You’d think that when a proposed building project is short 96 on-site parking places, the Planning Commission would turn it down. Not in Santa Monica. Especially when it’s an “activist” church.
Commissioners at the July 20 Planning Commission meeting unanimously approved an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) by the Unitarian Universalist Community Church to expand without providing any additional parking space as required by code. That’s on top of the 84 required spaces the church already lacked.
Two weeks ago, the church requested permission to expand onto adjacent property next to their present sanctuary at 1260 18th St., and convert a single-family house and garage into an office and nursery facility.
A three-phase building program includes expansion of the church sanctuary from seating for 201 worshippers to 240, construction of a two-story classroom addition to the social hall and adding a total of three on-site parking spaces.
The church also asked to be declared a legal, nonconforming use and for a waiver of the requirement for 12 additional parking spaces. City staff and commissioners agreed that this project is “good for the neighborhood.”
Wait a minute. Being that there is no on-site parking to begin with and the church is short so much parking, how could this be good for a neighborhood plagued by a dire shortage of on-street parking?
The church now has an agreement to share parking at UCLA-Santa Monica Hospital’s parking lot 500 feet away on Sunday mornings. Although the project’s architect, Ralph Mechur, has said the arrangement is not likely to change, that agreement could be terminated on short notice. Then what?
The church hosts many community meetings throughout the week in addition to its own activities. Hospital parking access is limited weekdays, so there’s even more demand for already inadequate on-street parking.
I’m sure commissioners wouldn’t grant this kind of parking variance to any other developer. The bottom line is that by allowing any entity to develop and expand without providing adequate on-site parking exacerbates parking problems throughout the city. It’s just bad planning — and even more irresponsible when requests are granted based on emotion, favoritism or as a reward for political correctness.
I wrote (Daily Press, March 12, 2004, page 6) when a similar proposal for a CUP and variance was approved, that commissioners were really rewarding the church for supporting liberal pro-homeless policies, labor issues such as the Living Wage, affordable housing and other favorite City Hall and Santa Monicans For Renters’ Rights social causes.
I noted, then, that Commissioners Darrel Clarke and Jay Johnson were both married in the church and should recuse themselves from voting. They didn’t then and voted for the CUP and variance, again. So much for objectivity.
Even more insulting were commissioners’ comments to concerned neighbors such as “we’re glad you came out to speak,” “stay involved” and “we value your input.” Commissioners weren’t even honest enough to tell it the way it really is: “Talk all you want. We’ll still do it our way.”
Most troublesome was when commissioner Julie Lopez Dad, who has always favored this project, left the meeting, followed politically connected Ralph Mechur to a hallway, threw her arms around him and gushed, “I’m so glad you won. It’s a great project for the community.” No wonder people are fed up with the system.
Most of the planning commissioners live in single-family homes north of Montana Avenue or in Sunset Park. Parking isn’t a problem for them. I’ll bet the family Buick they’d vote differently if they had to drive around for a half hour every night before finding a parking space six blocks from home.
At the same meeting, commissioners granted car dealerships the right to construct multi-level parking garages up to 28 feet high on residentially zoned lots currently used by the dealerships. This action grandfathers in all dealer parking structure applications before the revised general plan is approved.
Every auto dealership in town will have a multi-story parking lot on their premises even if the revised general plan were to limit or ban them. It’s just another example of bad planning, Santa Monica style, and smells of political back-scratching.
Somehow, none of this bodes well for a livable community and resident-friendly, low-scale development in our future. (Bill Bauer is a longtime Santa Monica resident and a freelance writer.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 1, 2005. Read the original PDF.