SR-011293-7BLUTM:PB:DKW:DB/ec20apcc.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: January 12, 1993
TO: Mayar and eity Cauncil
FROM: City Staff
~~w ~
f`• t ~ ~
t;~4 ~ .. i~~~J
Santa Monica, California
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commissi.on Denial of Appeal of
~oning Administrator Approval o€ Occupancy Permit
91-020, 1620 Braadway.
Applicant: Ronen Hacker
Appellant: Councilmember Ken Genser
INTRODUCTION
This repart recommends that the City C~uncil deny the appea~ Qf
Occupancy Permit (OC) 91-020, for the property Iocated at 1620
Broadway, and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of said
appeal, thareby upha~.ding the Zoning Acl~ninistratar's approval of
oC 9~-020. OC 9].-020 was originally app~oved by tha Zaning
Administrator on May 6, 1992, permitting the commercia~
occupancy o~ seven residen~ial units and tha residential
occupancy of one unit in an 8-unit apartment building which was
previously removed from the rental market via the Ellis Act. The
Zoning Administratvr's determination was upheld an appeal to the
Flanning Commission on September 3D, 1992, based on a 3 to 2 vote
to deny the appea3.. The appeal was filed by Mr. Genser based on
concerns that minimu~n code parking requirements were not met far
the praposed commercial use of the subject property.
- ~. -
~~ ~
'~"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;,~?
BACx~ROUN~
Project Histary
Occupancy Permit 91-020 was issued in conjunction with
Administrative Approval (AA) 91-1~1 by the Zoning Administrator
on May 6, 1992, permitting the commercial occupancy of seven
residential units and the residential accupancy of ane unit in an
8-unit apartment building which was previously removed from the
rental market via the Ellis Act. On May 20, 1992, Councilmember
Ken Genser appealed the Zaning Administrator's Occupancy Permit
determination to the Planning Commission based an cancerns that
code minimum parking requirements were not met. (Attachment A.)
Although Mr. Genser did not request a revocation of AA 9~-111,
this associated permit would be ~f no further effect if the
appeal of OG 91-020 were granted. On September 30, 1992, the
Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 an a motion to deny the appeal
and uphold the Zoning Administrator's determznation.
(Attachments B and Cy This is cans~dered a"technical denial" of
the appeal because the minimum faur votes nece~sary for an action
ware not obtained. The present appeal of the Planning
Commission's action was filad on October 9, I992. tAttachment
D.}
The Zoninq Administrator's approval of Occupancy Permit
91-020 and Administrative Appraval 91-111 was based an the
requirements af SN~lC Section 9.04.1D,08.030{e) and Ordinance 1466
( CCS ) .
- 2 -
Section 9.04.10.08.030(e) states that:
(e) For any new use of an existing building ar structure
such that the new use will require parking spaces, parking
spaces in the number specified in Section 9.D4.1o.D8.o4o
shall be provided for the entire parcel.
PZanning and Zaning staff have consistently interpreted this code
section to mean that if a higher number of parking spaces is
rec~zired for the proposed use than that which would be required
tar the existing use using current code standards, then ail uses
on the site must be braught up to current parking standards.
Conversely, if a new use ~equires the same or fewer parking
spaces than the existing use, the new use may be approved withaut
any change in the existing number af parking spaces.
