOIse generatIng compressors or other such equipment
shall be placed adJacent to neIghborIng resIdentIal
bUIldIngs.
10. ProJ ect desIgn shall comply wIth the bUIldIng energy
regulatIons set forth in the Cal~fornla AdminIstrative
Code, TI tIe 24, Par t 2, (Energy ConservatIon Standards
for New ResidentIal BUIldIngs), such conformance to be
ver Ifled by the BUIldIng and Safety DIVISIon pr lor to
Issuance of a BUIldIng PermIt.
11. The eXIstIng drlveway(s) and apron(s), located on 18th
Street shall be removed and the existIng curb cut (s)
replaced wIth standard curb and gutter per the spec 1-
flcatlons of the Department of General SerVIces.
12. Street trees shall be maIntaIned, removed or provIded
as requIred In a manner consIstent with the CIty'S Tree
Code (Ord Inance 1242 CCS), per the specI fIca tlons of
the Department of Recreat~on and Parks and the
Department of General Serv Ices. No street tree shall
be removed wIthout the approval of the Department of
RecreatIon and Parks.
- 14 -
13. Street and/or alley l~ghtIng shall be provided on
publIC rIghts-of-way adJacent to the proJect If and as
needed per the speclflcat~ons and w~th the approval of
the Department of General Serv~ces.
14. Any outdoor 1lght~ng shall be shlelded and/or directed
away from adJacent reSIdentIal propertIes, WIth any
such lightIng not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of ~lluml-
nat~on beyond the perImeter of the subJect property.
15. Load~ng spaces shall be prov~ded conSIstent w~th
MunICIpal Code SectIon 9130. Loading space deSIgn
shall be subJect to the reVIew of the Clty Parking and
Traff~c Englneer.
Special Conditions
1. On-s~te parking shall be made available wlthout cost to
bu~ldlng customers and employees. ApproprIate slgnage
regardlng the free parking shall be provlded~
2. A "tree surgeon" or SImIlar profeSSIonal wlth expertIse
in the care and maIntenance of mature street trees
shall be present durlng excavatlon for proJect footlngs
and during construct~on of the serv~ce drIve entrance
to ensure that eXlst~ng street trees on 18th Street are
proper ly protec ted dur Ing constructIon except for the
one tree for WhICh removal WIll be reqUIred.
3. A wrltten procedures plan descrIbIng how customers and
mechanlCS w~ll be allowed to test drIve automoblles and
- 15 -
WhICh routes will be followed shall be submItted for
reVIew and approval to the CIty'S Parking and TraffIc
Eng Ineer pr lor to Issuance of a CertIfIcate of Occu-
pancy. Except for Ing r ess and eg ress to the proJect
SIte, test drlvlng on reSIdentIal shall be banned.
4. If requlred by the ParkIng and TraffiC Englneer, the
applIcant shall Install undulators In 18th Court at or
near the north and south property lines of the proJect
SIte.
5. Egress from the serVlce alsle onto 18th Court shall be
by rIght turn only and the appllcant shall provide,
Install, and maIntaIn a SIgn to that effect which has
been revIewed and approved by the CIty Parking and
Traffic Engineer.
6. The applIcant shall submIt a plan for vehlcle loadIng
and unloadIng to occur on hIS property located on 1348
18th Street for reVlew and approval to the Parklng and
TraffIc EngIneer and the DIrector of PlannIng prIor to
issuance of a CertIfIcate of Occupancy for DR 298. It
shall be the obJectIve of thIS plan to minImlze any
Impacts on 17th and 18th Street traffIC operatIon and
to protect adJacent resIdentlal uses. Plans for
ImprOVIng the 18th Street Site shall be subJect to
applIcable Cl ty requIrements, lncl udIng Sectlon 9l27J
and 9112 and where applIcable, CIty staff shall condI-
tIon any approval to protect adJacent reSIdentIal areas
and mInimIze any Impacts on 17th and 18th Street traf-
- 16 -
flC operatlon. Appllcant shall covenant wlth the Clty
in the form and manner requlred by the Clty Attorney
prlor to issuance of a Certlflcate of Occupancy to
ensure contlnulng provlslon of the off-loading function
wlthln a reasonable proXlffilty to 1801 Santa Monlca
Boulevard.
7. All mechanIcal ventllatlon shall be directed to upper
story exhaust vents which do not face the adJacent
residentlal property. The ventilatIon system shall
comply wIth applIcable UnIform MechanIcal Code sections
and shall be deslgned and equIpped to ffilnlffilze audible
sound beyond the lImIts of the proJect property lines.
8. Appllcant shall fIle and maIntaln a TOXIC ChemIcal
Dlsclosure Form as may be requIred under SectIon 5300
et seq. of the Munlclpal Code and such other lIstIng of
chemIcals, solvents and the llke which may be requIred
by the CIty'S Fire Marshall. All such substances shall
be stored, maIntaIned and used In accordance wlth
applIcable local, State and Federal laws.
