M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
|
WEDNESDAY, March 19, 2003 |
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS |
|
7:00 P.M. |
ROOM 213, CITY HALL |
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at
7:08 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Brown led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
3. ROLL
CALL: Present: Barbara
Brown
Darrell Clarke, Chairperson
Julie
Lopez Dad
Jay
P. Johnson
Geraldine
Moyle
Kelly
Olsen
Absent: Arlene Hopkins
Also
Present: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP,
Associate Planner
Kimberly
Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Kyle
Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Suzanne
Frick, Planning Director / PCD
Jonathan
Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Kevin
McKeown, City Council Liaison
Marika
Modugno, 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 Directors’ Report. She reported that the City Council will be
holding a public hearing on the McDonald’s appeal on April 8, 2003. On April
22, the City Council will hold public hearings on the Enterprise appeals and
the 808 Wilshire Boulevard appeal. She also reported the Civic Center Parking
Structure has been appealed by the Doubletree Hotel. Lastly, Ms. Frick
announced that the Commission is scheduled to meet on the following dates:
April 2, April 23, May 7 and May 21, 2003.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
5-A. February 12, 2003
Commissioner Dad noted
a typographical error on page three of the minutes. She then made a motion to
approve the minutes for February 12, 2003, as amended. Commissioner Olsen
seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
5-B. February 19, 2003
Commissioner Dad made a
motion to approve the minutes for February 19, 2003, as amended. Commissioner
Olsen seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioner
Johnson abstaining.
6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL
ACTION: Consent
Calendar
Commissioner
Dad made a motion to approve the Statements of Official Action as submitted.
Commissioner Brown seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
Commissioners Johnson and Moyle abstained from 6-A and Commission Johnson also
abstained on 6-B.
6-A. Conditional
Use Permit 02-023, Design Compatibility Permit 01-011, Development Review
01-011, Tract Map 01-008 and Variance 02-025, 212 Marine Street.
6-B. Conditional
Use Permit 02-010, 1663 Twentieth Street
7.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
7-A. Appeal 02-024, 2121 Ocean Avenue. Appeal of Architectural Review
Board approval of exterior renovations, including building design, colors,
materials, for an existing two-story apartment building. [Planner: Marika
Modugno] APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: 2121 Ocean Associates, LLC. APPELLANT: Jonathan Drucker.
The
Commission began by making their ex parte communication disclosures.
Commissioner Dad recused herself from the hearing because she lives in the
adjacent apartment building. There were no other disclosures.
Associate Planner Marika Modugno
gave the staff report.
Commissioner Olsen commented that
the Commission usually receives analysis of the appeal in the staff report. Ms.
Modugno stated that the exterior modifications to the building do not meet the
Ocean Park Neighborhood Development Guide and the security issue raised in the
appeal statement is not an Architectural Review Board (ARB) issue. She also
stated that the building was built prior to the adoption of the Ocean Park
Neighborhood Development Guide. Ms. Frick directed the Commission to page four
of the staff report, which cites more details on the project. Commissioner
Olsen stated he is aware of what was stated in the staff report, he merely
wanted it to be said verbally for those watching the hearing.
The appellant, Jonathan Drucker,
addressed the Commission regarding his appeal.
The applicant’s representative,
Kevin McCabe, was present to discuss the approval granted by the ARB.
Chair Clarke asked Mr. McCabe to
comment on the “sliders at the balcony rail” on the Ocean Avenue elevation. Mr.
McCabe stated that the design is a “French balcony,” which is a window opening
with no place to step out and a railing.
Chair Clarke asked the applicant
about the security gate issue. Mr. McCabe stated that there were eleven
building residents present at the first ARB meeting and they requested that a
security gate be added. The gate was approved by the ARB at the second meeting.
Mr. McCabe stated that at the third ARB meeting, the residents asked that the
security gate be removed, but the ARB did not remove it from their approval.
Mr. Mr. McCabe further stated that he does not have a problem with either
keeping or removing the security gate.
Commissioner Johnson asked the
applicant about a statement made by the appellant about the building in 1994.
Mr. McCabe stated that the current owner has only owned the building for one
year.
Commissioner Johnson asked the
applicant for the estimated time to complete the proposed renovation. Mr.
McCabe stated that he will be finished in approximately six weeks.
