Council Mtg: April 22, 2003 Santa Monica, California

TO: Mayor and Councilmembers

FROM: City Staff

SUBJECT: Appeal 02-007 and Appeal 02-026 of the Planning Commission’s Denial of Text Amendments to Allow Accessory Auto Rental Operations Within Auto Repair Facilities in the M1 Industrial Conservation District and LMSD Light Manufacturing and Studio District; and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Which Modifies Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.34.030 and Adds Section 9.04.08.35.025 to Allow Accessory Auto Rental Operations Within Auto Repair Facilities in the M1 Industrial Conservation District and LMSD Light Manufacturing and Studio District With a Performance Standards Permit and Amends Section 9.04.12.050 to Add Performance Standards for Auto Rental Operations Within Auto Repair Facilities. Applicant/Appellant: Enterprise Rent-a Car

INTRODUCTION

This report recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal in part, overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of Text Amendments and introduce for first reading an ordinance to modify Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.34.030 and add Section 9.04.08.35.025 to allow automobile rental agencies when accessory to a permitted automobile repair facility in the M1 Industrial Conservation District and LMSD Light Manufacturing and Studio district subject to Performance Standards Permit approval and to amend Section 9.04.12.050 to add performance standards for auto rental operations within auto repair facilities. The applicant/appellant appeal statements are contained in Attachments A and B.

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, has requested amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow auto rental agencies to be operated by a third party in conjunction with auto repair businesses located within the M1 Industrial Conservation District and the LMSD Light Manufacturing Studio District.

M1- Industrial Conservation District:

Enterprise Rent-a Car initially requested a business license to operate an auto rental agency from an office space within the M2 Collision Care Center located at 1100 Colorado Avenue in the M1 Zoning District. However, the business license was denied as automobile rental agencies are not permitted in the M1 district. The City cited Enterprise for operating without a business license. The citation was forwarded to the City Attorney’s office who took the matter to court. The court dismissed the case on February 14, 2003.

The proposed ordinance amendment would permit accessory auto rental uses within auto repair facilities located in the M1 district with approval of a Performance Standards Permit, which is the approval necessary for auto rental agencies elsewhere in the City. The Zoning Administrator initially recommended that the Commission adopt a Zoning Administrator interpretation to allow an auto rental agency as an accessory use within an auto repair facility (Attachment C). The Planning Commission, however, rejected the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation, concluding that there is no ambiguity in the Code relative to the proposed use, as auto rental uses within auto repair facilities did not constitute an accessory use. The Commission felt that accessory auto repair uses should be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Attachment D, September 19, 2001 Planning Commission minutes).

On April 3, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and denied the Text Amendment filed by the applicant/appellant. The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision April 17, 2002.

LMSD - Light Manufacturing Studio District:

Enterprise Rent-a-Car also requested a business license to operate an auto rental agency within the 27,908 square foot auto service portion of the 40,198 square foot Hornburg Jaguar sales and service facility located at 3300 Olympic Boulevard. This license was also denied since auto rental is not permitted in the LMSD district. The City cited Enterprise for operating without a business license. The citation was forwarded to the City Attorney’s office which initiated an enforcement proceeding; however, the court dismissed the case on February 14, 2003.

The applicant/appellant requested a text amendment to allow the establishment of an automobile rental agency as an accessory use to an auto repair facility in the LMSD Light Manufacturing Studio District by adding it to the list of permitted uses. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 4, 2002. Prior to the hearing, the applicant/appellant proposed alternative language to the Commission that would modify the definition of automobile repair facility to allow these facilities to provide loaner vehicles through third parties. Following the public hearing, the Commission denied the proposed Text Amendment. The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on December 18, 2002.

ANALYSIS

Automobile rental agencies are permitted by Performance Standards Permit in the following zoning districts: C3 Downtown Commercial District; C3-C Downtown Overlay District; C4 Highway Commercial District; C5 Special Office District and C6 Boulevard Commercial District. Automobile rental agencies are not expressly permitted in the M1 or LMSD districts as these districts are intended to accommodate light manufacturing, design and development, research, fabricating and testing, and film production, post-production and studio uses. Consistent with the intent of these industrial districts, auto repair is permitted, except when located nearby residential uses and districts, in which case a Conditional Use Permit is required.

The applicant/appellant has requested amendments to Zoning Ordinance Sections 9.04.08.34.030 and 9.04.08.35.030. This proposal would allow automobile rental operations as accessory uses to automobile repair facilities with approval of a Performance Standards Permit in the M1 zoning district and allow the use by-right in the LMSD. Staff expects that there will be limited use of these provisions and, therefore, limited impacts would result from the amendments since there are only approximately 18 auto repair facilities in the M1 district and approximately 10 auto repair facilities in the LMSD. In addition, only the largest of the auto repair facilities are likely to have a third party supply replacement vehicles on-site.

On March 12, 2003 the applicant/appellant forwarded a letter to staff amending their text amendment request for the M1 zoning district to be consistent with the approach suggested to the Commission prior to the December 4, 2002 hearing. In the letter, the applicant/appellant proposes that auto rental operations provided by third parties within auto repair facilities be permitted as part of the auto repair operation (Attachment E).

Planning Commission Action

The Planning Commission denied the requests for the Text Amendments in the M1 and LMSD districts based upon the fact that the proposed accessory use for an auto rental operation within an auto repair facility may exacerbate the lack of parking at existing legal, non-conforming auto repair facilities and will intensify the operations of these facilities. In addition, the Commission believed that the operation of on-site replacement vehicle services at auto repair facilities will not significantly reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the rental of replacement vehicles for customers as compared with the provision of replacement vehicles at off-site locations (Attachment F, April 3, 2002 Planning Commission minutes and Attachment G, December 4, 2002 Planning Commission minutes). The Planning Commission Statement of Official Action on the M1 text amendment request is contained in Attachment H and the Statement of Official action for the LMSD text amendment request is contained in Attachment I.

Appeal Analysis

The reasons for the appeals cited by the applicant/appellant include the following:

1. Auto repair facilities are permitted uses within the M1 District and making rental cars available to customers of auto repair facilities is a common and desirable practice.

2. If facilities are unable to make arrangements for customers through a rental agency in the immediate area, cars and customers will have to be shuttled to and from rental agencies in other parts of town where such agencies are permitted and will unnecessarily add to traffic congestion as well as vehicle pollution.

3. In order to accommodate automobile repair facilities it is appropriate to adopt policies which assist in the success of their business such as permitting auto rental agencies to be reasonably convenient.

4. Auto rental agencies are permitted in certain commercial districts only with a Performance Standards Permit; their exclusion from the M1 District appears to have been an oversight in drafting the Code.

5. Auto dealers and auto repair facilities may provide loaner cars to their repair customers.

6. Such service may be provided either directly or through a third party provider including an auto rental agency such as Enterprise.

7. The proposed text amendment will clarify and not change the existing Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the proposed text amendment, the appellant proposes expansion of the definition of “automobile repair facility” to include provisions for temporary replacement vehicles to be provided either directly or in concert with a third party provider including an auto rental agency.

Staff has carefully considered the issues raised at the two Planning Commission hearings, the testimony of the applicants at the Planning Commission hearings and the appeal statements submitted. Based on this further analysis, staff believes that accessory auto rental services can be adequately regulated to minimize any potential impacts while providing an important service to auto repair customers. Staff concurs that auto repair facilities may provide replacement vehicles as part of the regular services offered to customers. This practice is common, particularly among repair facilities associated with auto dealerships. Staff reviewed the additional information the applicant/appellant submitted regarding operational characteristics of auto repair facilities and the provision of “loaner” vehicles through the repair facility, an associated dealership or a third party such as Enterprise Rent-A-Car. This information supports the assertion that the provision of loaner vehicles by auto repair facilities via third parties is a common occurrence. The applicant/appellant surveyed 60 auto dealer repair facilities that provide vehicle replacement services, and of the 19 facilities that provide replacement cars on-site, 11 facilities use third parties. The remaining facilities lend their own vehicles. The ordinance amendment is necessary because a separate business license is required for a third party to operate the auto rental service and this use is not currently permitted in the M1 and LMSD districts.

Staff also believes that vehicle trips within the City will be reduced by permitting auto repair facilities to provide loaner vehicles on-site. The vehicle trips associated with the shuttling of vehicles back and forth from a remote location will not occur as the customers of the repair facility will have access to replacement vehicles already on-site.

Staff cannot support allowing auto rental agencies as permitted uses in the LMSD. Furthermore, staff cannot support modifying the automobile repair facility definition as suggested by the applicant/appellant. This proposed text modification to the definition would have implications throughout the City, not just within the M1 and LMSD districts, and is, therefore, not consistent with the applications filed to allow auto rental agencies within the M1 and LMSD districts.

Staff believes that requiring a Performance Standards Permit (PSP) is the preferred approach to allowing accessory auto rental operations in both the M1 and LMSD zoning districts. Auto rental businesses are currently allowed in the C3, C3C, C4, C5 and C6 zoning districts as primary uses with approval of a PSP. The special standards associated with this permit include requirements regarding parking, landscaping, lighting, loading and unloading of vehicles, circulation, and noise. These special standards are intended to minimize the impacts of auto rental operations on adjacent and nearby land uses. Furthermore, PSP determinations are sent to the property owners and residents of adjacent parcels and are forwarded to the Planning Commission. The decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the date of the determination. This approach would be consistent with how the Zoning Ordinance treats auto rental uses throughout the City and would address the Commission’s concerns regarding parking and other operational issues at legal, nonconforming auto repair facilities.

Staff also recommends that SMMC Section 9.04.12.050 be amended to provide additional performance standards for accessory auto rental operations to ensure that the accessory auto rental operation is subordinate to the auto repair use. These additional standards also address some of the Commission’s additional concerns and include: 1) no more than 10% of the total interior floor area of the automobile repair facility or a maximum of 750 square feet may be devoted to the accessory auto rental operation; 2) the accessory auto rental operation component of the auto repair facility can only operate during the hours of operation of the auto repair facility; 3) vehicles may be rented only to customers of the auto repair facility; 4) no exterior signage is permitted for the accessory auto rental operation; and 5) the accessory auto rental operation may not be advertised or marketed as an auto rental agency.

Conclusion

Staff believes that providing on-site replacement vehicles services at auto repair facilities is a customary service and that third party auto rental agencies should be permitted as accessory uses to auto repair facilities within both the M1 District and the LMSD, subject to Performance Standards Permit approval. Staff recommends that additional standards be added to the provisions for Performance Standards Permit to ensure that the auto rental operation remains as an accessory use for the auto repair facility.

CEQA STATUS

The project is categorically exempt (Class 5) from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15305(a) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves a minor alteration in the land use limitations on parcels which have a slope of less than 20% and does not result in any change in land use or density in that the project proposes a secondary, accessory land use which would not change or intensify the primary permitted on-site land use.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65804, notice of the public hearing for the Text Amendment was published in the “California” Section of the Los Angeles Times newspaper at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the public hearing was also sent to all neighborhood organizations, and posted on the City’s Web site. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment J.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT

The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council uphold the appeal and introduce for first reading the ordinance contained in Attachment K.

Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director

Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

Paul Foley, Senior Planner

Laura Beck, AICP, Associate Planner

City Planning Division

Planning and Community Development Department

Attachments:

A. Appeal Statement – Appeal 02-007

B. Appeal Statement – Appeal 02-026

C. Zoning Administrator Interpretation dated September19, 2001

D. Planning Commission minutes of September 19, 2001

E. Letter dated March 12, 2003 submitted by applicant/appellant

F. Planning Commission minutes of April 3, 2002

G. Planning Commission minutes of December 4, 2002

H. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action – TA 99-009

I. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action – TA 02-003

J. Public Notice

K. Proposed Ordinance

ATTACHMENT A

Appeal Statement – Appeal 02-007

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT B

Appeal Statement – Appeal 02-026

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT C

Zoning Administrator Interpretation dated September 19, 2001

Planning Commission Mtg: September 19, 2001 Santa Monica, California

TO: The Honorable Planning Commission

FROM: Planning Staff

SUBJECT: Interpretation of the Zoning Administrator’s authority to approve business licenses for accessory automobile rental uses in the M1 zoning district which are within automobile repair facilities.

