Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff tell committee downzoning Whittier corridor would not strip existing nonconforming rights
Summary
Planning staff told the committee that downzoning the Whittier Avenue corridor (including the Cover Girl site) to a neighborhood-business classification would align with the master plan but would not change the legal nonconforming status of an existing adult-cabaret use; the committee asked Building Safety and Law to develop monitoring protocols and received the report.
Planning staff briefed the Committee of the Whole on March 12 about a request to consider downzoning a segment of Whittier Avenue that includes the property commonly known as Cover Girl (10631 Whittier).
A planning representative introduced to the committee as 'mister Boager' explained that the adult-cabaret use at the property was established before 1972 and became a legal nonconforming use after zoning changes in the 1990s. He told the committee that the city’s master plan supports shifting the corridor’s future land use to neighborhood commercial and that downzoning from B4 (general business) to B2 (local business/residential) would be consistent with the plan.
The planner emphasized that downzoning would not extinguish the property’s existing nonconforming rights or permit expansion of the adult-cabaret use, but it would prevent new permits for similar uses under the B2 classification; he recommended that Building Safety and the Law Department develop a protocol to determine when a use has been discontinued so the six-month discontinuance clock (which can extinguish nonconforming rights) can be reliably started.
Pro Tem Coleman Young pressed for a plain-English explanation of the effect of downzoning; the planner confirmed the change would not affect the property’s current legal nonconforming status and would not authorize the use. The committee asked staff for a district-by-district list of nonconforming addresses and said it would pursue the recommendation to coordinate with Building and Safety and licensing entities to improve monitoring.
The committee moved to receive and file the planning report and the corresponding response (items 5.3 and 6.1). That motion passed without objection.
The committee did not adopt a rezoning ordinance at the meeting; next steps identified were staff follow-up (list of nonconforming properties by district) and coordination to develop a monitoring protocol.
