Council
Mtg: March 28, 2006
7 A
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Auto Dealership Regulation Revisions
INTRODUCTION
This report proposes a revised ordinance pursuant to
Council direction provided on October 25, 2005, and recommends that the City
Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, adopt an amendment to the General Plan Land Use
Element and introduce for first reading an Interim Ordinance to modify
regulations pertaining to automobile dealerships in the City, including limited
expansion of automobile dealerships on parcels located in low and
medium-density residential areas. The
proposed modifications affect the C4, C6, R2, R3, LMSD, M1 and BCD zoning
districts, including the Parking “A” Overlay District.
BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2005, the Council discussed proposed
General Plan and Interim Zoning revisions applicable to automobile dealerships
in the city.
Resolutions certifying the final EIR and adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations are included with this report as
Attachments A and B, respectively. Proposed language for the General Plan
Amendment and Interim Zoning Ordinance can be found in Attachments C and D,
respectively. Additional background on
the Environmental Impact Report and proposed regulations is included in the
October 25 staff report (Attachment H).
ANALYSIS
Proposed Changes to the Interim Ordinance Provisions
Based on Council Direction
In response to Council
members’ inquiries and comments provided on October 25, and following
additional public input and analysis, staff proposes the following changes to
the draft Interim Ordinance:
1.
Conditional
Use Permits (CUPs) and Performance Standards Permits (PSPs): Application of
permit to entire property; consideration of a level of permitted (by right)
activity; use of parking structures: The draft interim ordinance proposes to raise the
CUP threshold to 7,500 square feet of additional area (currently the threshold
is 5,000 square feet or a 10% expansion, whichever is smaller). Projects below the 7,500 square foot
threshold would require a PSP. While the
level of review is differentiated, standards for both permit types are
identical. Since these standards are important
to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood, and are not generally difficult
to achieve, it is proposed that a permit for a dealership cover the entire
dealership operation on the property at which the application is made. Such an
approach is also consistent with the legal non-conforming provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Some auto
dealers have objected to site-wide conditions when requesting entitlements to improve
only a portion of a dealership. Dealers
informed staff that the standards with which they anticipate compliance
difficulties include landscaping, queuing of vehicles and possibly parking, although
additional parking is only required for net new activity or new floor area. Vehicle loading and unloading was noted as the
primary concern and is addressed separately below.
The Santa
Monica Automobile Dealership Association (SMADA) has contended that permits should
apply only to the portion of a property for which modification is requested. This,
however, is not practical because operational conditions cannot be isolated to
one activity or area on a property.
Furthermore, the property development requirements in the ordinance are
generally feasible and applicable to existing conditions. However, it is
acknowledged that in some cases, meeting the precise requirements may pose a
hardship at an existing dealership site.
Therefore, the draft ordinance has been revised to include language
allowing the Planning Commission, or Zoning Administrator for a PSP, to modify
or waive any of the PSP/CUP standards based on a determination that compliance
with that standard would create an undue hardship given existing site
conditions.
Subsequent to
the Council’s October 25 hearing, SMADA representatives requested that staff consider
a proposal to create a threshold allowing small projects to proceed without a
PSP, thereby permitting some small improvements by right and without subjecting
the applicant to performance standards and conditions. A simplified permit process for minor
improvements may result in aesthetic enhancements and address specific spatial
needs, particularly on
Staff has also
considered SMADA’s request to allow automobile dealerships to lease space in
residentially zoned parking structures constructed under the ordinance to other
dealerships, whether related or not to the on-site dealership. Based on concern that additional use of a
parking structure, such as for valet parking for a restaurant or bar, might
have negative impacts on surrounding residents, the previous draft ordinance
specified that a structure could only be used for inventory and employee
parking associated with the on-site dealership.
The revised ordinance allows these parking structures to be used by other
local dealerships, but not for non-dealership purposes.
2.
Loading/Unloading
on-street:
The Code currently requires that dealerships receive approval by the
Staff had
proposed to require dealers expanding their use through a PSP or a CUP to replace
their on-street loading/unloading activity with an off-street alternative,
either on-site or at another location.
This proposal was based on input received during the public outreach
process and concerns expressed about noise, street-blocking and safety associated
with this practice. However, auto
dealers have stated this requirement is unattainable due to existing site
conditions and space requirements to accommodate large car carriers.
The off-street
loading provision has been retained in the revised ordinance. However, the Zoning Administrator, Planning
Commission or City Council on appeal may waive this requirement based on a determination
that compliance with that standard would create an undue hardship given
existing site conditions. In such cases,
an on-street loading/off-loading plan on portions of streets designated as
non-residential only would need to be approved as part of the entitlement
process. Vehicle inventory loading and unloading
hours would be generally consistent with the City’s noise regulations, limiting
this activity to between 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. weekdays, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Saturdays; loading and unloading of cars is not permitted on Sundays and legal
holidays.
The interim
ordinance requires that dealerships confirm annually their compliance with
unloading, test drive and alley use plans.
It is hoped that this self-reporting mechanism will foster a continuous
awareness of these important regulations and encourage more proactive compliance
on an ongoing basis.
3.
Floor-Area
Ratio (FAR), Height in M1/LMSD Zones: The FAR for auto dealerships in the LMSD (Light
Manufacturing Studio District) and M1 (Industrial Conservation) zones is
proposed to be 1.5, consistent with the C4 zone. It is also recommended that the height limit
for automobile dealerships in the M1 and LMSD zones be increased to 35’,
consistent with the recommendation for commercial zones. However, if the
dealership is adjacent to a residential use, a stepback of 10 feet from the
property line would be required. This
represents a modification of the October 25th proposal, which had
proposed a FAR of 1.0 and height of 30’.
The lower standards were proposed because there was concern that the
environmental document had not analyzed the greater FAR and height. However, it has been verified that increased
FAR and height were properly analyzed.
4.
Car Alarm
disengagement requirement removed. The
proposed operational standard requiring disabling of audible car alarms on
inventory parked in residentially-zoned parking structures has been deleted
from the revised draft ordinance. While
this measure was proposed to mitigate anticipated nuisances to surrounding
residential uses, the feasibility of implementation is questionable and auto
dealers have testified to the Council that for some car brands the requirement
would pose a hardship and may in fact put the dealership in legal jeopardy.
Additionally, auto dealers have testified that changes in car alarm technology
have reduced accidental activation incidents, such that the noise issues cited
in the past may not be as significant a concern.
5.
Requiring
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) systems in conjunction with residentially-zoned parking
structures:
At the Council’s request, staff has prepared
information for Council to consider if it wishes to require provision of some
level of solar energy collection on a parking/inventory storage structure in a
residential zone (Attachment F). The City will be constructing a photo voltaic
(PV) system at the new 892-space
In consultation
with the City’s Environmental Programs Division, it is recommended that the
Council consider the following if it wishes to require providing a Solar PV
system in conjunction with construction of dealership structures on residential
lots:
§
The PV system should be designed to provide 20% of the parking
structure’s anticipated electricity use.
This level is recommended because it provides a relatively substantial
benefit and is generally achievable given the surface area of the typical
property.
§
For a prototypical R2 structure on a 15,000 square-foot lot, holding 69
cars on two levels above ground and one subterranean, the estimated price of
this system would be about $9,700. For a slightly larger three story, 92-car
structure, the estimated cost would be about $13,000. The PV facility could be installed on the
structure itself, on a solar port, or on the rooftop of an adjacent building at
the dealership site. It should be noted
that the cost would increase by about 50% to develop a facility that would
produce 30% of the building’s anticipated electrical needs.
Pending Council
direction, staff has prepared draft language that would require installation of
a PV system, which could be added to the draft interim ordinance.
6.
Entitlement
process timelines for a Performance Standards Permit (PSP) or Conditional Use
Permit (CUP): Council requested information
regarding the time required for CUP or PSP entitlement of a project. The overall length of the process depends on
factors that are within the City’s control in some cases and dependent on the
applicant in others. The time frames
given in the table below account for only the City’s processing time based on
current performance goal standards. The
City’s zoning requirements for dealerships are consistent with Building and
Safety Codes.
|
Permit Process |
Permit Review Time/ fees |
ARB Review time/ fees |
B&S, 1st set of comments |
B&S, 2nd set of comments |
|
PSP |
8 weeks/
$989.47 |
6 weeks/
$1,002.82 |
6 weeks |
3 weeks* |
|
CUP |
26 weeks
or up to one year if an EIR is required/ $8,134.88 + cost of environmental
documen-tation and administration. |
6 weeks/
$1,002.82 |
6 weeks |
3 weeks* |
* Total building permit entitlement process depends on number of plan
corrections and applicant’s turnaround time for resubmittal.
7.
Temporary or “Interim” Use Permits: Council heard
auto dealers’ concerns that the proposed three-month TUPs for inventory storage
or one-year period for dealerships under construction do not provide adequate
relief for their inventory storage needs.
They have requested that the City create an “Interim” permit process
that allows use of surface lots for longer periods, suggesting a two-year term
with renewal opportunities. They have indicated agreement with requiring
certain site development conditions, including fencing, landscaping around the
perimeter, provided staff has flexibility to modify where infeasible, and other
reasonable site specific operational requirements and improvements to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses (Attachment G).
