The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-12-B (7) /-:-w . -- -..... ,. ;/02-- oot; 12--8 DEe 9 1986 CjED:RAS:SF:AS:ljw Council Meeting: December 9, 1986 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Appeal of Development Review No. 340: Proposed Construction of an Automotive Parts and Brake Service Center at 2317 Lincoln Boulevard, Santa Monica; Applicant: Delmers Brake Service. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the city Council uphold the appeal submitted by twelve neighbors residing on Pearl and Cedar Streets and approve Development Review 340 as revised with the new Special Conditions as recommended in this staff report. On September 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved the original project by a 5-0 vote. The city Council appeal hearing was previously scheduled for October 28, 1986. On that date the matter was continued to December 9, 1986 with concurrence of both the applicant and the appellants. BACKGROUND On September 26, 1986 an appeal was filed over the design and configuration of the project as approved by the Planning Commission. The approved proj ect was not acceptable to the concerned citizens living near Cedar and Lincoln Boulevard. On October 28, 1986 just prior to the scheduled City Council appeal hearing, staff met with the applicant and both the /2- 8 - 1 - DEe 9 1986 -~ ... ~ applicant and the appellant agreed to a continuance of the hearing to allow for redesign. The proj ect and parking layout has since been redesigned and approved by the parking and Traffic Engineer. The project is now before the city council for consideration as a de novo hearing in that the design is different than that originally approved by the Planning Commisison. The revised design modifies the layout of the parking area and provides a gate between the rear parking area and the alley. A representative of the appellants has reviewed the revised project and concurs that the closure of the parking area from the alley satisfies most of their project-specific concerns. since the appellants have no objection to the revised design, staff therefore recommends the Council uphold the appeal and approve the revised project with new Special Conditions. ANALYSIS Project Description The proposed proj ect involves the relocation of the existing Delmers Brake service on Lincoln BOUlevard between Cedar and Pearl streets to a new facility to be constructed on a vacant lot to the south. As revised, the new structure would still be an 1,800 square foot structure. The brake service center with two service bays, a small office and two bathrooms would total 900 square feet. A 900 square foot warehouse replaces the originally proposed parts store and shop area. A total of four parking spaces are now provided, accessible from the driveway off the - 2 - alley. This fulfills the Municipal Code requirement which specifies that retail/office uses provide one parking space per 300 square feet and that warehouses provide one space per 1000 square feet. Two customer waiting spaces are located in the driveway area facing Lincoln Boulevard. A 6 foot high concrete block wall is proposed along the rear property line by the alley on either side of the rear driveway. A rolling gate will screen the driveway when the business is closed. A vacant 144 square foot tin shed and a 432 square foot concrete block storage room will be removed from the property. Automotive repair facilities are permitted in the C4 zone as well as in the Lincoln South Land Use Distr iet. Addi tional information provided as exhibits attached to this report include the letter of appeal (Attachment A), the Planning conunission staff report (Attachment B), the Planning commission statement of Official Action (Attachment C)} the Planning Commission Public Notice (Attachment D), and the project plans (Attachment E). Appellants' Objections The original letter of appeal stated that, due to both the SChedUling of the item on the pUblic hearing agenda and the process used during the Planning Commission hearing, the appellants did not recei va enough time to present their case. However, standard procedures were adhered to, allowing for 3 minutes of public testimony per person. Commissioner discussion followed the applicant's presentation, the pUblic hearing and the applicant's rebuttal period. The process does not permit - 3 - :J! 't t...., .- rear driveway, and a rolling gate will screen the driveway when the business is closed. 5. The vacant 144 square foot tin shed and the 432 square foot concrete block storage room shall be removed from the property. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is a de novo hearing and the Council may act on the project revision or remand it to the Planning Commission. In acting on this item, the city council may deny the appeal and approve the original design for Development Review 340 with the findings and conditions contained in the September 15, 1986 Planning Commission statement of Official Action; uphold the appeal and approve the project as revised, subject to the Special Conditions stated herein, or otherwise act to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project as it deems appropriate. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendations presented in this report do not have a budget/fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION staff respectfully recommends that the City council uphold the appeal and approve Development Review 340 incorporating the revised plan signed off on November 12, 1986 by the Parking and Traffic Engineer and adopting the Special Conditions stated herein as well as the Findings and Standard Conditions contained - 7 - ~ , ~ ... '!r.-. in the September 15, 1986, Planning commission Statement of Official Action. Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner Amanda Schachter, Assistant Planner Planning Division Community and Economic Development Department Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by Concerned citizens Living Near Cedar and Lincoln. B. September 8, 1986, Planning Commission staff Report. C. September 15, 1986 Planning Commission statement of Official Action. D. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice. E. Project Plans. RAS:AS:ljw CCDR340 11/18/86 - 8 - ." " f~ A T~'.'\CH~jE)J':'';\ \ ~~ -L..--K 3-! 0 .: ./ 9 z: ~ . 8h c.lO?r64. 3/16/86 RE-:- De~lmel'" s- Brake. ~Set'vlc{:e and the meeting on 9/15/86 Dear Planning CommISSIoners and Director: We are wrItIng this letter to protest the decIsIon that the commIssion reached regardIng the approval Delmer's brake serVIce receIved at your meetIng last Monday. We Teel that had the meetIng been conducted In a more open Tashlon and had all the WItnesses been able to testlTY, a dIfferent and more eqUItable conclusIon would have been reached. We realIze that the commISSIon was under conSIderable tIme pressure, but this should not have affected the way the hear"lng was conducted. I wOLlld lIke to eHplaIn to you the process from our point of VIew. After receIVIng your letter adVISIng concerned CItIzens of the publI~ hearIng, there was talk among the neighborhood as to what, If oOlny actIon ShOLlld be taken. The letter dId not adVIse us __~that plans for the prOject were avaIlable to be reVIewed and It - ~lso faIled to mentIon that two serVIce bays were part of the ~ pt"oposal. When vie called the plarllng depa.t"tment to ask aDc.Ui:: the hearIng, we were told that all we had to do was come to the MeetIng and our concerns would be heard. The staff person also rneYltloned that she the.ught that SlY"lCe Delmer's was novlng oue: of one spot and lnto another, there would be llttle affect on the surroundIng area. We talked about this and It seemed ObVIOUS that if Delmer's moved, a new automotIve serVIce type bUSIness would f lease the buildIng Delmer's currently occupIes ~nd therefore we would have Tour automotlve bUSlnesses on the alley instead of three. Of course, the poOlrtles Most lnterested in the effects of thIS Increased automotIve actIVIty were the property owners who actually live nearby. In the first block of Cedar Street east oT LInCOln, th~re are SIH owners who occupy theIr properties. Of these SIH, five owners came to your fIrst meetIng but as tIMe dragged on, most had to leave. When our agenda Item was rescheduled for Saturday, the rest of us left. Rt that Meeting, you Were gIven a letter from MartIn Goldstlen outlinIng hIS complaInts and SIgned by all five property owners. Many of the Owners also filled out chIts so they could speak. The letter rever reappeared at the meetIng the follOWIng Monday and the chits were I not saved or Counted. On Monday the 15th, wh~n the meetIng finally did take place, we again had to wait and OT the own~rs who came to that Meeting, only two of us were left when our agenda Item came up. By thIS tIMe It was nearly mldnlqht and SInce we all work and most of us have ChIldren, some of us Just could not stay. J :: ~. .- ~ f The hear~ng ltself was conducted in a very hurrlea ~a~rer. When It carne tltlH~ Tor "publIC comment" we were lUrllted to a <;otal of 6 minutes, th~s aTter waltlng through two meetlngs and alMost 8 hours. Waiting 8 hours to speak for 3 ffilnutes would try the patience of even the most reasonable person. It seems we were limIted maInly because the "V" took up so much tIMe. We appreciate the-fact that the commission was swamped, but that should not have limited our testImony. Being unused to dealing with the commiSSIon, none of us had ever been to a commISSion ~eeting before, and we did not realIze what we were up agaInst. ~e dId not circulate a petition because we felt Martin's letter WIth all the signatures, which was lost, and our testimony, whlch was not only llmlted by time, but whIch was extremely limIted by the fact that most OT the WItnesses had had to leave, would be sufflclent to express our COncerns. We felt that personal testimony was the most effective form of communIcation. We had no idea that the SItuation would unTold as it dld and that we would be left with very lIttle to show our concern. We also were not told and dId not realIze that It mIght be poss3.ble to put sor,1e lunitatlOl'lS on Delmer's proposal whIch Would protect the neIghborhoOd rather than trYIng to stoo the proJect COMpletely. If we had been g~ven thIS optIon, we ml~ht have been able to work out a cOMprom~se satLsf~ctory to all. Some open dISCUSSIon at the hearIng would have brought to light varIous t problems and solutions. Instead, there was no dISCUSSion WIth the interested partIes but rather a dIscussion among the commlSSloners who dId not have an lntlmate knowledge of the area or Delmerts brake bUSiness. No questIons were asked of the wItnesses. ror all we know~ it may be lMpossible for Delmer to opera~e hls service WIth his eastern serv~ce bay doors closed. (For the record, we do appreciate that both'you and comMIssioner Perlman had drIven by the SIte although the sIte locatlon on the proposal ~as Incorrect.) SOMe of the comments from the commlSSloners shewed a complete lack of understandlng of the Issues. Commlssloner Perlman stated that SInce the area seemed to have many establlshed automotive businesses one more would Tit in well. As a Matter of fact, there are five automotIve business on our block or Llncoln and another 10 automotIve businesses WIthin 3 blocks. Our maIn problem 1~_~b~_~Q~S~~~~~~iQn_Qf_~~~9~Q~~~~_~~12t~Q_R~~!D~3~g~_~n QY~_n~!gb~Q~~QQ~. These bUSInesses are dlrty, nOISY, ugly, and block the alleys. They are essentIally light industrial businesses and too many of them create a major detriment to the surrounding area. The side walks are greasy because there are no industrIal f type drains and cars must be parked and test driven en cur residential streets. Many of the owners of these bUsl~esses have a complete disregard for the way thelr properties look. Perhaos commIssioner Perlman lives In a ne~ghborhood ~here these types of bUslnesses are not allowed. Delmer's brake service 1S a "wholesale bUSiness" and does not need exposure to Lincoln Boulevard traffIC to attract customers and yet none of this was mentioned. There are numerous other complaints about the way the hearing was conducted but we would like to move on to some Posslble solutions. ,< " " ,. , ,. ( / / \ / / / Rs we ment~oned above, we object to the concentratIon of automotlve type businesses in our neighborhood. The plctures submitted to the commission at the hearing demonstrate the kind of V1sual blight and dirt caused by the automotive bUSinesses ln our area and given the chance. the testimony of close by neighbors wlil attest to the attendant noise and traffic. The letter from ~artiry Goldstlen should serve to ~ndersco~e the_safety pro~lem9 we ~have been experlenc{ng. There are 11 children living on our block alone and none of them should have to undergo what Martin's son has had to. We would prefer if no new automotive bUSinesses be allowed in our area, lnclud1ng Delmer's. These bus1nesses belong on industrial streets like Olympic Boulevard. If Delmer's is allowed to stay. we feel that a block wall should be requ1red at the rear of the property. RIley access should not be allowed unless it can be proven that it is absolutely necessary. If it is allowed, it should be 11m1ted to employee parking and a solid gate that is to remaln closed Should be placed across the drive. Block walls are required around all parking areas in our ne1ghborhood and the automotive businesses are much more of an eyesore and source of nOlse and air pollution than park1ng lots_ All traffIC, such as customers and del1verles should enter from Lincoln. The requirements concerning the serVlce bay doors should remain 1f at all practical as well as the limitation on test drlv1ng. Noise abatement and the cleanl1ness of the areas, surroundlng the bUSiness, espec1ally the sloewalk, should be' of prlmary concern. We would also llke to know aoout the poss1bll1ty of IlMlt1ng the use of the property that Celmer's 1S vacatlng and the pOSSlb1lity of requ1rlng a block wall along the back of all the automotive businesses between Cedar ard Pearl on the east slde of LIncoln. Currently, none of these bUSinesses have an urgent need for alley access and Delmer's 1S che only one that has a drIve which must open to the alley. The falling cha~n link rence on the north ~nd of the alley 1S hardly aC~Quate. In conclUSIon, had we known that thIngs would ~e handled ~n su~h a hurr1ed and rough manner, we can assure you we would have apP~oached you d1fferently. Unfortunately. we felt that as cltlzens of a "small'. and "concerned" C1ty such as Santa Mornca we would not need to make a full scale presentat10n Just to be heard. We hope that it is not too late for the plannIng commlSSlon to take some actlon and try to protect our ne~9hbcrhcod from the encroachment of still more industrial type bus1nesses. We appeal to you to reth~nk your decision and take our pOlnt of vIew into conSIderatIon. Thank you. Respectfully sub~itted, Concerned Citizens Livinq Near Cedar and Lincoln . ' ~ ! SeD~8mb8r ~. 