an December 15, 1992, the City Council affirmed staff's
interpretatian of SMMC Section 9.04.10.08.030(e). At the same
hearing, the Council approved an ordinanae which wauld require
that on-site parking meet existing zoning standards for projects
where residential use would change to commercial or industrial
use. (Attachments E and F.) This ordinance does not apply to
projects deemed compl.ete prior to December 15, 1992, and
therefore does not app~y to OC 91-020 because it was deemed
complete on December 20, 1991,
The subject property contains a total o€ 8 on-site parking
spacas, which is less than the minimum required if the subject
building were constructed today. This xs referred to as a"legal
noneantorm~.ng standard," in that it is legal to continue the us~
without providing additiona~ parking. The Zoning Administrator's
- 3 -
interpretation o~ Section 9.04.10.08.030(e) further pravides that
the 8 on-site parking spaces may remain "legal nonconforming" if
it can be established that the minimum number of spaces required
by the existing code for the existing use does not exceed the
minimum number of spaces required for the proposed use. In
reviewing the appl~cant's proposal in this regard, staff found
that the prior residential use required the same number of
parking spaces under current requirements as the proposed mix of
affice and residential uses, as fo~laws:
USE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PURSUANT
Td SMMC SECTION 9.04.10.08.030(e)
8 1-2 bedroam 18 spaces minimum (2 spaces per
units existing unit plus 1 guest space per 5
units)
4,664 sq.ft. of 18 spaces mini~u~ (1 space per
4ffice space from 300 square Feet of office area
conversion of seven plus above-mentioned residential
residential units, plus require~ent for one unit)
one residential unit
Because the total numbex of spacas required by the current Zoning
Ordinance does not increase as a result of the proposed change of
use, the project remains "grandparentad" for the 8~xisting
on-site parking spaces. Furthermore, no change of use was
propased for one of the residential ~nits, and that unit
therefare remains grandparented far 1 parking space in-~ie~ oF 2
required by code. The result is a total of 8 parking spaces
in-Iieu af 17 required by code (16 required far the new office
use and 1 space requa.red for the residential unit which is
grandparented because it is proposed to remain rESidential}.
- 4 -
Ordinance 1466 states that "an Occupancy Permit far commercial
occupancy of a property oz any rental unit therein shall be
granted by the Planning Director" if the proposed occupancy is in
conforinance with tha General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this
instance, the proposed use of specialty o~~ice on the graund
floar and general office use on the second floor was found to be
in conformance with the pexmitted uses in the Sroadway Commercial
(BCD) District, and the existing parking met the Zoning Ordinance
parking requirements for a change of use, as noted abo~e. The
proposed ~ix of residential and commeraial uses is also
consistent with the goa~s autlined in the Land Use and
Circulation Element of the General P1an.
Ordinance 1466 specifies further findings which must be made far
residential re-occupancy af a building removed from the rental
market via the Ellis Act. On the accupancy Permit application,
the applicant stated that the owner wou~d be the anly person to
occupy unit H, which was to remain residential. This was
consistent with Ordinance 145b, which allows residential owner
occupancy of apartment unita re-accupied after removal fr~m the
rental market via the ~llis Act.
Because the proposal canforms to Zoning 4rdinance and Ordinance
Z466 requirements, Planning and Zaning staff approved the
~ccupancy Permit and the related Administrative Appro~al.
Enforcement
APter the appeal of Occupancy Permit 91-020, staff received a
cornplaint indicating that the sub~ect property was being used far
~ 5 -
commercial purpoaes. A site inspection by staff and examination
of Rent Contro~ and Business License records indicate that the
property has contained commercial uses since October of 1987,
~hree years prior to the August 14, 1990, Ellis withdrawal date.
On July 9, 1992, natice was delivered to all occupants of the
subject proparty, including the applicant, that existing
businesses must be removed within 10 working days and must not
~eturn until the final decision an Occupancy Permit 91-020 is
rendered.
It appears that at ~east three of the residentia~ units on the
property are currently utilized for commarcfal purpoaes without
having obtained eithar Administrative Approval for a change of
use or an Occupancy Permit. ~n addition, at the time of the
P~anning Commissian hearing, a sign existed on the praperty
stating "Office Space for Lease." Staff does not recommend
denial of the current application based on these illegal uses
because the proposal currently befare the City Caunci~ confarms
ta Zaning ~rdinance requirements and the City Attorney's office
has advised Planning staff that the decision to approve or deny
the project should be based salely on tha merits of the proposal.
The City Attorney's of~ice is currently prasecuting the applicant
regarding the currant and past non-permitted uses at the site. A
trial is scheduled for January 19, ~993.
PLiY.?ZiC Notice
Occupancy Permits do not require public notification. Pursuant
to Code Section 9.04.20.24.020, no public notice is required for
- 6 --
the appeal of an Occupancy Permit, However, a notice of the
hearing was published in the Santa Monica outlook nat less than
1D consecutive calendar days prior to the pubiic hearing.
