Council Mtg: October 25, 2005 Santa Monica, California

TO: Mayor and Councilmembers

FROM: City Staff

SUBJECT: Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (05EIR-001), Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Adoption of a Resolution Amending the General Plan Land Use Element (05GPA-005) to Allow Development of Parking Structures in Low and Medium Density Housing Districts and Parking Overlay Zones on Properties Currently Used Legally in Conjunction with an Automobile Dealership Subject to Development Standards and Discretionary Review and Introduction and First Reading of an Interim Ordinance to Modify Zoning Regulations Pertaining to Automobile Dealerships in the City

INTRODUCTION

This report recommends that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and introduce for first reading an Interim Ordinance to modify regulations pertaining to automobile dealerships in the City, including limited expansion of automobile dealerships on parcels located in low and medium-density residential areas. The proposed modifications affect the C4, C6, R2, R3, LMSD and M1 zoning districts, including the Parking “A” Overlay District.

BACKGROUND

The City Council’s concern about both the viability and the impacts of automobile dealerships in the City of Santa Monica resulted in direction to the City Planning Division to study these unique circumstances and the automobile dealerships’ needs, and propose options to modify regulations. After an extensive public outreach process and Planning Commission review, in September 2004 the Council directed staff to return with a proposed interim ordinance for its consideration.

Specifically, the Council directed staff to propose an interim ordinance that allowed automobile dealerships in the M1 District; inventory storage and off-street parking structures associated with an existing dealership on residentially zoned parcels, subject to height and setback standards that are consistent with the underlying base district; encouraged subterranean development by exempting this area from the floor area ratio requirements; permitted rooftop parking; and, short and long term temporary use permit options for vehicle storage and dealer relocation. The Council also directed staff to evaluate the possibility of a housing impact fee for commercially developed residential parcels, to explore solar panels on parking structure parapets, and periodic review/ monitoring of the migration of automobile-related uses into the LMSD and M1 Districts.

Consistent with the Council’s direction, staff also processed an amendment to the City’s Land Use Element (LUE) to allow commercial development on certain residential properties currently used by dealerships. This amendment has been drafted and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to ensure that the interim ordinance is consistent with the General Plan.

Proposed language for the General Plan Amendment and Interim Zoning Ordinance are included with this report as Attachments C and D, respectively. The existing regulations are contained in Attachment E.

Planning Commission Action

The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention on July 6, 2005, to initiate the General Plan Amendment process as required by Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.20.16.020, and reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on July 20, 2005. The Commission unanimously recommended that the Council certify the EIR. In regard to the General Plan amendment, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the following amendment, with the removal of the proposed italicized sentence from Policy 1.2.3:

1.2.3 Parking structures and underground parking shall be permitted with site review on land zoned “A” Off-street Parking District and on lots adjacent to an automobile dealership that are legally operated in conjunction with that dealership as of September 28, 2004. Lots operated in conjunction with automobile dealerships may only be redeveloped with parking structures and underground parking for inventory storage and off-street parking uses that serve the associated automobile dealership. Structures shall generally conform to the height, bulk, setback and landscape standards for the adjacent residential district. However, setbacks, stepbacks and other development standards applicable to residential structures may be modified in order to accommodate the specific structural and design requirements of parking structures. Such structures shall only be permitted if the facility will not adversely impact the adjacent residential neighborhood. This policy shall not apply to “A” zoned lots adjacent to neighborhood commercial zones except for the Wilshire Boulevard neighborhood commercial overlay zone.

The intent of the deleted sentence is to provide necessary flexibility to address the structural needs of parking structures, for which additional upper level stepbacks would interfere with functional design. In an effort to address the Commission’s concerns, this portion of the policy was revised as follows: …”Structures shall generally conform to the height, bulk, setback and landscape standards for the adjacent residential district except as is necessary to accommodate the specific structural and design requirements of parking structures. The proposed interim ordinance details required standards that largely mirror the underlying base district development standards. The land use policies have been further fine tuned since the Planning Commission’s review, but the language accurately reflects the Commission’s intent and action.

The Commission also offered the following comments regarding the interim ordinance provisions:

· Residential standards should be applied to parking structure developments on residentially-zoned properties that share a common lot line with a residential use.

· Ingress and egress should be provided from a commercial lot rather than a residential lot, where feasible.

