[See two pdfs below.]
Re “Who Will Make the Next Move in the Vinton Avenue Dispute?”
Unfortunately, the city recently gave final approval to the “accessory structure” at 4213 Vinton Ave., which violates the Culver City zoning codes.
I thought you might be interested in internal emails and memos that I received as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.
In the first one, the homeowner offered on April 25, the first night that we addressed the City Council, to tear down the structure at the city's expense.
Unfortunately, Sol Blumenfeld, the Community Development Director, never shared that with the City Council in his May 4 memo. Instead, he included another part of Rayma Wells's email — that the homeowners on either side of her had “no issue” with the structure.
As you know, Mr. Blumeneld never spoke to those homeowners. I believe that Mr. Blumenfeld stepped outside of his role as Community Development Director for all Culver City residents.
We would have liked to have known on April 25 that Ms. Wells was willing to tear down the structure. Why did Mr. Blumenfeld choose to hide that highly relevant information?
In the second email, you can see how hard the city planners are trying to make the zoning codes fit the structure rather than the other way around. It should never have been approved.
If those rooms in the “accessory structure,” which, by the way, is bigger than the main house, are bedrooms, as the city planners say, then that structure is an illegal dwelling.
Notice how [City Hall staffer] Jose Mendivil calls it a single family home with “detached bedrooms.” Notice how [City Hall staffer] Thomas Gorham cuts off the first part of the definition for a bedroom: “a room in a dwelling.”
Here is the definition for a bedroom: “Any room in a dwelling except a living room, bathroom, dining room or kitchen, but including a den, family room, game room, library, office, play room, sewing room, study, or other room that could, under the Building Code of the City, be used for sleeping purposes without structural modification, and also including an alcove, loft or similar feature within a room other than a bedroom.”
The complete definition for accessory structures does not allow for “sleeping rooms,” as Mr. Blumenfeld asserted in his interview with this newspaper that ran on May 5. Read the entire definition for accessory structures, which was not included in his May 4 memo to the Council. Just removing a kitchen does not automatically qualify a structure as accessory, which must be “secondary and incidental.” The accessory structure definition identifies potential structures such as “workshops” and “gazebos.” It never mentions “sleeping rooms.”
Now, Mr. Blumenfeld is moving to change the code on a “going forward” basis. Certainly, the codes need fine tuning. But how can we be assured that they will enforce any codes, since they did not do so at 4213 Vinton?
The codes should have prevented that illegal structure. The City Council knows all of this but has chosen not to act.
Mr. Stambler may be contacted at stambler_lyndon@smu.edu
[img]1228|exact|A Bedroom Is A Room in a Dwelling||no_popup[/img]
[img]1231|exact|Rayma's Tear Down Offer||no_popup[/img]