1986 MartIn M. GoldsteIn VIrgInIa L. Dean 8~~ Ceda~ Street Santa Monlca, CA 90405 The CIty of Santa MonIca CIty PlannIng CommISSIon ~oom ~1~, CIty Hall 1685 MaIn Street Santa MonIca, CA 90401 Dear SIrs and Madams, We are wrlting and appearIng In pers 1 sponse to the notIce of a PublIC HearIng on the Subject "DR ~4')3 the c:"'"oposed. automo~lve parts and serVIce center a~ ~317 LIncoln Boulevard. My wIfe and I are homeowners In Santa MonIca. lIVlnq at 8:~ Ceaar Street, WhlCh 15 Just around the corner from the SIte of the proposed auto parts center. ThlS proposed SIte IS adjacent to che e~{lstlng "Oelmer's Brake Servlce" shoo, and I unoerstand that:. they are the aopllcants wno seek to develoD the SiC2. We are wrItIng to oppose theIr applIcatIon! 70r c~e ~Diiowlng reasor's. On October 19,1984, I ~LJas VISItIng ~'Jlth ;nv fa,"lll'/ ~i'1Y ~'Jlfe, ~mo ~Jas then el ght months pregnant ;..n th in',! '!oungest ::;on; ,nv e102:=01:. son, Ben, then ag8 4~ and mv daughter, then age 13 ~onths) along WIth my neIghbor, RICk PhillIpS and hIS and other neIghbor's chIldren, on the SIdewalk on the north SlOe of C2dar Stree~, sllghly west and across the street from my house. Around 4:45 my w~fe~ carrv~ng my daughter, started to cross the street back to my house. A few seconds later 1 started out Into the street, to go around a car and get my son ~en to take hIm across the street to JOln them. At that moment, whlle my Wife was Just past the mIddle 0+ the street, Ben, who was about 6 feet out from the curb, was strucl~ by a van owned and operated by Delmer 5 Brake SerVIce. The van ran over Ben WIth the rIght front wheel, and came sklddlng to a stop WIth him being pushed by the rlght rear wheel, whIch was touchIng hIS head and neck when I ran up to reach hIm. We ImmedIately took hIm to Santa MonIca HospItal E~ergency Room, where he was found to have two fractured femurs (thIgh bones) and varIOUS cuts and abraSIons, IncludIng a "deglOVIng" wound on hIS ~nee (the skIn had been torn away most of the CIrcumference of the knee). 1 . I r t. He r-equI red three weeKS of tractIon I n the hOSpl tal. then SI:: weeks ~n a a hIp and leg cast, and then several months of phvslcal rehabIlItatIon to return to more or less normal actIVIty. There IS stIll, however, serIOUS scarrIng on the ynee. even after an InItIal plastIC surgery at the tIme of the cast's removal, and two more such surgerys are requIred. the next one In December durIng the ChrIstmas holIdays. Furthermore, ~her-e remaIns some SIgnIfIcant psychologIcal consequences from the trauma WhICh we have had dIag~osed professIonally, and whICh we WIll have to deal WIth now and In the fULure. There IS a laksult on behalf of Ben currently agaInst Delmer's, and as a result of the depOSItIons, the followIng facts about thIS InCIdent have become clear to us: 1. The van that struck Ben, drIven by the same drIver, had come down that street man V tImes ("at least 50" accordl.ng to .a neIgnbor-'s depOSItIon), and thus was -- or snould have Deen -- famIlIar WIth the fact that there are fr-eaently chl1d~en at olav on the sIdewal~s of our- str-eet, and sometIme In IL on bvcvcles. (Ther-e are appro:amatel y 11 ch 11 dr-en under the age 0'" la cur-rently lIVIng on thIS block oi Cedar Street, beLween LIncoln and 10th Street.) Thl.S same van had freauentlv been seen drlvInq ...aster that we conSIder safe for ~he condItIons. The ~Ir-st thlnq illY WITe saId to hIm as the dr-lver- ran up to my car when I was carrYIng 2en ~o It to go to the Emerqencv Room ~'Jas: "I've seen vou drIVIng too +aSL down thIS street befor-el" Further, my neIqtlbor-, f\l[:l~ FhIIIIPS. who was a WItness to the accldenL, SdId In hIS daOosltlon that the van was travelIng between ~5 and ~O MPH (the speed 11~lt IS 25 MPH) -- and that he, RIck, had Just dr-Iven home down the street, and saId the sun was huqe and br-lght In hIS eyes, 52ttlng In the west down the street, and that he, PIck, had come down ~he hIll "gOIng 10 MPH In second gear-" In hIS VW bus. The drIver hImself testIfIed In hIS depOSItIon that not only dId he not see Ben, but that he never- even saw my WIfe and ChIld, who wer-e also In the street. Further-, some