· There must be enforcement mechanisms to ensure that lots developed with parking structures revert to residential use if the automobile dealership use ceases.

· Architectural elements that are permitted to exceed the height limit (such as stair towers and mechanical units) should be oriented toward the commercial property.

· Parking structure rooftop screening should prevent lighting from intruding onto residential properties.

· Mechanical exhaust equipment should be directed toward the commercial side of the property to avoid discharge and noise intrusion towards residences.

· Loading and unloading should occur on-site and not in residential streets.

· Rooftop parking should be limited to inventory storage only to limit activity on the rooftop parking deck adjacent to residential uses.

Staff has included language in the draft ordinance that supports these recommendations except regarding rooftop parking areas. Limiting rooftop levels to inventory storage only may unnecessarily restrict an automobile dealership from using the structure in the most efficient manner. It is believed that the proposed development and operational standards will adequately address concerns related to rooftop parking, whether used for inventory or other off-street parking needs. Language is included precluding the dealership from leasing parking space to other surrounding uses, such as restaurants and nightclubs.

ANALYSIS

General Plan Amendment

The Land Use Element’s Citywide Objective 1.2 aims to “ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods.” Over the years, modern dealerships have outgrown the relatively shallow commercial strips that accommodated the early automobile dealerships, moving onto adjacent lots when possible, including some located in residential zones, and expanding inventory storage in other locations around the city. Many residents in the neighborhoods near Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards, with their own parking needs and desire to limit commercial intrusions in their neighborhoods, perceive dealerships as generally incompatible neighbors. Nevertheless, there is also recognition that these uses are established in their locations and provide important services to the community as well as substantial tax revenue that funds city services. Based on these factors, the City recognizes that new solutions must be found to resolve these conflicts by balancing the needs of both neighboring residents and dealers.

The 1984 General Plan allows parking structures to be developed on lots zoned as “A” Off-Street Parking District (Policy 1.2.3). “A” Overlay Zones were established, but the Zoning Code narrowly implements the LUE policy, allowing only underground parking structures with surface landscaping, with limited exceptions for municipal parking structures. Similarly, underground parking structures with surface open space or residential uses are conditionally permitted in R2/R3 districts without an “A” overlay, consistent with Policy 1.2.2. No underground parking structures have been developed on any of the residentially-zoned properties associated with automobile dealerships to date, regardless of “A” overlay status.

City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Elements (page 84)

If the Council allows parking structures to be approved through a discretionary process on R2/R3 automobile dealership properties with or without “A”-overlay designation, the policy would potentially affect approximately 11 parcels with “A” overlays and 19 parcels without overlay designation. These lots are used by approximately 16 different dealerships. Most of these are located along Santa Monica Boulevard, with some located on Wilshire Boulevard.

Based on the proposed revisions to Policies 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 (Attachment C), the proposed interim ordinance will be consistent with the City’s General Plan. The proposed language states that existing Policy 1.2.2, which requires redeveloped residentially zoned surface parking lots be reserved for residential or public open space uses – does not apply to lots adjacent to automobile dealerships that are legally operated in conjunction with the dealership use as of September 28, 2004. Instead, those lots are governed by Policy 1.2.3, which would be modified to allow lots associated with automobile dealerships to be redeveloped with parking structures and underground parking for inventory storage and off-street parking uses that serve the associated automobile dealership only. The proposed language also specifically indicates that there must be special development and design standards for these structures that will apply instead of the multi-family residential design standards required in these districts. As detailed in the next section, the special development and design standards largely reflect the requirements of an underlying base district to ensure a development is generally consistent with the residential neighborhood in terms of height, setbacks and landscaping.

Interim Ordinance Provisions

The attached interim ordinance would modify a number of existing development standards for automobile dealerships in a variety of zoning districts and areas in the City. In addition, design and operational standards that would apply either to all parking structures or in some cases specifically to those on residential lots, and standard conditions of approval for a PSP and CUP are established. The Development Review (DR) threshold is set at 7,500 square feet. The ordinance also includes provisions addressing temporary use of a property for automobile storage, use of vehicle-stacking equipment and accessory car rental in a dealership.

Existing dealerships that choose to develop property consistent with the attached ordinance would have to comply with the proposed regulations, including standard PSP/CUP provisions. These standards would apply to all contiguous properties operated by the dealership, not just the new or expanded area. A dealership required to obtain discretionary approval, whether or not it maintains existing discretionary entitlements, would similarly be regulated. Therefore, through a discretionary process, a dealership’s hours of operations and other operational standards could be evaluated and conditioned as appropriate by the reviewing body.

