New Office for Local Optometrist

At the May 7th meeting, a variance for a new optometrist office in an existing commercial building was approved. A variance was required because the site only provides 7 on-site parking spaces although 21 are required.  The optometrist already has a Whittier office but is moving to this better location. It's great that this business wants to stay in the City of Whittier.

At this meeting, only Commissioners Lara, Hernandez, and Borzi attended which is a quorum (3 of 5 majority of the commission).  Fortunately, this variance was still approved on a 2-1 vote, as Commissioner Borzi voted "no."  This is an older building that was legally built but is nonconforming per today's parking standards, but the owners/occupants should not be penalized and prevented from using it for a use that is allowed by right in the City's zoning code.

Proposed Hillside Home

At the May 21st meeting, the Commission voted to continue an agenda item which was a variance for a new single family residence on a hillside on Honolulu Terrace. 

Commissioners had issues with the height of a wall and project design which featured a pool in the front yard.  Placing the pool in the front makes sense because the backyard is a hillside. Putting the pool in the back would require additional grading which should be minimized as much as possible.  The Commission should have approved this project because topography is a major justification for a variance, as Commissioner Hernandez pointed out.

Council Review of the New 13 Apartment Units

In last month's Picoville Planner, I covered the Commission's approval of a new apartment complex of 13 units on an odd-shaped parcel that used to be a railroad right-of-way.  This project was heard and approved by the Council 4-1 at their May 22nd meeting.  Only Councilman Alvarado voted "no."

In last month's newsletter, I stated it was a good project but Alvarado brought up great points at the meeting.  The most compelling was the fact that no affordable units are being included in the project.  After considering this, I agree with his "no" vote.  While this is a good project, it could have been better, as the Council had discretion to require or at least ask for these badly needed affordable units, since this was a discretionary case.