SR-8-A (152)~
P&Z:DKW•lh:f•\plan\share~,council\strpt\ta95C05c NQ~ ~ ~ ~
City Counczl Mtg: Novernber 14, 1995 Santa Monica, California
T0. Mayor and City Council
FROM: C~ty Staff
SUBJECT: Recornmendation ta Approve Text Amendment 95-0~5 and
Appeal of Planning Commission DeniaY of General Plan
Amendment 9~-OOI, Zone Change 95-001 and Text Amendment
95-ba6 Regarding Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean Avenue,
Applicant/Appellant CH Partners
INTROD[TCTION
Proposed for City Co~ncil cons~deration are f1) a text amendment to
allow hotels in existence as of January l, 1995 as a pe~rnitted use
in the Nor~.h of Wilshire Overlay (NW) District, (2) a text amendment
~o modify the Varzance Section af the code to a11aw replacernent of
existing nonconfarmang access features; (3? a text amendment to
clax~i£y the provisions of the Termination of Nonconforming Buildings
and Uses section of the code, and (4) appeal of the Planning
Commissian' s denial of a General Plan Amendment, Text Amendment, and
Districting Map arn~ndment relating to xedeslgna~ing the px-operty
from a rzsidentia]. ~o an RVC desa.gnatian.
Consistent with the action of the Planning Commission, staff
recommends appro~ral of the proposed text amendinent to the NW
District regulatians, approval ot the proposed text ar~endment to th~
Variance regulations, and approval af the broposed text amendment
to the Nonconforming Buildings regulations. Staf~ recommends
rejection. of the appeal of the Planning Commissian's denial of
1 NOV 1 4 1995
General Pla~ Amendnent 95-001, Zone Change 95-001, and Tex~
Amendment 95-006 to designat~ the property RVC and create
development standards for the szte.
BACKGROUND
The sub~ec~ site af the praposed Genex-al Plan Amendment and Zone
Change is a 30,000 sq.ft. parcel ~ocated at the northeast corner af
Ocean Avenue and Idaho Avenue with a 200 ft. frantage on Ocean
Avenue and a 150 tt. frontage an Idaho Avenue. Surrounding uses
consist of resident~al uses ~n the R3NW District ~o the north, sou~h
and east Palisades Park, which is 2oned Designated Parks (DP}
Dis~r~.ct is located across Ocean Avenue. The existing on-s~.te use
is the Oc~ana Hatel.
The Oceana Hotel was constructed on the sub;ect praperty in 1957.
The building is three stories with approxirnately 53,Q00 sq. f~. and
contains 60 suates. The subJect site was zoned R4 at the tzme the
hotel was built. At the time of its construction, hotels were a
perm~tted u.se in the R4 dzstrict. In 1990, the sub~ec~ propex~~y was
downzoned from R4 to R3 with the newly created Narth of Wilshire
(NW) overlay. As a result, the hotel became a"legal noncontorming
use", as defined in Section 9.04.18.030 af the Zoning Ordinance:
"A legal, nonconforming use is one which lawfully existed
on thp zffective date ~f this Chapter, bu~ which is no~
now pertnitted ar cond~tionally permitted in the district
2
in which it is loca~ed."
Section 9.~4.~8.040 pro~ides that a~ega~ nonconforming cornmerciaZ
use can rernain far 20 years from the tirne the use becornes
nonconfarming after which time the use rnust be discant~nued and
remaved or altered to canforrr. to the regulations of the district in
which the property is located. Th~s means that the ~ceana Hotel
vs7ould need to be removed or changed to a canf~rrr~~ ng use by the year
2Q10.
The applicant has ir~dicated that there is difficulty in obta3ning
financing to refurbish the hote~ because of tha nonconforming
status, and therefare, has praposed twa aptions to legalize the
existing nonconforming use. The first zs to amend the Zoning
Ordinance text to l~st existing hotels as a permitted use in the NW
Overlay district and the second is to amend the ~eneral Plan
designation and zoning of the site to Oceanfront and RVC
respective~y, which allow hotel uses with a Cond~.tional Use Permit
(CUP) Each of these optians is discussed below.
The issue of hotel.s in the R3NW District was considered by City
Council in 1994, triggzred by an application to rezone the Huntley
Hotel to address the issue af nonconformity. There were three
hotels in the R3NW d~strict in 1994 Cal Mar Hotel lacated an the
southwest corner of Third Street and Cal~fornia A~aenue; the Huntley
Hotel lacated on Secand Street south of California; and the Oceana
3
Hotel. Th~ Sovereign Hotel opera~es as a hotel as a result of a
Settlement Agreement which governs the operation and existence of
~his use. In 1994, ra~her than rezaning the property, statf had
proposed an amendment to the noncon~orrning section of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow hatels in the R3NW D~strict to rernain as
permitted uses. The ob~ective of the approach was to address in a
comprehens~ve rnanner the nonconfarming situat~on for the other
hotels in the R3NW district and to allaw the hote~s to remaZn but
not provide for their expansion or replacernent. However, on March
22, 1994, City Council voted to only rezone the Huntley Hotel
property from R3NW ta RVC rather than adopting ~he proposed tex~
am~ndm~nt to the nonconforming section of the Code.