two months later-, thIS same drlve~ In thIS same van drove down our street gOIng. bv another neIghbor's statement, too fast, and she yelled at hIm to "Slm" Dm~n'" ThIS IS after he had already run over my ChIld and near-Iy lllled hIm. 4. ThIS IS a mInor- pOInt, but one thilt also stIcl~s In mv crilW. For many months durIng the yea~ of 1985, the same van that struck my chIld was parked, waItIng to be sold, In the fenced area that IS now under- conSIderatIon. Thus ever-y tIme I walked around the corner WIth my son, Ben, to go to one of the shops on the street, we would have to look at It. And I could see on hI$ face the Intense dlscomfort thIS caused hIm. '""J fhe legal Ilabllltles In thiS case will be decIded by the c~u~ts and the lawyers for the Insurance company and Ben, and they a~e not of Issue he~e. I wl1l add that the attornev for Ben said that any statment I might make 1n thIs matter here would have _absolutely no affect qn Ben's case. The Insurance company, not -Delmer's, -1S handl~ng -cd the laWSUit. In fact, he told me not to bother to come -- unless-! felt strongly about It personally. Well, I do. Even If It was an unpreventable aCCIdent -- ana I do not at all feel that it was -- the fact that the driver had drIven freqently ~n the neIghborhood before -- and afte~ -- at what we feel were unsa+e soeeds given the condItIons outrages me. And I cannot stand by and let them expand thls bUSIness~ gIven the way they have seen fIt to do buslness In my neIghborhood, WIthout lodging thiS protest. 1 mIght add that closer to me~ an Ledar Street, IS another car related bus1ness, the "3MWs Auto F..epalr" rIgnt on the co~ner 01- Cedar and LIncoln. And I have found them to be 0000 neIqhDo~S. never drl VI ng any of thel r cars at e;:cess speed on our st:.reel:, and mostly avoIdIng USE 0+ the street altoqether. I would lI~e to add a +ew more thcugnts. There 1~ alrS3GV enouoh vehIcular related bUSIness on L~ncoln adjacent:. co wnat has beco~e ~ famlly neIghborhoOd In the SIX years we nave own~a and ll~ed at our house at 8=2 Cedar street. It IS a famll{ ~~IqnbornooD now, and IS likely to ~tay that wav fer many vears. ~ven Ii ~en naa not been 1nvolved In thIS aCCIdent, I ~ould not llle co see ~nv ~ore such bUSIness In the Immedate area, for ,easons ot scund and dust pollutIon, as well as for the sa+e~y at our cnlldren. Even Wi th the EX]' stant bUS1 fiESS, I do not and never \nll -teel safe for my chIldren. If my neIghbor's agree, I ~eel we should petItIon to have speed bumps put Dn the stree~. or even blcc~ It off at the alley. It is Just not safe the way It IS. Do we need another aCCIdent, or the death of a ch11d, to conVInce us Df thIS~ I hope not. Your-S sIncerely, I ( I ; f. rt~: G I r..--, 1,\:..~ v\ Cdd~UL MartIn M. GoldsteIn AJ'~ ~t p;~? , '8JCt -/ &.dO.A. S0. C\'0r~~A ~~~'- \\Uj~\ L6~ 0 G~ -J:., . , '. ..?7 Z:i;~:;1. ~-J 2?3!:? (~ ;;-C. ATTACEHENT B CI~Y ?UUINI~G DIVISION CC~~U~l~Y and Economic Develop~en~ Depar~~ent 11 E nOR AND U H DATE: Septe~~er 8, 1986 TO: The Honorable Planning commission F~O:l: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planni~g SUBJECT: DR 340, C~, Construct~on of New Auto Par~s and Bra~e Service Shop. Address: Applicar.t: 2317 Lincoln Boulevard Del=ers Brake Servlce SI~E ~OCAT:O~ A~D DESCRIP~=ON The subjec~ pro;er~y is a 5,076 sq. ft.. parcel lcca~ed on ~~e eas~ side of Lincoln Soulevard bet;.;een Pearl Street and Cec..a~ S~ree::. havlng a frontage of 50.75 feet. Surro~ncl~g uses co~s~s~ prinarlly of au~o related business t.o the nor~h, sout::. a!"'_::. ;les::., (including au~o repalr, supplies, t~ne-up and tte eXls~~~~ Delners Brake Servlce adjacent to the north SlGe of t~e ~r~~=sec site), as well as c~e and two story reslden~ial ~ulldi~g5 ::'0 ::.~e east. Lincoln Co~rt a:ley abuts the slte on L~e eas::., se~=ra::'l~~ t~e cc~merclal frc!1 the resldentlal uses. Zo~~ng Di5~r~c~: C4 iJ.:st:::-:..ct. Land Use Distric~: Lincoln South Parcel Area: 5,076.28 Sq. Ft. PROPOSED PROJECT Delmers Brake service nrcposes to relocate the nresen~ ~ac11~~v on Lincoln and constru~t a new 1800 sq. ft. au~o~ot~ve par::.s s~c~ and brake serVlce center wlth two serVlce bays on a vacan~ lot ~8 the south. The projec~ would provlde six parki~g spaces ~o ~~e rear of the building, accesslble from the alley for repa:r s~~p custo~ers. The repalr area lS enclosed, but has roll-~p d=o~s cn the east and '.vest sides. T~.:o veh1.cle Sp3CCS fo:::- par-:.s 5-::::::::-e cus~oners are located in the drlveway area fac:ng L:nco~n 3lvd. Some landscap1.ng would be provlded along Lincoln Blvd. A vac~n~ 1~~ sq. ft. tln shed and a 432 sq. ft. concre~e bleck storage ro~~ will be re~oved frow the proper~y. Five persons are e~p:cyed a~ the shop and serVlce center. - 1 - ~ I' I \ H1.7NICI?A::' CODE Alm GE~rE?AL PL;N CO~1FO~1F_NCE The p~=pcsed project is consistent ~ith the Uur.