INTRODUCTION

This report addresses an interpretation of the Zoning Administrator regarding the Zoning Administrator’s authority under the Zoning Ordinance to approve business licenses for accessory automobile rental operations within automobile repair facilities.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file this item.

COMMISSION AUTHORITY

Under the Zoning Ordinance, whenever there is any question regarding the interpretation of any provision of the Zoning Ordinance or its application to a specific situation, the Zoning Administrator may file a written interpretation with the Planning Commission. No action by the Commission is necessary. The interpretation becomes effective within 14 days from the date the item appears on the Commission's agenda unless changed by the Commission on its own action or on appeal. Any person may, within the 14 day appeal period, appeal the interpretation to the Commission. If such appeal is filed, it is required to be heard within 60 days. Any action of the Commission on interpretations may be appealed to the City Council.

BACKGROUND

Automobile repair and automobile painting facilities are permitted uses in the M1 Industrial Conservation District. However, a Conditional Use Permit is required when a proposed auto repair and/or painting facility abuts a residential district and use. In the Light Manufacturing and Studio District, automobile repair and automobile painting facilities are also permitted uses, except when within 100’ of a residential district. If a proposed auto repair and/or painting facility is within 100’ of a residential district, a Conditional Use Permit is required. Elsewhere, automobile repair facilities are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the C4 Highway Commercial District.

Automobile rental agencies are permitted by Performance Standards Permit in the following zoning districts: C3 Downtown Commercial District; C3-C Downtown Overlay District; C4 Highway Commercial District; C5 Special Office District and C6 Boulevard Commercial District. Automobile rental agencies are not expressly permitted in the M1 or LMSD districts.

Enterprise Rent-a Car has requested a business license from the City to operate a small auto rental operation from a 653 square foot office space within the 85,500 square foot M2 Collision Care Center. The subject space, which constitutes less than 1% of the building, had been previously used by M2 for offices. Enterprise will provide replacement vehicles as a service to M2 customers whose vehicles are in for repair.

The Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Administrator to permit “accessory uses which are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with, and are appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal permitted use.” The specific zoning districts that contain this provision are the BCD, BSCD, C2, C3, C3C, C4, C5, C6, CP, M1, N Overlay, and RVC zoning districts. The Zoning Administrator believes that this provision authorizes the issuance of business licenses for accessory automobile rental agencies within auto repair facilities, which are located within the M1 zoning district, pursuant to the analysis discussed below.

ANALYSIS

The intent of the auto rental operation proposed by Enterprise is to provide convenient replacement car service for customers of auto repair facilities located in the M1 zoning district. Typically, customers drop off their vehicles at the repair facility and, if renting a replacement vehicle, are shuttled by another person or staff of the repair facility to a rental car agency. A similar procedure is followed in reverse when customers return for their repaired vehicles.

Allowing on-site vehicle replacement services would benefit the customers of the auto repair facility and eliminate the shuttling of each customer to an off-site auto rental agency. Consequently, the number of vehicle trips in the City would be reduced, lessening traffic congestion and vehicle emissions during the peak traffic hours when customers primarily drop-off and pick-up their vehicles. Providing replacement vehicles for customers is a service that is consistent with auto repair facility operations.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION

The Zoning Administrator believes an accessory automobile rental operation is a necessary and appropriate use when it is clearly related to a permitted, primary auto repair use in the M1 district. At present, there are approximately 18 auto repair facilities in the M1 district which, excluding M2 Collision Care Center, range in size from approximately 650 square feet to 9,500 square feet in floor area. Prohibiting an accessory auto rental operation within an auto repair facility that chooses to provide replacement vehicles through a separate vendor would not, in the Zoning Administrator’s view, serve any health, safety or welfare purpose. This is particularly the case since obtaining a loaner/rental car while one’s car is being repaired is often a necessary element of the repair process and, as such, is customarily associated with auto repair, although the loaner car is typically provided off-site. Moreover, the Zoning Administrator believes that allowing on-site vehicle replacement services would benefit the customers of the auto repair facility by providing on-site replacement vehicles and eliminate the shuttling of each customer to an off-site auto rental agency. Additionally, vehicle trips in the City would be reduced, which lessens traffic congestion and vehicle emissions during the peak traffic hours when customers primarily drop-off and pick-up their vehicles. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator believes an accessory auto rental operation is a use that is necessary and appropriate where it is incidental, subordinate, and customarily associated with an auto repair facility. The Zoning Administrator also believes auto rental is consistent with and no more disturbing than the permitted uses in the M1 zoning district.

The Zoning Administrator has developed a set of criteria to ensure that the automobile rental component of the auto repair operation is clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary use. The following standards will be used as a threshold to ensure that the auto rental operation remains an accessory component:

1) No more than 10% of the total floor area of an automobile repair facility, nor greater than 750 square feet, shall be devoted to the accessory automobile rental use.

2) The accessory automobile rental operation component of an automobile repair facility can only operate during the operating hours of the automobile repair facility.

3) No exterior signage is permitted for the accessory automobile rental operation.

4) Off-street parking for the automobile rental operation shall be provided in compliance with SMMC Section 9.04.10.08.040.

5) Automobile rental services shall be available only to customers of the automobile repair facility.

6) This interpretation will only apply in the M1 zoning district since this is the only district where automobile repair is a permitted use and the Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve accessory uses which are necessary and customarily associated with, and are appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal permitted use.

7) Existing legal, nonconforming auto repair facilities would not be subject to this interpretation since they are not in districts where automobile repair is a permitted use and adding an auto rental activity to the existing operation would constitute an intensification of the auto repair use which is prohibited by Code. Automobile repair facilities in the C4 Highway Commercial District and the expansion or intensification of existing auto repair facilities in the BCD Broadway Commercial, C3 Downtown Commercial and C3C Downtown Overlay districts are also not subject to this interpretation since they are conditionally permitted uses, not permitted uses, and the Zoning Administrator has no authority to approve an accessory use for conditionally permitted uses. Finally, although automobile repair and automobile painting facilities are permitted uses in the Light Manufacturing and Studio (LMSD) district if not within 100’ of a residential district, there is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance to allow the Zoning Administrator to approve accessory uses which are necessary and customarily associated with, and are appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to a principal permitted use in the LMSD. Therefore, this interpretation applies only to auto repair facilities in the M1 district.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive and file this report.

Prepared by: Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

Paul Foley, Senior Planner

ATTACHMENT D

Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2001

M I N U T E S

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

WEDNESDAY, September 19, 2001 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL

1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Clarke led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL: Present: Barbara Brown

Darrell Clarke

Julie Lopez Dad

Arlene Hopkins

Jay P. Johnson

Geraldine Moyle

Kelly Olsen, Chairperson

Also Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary

Paul Foley, Senior Planner

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

Jay M. Trevino, Planning Manager

4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

In the absence of the Director, Planning Manager Trevino gave the report. He reported that the Commission is scheduled to meet on the following dates: October 10, October 17, November 7, and November 14, 2001. He also reported that the City Council will tentatively be reviewing the Yankee Doodles appeal on November 27, 2001; and on December 11, 2001, they will be reviewing the Open Space Element, Housing Element Update and the P.S. #1 appeal.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

5-A. Commissioner Moyle made a motion to approve the minutes for August 15, 2001, as submitted. Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar

6-A. Appeal 00-079 of Denial of Use Permit 99-018, 220 San Vicente Boulevard

Commissioner Moyle made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for 220 San Vicente Boulevard. Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion.

Commissioner Brown commented on an error in the voting record for the Statement of Official Action, specifically that she was not present at the meeting..

The Statement of Official Action was approved as amended by voice vote with Commissioner Brown abstaining.

7. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

7-A. Request to discuss scheduling a study session with Planning staff and a representative from the Police Department regarding clarification and interpretation of construction hours and governing regulations. Requested by Chair Olsen via e-mail, April 10, 2001. Continued from August 22, 2001. [Continued from September 5, 2001.]

Chair Olsen opened the discussion by explaining his request to schedule to a study session with the Commission, Planning staff and a representative from the Police Department. The study session would cover the issue of construction hours and governing regulations. He explained that he has received complaints from residents regarding “after hours” construction and various responses received from the Police Department. He stated there needs to be coordination between various divisions (City Planning and Building and Safety) and the Police Department on how infractions are handled.

Commissioner Johnson expressed the opinion that this would be a good discussion. He asked what the “governing regulations” are. Chair Olsen cited the Noise Element which has policies governing construction hours. He commented that these policies are interpreted loosely by Police officers.

Commissioner Johnson asked if parking for construction workers adjacent to a work site, which is a major impact on neighbors, would be part of the governing regulations. Chair Olsen stated that his intent is merely to discuss hours of construction.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this issue can be included as a request to staff and that staff should be directed to return with a date for the discussion.

Commissioner Brown commented that Commission Johnson’s concern appears to be more related to discussion item 7-B. Chair Olsen agreed and suggested the issues of item 7-B be included in this discussion.

Chair Olsen stated that another problem with construction sites is that workers often line up trucks, etc., making noise, prior to the permitted start time for construction. He also stated that it takes Building and Safety up to three weeks to follow-up on some of these complaints. He stated that he wants to solve these kinds of problems.

The Commission discussed the merits of combining the two discussion items as a study session. The issues to be discussed will be governing regulations and enforcement issues related to construction noise, construction hours of operation, parking for construction sites and who to call when a violation occur. Staff will return with a study session date.

7-B. Request to discuss current procedures regarding complaints and enforcement of construction site hours and other related construction site issues and establishment of new procedures. Requested by Chair Olsen via e-mail on May 25, 2001. Continued from August 22, 2001. [Continued from September 5, 2001.]

[See prior discussion item.]

7-C. Discussion of the requirements established by Rule 30 of the Planning Commission Rules governing ex parte communications, including the nature and extent of the disclosure requirements established by Rule 30. Requested in August 2001. [Continued from September 5, 2001.]

Chair Olsen withdrew this item.

7-D. Request of Commissioner Moyle and Chairperson Olsen for the Commission to discuss and take action on requiring staff reports for items that require discretionary approval or quasi-judicial review to be available eight working days prior to the Commission meeting for which the items are scheduled or seven working days if the eighth day falls on a Friday that City Hall is closed. Requested via e-mail on August 29, 2001. [Continued from September 5, 2001.]

Commissioner Moyle opened this discussion item. She cited Rule 3(a) from the Commission’s Rules of Order, which states that agenda packets shall be delivered to the Commission no later than the Wednesday before the meeting. She noted that packets often arrive much later in the week and this deadline should be extended. In an aside, she commented that item 7-E should be withdrawn as it would be unfair to the public and staff to have both City Council and Planning Commission meetings on the same weeks each month. Commissioner Moyle stated that the reason she is proposing an extension to this date is to give the public more time to review staff reports prior to the public hearing.

Chair Olsen commented that he wants more participation by the public and that the extension of time for review could ultimately reduce the number of appeals filed and shorten meeting times.

Commissioner Dad commented there might also be fewer “continued” items. She suggested that this suggestion be instituted beginning in January 2002.

Commissioner Brown expressed concern that letters received by staff regarding projects on the agenda will not be in the packet or reviewed in the staff report with the proposed schedule. She stated that the revised timeline may generate more paper at the time of the meeting.

Planning Manager Trevino stated that staff has been discussing this issue. He stated that the impacts are unknown, however staff does understand the spirit of the proposed change. He suggested that staff return with a trial program to last six months with analysis done at the end of the trial. He agreed that beginning in January would be feasible. He also suggested a modification to the proposal, that being that the packet be delivered on the last working day of the week, two weeks prior to the hearing.

Chair Olsen stated that this is meant for quasi-judicial items only. Commissioner Moyle commented on the Permit Streamlining Act and other time matters related to quasi-judicial hearing items. She stated that her desire is to create more lead time for the public and community groups. She also stated that her concern is not for the Commission getting information earlier, but for public access.

The Commission generally agreed that this change was a good idea and that doing a six-month trial would be acceptable. Commissioner Hopkins asked that the information also be posted to the website in the new time frame.

The following members of the public commented favorably on the proposal: Ellen Brennan, Art Harris and Chuck Allord.

The Commission voted to move forward with this proposal.

7-E. Request to discuss reordering of Commission meeting calendar, moving regular meetings from the first and third to the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month in order to facilitate the above request. Requested via e-mail from Chair Olsen on August 29, 2001. [Continued from September 5, 2001.]

