City Council Meeting: May 13,
2008
Agenda Item: 7-C
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning &
Community Development Director
Subject: Extension
of Interim Ordinance on modified Auto Dealership Regulations through August 8,
2010
Recommended
Action
Staff
recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an interim
ordinance extending Ordinance Number 2186 (CCS) until August 8, 2010.
Executive
Summary
Interim ordinance 2186 (CCS)
originally introduced in April 2006 modified regulations pertaining to
automobile dealerships in commercial and industrial zones and allows existing dealerships
to intensify activities in adjacent residentially-zoned lots. There are no proposed changes to the current
interim ordinance. This report also summarizes permit activity based on the
interim ordinance in the last two years.
Staff anticipates that these regulations will be revised and
incorporated as appropriate into the Zoning Code as part of the upcoming
comprehensive update.
Discussion
The Santa Monica Auto
Dealers Association (SMADA) and the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce hired
HR&A Associates to prepare an economic analysis and propose modifications
to auto dealership regulations, which they presented to the City in February
2001. Based on that report, the Council
directed staff to study the SMADA’s proposals as well as to analyze conflicts
with neighboring residential uses. A team comprising
Cotton/Bridges/Associates, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (for community
participation facilitation) and Economics Research Associates (for economic
background and analysis) was hired in 2003 to review the HR&A study,
independently evaluate the issues involved and recommend proposals for amending
the City’s policies regarding automobile dealership uses. The extensive outreach process
focused on residents in the neighborhoods near
The proposed interim ordinance extends the
following auto dealership regulations:
·
Increases allowable
heights and Floor Area Ratios (FARs) and modifies thresholds for permit
processes (Performance Standards Permit (PSP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP))
for new and existing auto dealerships in the C4 commercial district (
·
Increases heights and
·
Allows dealerships to
be located in the M1 Industrial Zone, with increased height in both M1 and LMSD
with modified thresholds for permit process (PSP, CUP);
·
Requires pedestrian
orientation for projects in all districts;
·
In residential zones, includes provisions that
allow construction of automobile storage or parking structures on properties
already used by the auto dealership provided the facilities continue to be
operated in conjunction with the adjacent automobile dealership;
·
Incorporates special
standards applicable in all zones for parking structures and automobile storage
lots, with additional standards for those parking structures located in
residential zones and serving a dealership in the adjacent commercial zone;
·
Specifies PSP and CUP
development standards applicable in all districts;
·
Allows employee
parking at existing inventory storage lots in the Broadway Commercial (BCD)
District with certain conditions;
·
Revises the Temporary
Use Permit (TUP) process to allow temporary storage of auto inventory under
certain conditions;
·
Allows the City to
collect a Housing Impact Fee if R2 or R3 properties are developed resulting in
potential loss of affordable housing;
·
Includes provisions
permitting auto dealers that provide incentives consistent with the City’s
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TMO) to charge employees for
parking;
·
Allows
a 50% FAR discount for rooftop parking.
This interim ordinance was adopted after substantial public input
including a series of community meetings, written comments received, and
discussion with automobile dealership owners and their representatives over a
three year process. The Council
deliberated on its provisions and made further changes when the ordinance was
extended one month later. The Interim
Ordinance anticipated large projects that might substantially redevelop and
screen operations either indoors or underground in order to reduce noise and improve
the aesthetic appearance of
While auto dealers may be in the process of developing plans, the
City has not received any applications for major projects to redevelop or
construct new dealerships. Since adoption
in April 2006, two PSP and two CUP projects have been submitted by auto
dealerships, in addition to a limited number of over-the-counter approvals for
minor work. The PSP applications were for small sales and rental operations on
At this time, staff recommends extension of the interim ordinance
text with no changes. The intention of
the ordinance – to allow additional height and FAR to encourage auto dealers to
redevelop incorporating measures that will reduce their impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood – and its provisions are still relevant.