~c~?al Coce a~= ~~ confo~ity wlth the Gene~al plan as shown in rl~~ac~~ent A. CEQA ST.'\TUS Catego=~cally Exemnt. Ir.plementat~on. Class 3(3), Santa 1!cnica Gu:;.dell~es --- ~~- ANALYSIS The proposed project site is currently used by the appl~can~ t~ park custa~er and employee vehicles. Tr.e proJec~'s des~gn locates 6 parking spaces at the rear of the property and uses landscaping to partially screen the building and 2 pa~k~ng spaces from Lincoln Boulevard. The auto parts store lS sl~~ated to~a~c tr.e f~ont of the lo~, and the cus~cmer parklng in the f~ont :5 designed for this use. The au~o par~s store ~s p~:~ar:~y wholesale, Wl th deliveries nade t~ t::e ct:.sto:aers. The vehlcle repal~ build:.ng ~s set back, behlnd the custo~er walt:~g area. .. 6 foot high wall on the nor~~ slce of the property exte~ds f~c~ behind the planti~g to the repa:.r bUl:d:.nq, sh~eld~~g ~~e ad] acent proper-:.y fron both the cUst:o~er ~Ja~ ~~ng area and t:::e repa~r buildl~g. The proposed proJect would not inc~ease t:ra::~~ and nOlse l::1pac-:.s cn -c::e su=roundlng resldent~al uses s::':1ce _u_ app11caht cur~e~~ly occ~ples t~e lo~ nor~h of a~d adJace~~ ~o ~~e proposed projec~ and is vacat~ng ~~at bu~ld~:1g. The ?arKl:lg and Tra:::~c Er:glneer has ar.d a new curb c~-:. along ~::.~ccln. 3. 0'0 :-c....red. +-~.Clo L....J._ ~a:-_n:-=-::g ~:.. 3:1 The constructio;: of this structu::e should e~:"1ance t~e :~ca~:'=:1 and is in accordar.ce wit~ City development ar.d lnprove~er.t: gca~5. RSC:J~~~E:mA T IC~T It is respect:ully recc~mended by staff Comr:'\lssion approve DR 340 according to the subJect to the followlng conditlons. t~~~ ~~e ?la~n~~g f i:-.:::i1r:gs ;:el C~J and FI~mInGS 1. The develop~ent is Cor.Sls~ant with t~e ::::.nd~:1;s and ?~=- pose of Ord:.nance 1321 as set far~h below. 2. The phys::.cal locatlon and placement of proposed st~~ct:~res on the slte are cc~patlble wlth ana relate har~oniously -:'0 surround~::g s~tes and neig~borhoods in that the p~oJec~ lS pe~.ltted :.n a C4 zone, the brake serVlce center :s cur- rentl y l.n operation on the lot: ad] acent to the p:-oposed locatlc~ and the new bUlldlng would ~ore ef::ectlvely screen the repalr actlv~ty f=c~ ~he street. - 2 - ( 3. The exist~ng and/or proposed righ~s-of-way and :ac~~~~~es for both nedestr .::..an ar.d aut0:10bl1e t~af:lc '1:.2.1 ::e a.::.e- ~~ate to ~ccommodate t~e anticipated resul~s or ~~e ?~=- posed development including off-st=eet parklng :ac~lit~es and access thereto In that the s~te con~alr.s the recu.::..~ed nu~ber of parking spaces as specified by the zon.::..r.g c~- dinance, and the preli::linary parklng plan has been ap- proved by the Parki~g and Traffic Engineer. 4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or prlvate heal~h and safety facl1ities (including, but not li~l~ed to, sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire p~otect.::..on devlces, protectlve services, and public utlli ties) wlll be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of t~e prc- posed develop~ent. 5. The proposed develop:nent is conslstent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the zonlng Ordina~ce in that the proJect will co~fo~ to the helg~t, c~lk, ~se and urban des~gn polic.::..es for the Lincoln Scu~h c=~=erc.::..al district as spec~fied in the Land Use Ele:-:.ent of t::e General Plan and ccnfc:::-m to the apprcp:::-.::..at:.e C4 DlSt:=:.::~ standards contal~ed In tr.e Zonlng Crd~r.ance. SPECIAL CONDITIO~S 1. The exterio= parkir.g area snall be used for e~?loyee anc cus;:o:n.e:::- parklng only and no'C :or repalr or rl::l.Sil1.rg \/c:::.'": or long-te~ (over one week) s~crage of ve~lc:es. ST;'.~IDARD CC~ID:T:!:o~rs 2. Plans for fi~al designl landsca?.::..~g, scr2en:.r.g, ~:::~sn en- closures, and signage shall be sunJec~ to reVle~ and a~- proval by the Arch~tectural Review Board. 3. IIinor aTIend~ents to t~e plar.s shall be subject to apprcval by the Dlrec~or of Plar.nlng. An increase of no:::e t~an :J% of the square footage or a signiflcant c~ange :.n t~e ap- proved concept shall be subj ec1:. to Plannllig C8:::'.:11SS:'O;o Review. Construction shall be In substan~lal co::for~ance wi th the plans sub:1i tted or as n:.odified by t::.e Plann~r:g Com~ission, Architec~~ral ReVlew Beard or ~i:::-ec~or of Planning. 4. The righ-:.s grant.ed he~eln shall be ef:ec-:.:. "Ie on 2.1-:" Tl~~t.e~ exerclsed w1thl~ a per1cd of one year f~o~ ~~e ef=ect~ve date of approval. ~pon the wr.::..tt2TI request of the appl.::..- cant, the Dlrector of Planning na} extend thls pe=lcd ~p to an add~~ional six mon~hs. 5. The parki~g lot shall be strl~ed, screened ar.d landscaFed in confor~ance Wlt~ Sec. 9127.J.l and Sec. 9129.F.7 (S~IIIC) . - 3 - ( 6. :inal ?a~k~ng lot layout and spec~ficaticn5 s~all j ect:. to t:.