Commissioner Moyle commented that item 7-E should be withdrawn as it would be unfair to the public and staff to have both City Council and Planning Commission meetings on the same weeks each month.

7-G. Request to hear from staff about procedures and fees for copies of documents from the Planning Department requested by members of the public. Requested by Chair Olsen via e-mail on September 11, 2001.

Chair Olsen asked that this item be continued until the Planning Director can be present.

8. COMMUNICATIONS:

8-A. Appeal of Architectural Review Board Decision to Planning Commission:

1. Appeal 01-028 of ARB 01-197, 1522 Sixth Street [technical denial]

Applicant/Appellant: JSM Streza. LLC / Harding, Larmore, Kutcher & Kozal

Ms. Schachter recommended that the public hearing be set for January 9, 2002.

Commissioner Clarke made a motion to set the public hearing for the ARB appeal for January 9, 2002. Commissioner Moyle seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

8-B. Interpretation of the Zoning Administrator’s authority to approve business licenses for accessory automobile rental uses in the M1 zoning district which are within automobile repair facilities. (Planner: Paul Foley)

Following the staff presentation, Commissioner Johnson asked staff how many cars are proposed to be rented from this location daily. Mr. Foley stated that the estimate is for ten cars a day, three cars being on-site at any one time.

Commissioner Johnson asked if the proposed use will impact employee parking. Mr. Foley answered in the negative. He stated that there have been no complaints for the current auto repair use. Mr. Trevino explained that the interpretation does not deal with the existing, conforming use (the auto repair business) for the site and that different parking standards are used for the different uses.

Chair Olsen commented that while there is no applicant cited in the staff report, there are two specific businesses cited (Enterprise Rent-A-Car and M-2 Collision). Mr. Trevino stated that these businesses were used as a useful illustration.

Commissioner Dad asked how the determination was made to permit three rental car spaces in a lot with over 100 spaces. She expressed concern that the rental car use may take more spaces dedicated to the primary use on the site. Staff indicated that this would be unlikely and that it would be a Code Enforcement issue.

Chair Olsen commented that the impact would appear to be minimal, however he asked if quantifiable criteria could be added. Mr. Trevino answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Moyle cited Table 9.04.10.08.040 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code regarding off-street parking requirements and commented on the potential number of parking spaces that would be required for the proposed use. Mr. Trevino stated that the City can require sufficient parking spaces for the rental cars and regular auto repair use.

One member of the public submitted a request to speak form, Chuck Allord.

Commissioner Moyle commented that this is the first Zoning Administrator Interpretation she has seen and asked staff how it came about. Mr. Foley explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows accessory uses and staff is of the opinion that the auto rental business is consistent with the auto repair business. He further explained that the current auto repair business (M-2) could provide “loaner” or rental cars to their clients on their own now, however the application for a business license for a second business (Enterprise Rent-A-Car) initiated the need for the interpretation.

Commissioner Moyle commented that the Zoning Administrator Interpretation is a policy statement. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the M-1 (Industrial Conservation) District allows automobile repair facilities as a permitted use.

Commissioner Moyle commented that it appears staff decided the proposed business was closer in nature to the permitted auto repair business than a conditionally permitted use. Mr. Trevino answered in the affirmative. He explained that an auto repair business can provide a loaner car under its current business license, but since a separate entity was applying for a separate business license for auto rental, the question for staff is whether that use is permitted. Commissioner Moyle commented that the new use would be restricted by signage and therefore would be like a private rental service.

Commissioner Dad commented that it is a good idea to find solutions through Code interpretations and that she is not adverse to “ground breaking.” She stated that she can understand the rental car use as an accessory use for the auto repair business. She asked if this is a large issue in other cities. Mr. Foley stated that there seems to be only a low demand for auto rental uses in conjunction with auto repair businesses. He stated that it is more typical for auto repair facilities to shuttle clients to a rental agency.

Commissioner Clarke asked staff for the parking requirements in the M-1 District. Mr. Foley explained the requirements for service areas, office areas and non-service areas. Commissioner Clarke stated that the rental car use appears to be a reasonable accessory use.

Chair Olsen asked if there are any other auto rental businesses associated with auto repair facilities in the M-1 District. Mr. Foley stated that there are no other such facilities, nor are there any auto repair facilities of a comparable size in the M-1 District.

Chair Olsen asked staff about the history of this issue and cited a reference on the Pending Projects List for 1100 Colorado and a Text Amendment application from 1999. Mr. Trevino stated that the application was an attempt to legalize the rental car business at this location and the application is still pending.

Chair Olsen summarized the situation as follows: the rental car business moved in and the Zoning Administrator decides to let it remain because it is a permitted accessory use in the M-1 District. He expressed agreement with comments made by Commissioner Clarke regarding on-site car rental as it is a convenient amenity. He then expressed the opinion that the car rental use is more like a conditionally permitted use than a permitted use.

Commissioner Dad recommended that the Zoning Administrator’s Interpretation not be accept per SMMC Section 9.04.20.02.030.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that on the issue of interpretations, the Zoning Administrator has expressed the need for some interpretation on this matter. The Commission may decide whether the code is clear or not. He further stated that if the Commission wishes to amend the interpretation, then it would need to return to the Commission.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Commission must determine whether they feel there is an ambiguity in the Code or not. Staff’s position is that there is no ambiguity in the Code.

Commissioner Moyle asked if a rejection of the interpretation can be appealed to the City Council. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum believed that to be true.

Commissioner Johnson expressed concern that if the interpretation is approved, he would want there to be semi-annual Code Enforcement visits to check on compliance.

Chair Olsen asked staff if there is a Conditional Use Permit for the M-2 Collision business. Staff replied in the negative.

Commissioner Brown asked staff how they determined that the rental car use would be a permitted use. Mr. Trevino cited SMMC Section 9.04.08.34.020(n) as the section used for the interpretation:

n) Accessory uses which are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with, and appropriate, incidental and subordinate to, the principal permitted uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.

Commissioner Hopkins commented that while this is a good business idea to provide rental cars at an automobile repair facility, she feels that it should require a Conditional Use Permit. She expressed concern about setting a precedent.

Commissioner Brown made a motion to not accept the Zoning Administrator’s Interpretation in that there is no ambiguity in the Code and that car rental uses are permitted with a CUP per Section 9.04.08.34.040, subsection “r.”

Commissioner Moyle seconded the motion.

The motion was discussed by the Commission.

The motion to reject the Zoning Administrator’s Interpretation was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.

9. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.

10. PUBLIC INPUT: None.

11. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.

f:\plan\share\pc\minutes\pcm09192001.doc APPROVED: OCTOBER 17, 2001

10/1/2001

ATTACHMENT E

Letter dated March 12, 2003 submitted by applicant/appellant

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT F

Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 2002

M I N U T E S

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2002 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL

1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Acting Senior Planner Jonathan Lait led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL: Present: Barbara Brown

Darrell Clarke

Julie Lopez Dad

Arlene Hopkins

Jay P. Johnson

Geraldine Moyle

Kelly Olsen, Chairperson

Also Present: Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner

Patrick Clarke, Associate Planner

Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary

Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD

Paul Foley, Senior Planner

Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison

Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Senior Planner

Bruce Leach, Associate Planner

Jean M. Moore, AICP, Associate Planner

Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

Ms. Frick gave the Director’s Report. She reported that the City Council will be hearing recommendations from the Downtown Parking Task Force on April 9, 2002, as well as hearing the Landmarks designation appeal for the Civic Auditorium and the Code Enforcement Ordinance. On April 23, 2002, the City Council will be hearing a Landmarks Commission appeal for a property on Third Street and will review the Civic Center Specific Plan. Ms. Frick noted that PCD priority recommendations for the next fiscal year will be going to the City Council in late May and the Commission may wish to schedule a discussion item on this topic in the near future. Lastly, Ms. Frick announced the forthcoming Commission meeting dates as follows: April 17, May 1 and May 15, 2002.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consent Calendar

Commissioner Dad made a motion to approve the minutes for February 20, 2002, and March 6, 2002, as submitted. Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar

Commissioner Moyle made a motion to approve the Statements of Official Action, as submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.

6-A. Conditional Use Permit 01-015, 3330 Ocean Park Boulevard

6-B. Conditional Use Permit 01-020, 2201 Wilshire Boulevard

7. PUBLIC HEARING:

7-A. Resolution of Intention amending Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.20.10.030 relative to variance applications to exceed the maximum permitted height and number of stories in a zoning district. (Planner: Bill Rodrigues, AICP)

Following a brief staff report, the Commission asked questions of staff regarding building heights and numbers of stories.

One member of the public, Russell Bennett, addressed the Commission regarding the need for the amendment.

Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt to Resolution of Intention. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.

Commissioner Hopkins asked for an amendment to the resolution regarding the maximum square footage permitted. Chair Olsen suggested that staff review this issue and return with comments at the public hearing.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

8-A. Appeal 01-032, 649 Copeland Court. Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s approval of a Variance 01-019 to allow the construction of a new garage with substandard parking space dimensions. (Planner: Bruce Leach) Applicant: 649 Copeland Court Homeowners Association. Appellant: Myrna Leifler.

Associate Planner Bruce Leach informed the Commission of a request by the appellant to continue the hearing because the appellant was unable to attend this evening’s hearing.

The Commission heard comments from one of the applicants, Michael Hill, regarding the continuance request.

The Commission asked for some background on this application and appeal from staff. Mr. Leach supplied the requested information.

Commissioner Dad made a motion to continue the public hearing to April 17, 2002. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Moyle asked that the record reflect that the Commission is now aware of the “track record” for this application and will retain that information should another request for continuance be submitted by the appellant.

The motion to continue this public hearing to April 17, 2002, was approved by voice vote.

Mr. Leach announced that this item will not be renoticed in the newspaper or with a mailing due to the short turnaround until the next meeting date.

8-B. CUP 01-007, VAR 01-026, 2817 Ocean Park Boulevard.( Application to allow the conversion of an existing 1,359 square foot tenant space from a retail use to a dentist office. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.16.040 requires a Conditional Use Permit for dental offices provided that the use does not exceed 25% of the total building square footage, or 3,000 square feet, whichever is less. (Planner: Jean M. Moore, AICP) Applicant: Dr. Victor Negrete, DDS.

Prior to the staff report, the Commission made their disclosures for this project. Commissioner Hopkins disclosed she had visited the site over the weekend. Commissioner Clarke disclosed that he visited the site at 5:00 p.m., April 3, 2002, walked around the site address and observed an awning bearing the name of the dentist. He also observed that the lobby did not look as if the dental practice was functioning. Commissioner Brown disclosed that she is well acquainted with the area, but did not do a specific site visit. Commissioners Dad, Johnson, Moyle and Chair Olsen had nothing to disclose.

Associate Planner Jean Moore gave the staff report.

Commissioner Moyle asked staff about a reference in the staff report on page three regarding “legalizing the dental office.” Ms. Moore explained that when staff learned that the dental office is in operation with approvals.

Commissioner Moyle asked staff for more background on the operation of this business. Ms. Moore stated that the applicant applied for this CUP on April 17, 2001, and that the project has been delayed. She further stated that a Business License Inspector did a site inspection in February 2002 and found the business was in operation and that the applicant stated he had been in operation for two years. On April 2, 2002, a follow-up inspection was done and the business was not operating per Code Enforcement.

Commissioner Moyle asked staff about a reference on page five of the staff report regarding the parking variance application and the lack of on-site parking for this building. Ms. Moore stated that the building was built in 1936, before parking requirement. Upon review of the old and new uses for this building, staff determined that the dental office is not an intensification of use for parking purposes. Ms. Moore also stated that parking calculations can be provided to the Commission.

The applicant, Dr. Victor Negrete, DDS, was present to discuss his application.

Commissioner Hopkins asked Dr. Negrete if he would like to have Saturday office hours. Dr. Negrete stated that he typically works one Saturday a month.

Chair Olsen stated that Conditional Use Permits are tied to the land, not to the business, and that he has a credibility problem with this application. Dr. Negrete stated that he did not understand that he could not transfer his business license to a new location.

Commissioner Brown asked for confirmation that Dr. Negrete had been in his prior Santa Monica location for 18 years. Dr. Negrete answered in the affirmative and stated that his prior business address was 3019 Ocean Park Boulevard.