Looking at the LMSD zone for the long-term, with its proximity to
the future Exposition Line light-rail stations, there will be discussion in the
LUCE as to compatibility of a range of uses with the kind of mixed-use,
transit-oriented development planned in that area, which will likely have new
land use designations.
Alternatives
As an alternative to
the recommended action of extending the interim ordinance, Council may choose to
allow this interim ordinance to expire, in which case the regulations in the
Zoning Ordinance would govern auto dealership development until the anticipated
Zoning Code update.
Environmental Analysis
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
prepared and certified by the Council prior to adoption of the initial
ordinance in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. In extending this ordinance, no changes to
the adopted provisions are proposed and the underlying physical conditions in
the area have not materially changed since the initial environmental review was
conducted. There have been no changes to
the project, changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
or new information which would necessitate additional environmental review
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Financial Impacts &
Budget Actions
The
recommendation presented in this report has no budget or financial impact.
Prepared by:
Elizabeth
Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen
Fogarty, Planning & Community Development Department |
|
P. City Manager |
ATTACHMENTS:
A.
March 28, 2006 City Council Staff Report -
Interim Ordinance 2179 (CCS)
B. May 9, 2006 City Council Staff Report -
Interim Ordinance 2186 (CCS)
D. Correspondence from the public (if any)
ATTACHMENT
A
March
28, 2006 City Council Staff Report – Interim Ordinance 2179 (CCS)
Council Mtg: March 28, 2006
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
D.
Proposed
Interim Ordinance
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:
I.
Notice
of Public Hearing
J.
Cross-sections
of potential R2/R3 parking structures compared with permitted multi-family
structure.
K.
Environmental
Impact Report (available online: http://www,santa-monica.org/planning/commission/agendas/FEIR.pdf)
ATTACHMENT
B
May
9, 2006 City Council Staff Report – Interim Ordinance 2186 (CCS)
City Council Meeting: May 9,
2006
Agenda Item: _____
To: Mayor and City Council
From:
Subject: Introduction and First
Recommended
Action
It is recommended that the Council modify one
provision of the interim ordinance in order to allow auto dealers that provide incentives
consistent with the City’s Transportation Demand Ordinance (TMO) to charge
employees for parking, and adopt on First Reading an Interim Ordinance
extending Interim Ordinance No.2179 (CCS) until July 10, 2008, amending the
City’s application review procedures and zoning regulations governing
automobile dealerships.
Executive
Summary
Interim regulations
for automobile dealerships will expire on July 10, 2006 unless extended. A two-year extension will allow time for
permanent regulations to be included in the new Zoning Ordinance. Following analysis of several topics
requested by the Council, one change is proposed in the attached ordinance that
relates to free on-site employee parking. Additionally, clarification language
is proposed regarding the performance standards to which existing dealerships
are also subject. A revised Interim Ordinance Extension is included with this
report as Attachment A.
Discussion
Background
Following an
extensive outreach and review process, revised standards governing automobile
dealerships in commercial and industrial zones, and allowing development of
parking and inventory structures on residential lots that are currently used by
auto dealerships, were discussed at a public hearing on March 28, 2006 and
adopted on an interim basis. The provisions contained in the interim ordinance
continue to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and
it is, therefore, recommended that the Council extend this ordinance until July
10, 2008.
At the March 28th
meeting, the Council requested additional information on the following topics:
allowing the use of residential and parking overlay lots for inventory storage;
requiring free on-site parking; reinstating language that discounts rooftop
parking floor area by 50% in calculating the floor-area-ratio (FAR); and noise
concerns in the M1/LMSD zones.
Previous Council Actions
The Council approved the First Reading for Interim Ordinance No.
2179 (CCS) on March 28, 2006, and Second Reading on April 11, 2006. The interim ordinance expires on June 10,
2006.
Alternatives
Council requested information in order to consider possible
modifications to the Interim Ordinance.