The primary concern regarding the
dealers’ request is that authorizing a broad right to utilize available surface
lots for auto storage in the city’s commercial zones may result in
incompatible, relatively long-term storage lots around the city rather than
development of more compatible uses.
Furthermore, a consequence might be continuation of unimproved
dealerships along
However, the need for storage in the near
future is clear, particularly with loss of space at the
8.
SMADA proposal to allow exchange of automobile
storage and employee parking locations:
There are a few dealership inventory
lots located on Broadway, where inventory storage for auto dealerships is now a
permitted use, but free-standing surface parking lots are not allowed. SMADA has requested flexibility to allow employee
parking at these locations of which there are three that staff has identified. At the dealers’ request, this possibility was
studied in the EIR, and no significant impacts were identified.
A primary concern about allowing this
flexibility has been encouragement of long-term surface parking use on Broadway,
which is envisioned as a mixed-use neighborhood. However, it is recommended to allow employee
parking on those BCD-zoned lots existing at the time of the interim ordinance’s
approval, subject to Zoning Administrator approval of site plans both for the
Broadway and dealership properties. The
plans would be reviewed to ensure that the relocation of inventory onto a
dealership site does not result in a loss of overall parking capacity for the
dealership’s customers and employees. In order to improve the pedestrian
character of Broadway, installation of perimeter landscaping would be required and
both lots would require striping and marking of employee parking spaces in
compliance with the approved plans.
Tandem parking would be permitted for both inventory and employee
parking.
9.
Parking Requirements: SMADA has requested that the Interim Ordinance
include changes to the parking requirements, specifically modification of the
1:400 ratio for indoor showrooms to be the same as the 1:2,000 ratio for
outdoor display. Their reasoning is that
the space used for car display generates the same need for parking, whether it
is indoors or outdoors. However, a car showroom is a more spacious area that
might function as a gathering area where customers would tend to remain longer.
Staff has not conducted an in-depth
parking analysis, since current parking requirements were not identified as an
issue in the public outreach process. While
the HR&A study conducted for SMADA included recommendations for achieving
an appropriate parking supply, its recommended Code modifications to do so did
not include changing the required number of spaces. It is recommended that this suggestion be
considered during the Zoning Ordinance revision process.
10.
Graphic representation of proposed parking
structures: In response to the
Council’s request, staff has prepared a cross-section of potential parking
structures in relation to their adjacent residential uses (see Attachment J).
It is noted that the proposed height, including projections, would be lower
overall than residential structures permitted in the R2 and R3 districts, but
the maximum parcel coverage for upper floors would not be limited in the same
way, resulting in less articulated structures.
Attachment E contains a summary table of all proposed
regulations for each district.
Public Input
City staff received a letter from SMADA’s legal counsel
on November 21, 2005, and met with a group of ten auto dealers and SMADA
representatives on November 22, 2005.
Questions raised at the previous Council meeting were discussed, and
participants shared opinions on issues including on-street delivery, temporary/interim
inventory storage, permit process details, Broadway storage lots for employee
parking use and alarm disabling. SMADA
representatives stated that they do not object to compliance with development
standards generally, provided that staff is granted authority to provide
waivers in case of hardship and infeasibility. SMADA sent another letter on December 6,
following up on some issues discussed at the meeting. Attachment F contains copies
of all correspondence received since October 25.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22 and consistent
with CEQA requirements, staff notified a mailing list representing residents
and property owners that live within 500 feet of an existing dealership as well
as individuals who have commented on the processes and/or asked to be included
in the mailing list. In addition, a
notice was published in the
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not
have any direct budget or fiscal impact. Regulations proposed herein may result
in development of projects that might result in additional tax revenues.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council take the following
actions:
1.
Adopt the attached Resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report,
2.
Adopt the attached Resolution to approve
a Statement of Overriding Considerations based on the project’s public
benefits;
3.
Adopt the
attached Resolution to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
modifying Policies 1.2.2 and 1.2.3, based on the attached findings.
4.
Introduce for First
Reading an Interim Ordinance modifying regulations related to automobile
dealership uses.
Prepared
by:
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Principal Planner
Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A.
Resolution Certifying the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
B.
Resolution Adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations
C.
Resolution to Adopt the General Plan Land Use
Element Amendment
E.
Summary Table: Proposed Auto Dealership Interim
Ordinance Policies
F.
Parking Structure PV System spreadsheet
G.
Public Comments received since October 25, 2005
H.
October 25, 2005 Staff report:
K.
Environmental
Impact Report (available online: http://www,santa-monica.org/planning/commission/agendas/FEIR.pdf)