The following summarizes the contents and highlights changes within the proposed ordinance:

Commercial Zones: The following changes apply to the expansion of existing automobile dealerships in the C6 District, and to new or expanded automobile dealerships in the C4 District:

a. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The maximum FAR on all lots would increase from 1.0 to 1.5, except that in the C6 District, the FAR would remain 2.0 on lots 7,500 square feet or less.

b. Maximum Height: No change is proposed in the C6 District to the 45-foot height limit; however, to allow design flexibility, the limitation on the number of stories allowed for automobile dealerships within that envelope is removed. In the C4 zone, an increase of five feet is proposed, raising the limit to 35 feet and removing the limitation on the number of stories allowed within that envelope.

c. Setback: No change is proposed to the existing setbacks, which is based on building height and parcel width, when adjacent to a residential district. No setback however, is required on the commercial site if the adjacent residential parcel is used by the dealership. Other setbacks would apply if a development is proposed on residentially zoned parcel (below).

d. Parking Structures and Rooftop Parking: Parking structures would be subject to the interim ordinance’s Special Design Standards (below). Rooftop parking, currently not permitted if a property abuts a residential use, would be permitted subject to these standards.

e. Approval Process: Currently, an automobile dealership may remodel or increase floor area through a Performance Standards Permit (PSP) if a proposed addition would result in an overall floor area increase of 10% or less, but not exceeding 5,000 square feet. The proposed ordinance would allow new dealerships or expansions of existing dealerships up to 7,500 square feet with a Performance Standards Permit, beyond this square foot threshold, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Review (DR) permit would be required.

f. Pedestrian Orientation/ARB Review: There are no changes proposed to current standards requiring pedestrian orientation or design review. Development standards that do not conflict with the interim ordinance would continue to apply.

Residential and Parking “A” Overlay Zones: Lots designated as Low and Medium Density Multiple Residential (R2, R3), with or without an Off-Street Parking (“A”) Overlay that are contiguous with and currently used legally in conjunction with an existing automobile dealership may be developed as automobile storage and off street parking structures as follows:

a. Maximum Height:

i. R2 Zone: 23 feet, including the required parapet surrounding a rooftop parking level.

ii. R3 Zone: 28 feet, including the required parapet surrounding a rooftop parking level.

b. Setbacks: The interim ordinance maintains prevailing setbacks, with the exception of the commercial (dealership) adjacent side for which no setback is required. However, rather than designating front, side or rear yards, setbacks are determined in relation to the street side property line in order to ensure, even when lots are combined, that setbacks from property lines are consistent with adjacent residential buildings.

i. Street side setback: 20 feet

ii. Opposite street side setback: 15 feet (measured from the property line opposite the street adjacent property line – this setback may be measured from the centerline of the alley, if present)

iii. Setback from property line adjacent to a residential use: 8 feet.

c. Exemption from additional multi-family development standards: Due to the structural and spatial requirements for developing parking structures, it is proposed that required upper-level stepbacks and parcel coverage restrictions above the first floor intended to articulate residential structures would not apply to automobile dealership parking and storage facilities.

d. Design standards and rooftop parking: As in the commercial zones, parking structures would be subject to the interim ordinance’s Special Design Standards (below), some of which apply exclusively to residentially zoned properties. Rooftop parking would be permitted subject to these standards.

e. Approval Process: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Review (DR) permit shall be required for the development of an automobile storage facility or off-street parking structure associated with an adjacent dealership.

f. Landscaping: A minimum of 50% of the street side setback area must be landscaped. This standard was already required in the Off-Street Parking “A” Overlay Zone.

g. Affordable Housing Impact Fee: A provision is included that provides flexibility to the City Council to establish by resolution a fee that would be imposed on parking structures developed on residential parcels without an “A” Overlay designation. This is intended to mitigate the impact of the loss of potential affordable housing development that could otherwise be provided.

h. Use to revert to residential: Structures constructed under these provisions on residential parcels without an “A” Overlay designation shall be permitted to remain only in conjunction with an automobile dealership on the adjacent commercial lot. If the automobile dealership use is terminated, the parking structure shall be removed or incorporated into a residential project on the residential parcel(s) within three years. While it is unlikely that this requirement will ever apply during this interim period, the Council may want to consider what implications such a policy may have when permanent standards are established in the next couple of years. As an alternative to demolishing these structures, the Council may also want to consider the value of using these structures to address area parking concerns, or to support other commercial uses, other than automobile uses, if later abandoned.

