Santa Monica May Rezone Six Parcels

The Santa Monica City Council, pleasing some residents but angering commercial property owners, on Tuesday approved the first reading of an ordinance to rezone six lots north of Wilshire Boulevard for residential use.

If the council approves a second reading of the ordinance, the lots zoned R-1A, where parking by permit or residential use is now allowed, would be downzoned to R-1 (single-family residential) in September.

The six lots, which were zoned R-1A more than 20 years ago, are located along Franklin Street and Centinela Avenue just north of the Wilshire Boulevard commercial district near the eastern boundary of Santa Monica.

About 20 residents testified in favor of the change, which would prevent the construction of parking lots next to residences. The lots would serve as a “buffer” from the commercial development along Wilshire Boulevard, one resident said.

Zoning Revisions

“I do not want to spend the rest of my days worrying about parking lots (next to my house),” said one elderly resident.

But the change angered commercial property owners, who charged that the city is “changing the rules in the middle of the game” by rezoning the lots. The city staff is revising zoning citywide to bring it into conformance with the land-use plan that was approved last fall.

Vincent Muselli, president of the Santa Monica Area Chamber of Commerce, said that the city should consider the rezoning as part of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

The change would have immediate ramifications for property owner Jean Hunnicutt Uke, who applied late last year to demolish a duplex and build a parking lot on one of the six parcels.

Uke has said that the lot would serve Uncle John’s Family Restaurant on Wilshire and possibly a proposed new retail development next to the 24-hour restaurant.

Uke has received most of the permits she needs. However, she would have to start construction before the rezoning takes effect in September or she would not be allowed to proceed.

Uke charged that the rezoning is “directed solely at my lot.”

“I am opposed to the sudden rezoning of my lot from parking to no parking,” she told the council. “The zoning has been in existence for two decades. Now suddenly the City Council is rezoning piecemeal.”

Uke and her lawyer, Christopher Harding, sought more time to decide what to do with the lot. They asked the council to grant a one-year extension to give them time to meet with the residents and work out another solution and find a place to relocate the duplex.

But several residents opposed the one-year extension. Dan Lane, who lives in the area, said that they are willing to meet with Uke to discuss an acceptable use for the land but “didn’t want to provide an extension.”

The city council members voted 5 to 1 in favor of the ordinance, with Councilman William H. Jennings the only one to oppose it.

“The city’s principal obligation is to be a protector of the residential interests,” Councilman Dennis Zane said.

“The case has been made that the (current zoning) in this area was not in the best interest of the community,” Councilman David G. Epstein said.

After the meeting, Uke said she plans to move forward with her plans for the parking lot. She expressed disappointment with the rezoning. The city “has opened a Pandora’s box by allowing mob rule, contrary to waiting for comprehensive zoning,” she said. “This raises the possibility of any group of neighbors to come in and rezone somebody’s property.”