SR-121388-12D
1/02-- oo-S-
'2-~])
C/ED:DKW:DM
Council Mtg: December 13, 1988
. N:C 1 3 1988
Santa Mon~ca, Cailfornia
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission Approval and Conditions
of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-004 to Allow
the Operation of an Autobody Repair Shop in an Existing
Light Industrial Building Located at 3401 Exposition
Boulevard in the C5 Zone.
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission approved the applicant t s request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an autobody
repair shop in the C5 zone with several conditions, including
that the Conditional Use Permit shall only be valid for a period
of two years, and that the number of employees shall be limited
to 30. Councilmember Oavid Finkel appealed the approval and the
applicant, Robert Kramer, appealed the two conditions stated
above.
This report recommends that the City Council deny the
appeal and uphold the Planning Commission t s approval including
the two subject conditions.
BACKGROUND
The applicant has proposed the conversion of an existing
industrial building to be used as a central location for Kramer
Motors autobody repair facilities.
The 35,000 square foot
building is currently occupied by a shower door manufacturer.
The proposed conversion would involve minor modifications to the
interior and exterior of the building.
- 1 -
12-~D
Dle 1 3 }9&&
The applicant plans to install a handicap ramp, windows and
office doors on the south elevation of the building. Interior
modifications would include the installation of five paint
booths. Vehicular access to the interior of the building would
be located at the northwest corner of the structure. All
openings to the bodyshop portion of the building would be
oriented to the west, toward the GTE equipment yard, away from
the residents living across Exposition Boulevard to the south.
Additional information provided as exhibits attached to this
report include the letters of appeal (Attachments A and B), the
Planning commission statement of Official Action (Attachment C),
a more detailed proj ect description in the Planning Commission
staff Report (Attachment D), and the project plans (Attachment
E) .
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission originally heard the item on October 5,
1988. Several members of the public expressed their concerns
relating to the impact the proposed use could have on their
neighborhood. At that time, the Commission voted to continue the
item in order to allow the City Attorney's office an opportunity
to make a zoning ordinance interpretation of whether or not an
autobody repair shop was a conditionally permitted use in the C5
zone. The item was continued to October 19, 1988.
At the October 19, 1988 Planning Commission meeting the Deputy
City Attorney reported to the Commission that the project may
qualify as a conditionally permitted new industrial use if it was
- 2 -
determined by the Commission that autobody repair is compatible
with office and advanced technological uses. A motion was made
to confirm that the Commission agreed that an autobody repair
shop was a manufacturing/industrial use and therefore
conditionally permitted in the C5 zone. The motion was approved
by a vote of four in favor and none against with three
Commissioners abstaining.
With the Commission's determination that the use was
conditionally permitted, the public hearing was reopened.
Several members of the public expressed concerns regarding the
proposed use's potential impact on the adjacent residential
neighborhood. The Commission added several conditions of
approval in an attempt to address neighborhood concerns and
mitigate any potential impact. The added conditions involved the
screening of the parking area, the elimination of one driveway, a
limitation on the number of employees, a restriction on the hours
of operation and a two year time limit on the conditional use
permit approval. A complete list of conditions is contained in
the Planning commission statement of Official Action (Attachment
C). A motion was made for approval of the applicant's request
with the added conditions. The motion carried by a vote of four
in favor and none opposed with three Commissioners abstaining.
Homeowners and residents living near the subject site expressed
their concerns about the Commission's decision to the City
Council in a letter dated 10/31/88 (Attachment C). Residents
encouraged an appeal of the Planning commission's decision on the
groundS that the C5 Special Office District Guidelines prohibit
- 3 -
the operation of an autobody repair facility and that the Kramer
facility would be incompatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood. Councilmember David Finkel sponsored the
residents' appeal.
The applicant has appealed two of the Planning Commission's
conditions of approval; the condition that the conditional use
permit only be valid for a period of two years; and the condition
restricting the number of employees to 30. The applicant. s
reasons for the appeal are based on the fact that a large
financial expenditure would be required in order to equip the
building for the proposed use. with the two year restriction,
the applicant could potentially lose his right to operate within
two years, and therefore not be able to amortize his investment
in the property. In regard to the limitation on the number of
employees, the applicant contends that the shower door
manufacturer, which previously occupied the building, had
approximately 60 employees. As stated in the attached appeal
letter from the neighbors (Attachment A), local residents found
the shower door manufacturer to be a compatible neighbor.