The following provides analysis of these issues and explains why one
modification is proposed and others are not recommended.
Free On-site Parking: The Interim Ordinance
continues the existing Code requirement [SMMC 9.04.14.160.a.1(c)] for on-site
automobile dealership parking to be provided free of charge to customers and
employees. This requirement is intended
to encourage employees and/or customers to park on-site.
Some
automobile dealers have testified that requiring free parking to employees runs
counter to the City’s efforts to reduce trips through ridesharing and transit
use. The City’s
Sonic Honda/Volvo 1.08
Toyota 1.15
Lincoln/Mercury 1.13
Volkswagen/Lexus 1.62
BMW/Isuzu 1.21
Nissan 1.15
Hornburg Jaguar 1.04
(first year plan)
Ford 1.12
W.I. Simonson 1.20
[1] City
of
These figures
show that only one dealership, Volkswagen/Lexus, has met the target AVR. Auto Dealerships registered with
In order to maintain the intent of reducing commercial intrusions into residential neighborhoods and support the city’s ridership goals, it is recommended to retain the requirement to prohibit charging for available on-site parking, but add an exception allowing dealers to charge employees (not customers) for parking if rideshare and transit incentives are provided consistent with the City’s TMO program, subject to the Transportation Planning Manager’s approval. The attached Interim Ordinance has been revised to reflect this change.
Inventory storage on residential and parking overlay (R2/R3
and “A”) lots: Automobile dealers have been requesting
permission to use residential (R) lots at their dealerships flexibly, for
surface parking and/or inventory as dictated by their needs at any given time
(see letter from Santa Monica Auto Dealers Association (SMADA), Attachment C).
Currently, some of these R-lots can only be used for customer or employee
parking, while others have a non-conforming legal right to use them for
inventory purposes [SMMC 9.04.18.040(d)]. The adopted Interim Ordinance
continues to prohibit surface inventory storage on R-lots where it has not
already been legally established.
Modifying the ordinance to grant the dealers’ request has
advantages and disadvantages. The main reason that it is recommended to
continue prohibiting surface inventory storage is to encourage redevelopment of
the auto dealers’ properties in a more efficient manner. The General Plan was amended to allow
automobile dealerships to build parking and storage structures on their
residential lots, and the Interim Ordinance includes provisions to facilitate
their development, including exemption from multi-family development standards
required in these zones and allowing rooftop parking. Those dealers that are legally entitled to
have surface inventory storage on residential lots may continue to do so; other
dealers who wish to use them for this purpose would be encouraged to look at
ways to redevelop their parcels to utilize them to a higher degree. Additionally, inventory storage lots would be
a more intensive operation, with sales activity occurring closer to residential
uses. Even if sales activity did not
occur, transporting vehicles from these lots for the customer could result in
more activity than if the R-lot were used for parking.
Modifying the ordinance to allow inventory storage on the
residential lots would, however, benefit the dealerships by improving the
accessibility of inventory to show customers. This may eliminate some trips
bringing vehicles from off-site locations to customers, thereby somewhat
reducing traffic in the area.
The Santa Monica Auto Dealers Association (SMADA) has suggested
allowing surface inventory storage on R-lots in exchange for employee parking
elsewhere. For instance, dealerships would be permitted to swap their R-lot
parking with inventory now kept in the Broadway Commercial District (BCD). The
Interim Ordinance now allows such exchanges of parking and inventory between
commercial dealership lots and BCD locations.
If Council desires to change the Interim Ordinance and extend the
potential of that provision to include exchanges with adjacent R-lots, staff
will have alternative language to effectuate this change. The BCD lots in question are about ¼ mile
from their associated dealerships.
Additionally, dealers able to find other legal locations within a
reasonable walking distance could do the same.
