SR-401-045 (6)
PCD:SF:JT:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\autorepair2.doc
Council Mtg: January 18, 2000 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica
Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.02.030.315 and Section 9.04.14.050
of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to Modify the Zoning
Ordinance Floor Area Ratio Definition Relating to the Enclosure of Existing
Outdoor Hoists, to Amend the Special Conditions for Automobile Repair
Facilities, including but not limited to, Allowable Outdoor Work Activities,
Landscaping, Outdoor Hoist Enclosures, and other operating conditions, to
Add Provisions Related to the Storage of Re-usable Auto Parts, the Road
Testing of Vehicles and Vehicles Awaiting Repair, and to Require Existing
Auto Repair Facilities to Comply with Special Conditions Related to Lighting,
Litter, Sound and Storage, and Discussion of Standards for Existing Auto
Repair Facilities in the M1 and LMSD Districts That are Not Subject to the
Special Conditions.
Introduction
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance to
amend SMMC Section 9.04.02.030.315 and Section 9.04.14.050 of Article IX of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to modify the Zoning Ordinance floor area ratio definition relating
to the enclosure of existing outdoor hoists, to amend the special conditions for automobile
repair facilities relating to allowable outdoor work activities, landscaping and outdoor hoist
enclosures, to add provisions related to the storage of re-usable auto parts, the road
testing of vehicles and vehicles awaiting repair, and to require existing auto repair facilities
to comply with special conditions related to lighting, litter, sound and storage.
On November 23, 1999, the Council conducted a public hearing and introduced for first
reading an ordinance amending the above referenced sections of the Municipal Code.
- 1 -
However, after receiving communications from the auto repair industry regarding the
location of outdoor work activities, on December 14, 1999 the Council directed staff to
reagendize the ordinance for first reading and a public hearing to consider the repair
industry’s concerns. Attachment A is the ordinance Council considered for first reading on
November 23, 1999, with the modifications discussed below.
Prior Council Action
On November 23, 1999, the Council voted to introduce for first reading an ordinance
amending Santa Monica Municipal Code provisions governing automobile repair facilities.
Council’s action included modifications to the provisions affecting landscaping, screening,
lighting, existing outdoor hoists, sound, test driving routes and storage of used auto parts
and, most significantly, allowed outdoor work activities to occur on the premises of
automobile repair facilities lawfully in existence prior to September 1988 and who were
conducting outdoor repair activities as of May 11, 1999, provided the following conditions
are met:
(1) the work is performed within twenty feet of an existing building;
(2) the work is performed entirely within a clearly marked area which is at
least fifty feet from the property line of the nearest residence and which does
not exceed fifty percent of the facility’s existing outdoor area or four-hundred
(400) square feet, whichever is greater;
(3) the work does not involve the use of pneumatic tools or power tools
unless battery-powered;
(4) the work is not audible at the property line of the nearest residence;
(5) street frontage is screened consistent with Section 9.04.10.04.080;
(6) side and rear yards, not fronting a street, are screened consistent with
subsection (f) of this Section;
(7) outdoor work can only be performed from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturday.
In addition, automobile repair facilities lawfully in existence prior to September 1988 which
service and repair oversized vehicles outdoors on their premises may work on these
- 2 -
vehicle outdoors without being subject to the conditions set forth above.
At this time staff is recommending modifications and additions to the ordinance language
to clarify some of the provisions governing existing auto repair shops and to eliminate
unenforceable provisions. Modifications have been made to subsection (f) requiring both
auto repair and auto body shops to comply with the screening. Subsection (k) has been
clarified to state that outdoor hoist enclosures are not required to be constructed with
concrete block walls or similar materials. In addition, language has been added to
subsection (k) requiring existing repair facilities having enclosures or buildings with bay
doors facing residential uses to keep the residential side doors closed during repair
activities. These modifications are proposed to reduce the adverse noise impacts of repair
activities and the visual impacts of vehicles awaiting repair on nearby residential and
commercial uses. Subsection (k) has also been clarified to state that outdoor hoists
cannot be used pending their removal or enclosure. This clarification simply restates
existing law.
Staff is also recommending three modifications to subsection (j) regarding permitted
outdoor work. First, staff is recommending adding subsection (j)(8) to clarify that outdoor
hoists cannot be used, even for oversized vehicles. Staff believes that limiting the use of
outdoor hoists to oversized vehicles only is difficult to enforce because repair facilities that
work on both oversize vehicles and standard vehicles could use the hoist for standard
vehicles in violation of the ordinance. Secondly, staff is recommending elimination of the
language related to auto repair facilities who were lawfully in existence prior to September
1988 and who were conducting outdoor work on or before May 11, 1999 to continue the
- 3 -
outdoor work activities subject to the conditions outlined above. Staff has deleted the
reference to the May 11, 1999 date as this provision is not verifiable or enforceable.