In an attempt to address the neighbors concerns regarding
increased traffic, the applicant has proposed a new employee
entrance off of centinela. This new entrance/exit would take
employee traffic of Exposition. The proposed entrance is pending
the approval of the City's Parking and Traffic Engineer.
- 4 -
CONCLUSION
Based on the Planning commission's interpretation that an
autobody shop is a conditionally permitted use in the C5 zone,
and due to the fact that the autobody repair portion of the
building is set back sixty feet from Exposition Boulevard, and
that the openings to the bodyshop would be oriented toward the
west, away from the residential properties, and in view of the
other conditions of approval restricting and mitigating the
proposed proj ect, staff recommends that the Council uphold the
Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal of the
approval.
In regard to the applicant's appeal of the two conditions, the
Planning Commission approved the project with the conditions in
an attempt to protect the adjacent residential property from any
negative impacts that may result from the proposed use. staff
recommends that the Council deny the applicant's appeal and
approve the project with the conditions contained in the Planning
Commission statement of Official Action (Attachment C).
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the council deny the appeal
of the approval and deny the appeal of the conditions of approval
- 5 -
with the findings and conditions contained in the October 19,
1988 Planning commission Statement of Official Action.
Prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner
D. Kenyon Webster, Senior Planner
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by Councilperson David Finkel
dated 11/1/88.
B. Letter of Appeal by Sherman Stacy dated 10/26/88
C. statement of Official Action dated 10/19/88.
D. Planning Commission staff Report dated 10/5/88
E. Supplemental Memo to Planning Commission dated
10/5/88
F. Project Plans
DM
PC/cup884cc
11/23/88
- 6 -
SANTA MON~IC~
.2:: ~!~" - ~ - Lf' lOw
] 685 \tam Street. Santa MoniCa, Cahforma 9040 I
(2131 458-8201, Councll Office
i213) 458-8182, Business Office
DA\l D B FI'KEL
\tember of The Cltv CounCil
:-.;ovember 1, 1988
?aul 3erlant
plann~ng Department
C~ty Hall
1685 Na;.n Street
Santa Morlca, CA 90401
rte: Appeal of CCP 88-004
Dear ~r. Berla~t:
Please conslder this a formal request to apgeal the
deClSlon of the PlannIng Corr~lsslon grantlng a Condltlonal
Gse Permlt, ~umber 88-004. The PlannIng Corr~lsslon took
thIS actlon on October 19, 1988.
Please notlfy ~e when thls appeal IS agendlzed for
the Clty Counel1.
Very truly yours,
/~u.--r..--/~ 7~~
DAVID B. FINKEL
DBF:s
enc.
.'~'1H
DATE: October 31, 1988
TO: The Santa Monica City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Homeowners and Residents
Adjacent to 3401 Exposition Blvd.
SUBJ: Appeal from City Planning Commission Decision
Grantlng Conditional Use Permit 88-004
Kramer Autobody Repair Facility at
3401 Exposit~on Blvd. (CS District)
INTRODUCTION
On October 19, 1988, the Santa Monica City Plannlng
CommlSSlon granted a Conditional Use Perm1t to Robert Kramer,
on behalf of Kramer Motors, for an 83,000 square foot autobody
repair facility at 3401 Exposition Boulevard (CUP 88-004).
Th1S 1S an unprecedented action by the Planning commission
in that it represents the first time that a permit has been
granted for the operation of an auto body repair facility
in the C5 Special Office Commercial District. It is also
a wrongful action, which is contrary to the express language
and principles of the C5 District guidelines.
Most importantly, a large autobody repalr facility
is entirely incompatible with the quiet residential neighborhood
that faces the Exposition Boulevard property. Should the
Planning Commission decision stand, the excessive noise,
pollution, danger of fire and explosion, and increased traffic
from the autobody repair facility will irrevocably change
the character of this neighborhood and the quality of life
for its residents.
As Santa Monica homeowners and residents, we make
this appeal to the Santa Monica City Council for reversal
of the Planning Commission's decision. Our efforts are
unanimously supported by our neighbors, 168 of whom signed
a petition in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit.
