Planning Commission Hammers Out Auto Repair Recommendations

By Jorge Casuso

After more than three hours of testimony and debate, the Planning Commission on Wednesday night hammered out recommendations it hopes will add more flexibility to the existing auto repair ordinance the City Council is expected to amend next month.

The commission recommended that the council allow repair shops to perform some outdoor work - such as charging batteries - instead of banning outdoor repairs altogether, as stipulated by the current law. It also directed staff to explore allowing minor repair work that does not require noisy tools.

In addition, the commission recommended loosening current standards that require shop owners to provide two feet of landscaping along the perimeter of their parcel and along building frontages. Under the recommendation, the Architectural Review Board could make exceptions on a case by case basis.

The commission did not, however, recommend alternatives to fully enclosing outdoor hoists as required under the current law.

"We owe it to these people to be more flexible," said planning commission chair Ken Breisch.

But auto repair shop owners -- who fear the city's recent enforcement of the 10-year-old ordinance will push them to the brink of bankruptcy - contend that the commission wasn't flexible enough in its recommendations.

"You're going to cripple these businesses with this ordinance," auto repair shop owner Stuart Resmer warned. "You guys have taken a shotgun to this industry."

Residents who live near the shops pleaded with the commission to help stop the noise, spruce up the eyesores and ease the parking problems they must live with every day.

"Something's got to be done soon cause it's been going on for a long time and nothing's been done about it," said Nicole Picard, who said she lives 20 yards from a repair shop.

Auto repair shop owners have complained that there is no need to force all establishments to abide by the letter of the existing ordinance - which would require costly construction and landscaping and cut down on the number of cars they can repair.

Instead of actively enforcing the ordinance, shop owners have urged the city to enforce it on a complaint basis, weeding out the violators who have caused a backlash against all 130 Santa Monica repair shops.

"We would like the commission to send a message to council that they need to look at the entire ordinance so that innocent and responsible businesses aren't taken down in the wake of this,"said Chuck Perliter, the owner of Monica Radiator, who has led the battle on behalf of the shop owners. "They're using an iron fist with a broad stroke."

Commissioner Eric Parlee also pleaded for only enforcing the ordinance on a complaint basis, saying that, "If you don't see or hear it, it's not there." Parlee asked planning staff for statistics on how many complaints have been filed against repair shops. The numbers, he said, would indicate the nature and scope of the violations and help determine whether there is a need to enforce the ordinance across the board.

"I see it as a question of fundamental fairness," Parlee told staff. "We're asking a certain number of businesses to pony up to certain things. We owe it to the public. Let's establish why."

City planning director Suzanne Frick said the city had not conducted a survey of complaints. She added that staff could be prohibited from making the complaints public because they could compromise the alleged violator as well as the person filing the complaint.

"There is some ambiguity as to whether or not this kind of information is public information," Frick said.

Parlee then requested a list of general complaints, broken down by category and area of the city. But his request failed to gain the support of the commission.

"What's in front of us are standards that have existed since 1989," said Commissioner Kelly Olsen. "I'd rather focus on the charge council is giving us."

"This is just before us to make recommendations to council," Breisch added.

The question of how far the commission could go in its recommendations came up several times during the meeting. In one instance, Parlee tried to ease the restrictions against outdoor hoists by allowing less restrictive measures than erecting a building, such as putting up a screen.

"The council discussed and rejected that as an option," said Councilman Kevin McKeown, who is the council liaison to the planning commission. "There are a number of options we have been exploring. But the idea of an enclosure was quite firm."

Parlee opposed the notion that the commission should make recommendations that only followed the council's direction.

"I'm very uncomfortable with giving a top down mandate," Parlee said. "Why impose these draconian measures when the solution can be reached in another way?"

"I really think (the commission) empathized with us," Perliter said after the meeting. "But staff and the council did everything they could so they couldn't do anything. They were pressured."

Olsen disagreed.

"In a spirit of communication , it's correct for us to give them what they wanted," Olsen said after the meeting. "Finally we have a council that staff perceives as being more open to the neighbors. Staff sees things they have wanted to do for years, and now they have a council that backs them."

Besides, Olsen added, because no complaint is filed against a violator doesn't mean the law should not be enforced.

"Just because there wasn't a cop there to witness it," Olsen said, "doesn't mean someone didn't run a red light."

The issue is expected to come before the full city council next month.