Finally, the Council voted to allow outdoor work activities on oversized vehicles without
being subject to the conditions listed in subsection (j). Staff is recommending that repair
facilities who perform work on these vehicles be exempted from the area provisions set
forth in subsection (j) (1) and (2) only if the vehicles cannot be serviced and repaired within
existing buildings due to the size of the vehicles. This exemption would provide repair
businesses more flexibility in the areas where these large vehicles are worked on.
However, the repair facility would otherwise be subject to the remaining conditions listed in
subsection (j), paragraphs (3) through (8). These conditions would continue to protect
nearby land uses from the adverse impacts of the repair activity.
Auto Repair Industry Concerns
The auto repair industry has concerns about the 50 foot outdoor work limitation. The
repair industry is concerned businesses with no available outdoor work area greater than
50 feet from a residence will be prohibited from to conducting any outdoor work activities.
Staff believes the ordinance as drafted will greatly alleviate the concerns of many auto
repair shop owners related to outdoor work, however it will not alleviate all the concerns
and, to do so, nearby residents will be further impaired. The 50 foot standard is more
enforceable than decibel limitations and provides the most effective means of mitigating
noise and repair activity impacts.
Staff investigated the possibility of sound barriers as an alternative method of attenuating
- 4 -
noise impacts on nearby residences in lieu of the 50 foot distance requirement. According
to the City’s noise consultant, Mestre Greve Associates, a distance separation of 50’ from
a noise source (outdoor auto repair activity) to the noise receptor (residential properties)
would reduce the impacts of the noise by about 6 decibels, which is considered a
noticeable decrease. A sound wall constructed of concrete or masonry block or other
sound absorbing material, or an existing building without openings facing residential
properties, could also reduce noise impacts by approximately 6 decibels. However, the
sound wall or building would have to be placed to obstruct the line of sight from the noise
receptor to the noise source to effectively reduce the noise impact. Therefore, a sound
wall is not considered an effective noise mitigation measure for buildings over one story as
it would necessitate a wall significantly higher than 8 feet. In addition, the sound wall
could not have any opening or gaps for driveways. In order for the sound wall to be
effective, it must span the full length of the property adjacent to residential.
Staff has reviewed all of the auto repair locations which currently conduct outdoor repair
activities and would be affected by the 50 foot standard. Of these 52 businesses,
approximately 10 businesses would be unable to perform outdoor work based upon the 50
foot requirement. Staff is concerned that allowing sound walls and buildings as noise
barriers in lieu of the 50 foot requirement would permit repair shops to increase outdoor
work area since the outdoor work area could encroach closer than 50 feet to residential
properties. In addition, concrete sound walls in excess of 36 inches in height along any
property lines would not be permitted within 5 feet of the point of intersection of the
driveway and alley or street due to safety constraints. Finally, sound walls over 8 feet
could have adverse visual impacts on the nearby residential properties. For these
- 5 -
reasons, staff is not recommending that sound walls or buildings be considered in lieu of
the 50 foot distance standard to attenuate the noise impacts of outdoor auto repair
activities on nearby residential properties.
Existing auto repair facilities located in the M1 and LMSD zoning districts
Staff has also indicated to the Council that in the M1 Industrial Conservation District,
automobile repair and automobile painting facilities that abut a residential district and use
must have a CUP. However, those facilities that do not abut a residential district and use
are permitted and do not need a CUP. Similarly, in the LMSD Light Manufacturing and
Studio district, automobile repair and automobile painting facilities that are within 100’ of a
residential district require a CUP; all other such facilities are permitted and do not require
a CUP. Therefore, those existing auto repair and painting facilities that do not abut a
residential district and use in the M1 zoning district and are not within 100’ of a residential
district in the LMSD district are not subject to the special conditions referenced above. All
auto repair activities in the M1 and LMSD zoning districts must occur within an enclosed
building and no outdoor repair work is permitted. The City Transportation Yard, which in
the M1 District, does not abut a residential district or use. The vehicle repair facility at the
City Maintenance Yard is also in the M1 District and does not abut a residential district or
use. Both facilities, therefore, are not subject to the auto repair CUP requirements.
At this time, staff does not recommend any amendments to the Municipal Code which
would affect these businesses.
- 6 -
CEQA Status
The amendments contained in the proposed ordinance would have no significant effects
on the environment as only minor amendments to existing land use regulations would
result. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5, Section 15305 of the State of California
CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, the proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of
CEQA.
Public Notification
A display advertisement was published in Our Times at least ten consecutive calendar
days prior to the hearing. In addition, notices were mailed to all auto repair facilities
throughout the City, to owners and occupants of residences located within 300 feet of the
auto repair facilities, to persons expressing interest in issues related to auto repair
activities, to neighborhood organizations within the City and to persons who have
expressed interest in City policy issues. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.
Budget/Financial Impact
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council conduct a public hearing and introduce for first reading
the attached ordinance amending SMMC Section 9.04.02.030.315 and Section
9.04.14.050.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Paul Foley, Associate Planner, City Planning Division
- 7 -
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Public Notice
PF
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\autorepair2.doc
July 5, 2007
- 8 -