City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider whether to place an item on a future
City Council Meeting related to a request for a fee waiver for a contemplated
variance application by Mr. David Baker, property owner of 4272 Jackson Avenue
and direct the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Stephen H. Leventhal, on behalf of his client Mr. David Baker, has presented a
request to the City Council to consider a fee waiver for a contemplated variance
application being considered by Mr. Baker for his property located at 4272 Jackson
Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council is requested to consider the very narrow question of whether it
wishes to place on a future City Council agenda a full discussion of the fee waiver
request. Should the City Council so direct the City Manager, the discussion of the
merits of the fee waiver request would be included as part of the staff report for that
item on a future agenda. The City Council is not requested to consider the fee
waiver itself at this time.
Meeting Date: 09/24/2012 Item Number: A-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Whether to Place an Item on a
Future City Council Meeting Agenda Related to a Request for a Fee Waiver for a
Contemplated Variance Application by Mr. David Baker, Property Owner of 4272
Jackson Avenue.
Contact Person/Dept.: Martin Cole Phone Number: (310) 253-6000
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [ ] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Meetings and Agendas – City Council (09/20/12); Mr. Baker
(09/20/12).
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (09/19/12)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/19/12)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/19/12)
City Manager Approval:
John M. Nachbar (09/19/12) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Consideration of this item does not create a material fiscal impact. Should the City
Council direct the City Manager to place a full discussion of the fee waiver request
on a future agenda, staff will include the application fiscal impacts associated with
that subject as part of the staff report prepared for that meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from Mr. Leventhal
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Consider whether to place a discussion of a fee waiver request by Mr. David
Baker regarding a contemplated variance application on a future City Council
meeting agenda and direct the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
MEETING DATE: September 24, 2012
AGENDA ITEM : Consideration of Whether to Place an Item on a Future
City Council Meeting Agenda Related to a Request for a Fee Waiver for a
Contemplated Variance Application by Mr. David Baker, Property Owner of
4272 Jackson Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Letter of Request
1-3
„
STEPHEN H. LEVENTHAL REC
E
I
VP
z12 .2
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Ala '141122 41110:0
2
16133 VENTURA BLVD. 7TH FLOvai„44,
4 cE,
ENCINO, CA. 91436 OF ctiL ;it ?. ( 6 1i- ificE
(310) 477-7287; FAX (310) 477-9287
May 17, 2012
City Manager
City of Culver City
9700 Culver Blvd.,
Culver City, Ca. 90232-0507
Re: 4272 Jackson Ave., Culver City (David Baker)
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FEE WAIVER & REQUEST FOR AGENDIZING ISSUE
Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION & BRIEF HISTORY OF LOCATION
On behalf of my client and Culver City resident David Baker, I request that the fee as required
under Culver City Code Section 17.210, for a residential variance for Mr. Baker's single family
residence located at 4272 Jackson Ave. be waived in the interest of justice and in furtherance of
the general plan to protect the existing density and maintain the single-family nature of the
local neighborhood, consistent with the Single Family Residential land use designation of the
General Plan.
We further request that the above request be agendized by the city council for full discussion at
its next meeting.
Mr. Baker purchases his home of 720 sq. ft. in 1972. At the time of purchase the residence
included the non-permitted garage conversion, in which the garage was converted into a
bedroom. In subsequent years additional construction, including earthquake retrofitting in
2009, at a cost of $2,500.00, in the same year a bathroom and closets were added. In 2010
toilets and windows were built and the kitchen remodeled at an additional cost of $45, 000.00.
In other words Mr. Baker has spent considerable time and money to keep his property well
maintained and in conformity with his neighbors.
In 2010 Culver City Planning determined that the single family residence was in violation of the
Culver City Municipal Code by the non-permitted use of the garage to a bedroom. An Order to
Comply was issued to which Mr. Baker timely objected and requested hearing before the
Commission. After oral argument, certain conditions were placed upon the resident including
1 installing smoke detectors in the garage, obtaining permits from city engineering to remove the
curb cut driveway issue; and a condition that upon sale, lease of said property or death of Mr.
Baker that the new owner will be required to reconvert said garage to the original condition, in
conformity with code.
Mr. Baker has complied with all applicable conditions requested by the Municipal Code Appeals
Committee, except the condition regarding the immediate reconversion upon the lease, sale
and/or death of the owner.
Mr. Baker, herein makes formal application for a variance as described in Chapter 17.550 of the
Culver City Municipal Code. Under said section certain findings are necessary to grant a
variance. Special circumstances applicable to the location, including location, shape, size,
surroundings, et al. For one, this lot is the result of a historic lot split and is approximately 2800
sq. ft. Because of said lot split- the driveway (curb cut) is shorter than standard. By the strict
compliance of the Act, the owner is denied the privileges enjoyed by other landowners in the
vicinity and under identical districts.
Furthermore, strict application of the applicable development standard-create-s an unnecessary,
involuntary created hardship and makes it obviously impractical to require full compliance. In
additiorkit must be pointed out that the existing non permitted garage is but 8 '1" in width
and code required no less than 9'6". It is therefore obviously impractical to reconvert the
present use to a garage that would fail to meet present requirements.
The Variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights including
enjoyments of said property. That the project is consistent with the general Plan and complies
with provisions of this title and the issuance of the variance would not be detrimental to public
health, interest, safety or to the general welfare and further would not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and in the same zoning district in that said
deviations have been in existence since at least 1972.
Based on the above described facts and argument, Mr. Baker requests that a variance be issued
to allow the non-permitted use and further requests that the matter be agendized with the
request that the issue of a fee waiver be discussed by said city council in session.
BASIS FOR FEE WAIVER
1. Fee is for a single family residence: the owner is not a multi- unit developer and is not
constructing anything new on said site, nor is the variance a request for a commercial
development. There is no difference under the Code between a lone single family resident and
a multinational corporation in said request. The lack of "a tiered" approach for applications for
a variance indicates that the City has significant room to allow this waiver.
2. The owner has been a Culver City resident since 1972 and was not aware of the "non
permitted' status of the garage at the time of purchase. To require the owner to make these
2 9
Respec
41.0---vor
Sltphen I-IVLevent
Attorney at law
changes at this late date, would impose a hardship to a landowner whose only source of
income is social security and a pension issued to his deceased wife.
3. Mr. Baker has expended significant money in the repair and upkeep of said property.
4. As a senior citizen and retired the expense of $17,400.00 will cause undue hardship for
himself and his family. Mr. Baker requests that said variance fee be waived in this case.
3