Overall, modification of the Interim Ordinance is not recommended
because parking intrusion into nearby neighborhoods was one of the most
consistently mentioned impacts during the public outreach process. Staff is not
convinced that there is a clear, enforceable mechanism for distinguishing and
monitoring inventory versus parking and is concerned that ultimately, inventory
will be parked in both locations. Should the Council choose to allow inventory
storage on surface lots, it is recommended that the following provisions be
included:
§
Require displaced employee parking at another off-site,
off-street location through an administrative review procedure similar to
Section 8(a) of the Interim Ordinance;
§
Require that the off-site location be within a
reasonable walking distance to the dealership (1/8 to ¼ mile);
§
Require that a specified number of customer
parking spaces on the commercial dealership property be provided;
§
Prohibit sales activity on R-lots;
§
Require R-lots to revert to parking if the
alternative off-site parking source becomes unavailable.
Fifty Percent Floor-Area-Ratio
(FAR) Discount for Rooftop Parking/Storage: The
potential size of an automobile dealership at any particular location will be
determined by the parcel size, limitations to maximum height and floor area,
and compliance with other standards, such as parking or landscaping. Throughout
the interim ordinance, incentives are offered to encourage dealerships to
redevelop their commercial and residential lots in ways that address their
needs and long standing concerns expressed by area residents. Those incentives
include increased floor area and height on most commercial properties,
provisions that allow parking structures on residential lots and exempting all
subterranean activity from the floor-area-ratio (FAR) calculation, which
expands potential inventory storage and service capacity in a way that was not
previously possible. The discussion
regarding floor area discounts for FAR calculation relates specifically to
commercial properties as development on residential parcels is limited by
parcel coverage; a distinctly different calculation.
As contained in the existing Interim
Ordinance, elimination of the fifty percent discount for rooftop automobile
storage is another way to encourage more activity underground in commercial
districts. In addition to the capacity provided by one or two levels of
subterranean activity, the increased floor area and height provisions provided
in the interim ordinance far offset the loss of removing the discount from the
rooftop parking calculation. Because this provision seeks to address concerns
about commercial development expressed by area residents and to retain
incentives to utilize subterranean space when redeveloping commercial
properties, it is recommended that Council retain the current Interim Ordinance
provision. If Council wishes to reduce
rooftop area in floor area calculation, language could be added to Interim Ordinance Sections 2, 3, and 5.
Noise regulation in industrial (M1/LMSD) areas:
Council requested further clarification of standards applicable to dealerships
that the Interim Ordinance now permits in the M1 industrial zone. Section 5 (e)
of the ordinance specifies that any PSP or CUP issued for a dealership would be
subject to the same standards set forth in Interim Ordinance Section 7 that
apply to dealerships in all zones. These
standards include hour restrictions for off-loading and outdoor activities,
noise control including prohibition of outdoor loudspeakers, control of
test-driving routes and alley traffic and other requirements designed to make
these uses more compatible with surrounding uses. The Zoning Code already requires vehicle
repair activity to occur within an enclosed structure and prohibits operation
of repair facilities for both existing and new dealerships between 8:00 pm and
7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no activity permitted on Sunday. The Interim Ordinance further prohibits all
dealership activity at a location within 100 feet of a residential district
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., which the Planning Commission may further restrict
for projects subject to the CUP process.
As existing regulations and the interim ordinance already provide
protections, no modification to the interim ordinance is recommended.
Performance Standards for Existing Dealerships: The Zoning Ordinance requires that existing
automobile dealerships comply with certain standards regarding noise impacts,
vehicle off-loading, test driving, alley use, prohibition of vehicle storage on
the public right-of-way, hours of operation and accessory auto rental. In the interest of having all regulations
applicable to auto dealerships in one place, the extended ordinance contains an
explicit reference at the beginning of Section 7 to the requirements that
pertain to existing dealerships.
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.
Prepared by: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner
Attachments:
A.
Draft
Interim Ordinance Extension
B.
Notice
of Public Hearing
C.
Correspondence
received since March 28, 2006
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Interim
Director, Department of Planning and Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |