Unusual Appeal Sparks Debate, Divides Council

By Teresa Rochester

What started out as a seemingly simple, but highly unusual, appeal over the use of a lot spiraled into a three-and-a-half hour debate that resulted Tuesday night in the City Council's expected approval of an auto dealership expansion -- but not before tempers flared and allies split.

The debate had council members crunching square footage on calculators, discussing general policy issues and putting up proposed walls before voting to uphold a 6 to 1 Planning Commission decision to allow the 9,900-square-foot expansion of the W.I Simonson Mercedes Benz dealership.

By the time the council voted 4 to 3, even the appellant, Panning Commissioner Kelly Olsen, was having second thoughts. Olsen passed notes to council members urging them to salvage the project, as several members floated unsuccessful motions that would have delayed if not killed the expansion of the long-established family business on Santa Monica Boulevard.

"Unfortunately the council got off the point of my appeal, which was about the residential lot," Olsen said after the decision. "I'm glad the project was approved. If I had the ability to withdraw my appeal, I would have."

Olsen's appeal - highly unusual because he was appealing his own commission's decision -- contended that the proposed expansion added more than 50 percent floor area, therefore requiring a lot the company had been using for employee parking to revert back to residential use. Olsen argued that staff had miscalculated the square footage and, as a result, the planning commissions decision had been based on erroneous information.

After double checking their calculations planning staff stuck to the original recommendation to approve the expansion.

But Olsen's appeal, which he said was based on "one small aspect" of the project divided the Santa Monicans for Renters Rights majority on the council.

Councilman Ken Genser argued that some of the 30 subterranean parking spaces would be used to repair vehicles, but that the additional footage was not being included in the floor area calculations. Since the parking and work areas were not clearly delineated, Genser suggested that the parking be viewed as floor area. This would have pushed the expansion beyond 50 percent, triggering a more extensive environmental review.

"Make it clear what's work area; make it clear what's parking area," said Genser, who suggested putting up walls to clearly separate the uses.

Denying the appeal would also eliminate the possibility that housing could be built on the existing employee parking lot adjacent to the property, some of the council members argued.

"I feel we have to take the long-term look at this land," Councilman Kevin McKeown said. "We're not interpreting code we're looking at an unprecedented situation."

Opponents of the appeal argued the council members were nit-picking and interpreting the zoning code in an effort to derail the project.

"It really sounds to me like a motion to kill the project," Councilman Paul Rosenstein said referring to Genser's motion to include parking in the floor area. "It [the project] meets the zoning code. Why are we so concerned with killing this project? I don't know what we're going to accomplish by it."

Mayor Pam O'Connor warned against applying too strict of an interpretation of the code. "Each project is unique," she said. "We'd be changing the interpretation [of the code]. We would be sending it down a different path."

City Attorney Marsha Moutrie cautioned that Genser's motion would set a precedent because subterranean parking is never counted as floor space.

On a more practical note neighbors of the car dealership argued that getting rid of the existing lot would only make parking problems worse.

"If you should go ahead and approve this appeal you will only gain the loss of parking," said David Cole, chair of Mid-City Neighbors, which voted to urge the council to support the project.

One of the 68 Simonson employees who showed up at the meeting echoed the neighbors' concerns.

In the end, the council approved the project with two conditions - that staff recheck the square-footage and that parking spaces be clearly marked and used only for parking.

After the vote, Genser once again echoed his objections. "I strongly and strenuously disagree with the actions of this council," he said. "They have set a new precedent."

Although representatives of the dealership were pleased that the project will move forward, they found the close vote troubling. (O'Connor, Rosenstein, Robert Holbrook and Michael Feinstein voted to deny the appeal; Genser, McKeown and Richard Bloom voted to uphold it.)

"I find it troubling that three members of the council could oppose the position of a neighborhood group, the employees, the planning commission, the planning staff and the city attorney's office," said Chris Harding, the dealership's attorney. "It's troubling the vote was so close."

Olsen said the denial of his appeal sends a dangerous message.

"The council's decision makes a clear statement that housing is not a priority in the community," said Olsen. "Housing will take a second seat to the automobile every time."

Olsen also was disappointed that council members didn't stick to his main point - the conversion of the lot to residential use.

"Sometimes that happens," he said. "Politics isn't pretty."