~e reVle~v and ap;roval of the Park~~g and Eng~neer. be 5"-- ~~ rr'_":!I";&'_ ...i._.........___..... 7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equ1p~en~ shall be screened in acccrdance wit~ Sec. 9127J~2-4 (S!~~C). ~e- .r..:.se areas shall be of a size adequate to :-:.ee1: on-s:-:.e need. 8. The o?erat{on shall at all ti~es be conducted in a mar.~er no~ detrimental to surrounding prcper~ies or res1dents =y reason of lights, n01se, activit1es, park~ng or ot~er actions. 9. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and/or directed away fro~ adjacent res~dential propert~es, w1~h any suc~ light:.ng not to exceed 0..5 foot candles of ill1;::1J.r:at:on beyond the peri~eter of the sUbJect:. property. 10. No noise generating C07pressors or other s\:ch eC~lli~:-:e:1-:' shall be placed adJacent:. to neJ.g~borJ.ng res~dent:a~ buildi::.gs. 11. Street trees shall be maintai~ed, ~elocated or prcv:.ded as requ1red in a manner CCnS1S1:en1: ~1~~ the ci~yfs Tree C=ie (Ora. 1242 CCS), per the speci=~ca~~ons of t~e De?ar~~e~~ of Rec=eaL~cn a~d-Parks ar.d ~he Depar~~en~ of Genercl Ser- vJ...ces. No street t:=ee shal.l be re:-oved :;1 tl'::n.1.t t.::e 2."".:- proval of t~e ~epart~e~t o~ RecreaL~cn ard ?ar~s. l~. street and/o= alley llghti~g sha:l be ~r8v1ded C~ ~~=~~= rlghts-of-T.Jay adj acent ~o ~he t:rcJ ec~ :: ar.d .as reeded ::er t~e specif~c~t10r.5 ar.d ~i1t~ ~~e a~prcva: a: ~~e Cepar~~e~~ of General services. 13. Th~s deter~ir.ation shal: not becc~e ef:ect:ve :ar a of twenty days frc~ t~e date 0: de~erm1n~tic~ or, pealed, until a final de1:er~lnatlcn 15 ~ade on t~e pe:-:. -::.= if a:::- ap:;:eal. Prepared by: Amanda Sc~achter, Asslstant Planr.er AS:nh DR340 09/02/86 ~ ~ AT':'ACH~t'SNT A ~roNICI?AL CODE AND GENE~;L PL;N CO~FOm~~NCE cateqo~y Imr.icipal Code Perni~ted Use Highway Co~,:-'erc~al (Ir:.cl udes Auto Repa~r) Height 6 stories/gO' -E.A.R. 3.3 Parking Spaces 6 Land Use Element: Service Cotn",-ercial 2 stories/30' 1 6 - ::l - , \ Proiect Auto Parts and Brake service 1 storY/20' .35 8 AT'I'ACHi-IEX'I' C ( ( STATE:fEHT Of OFFICIAL ACT:!:O~I PROJECT NLTIBER: DR 340 LOCATION: 2317 Lincoln Boulevard APPLIC~IT: Delmer's Brake Service REQUEST: To constr~c~ an 1,800 parts and brake service spaces would be provided. a small concrete block removed. square feot au~o=et~ve center. Eight park1.:-:.g A vacant tin shed and storage roo~ would ~e PLAmHNG CO::USSION ACTION 9/l5/86 Date. x Approved based on "Che follo~Jl:1g ::~:id:.:;,;s and sU~Jec~ to ~he condi~~o~s below. Denied. otr.er. ?I:TD=l~GS 1. The developmen~ is consisten~ with the find:.ngs and pur- pose of Ordir.ance 1321 as set =or~h belc~. 2. The physical locat~on and placement of proposed st~~ct~res on the site are cc~patible wi~h and rela~e har~onl.ously to surroundi:-:.g sites and neighborhoods in that the proJec~ is pernitted in a C~ zone, the brake service center 1.5 cur- rently in operation on the lo~ adj acen:: '.:.0 the :9:::"oposed locatl.on and the new bU1.1ding would ~ore er=ectlvely screen the repair activity frc~ the stree~. 3. The existing and/cr proposed rights-or-way and f~c~li~les for both pedestr~an and au~o:-:ob~~e traf:~c \-11.11 be ade- quate to acco~~oca~e the an~lc~pated results of t~e pro- posed developrnen~ lncludlng off-street parklrg facil~~~es and access thereto in that the site contalns ~~e re~J1.red number of pa:::-king spaces as spec~f ~ed by tZ'.e Zonlng Or- dinance, and the prelirn~nary parking plan has been ap- proved by the Park~ng and TrafflC Englneer. 4. The eXlstlng and/or proposed publ~c and/or pr~vaLe heal~h and safety fac1.1~t1.es (lTIcludlng, but no~ li~lted to, - 1 - . ' I ( , ( san~tac~c~, sewers, sto~ dralns, fire procect~c~ devices, orotecc::.. 'Ie services, and publlC utilities) ..n.!.':: be ade- ~ate to accc~odate the anticipated res~lts 0= t~e p~o- posed development. 5. The proposed develop::':l.ent is consistent wi th t~e General Plan of the city of Santa Monlca and the Zoni~cr O~~ina~ce in that the project will confo~ to the he~ght; bulk, use and urban deslgn policies for the Llncoln South co~~erc~al dlstrJ..ct as speclfied in the Land Use Eler>ent of the. General Plan and conform to the ao-oronrlate C4 Discr:.c-:: standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The exterior parking area shall be used fer emolovee and customer parking only and not for repair or finlsh::..~g work or long-tern (over one week) storage of vehicles. 