A number of us also appeared at the two Planning Commission
hear1ngs with respect to the permit. We hope that you will
not impose this unwanted and objectionable autobody repair
facility upon us.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
1. The C5 Special Office Commerc~al District Guidelines
Prohibit the Operatlon of an Autobody Repair Facility
The stated purpose of the C5 Special Office Commercial
District is to provlde for the development of certain unobtrus~ve
commercial businesses, all of which are intended to be compatlble
wlth neighboring residential neighborhoods. Section 9021.1
of the C5 D1strict guidelines provides in pertinent part
as follows:
section 9021.1. Purpose. The CS District
15 intended to provide for the development of
offlce and advanced technology uses, scientiflc
research, and administration, and for limited
manufacturing of related products which requlre
large expanses of floor area on large parcels.
Development intensity is intended to encouraqe
the constructlon of offlce uses and other uses
wlthln a campus-llke environment that will be
compatible with abuttinq residential neiqhborhoods....
various permitted uses are specifically enumerated in the
guidelines, including general offices, laboratories for
scientific research, 11ght manufacturing, medical, dental
and optometrist clinics and laboratories, places of worship,
and other sim1lar uses "which are consistent and no more
disruptive or disturbing than permitted uses." (See Sec. 9021.2).
The Kramer autobody repair facility is clearly
not of the type described by the C5 District guidelines,
although the guidelines do authorize special other uses
in the C5 District upon the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit. Among these uses for which a Conditlonal Use Permit
may be issued are "automobile dealershipsl'. (Sec. 9021.4).
The Planning Commission has granted a Conditional
Use Permit to Mr. Kramer by determining that an autobody
repair facility is an "automobile dealership". In so doing,
the Commission has ignored the strict mandate of the C5
District guidelines, which states that "any use not specifically
authorized" is prohibited. (Sec. 9021.S(d)).
That an autobody repair shop is not an automobile
dealership would appear to be axiomatic, yet the Planning
commission gave no reason for its act of prestidigitation.
It merely waved a magic wand over the proposed autobody
repair facility and declared that it was in fact a dealership.
This determination is all the more alarming in light of
the Plann1ng Commission's simultaneous pronouncement that
an ordinary auto repair shop would not be a ~aalership.
An ordinary auto repair shop, as opposed to an autobody
repair shop, would be prohibited in the C5 District.
{
"
Why there should be a distinction between a facil~ty
where repairs are made to one part of an automobile, and
a facil~ty where repairs are made to another part of an
automobile, strains the bounds of credulity. Indeed, the
Federal Department of Labor's Standard Industrial Class~fications
places both kinds of facilities in the "service" category.
Ne1ther type of operation can be rationally deemed to constitute
an automoblle sales operat~on. Nor do these uses in any
way resemble an office, any type of indoor light manufacturing,
advanced technology or laboratory. It is a perversion of
the CS Special Office Commercial District guidelines to
perm1t an autobody repair facility within the C5 District.
2. The Kramer Autobody Repair Facility Is Incompatible with
and Destructive to the Adjacent Residential Neiqhborhood
Even if the City Council determines that an autobody
repair facility might be permissible somewhere in the C5
District, the Kramer autobody repair facility is singularly
inappropriate at the 3401 Exposition Boulevard location.
Such a facility would be incompatible with and destructive
to the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Current status of the Neiqhborhood. The neighborhood
immediately facing the 3401 Exposition Boulevard property
is somewhat of an island community bounded by Stewart to
the west, Exposition to the north, centinela to the east,
and the Freeway to the south. It is a peaceful, integrated
neighborhood where white, black, hispanic and asian families,
both homeowners and renters, live together. It is also
a remarkably stable neighborhood, as many of the residents
have lived here since the area was first developed in the
early 1950'S.
The current occupant of the 3401 Exposition Boulevard
property is American Shower Door, a light manufacturing
facility. American Shower Door has been a model neighbor.
Its operations are quiet and clean, and its premises are
well-maintained. It has also not generated a significant
volume of traffic. Although American Shower Door is now
vacating the property in order to seek larger quarters elsewhere,
its departure should not result in havoc to our homes.