Chair Olsen asked about the moving of the dental practice. Dr. Negrete stated that he wanted his own practice, found what he thought was a suitable location, signed the lease and applied for a change of address with City Business License. He stated that a few weeks after he applied, he received a denial letter from City Business License, filed the Conditional Use Permit application and has been waiting since that time for this public hearing.

One member of the public, Gary Waclack, addressed the Commission regarding the application.

The applicant waived his response time.

Chair Olsen asked legal counsel about the Conditional Use Permit findings. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that CUP findings must be made for approval of the application and that there is no existing CUP for this site or business.

Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on the relationship between the CUP and business license and whether Dr. Negrete had a CUP at his prior location. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that there was no CUP at the prior location. Ms. Frick explained that business license applications often trigger application for other permits. She further explained that the prior location was issued a business license for an existing non-conforming use, but the new location is building where the dental office use is not permitted without a CUP.

Commissioner Moyle commented that ignorance of the law is no excuse. She asked staff to comment on how applicants usually learn they need additional permits for certain locations. Ms. Frick stated this is a common problem, however many individuals will contact City staff regarding whether certain businesses are permitted at specific locations. She further stated that City Planning reviews all Business License applications and changes to verify whether the use is permitted or if it may need additional permits.

Commissioner Hopkins commented that there should be an environmental mitigation condition added regarding safe disposal of medical waste. Ms. Frick agreed.

Commissioner Hopkins asked about Special Condition #12 that specifies the dental office will be closed on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Ms. Frick stated that this condition can be modified, however those were the hours requested in the CUP application.

Chair Olsen asked staff how much space this use will occupy in this building. Ms. Moore stated that this use will occupy ¼ of the four tenant commercial building.

Chair Olsen asked if other spaces in the building need a CUP. Ms. Moore stated that this CUP will lock in the square footage of this particular use, using the plans attached to this staff report.

Commissioner Clarke commented that if the Commission ignores the recent history of this applicant, the proposed business is an appropriate use for an old building. He then made a motion for approval of the CUP application.

Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.

Commissioner Clarke asked that the approval include modifications to the condition regarding hours of operation to include Saturday hours, and the addition of a condition regarding disposal of medical office waste. He expressed concern regarding people “working the system and looking for loopholes.”

Commissioner Clarke asked the applicant for his comments on the hours and days of operation. Dr. Negrete stated that he generally works weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except on Tuesdays10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and one Saturday a month from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Commissioner Clarke amended the hours of operation condition as follows: Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. and closed on Sundays.

Commissioner Dad was agreeable to the modifications.

Chair Olsen asked if the condition regarding posting the Statement of Official Action on-site was in the staff report. Commissioner Moyle stated that would be Condition #16.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.

[The Commission took a break from 8:45 p.m. to 9:18 p.m.]

8-C. Design Compatibility Permit 01-010, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26391, 1027 Twenty-First Street, R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential) District. Design Compatibility Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to allow the construction of a new two-story with lofts, four-unit townhouse style condominium building with 8 subterranean parking spaces located at 1027 Twenty-First Street in the R2 Low Density Multiple Residential District. Each dwelling unit will contain 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. (Planner: Patrick Clarke) Applicants/Property Owners: Josh and Sonia Borris.

The Commission began this hearing by making their disclosures on this project. Commissioner Brown disclosed that she made a site visit on April 3, 2002, at approximately 6:30 p.m. but had not observations to share. Commissioner Clarke disclosed that he had driven by the site at approximately 5:00 p.m. on April 3, 2002. He further disclosed that he had noticed an older Craftsman-style home adjacent to the subject property. Commissioners Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle and Olsen had nothing to disclose.

Associate Planner Patrick Clarke gave the staff report.

Chair Olsen asked staff if there are any non-conformance issues for this project. Mr. Clarke stated that the proposed project conforms to Code requirements and actually exceeds Code requirements in some areas.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum reminded the Commission that the key issue for a Design Compatibility Permit is the compatibility finding. He stated his assessment that this project does not comply with the compatibility finding.

The applicant, Josh Borris, was present to discuss the project.

Commissioner Clarke commented on the neighborhood photographic representation shown to the Commission by the applicant and noted that the top middle building would not be permitted under today’s code requirements. He questioned the choice of stucco and a tile roof for the proposed “Craftsman” style dwelling. Mr. Borris stated that the building’s Craftsman design includes varies elements of the style.

Commissioner Moyle asked Mr. Borris if he utilized the services of an architect for the design of this project. Mr. Borris responded that he used a designer and the licensed of record had not yet been selected.

Commissioner Moyle asked Mr. Borris how he correlates his loft design with the two story height limit. The lofts, she commented, appear as a third floor in the design. Mr. Borris stated a preference for open spaces full of light.

Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Borris if his project architect was present. Mr. Borris stated that he has a project designer, not an architect.

Commissioner Hopkins commented on the compatibility of the project as it relates to the adjacent historic property. Mr. Borris stated that he respects the adjacent property and has incorporated some design features.

Commissioner Hopkins commented that Craftsman-style structures usual have a “horizontal” design element, however this design with the lofts actually gives a vertical appearance to the building. Mr. Borris stated that this is only a 50 foot wide lot, however the windows, railings and mullions will add to the horizontal elements.

Commissioner Hopkins commented on the bungalow-style and the types of materials usually associated with that style. She asked the applicant about the choice of tile for the roof. Mr. Borris stated that he was advised that this had been used with this style of home, however he stated he is flexible with the color scheme of the building pending ARB approval.

Commissioner Clarke commented that he has difficulty with this submission. He stated that he cannot read the numbering on the drawings, there are no section drawings, no scaled perspective drawings and no front elevations that include the adjacent properties. Mr. Borris stated that this information was provided to staff.

Commissioner Clarke commented that the submission also lacks landscaping plans, therefore the relationship between the frontyard and the street is unknown. Mr. Borris apologized for the omission and stated that he had provided what staff requested.

Commissioner Moyle invited staff to respond to comments made in the staff report that the pitched roof gives the appearance of a three-story building and how this might affect the loft portion of the project. Mr. Clarke explained that in the R2 District, the maximum permitted height is 30 feet for a pitched roof and 23 feet for a flat roof.

Commissioner Moyle commented that the 30 foot height limit for a pitched roof is a maximum, not a required height. Mr. Clarke responded in the affirmative and stated that the Zoning Ordinance is “rigidly flexible” in this matter.

Commissioner Moyle asked Mr. Clarke if, in his professional opinion, a pitched roof option is not a loophole for getting a third story in a structure. Mr. Clarke stated that the Zoning Ordinance is a fluid document that allows flexibility of design options.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff for the rest of Attachment E, which is a Rent Control Board document. He also asked for the Rent Control exemption form and whether this item has been before the Landmarks Commission. Mr. Clarke stated that the Rent Control exemption was granted and that the Landmarks Commission did review the demolition permit and took no action on the matter.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the building complies with current setbacks. Mr. Clarke answered in the affirmative.

The project designer, Karim Fard, was present to discuss design issues. He explained the height calculations as regards average natural grade for this site.

Chair Olsen closed the public hearing. He asked the Commission if they have any discomfort with the staff recommendation for denial.

Commissioner Moyle made a motion to deny the application with staff findings. Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion.

Commissioner Moyle commended staff for their staff report, which was fair and even-handed in the assessment of the project.

Chair Olsen asked if the motion is to deny without prejudice. Commissioners Moyle and Clarke answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Johnson commented that he wants the appropriate Rent Control Board documents given to the Commission. Commissioner Dad stated that while she appreciates Commissioner Johnson’s comments, the Rent Control documents have no bearing on this matter.

Commissioner Clarke stated for the record that the items cited as missing by the Commission are a requirement for resubmission of this project.

Commissioner Johnson withdrew his request.

The motion to deny the project without prejudice was approved by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.

8-D. Text Amendment 99-009, 1100 Colorado Avenue. Request to modify Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.08.34.030 to permit automobile rental agencies as accessory uses to automobile repair facilities located in the M1 Industrial Conservation District with approval of a Performance Standards Permit. Under the proposed text amendment, the automobile rental agency could not occupy more than 10% of the automobile repair facility indoor space and could not exceed 750 square feet in floor area. (Planner: Paul Foley) Applicant: Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Inc.

Chair Olsen explained that this is not a quasi-judicial hearing, but rather a legislative hearing, therefore no disclosures from the Commission are required.

The applicant’s representatives, Damon Haber and Rick James, were present to discuss the application.

Chair Olsen discussed the parking plan with the applicant. The plan specifies three parking spaces for this use and he asked if those spaces will be used for the rental vehicles. Mr. Haber stated that the three spaces will be used as a staging area as vehicles will be arriving from several different locations. He further stated that employees at this location will be parking their vehicles at the Wilshire Boulevard and Seventh Street location.

One member of the public submitted a request to speak form. Mr. Chuck Allord addressed the Commission on behalf of his neighborhood group, Citizens for a Safer Santa Monica.

Mr. Haber spoke in response to the comments made by Mr. Allord.

Chair Olsen noted that the staff report indicates this Enterprise Rent-A-Car facility will only rent to customers of M2 Collision. Mr. Foley stated that this is correct according to the information provided to him by the applicant.

Chair Olsen stated that the applicant’s website states that 1100 Colorado Avenue is a pick-up site for vehicle rental and that the same is also stated in the local telephone book. Chair Olsen showed all present the printout from the website. He further stated that he personally called and asked the Enterprise Rent-A-Car staff if anyone can rent a vehicle at this location and was given a positive response. He commented on the shared parking spaces in the plans and questioned whether this would indeed save vehicle trips. Mr. Foley explained the logistics of vehicles trips.

Chair Olsen stated that he made a site visit and observed that there is wide gate on 11^th Street which is always closed and had eight vehicles parked tandem in front of it. He suggested that the current parking demand for this site is apparently not being met.

To the applicant, Chair Olsen repeated the testimony that this location will only rent to customers of M2 Collision, however employees have told him differently and there are the advertisements in the telephone book and on the website. Mr. Haber stated that he was unaware of these errors and that it will be easy to correct the website. He also stated that he was unaware of what staff was telling the public. He stated that this will also be corrected.

Commissioner Moyle asked how long this business has been operation at this location. Mr. Haber stated that the original business license was applied for in 1997.

Commissioner Moyle asked Mr. Haber if the Business License application process made him realize that the Code needed to be changed. Mr. Haber stated his business was cited by the City in 1999 and it is his intent to resolve this situation.

Commissioner Moyle asked Mr. Haber if he has input as to how his local offices are marketed by the corporation. Mr. Haber stated that he will speak to the St. Louis office and get the website changed immediately.

Commissioner Moyle commented that the staff report states that this business is an accessory use to another business, however evidence provided this evening proves otherwise. She stated that this gives the Commission a problem because the evidence doesn’t agree with the intent of the operation. She stated that the Commission can not overlook the “bad faith” status of Enterprise Rent-A-Car.

Mr. Haber agreed that issues need to be addressed by his firm.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated for the record that the proposed Text Amendment applies to the entire M-1 District and that the Commission’s mission is to decide if this would be a good idea for the entire district. Secondly, Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the required action is a recommendation to the City Council which would enable a business to apply for a Performance Standards Permit to operate.

Commissioner Moyle stated that she genuinely appreciates the City Attorney’s clarification, however this is not a hypothetical situation. She stated that the business is not only in operation, but has been in operation for years, and this does influence the Commission’s decision.

Chair Olsen expressed agreement with Commissioner Moyle. He stated that a model has been presented and it does not work. He further stated that vehicles trips will not be reduced, there are only three parking spaces for vehicle renters, the rental vehicles, employees and storage of rental vehicles. He stated that this Text Amendment is clearly not the way to go.

Commissioner Hopkins commented on the vehicle rental business and the nearness of another Enterprise Rent-A-Car location. She suggested that the business invest in electric vehicles to shuttle customers from one location to other locations such as M2 Collision. She stated this would be a sustainable solution to the problem.

Mr. Haber stated that his business is “customer service driven” and if his current operation closes at M2 Collision, there will be more vehicle trips.

Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Haber how many customers he typically services during the day. Mr. Haber stated the average is 8-10 customers a day.

Commissioner Clarke asked about overnight storage of rental vehicles. Mr. Haber stated that vehicles are shuttled to other locations for storage at night.