M1/LMSD Zones:

a. M1 Zone Modifications: The proposed ordinance introduces automobile dealerships, currently not allowed, as an allowed use in the M1 District, subject to a Performance Standards Permit (PSP) for additions or new construction under 7,500 square feet. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Review (DR) would be required for projects 7,500 square feet or more.

b. LMSD Zone: Automobile dealerships of inventory storage lots are currently governed by a CUP in this district. No changes are proposed to the existing entitlement process or development standards, except that semi-subterranean and subterranean floor area would be not counted toward the project FAR. The CUP standards as well as the special standards related to parking structures set forth in the proposed ordinance would also apply.

Previously, Council expressed support for a staff proposal to allow a maximum FAR for automobile dealerships in the LMSD and M1 Districts of 1.5, an increase over the general 1.0 FAR for the district. However, this standard was inadvertently left out of the EIR project description and, therefore, the impacts of this increased floor were not studied. For this reason, the draft interim ordinance does not include any modifications to the base district development standards. Staff will assess the proper level of environmental review and may propose a 1.5 FAR, with an addendum to the EIR, when the ordinance returns for extension within 60 days, if it is determined that such a change will not result in significant environmental impacts. If significant environmental impacts are anticipated, staff will return to the Council with options on how to proceed.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation: In order minimize impacts on surrounding neighbors, better use of subterranean space is encouraged in the proposed interim ordinance by excluding all subterranean and semi-subterranean floor area from a proposed automobile dealership project’s FAR calculation. Currently, only subterranean area used for parking may be excluded from FAR calculations. This would apply to the C4, C6, M1 and LMSD zones. Residential zones do not require FAR calculation.

Special Design Standards:

The following design standards would apply to all parking structures developed under the proposed ordinance:

· Except for emergency-only pedestrian exits required by the Building Officer, parking structure walls facing property lines that are adjacent to a residential use must be solid.

· Non-skid or other surface treatment on both floors and ramps of all parking structures is required to avoid tire squeal.

· All lighting must be designed to prevent light and glare on residential properties.

· If a structure includes rooftop parking, a six-foot parapet on the side(s) adjacent to a residential use is required. Parapets must be constructed of a material with a surface density of minimum 4 pounds per square foot. Although previous Council and Commission discussions focused on an eight-foot parapet requirement, staff has consulted a noise expert, City Building & Safety staff and the City’s urban designer, and now recommends that a six-foot parapet would sufficiently mitigate noise and would be preferable from an aesthetic perspective as well.

· To reduce noise and minimize air quality impacts, exhaust vents and other mechanical equipment must be located on the commercial sides of parking structures and away from residential uses as much as feasible.

· Floor area for parking and vehicle storage shall not be included in the calculation of required refuse and recycling storage area.

· Tandem parking for inventory or employee parking is permitted.

· Loading and unloading of inventory shall not be permitted in roadway areas. All diesel trucks serving the dealership in any capacity shall be in compliance with California State Law limiting diesel-fueled commercial vehicle idling.

In addition, parking structures developed on residential properties would need to comply with the following design standards:

· Access shall be from the commercial lot only unless the Planning Commission determines that such access is precluded by existing commercial development. In such cases, the alternative location would be the one determined to have the least impact on adjacent residential uses.

· At least 10% of the parking spaces within a structure shall be maintained and sign-posted for employee parking, unless the Planning Commission determines that sufficient parking is otherwise provided either on-site or at an acceptable off-site location.

· If the structure is developed in conjunction with development on adjacent commercial lots, the project shall be designed so that building mass increases toward the commercial street and architectural elements that are permitted to exceed the height limit are located further away from adjacent residential uses.

· Subterranean parking levels may encroach into required yards consistent with existing regulations.

· A minimum landscaped buffer of at least five-feet in width shall be required along the side adjacent to a residential use. When considering an individual project, the Planning Commission may waive any part of this requirement with agreement by the owner and/or residents of the adjacent residential property.