Our island neighborhood is effectively under siege.
Centinela is a two-lane Freeway access road, which is already
overburdened with traffic. Recently approved office development
and automobile dealerships along Olympic Boulevard and Colorado
Place are certain to funnel additional traffic through the
ne1ghborhood on Centinela, as well as Stewart and Exposition.
In addition, the City of Los Angeles has already permitted
two small autobody repair shops to be located to the northeast
of our neighborhood on the east side of Centinela. However,
these are relatively modest operations that are farther
away from our homes. Moreover, the actions of the City
of Los Angeles in permitting them near our neighbohood should
not be viewed as an excuse by the City of Santa Monica for
dumplng a huge autobody repair facility immediately adjacent
to us.
S~ze of Kramer Autobody Repair Facility. At 83,000
square feet, the proposed autobody repair facility is an
enormous operation. It is Mr. Kramer's stated intention
to consolidate into this location all of the autobody work
currently performed at the three existing Kramer Motors
autobody repair shops, as well as much of the new vehicle
preparation for the five Kramer Motors auto dealerships.
One has only to look at the exisiting Kramer autobody repair
faclllties, particularly the one at 1899 Olympic Boulevard,
in order to visualize the gross impropriety of a mega-sized
autobody repair facility adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
Noise. Autobody repair work is necessarily noisy.
It involves, among other things, blasting, sanding, painting,
hammering, removal of metal parts, and bolting. Regardles
of how much work is performed indoors, vehicles must often
be shuffled around the outdoor area and attached and detached
from tow trucks.
Pollution. Autobody work, particularly painting
operations, inevitably introduces toxies and noxious odors
into the air. such pollutants are not only offensive but
potentially carcinogenic to those who reside in the immedlate
vicinity. As stated to the Planning Commission, air filtration
systems are not entirely effective.
Fire and Explosion Hazard. Highly explosive and
flammable chemicals, such as solvents and paint, wlll be
used and stored on the premises. The immediately adjacent
residential neighborhood is densely populated.
Lenqhthy Hours of Operation. The proposed facllity
will be open for autobody work from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. In addition, at the very last moment at
the second Planning Commlssion hearing, Mr. Kramer announced
that the facillty would be used for new vehicle preparation
work from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
Traffic. The Kramer autobody repair facility
is permitted to have up to 30 employees. Employees, customers
and deliverymen will all place a heavy burden on neighborhood
streets. The transport of hazardous chemicals and the clatterIng
of noisy tow trucks through residential areas, especially
at early hours, will make the traffic particularly unpalatable.
3. Alternative Uses Would Be More Acceptable to Residents
Neighborhood residents have been perfectly satIsfied
with the American Shower Door operation. The W&S Self Storage
facility to the east of us on centinela is also a wonderful
neighbor, and many of us signed a petition supporting the
efforts of ltS owner to obtain a permit from the City of
Los Angeles for a second self-storage warehouse next door.
Many types of light manufacturing, offices or
advanced technology uses, as contemplated within the C5
District, would be acceptable to us. A huge autobody repair
facllity, with its attendant noise, pollution, hazardous
chemicals and burdensome traffic, is not.
Something is seriously amiss with the planning
process when office buildings are to be built in a noisy,
vehicular area like the airport, and an autobody repair
shop is to be located next to our homes. The Planning CommiSSIon
has made an egregious error.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, including the overwhelmlng
opposition by affected Santa Monica homeowners and res1dents,
we respectfully request that the Santa Monica City Council
reverse the decision of the Planning commission and revoke
CUP 88-004.
CUP 88-004
KRAMER AUTOBODY REPAIR FACILITY AT 3401 EXPOSITION BLVD.
I support the October 31, 1988 appeal to the Santa
Monica C1ty council requesting revocation of CUP 88-004.
I do not want the Kramer autobody repair facility 1n my
neighborhood.