Commissioner Johnson commented that he has seen an Enterprise Rent-A-Car sign at the corner of 11^th and Broadway. Mr. Haber stated that this is not an Enterprise Rent-A-Car location.

Commissioner Clarke asked staff how the number of parking spaces is calculated. Mr. Foley stated that automobile rental facilities are calculated 1 space per 500 square feet of office space and 1 space per 1000 square feet of outdoor storage of vehicle space, which excludes parking. Mr. Foley further stated that the number of parking spaces can be an added findings for a Performance Standards Permit.

Commissioner Dad made a motion to deny the Text Amendment.

Commissioner Moyle seconded the motion.

Commissioner Dad stated that the reason for her denial motion is that no evidence has been presented to prove there are spaces available for the storage of rental vehicles and that she knows this location is always overflowing with vehicles. She further stated that she does not feel this is a necessary on-site use and that customers can go off-site for replacement vehicles. She asked staff if findings are needed to deny the Text Amendment.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that findings have been generated during the discussion of the Text Amendment. He stated that the motion is fine, however it could also be “not recommend to City Council” in-lieu of deny the Text Amendment. Commissioner Dad stated that she prefers the word “deny.”

Commissioner Johnson expressed his support for the motion, although he had intended to support the Text Amendment prior to the hearing. He stated that the Text Amendment would intensify the use for this location and for all automobile repair facilities in the M1 District.

Chair Olsen commented that this discussion has been about “changing the law” which is a very serious thing and compelling reasons to make that change have not been presented.

Commissioner Brown commented to the applicant that the business idea makes sense, however a Text Amendment is a big deal with wide ramifications. She stated that justification to approve the Text Amendment has not been presented in that the reduction in traffic trips is not significant.

The motion to deny the Text Amendment was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.

9. COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Planning Commission Caselist

B. Projects List (G)

C. Amended Planning Commission Rules of Order

10. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.

11. PUBLIC INPUT:

One member of the public, Chuck Allord, addressed the Commission.

12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.

APPROVED: JUNE 5, 2002

ATTACHMENT G

Planning Commission Minutes of December 4, 2002

M I N U T E S

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

WEDNESDAY, December 4, 2002 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL

1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:19 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Olsen led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL: Present: Barbara Brown

Darrell Clarke

Julie Lopez Dad [arrived at 7:40 p.m.]

Jay P. Johnson

Geraldine Moyle

Kelly Olsen

Absent: Arlene Hopkins

Also Present: Laura Beck, AICP, Associate Planner

Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner

Patrick Clarke, Associate Planner

Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary

Paul Foley, Senior Planner

Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD

Sarah Lejeune, Associate Planner

Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

Ms. Frick gave the Director’s Report. She reported that on November 26, 2002, the City Council heard the Twenty-Eighth Street condominium appeal, which they approved as amended. Also approved on November 26, were the Historic Preservation Element and an extension of the interim ordinance regarding conversion of restaurant to retail space on the Third Street Promenade. She also reported that the Draft Civic Center Specific Plan has been released and a public hearing will be held on January 21, 2003, at the Civic Auditorium. Copies will be provided to the Commission. Lastly, Ms. Frick reported the Commission is scheduled to meet on the following dates: December 11, December 18, 2002 and January 8, 2003.

Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Frick to comment on changes made to the courtyard in the Twenty-Eighth Street appeal. Ms. Frick stated that the Council shared the Commission’s concerns regarding pedestrian orientation and lowering the front façade height and the perceived barrier to the courtyard. The fence was eliminated, the stair over the ramp was adjusted, and moving the driveway ramp was moved to the side of the property.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

5-A. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for November 6, 2002, as submitted. Commissioner Moyle seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote. Commissioner Brown abstained.

6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Statements of Official Action

as submitted. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioners Brown and Moyle abstaining.

6-A. APPEAL 02-005 of VAR 01-035, 2437 Sixth Street.

6-B. APPEAL 02-013/02-014 of VAR 02-013, 1630 Bryn Mawr Avenue.

6-C. Conditional Use Permit 02-014, 1401 Third Street Promenade.

6-D. Development Review 01-007, Design Compatibility Permit 01-007, Tract Map 01-005, 2512 Twenty-Eighth Street.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Continued from November 6, 2002

7-A. Conditional Use Permit 02-010, 1663 Twentieth Street. Application for a Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor storage of 104 automobiles at the 27,048 square foot parcel located at 1663 Twentieth Street, which is zoned Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD). (Planner: Patrick Clarke) APPLICANT: RTK Architects. PROPERY OWNER: 7R Properties.

Associate Planner Patrick Clarke gave the staff report.

The Commission made their ex parte communication disclosures on this as follows: Commissioners Johnson and Moyle had nothing to disclose. Commissioner Brown and Chair Clarke disclosed that they drive by the site regularly. Commissioner Olsen disclosed that he drove by the site at approximately 4 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2002, and observed a fenced lot. He also disclosed that he went to the Wilshire Boulevard automobile dealership connected to this project and took photographs he would share later in the hearing.

Commissioner Brown asked staff for the complaint history on this site. Mr. Clarke stated that there had been complaints regarding the parking of vehicles on the lot.

Commissioner Brown commented on a reference on page five regarding carrier trailer activities and asked how this will help residents if it is not adjacent to a residential district. Mr. Clarke explained the currently vehicles are off-loaded in residential neighborhood adjacent to the car dealerships on Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard and if the application is approved, this activity will move to the commercial area on Twentieth Street.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff to point out where the project site is in relation to Crossroads School. Mr. Clarke used the overhead projected image of the area to point out the two locations. Commissioner Johnson asked if Crossroads had commented on the proposal. Mr. Clarke stated that there has been no communication from Crossroads.

Commissioner Johnson expressed concern about noise from the off-loading activity impacting the school. Mr. Clarke stated that there should be no impact due to the high ambient noise level emanating from traffic on Olympic Boulevard.

Commissioner Olsen commented that two and a half years ago the use was not a permitted use at Twentieth Street and Olympic Boulevard and the non-compliance issue was only recently resolved. He asked staff why this application has changed from a Text Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Clarke explained that the original application was for a Text Amendment and Development Review Permit for a parking structure, not a lot, in October 2001. He further stated that those applications were withdrawn and the new application was filed as a CUP.

Commissioner Olsen asked about permitted automobile related uses in the Light Manufacturing Studio District (LMSD). Mr. Clarke read from the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Manager Jay Trevino stated that Ms. Schachter has checked the permit history for this site and found that a complaint was filed on November 27, 2000, for running a business without a business license and that the initial applications were filed in May 2001. There was also a complaint regarding parking of vehicles, which was resolved in May 2002.

Commissioner Olsen asked how the off-loading of vehicles in this location is beneficial. Mr. Clarke stated that the large carrier trailers are noisy and disturb residents during the off-loading process and proposed location is a non-residential area.

[Commissioner Dad arrived at this point. She had nothing to disclose.]

The applicant’s representative, Don Wheeler of RTK Architects, was present to discuss the project.

Commissioner Moyle asked Mr. Wheeler whom he represents for this application. Mr. Wheeler stated that he represents the property owners who are related to the two dealerships. Commissioner Moyle asked if this proposal will be for the exclusive benefit for the W.I. Simonson and Saab dealerships. Mr. Wheeler answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Johnson asked if the property owners are the same for all three sites. Mr. Wheeler stated he did not know. Ms. Brenda Lehman, general manager for both W.I. Simonson and Saab, explained the ownership relationships.

Commissioner Johnson asked where vehicles are currently off-loaded. Ms. Lehman stated that the current site is at Seventeenth Street and Olympic Boulevard and that there are three separate corporations with the same principles.

Commissioner Brown asked for the monthly sales figures for the two dealerships. Mr. Wheeler stated that the Saab dealership has approximately 65-70 sales monthly and W.I. Simonson has approximately 160-170 sales monthly.

Chair Clarke asked if there are other remote car storage facilities. Ms. Lehman answered in the affirmative. Chair Clarke asked if this location will be an addition or a shifting of uses. Ms. Lehman stated that storage area is being shifted from Seventeenth and Olympic.

Commissioner Johnson asked about the non-payment of business license taxes for the past year. Ms. Lehman stated that this must have been an oversight.

Chair Clarke stated that no requests to speak have been submitted. He closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Olsen commented on the off-loading issue and asked for the required plan approved by Transportation Management for 1700 Wilshire Boulevard. Mr. Trevino stated he would look for that document.

Commissioner Olsen commented that the Seventeenth Street and Olympic Boulevard vehicle storage site is out of this scope of approval. Mr. Clarke stated staff was unaware of this alternate parking location.

Commissioner Olsen asked about Condition #37, which deals with conformance to prior approvals, and the CUP for W. I. Simonson at 1700 Wilshire Boulevard. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum cautioned the Commission on the direction they are heading since the CUP before the Commission is site specific and is not connected with the 1700 Wilshire Boulevard property. Commissioner Olsen respectfully disagreed with counsel. He stated that the proposed project supports the other business and site per statements made by the applicant. He expressed fear that customers will be brought to the off-site lot to test drive vehicles. He also stated that there is a condition for 1700 Wilshire Boulevard which requires that the subterranean parking garage be used for employee and guest parking, not for vehicle display and storage. He stated that he has photographs of violations to that condition for 1700 Wilshire Boulevard. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum cautioned Commissioner Olsen and asked him to cite a nexus for his argument.

Commissioner Moyle asked who will be the holder of this CUP, which corporation, and who is accountable for the business at 1700 Wilshire Boulevard. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the corporation of record is the responsible party, however the record shows that there are separate legal entities involved with the various sites.

Commissioner Moyle commented on the evidence given by Commissioner Olsen and stated that the CUP before the Commission is not connected to the 1700 Wilshire Boulevard CUP. She stated that this case must be judged on the merits of what has been presented at this hearing.

Commissioner Moyle made a motion for approval of the project.

Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Olsen asked the City Attorney and Commissioner Moyle if a new entity comes in and takes over the business is the CUP void. Commissioner Moyle stated that CUPs run with the land, not the business or property owner, therefore the CUP would remain in tact and constant. She further stated that the CUP holder at 1700 Wilshire Boulevard is a separate corporate entity from the applicant for this site.

Commissioner Dad commented that she understood the argument being made by Commissioner Moyle. She stated that the site in question is not adjacent to either dealership being discussed by Commissioner Olsen, however she also expressed concern regarding the multiple corporate entities which appear to undercut accountability.

Commissioner Johnson stated that he is comfortable with the storage area design. He commented that the issue seems to be how to apply the concepts of compliance. He also commented that the Simonson dealership has a good reputation and track record with the City. He stated that the proposal will improve the site. He also stated that the violations noted should be investigated, but not as part of this application process. He concluded by saying this is a small project and there is no logical reason to deny it.

Chair Clarke expressed agreement with Commissioner Johnson. He stated that Olympic Boulevard is an expressway and the vehicle storage lot is a good use for the site. He also stated that the required landscaping will be better than what is currently on the site and that it is good that a stable business can expand within the City limits.

Commissioner Brown stated that all the comments by the Commission have been good and thoughtful. She expressed concern with the revelation of parking violations and complaints, especially that the lot was being used for vehicle storage without City permits for two years prior to the application for the CUP.

Commissioner Olsen stated that the proposed use is appropriate for the site. He also stated he is not trying to stop the expansion, but is trying to stop the two and a half years the applicant has been flaunting the law. He stated that it is especially egregious that the applicant is an architect and City Councilmember.

Commissioner Dad commented that she had no problems with the application until she heard of the violations. She stated that these issues need addressing and she may vote against the motion.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff for the City record on this property. Mr. Trevino stated that the City records indicate that the CUP application for Development Review Permit and Text Amendment was filed in November 2000 for parking on the site. However staff deemed this an inappropriate application and had the applicant refile a CUP application approximately six months after the initial application.

Commissioner Dad asked if the Text Amendment application was to legalize after the fact. Mr. Trevino stated that the original application was for a parking structure, not a surface parking lot, and that the revised use is permitted in that district. He further stated that the complaint went to the City Attorney’s Office for prosecution and the vehicles were removed from the lot on May 28, 2002.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum clarified the record by saying that Condition #37 does allow the Commission to “not approve” the expansion of property, however the property for this application is not connected with any other CUPs or properties.

Commissioner Dad asked when the current application was filed. Mr. Clarke stated that the application was filed on April 16, 2002.