Commissioner Johnson asked the
applicant if the cost of the renovation will be passed on to tenants via an
approval from the Rent Control Board. Mr. McCabe stated that this is yet to be
determined by his client, however the entire building was replumbed, new
electrical was installed as well as the visible renovation. He estimated that
the cost of the renovation is approximately 25% of the acquisition cost of the
building.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
it is good that the interior updating was also being done. He asked if the
exterior balconies are the only ARB issue. Mr. McCabe answered in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. McCabe
if the ARB had indicated that the building was incompliance with the Ocean Park
Neighborhood Development Guide. Mr. McCabe stated that his understanding was
that the building was adequate when it was approved by the ARB on November 18,
2002.
Commissioner Olsen commented that
the staff report findings in the Statement of Official Action from the November
18, 2002 ARB meeting do not say that the project meets the Ocean Park
Neighborhood Development Guide.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission regarding the appeal: Tom Snyder, Steven Berck, and
Audrea Golding Butler.
The applicant, Brian Strange, spoke
in response the public comment.
Commissioner Moyle asked if the
security gate would be opaque or clear glass above the wood. Mr. Strange stated
that the wooden portion of the gate is 42-inches tall with clear glass above.
Commissioner Moyle asked about the
proposed ground floor level windows and whether they will reduce the usable
wall space within the units. Mr. Strange explained the window openings remain
the same as originally built and that the four units receiving this treatment
are currently vacant.
Commissioner Moyle asked if the
“French balconies” on Ocean Avenue are basically decorative. Mr. Strange stated
that the railing is a safety feature when the sliding glass door is open.
Commissioner Moyle asked about the
courtyard design, which implies that it is a “communal” space. Mr. Strange
answered in the affirmative.
Chair Clarke asked about the first
floor balconies. Mr. Strange stated they are 26-inches above grade. Chair
Clarke asked about the larger projections of the second floor balconies. Mr.
Strange stated that this allows for more light.
Chair Clarke asked Mr. Strange about
the “faux balconies” and alternatives to the design. Mr. Strange stated that
the goal in the renovation was to maximize the ocean breezes and views across
Ocean Avenue to the Pacific Ocean. He stated that this building has no
obstructed view towards the ocean.
Commissioner Olsen commented that
since the rooms are small in this building, the windows become a big issue. He
suggested that the design of the “French balconies” may actually obstruct the
view. Mr. McCabe showed the Commission a representation of the window.
Commissioner Olsen then stated for
the record that he concedes that the ARB infers the building is within the Ocean
Park Neighborhood Development Guide, per subsection (d), and retracted his
prior comment. He asked the applicant if the windows in the courtyard are being
replaced for safety reasons. Mr. Strange stated that they are being replaced
for safety as they do not currently shut tight. Mr. McCabe added that in the
four Ocean Avenue units there will be one window and one “French balcony.”
Commissioner Olsen asked about the
balcony and whether the projection is into the courtyard space. Mr. McCabe
stated that the balconies do not project beyond the current hedge line or into
usable courtyard space.
Commissioner Olsen asked about the
placement of the courtyard sidewalks. Mr. McCabe explained the proposed
pathway, which will be integrated into the common area and that it will be
multi-functional. Mr. Strange added that there will also be one walkway down
the middle of the space.
Commissioner Johnson asked for
clarification on the sliding doors mentioned in the staff report and whether
they are on the ground level or first floor. Mr. McCabe stated that there is an
error in the staff report. There will be one French door and one window on the
first or ground floor and none on the second floor.
Commissioner Johnson asked the
applicant if he has a reasonable working relationship with the tenants of the
building. Mr. Strange answered in the affirmative and stated that he has met
several times with both the tenants and the landscape architect to discuss the
renovation plans.
Commissioner Johnson asked how many
tenants have attended these meetings. Mr. Strange stated that for the first
meeting, 19 tenants were invited and three attended. In the meeting with the
landscape architect only two tenants attended. He further stated that the plans
were posted on the tenant’s doors for review along with meeting notices.
Commissioner Johnson asked about
security gate, which was requested by the tenants originally. Mr. Strange
stated that the security gate was requested and placed on the plans, but can
also be removed if the tenants object. He stated his opinion, as a part-time
tenant, that the units are secure without the security gate.
