At City Council meetings the last two Monday nights, a couple who have lived on Motor Avenue for almost 20 years have vehemently protested a practically overnight, unorthodox and arguably invasive addition built by a neighbor.
Lyndon Stambler and his wife Terry Silberman have eloquently and respectfully sought to convince the Council to force City Hall — namely Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld — to tear down that addition.
Mr. Blumenfeld has told the newspaper that the builder has conformed to codes.
Mr. Stambler disagrees.
“In my opinion,” he says, “Mr. Blumenfeld could not possibly have done an objective investigation of his own departments. If his people made mistakes, do you think he would admit that?
“At last night’s meeting, Mr. Blumenfeld spoke only in generalities: ‘The permit is lawful’ … ‘there were no loopholes used . . .but if you would like to change the zoning code so that this does not happen going forward, we can make recommendations.’
“Mr. Blumenfeld continues to apply the codes for an accessory structure to this building. Why? “Because that is the basis on which the permit was issued. But the homeowner indicated to us (as well as to other neighbors and to at least one worker on the job) that she plans to use it as a dwelling.
“It is widely known that she had family members living in the rec-room prior to the construction. If that is so, an entirely different set of codes must apply, those dealing with accessory dwellings. And for that, the homeowner does not qualify because her lot is too small. Why isn't Mr. Blumenfeld considering that?”
Below are the complete separate complaints that Mr. Stambler and Ms. Silberman have brought to the Council the last two weeks.
Mr. Blumenfeld’s perspective will be carried tomorrow.
Mr. Stambler’s comments at the April 25 Council meeting:
Since 1993, I have lived on Motor Avenue with my wife Terry and daughter, who learned how to hit line drives in our back yard. I used to be able to see the sky to the east. No longer.
Not since my neighbor at 4213 Vinton Ave. built a two-story accessory dwelling that towers over the neighborhood, violates the R-1 zoning and was squeaked through the city with no oversight from the Planning Commission or input from neighbors. Now adjacent homeowners look up at windows peering down from all sides of the dwelling, diminishing privacy and property values.
We are asking the city to correct this situation by halting all work pending an investigation. If there were misrepresentations, we ask you to revoke the permit and order the homeowner to tear down this dwelling.
Over the years, I was aware that people were living in the large rectangular building abutting our rear property line. But I didn’t realize how that odd structure, at one time a hot rodder’s five-car garage, would turn into a nightmare.
In early March, I saw workmen crawling atop the structure. Within a week, a second story towered over our home. I got out of the shower one morning and talked with someone on the roof through my bathroom window. Our privacy was shot. Nobody warned us. We were blindsided.
Indeed, that’s the strategy. Get the building up fast, before anyone can object. By then it’s a done deal. Nobody will force the homeowner to tear it down.
When I checked the plans in City Hall, a planner told me that the city protected my family by requiring the homeowner to sign a covenant. But when I asked to see the covenant, he would not show it to me. I still haven’t seen it.
On March 3, the city issued a permit for a 663-square-foot second story studio and office on top of an existing rec-room and garage. I had doubts. I knew that someone was already living in the “rec room.” A neighbor also said that the homeowner was building this to accommodate her family.
After the dwelling was framed, the homeowner came over. “I hear you’re upset,” she said.
I showed her how the addition boxed in our backyard. She said she was only thinking about her family and needed to have them with her. When I asked why she hadn’t disclosed that she intended to use it as a dwelling, she answered, “I think you know the answer to that.”
According to the Zoning Code, for an auxiliary dwelling, you need 6,000 square feet of property. Thus she is not entitled to build a second dwelling. The maximum unit size cannot exceed 600 gross square feet in floor area. She has added 663-square feet just on the second floor.
She bypasses the code by calling it an accessory structure and agreeing not to install a kitchen. But what is to keep her from installing a microwave and fridge?
The accessory dwelling looks bigger than the main house. It is the grandmother of all granny flats. Two bedrooms on top, a rec-room/bedroom on the bottom. There are apparently two bathrooms and at least one with a tub. What’s more, there is inadequate parking. Unfortunately, her neighbors will bear the brunt of this increased density. As one person who worked on this project said, “I don’t know how they got this through.”
It sets a terrible precedent. Sol Blumenfeld said he doesn’t like approving projects that set up a code enforcement situation. You have the power to keep people from manipulating the zoning code. For the sake of our city, please do so.
Mr. Strambler’s comments at last night’s City Council meeting:
Once upon a time there was a homeowner who lived at 4213 Vinton in a 1,300-square foot house, with a garage and recreation room in the back. She wanted her daughter, son-in-law and their children to live with her, but the house and rec-room were getting too crowded.
So she decided to build a separate dwelling on her R-1 zoned property. But the Culver City Zoning Code said she could only build a separate dwelling if she had 6,000 square feet of property. She had 5,800 square feet. So that wouldn’t do.
If only she had the required 6,000 square feet. But even then, she could only build a maximum of 600 square feet for a separate dwelling. That’s just not enough space for everyone.
So what is a homeowner do? It’s simple. Change the name of the structure. The homeowner applied for a permit to build an office and studio. That way she could call it an accessory structure, not an accessory dwelling. And that way she could build a much bigger structure.