9. The automobIle serVIce operatIon shall utIlIze a brake
washer cleanIng machIne to ensure that any potentlal
asbestos emlSSlons are mlnlffilzed.
10. Parts cleanlng solvents, carburetor clean2ng solvents,
waste rad 1a tor coolant, eng Ine 011 and waste 011 from
the serVIce operatlon shall be stored In accordance
- 17 -
with applicable regulatIons and recycled or removed
from the s~te by qualIfIed personnel.
11. No loudspeaker publIC address system shall be utIlIzed
on the roof deck of the proJect.
12. No gasolIne storage t~nk shall be permitted anywhere on
the premIses.
13. At least thirty-fIve parking spaces shall be maintaIned
for and mar ked as employee par kIng spaces WI thIn the
bUIldIng. Employees shall be requIred to park on-site.
At least fIve addItIonal spaces shall be maIntaIned for
and mar ked as customer par kIng WI thin the bUIld Ing .
ApproprIate sIgnage regarding the locatIon and avaIla-
bIlIty of these parkIng areas shall be prOVIded.
14. At least seven parkIng spaces shall be ma~ntaIned for
and marked as customer parkIng WIthIn the rear setback
area. ThIS area shall be used for customer par kIng
only (no vehIcle dIsplay, no storage use,
use, no sales use). ApproprIate slgnage
customers to th~s area shall be prOVIded.
no repaIr
dIrectIng
15. The ArchItectural ReVIew Board shall conSIder the
proposed landscapIng plan and the need for add i tIonal
landscapIng with partIcular attentIon to the rear
portIons of the proJect, and shall ensure that at least
as much landscapIng as IS shown In the proJect plants
IS prOVIded, that plants of a substantIal SIze are
- 18 -
provlded, and that automatlc sprinklers be provlded for
rooftop landscap~ng.
16. The ArchItectural Revlew Board shall conslder requlrlng
that the outdoor parkln~ area be paved wlth a material
other than asphalt such as textured concrete~
17. The Arch~tectural ReVlew Board shall conslder requIring
Ilght-colored surface
treatments and
other des~gn
elements to reduce Ilght absorbtlon and percelved
bUIldIng mass, Wl th par tlcular at ten tion to the north
elevatIon of the structure.
18. The serVIce drIve shall be opened for customer parkIng
and waItIng at least thIrty mInutes before serVIce
hours begin In the morn1ng, but 1n no event earller
than 6:30 a.m.
19. Vehl.cles shall not be perml. tted to idle Wl thln the
serVIce dr1ve area. Approprl.ate slgnage regardlng thIS
condItIon shall be posted In the service drIve area.
20. ApproprIate barrlers at elther end of the serVIce al.sle
be installed such that the serVl.ce aIsle can be closed
to publl.c access.
21. Use of the customer parkIng spaces w1thl.n the rear
setback area shall be prOhIbIted prl.or to 9:00 a.m.
22. Project owner shall conform to any relevant future
no~se standards wtllch may subsequently be adopted by
the Cl.ty.
- 19 -
23. The length of 18th Court adjacent to the project site
shall be rebUIlt with more durable surfacing withIn one
year from Issuance of a CertifIcate of Occupancy if
requIred by the Director of General SerVIces.
24. Two lanes of the serVIce drIve shall be available for
customer parking on weekends.
25. Project owner shall preserve existIng trees as much as
15 pOSSIble with the obJectIve of preserVIng at least
75% of eXistIng folIage.
26. The ArchItectural ReVIew Board Shall examIne this
project In relatIon to Land Use Element poliCIes 3.1.1,
3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
27. Project owner shall be reqUired to conform to any
relevant subsequent restr lctlons imposed by the CIty
re9ardlng the tImes at which off-loadIng activities may
be conducted.
Exhlbl ts: 1.
PrOject plans dated 11/6/85
2. Planning CommISSIoner Shearer 11/18/85 letter of
appeal
3-5. Renderings of project
6. PlannIng CommiSSIon FInal ActIon Statement
7. 11/27/85 letter of Sherman Stacey
8. 12/5/85 letter of WIllIam F. Welngarden
- 20 -
9. 11/85 report of P1ann~ng Consultants Research
10. 11/18/85 plann~ng CommIsSIon staff report
11. 11/18/85 Supplemental PlannIng CommISSIon staff
report
12. 11/18/85 letter of Sherman Stacey
13. 11/12/85 letter of wIllIam F. WeIngarden
14. 10/17/85 letter of John Belsher and Jack Rubens
15. 10/22/85 C~ty CouncIl staff report
16. 9/10/85 CIty CouncIl staff report
17. InItIal Study and Negative DeclaratIon
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, SenIor Planner
CIty PlannIng DIvISIon
CommunIty and Economic Development Department
kmagaIn5
- 21 -