The appellant, Jonathan Drucker,
spoke in response to the public comment.
Commissioner Olsen commented that
the appellant is in a unique position with his concerns. He stated his
understanding that, from the appellant’s view, the balconies are not an amenity
because they project into communal tenant space in the courtyard; that the new
windows create a loss of interior wall space; and the desire for common areas
to remain common rather than portions being attached to individual units. Mr.
Drucker stated that this is his position and the building was functioning
perfectly prior to the beginning of the renovation process. He also stated that
he wants to be able to look out at open space, but if he needs open space he’ll
walk to the beach.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Olsen asked staff about
the open versus private open space issue and compliance to code. Ms. Modugno
responded that, if this were a new project, then both types of open space would
be required, however the current proposed design does not infringe on the Code
requirements. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Ocean Park
Neighborhood Development Guide does not reference common and private open space
for existing buildings.
Commissioner
Johnson commented that he is comfortable with the property owner’s comments. He
noted that this is a single occupancy building with units being only 350 square
feet and the proposed addition of 88 square feet of patio space is a
significant plus to small units. He stated that the sliding doors are not an
issue for him. He also stated that he understands that this is a 1950s building
with years of deferred maintenance issues. Commissioner Johnson stated it is
fortunate to have a property owner willing to invest and upgrade the building.
He also stated that he is comfortable with the security gate and the balconies
as well as the style and design for the renovation. Commissioner Johnson
stated he would support a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB
approval.
Commissioner Olsen stated that such
a motion would be reasonable and hard to argue against. He commented that the
improvements will benefit the tenants. He then reminded the Commission that
this is a de novo hearing.
Commissioner Olsen commented on the concept of the common area, and that
it is judgment call on whether it should be segregated or not. He also
commented on the windows and security gate issues.
Chair Clarke commented on the style
of the building, which he termed an “ugly dingbat” versus the function of the
building. He commented that the new design is quite charming. He also commented
on the use of details, such as the “faux balconies” and expressed the opinion
that new tenants will deal with them or not rent the units. As to the interior
courtyard, Chair Clarke commented that it is not walled off or fenced, but the
eight foot extensions may be excessive. He also commented that the security
gate, as proposed, is more like a fence than a barrier and should be up to the
property owner and tenants to decide.
Commissioner Olsen asked staff if
the Commission could remain silent on the issue of the security gate. Ms. Frick
stated that the gate is a feature of the building and suggested that it be
approved with a provision to permit the property owner the ability not to
install it. Chair Clarke asked if this should be explicit in the approval. Ms.
Frick answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Moyle commented that
the security gate is “a big chunk” of the Ocean Avenue façade, although it is
setback from the sidewalk, which provides additional (unapproved) parking. She
noted that no one had mentioned that issue. She stated that she is very torn by
the project and she agrees with comments made by both Commissioner Olsen and
Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Moyle noted that the tenants made their
voices heard and the new property owner has been accommodating while spending a
great sum of money to renovate the building. She commented that she understands
the livability concerns raised by the current tenants as well as the property
owner’s investment in creating a better place to live for new tenants.
Commissioner Moyle concluded by saying she is ambivalent about which way to
vote.
Commissioner Brown agreed with
Commissioner Moyle about being ambivalent and asked to be persuaded by other
Commissioners.
Chair Clarke asked staff if four
votes were needed or it would be a technical denial. Ms. Frick stated that this
is correct.
Commissioner Olsen commented on the
costs issue raised and stated he did not want to sound like “the hard guy,” but
the Commission needs to make findings, which are narrow in scope. Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum agreed with the findings statement and that cost issues
are not a factor in rendering a decision in this case.
Commissioner Olsen stated that he
feels strongest about the patio issue. Commissioner Johnson stated that plans
say the patio will extend eight feet from the wall onto an area which is
currently four feet of shrubs and four feet of sidewalk, i.e. unusable common
area. He stated that sidewalks are usable space and that the patios will be
usable space and an important amenity for tenants. Commissioner Johnson further
stated the sidewalk will be relocated to the center of the courtyard and very
modern landscaping has been proposed. He asserted there is no significant loss
of usable common area.
Chair Clarke suggested a compromise
of six instead of eight foot deep patios. Commissioner Johnson stated he would
be agreeable to such a reduction.
Chair Clarke asked if there is
consensus for approval with a six foot deep patio projection. There was
discussion, then consensus.
Commissioner Olsen made a motion
deny the ARB appeal with the modification that there be no first or second
floor balcony or decks.
Chair Clarke stated there was no
second to the motion.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion
to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB as modified with the patios being reduced
from an eight foot to a six foot projection on the first floor.
Commissioner Moyle seconded the
motion.
Ms. Frick recommended that the
motion include that the landscape plan be approved by ARB prior to issuance of
building permits. Commissioners Johnson and Moyle were agreeable.
The motion to deny the appeal and
uphold the ARB approval as modified was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Johnson, Moyle;
NOES: Olsen; ABSENT: Dad, Hopkins.
[The
Commission took a break from 9:00 p.m. to 9:18 p.m. Commissioner Dad returned
to the dais following the break.]
7-B. Appeal
02-028, 145-147
Bay Street. Appeal of the Zoning
Administrator’s denial of a parking variance for the conversion of two
residential buildings to ground floor retail and second floor office uses. In
addition to the existing residential buildings on the parcel, the site also
contains a legal non-conforming production studio use. No parking is provided
on-site. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section
9.04.10.08.030(e)(2), any new commercial use of an existing residential
building requires the entire site to provide Code required parking. The change
in use requires 20 parking spaces; the existing production studio use requires
32 spaces. The applicant requests a variance from 52 required on-site parking
spaces to accommodate the proposed project. Consistent with the provisions of
SMMC 9.04.20.10.030 (b), an applicant may request a modification to the
required number of parking spaces. [Planner: Elizabeth Bar-El] APPLICANT/APPELLANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Manhar Patel.
Commissioners Brown, Dad and Johnson had nothing to
disclose for this project. Commissioner Moyle disclosed that she drove by the
site with Commissioner Olsen prior to meeting on March 19, 2003. Commissioner
Olsen made the same disclosure. Chair Clarke disclosed that he drove by the
site on Wednesday evening, March 19, 2003.
Associate Planner Elizabeth Bar-El
gave the staff report on the appeal.
Commissioner Moyle stated her understanding
that the proposed change of use triggers the Code requirement to meet current
parking standards, therefore the site needs 52 on-site parking spaces and there
are currently no parking spaces on-site.
Commissioner Moyle asked about the
relationship between the formerly residential buildings and commercial
building. Ms. Bar-El stated that all buildings are on one parcel with one
owner. Commissioner Moyle asked if all the parcel is on Bay Street. Ms. Bar-El
stated that the parcel also fronts on Main Street.
Commissioner Moyle asked if there is
parking available for the commercial building. Ms. Bar-El stated that there is
no parking available on the parcel.
The applicant/appellant, Manhar
Patel, and his attorney, Rosario Perry, were present to discuss the appeal.
Commissioner Dad asked the applicant
what type of commercial use is being considered for this property. Mr. Perry
stated that the proposal is for ground floor retail sales and light office uses
for the upper floor.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Perry, if
she understands correctly, if parking were provided off-site, these uses would
be permitted. Mr. Perry stated that this is correct, if 52 parking spaces were
provided as required by code.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Perry if
nearby parking was sought by the applicant. Mr. Perry stated that there is no
nearby parking available for lease except the beach parking lots.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Perry if
he had approached the North Main Street property owner. Mr. Perry stated that
they had declined the request.
Commissioner Olsen asked Mr. Patel
to comment on the City Council appeal hearing on the Landmark designation for
this property. Mr. Patel commented that he had asked for special consideration
or a variance when the site was designated because he had already “Ellised” the
property.
One member of the public, Kathleen
Masser, was present to discuss the appeal.
Commissioner Olsen asked Ms. Masser
if she has had an active interest in retaining the buildings in question. Ms.
Masser answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Olsen asked Ms. Masser if she
is comfortable with staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal and permit the
property owner to find a financially viable use for the buildings. Ms. Masser
stated that returning the buildings to residential use would be viable.
Chair Clarke asked Ms. Masser to
comment further on returning the buildings to residential use. Ms. Masser expressed the opinion that there
should be discussion with the Rent Control Board and former tenants should be
permitted to return with a modest rate increase.
