FROM: Car Shop
TO: City Council

For years, the city has heard the legitimate complaints of neighbors of a handful of highly offensive auto repair shops, and the city's response was minimal. The conditions described by the neighbors are deplorable and it is shameful that no action was taken protect these people.

When I think about the kinds of issues I deal with as a member of the City of Santa Monica Social Services Commission, such as equal protection under the law for under represented groups, I am disturbed how the city treated residents who have complained for years about these renegade auto repair shops. But, if the city fails to recognize and protect the basic rights of law-abiding responsible, longtime members of our business
community, it will be disturbing as well.

The critical issue in this debate for older automobile repair businesses, like ours, is that our facilities were designed, engineered, approved by the city and built so that work could be performed outdoors. Therefore, prior to any enforcement under the current Automobile Repair Facility Code Section, there needs to be a "grandparent" clause to protect the interests of innocent preexisting businesses.

If such a "grandparent" clause is written into the laws and in the future a grandparented businesses engages in offensive conduct and disturbs the quality of life of its neighbors or the community, there are a myriad of laws in place that can be enforced. There are noise abatement laws limiting the amount of noise that can emanate from a property, there are laws about performing commercial activities in the streets and there are Vehicle Code Laws that can be enforced to name just a few.

I have had an opportunity to study the recent action by this council related to the Emergency Interim Ordinance for R-1 properties and I believe this offers an analogy and fair solution to the issues faced by older preexisting shops. The City Planning Department allowed the growth of "monster mansions" north of Montana until citizens complained. After much discussion and debate, the city enacted an emergency ordinance to restrict the home sizes in that area. The city did, however, give "grandparent" status to the existing larger homes.

But, when it came time to create legislation regarding automobile repair facilities ten years ago, the city did not give "grandparent" status to older businesses. Instead, we were given one year to comply. For most of us, compliance in our existing buildings and properties is impossible. To rebuild our sites to meet the newstandards is not financially feasible.

If you do not require existing home owners north of Montana to demolish or eliminate now banned, but previously approved portions, of their homes that exceed the current code limits, is it fair to require existing business property owners of city approved automobile repair facilities to eliminate portions of their property? When the city grants privileges and protections for wealthy homeowners with preexisting non-conforming
conditions, but refuses to protect the rights of its small business property owners with preexisting non-conforming conditions, the appearance is that they are practicing selective enforcement.

Please look at the language of the Emergency Interim Ordinance 1925 (CCS) in
the second paragraph of the last section entitled "Results of Proposed Modifications" as follows:

*The emergency interim ordinance would apply to building permit applications filed after August 18, 1998, the effective date of this ordinance. This date was selected because it ensures the ordinance will be operated prospectively only and thereby be less subject to legal challenge. Additionally, it allows projects that are currently in plan check and have been designed and engineered to meet the current R1 development standards, to proceed without revising the building design to comply with the proposed standards. The non-emergency interim ordinance would apply to building permit applications filed after the effective date of that ordinance.

The date of the ordinance was intentionally chosen because it ensures the ordinance will be operated "prospectively" only. The Automobile Repair code does not operate "prospectively" in a similar way to protect the interests of small business property owners of auto repair facilities. The Emergency Interim Ordinance goes further. Not only is it clear that buildings which were already constructed are exempt, but it allows buildings in plan check that "have been designed and engineered" to meet the older standards to "proceed without revision." This language is directly applicable to the
plight of older existing businesses. Our buildings and properties were "designed and engineered" for us to work outdoors which met the older standards.

There is a statement in the above section that states the law was written "prospectively" so that it would be "less subject to legal challenge." Do the people north of Montana have privileges and legal rights that are different from other property owners? Or, is it that they have more money and clout and the fear of legal challenge from them is greater that from the automotive repair industry?

If the City Council and the City Planner are truly interested in protecting the citizens of our community against the conduct of renegade auto repair shops while not hurting the interests of older innocent preexisting businesses, then they should be able to craft a "grandparent" clause with similar language into the Emergency Interim Ordinance for this purpose. Good intentions, creativity and wisdom can work hand in hand.

If a grandparent clause is not added to this law, the appearance will be that Santa Monica discriminates against older businesses. If a business is fortunate enough to survive through the natural conditions of earthquakes, fires and floods and the economic conditions of depressions, recessions and inflation, the city of Santa Monica will find a way to code the business out of business. Over half a century ago, this city aggressively encouraged businesses like ours to establish their roots here. Now, it seems like the
same city is aggressively trying to force us out. I hope this is not a warning to the entertainment and high technology industries. In Santa Monica, the businesses we court today, should not become tomorrow's outcasts.

These are complex issues with complex solutions. A balance can be struck that will protect the quality of life rights of the residents and insure the basic rights of innocent existing business owners. "Grandparenting" is a beginning. This should not be a popularity contest to see who can send the most letters, or e-mails or who can scream the loudest. The issue should not be about taking sides at all. For you who will make the ultimate decision, this is not about taking the easy road. It is about courageous leadership and taking the path of creative wisdom and ethics.

Chuck Perliter

MORE LETTERS