> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Council seems intent on taking Manhattan
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/council-seems-intent-on-taking-manhattan/
- Published: 2006-07-03T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T00:19:26.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Downtown, #archive-import

*By MY WRITE BY BILL BAUER*

Santa Monica moved one step closer to Manhattan-ization last Tuesday when City Council reconfirmed that small downtown restaurants don’t have to provide adequate patron parking.

The occasion was the appeal of Planning Commission approval of a parking variance and request for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a beer and wine license for Juliano’s Raw (SMPD, June 26, 2006, Page 4).

Juliano’s Raw, at 609 Broadway, has been operating as a restaurant in space zoned for retail use.Retail stores — even those with incidental food service — have less stringent parking requirements than full-service restaurants For example, restaurants are generally required to have one on-site parking spot for every 75 square feet of table and serving area or four times the parking of retail stores.

When Juliano Brotman requested his alcohol CUP in September of 2004, the zoning code required 16 parking spaces. Because, he had only four on-site spots, he was out of compliance and eventually cited by the City for an illegal use — operating a restaurant in a retail space.

Both City planners and City Council think that small downtown restaurants (under 2,500 square feet) like Brotman’s, primarily draw customers who live nearby and who’ll likely walk, Rollerblade or bicycle to dine out. So, City Council reduced parking requirements to encourage more small neighborhood eateries and markets in May. Under the new codes, Brotman’s 61-seat restaurant needs six parking spaces, not the 16 originally required.

This appeal was supposed to be heard in March. Planning staff admitted to the appellant that it was delayed so Brotman could take advantage of more lenient parking regulations in the pipeline for Council action and approval. This is an extraordinary gesture that exemplifies how everyone bent the rules for this guy.

The big question is why? A lot of controversial aspects about this application were ignored. Council accepted an unsubstantiated straw poll conducted by Brotman’s staff that said nearly two-thirds of their customers didn’t use a motor vehicle to reach the restaurant. While the research alone is suspect, Council also ignored the fact that with beer and wine service, a menu change or especially a change of use, customers driving to and parking at the location could rise dramatically.

They brushed off testimony that Brotman advertises his very specialized,“raw food” eatery on the Worldwide Web and in high fashion, national and foreign publications — marketing that’s hardly “neighborhood” oriented. Also dismissed was the fact that Brotman can’t survive on just patrons who can walk to his place.

One of the issues raised was how Brotman obtained and kept a business license in violation of the zoning codes. Brotman’s representative, Howard Robinson, could only respond that he was recently hired and couldn’t speak on activity before his employment.And, because Brotman didn’t bother to show up at a City Council hearing that would determine the fate of his business. Those and many other questions remained unanswered.

City Council wasn’t in a mood to get bogged down on issues like code compliance. They were willing to overlook any possible transgressions and seemed almost eager to reward Brotman and keep his restaurant flourishing.

City Council voted to deny the appeal, approve the alcohol CUP and require Brotman to either find two additional parking spaces or provide valet parking. Councilpersons Herb Katz, Ken Genser, Pam O’Connor and Mayor Bob Holbrook voted for the motion. Councilmen, Richard Bloom and Bobby Shriver were absent.

Councilman Kevin McKeown, who was the only person on the dais who seemed to understand what was happening and who was concerned about serious irregularities with the permitting process, wisely voted not to deny the appeal, ‘no’ on the CUP and ‘no’ on the variance or the valet.

Unfortunately, the suggestion of valet parking as a solution to Brotman’s parking shortage will mean even more cars curbside, as valets usually monopolize all the free street parking they can find.

The reduction of parking requirements for downtown restaurants exacerbates a critical shortage of street parking. To compound it by exempting even one restaurant from providing required parking is one more step toward the Manhattan-ization of Santa Monica. (Contact Bill Bauer at)

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 3, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/070306.pdf?ref=smdp.com)