sr-010880-7b~8
Santa Monica, California, December 10, 1979
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal, Conditional Use Permit No. 284 U.P.,
Expansion of Non-conforming Use., 1137 Second
Street, Dinuba Avenue, Inc.
Introduction
This report transmits an appeal from the Planning Commission's
determination granting a Conditional Use Permit for expansion
of a non-conforming office building. Appeal is by a neighbor-
ing property owner. Public hearing and. final decision by the
City Council are set for the meeting of January 8, 1980.
Background
Dinuba Avenue Corp. owns an existing two-story 17,000 sq. ft.
office building at 1137 Second Street. The building was con-
structed in 1941, became non-conforming in 1948 dnd was subject
to removal in 1973 because it is located on three R4 and one
C3 lots. In 1975, a 30 year extension was granted by the Planning
Commission on the condition that the building be refurbished
and rehabilitated. The required improvements were completed,
including sandblasting the structure to its present natural brick
appearance. The building meets current parking requirements
with 67 spaces.
In 1978 the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit
to expand the structure by the addition of a partial third floor
area of 7900 sq. ft. on the condition that the parking lot be
7..~
SAN ~t ~;:..A
Mayor and City Council - 2 - December 10, 1979
redesigned to accommodate 69 parking spaces, a full time parking
attendant be provided to oversee and park cars and that the plan
be approved by the Architectural Review Board. This decision
was reversed by .the City Council on May 9, 1979 (Item 7A) and
plans for the expansion were dropped until the recent action.
In October, Dinuba Avenue Corporation reapplied for the third
story addition. The staff recommended denial on the basis of
the previous Council action, the absence of any new conditions,
and the questionable fairness of reducing floor area potential
in major commercial areas and then approving additional floor
area for a non-conforming building with inadequate parking.
Following Public Hearing on November 19, 1979 the Planning Com-
mission granted the application on the following conditions:
1. That the present parking lot be redesigned to
accommodate 69 parking spaces (38 compact, 30 full-
sized and 1 handicapped) outlined in Mr. Linscott's
report of March 1, 1978.
2. That a full time parking attendant be provided
on the premises between the hours of 8 A.M. and 5 P.M.,
Monday through Friday, with the exception of legal
holidays, to direct and oversee the parking.
3. That the proposed plan be approved by the Archi-
tectural Review Board.
4. That none of .the 69 on-site parking spaces be leased
to other than tenants of the building.
5. That no restaurant or other retail uses other than
those secondary to and supportative of the businesses in
the building, such as a dispensing optician, be located
or operate within the existing and proposed structure.
On November 26th, Hanaco, Inc., owner of property at 1118 Third
Street appealed the Planning Commission action. The basis for
Hanaco's appeal is that the third floor would interfere with
Mayor and City Council
- 3 - December 10, 1979
planned residential uses on their property.
The Proposed'Addtion
The proposed addition consists of 7900 sq. ft. of office space
and a roof terrance. The structure is primarily greenhouse
windows. The proposed parking layout is 69 spaces (38 compact,
30 full--sized and 1 handicapped) with a full-time parking
attendant to oversee and park cars. Twenty-two of the car
spaces are tandem spaces. The parking arrangement is 20 spaces
short of meeting current code requirements.
Alternatives
Under the provisions of Section 9148 of the Santa Monica Munici-
pal Code the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify any
determination of the Planning Commission in the matter of a
Conditional Use Permit and the decision of the City Council is
final. The Council therefore has the following alternatives:
1. Determine that the third story addition would
interfere with proposed residential uses on Third
Street, grant the appeal and reverse the determination
of the Planning Commission. The effect of this action
is to leave the building essentially as it exists at
present.
2. Determine that the proposed expansion would not un-
reasonably interfere with adjacent residential uses,
deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's
determination including the conditions imposed.
3. Determine that the proposed addition would not
unreasonably interfere with adjacent residential uses,
deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's
action with such modifications or additional conditions
as the Council believes indicated to mitigate or re-
duce the adverse impact alleged by the appellants.
Mayor and City Council - 4 - December 10, 1979
Recommendation
In the absence of any specific allegations of harm or inter-
ference with the reasonable use of the appellant's property,
it is respectfully recommended that the Council adopt Alterna-
tive 2, deny the application and affirm the findings of the
Planning Commission.
Prepared by: James Lunsford
JL:bt