SR-820223-12APL:JL:nh Santa Mon~,3, California !~^~
Council Mtg.: FeL.-nary 23, 1982 FEa g $ 1982
l
TO: The Mayor and City Counci l
FROMc City Staff
SUBJ°CT: Interim Development Permit No. DR 031, New Automabile
Service and Parking Structure, 1424 18th Street, R2,
Kramer Motors.
Introduction
This i5 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 2424 18th Street
in the R2 District-
Back:;round
O„ gu,il 20,.1__'_. the City Planning Commission approved a
C_-:_onal ~~~ = ="'=nit for construction of a two story and
ba __4 =~;-_ =nd parking building on an existing parking
~e__. _ne _; _? _ would maintain a 20' front setback, 8' sideyards
a^a _ 30° _- _ -flit the same as an apartment building.
Front ar_d side walls would be solid masonry with no openings
and the front a_^.d side yard areas would be heavily. landscaped
so any sound from the building would be eliminated.. The
Conditional Use Permit is valid until May I0, 1952.
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 su~ficient time to prepare
working drawings and obtain permits. Upon the advice of the-
City Attorney that only the City Council could grant an
~ ~--1-t
FE9 2 3 tss2
__
~.~,~.. _
Mayor and City Council -2- February 2~, 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 pe_.~.t and. the project would not proceed as planned.
Sf t_?e extension is denied the permit will expire before a
b~:.iidi=gig per-'' = could probably be obtained. •
it -_ resae _f-~=s recommended that the City Council act
fai__Y,1<i pn `e Planning Commission recommendation by extending
the Coaditic-al =se Permit with all original requirements and
.granting the inta_--i-i Development Permit on the basis that:
1. The develouz>ent ,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 andjor 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 'Co' °il ~-3- Febr~~3ry 23, 1982
(l
5. The proposed plans comply with existing regulations
contained in the Municipal Code.
with the condition thatc ''
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. Zf the City of Santa Monica
prevails in the case of United Brotherhood of Carpenters
a.-:a Joinders of America, et al. v. City of Santa Monica, f
et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number 54EC 069227, !
such fee (or any lesser fee required by any subsequently __
ada?ted ordinance} shall be due and payable within 90 days
of she date. that City of Santa Monica is no longer subject
to such injunction.
*Calculate~ o- 33,404 sq. ft. of building @ 28,x:0 per i
so, ft, $=-8,673.60 total construction costs x 08%
$;6,893.38 -e=s.
r
ar ==~ by; ~_=s Lansford
<<