Name
Address
i~/:f:4 ~;~ ~&: ~;~{
- K' G~ t..,,--t.. (f- ~ "3 -; -3? M;~--T1- __' C%.<J ...~ /1
1~&~-' /.~< tJ/'~. J(,.$~ ~ .3~->-2cJ --/7{~a'P ?t.~ ar cl~/;/7,
v) :if'ruy,- -~1.-'U0~ ~~lfi+ ~'O-"Li_/ ~ ~/r'vl,
; /?../ ? ~ )/, 7.2J.f.tLJ-~ ~ v/J}
7 t ~ /~.......c.(' ..:> ~,-) 1;.,../ F ,
__ ! . f'.. / . ~ .J /?f 7 ,
(/~ ~~~^- ::53-3u LdLf/~.A-~
c.J~'^ 9 Clf-.{j LL . 3 3 ~O Vii (,Jt.J rl;t'Q: ,g.", S "'W?d-("...,/t<",~
~t~R( ~ )fd.(- '-3~.ti~1r 5,A~,~A>
}j ~.~~ 2I~ ~Ir~", (,
~~~~a:L
f!1is (!u0
~~iF
/ I I
hk~~--?w
~M-
p~ ct;;;/t/ ei~~
\.~ r.
CJ\AV~~~
_:J'~r~{~-
IJ I [., ;;,1./1,J:r. r J.;lZ';Iw",-~
f feY -' "?v ftv iJr.. ~(IL C}c yC V
/8""03 31M- U S&.--Jcc0tv>--
/ f (J -5 - j' Y et...~, 0..... n I.. _
I<?// - ]Y-~ .sf~ S) ~
If 0.3 - 3~,L..A'5 r 5 /Yl
I ~ 2., IJJ a.~~~~;h.- ~ ~ \'L,
/ 9"' ~ I [&/~9?~l?jL..--/ c ~ ,....?Jb-c - ~/?
<:h~'
'3 )/t.
'jo$'~ \)~C~
3 c j ~ J.c (c.. '"'~ ~ ~-'----
CUP 88-004
KRAMER AUTOBODY REPAIR FACILITY AT 3401 EXPOSITION BLVD.
I support the October 31, 1988 appeal to the Santa
Monlca City Councll requesting revocation of CUP 88-004.
I do not want the Kramer autobody repair facil~ty in my
ne~ghborhood.
Address
r---..
333 7 \f)~~v~
-.:~ /:;
33Lf.D Dc;-LAvVA-RE- AvE-
333b ~.~'<.
-
-'
W\\ ~ ~
/~
-,
, '
I..... _....
, } i
) '- !
- f., ""'-7'1'vh..€ ~-&!/)
~2~ (~:;1
.~~r~-
, /}LIu__/J~cA;
nl~~~"'
M~~ if.~
_d:~ ,11 Ie.
, J,./t- ~i
,
/5/7 31JC JJ
/ ? 2. 'L- S5<~ -5-f
/7 ~~ 5~~ cff-,
J:J:Lf E.J:~~',)" X5L 5 I--
33ZC/i5-XJ?05J/IO/'l.,.3LN ~,JLj
125~1 - -::'+tl\., 51--) S. H .
/Y;1'Z.L PtlAvvAttF. A-v s If')
,i ;1 (]
.0"'\..t\ /) I ~~'Yv\
dOI\
~~Q,v-- SY"V)
J../E(El\'DCL I ~ J rr ""x ,f; I.'
~~~!f3
/}
~--L
I.-A# CF"F" C~S CF'
SHE.~VA-"""': :... STACEY
s....~~Ivt:a,~ _ S"'A.CE.Y _ .
_.~....o.-_~ ~::J"..f: CITY C~ c; -
C["-ry p 4
~ ,f' -
299 C::::E:.oi1.'v .A....-E~wE
2 .3 ,3 ii4~ 63
S'-' T!: 3 3
S"" T.... vO" C... C....L;~CR" A 904Ci
F"x
2 .3 Y~4 - a.:..
.BB OCT 26 ? 2 ::,=,
October 26, 1988
C1ty Counc11
C1ty of Santa Mon1ca
1685 Ma1n Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Cond1t1ona1 Use Permit No. 88-004
3401 Exposit~on Boulevard
Kramer Motors, Inc.