And so the homeowner built to the limit, adding 663 square feet on top of an 850-square foot rec-room and garage. At approximately1,500 square feet, the accessory structure, whatever you call it, is larger than the main house.
But to make sure she got around the Zoning Code, she would have to say she wouldn’t build a kitchen. No problem. Everything is microwavable these days.
The city even allowed her to install bathrooms with tubs in the structure. Who needs a kitchen anyway? They’ll simply cook their meals in the main house, as a family.
Well, what about my family, which now has to deal with a towering, illegal dwelling overlooking our backyard?
Who is looking out for my family? Sadly, not the city Planning, and Building and Safety departments, which allowed this project to sail through with no oversight. And how about the five to seven properties that are directly affected?
Council members. I am asking you to enforce the Zoning Code. The homeowner is building a second dwelling on an R-1 lot.
Ms. Silberman’s comments at the April 25 Council meeting:
When my husband and I first moved to Culver City in the early 1990s, we were charmed by the small town character. We loved Carlson Park, a neighborhood that had maintained so many original single family homes dating back to the 1940s with its shady treelined streets.
Our tranquility was shattered early March, with the sounds of construction just beyond our back fence. Within days, a 663-square foot addition was walling off our backyard.
Let me emphasize, this was not someone adding to her primary residence. This was the addition of a second story to an oversized “nonconforming” structure, which reportedly at one time had been a five-car garage. In effect, the owner at 4213 Vinton Ave. has now constructed a large apartment-like residence on the back of her small lot, in a neighborhood zoned R-1.
This massive structure, which is completely detached from the main residence, overwhelms the adjacent properties with its height and massive size. It has setbacks of barely one or two feet to the north and south, and just 4 or 5 feet from our back fence.
All of the surrounding houses on both sides of Vinton, Motor and Braddock are single-story, single-family residences. This eyesore adds excessive building density to the R-1-zoned neighborhood.
We feel that this permitted addition to a “nonconforming” structure violates the letter and spirit of the city codes and ordinances. Why is a second dwelling being allowed on this small lot? Why was it so easy for the owner to get approval for this permit when the intentions for use as a residence are so apparent? Why should something of this scale, which so obviously violates so many of the zoning regulations, and so inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, sail through the permit process so easily?
And why has this structure been erected so quickly, without any time for comment or review, by Planning Commission members or others? If the owner had applied for a permit for a “dwelling” on this small lot, it would not have been approved. So why was this massive addition approved?
This would be an extreme measure, but a thorough investigation and dismantling of this out-of-scale structure would send a message to the Planning Dept. staff that they need to be more careful in issuance of permits in the future.
We just celebrated Earth Day last Friday. I know some of you are interested in environmental preservation. I know you want to maintain the desirable characteristics of our city. This structure overwhelms our local environment. It makes our neighborhood less desirable for residents and visitors alike. It impairs our ability to collect solar energy. Property values will suffer. R-1 zoning should not allow for this.
I recognize how fortunate I am to live in such a desirable neighborhood. But I fear if we allow this development to remain, and others like it to be built, we will increase density, diminish our remaining open space and destroy our local environment and ecology.
Please investigate, stop this development now and help us preserve the natural beauty that remains in this city. Thank you.
Ms. Silberman’s comments at last night’s Council meeting:
Once again on behalf of myself, my husband, and my neighbors, I am voicing my concern about the structure that is being built at 4213 Vinton Ave.
I have serious concerns about why the permit for this structure was approved, and why the city is allowing for construction to continue.
The addition at 4213 Vinton is in a neighborhood zoned as R-1. Therefore, according to the city ordinances, there should only be one residence on the lot, in particular since the lot is less than 6,000 square feet in size.
Why is the city allowing the owner to build a second residence at 4213 Vinton?
I understand that IF the lot were 6,000 square feet or greater, zoning would allow for a dwelling of a mere 600 square feet to be added.
In this case, the lot is less than 6,000 square feet. In addition to the primary residence, it has what the city calls a “nonconforming” structure on it which at one time was built out as a five-car garage. This structure would never have been allowed under current zoning since the footprint is too large, and it is too close to the adjacent properties. Now the city is allowing the owner to build a too large, too tall, second story addition to an oversized structure with an oversized footprint. I understand that the resulting second structure is over 1,500 square feet.
All because the new addition reportedly has no kitchen? Bedrooms, baths, windows with views, larger in square footage than many of the original homes in the neighborhood, but NO KITCHEN.
All because the applicant knew that all she needed to do was to call it an accessory structure, and not a dwelling”?
This makes no sense. Why is the city allowing for applicants to deceive them and to violate city zoning in this way? Why should a single homeowner be allowed to impact the rights and interests and property value of so many others in this manner?
We recognize that this is not the first violation of this kind. In fact, we know of numerous others. The details vary, but the outcome is the same. Individual homeowners get their way, builders get richer, and the local environment and the rest of the community suffers.
Send a message to the Planning Dept. to stop this now. This new structure should be dismantled and removed at once. City Council should not allow these practices to continue.
Thank you.
Mr. Stambler may be contacted at stambler_lyndon@smc.edu
Ms. Silberman may be contacted at TSilberman@SLAHP.ORG