Commissioner Moyle asked Ms. Masser,
as a long time neighbor, how long she has been aware of the buildings. Ms.
Masser stated she has been aware of the buildings for approximately eleven
years.
Commissioner Moyle asked Ms. Masser
if she has observed any maintenance or repair work being done on the buildings
during that time period. Ms. Masser stated she has observed very little work
being done, except for the recent removal of the asphalt shingles.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff for
the number of units in the two structures. Ms. Bar-El stated that there are
twelve units, four in one and eight in the other.
Chair Clarke asked staff for the
parking requirements for artist studios. Ms. Bar-El explained the parking
requirements for residential and commercial uses, which includes parking for
all uses on the parcel, not just the two buildings in question. She further
clarified that artist studios that are not live/work, congregate housing and
day care use are not considered commercial, therefore the parking requirement
for the entire site does not apply.
Chair Clarke asked for the current
parking requirements for the residential use. Ms. Bar-El stated that the
current requirement is for nineteen parking spaces, however the residential use
is “grandparented.” Ms. Frick stated that an “educational use” would also be
permitted.
Commissioner Olsen commented that an
artist studio use is a live/work situation and would be considered rental
housing. He asked if buildings could be returned to rental housing even if they
had been “Ellised.” Ms. Bar-El stated that can be returned to rental housing
under Rent Control.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
Rent Control laws governing the “Ellising” of rental properties and the issue
of viable use. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the return to a
residential use was not considered in the staff report, therefore other uses
were optioned which would not trigger the parking requirement.
Mr. Perry spoke in response to the
public comment.
Commissioner Dad commented that
there is a market for child day care coming in across the street from the
property under consideration. Mr. Perry stated that his client is inclined
toward artist studios because artist studio parking requirements are defined by
square footage, a ratio of one space per 300 square feet, as is residential
use.
Chair Clarke commented that the
appeal is on an issue other than artist studios, therefore the Commission
should deny the appeal. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the
Commission can only deliberate on what is in the appeal, not the artist studio
issue. Chair Clarke stated that the discussion on viability has been useful
nevertheless.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Perry, from
a practicality standpoint, how many parking spaces are needed for the
commercial building. Mr. Perry stated that there are forty people working in
the commercial building and many of them carpool, fifteen of them bicycle and
some use the beach parking lot. Commissioner Brown commented that it would seem
there is a maximum need for twenty-five parking spaces for the commercial use.
She asked about the two residential buildings parking needs. Mr. Perry stated
that nineteen parking spaces are required for the residential buildings.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Perry
about the use of the two buildings in the last year. Mr. Perry stated that
there has been a member of the property owner’s family living on-site as a
caretaker to protect the property.
Commissioner Moyle asked Mr. Perry
how long the current property owner has owned the property. Mr. Perry stated
that the property has had the same owner for thirty years.
Commissioner Moyle commented that
the current condition of the building is the result of years of
non-maintenance. Mr. Perry stated that it is a result of non-income from the
buildings and that the interior of the buildings are “fabulous.” He stated that
the property owner wants to preserve the buildings and he is looking for a
finding of fact.
Commissioner Moyle commented on
viable use and the clearness of the code in this matter that a change of use
requires a different parking standard. She noted that the code also provides
that variances can be denied. Commissioner Moyle stated that there is a
significant imbalance between commercial and residential parking needs in this
neighborhood.
Chair Clarke thanked Commissioner
Moyle for her comments.
Commissioner Olsen commented that
earlier in the hearing he was ready to disagree with the staff report, however
he now feels that the use issue needs to be defined. He noted that the change
of use for the two formerly residential buildings triggers new parking
requirements for the entire parcel, which results in a large number of required
parking spaces which cannot be accommodated on-site.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated for the record that the Commission cannot approve a variance for artist
studios at this hearing and that the staff report gives examples of viability
and uses that may not trigger the new parking requirements.
Chair Clarke stated that parking the
entire site for commercial uses for the site is before the Commission. Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated this is correct and that the applicant may
reapply for a variance for the artist studio use, which may or may not be
granted by the Zoning Administrator. He further stated that other issues not
before the Commission at this hearing are: the landmark status of the
buildings; that the decision to landmark a property does not make it unviable
and that no application has been filed for a Certificate of Economic Hardship;
and the Ellis Act issue, which is the property owner’s right to go out of the
rental housing business.
Chair Clarke asked that the record
reflect that he spoke at the Landmarks Commission hearing in favor of
designation for the Bay Street Cluster.
He stated that he is serious about finding possible viable uses for the
buildings.
City Council Liaison McKeown
commented that he has been aware of these buildings for twenty-seven years and
conflicts of mixed-use cited by the property owner. He asked staff about the
status of a complaint he received regarding a commercial sign on the Bay Street
side entry. Ms. Frick stated she would need to check the complaint log.
Commissioner Olsen made a motion to
deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s denial based on the
findings in the staff report.
Commissioner Dad seconded the
motion. She commented that this appeal is like the music school appeal in
regards to the parking issue. She stated that the Commission’s concern is the
aggregate effect of not providing required parking on-site. She stated that
commercial uses generate more traffic as well as being a burden on street
parking. She also stated that the City’s parking formula does not meet “real
world” needs.
Commissioner Brown stated she will
not support the motion. She expressed concern with the landmark status of the
buildings and the imposition placed on the property owner. She stated that she
does, however, support the landmark status of the buildings and the parking
variance. She commented that the beach lot is a good parking alternative.
Chair Clarke asked Commissioner
Brown if she would support the artist studio use. Commissioner Brown commented
that the artist studio use would be “fabulous” and would be good for all
involved, however it is not before the Commission in this hearing.
Commissioner Olsen commented that
the property owner chose to “Ellis” the property and cease being in the rental
housing market. He noted that a variance for fifty-two parking spaces is the
largest parking variance he has ever seen and the Commission routinely has
denied parking variances for much smaller requests.
Commissioner Johnson expressed
support for the motion. He stated that the request for a variance for fifty-two
parking spaces is too much. He also stated that it is not the Commission’s
place to say what the property owner can and cannot do with their
property. He also noted that the
property owner works with staff in this process and he expressed confidence
that the property owner will continue to work with staff to solve this problem.
Chair Clarke expressed sympathy with
the comments made by Commissioner Brown and agreed that the artist studio
option would be a good use choice.
The motion to deny the appeal and
uphold the Zoning Administrator’s denial was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Moyle,
Olsen; NOES: Brown; ABSENT: Hopkins.
7-C. Appeal
02-029, 2525 Main Street. Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a parking variance to
allow a reduction of 8 parking spaces for the property located at 2525 Main
Street. Santa Monica Municipal Code
(SMMC) section 9.04.10.08.040 requires 8 parking spaces for the conversion of
2,337 square feet of residential space to commercial office space, which is
located on the third floor of the subject building. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.20.10.030(b) an applicant may
request a variance to allow for the modification of the number and dimensions
of automobile parking spaces, loading spaces and driveway requirements.
[Planner: Elizabeth Bar-El] APPLICANT/APPELLANT/Property Owner: Fred DiMaio.
Commissioner Olsen disclosed that he
drove northbound on Main Street by the site with Commissioner Moyle at 6:45
p.m. on March 19, 2003. Commissioner Moyle made the same disclosure and added
that she lives two blocks east of the building and she has an unobstructed view
of the third floor of 2525 Main Street. Additionally, Commissioner Moyle
disclosed that she is glad the photography business is gone from the third
floor and that while she is biased in favor of the applicant, she can keep an
open mind for the appeal. Commissioners Brown, Dad and Johnson had nothing to
disclose for this project. Chair Clarke disclosed that he drove by the site on
Wednesday evening, March 19, 2003; that he received an e-mail from the Ocean
Park Community Organization (OPCO), which has been distributed to the
Commission; and that he is fond of the building.
Associate Planner Elizabeth Bar-El
gave the staff report on the appeal.
Commissioner
Olsen asked about the sequence of variance applications and appeals for this
property. Planning Manager Jay Trevino,
as the Zoning Administrator, explained that the third floor was converted into
a residential space and occupied prior to the approval of the variance request,
which triggered a Code Enforcement investigation because the required off-site
parking lease had not been secured. He stated that there is a court case
pending resolution of this appeal.
Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum asked to clarify the record regarding Commissioner
Moyle’s disclosure. He cited the rules for recusal for conflict of interest. He
stated that Commissioner Moyle must decide if personal interest may overcome
professional duties as a Commissioner. He stated for the record that
Commissioner Moyle stated that she can be objective in this matter.
Commissioner Moyle commented that Third Street is two blocks from Main Street
as well as being half way up the hill, and that she can view most of the south
end of Main Street from her apartment. She stated again for the record that she
can be unbiased in this appeal and she will not recuse herself.
Commissioner
Dad asked staff about the parking variance process and whether the applicant
reveals where off-site parking will be secured at the time of application or at
the public hearing, or if they are informed at the public hearing that this
needs to be secured. Mr. Trevino stated that all these situations occur,
depending on the application. He stated that in some cases the applicant is
told that off-site parking must be secured and within what radius from the
site, then they return to a second public hearing to inform the Zoning
Administrator of the location or may inform the Zoning Administrator in
writing, and that location becomes a condition of approval for the variance.
The
applicant/appellant, Fred DiMaio, and his representative, Howard Robinson, were
present to discuss the appeal.
The
following members of the public were present to discuss the appeal: Kathy
Weber, Tom Weidlein, Anita Holcomb for OPCO, and Gary Gordon for the Main
Street Merchants Association.
Mr.
Robinson waived his right to speak in response to the public comment.
Commissioner
Olsen commented on the parking lot at Second and Hill Streets, which is
residentially zoned, and that staff has not permitted parking on this lot. Mr.
Trevino stated that it is true that the lot is residentially zoned and has been
used for parking for many years, although it is not a permitted use.
Commissioner
Olsen asked if the variance denial was based on the fact that the parking
spaces that were secured by the applicant were non-conforming, non-legal
parking spaces. Mr. Trevino answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner
Olsen asked Mr. Trevino if it is true that the Commission cannot legally
approve the parking spaces because they are on a non-conforming parcel. Mr.
Trevino answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner
Moyle commented that the lot at Second and Hill Streets has asphalt pavement,
striping for parking spaces and a fence. She asked how the lot can be
functioning as a commercial parking lot. Mr. Trevino stated that in June, 1978,
the Zoning Administrator approved a use variance to permit the residential lot
to be used as a parking lot to support an adjacent use, therefore it is a legal
non-conforming use. However, research on the lot has revealed that it is no
longer a legal non-conforming use because the chain has been broken in the
grandparented use since the original use approval was tied to a specific
adjacent use. Because of this break, i.e. the adjacent use ceased, the variance
is void. He stated for the record that the applicant, Mr. DiMaio, actively
worked to find parking within the required 1000 foot radius of his property per
the prior variance approval.
Commissioner
Moyle commented that there was, then, a good faith effort by the applicant. She
noted that the Commission cannot, however, grant the variance for use of the
Second and Hill Streets lot. Mr. Trevino answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner
Dad asked who currently uses the Second and Hill Streets lot and why has it
continued. Mr. Trevino stated he did not have an answer for that question,
however the issue has been referred to Code Enforcement.
Commissioner
Dad commented that every year she sees signs on Main Street directing people to
“beach parking” and asked why the applicant cannot lease spaces at the beach
parking lot. Mr. Trevino stated that that would seem possible.
Chair
Clarke asked if it is correct that the discussion has been focusing on the
Second and Hill Streets lot on the southwest corner, behind Jadis, and not the
Cosby lot on the northwest corner. Staff indicated this is correct. Chair
Clarke stated that in 1978 the lot was approved for parking for the Merlin
McFly’s bar and restaurant (Main and Hill Street), and previously there had
been a gas station on that location. He repeated that the Zoning Administrator
has stated that the variance has died, although parking still occurs on the
lot.
Commissioner
Dad commented that there is other parking available in the area, such as behind
the Victorian Restaurant, and beach parking. Mr. Robinson stated that he
believes there is double counted parking in the area and that the Victorian
leases their parking from the City and long term leases for that lot are not
available. He stated that the off-site parking condition requires that the
parking spaces be within 1000 feet of the property and that a ten year lease be
secured. Mr. Robinson stated that he contacted many parking lot owners, but
none would agree to lease parking spaces for the term specified, only daily or
monthly.
Commissioner
Olsen asked staff if they wished to clarify the record. Mr. Trevino stated that
the parking lot being discussed is 218 Hill Street, which is on the southwest
corner behind Jadis, not the lot used by Jake and Annie’s. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this issue has been of serious concern to both the
Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney’s Office and that the issue has been
reconsidered on more than one occasion with the same conclusion, therefore the
issue of the use of the parking lot is closed.