2. All test drivlng wlll occur on generally ce~~erc~al streets, partic"..llarly Lincoln Boulevard, and nee en t::.e surrounding residential streets. Test dr~ve plans wlll be sub~it~ed to parki~g and Traff~c for app:::-oval. ~~e roll- up door on the eas~ side fac~ng the ~eslde~~:.al Zc~e ~lll rema~n closed dur~ng worklng hours. STANDARD co~m:::T:!:o:rs 3. Plans for final design, lar.dscaplng, screenlng, ~~~sn en- c:!..csures, and signage shall be sub) ec::. ::'0 =ev:.e'~' an~ 2'.:)- prmral by ::::e ArC::l ::ec::ural ~evl.e'" Soard. ~. Mlnor amendments to the plans shall be subj8c:: ~o approval by the Director of Planning. A s:.gniflcan::. change ln the approved concept shall be subject to Plannl~g Co~mission Review. Constructio~ shall be in subs~ar.e:.al ccn=crnan=e w1.th the plans subn1l. tted or as :-lOd:"::led by the ?la:ln~r.a Ce~~is51on, Architectural ReVlew Board or ~iYector of Planning. 5. The righ~s granted herein shall be effective 0:11y ,'Jr.en exercised withln a perlod of one year fro:'l the ef::ective date of approval. Upon t~e wrltten request of the appll- cant, the Director of Planning may extend thls per~cd up to an addltional six months. 6. The par%.ing lot in con::or=:ar.ce (swrc) . shall be striped, screened and la~~5caced wlth Sec. 9l27.J.l and Sec. 9129.?7 7. Final par~i~g lot layo~~ and speclf~c~t~cns shal~ be sub- ject to t~e review and approval of the Parking and Traffic Engineer. - 2 - ( .,,- ~ 8. Refuse areas, storage areas and ~echanical equlp~er.~ sha:: be screened ln accordance wlth Sec. 9127J.2-4 (SiCle}. ~e- fuse areas shall be of a size adeql.late to ileet on-s::.-:e need. 9. The operation shall at all times be conduc~ed In a ~ar.~er not detrlnental to surrounding properties or reS1Cents =y reason of llghts, n01se, aC~1vities, parklnq O~ ot~e= aC;:'lQns. 10. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and/or di=-ec~ed away from adjacent resldential properties, with any suc~ lighting not to exceed 0 ~ 5 foot candles of illum~nat:'Gn beyond the perimeter of the subject property. 11. No noise generating compressors shall be placed adjacent to buildings. or other such equlpr.lent neighborlng res~dent:.al 12. St~eet trees shall be ~aintained, relocated or provlded as required in a man~er consistent with the city1s ~ree C~=e (Ord. 1242 CCS), per ~he specifications- of the De?a~t~e~-: of Recreation and Parks and the Depart~ent of General Ser- vices. No street tree shall be renoved Wl tho'...l":. ::':-.e 2.?- proval of the Depa~t~ent of Recreatlcn and Pa=~s. 13. Street and/or alley light~ng shall be prov~ded on ~~D:~~ rights-of-way adJacent to the project if and cs neeaed ~e= the specificat~cns and with the approval 0= t~e Depar~~e~~ of General Servlces. 14. ThlS dete~lna~~or. shall no~ beco~e effec-:~ve fo~ a ~E=~=~ of twenty days frc~ tr.e date of deter~~~a~~c~ C~, ~= ~?- pealed, until a final determinat~on lS ~aGe on ~~e appea:. VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Vacancy: Burns, Farivar, Israel, Hecht, Perl~an Kirshner One - 3 - . I hereby cer~~fy that this Statenent of accurately reflec~s the final de~e~ination Co~mJ.ssion of the City of San1:a l1onica. Sl.gnai:u:re / I \ Of::.c:.al Actl.cn of t~e ?lann~~g c.a~e prJ.nt name and ~~tle 'AS: nh STDR340 09/17/86 \. - 4 - J2~B j2-Q-?P 12/8/86 RE: Delmer's Brake Shop Conditional Use PermIt Dear Councllmembers: We are wrItIng thIS letter to express our concerns in regard to the concentration of automotIve type uses allowed along Lincoln Boulevard between PICO and Ocean Park Boulevards and in partIcular in regard to D~lmer's Brake Shop. After much deliberation between the PlannIng Department, Delmer's, and us we feel we have reached a solution to the situation created by Delmer's move from their current locatIon to a new locatIon next door. Our main concern about Delmer's is noise, visual blight, traffIC and parking, and dIrt and grease. Through varIOUS means, Delmer's has agreed to mitigate these problems as much as possible. Since Delmer's is already on our block and is not expandIng the size of their business, the Impact of the new store should not be much dIfferent than the impact we already feel from the current operation. On the other hand, should a new automotive type business wish to move Into the locatIon that Delmer's is vacating we would have very strong obJections and have vowed to fight any such proposal. Along Linclon, our block IS already 75% automotIve and we do not need any more of this type of actiVIty. The main problem wlth automotIve type bUSInesses is that they are in essence machine Shop/manUfacturing type operations that do not belong adJacent to resldential areas. When they are concentrated in one area, the cumulative effect of the noise and traffIC they generate serIously erodes the quality of the surroundlng neIghborhood. We therefore ask you to approve Delmer's as it is now proposed, but in the future, help us preserve our neIghborhood by not allOWIng any further automotive uses on our block and please consider the negatIve Impact concentratIon of these kInds of businesses can have on an area when makIng zonlng and other policy decisions. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Concerned CltIzens LiVIng Near Cedar and Lincoln