Loading...
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 -