SR-820323-5APL:JL:nh
Council Mtg
T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Santa Monica, California
February 23, 1982
The Mayor and City Council
City Staff
Interim Development Permit No. DR 031, New Automobile
Service and Parking Structure, 1424 18th Street, R2,
Kramer Motors.
Introduction
This is an application for an Interim Development Permit and
extension of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of
an automobile service and parking building at 1424 18th Street
in the R2 District.
Background
On April 20, 1981 the City Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit for construction of a two story and
basement service and parking building on an existing parking
lot. The building would maintain a 20' front setback, 8' sideyards
and a 30' height limit the same as an apartment building.
Front and side walls would be solid masonry with no openings
and the front and side yard areas would be heavily landscaped
so any sound from the building would be eliminated. The
Conditional Use Permit is valid until May 10, 1982.
In December an application for an Interim Development Permit
was filed and at the hearing an extension of the Conditional
Use Permit was requested to allow sufficient-time. to prepare
working drawings and obtain permits. Upon the advice of the
City Attorney that only the City Council could grant an mm
~~~~~3.~ ~ ~9~2
~~°A
~~ ~ ~ ,s~~
Mayor and City Council -2- February 23, 1982
extension the Commission voted to forward the matter to the
City Council with a recommendation for approval of the Interim
Development Permit and that the Council extend the Conditional
Use Permit to allow the completion of plans and permits.
Alternatives
The City Council has the alternative of granting or denying
either or both of the requested actions. The effect of denying
the Interim Development Permit would preclude the issuance of
a building permit and the project would not proceed as planned.
If the extension is denied the permit will expire before a
building permit could probably be obtained.
Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council act
favorably on the Planning Commission recommendation by extending
the Conditional Use Permit with all original requirements and
granting the Interim Development Permit on the basis that:
1. The development is consistent. with .the findings and
purpose of Ordinance 1220(CCS).
2. The development is consistent with any interim development
standards adopted from time to time by_ordinance or
resolution of the City Council.
3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way for both
pedestrian and automobile traffic will be adequate
to accommodate the anticipated results of the proposed
development including off-street parking facilities and
access thereto.
4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private
health and safety facilities (including, but not
limited to, sanitary, sewers., storm drains, fire
protection devices, protective services, and public
utilities) will be adequate to accommodate the
anticipated results of the proposed. development.
Mayor and City Council -3- February. 23, 1982
5. The proposed plans comply with existing regulations
contained in the Municipal Code.
with the condition that:
Under Resolution Number 6385 (CCS), a development fee
of $76,893.88* would be required in connection with the
approval of this project. The City of Santa Monica is
currently enjoined from enforcing the provisions of such
resolution relating to fees. If the City of Santa Monica
prevails in the case of United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joinders of America, et al. v. City of Santa Monica,
et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number L4EC 069227,
such fee (or any lesser fee required by any subsequently
adopted ordinance} shall be due and payable within 90 days
of the date that City of Santa Monica is no longer subject
to such injunction.
*Calculated on 33,404 sq. ft. of building @ 28.4D per
sq. ft. _ $948,673.60 total construction costs x 08o =
$76,893.88 fees.
Prepared by: James Lunsford
5-A •Substitute m on: March 23,._1.9.82 Age _a
~~~
,,,:.Ct4 Zane: Well, it seems to me then in adopting the staff report here that the
figure provided is an estimate, and is not, in fact, in and of itself adopted
as a specific dollar figure. So my interpretation, then, of the motion is that
the development fee to be included in this resolution, then, would be a develop-
ment fee calculated appropriately according to the guidelines.. Therefore, I
think we should support the motion with that understanding.,
Myers: That's not the case. Under the written band injunction we are permitted
to adopt a condition that contains a specific dollar figure which sets the
upper limits on the fee. Obviously if construction costs were to decline, a lower
fee might be appropriate, but for purposes of the written ban injunction, it's
not an estimate, it's a condition; and the condition is that a fixed dollar
amount be paid should the City be successful in the UBC case.
YG: If the Council is interested, I would suggest a motion to bring it back
next week with the appropriate fee.
w-
CM `~ Is there any reason why we can't separate them, and move the motion for
the extension of the permit subject to -- condition use, subject to the new figure?
Kramer: Mayor, I can give you the figures for the land, and then you can pass it
and you can verify it, if you want.
CM-`Z~-. Well, if I understand what the City Attorney is suggesting, we have to
pass this motion with a specific upper limit figure, and it seems to me that it
would be in appropriate to do this without having had that formula worked out. I
would move that we refer this to staff, and ask them to bring this back to us on
next week's agenda with that information worked out.
C~.,/t ~c,,..e ~2rw-cti-
Kramer: Couldn't we adjust the figure right now?
YG: I think you have the Council's sense they're going to vote on it. They
just want to make sure that the numbers are right.....I don't think you'll have a
problem next week. CM Press?
CM Press: Mr. Kramer, would you say that (I just want to ask one question while I
consider this.) Councilmember Zane's evaluation about the neighborhood and the
page two
parking is accurate? I didn't see you respond to that, and I'm curious about
that. If we are adding 140 parking spaces, where are all those cars now, or is
this anticipated business, or....
Kramer: No, it's more business than we are bringing in, but we will have more
--undoubtedly more space than we need right now,. but once we're doing the structure,
it would be foolish not to do it sufficient in size that it will meet our needs in
the next year or two or three. There will be some little extra space., and we
will take some cars off the street, and I didn't say anything because I agreed with
him. That will be a by-product of what we are doing.
CM Zane: Madam Mayor, I think that the motion to continue this to next week is
the appropriate motion, and I think that Mr. Kramer has a sense of the Council
that once those figures are provided that the Council will support. My believe
is that there is a majority vote here for supporting it--I'd support it.
YG: All those in favor of this motion?
YG and Reed - No