· Required yards and setback area from the street must include 50% landscaping, similar to current landscaping requirements.

· Car alarms on inventory stored in parking structures located on residential structures shall be disengaged.

Council had requested that staff consider options for solar panel installation at automobile dealerships. The Zoning Code already generally permits solar panels, and solar energy design standards are provided in SMMC 9.04.10.02.220. Although solar energy development advances City goals to become a more sustainable community, staff has not proposed any additional requirements that would apply exclusively to automobile dealerships within this interim ordinance. Staff proposes instead to look at requirements for commercial uses to incorporate solar energy and other green building practices more comprehensively in the upcoming Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance revision.

PSP/CUP Conditions

The current Code contains two sections with almost identical conditions for automobile dealerships applicable to either PSPs or CUPs. For ease of administration and clarity, it is proposed to include in one section of the interim ordinance all the conditions, applicable to both permit types, for automobile dealership projects in all zones. Most of these conditions remain the same, but the following changes are proposed:

· In “Parking and Vehicle Storage,” the incentive allowing the FAR of the vehicle rooftop storage area to be discounted by 50% would be removed. This provision has the effect of creating an incentive for rooftop storage rather than parking, which is inconsistent with the interim ordinance’s overall goal to create flexible space that allows either storage or employee or customer parking and removes the need to monitor which space is used, provided that the number of required parking spaces is maintained. Furthermore, the ordinance is designed to create incentives to provide subterranean levels for inventory and parking, and this area is now excluded from FAR.

· Language that allows a complex calculation for FAR when substituting uses below and above grade has been removed since subterranean floors are no longer included in the FAR calculation.

· All references to the Traffic Engineer have been changed to refer to the Transportation Management Division to reflect current City staff structure.

· Vehicle loading and unloading in the public right of way will not be permitted for dealerships receiving permits under the proposed ordinance. Instead, proposed development must either include an on-site loading/unloading area or the Transportation Management Division may approve the activity at an alternative off-street location from which cars may be individually delivered to the dealership. Approved plans will remain on file and TMD must approve any changes to them.

· All dealerships, existing and developed under the ordinance, will henceforth be required to submit letters annually in June affirming compliance with their TMD-approved test driving, vehicle loading/unloading plans and alley traffic-control plans where applicable. This will help Code Compliance to monitor dealership compliance with plans, particularly when there is an ownership change and subsequent confusion about restrictions on these activities.

· Vehicle Stacking Equipment: Currently the Code does not include language to address the use of vehicle-stacking equipment. It is proposed to allow vehicle-stacking equipment within dealership structures for employee parking and inventory in all zones where permitted. Facilities on surface lots would require screening with an eight-foot tall solid masonry wall. Proposed language clarifies that inventory and employee parking uses must not be vertically mixed and that upper level “lift” parking is clearly additional and not to be used towards any required allocation of spaces. The required screening wall shall be set back from the property line to include a landscaped buffer of at least two feet in width. If requested by the adjacent residential property owner and/or residents, the Planning Commission may reduce the wall height requirement to a minimum of six feet and may reduce or waive the landscaped setback area. All facilities shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance.

Accessory Automobile Rental Agency Requirements: Language adopted within the last few years that governs rental car operations within dealerships is included in the ordinance without change for ease of administration of the new interim standards.

Temporary Use Permits (TUP): The proposed standards authorize the City Planning Division to approve TUPs for the following circumstances:

a. Short-term automobile storage for up to three months. A dealership may receive a TUP for a specific location for a maximum of three months annually. This time period is based on automobile dealer input earlier in the process of developing this ordinance in which they requested the TUP for certain annual events, such as before Memorial Day Labor Day, or the year end, when typically the manufacturers require that they take additional inventory. Three months is sufficient time to accommodate overflow inventory at these times.

b. In conjunction with issuance of a building permit for an approved new facility, temporary relocation of an automobile dealership for up to one year. Temporary facilities may only include repair functions in M1/LMSD zones, not adjacent to residential parcels. One extension to this permit could be approved for up to six months.

Currently, the Code does not list these uses as eligible for obtaining a TUP for these lengths of time. Throughout this process, the automobile dealerships have requested longer terms for inventory storage TUPs. Longer terms are inconsistent with the short-term use of these permits and may serve as a disincentive to redevelop commercial or residential properties consistent with this ordinance, which seeks to balance greater protections to residents and meet dealership needs. However, if the Council is interested in expanding the term parameters of a TUP, it can be accomplished by expanding the maximum length of time permitted for an individual TUP or allow more than one such permit annually at a location.