Commissioner Moyle asked staff if the CUP for 1700 Wilshire Boulevard was not for an expansion of an auto dealership. Senior Planner Paul Foley stated that there is only one CUP for 1700 Wilshire Boulevard and that it is for the used car dealership.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff if a substitute motion is made, can that motion include conditions to cover the other parcels (W.I. Simonson and the Saab dealerships) as regards compliance issues. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this can only be done if a nexus between the conditions at the other parcels can be made.

Commissioner Dad stated that her problem is that the site has violations and these were not remedied until the second CUP application was filed.

Chair Clarke asked staff if a denial based on a violation condition is legally supportable. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that, in his opinion, it would be problematic as the site in question has no existing permits or conditions of approval.

Commissioner Olsen expressed concern that if this application is approved, people will come to the lot for test drives and there is no customer parking on-site. He also expressed concern that this will affect the neighborhood. He stated it would be prudent to ask staff if there is a link between the storage of vehicles and parking of customer vehicles at 1700 Wilshire Boulevard in the subterranean garage. He stated that if 1700 Wilshire Boulevard “is all clean” then this project can proceed.

Commissioner Johnson attempted a substitute motion, then withdrew it.

Commissioner Olsen made a motion to continue this item pending staff investigation for compliance at the following locations: Olympic Boulevard and Twentieth Street, the Saab dealership, and W.I. Simonson at 1700 Wilshire Boulevard.

Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.

Ms. Frick stated that the date certain should be February 19, 2003.

Chair Clarke stated he would vote against the substitute motion.

The substitute motion to continue the hearing was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Dad, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen; NOES: Clarke; ABSENT: Hopkins.

[The Commission took a break from 9:03 p.m. to 9:26 p.m. Following the break, the Commission dealt with some procedural matters. Commissioner Moyle asked that Item 9G be moved to the top of the discussion list, followed by 9-C and 9-G. Commissioner Olsen made a motion to continue Item 7-C to December 11, 2002. Chair Clarke seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.]

7-B. Text Amendment 02-003, Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to the Light Manufacturing Studio District (LMSD) to allow Automobile Rental Agencies Which are Accessory to Existing Automobile Repair Facilities. Amendment of Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.08.35.020(a) regarding uses permitted within the Light Manufacturing Studio LMSD). The applicant has requested that an amendment be made to allow the establishment of an automobile rental agency in the LMSD Light Manufacturing Studio District by adding it to the list of permitted uses in Section 9.04.08.35.020. This would be accomplished by adding a new Section 9.04.08.35.020(a) (2) “Automobile rental agencies when accessory to a permitted automobile repair facility” and renumbering Sections 9.04.08.35.020(a)(2) through 9.04.08.35.020(a)(18). Automobile rental agencies are currently not permitted in the LMSD zoning district. (Planner: Laura Beck, AICP) Applicant: Enterprise Rent-A-Car.

Associate Planner Laura Beck gave the Staff Report.

Commissioner Moyle asked if the business was in violation prior to the application for the Text Amendment. Ms. Beck responded that the business license for this use was denied prior to the application for the Text Amendment.

Commissioner Moyle commented that this is the same applicant who applied for a Text Amendment at the M3 Collision business on Colorado Avenue. Ms. Beck confirmed this comment.

Commissioner Moyle asked if it is true that a citation was issued in February 2002 regarding this use and it has gone to court. Ms. Beck answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Moyle asked if it is also true that the arraignment was continued to 2003 pending the outcome of this proceeding. Ms. Beck answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff how many auto repair facilities exist in the Light Manufacturing Studio District (LMSD). Ms. Beck stated that are ten such establishments.

The applicant’s representative, attorney Christopher Harding of the Law Offices of Harding, Larmore, Kutcher and Kozal, was present to discuss the application. Also presented was Damon Haver of Enterprise Rent-A-Car.

Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Haver how many locations he operates in Santa Monica. Mr. Haver stated that he has three locations: Seventh Street and Wilshire Boulevard, Seventeenth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard, and the 2700 block of Lincoln Boulevard.

Commissioner Olsen asked how many locations he operates without business licenses. Mr. Harding stated that there is a lawsuit pending for this operator, but it is not relevant for this proceeding. Commissioner Olsen asked if the location mentioned would be Eleventh Street and Colorado Avenue. Mr. Harding answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Olsen asked if there is a current operation at the Hornburg dealership on Olympic Boulevard. Mr. Harding stated he would stipulate to that.

Commissioner Olsen asked if it is correct that there are no business licenses for the Colorado Avenue and Olympic Boulevard locations. Mr. Harding stated his opinion that the City wrongly denied the business licenses for those two locations, however this is not the forum in which to discuss that matter.

Commissioner Olsen asked how many rental vehicles are on the Hornburg site. Mr. Haver stated that the number vehicles depends on the daily demand, but on average the number is not more than five vehicles. He further stated that the fleet average is fifty vehicles. Commissioner Olsen commented that the woman he spoke to at the site stated there are sixty vehicles on-site.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the application: Mike Sullivan, David Ponn, and Art Harris.

Mr. Harding responded to the public comment.

Chair Clarke asked if the vehicles rented from Hornburg are actually owned and serviced by Enterprise. Mr. Harding stated that the point is that there is no independent car rental and the purpose of the Text Amendment is to clarify the code as to use.

Commissioner Johnson asked about the distinction between automobile dealerships and auto repair facilities. He also asked how many auto dealerships there are in the LMSD. Mr. Mark Harding stated that there is only one auto dealership in the LMSD. He also stated that most automobile dealerships utilize rental agencies for their clients.

Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented on the legal argument presented by Mr. Chris Harding. He stated that the suit is based on the use. He stated that staff is dealing with the difference between loaning vehicles and independent rental of vehicles. He further stated that it is legitimate to be concerned about independent rental agencies. He concluded that the Commission is not obligated to approve the Text Amendment.

Chair Clarke asked if an automobile repair facility in the LMSD, with an approved business license, can loan a car to a client while their vehicle is being repaired? And can that loan car not be owned by the repair facility. Ms. Frick stated it would depend if the repair facility was connected to an automobile dealership. She further stated that the City does not want to decide who rents vehicles. The Text Amendment establishes a separate use on a given site that already does automobile repairs. Ms. Frick stated that Enterprise Rent-A-Car generally is open to the public to rent vehicles and it is possible such an arrangement could expand beyond the automobile repair loaner use, which would be problematic. Such an expansion may necessitate additional employees, parking requirements and shuttling between sites.

Commissioner Johnson asked if there is any division in staff’s mind between this proposed use in the LMSD or the M-1 District. Mr. Trevino and Ms. Frick stated that the two districts are viewed in the same way as regards enforcement issues and impact of uses.

Commissioner Olsen made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation to deny the Text Amendment. Commissioner Moyle seconded the motion.

Commissioner Olsen stated that there is a model in place and he has no confidence that the applicant will comply. He stated that the current Hornburg site does not have sufficient parking and he has observed vehicles being parked in driveways and handicapped spots. He concluded by saying that this proposed use does not work.

Commissioner Dad expressed agreement with Commissioner Olsen regarding the Hornburg site. She stated that a Text Amendment is different from an application for a specific location. She expressed the opinion that while it does make generic sense to have loaner vehicles on-site at automobile repair facilities as it reduces vehicle trips. However, the issue also raises circulation issues. She suggested that the Text Amendment should specifically prohibit rentals to non-automobile repair facility customers. She expressed appreciation for the information provided by staff on this application and that generically, it makes sense to have rental vehicles available at automobile repair facilities. She stated she will vote against the motion.

Chair Clarke expressed general agreement with Commissioner Dad. He stated that the objective of the Text Amendment is to provide rental vehicles “without all the work.”

Commissioner Moyle suggested that the provision for rental vehicles at automobile repair facilities will not necessarily delete an extra vehicle trip. She stated that the Commission made the appropriate response on the Text Amendment application in the M-1 District and this is the same situation. She also stated that the discussion has been very thorough and she is not prepared to vote against the motion.

Commissioner Johnson expressed his support for the motion. He stated that the proposal will not reduce vehicle trips and does not enhance the purpose of the LMSD.

The motion to deny the Text Amendment was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Brown, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen; NOES: Clarke, Dad; ABSENT: Hopkins.

[Commissioner Brown left the meeting at 10:55 p.m.]

7-C. Text Amendment Modifying Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.18.202. The amendment would allow the rebuilding of multi-family structures in the event they are damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster. Presently, the Zoning Ordinance does not allow rebuilding of structures unless the building is identified in the Historic Resources Survey. (Planner: Suzanne Frick)

ACTION: Continued to December 11, 2002.

8. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued

8-A. Development Review Permit Application 02-011, 808 Wilshire Boulevard. Request to modify the conditions of approval for Development Review Permit #467 to eliminate the requirement for an on-site gas station, permit the conversion of three auto repair bays located in the subterranean garage to parking, and modify the condition that 50% of the ground floor uses be pedestrian oriented. [Planner: Gina Szilak] APPLICANT: Douglas Emmett & Company. PROPERTY OWNER: Douglas Emmett Realty Fund 1997.

ACTION: Continued.

9. DISCUSSION: Public Input Permitted

9-A. Request of Commissioners Johnson and Olsen for the Commission to discuss and adopt a policy of prohibiting ex parte meetings and other forms of lobbying Commissioners by interested parties outside of public view for quasi-judicial items that appear before the Commission, to establish rules and procedures for the transmittal of written materials and e-mails from interested parties regarding quasi-judicial items and give direction to staff to prepare language to amend the Commission rules to carry out these policies. Requested via e-mail on August 27, 2002. [Continued from October 9, 2002, November 6 and November 20, 2002.]

ACTION: Continued to December 11, 2002.

9-B. Discussion on appropriate scope, areas and subjects of analysis to be undertaking by the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Requested by Commissioner Hopkins via e-mail on October 10, 2002. [Continued from November 6 and November 20, 2002.]

ACTION: Continued to December 11, 2002.

9-C. Discuss permit process, appeals, and how administrative decisions are made and/or corrected, specifically in regard to possible martial arts school at 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard (C-2 District). Requested by Commissioner Dad via e-mail on November 14, 2002.

[Note: This item was heard out of order, following item 9-G.]

Commissioner Dad outlined her understanding of the situation that arose regarding 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard. She stated that there was an application for a business license for a Martial Arts Studio at 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard, which was approved by staff. When the applicant applied for a tenant improvement building permit, it was denied verbally so no appeal was possible. Commissioner Dad asked staff to explain the process for administrative approvals and how a determination is given.

The business owner, Thomas Yi, a martial arts instructor, explained his situation to the Commission.

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the way the discussion item was agendized, the Commission may only discuss this matter in the most general of terms, but not as regards a specific situation which is within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Further, he stated that since the matter is unresolved, the Commission should not proceed with their discussion of 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard.

Commissioner Dad asked staff to explain the approval process. Mr. Trevino stated that in general, an applicant applies for a business license through the Business License Office prior to Planning review. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not list all possible uses, so staff uses a reference manual called the SIC – OSHA Manual, which defines land uses. If a use is determined to be unpermitted, revocation can be done and the applicant can appeal the decision.

Commissioner Dad asked if determinations are done in writing and how long approvals take. Mr. Trevino stated that approvals are done in writing and may take several weeks to review if they are complicated. If there is question as to the use, the applicant is asked to clarify the business and use.

Commissioner Dad asked where application forms are available. Mr. Trevino stated that forms are available on-line and at City Hall, and the average approval takes approximately two weeks.

Commissioner Dad asked about the appeal process. Mr. Trevino stated that if an applicant disagrees with staff’s determination, an appeal process is provided for in the Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 6. Ms. Frick added that the appeal process is done through a hearing examiner appointed by the City Attorney’s Office.

Commissioner Dad commented that what she has heard from staff and the applicant is different.

[Commissioner Johnson left when this item concluded at 12:45 p.m.]

9-D. Discussion on the procedure for public appeal of an Administrative Approval and for initiation of an Administrative Approval Revocation Hearing. Requested by Commissioners Brown, Hopkins and Johnson on November 20, 2002.

ACTION: Continued to December 11, 2002.

9-E. Appointment of East-West Commercial Corridors Study Task Force Members (Staff: Ellen Gelbard.)

