(Photo courtesy of Regan Kibbee.)
Gjelina and Gjusta owner Fran Camaj, on right, and his architect/representative Stephen Vitalich, on left, presenting case for 320 Sunset Ave change of use.
Robin Rudisill, chair of Land Use and Planning (LUPC), listed the problems that LUPC encountered in the decision to turn down 320 Sunset project, and then gave her personal reasons.
- “You cannot eat in a bakery/retail,” stated Ara Sargsyan of Building and Safety, referring to the defined uses allowed for ‘bakery/retail.’
- “There should be no consumption,” continued Sargsyan. “Bakery means baked goods … not sandwiches, not a coffee shop.
- “You cannot eat in a parking lot. Parking means parking for vehicles,” emphasized Ara Sargsyan.
- “You cannot use in-lieu parking twice,” said JoJo Pewsawang, zoning administrator. It was used for bakery/retail; cannot be used for this project.
- “We do not recommend that you have a liquor license,” said Captain Brian Johnson. “The area already has too many, 14 to be exact in an area authorizing only five. We ask that the request be denied.”
These were defining statements made by members of the City and police departments, who are the decision makers for the City in this case. They were making statements Wednesday regarding the change of use requested for Gjusta Bakery at 320 Sunset. JoJo Pewsawang did not make a decision but said one would be forthcoming.
The applicant had yet to provide a parking plan or paper work necessary for acceptance by Planning.
Bakery right now has a Certificate of Occupancy for bakery/retail. (It was stated in Update the present use was bakery/kitchen/retail. This fact was taken from the notification in the window. It is not correct.) Fran Camaj is seeking a change of use to bakery/retail/restaurant with a complete line of alcohol for onsite sale and a beer and wine license for offsite sales.
Chris Robertson, deputy director of land use and planning for Councilman Mike Bonin, read councilman’s letter letter stating the project was fundamentally flawed with the back patio and the situation with lack of adequate parking. Then she read the motion Bonin proposed at the Council the day before which proposes to tie the in-lieu parking fee to a CPI with an amendment to the Venice Specific Plan, and as part of future Local Coastal Plan, examine the merits of “eliminating, restructuring, or replacing the in-lieu fees and examine the benefits and impacts of eliminating the ‘grandfathered’ parking rights.”
It was a well-organized group of neighbors from Sunset area and a group of neighbors from the 600 Mildred proposed restaurant. Neighbors from 600 Mildred face similar problems and did not want 320 Sunset to set a precedent.
Roxanne Brown gave a presentation that showed people eating in the parking area, showed the type food being sold, showed the problems with the alley in the rear, and the problems with a delivery truck.
Neighbors from Vernon spoke of the proximity of the patio and parking to the residential properties on Vernon. One resident said it was “very hard to turn into his garage” because of the narrowness of the alley. Right now the alley is not one-way, but “even if it were,” he said.
Noise, Parking, Traffic, Smoke, Smell, Parking Lot Dining
One resident said that hours of 6 am to 1 am do not limit the time to that. “They are there all the time and one can hear them.”
A commercial tenant couple shops down said “There is no parking now for my clients and the bakery patrons eat on my front steps. I have to ask them to leave.”
They all spoke of the added traffic to the area and lack of parking. Deliveries were a problem for the area also. Photos showed traffic only one lane when a truck was unloading. Sunset has a dedicated 60-foot street but it is closer to a 30-foot figure in actuality.
Neighbors spoke of smoke, and it is shown in one of the photos, and wanted to know how this could be stopped. They also spoke of the smell of burning oil in the air all the time.
One man mentioned the old tree and said that the tree took up a lot of space, and to get cars in, the tree would have to be removed.
One artist was upset that this property could be used for an artist. He said “pretty soon all the areas for artists will be gone.” Venice will not be what it is today.
Most descriptive was the man who measured the distance with his rule to show the zoning administrator how far the patio was from his property.
Also mentioned was that people were sitting on the curb “eating in the gutter, placing their food on the garbage containers,” on benches in front, on the ground in the lot. One asked “Isn’t there a health code for such?”
Camaj Says Drinking Would be a No
Camaj explained to the zoning administrator that he “would not be inclined to stop people from using a milk crate and eating in parking lot” but he “wouldn’t let them do it if they were drinking outside.”
Pewsawang said, “Technically you might be right but your certificate of occupancy says no seating.”
Land Dedication
Ilana Morosi, who spearheaded this group, made the statement that according to Department of Transportation, if the alley were planned for use, four feet of the property would have to be dedicated to provide for a proper turning radius or for two cars. Camaj said he planned to have cars exit the alley.
Camaj has not provided City a layout for parking or flow. The alley is 13.6 inches, but physically, probably measures even less. Morosi said she checked with owner and owner does not want to dedicate four feet of his property to City for a turning radius. Camaj will also have to provide a handicap space.
Covenant for Parking Lot
The covenant for the property to tie the parking lot to the bakery was discussed briefly but not concluded. Parking lot has a 10-year lease. The question is what happens after 10 years. A covenant could handle such provided property owner concurs.
Rudisill Says Real Quality of Life Issue
“This was a real quality of life issue for the residents of the area,” said Robin Rudisill, chair of Land Use and Planning. “I’m concerned about the very negative effect on quality of life for these impacted citizens and property owners over the past several months, almost a year, having to deal with this application for which a use like this, adjacent to residences, would be handled much differently in most cities.
“This process has been way too hard on this neighborhood, mainly due to all of the problems noted in the ZA’s letter. A significant slice of their life has been stolen from this neighborhood.
“The process needs to be better controlled. This applicant has not provided many documents that should have been provided on Day 1, including an adequate parking calculation. Things should be controlled better at the City level, and breaking this project up into many cases contributed significantly to this problem.”
Robin suggested that the ZA lead the way within City Planning to make a change such that a project application public process is not such a huge hardship on a neighborhood.