Migration of Automobile-Related Uses in the LMSD and M1 Districts: The City Council expressed interest in receiving information related to automobile uses moving into these districts. Since the Council’s last discussion on the matter one year ago, there has been no increase in automobile related activity in the LMSD or M1 Districts. Staff will report annually on this issue if directed by Council to do so.

Public Comments

Throughout the multi-year process of considering proposed revisions for automobile dealerships, staff has notified and met with owners and representatives of automobile dealerships and neighbors in the surrounding area to get their perspectives on automobile dealership adjacency issues and conflicts and to discuss possible solutions. Twenty-three written comments received after the Council’s September hearing on the proposed standards are included in Attachment F. Letters from surrounding neighbors attest to continued objection to any increase in development standards and particularly to the General Plan amendment that would allow development of parking structures on residentially-zoned properties.

Comments from the Santa Monica Auto Dealers Association are generally supportive of proposed amendments and request additional modifications that staff has not supported, such as allowing storage lots in the Broadway Commercial District (BCD) to be used for employee parking and to allow more flexibility in the use of existing surface parking lots located in residential districts. Staff finds the BCD proposal to be inconsistent with the district’s objectives to establish a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use zone. Likewise, permitting existing residential surface parking lots for inventory storage or other purposes is not recommended because it is likely to result in a loss of employee and/or customer parking in some cases, resulting in further intrusion into the neighborhood. This approval would weaken the incentive to construct parking structures that would offer residents protection from noise, light and glare that impact the adjacent neighborhood.

The Auto Dealers Association further believes that a permit process should be established to allow inventory parking on existing surface parking lots in the BCD, C4, LMSD, and M1 and other commercial zones to address dealer’s short-term need for increased inventory parking capacity. However, allowing this additional flexibility could serve as a disincentive to utilizing the interim ordinance provisions designed to address dealer needs and neighborhood concerns. These provisions include the ability to construct parking structures in residential districts, allowing automobile dealerships in the M1 District, and excluding (semi) subterranean areas from FAR calculations. Finally, the Auto Dealer Association believes that the 35 foot height limit and 1.5 FAR allowed for automobile dealerships in the C4 District should similarly apply to dealerships located in the LMSD and M1 Districts. However, the purpose of the height limitation is to ensure district compatibility. These districts are characterized by larger and lower profile buildings; new automobile dealerships should be designed in a consistent manner. Regarding increased FAR to 1.5 instead of the existing 1.0, as previously mentioned, staff will return to the Council to further discuss this issue as it applies to the LMSD and M1 Districts following additional environmental review.

CEQA STATUS

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this project in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research and distributed to involved public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day public review period which concluded on March 24, 2005. A Scoping Meeting, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15082(c)(1) and 15206(b)(1), was held on March 14, 2005, and attended by 13 members of the public.

Copies of the Draft EIR were made available on May 13, 2005 for a public review period, which closed on June 27, 2005. Five comments were received. Responses to these comments have been incorporated into the Final EIR.

The Program EIR addresses potential environmental effects of the proposed policy changes. As such, it evaluates potential impacts that individual projects might have, but does not analyze specific situations. Analysis of projects proposed subsequent to this EIR may rely on this document to scope out issues that are deemed less than significant and to mitigate impacts pursuant to mitigation measures that are identified. All other issues must be reviewed and separately analyzed. Individual projects may require a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration or Focused EIR.

The scope of the EIR includes environmental issues determined to be potentially significant by the Initial Study. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and responses to it are also included.

In accordance with Section 15128 (Effects Not Found to be Significant) of the CEQA Guidelines, the IS/NOP provided reasons why the following environmental impacts were not considered significant and, therefore, are not addressed further in this EIR:

Geology and Soils Public Services (schools and parks)

Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use and Planning

Air Quality Population and Housing

Biological Resources Recreation

Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources

Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Effects

Economic and Social Impacts Aesthetics

The IS/NOP identified potentially significant impacts in the following issue areas associated with the proposed regulations, which are addressed in detail in the EIR:

Transportation/Circulation and Parking

Noise

Shadows

Mandatory Findings of Significance (Cumulative Effects)

Neighborhood Effects

The EIR analyzed the issues referenced above and identified potentially significant environmental impacts, in accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR recommends mitigation measures where feasible. Significant impacts that can be mitigated were found in the areas of Noise and Shadows. The recommended mitigation measures will reduce those impacts to less than significant levels.