Ms. Frick explained the purpose of the Task Force and that the City Council will be appointing members on January 29, 2003. She stated that it is estimated the Task Force will be meeting for approximately 1 ½ to 2 years beginning in February 2003, and two Commissioners are needed.

Chair Clarke recommended this item be continued until more Commissioners can be present. Ms. Frick stated that the next available meeting date would December 18, 2002.

ACTION: Continued to December 18, 2002.

9-F. Quarterly Code Enforcement Update. (Staff: Timothy McCormick, Building Official)

ACTION: Continued to December 11, 2002.

9-G. Planning Commission discussion of the Fairmont Miramar Hotel Development Agreement Concept Plan proposal to provide direction regarding the project’s potential public benefits and the appropriateness of a Development Agreement application for the redevelopment of this site. (Planner: Sarah Lejeune)

Associate Planner Sarah Lejeune gave the staff report. The owner of the Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Matt Dinopoli, and his architect, Howard List of Gensler Architects gave a detailed presentation on the proposed changes to the hotel site.

Commissioner Dad asked how many units are proposed for the sixteen story residential building. Mr. List stated the proposal is for 75 residential units.

Commissioner Dad asked how many market rate units are proposed in the three story building. Mr. Dinapoli stated that 27 units are proposed. Commissioner Dad asked about the mix of affordable and market rate units, specifically for their proposed locations. Mr. Dinapoli explained the placement of affordable units on Second Street.

Commissioner Dad asked if the hotel will remain intact. Mr. Dinapoli answered in the affirmative, and added that the ballrooms will be remodeled and a spa may be added.

Commissioner Dad asked what type of retail is proposed. Mr. Dinapoli stated that either a restaurant or other retail is being considered.

Commissioner Dad asked if all the parking will be subterranean. Mr. Dinapoli answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Dad commented that the plans specify 677 parking spaces, then asked how many will be for the residential units. Mr. Dinapoli stated that there are a total of 224 parking spaces for residents and 65 spaces in a semi-subterranean garage on Second Street. He further stated that there will be 130 parking spaces for the hotel restaurant.

Commissioner Dad asked about employee parking. Mr. Dinapoli stated there will be 91 parking spaces for employees and more than 150 parking spaces not required for any other use on the property.

Commissioner Dad asked if the current parking for the hotel meets current parking standards. Mr. Dinapoli stated he does not think it complies and some parking is currently contracted out.

Commissioner Dad stated that her concern is not the Development Agreement proposal, which is a positive step, and the addition of retail at Second Street and Wilshire Boulevard is also a good idea; however the proposal for a sixteen story residential building on the property is a great concern.

Two members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the discussion item: Ellen Brennan and Arthur Harris.

Mr. Dinapoli responded to the public comment.

Chair Clarke expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to review the early stage of this proposal.

Commissioner Moyle expressed curiosity as to why a hotelier would want to add rental housing on-site. Mr. Dinapoli responded that this is a good question since the obvious option would be to expand the hotel rooms. He stated that the hotel is currently the “right size” for the City and it was the owners thought to accommodate the City’s goal for more housing units on a portion of the hotel property. He stated that the project must be economically feasible for the owners and a benefit to the City.

Commissioner Moyle asked if a fifteen story residential building is the only way for the project to “pencil out.” Mr. Dinapoli stated that there may be other options and this project is still in the early development phase. He also stated that the proposed placement of the residential units is logical given the hotel site specifics and the height of adjacent buildings along Ocean Avenue.

Commissioner Moyle stated that she appreciates Mr. Dinapoli’s presence at this meeting, however she expressed the opinion that siting the tall buildings along Ocean Avenue is an “absolutely abysmal mistake.” She stated that the height of the proposed residential building is a deal-breaker for her. She stated that her personal reaction to the proposal is shock. On the other hand, Commissioner Moyle stated that she loves the idea of opening up the property so the historic fig tree can be seen. She suggested the removal of the ten-story hotel building might be a better idea if it is replaced with something better.

Mr. Dinapoli thanked Commissioner Moyle for her comments, especially about 100 Wilshire Boulevard.

Commissioner Johnson asked staff about Proposition S, which prohibits new hotels on the beach. Ms. Frick stated that this property does not fall within the perimeters for Proposition S. She also stated that the proposal is not for a new hotel. Proposition S was discussed by the Commission briefly with Commissioner Dad giving some specifics on the history of the proposition.

Chair Clarke asked staff about the Development Agreement proposal and currently permitted uses along Wilshire Boulevard. Ms. Lejeune stated that the current development has non-conforming parking.

Chair Clarke asked how deep the proposed parking will need to be. Mr. Dinapoli stated that the proposal is for 3 ½ to 4 levels of subterranean parking.

Commissioner Dad asked if there has been any meetings with neighborhood groups. Mr. Dinapoli stated that he has only met with City staff and consultants and that the concept has not been widely disseminated.

Commissioner Olsen commented that this proposal would provoke a referendum and much excitement in Santa Monica. He noted that the Land Use Element height requirements for Ocean Avenue are very low due to 1960s buildings such as 100 Wilshire (the GTE Tower). He stated he is glad this proposal was brought forth early, however he expressed his opinion that it will not work.

Commissioner Johnson expressed agreement with the comments made by Commissioners Moyle and Olsen. He stated that the concept to update the property is good, but there needs to be less height.

Commissioner Dad stated she is willing to forward a recommendation to City Council to start negotiations for a Development Agreement with Fairmont Miramar, but the project needs to be scaled back substantially. She stated that code required stepbacks and setbacks must be adhered to and underground parking would be an asset as well as residential units on Second Street. Of course, she noted, a smaller development would not require a Development Agreement.

Chair Clarke noted an early staff comment that the property owner is using the public benefit aspect to gain approval through a Development Agreement for the proposed project. He stated that luxury apartments are not needed in Santa Monica and the proposed building would block the view of the northwest coastline. He also stated that the addition of residential units on Second Street would not require a Development Agreement. Lastly, Chair Clarke suggested the idea of an upper level restaurant for the site.

Mr. Dinapoli thanked the Commission for their comments and honesty. He stated it is better to hear the Commission’s views this early in the process so the proposal can be adjusted.

Ms. Frick asked the Commission if they have a sense of whether or not to recommend the City Council begin negotiating a Development Agreement with the property owner. Chair Clarke asked if the tower is removed from the proposal, why would the property owner need a Development Agreement. Ms. Frick stated that a Development Agreement would help with issues of setbacks, heights and floor area ratios (FARs).

Chair Clarke stated that it is important that the Morton Bay Fig Tree be preserved as well as the low scale nature of the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Ocean Avenue. It also important that there be no high-rise development on the site.

Commissioners Moyle and Olsen expressed the opinion the presentation has no basis for what may be approved or built. Commissioners Moyle and Johnson stated they cannot support a Development Agreement.

Commissioner Dad commented that consideration of a Development Agreement does not mean that what was presented at this meeting will be approved or built. She noted that the Commission may dislike what can be built on the site per code and a Development Agreement would set or change parameters for development of the site.

City Council Liaison McKeown commented that a Development Agreement for a unique parcel may mean greater flexibility with the developer as regards making demands. He stated that having employee parking on-site would be a plus for the City as well has gaining over 100 uncommitted parking spaces for public use.

Commissioner Olsen stated that he respectfully disagreed with the City Council Liaison with “every fiber of my body.” He stated that the Commission has gotten better projects designed without Development Agreements.

Chair Clarke asked staff if they had enough comments. Ms. Frick stated that sufficient comments had been made and she heard no consensus from the Commission.

10. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.

11. PUBLIC INPUT: None.

12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:49 a.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2002.

APPROVED: JANUARY 22, 2003

ATTACHMENT H

Planning Commission Statement of Official Action – TA 99-009

CITY PLANNING DIVISION

CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

PROJECT

CASE NUMBER: Text Amendment TA99-009

LOCATION: M1 Industrial Conservation District

APPLICANT: Enterprise Rent-a-car

PROPERTY

OWNER: Parr Investment Company of California

CASE PLANNER: Paul Foley, Senior Planner

REQUEST: Modify Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.08.34.040 to permit, subject to a Performance Standards Permit, automobile rental agencies as accessory uses to primary permitted automobile repair facilities.

CEQA STATUS: The project is categorically exempt (Class 5) from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15305(a) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves a minor alteration in the land use limitations on a parcel which has a slope of less than 20% and does not result in any change in land use or density in that the project proposes a secondary, accessory land use which would not change or intensify the primary permitted on-site land use.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

4/3/02

Date.

Approved based on the following finding findings and subject to

the conditions below.

x

Denied.

Other.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION IF NOT APPEALED:

4/18/02

FINDINGS:

1. The proposed amendment is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically, Land Use Element Policy 1.2.4, which states, in part, that the City’s land use policies should: “Limit the number or control the location or otherwise mitigate the impact of commercial uses such as alcohol outlets, gas stations, auto repair shops….in those areas where an over-concentration of the use would have, or the operation of such uses might have, an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.” The proposed accessory use for an auto rental operation within an auto repair facility may exacerbate the lack of parking at existing legal, nonconforming auto repair facilities and will intensify the operations of these facilities. In addition, the operation of on-site replacement vehicle services at auto repair facilities will not significantly reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the rental of replacement vehicles for customers as compared with the provision of replacement vehicles at off-site locations.

2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of the proposed amendment, in that the proposed auto rental operations may exacerbate the lack of parking at existing legal, nonconforming auto repair facilities and will intensify the operations of these facilities. The operation of on-site replacement vehicle services at auto repair facilities will not significantly reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the rental of replacement vehicles for customers as compared with the provision of replacement vehicles at off-site locations.

VOTE

Ayes: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen

Nays: None

Abstain: None

Absent: None

NOTICE

If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by the Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.

I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.

Kelly Olsen, Chairperson Date

ATTACHMENT I

Planning Commission Statement of Official Action – TA 02-003

CITY PLANNING DIVISION

CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

PROJECT

CASE NUMBER: Text Amendment TA02-003

LOCATION: LMSD Light Manufacturing Studio District

APPLICANT: Enterprise Rent-a-car

PROPERTY

OWNER: 3300 Jaguar LLC and 6400 LLC

CASE PLANNER: Laura Beck, Associate Planner

REQUEST: Modify Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC Section 9.04.08.35.020(a)) to allow “automobile rental agencies when accessory to a permitted automobile repair facility” as a permitted use.

CEQA STATUS: The project is categorically exempt (Class 5) from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15305(a) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves a minor alteration in the land use limitations on a parcel which has a slope of less than 20% and does not result in any change in land use or density in that the project proposes a secondary, accessory land use which would not change or intensify the primary permitted on-site land use.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

12/4/2002

Date.

Approved based on the following finding findings and subject to

the conditions below.

x

Denied.

Other.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION IF NOT APPEALED:

12/19/2002

FINDINGS:

1. The proposed amendment is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically, Land Use Element Policy 1.8.2 to “allow retail uses necessary to serve office and advanced technology uses” within the Special Office District in that this policy does not support the inclusion of customer oriented businesses that are not necessary to the permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. In addition, the proposed amendment is not consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in Land Use Element Policies 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 to “retain industrial, manufacturing, and arts studio uses…” and to “limit office use to that associated with industrial, manufacturing and arts uses…” within the Industrial Conservation District since these policies do not support the inclusion of auto rental agencies as permitted uses within the underlying zoning district. An auto rental agency is not necessary to serve the uses permitted within the LMSD and operates in a substantially similar manner to an office use. Therefore, this use would be inconsistent with the Land Use Element and the purpose of the Light Manufacturing Studio District. In addition, the operation of on-site replacement vehicle services at auto repair facilities will not significantly reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the rental of replacement vehicles for customers as compared with the provision of replacement vehicles at off-site locations. Further, the stated purpose of the LMSD District is to “preserve existing light industrial uses, provide a location for studio related uses… to accommodate visual and performing arts studios and to provide for the preservation and expansion of existing schools.” The proposed text amendment to allow accessory auto rental uses is inconsistent with this intent.

2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not require the adoption of the proposed amendment, in that the stated purpose of the LMSD District is to ”preserve existing light industrial uses, provide a location for studio related uses…and to accommodate visual and performing arts studios and to provide for the preservation and expansion of existing schools,” and an auto rental agency, which operates in a manner similar to an office use, would not be consistent with this stated purpose. In addition, the operation of on-site replacement vehicle services at auto repair facilities will not significantly reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the rental of replacement vehicles for customers as compared with the provision of replacement vehicles at off-site locations, and even though the use would be accessory to auto repair facilities, an auto rental agency would be open to the general public and would generate additional vehicle trips.

VOTE

Ayes: Brown, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen

Nays: Clarke, Dad

Abstain: None

Absent: Hopkins

NOTICE

If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by the Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.

I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.

Darrell Clarke, Chairperson Date

ATTACHMENT J

Public Notice

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT: Appeal 02-007 M-1 Zoning District

Appeal 02-026 LMSD Zoning District

APPLICANT: Enterprise Rent-a Car

Appellant: Enterprise Rent-a Car

A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:

Appeal 02-007 and Appeal 02-026 of the Planning Commission’s Denial of Text Amendments to Allow Accessory Auto Rental Operations Within Auto Repair Facilities in the M1 Industrial Conservation District and LMSD Light Manufacturing and Studio District; and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Which Modifies Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.34.030 and Adds Section 9.04.08.35.025 to Allow Accessory Auto Rental Operations Within Auto Repair Facilities in the M1 Industrial Conservation District and LMSD Light Manufacturing and Studio District With a Performance Standards Permit and Amends Section 9.04.12.050 to Add Performance Standards for Auto Rental Operations Within Auto Repair Facilities .

DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, April 22, 2003, at 6:45 p.m.

LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California

HOW TO COMMENT

The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.

Address your letters to: City Clerk

Re: Appeal 02-007 and Appeal 02-026

1685 Main Street, Room 102

Santa Monica, CA 90401

MORE INFORMATION

If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Laura Beck, Associate Planner at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at laura-beck@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.

The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.

ESPAÑOL

Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________

JAY M. TREVINO, AICP

Planning Manager

f:\plan\share\council\notices\2002\Enterprise Appeals.doc

ATTACHMENT K

Proposed Ordinance

City Council Meeting 4-22-03 Santa Monica, California

ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)

(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICAPAL CODE SECTION 9.04.08.34.030 AND ADDING SECTION 9.04.08.35.025 TO ALLOW ACCESSORY AUTO RENTAL OPERATIONS WITHIN AUTO REPAIR FACILITIES IN THE M1 INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND LMSD LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND STUDIO DISTRICT WITH A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PERMIT AND AMENDING SECTION 9.04.12.050 TO ADD PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR AUTO RENTAL OPERATIONS WITHIN AUTO REPAIR FACILITIES

WHEREAS, automobile repair and automobile painting facilities are permitted uses in the M1 Industrial Conservation District, except when abutting a residential district or use when a Conditional Use Permit is required; and

WHEREAS, in the Light Manufacturing and Studio District, automobile repair and automobile painting facilities are permitted uses, except when within 100’ of a residential district when a Conditional Use Permit is required; and

WHEREAS, it is a common practice for automobile repair and automobile painting facilities to provide replacement vehicles as part of their regular services offered to customers, particularly among repair facilities associated with automobile dealerships; and

WHEREAS, automobile repair and automobile painting facilities typically provide replacement vehicles through their own operations or through an automobile rental agency that operates within the repair or painting facility or at an off-site location: and

WHEREAS, an automobile rental agency operating from within an automobile repair or automobile painting facility requires a separate business license; and

WHEREAS, currently the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not permit automobile rental operations within the M1 Industrial Conservation District or the LMSD Light Manufacturing and Studio District; and

WHEREAS, automobile rental agencies are permitted elsewhere within the City by Performance Standards Permit in the C3 Downtown Commercial District; C3-C Downtown Overlay District; C4 Highway Commercial District; C5 Special Office District and C6 Boulevard Commercial District; and

WHEREAS, performance standards were established for automobile rental agencies to detail the location, configuration, design, amenities, operation and other standards required to ensure harmony and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly as related to issues regarding parking, landscaping, lighting, loading and unloading of vehicles, circulation, and noise; and

WHEREAS, additional special performance standards are proposed for automobile rental agencies operating within auto repair facilities to ensure that the auto rental agencies remain accessory to the primary auto repair uses; and

WHEREAS, on April 3, 2002 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and denied the request for a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow accessory automobile rental operations within automobile repair facilities by Performance Standards Permit in the M1 Industrial Conservation District and on December 4, 2002 conducted a public hearing and denied a zoning ordinance text amendment to permit accessory automobile rental operations within auto repair facilities in the LMSD Light Manufacturing and Studio District; and

WHEREAS, in both instances, the Planning Commission based their denial upon the fact that the proposed accessory automobile rental operation within an auto repair facility may exacerbate the lack of parking at existing legal, non-conforming automobile repair and automobile painting facilities and intensify the operations of these facilities and that the operation of on-site replacement vehicle services at automobile repair and automobile painting facilities will not significantly reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the rental of replacement vehicles for customers as compared with the provision of replacement vehicles at off-site locations and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments on April 22, 2003; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the performance standards for automobile rental agencies, including those special standards for accessory automobile rental agencies within automobile repair and automobile painting facilities, will address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the intensification of use of legal, nonconforming automobile repair and automobile painting facilities and parking by limiting the size of the accessory automobile rental agency operation and requiring additional on-site parking; and

WHEREAS, the City Council declares that allowing on-site vehicle replacement services would benefit the customers of the automobile repair and automobile painting facilities by providing on-site replacement vehicles and eliminate the shuttling of customers to off-site automobile rental agencies; and

WHEREAS, the City Council also declares that eliminating the need for shuttling customers to off-site automobile rental agencies would result in a reduced number of vehicle trips in the City which lessens traffic congestion and vehicle emissions during the peak traffic hours when customers primarily drop-off and pick-up their vehicles; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically, Land Use Element Policy 1.2.4, which states, in part, that the City’s land use policies should: “Limit the number or control the location or otherwise mitigate the impact of commercial uses such as alcohol outlets, gas stations, auto repair shops….in those areas where an over-concentration of the use would have, or the operation of such uses might have, an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.” The proposed accessory use for an automobile rental operation within an automobile repair or automobile painting facility will mitigate some of the impacts of an existing automobile repair or painting facility by reducing the number of vehicle trips associated with the rental of replacement vehicles for customers of the auto repair facilities that are allocated in the M1 Industrial Conservation and LMSD Light Manufacturing and Studio districts; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendments, in that the proposed on-site auto rental agency operations will reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the rental of replacement vehicles for customers of auto body repair facilities. The nearby residential neighborhoods would benefit with fewer potential vehicle trips on their streets which reduces the adverse vehicle circulation and air quality impacts. The automobile repair and automobile painting facilities would also be more likely to remain in the M1 and LMSD areas of the City, which are intended to accommodate industrial and higher intensity commercial uses,

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION. 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.34.030 is hereby amended to read as follows:

9.04.08.34.030 Uses subject to performance standards permit.

(a) Automobile rental agencies accessory to automobile repair and automobile painting facilities.

(a) (b) Shelters for the homeless.

SECTION 2. Section 9.04.08.35.025 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to read as follows:

9.04.08.35.025 Uses subject to performance standards permit.

(a) Automobile rental agencies accessory to automobile repair and automobile painting facilities.

SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.12.050 is hereby amended to read as follows:

9.04.12.050 Automobile rental agencies.

The purpose of this Section is to ensure that automobile rental agencies do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhoods by reason of insufficient on-site customer and employee parking, traffic generation including road testing of vehicles, obstruction of traffic, visual blight, bright lights, noise, fumes, or drainage runoff. The following performance standards shall apply to automobile rental agencies:

(a) Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be seven thousand five hundred square feet.

(b) Lighting. All lighting shall comply with the provisions of Section 9.04.10.02.270.

(c) Washing of Vehicles. All washing, rinsing, or hosing down of vehicles and of the property shall comply with Article 7 of this Code.

(d) Repair of Vehicles. No vehicle repair work shall occur on the premises unless the rental agency is otherwise permitted and licensed to repair vehicles.

(e) Parking and Vehicle Storage. Employee and customer parking shall be provided at no charge. Parking shall comply with Part 9.04.10.08. Areas designated for employee and customer parking shall not be used for vehicle storage or display. Rooftop storage of vehicles is permitted, and fifty percent of any such space shall be counted as floor area for the purposes of computing floor area ratio.

(f) Landscaping. Screening of display and non-display areas shall comply with the provisions of Part 9.04.10.04. A minimum two-foot landscape and decorative curb strip, where feasible, shall be provided along the street frontage perimeter of all vehicle display areas. Landscape materials shall be designed to provide an opaque visual buffer at least twelve inches in height. Applicable setback requirements shall be expanded to require a minimum five-foot landscaped area adjacent to any abutting residential district. Final design treatment shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. All parking areas not used for vehicle display shall be subject to the parking lot screening requirements of Part 9.04.10.04.

(g) Loading and Unloading of Vehicles. Loading and unloading of vehicles is permitted only in accordance with this Subsection. The operator shall be responsible and liable for any activities of a common carrier, operator, or other person controlling such loading or unloading activities to the extent any such activities violate the provisions of this subsection.

(1) Loading and unloading of vehicles is limited to the hours of eight a.m. to five p.m. Monday through Saturday, excluding legal holidays.

(2) Off-loading shall be on-site or off-site, subject to the approval of the City Parking and Traffic Engineer. Loading and unloading shall not block the ingress or egress of any property.

(3) Existing agencies shall, within one year of the adoption of the ordinance codified in this Chapter, submit plans to the Parking and Traffic Engineer for approval that satisfy the requirements of this subsection.

(4) New automobile rental agencies or substantially remodeled agencies shall provide off-loading facilities on private property (on or off-site). Shared loading and unloading facilities are permitted for the purposes of meeting this requirement.

(h) Circulation. The location of entries and exits from rental agencies shall be located as far away from adjacent residential properties as is reasonably feasible and shall be directed to commercial streets and away from residential areas by means of signage and design. The interior circulation system between levels shall be internal to the building and shall not require use of public ways or of externally visible or uncovered ramps, driveways or parking areas. No arrangement shall be permitted which requires vehicles to back into an alley or other public way.

(i) Noise Control.

(1) There shall be no outdoor loudspeakers. Interior loudspeakers shall produce no more than 45 dba at a boundary abutting or adjacent to a residential parcel, under normal operating conditions (e.g., with windows open if they are likely to be opened).

(2) All noise generating equipment exposed to the exterior shall be muffled with sound absorbing materials to minimize noise impacts on adjacent properties and shall not be operated before 8:00 A.M. or after 6:00 P.M. if reasonably likely to cause annoyance to abutting or adjacent residences.

(3) Rooftop storage areas shall be screened with landscaping and noise absorbing materials to minimize noise impacts on adjacent properties.

(4) Existing agencies shall comply with the provisions of this subsection within six months after the adoption of this Chapter.

(j) Toxic Storage and Disposal.

(1) Gasoline storage tanks shall be constructed and maintained under the same conditions and standards that apply for service stations.

(2) There shall be full compliance with the terms and conditions of all City laws relating to the storage and disposal of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes.

(k) Air Quality.

(1) Use of brake washers shall be required in service stalls or areas which perform service on brakes employing asbestos or other materials known to be harmful when dispersed in the air.

(2) All mechanical ventilating equipment shall be directed to top story exhaust vents which face away from abutting or adjacent residential properties.

(3) Exhaust systems shall be equipped with appropriate and reasonably available control technology to minimize or eliminate noxious pollutants which would otherwise be emitted.

(l) Accessory automobile rental agencies within automobile repair and automobile painting facilities. In addition to all other requirements specified in this Section, the following special standards shall apply to accessory automobile rental agencies located within automobile repair and automobile painting facilities:

(1) No more than 10% of the total interior floor area of the automobile repair or automobile painting facility or a maximum of 750 square feet, whichever is less, may be devoted to the accessory automobile rental agency operation;

(2) The accessory automobile rental agency component of the automobile repair or automobile painting facility can only operate during the hours of operation of the automobile repair or automobile painting facility;

(3) Vehicles may be rented only to customers of the automobile repair or automobile painting facility;

(4) No exterior signage is permitted for the accessory automobile rental agency operation; and

(5) The accessory automobile rental agency operation may not be advertised or marketed as an independent automobile rental agency.

SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE

City Attorney