Dear Mayor and Counc~l:
On behalf of Kramer Motors, Inc., the unders1gned hereby
appeals the decis~on of the Santa Mon1ca Plann1ng CommJ.ssJ.on on
October 19, 1988 to approve with conditions the Cond~tJ.onal Use
Permi t No. 88-004 for automobJ.le body shop at 340 1 Expos~ t~on
Boulevard. The Appeal is dl.rected to the condit1ons l.mposed by
the Plannl.ng ComrnisSJ.on requJ.r1ng (1) a 11mited term on the
Condit1onal Use Perm1t of two years and (2) a l1mitat1on of the
number of employees who may be employed at the sUbJect property
to 30 errployees.
A check 1n the amount of S100.00 payable to the c~ty for the
Appeal 15 enclosed.
V~ry tru~y ycu~s,
~~f!T-
SLSjcr
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert Kramer
Mr. Chr1S Harding
.-.
ib
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: CUP 88-004
LOCATION: 3401 Exposition Boulevard
APPLICANT: Robert Kramer
REQ~EST: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the operation of an autobody repair shop ~n tr.e
C5 zone.
PLA~NING COMMISSION ACTION
10/19/88
X
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all the applicable pro-
visions of the Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and
Zoning Ordinance in that the use is a auto dealership re-
lated use and is conditionally permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance in the CS zone and allowed by the Land Use Ele-
ment of the General Plan in the Special Office District.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character ot the district in which it is to be established
or located in that the use is compatible with existing
office/industrial uses and is well buffered from near-by
residential uses.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed in that the parcel is developed as
an industrial building.
4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses present-
ly on the subject parcel in that existing uses are of a
industrial nature.
- 1 -
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located in that
the autobody shop is similar to existing uses in the
general area.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, ar.d
public ut~lities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to publ~c health and safety
in that the proposed use would be in an existing building,
adequately served by existing public utilities.
7. Public access to the proposed use is adequate in that t~e
use would be in an existing building currently served by
existing roadways.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood in that the autobody shop is an in-
dustrial use, similar in nature to surrounding uses, and
it would be well buffered from near-by residential uses.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan in that Land Use Element
pOlicy 1. 8.8 encourages the conditionally permitted con-
struction of new industrial and manufacturing uses or the
expansion of existing businesses in the Special Office
District.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the publlC
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfa~e
in that the proposed use would be located in an industrial
location suitable for automobile related uses.
11. The proposed use will not result in the over concentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity in that the auto-
body shop would not be located near any other such uses.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, or other actions.
2. Exterior parking areas shall be used for employee and cus-
tomer parking only and not for the repair of finishing
work or long term (over one week) storage of vehicles.
3. No vehicles to be repaired shall be parked or stored on
any public street or alley.
4. Vehicle test driving shall not be done on residential
streets or alleys.
- 2 -
5. Veh~cles awaiting repair shall not be visible from sur-
rounding properties or public rights-of-way. Screening
shall be approved by the Arch~tectural Review Board.
6. All vehicle repair activity shall be conducted entirely
within an enclosed building.
7. All vehicle painting shall be done within a fully enclosed
booth.
8. No work shall be performed on automobiles between the
hours of 5:00 P.M. and 7:30 A.M., Monday through Friday
and no body work shall be performed on Saturday or
Sundays.
9. The premises shall be kept in a neat and orderly condition
at all times and all improvements shall be maintained in a
condition of reasonable repair and appearance. No used or
discarded automotive parts or equipment or permanently
disabled, junked or wrecked vehicles may be stored outside
the main building.
10. Sound generated from the repair facility shall comply with
Section 9040.31 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive
Land Use and Zoning Ordinance.
11. Final plans for any signage shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review Board.
12. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
13. Refuse areas, storage areas, and mechanical equipment
shall be screened in accordance with Section 9040.13
through 9040.15 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive
Land Use and Zoning Ordinance. Refuse areas shall be of a
size adequate to meet on-site needs.
14. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures shall be required to the
satisfaction of the Director of General Services.
15. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon written request of the applicant,
the Zoning Administrator may extend this period up to an
additional three months.
16. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of fourteen days from the date of determination or, if
appealed, until a final determination is made on the
appeal.
17. The Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a period of
two years from the date of approval.
- 3 -
18. The Exposition Boulevard frontage shall be screened with a
solid masonry wall to the satisfaction of the Architec-
tural Review Board.
19. There shall be no more than one access driveway on Exposi-
tion Boulevard.