Commissioner
Johnson asked staff if the Commission has the authority to change the number of
parking spaces required. Ms. Bar-El stated that eight parking spaces are
required by code for the change of use, however if the number was changed, then
the applicant would need to supply the difference. Commissioner Johnson asked
what would happen if the applicant could find a lesser number of parking spaces
closer to the property. Ms. Bar-El stated that this was not analyzed in the
staff report, however the applicant has stated that there is no parking available
for lease within the 1000 foot radius.
Commissioner
Johnson asked if a reduction in the square footage of third floor office space
would reduce the number of parking spaces required. Ms. Bar-El stated that it
would, but the office space is already existing.
Commissioner
Dad asked staff to explain the difference between mitigation of parking and
traffic mitigation in Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). Ms. Frick stated
that there is not much difference in that an exception is made in-lieu of supplying
required parking spaces. She stated that, based on the testimony given, one
would need to assume that employees will continue to use public transportation
for the life of the building. Such an assumption would be difficult to enforce,
although the Commission may consider requiring an annual report be made.
Commissioner
Dad commented on a reference on page three of the staff report regarding
approval of the third floor use included waiving of two required parking spaces
because the driveway was removed. She asked if this is still viewed as a
benefit to the project. Ms. Bar-El stated that third floor was built out, so it
is a benefit to the project.
Commissioner
Dad asked if the public receiving additional on-street parking was part of the
calculations for the building. Mr. Trevino answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner
Olsen commented on the discussion regarding parking and bus passes and noted
that parking calculations are not just for employees, but the uses in the
building. He stated he is sympathetic to the applicant and the building,
however he has to consider the parking problems in the area. He noted that the
applicant was permitted to change the use of the third floor, but did not keep
the agreement with the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Olsen expressed the
opinion that there could be a compromise on the number of required parking
spaces, but the issue cannot be waived. He concluded by saying that this
appears to be a successful building.
Commissioner
Moyle asked staff about the metered parking lot east of the building, which is
owned by the City. Ms. Frick stated that the building is owned by the City and
serves as parking for the Ocean Park Branch Library.
Commissioner
Moyle commented that the parking lot appears to be a residentially zoned lot.
Ms. Frick stated that it has been continuously used as parking lot, therefore
it is “grandparented.”
Chair
Clarke asked for a motion. He stated that the options are to deny the appeal or
approve it with special circumstances and dispense with the parking
requirement. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Commission may
be able to make special circumstance findings, however the staff report focused
on neighborhood impacts.
Commissioner
Dad expressed her dilemma with this particular appeal. She acknowledged that
employees and their transportation habits change with time. She stated that she
cannot vote against staff’s recommendation and stated that staff did a good job
on this staff report.
Commissioner
Johnson asked if the City could dedicate three parking spaces from the library
lot to 2525 Main Street. Ms. Frick stated that the lot cannot be used for
private use and such an action would generate citizen complaints.
Commissioner
Johnson asked if 2525 Main Street could issued
Preferential Parking Permits. Ms. Frick stated they could not. Mr.
Trevino cited page 511 of the Zoning Ordinance, which deals with the change of
use of landmark properties.
Commissioner
Brown commented that she is hearing the Commission trying to solve the
applicant’s problem. She acknowledged that it is a difficult problem, however
the landmark designation of the property has less to do with the problem than
on the prior appeal.
Commissioner
Olsen stated that the Commission is in an awkward position because of the
actions of the applicant. He stated that they applied for and received a
variance to change the use of the third floor with conditions of approval which
were not met. He also stated that “double parking” exacerbates the situation.
Commissioner
Dad made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s
denial.
Commissioner
Moyle seconded the motion.
Chair
Clarke stated he would be voting against the motion.
Commissioner
Johnson stated he was torn on the issue and that he feels there are other
solutions.
The motion to deny the appeal and
uphold the Zoning Administrator’s denial was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Brown, Dad, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen; NOES: Clarke; ABSENT: Hopkins.
8. FUTURE
COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
9. PUBLIC INPUT: None.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 p.m.
APPROVED: April 23, 2003