sr-050978-7aSanta Monica, California, May 1, 1978
TO: The Mayor and City Council
7~
MAY 9 1978
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Review, Conditional Use Permit No. 256 U.P., Third
Story Addition, 1137 - 2nd Street, R4A
Dinuba Avenue Corp.
Introduction
This report covers the Planning Commission's action in granting
a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of a non-conforming
office building at 1137 - 2nd Street by the addition of a third
story. Review of this action has been requested by three members
of the City Council in accordance with the Conditional Use Permit
procedures.
Background
The applicants, Dinuba Avenue Corp., own a 2-story 19,000 sq. ft.
office building situated on 4 lots, one of which is C3 while the
others are R4A. The building was constructed in 1941 and became
non-conforming in 1948 along with all other commercial uses in
residential districts. In 1973, at the end of the 25 year mora-
torium period for non-conforming uses, the building technically
became subject to removal and a 3 year extension was granted
pending development of a coastal plan. At about the same time a
Tentative Tract Map was approved for a 5-story 55 unit condominium
but which was eventually abandoned. In 1975 the Planning Com-
mission granted a 30 year extension on condition that the building
be renovated and rehabilitated. The major renovation, including
sandblasting +,:he exterior to its natural brick finish, resurfacing
MAY 9 1978
Mayor and City Council
- 2 - May 1, 1978
of the parking lot and interior improvements were completed and
have been continuing in the interim. In granting the 30 year ex-
tension the Planning Commission relied rather heavily upon the
fact that the building, although constructed in 1941, met current
parking requirements for new construction.
In September 1977 the applicants filed a new Conditional Use permit
application seeking to add a partial third floor of 7900 sq. ft.
The matter came before the Planning Commission in November 1977
and action was deferred on the basis that expansion. of a noncon-
forming use required the provision of additional parking to cover
the new construction. The applicants were requested to investigate
some means of obtaining additional parking and return for further
consideration.
In March 1978 the applicants returned to the Planning Commission
with a parking survey of actual parking demand during a one week
period, a parking plan for increasing the use of the parking area
to 80 spaces by provision of a parking attendant and a proposed
long term parking lease of 20 spaces in the SeaRise Building at
Third and Wilshire. In April the Planning Commission approved the
addition on condition that the parking lot be redesigned to provide
69 rather than 67 spaces and that a full time parking attendant
be employed to increase the lot's capacity to 80 spaces. The pro-
posed leasing of 20 spaces in the SeaRise Building was rejected.
Mayor and City Council - 3 - May 1, 1978
Parking Analysis
Section 9148A4 permits expansion of any non-conforming use
providing it is limited to the perimeters of the property and
off-street parking is provided in accordance with Code require-
ments for any additional floor area permitted. Although the
legal parking requirement for the existing building would be 20
spaces based on the Commission requirement of one space per 1000
sq. ft. of floor area which existed prior to 1960, in granting
the 30 year extension in 1975, the Commission relied upon the
fact that building met current parking requirements of one per
300 sq. ft. of floor area and therefore initially took the posi-
tion that any addition should require the provision of additional
parking. This would require a total of 89 spaces,. 63 for the
existing. building and 26 for the addition.
The parking survey submitted by the applicant indicates the aver-
age occupancy during a five day week is 35 cars with a maximum
actual useage of 48 with a ratio of 64o compacts. While the staff
has not completed an independent survey, several. spot inspections
have not indicated a variance from this survey.
Based on the survey the Planning Commission determined to allow
the expansion.
Alternatives
Section 9148C provides that the City Council may affirm, reverse
or modify any determination of the Planning Commission in the matter
of a Conditional Use Permit and that the decision of the City Council
Mayor and City Council - 4 - May 1, 1978
shall be final. The City Council has therefore three alter-
natives: uphold the Planning Commission and permit the ad=
dition as proposed; overrule the Planning Commission's decision
and deny the application; and make such modifications or changes
the Council believes indicated.
Alternative 1. Uphold the Planning Commission and permit the
addition as proposed with the conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission. The pros in favor of this alternative include the
provision of additional office space for the applicants and
an increase in the efficiency and capacity of the off-street
parking from 67 to a maximum of 80 spaces. Cons include possible
aggravation of an already critical parking situation in the event
that actual parking demand generated by the building exceeds 80
parking spaces.
Alternative 2. Overrule the Planning Commission and deny the
application. Pros in favor of this alternative include the as-
surance that aggravation of the parking situation will be kept to
a minimum while the cons include loss of the additional floor area
and the probability that the increased efficiency and capacity of
the parking lot will not occur.
Alternative 3. Make such modifications as the City Council may
believe indicated. The pros and cons involved in this alternative
are dependent .upon the nature of such changes as may be suggested.
Recommendation.
In view of the indicated excess of parking., the low intensity uses
Mayor and City Council - 5 - May 1, 1978
in both the existing building and the anticipated owner/occupancy
o£ the addition and the availability o£ public parking in the
general area, it is respectfully recommended that the City Council
follow' alternative 1 uphold the Planning Commission's decision
including the conditions imposed.
Prepared by: James Lunsford
JL:bt