The EIR concluded that one Noise impact and three Transportation/Traffic impacts might occur in some locations based on a model that assumed maximum build-out of potential projects, finding that additional trips cannot be mitigated due to secondary environmental impacts and physical site limitations; traffic noise may exceed acceptable levels near noise sensitive uses. At the Program EIR level, these impacts are unavoidably significant, particularly due to the need for site-specific information. At a project level, if noise impacts are determined, two mitigation measures that could be required include repaving nearby road areas with rubberized asphalt, a material that the City is already phasing into street re-surfacing, and implementing a truck noise reduction program. The adequacy of these measures or others in reducing noise impacts to a level that is less than significant for that particular project will be determined and these impacts may be reduced to Class II: Significant but Mitigable.

The EIR also found that the new regulations “could result in new auto dealership development that could generate new traffic… and could exceed the City of Santa Monica significance criteria … at 18 intersections that are projected to have poor (LOS E or F) operating conditions. Increased vehicular delays could occur. It is unlikely, however, that feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce traffic impacts at all intersections that could experience increased traffic delays; impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation.” The EIR noted that anticipated traffic increase would likely be off-set by some reduction in trips to and from off-site storage lots as on-site inventory capacity increases.

Furthermore, the EIR found that the proposed interim ordinance provisions “could result in new auto dealership development that generates increased traffic at Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facilities and exceeds CMP significance criteria.” Occurrence of traffic-related impacts would depend on an expanding automobile dealership’s specific location and the amount of proposed development. Based on the City’s thresholds for significance, a project’s impacts may be immitigable.

A chart summarizing impacts and listing the recommended mitigation measures is provided in Table ES-1, in the Executive Summary section of the EIR (Attachment H).

Statement of Overriding Considerations

Examination of the EIR project alternatives did not identify an environmentally superior alternative that would achieve the project objectives. However, the proposed interim ordinance was found to have some significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, prior to adopting the proposed General Plan Amendment and Interim Ordinance, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to justify approval based on a determination that the project’s public benefits outweigh its potentially unavoidable environmental impacts.

The project provides a number of public benefits. Principally these benefits would derive from improved automobile dealership facilities both in terms of economic development objectives and neighborhood compatibility objectives. In regard to proposed development on commercially zoned properties, projects approved under the proposed regulations would introduce more modern facilities of higher architectural design that better accommodate today’s dealerships and allow them to remain competitive in the changing market. These businesses would continue to provide important City tax revenue. Additionally, with the incentive offered by the new standards, better pedestrian-orientation and operational requirements would be provided, benefiting the surrounding community. Furthermore, the new facilities would alleviate use of valuable land resources for off-site inventory storage lots from which numerous additional trips are made.

The same considerations may be applied to impacts identified in connection with the proposed use of R2/R3 properties. While the affected R2/R3 parcels have been continuously zoned for residential use, they are now integral land resources for automobile dealership operations and are unlikely to return to residential use. Under previous Code provisions that allowed the dealerships to use residentially-zoned lots, the City did not impose development standards for neighborhood protection, with the result that existing surface lots do not meet the standards that would be expected today. Subsequent regulations have frozen this situation in place by not permitting dealerships to enact any activity changes on their R-zoned properties. Although the EIR concluded that some potential traffic and noise impacts are unavoidable when analyzed at a programmatic level, creating a regulatory environment that fosters solutions to the dealerships’ needs while also addressing neighborhood impacts would provide benefits as described above. These benefits would outweigh the potential impacts deemed unavoidable in the EIR.

Attachment B contains the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22 and consistent with CEQA requirements, staff notified a mailing list representing residents and property owners that live within 500 feet of an existing dealership as well as individuals who have commented on the processes and/or asked to be included in the mailing list. In addition, a notice was published in the California Section of The Los Angeles Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the hearing notice is contained in Attachment G.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT

The recommendation presented in this report does not have any direct budget or fiscal impact. Regulations proposed herein may result in development of projects that might result in additional tax revenues.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report,

2. Adopt the attached Resolution to approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations based on the project’s public benefits;