SR-042203-6A
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
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
After discussions with the applicant and review of the April 17, 2003, letter from the
applicant’s attorney, staff believes that this matter should be continued for further
analysis in the context of the review of the auto dealer standards. Such a continuance
would facilitate a broader review of the issues posed by the proposed text
amendments. The applicant concurs with such a continuance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council continue these appeals pending further
analysis in the context of the review of auto dealer standards.
Prepared by: Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
1
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.
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
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.
10
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.
11
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
12
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.
13
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.
14
ATTACHMENT C
Zoning Administrator Interpretation dated September 19, 2001
15
PCD:SF:JT:AS:PF:f:plan\share\pc\strpt\autorental&repair.doc Santa Monica,
California
Planning Commission Mtg: September 19, 2001
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.
16
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 analysisdiscussed 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
17
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
18
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
19
ATTACHMENT D
Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2001
20
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:
21
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.
22
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
23
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.
24
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.
25
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.
26
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
27
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.
28
9. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS:
None.
10. PUBLIC INPUT:
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.
APPROVED: OCTOBER 17, 2001
f:\plan\share\pc\minutes\pcm09192001.doc
10/1/2001
29
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.
30
ATTACHMENT F
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 2002
31
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,
32
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:
33
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,
Applicant: Dr. Victor
whichever is less. (Planner: Jean M. Moore, AICP)
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
34
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
35
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
36
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
37
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.
38
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.
39
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
40
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
th
gate on 11 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.
41
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.
42
Commissioner Johnson commented that he has seen an Enterprise Rent-A-Car
th
sign at the corner of 11 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.
43
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
44
ATTACHMENT G
Planning Commission Minutes of December 4, 2002
45
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
46
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-AAPPEAL 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
47
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.
48
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.
49
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.
50
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
51
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.
52
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:
Applicant: Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
Laura Beck, AICP)
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.
53
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
54
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.
55
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
56
parking, and modify the condition that 50% of the ground floor uses be
APPLICANT: Douglas Emmett &
pedestrian oriented. [Planner: Gina Szilak]
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.
57
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.)
58
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.
59
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
60
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.
61
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.
62
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
63
ATTACHMENT H
Planning Commission Statement of Official Action – TA 99-009
64
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.
65
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.
66
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
F:\PLAN\SHARE\PC\STOAS\2002/ta99009.doc
REV.: 11/14/01
67
ATTACHMENT I
Planning Commission Statement of Official Action – TA 02-003
68
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.
69
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
70
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
71
F:\PLAN\SHARE\PC\STOAS\2002/TA02003.doc
REV.: 11/14/01
72
ATTACHMENT J
Public Notice
73
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
Laura Beck, Associate Planner
contact 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.
74
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
75
ATTACHMENT K
Proposed Ordinance
76
f:\plan/share/council/ord/enterprise.doc
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
77
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
78
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
79
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
80
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
81
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.
82
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:
Minimum Lot Size
(a) . The minimum lot size shall be
seven thousand five hundred square feet.
Lighting.
(b) All lighting shall comply with the provisions of
Section 9.04.10.02.270.
Washing of Vehicles
(c) . All washing, rinsing, or hosing
down of vehicles and of the property shall comply with Article 7 of
this Code.
Repair of Vehicles
(d) . No vehicle repair work shall occur
on the premises unless the rental agency is otherwise permitted
and licensed to repair vehicles.
83
Parking and Vehicle Storage
(e) . 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.
Landscaping
(f) . 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.
Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
(g) . 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
84
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.
Circulation
(h) . 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
85
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.
Noise Control
(i) .
(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.
Toxic Storage and Disposal
(j) .
86
(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.
Air Quality
(k) .
(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
87
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.
88
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
89