BUDGET~FTNANCIAL TMPACT
The reca~endation presented in this repart daes not have any
budget ar fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATI~N
The Occupancy Permit originally granted by the Zoning
Administrator is in canformance with the Zoning Ordinance, the
General Plan, and Ordinance 1466, and, therefors, staff
recommends that the City CounciZ uphold the Planning Commission's
denial of the appeal and uphold the zaning Administrator's
approval of ~acupancy Permit 91-020, pursuant to the findings and
conditions cantained in the Planning Commission Statement of
official Aation contained in Attachment C.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Drummond Buckley, Assaciate Planner
Planning Divisian
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
ATTACHMENTS
A. Zoning Administrator Appeal
B. Fl.anning Cammission Staff Report with Attachments
C. Flanning Commission Statem~nt of Official Action
D. Planning Commission Appeal
E. Ci.ty Council Staf~ Report for Interpretation of SMMC Section
9.p4.7.0.08.030(e) (Priar Code Section 9044.3[e])
F. Ordinance Adopted December 15, 1992, Establishing Parking
Standards for Changes of Use fram Residential to Commerc~.al
or Ind~strial
- 7 -
DB
PC/ec20apcc
Ol/06/93
- $ -
~~~~~LY1~1 V 1 ! 1
~~ ~~
City of .
Santa Man~ca
Cammtx~ty and Eoonom~c Deveyo~n~nt Uepai~~-Mt !~°~. - ~--=
Pltr~lrg md Zo~ Divl~ion
t2~3} ~58-8341
APPEAL FORM
FEE: ~1DC.00 D819 Fil9d ~' ,~ '? c /6 ?
Fi@OBlV~@d b~l `.~-'~:
~~~ ~~~k
~ _ ~Q~ Genser '
Ad~esa 168~ f~ain Street,,,Santa Monica~ CA 9040~
~~ ~B~ ~ ( 310 ) 458-8201
Please de9a~b8 fhe pqeCt 3nd dBCisq~1 b be 8ppealed
Occupanc,y, Permi ~ for Resi dential ~Comnerci al tJse
Case N~xnber
~ddr~esa
~
Q+i~mal haanng daM
~~
4C 91-020
162a Sroadwa~r
Roner~ Hacker
i+lay b, ty~[
p~,~„ ~~ ~ a~~ ~~~ ~~~y Th~ ~roposed eccupancy i s not i n conformance
with the Comprehensive ~.and Use and ~oninq Ordinance with
res~ec~ to parkin~.
#~W ~ it r~dad, w~ ack d lor~.
p~ _ 20 ~Ia~Y i992
~ ;,` ~ ~
«
t CA:MHS:pkgord2/hpadv
City Council Meeting 12-35-92
OR~INANCE NUMBER
Santa Monica, California
(City Councii Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CYTY COUNC~L ~F THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ESTABLISHING PARKING
REQUIREMENTS F~R CHANGES OF USE FROIri
RESIDENTIAL TO CDI~iERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES
ON AN INTERIM BASIS AND DECLARING
THE PRESENCE 4F AN EMERGENCY
THE CITY C~UNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA M4NICA DQES ~RDAIN AS
FOLLAWS :
Sectian 1. Findinqs and Purpose. The City Council finds
and declares:
(a) Numerous existing CpmmE'.x'Ckd1 and industrial uses in
the City do not prov~.de parking in the amount required by the
City's current zoning standards {hereinafter "code par~ing")
because such uses predate the current zaning ordinance and
constitute legal non-conforming uses, which results in a laok of
parking for commercial and industrial uses.
(b} The City has initiated the process to amend Part
9,04.1a.08 of the Zoninq Ordinance concerning off-street parking
requirements (hereinafter "Parking Amendments") to provide, amanq
other things, that pro~ects which invalve changes af use from
residenti.al tn commercia~ or industrial uses provide code parking
for the entire parcel. The Planninq Cammission of the City of
- 1 - ~' ~ ~ ~
_~ ~ .
`~ ~ ~~~~ .