The appeal of the Planning Commission approval for a parking variance and a liquor license for a restaurant at 609 Broadway is before the City Council tomorrow night. It’s all about City Hall screw-ups, zoning code enforcement and favoritism run amuck.
Juliano’s Raw, at 6th Street and Broadway, received building permit approval as a retail space — a deli with incidental food — on May 13, 2002, because that’s how the location is zoned. However, on Sept. 30, the owner of Juliano’s Raw, Juliano Brotman, apparently applied for and obtained a city business license for “restaurant” use instead.
According to city zoning codes, a deli/incidental food service is limited to a maximum of 20 seats and has less than 250 square feet of space for food consumption. Orders are taken at a service counter, with payment provided in advance of receiving the food. Food service is secondary to retail activity.
A restaurant is defined as having table service, expanded space and seating capacity, and a more stringent parking requirement. With 991 square feet in serving space, and four — instead of the required 16 — on-site parking spaces required for restaurants, Juliano’s Raw was in clear violation of zoning codes.
When Brotman applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a beer and wine license In September, 2004, planners discovered the violation, met with him, discussed code compliance and suggested he apply for a parking variance to help mitigate the violation. It appears nothing was done.
According to law, a request for a new CUP can’t even be considered when an applicant is out of compliance, yet the Planning Commission held a hearing on the request for an alcohol CUP on Feb. 16, 2005. Brotman said he’d operated his 78-seat, 1,775-square foot “restaurant” for three years.
Commissioner Julie Lopez-Dad responded, “This business is what the commission is seeking all over the city... to deny it now does not fulfill the goals for the area.” Unfortunately, Julie, “goals” are irrelevant at a judicial hearing.
Commissioner Terry O’Day said that he “Is not so concerned about parking, as Brotman’s costs for additional applications.” Commissioners should be enforcing the codes, not fretting about an applicant’s expenses, especially when they’re in violation. Nevertheless, some commissioners recommended waving fees required for reapplication — an extraordinary, and illegal gesture.
Ultimately, Brotman was told to (1) request a parking variance; (2) work with staff to accommodate current parking spaces; and (3) address the actual use in the new application and come back.
On March 15, 2005, Brotman was finally cited for “the unapproved conversion of a retail deli with incidental food service to a restaurant.” While many municipalities would have suspended or revoked Brotman’s permits or demanded immediate compliance, City Hall did nothing.
On Dec. 14, 2005, Brotman asked the planning commission for a parking variance and the alcohol CUP even though he had done little to secure additional parking and was still short 12 required spots, according to the zoning codes in effect.
Meeting minutes reveal that planners bent over backwards by recommending reducing seating space and service areas as well as factoring in Brotman’s unsubstantiated claim that “only 38 percent of his diners use motor vehicles when going to his restaurant.”
Inexplicably, staff proposed that the four existing parking spots on-site would suffice. In one fell swoop, legally mandated parking requirements were thrown out, making it appear that staff had concocted its own cockamamie codes for Brotman’s benefit.
Planning staff justified their recommendation by asserting: “Granting the parking variance enhances the neighborhood environment.” Come again? Inadequate parking is good for “neighborhood serving” businesses? And, isn’t everything “neighborhood serving?” If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be in business.
Commissioner Hank Koning suggested foregoing parking requirements because, “The restaurant appealed to environmentally correct people.” How dumb is that? Would Koning make exceptions for eateries catering to blondes, too?
Unbelievably, Koning then suggested designating the four on-site places for employees — eliminating public parking altogether. The commission then approved the variance and the CUP.
Planning staff’s report on the June 27 appeal notes that new, lower parking standards approved by City Council just last month would now require six spaces. Under these new standards, Brotman’s eatery is short two spaces, and if that requirement is waived, staff says, the business can operate as a restaurant with beer and wine service.
Brotman applied for his CUP nearly two years ago and the old, more stringent codes in effect then should still apply here. To me, staff’s position of using the new codes smacks of “fixing the race” to favor the applicant. It appears that staff and applicant may have stalled long enough to buy enough time to capitalize on more lenient zoning codes and dodge the more “onerous” parking bullet.
Despite staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal, let’s hope City Council looks at the facts and supports it. Council’s obligation as a judicial reviewer is to protect the public’s interest, not the applicant’s. (Information for this commentary was gathered from both the staff reports and minutes for Planning Commission meetings of Feb. 16 and Dec. 14 of 2005, and the staff report on the appeal posted with the current City Council agenda for June 27, 2006.) (Bill Bauer is a veteran observer of the local political scene. He)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 26, 2006. Read the original PDF.