20. The total number of employees at the autobody facil i ty
shall be lim~ted to 30.
21. Perimeter planting shall be retained and shall be reviewed
by the Architectural Review Board in conjunction with the
required screening walls.
22. A hazardous materials list shall be submitted to tte
city1s Toxic Chemical Coordinator prior to the issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy.
23. All venting shall be directed away from the residential
properties to the south and vents shall be located at the
extreme northern portion of the building.
VOTE
Ayes: Farivar, Hecht, Lambert, Pyne
Nays:
Abstain: Nelson, Mechur
Absent:
Vacancy: One
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
commission of the C ty ot Santa Monica.
official Action
ot the Planning
~~h"'~
19~atur~ -
,A)~}'h.-L,,-2 ~/r
date ,;
print name and title
scup8804
DM
10/21/88
- 4 -
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: October 5, 1988
TO: Tr.e Honorable Planning Commiss1on
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 88-004
Address: 3401 Exposition Boulevard
Appllcant: Robert Kramer
Sm1:.fARY
Acti.on: Appl ication for a conditional t'se Fermi t to allow the
operation of a autobody repair shop in the CS Zone. This ap-
plicatlon is subject to the provisions of the new zonlng
ordinance.
Recom~endation: Approval
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject site is a 83,000 square foot parcel located on the
northwest corner of Exposition Boulevard and centinela Ave;:t.:.e
having a frontage of 300' along Expos~t:..on Boulevard and 298'
along Centlnela Avenue. surrounding uses consist of the Southern
Paclflc Rallroad right-of-way to the north (C5), residential uses
across EXposltlon Boulevard to the south (R2A), the General Tele-
phone equipment yard to the west (CS), and the city of Los An-
geles across Centinela Avenue to the east.
Zoning Dlstricts: C5
Land Lse Districts: Special Office District
Parcel Area: 83,000 square feet
PROPOSED PROJECT
The appllcant is proposing to util ize an eXlsting industr lal
building as an autobody repair facility. The 35,000 square foot
building is currently occupied by a shower door manufacture. The
proposed conversion would involve minor modifications to the 1~-
terior and exterior of the building. The autobody facility would
serve as a central location for Kramer Motors Group of auto
dealerships currently located on Santa Monica Boulevard.
- 1 -
MCNIC!PAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORM~NCE
The proposed project is consistent w~th the Munlcipal Code and ~n
conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attach~ent A.
CEQA S~.;'I't:'S
:'he proposed project is categorically exerr.pt per Clty of San":.a
Monlca Guidellr.es for Implementation of CEQA, Class 1(1).
FEES
The proposed project is not subject to any development fees.
ANALYS:S
The applicant has proposed the conversion of an existlng .:.n-
dustr:l.al bU3.1ding to be used as a central lccat:.on for Kramer
Motors autobody repair facilities. Auto dealer bodyshops are a
conditlcnally permitted use in the C5 zone. This appllcation is
subject to the provisions of the new zoning ordlnance.
The conversion would involve minor modifications to the existing
industrlal building. The applicant plans to install a handicap
ramp, windows and office doors on the south elevation of the
bUl1ding. Interior modifications would include the lnstallation
of five paint booths.
Vehicular access to the interior of the building would be :ocated
at the northwes'": corner of the structure. All openings to 't.:J.e
bodyshop portie of the building would be oriented to ":.~e west,
toward the GTE equ1pment yard, away from the res1dents liv.:r.g
across Exposltion Boulevard to the south.
The proposed project may potentially impact the residents living
across Exposition Boulevard to the south, in terms of traffic and
noise. However, due to the fact that the autobody repair portion
of the building is setback sixty feet from EXposlt1on Boulevard,
and the openings to the bodyshop will be oriented toward the
west, away from the residential properties, impact on the resi-
dents should be minimal. Furthermore, the eXlsting parking lot
15 well landscaped and serves as a buffer between the industr:al
use and the adjacent neighborhood.
Parking for the proposed use would be calculated at one space per
500 square feet of floor area. Therefore, the 35,000 square foot
bodyshop would require 70 parking spaces. Seventy one spaces are
provided.
Conclusion
The proposed autobody repair shop conforms to the,Municipal Code
for the C5 zone and the General Plan for the Spec1al Offlce Dis-
trict and therefore merits approval.
- :2 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that Conditional Cse Permit 88-004
be approved subject to the following find~ngs and cond~tions.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one condltionally permitted wlthln t~e
subject district and complies w1th all the applicable prc-
V1S10ns of the Santa Monica comprehenslve Land "Cse a:1d
Zoning ordinance in that the use is a auto dealershin re-
lated use and is conditionally penni tted by the zon~r.g
Ord~nance in the C5 zone and allowed by the Land Use Ele-
ment of the General Plan 1n the Spec1al Offlce Distrlc~.
2. The proposed use would not impalr the integrlty a~d
character of the district in which it is to be established
or located in that the use is compatible w). th exist.ing
office/industrial uses and 1S well buffered from near-by
resident1al uses.
3. The sUbject parcel is physically suitable for the type 0=
land use being proposed in that the parcel is developed as
an industrial building.
4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses present-
ly on the subject parcel in that existing uses are of a
industrial nature.
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing ar.d
permiss1ble land uses wlthin the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located ln that
the auto body shop is similar to existing uses in the
general area.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
publ~c util~ties and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety
in that the proposed use would be in an existing buildlng,
adequately served by existing public utilities.
7. Public access to the proposed use is adequate in tha~ the
use would be in an existing build~ng currently served by
existing roadways.
8. ~he physical location or placement of the use on the site
J.s compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood in that the autobody shop is an in-
dustrial use, similar in nature to surround1ng uses, and
it would be well buffered from near-by residential uses.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, Objectives,
and policies of the General Plan in that Land Use Element
policy 1.8.8 encourages the conditionally permitted con-
struction of new industrial and manufacturing uses or the
- 3 -
expansion of exist long businesses in the Speclal Office
District.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the publlC
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare
in that the proposed use would be located in an industrial
location suitable for automob~le related uses.
11. T~e proposed use will not result ln the over concentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinlty in that the auto-
body shop would not be located near any other such uses.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. ~he operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, or other actlons.
2. Exterior parking areas shall be used for employee and cus-
tomer parking only and not for the repair of finishing
work or long term (over one week) storage of vehicles.
3. No vehicles to be repaired shall be parked or stored on
any pUblic street or alley.
4. Vehicle test driving shall not be done on residentlal
streets or alleys.
5. Vehicles awaiting repair shall not be v isible from sur-
rounding properties or public rights-of-way. Screening
shall be approved by the Archltectural Review Board.
6. All vehicle repair activity shall be conducted entirely
within an enclosed building.
7. All vehicle painting shall be done wlthin a fully enclosed
booth.
8. No work shall be performed on automobiles between the
hours of 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., Monday through Saturday
and no work shall be performed on Sundays.
9. The premises shall be kept in a neat and orderly condition
at all times and all improvements shall be malntained ln a
condition of reasonable repair and appearance. No used or
discarded automotive parts or equipment or permanently
disabled, junked or wrecked vehicles may be stored outs~de
the main building.
10. Sound generated from the repair facility shall comply with
Section 9040.31 of the city of Santa Monica Comprehensive
Land Use and Zonlng Ordinance.
11. Final plans for any signage shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review 3oard.
- 4 -
12. The appl~cant shall comply with all legal req'"lirements
regard~ng provis~ons for the d1sabled, including those set
forth in the California Adm~n~strative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
13. Refuse areas, storage areas, and mechanical equipment
shall be screened in accordance with Section 9040.13
through 9040.15 of the C1ty of Santa Mon1ca Cornprehens~ve
La~d Use and Zoning ordinance. Refuse areas shall be of a
S1ze adeq~ate to meet on-site needs.
14. Ultra-low flow plumbing flxtures shall be required to t~e
satlsfaction of the Director of General Services.
15. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effect1ve
date of approval. Upon written request of the applicant,
the Zoning Administrator may extend this period up to an
additional three months.
16. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of fourteen days from the date of determination or, if
appealed, until a final determination is made on the
appeal.
Prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner
PC/cUp88 00':;'
DM:dm
09/21/88
Attachments: 1.
2.
Letter from applicant dated 9/27/88
Project Plans
- 5 -