Loading...
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