Proposed Text Amendm~nt: Option 1
Propos~d is a r2vision to thE NW Overlay Dis~rict to allow hatels
that were in existenc~ as of January 1, 1995 to remain or be
replacEd provided that the number cf _aoms does not increase by more
~han So or five rooms, wh~.chever is less, and provided there ~s no
increase in the floor area of the hotel and any addition of rooms
is created by subdividing exis~ing roams
The proposed text amendment would be applicable ~o all hatel
properties within the NW Overlay. The NW Overlay area ls located
approximately between Wilshire Boulevard and Montana Avenue and
Ocean Avenue and Fourteenth Stre~t alley (the Miramar Sheraton Hotel
is zoned RVC;. Based on information gathered in 1994 for the
4
Huntley Hotel application, there were three hotels in the R3NW
d~strlct. Therefcre, the propos~d tex~ amendment would only impact
two other properties in Lhe NW Overlay District, since the Huntley
property has been rezoned
Staff recornrnends approval of th~ text arnendment as proposed by the
applicant and amended by the Planning Commission. Consistent with
the recarnmendation of the Planning Commission, a room expansion of
5o ar up to five rooms would only be allowed through subdivision of
existing rcoms and with no floor area increase, provid~d all other
code xequirements (such as added parking spaces) were met While
the praposed amendment will resolve the issue of the noncanforming
use, in revi~wing photos, it appears that the building does not
comply wi~h the setbacks, stepbacks and lot coverage requirements
in the R3 and NW Districts Section 9.04 18.~40, which establishes
amort~aation periods for commercial uses in residential districts,
as currently written, app~ies to both the use and the building.
Langtzage is proposed ta clari=y that n.onconforming '~uildings in this
situat~an ca~ rerna~n The Planning Cornm~ssion supported this
amendment.
The existing hatel has an awning and a stairway located in a
required yard setback area The applicant has applied for an
amendment ta the Variance section of the code to allow consideration
of a variance application ta permit the replacement af such access
features. The amendment wi_1 allow the applican~ to subsequ~ntly
5
apply for a Variance ta replace the noncon~orming acc~ss features.
Staff supports this amendment, which addresses a range of exist~ng
nonconforrning situations in the City byfaei~i~ating the replacem~nt
of deteriorated building elements, or those which would benefit by
replacemen~ or aes~hetic upgrading. The Planning Commission
recommended approval af this amendment.
The three text arnendments recommended by the Planning Commiss~on
would be implemented by 4he ordinance attached ~o this staff repor~ .
Appeal. of Denial of Proposed General Plan Arnendment , Zone Chanqe and
Text Amendmen.t: Option 2
The app3icant's second optian to remedying the Oceana Hotel's
nonconforming status ~s to amend the General Plan designation on the
px'operty fxQm H~gh Density Residential to Oceanfron~. D~strict and
to rezone the prop~rty £rom High Density Residential (R4) to
Residentia~-Vis~tor CammerciaZ {RVC). The Planning Carr~missa.on
denied this request and the applicant is appealing this denial.
While hot~ls require a CUP in the RVC District, no CUP would be
needed because the hotel is alrPady in existence.
The applicatzon to the Planning Commission included a request to
amend the property boundaries in the development standards height
and floor area ratio (FAR) table 2n the RVC District (TA 95-005)
The proposed text amendment is to reference RVC-zoned properties on
the east side of Ocean Avenue north of Idaha Avenue to include the
5
sub~ ect szte Within the cited area, only this site would be zoned
RVC. This would result in develapment standards for the site of 3
staries, 45 feet in height with a 2.0 FAR for the sub~ect site
According to the information provided with the application the
existing development is in compliance with these requirernents.
The purpase o~ the RVC Distrzct is to "protect the existing
resi~.er~tial r:1ix in th~ area while pravading far the concentrat~on
and expansion of coastal-related lodging, dining, recreation, and
shopping needs of tourists and athers in the oceanfront area" A
rezor_e of this one property in a resident~al area will not achieve
this ob~ective. The General Plan amendment and rezane of the site
is the approach that ~,aas used far thE Huntley Hotel. Hawever, ~he
significant differences between the two applications are that the
Hunt~~y Hotei is located in a commercial lalock and is ad~acent to
praperties zoned RVC. The sub~ect site is located in an area where
the px-aperties to the north, souCh and east are zaned R3NW and
across Ocean Avenue is Designated Park ;DP). A rezone of the
sub~ect site, while it would resolve the situation for the Oceana
Hotel, would result in an island of RVC zoning amids~ the R3NW and
DP. Since the RVC 7istrict perrai~s a variety of commercial and
tourist related uses, rzdevel4pme~t of the site could result in a
project whose scale and mix of use is incompatible with an o~.herwise
residential area.
If ~he City Council wishes to redesignate the property to RVC, staff
7
would need to return with ~he appropriate ordinances and a General
Plan Amendm~nt for Council actian.
PUBLIC NOTTFICATION
Pursuant ~o Municipal Code Sectian 9.04 20.22.Q54, notice of the
public hearing was rnailed to all owners and residential and
commercial tenants o= property located within a 50D ~t radius of
the pro~ect at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the
hearing A copy of the notice ~s contained zn A~tachrnent A.
BUDGET/FTNANCIA~ iMPACT
The reCamrnendations of this report wauld have no budge~/financial
irnpact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Caunc~l intraduce ~or first read~ng
t~e attach~d ord~nance whzch wouZd, consis~ent wzth the Planning
Cammission recommendation, 1} allow hotels as a permitted use in the
NW Overlay District, 2) revise the Variance section of the code to
al~ow consideration of variances for replacement of nonconfa~ming
access features; ar_d (3} r~vise the Nonconforrning section of the
Zoning Ordinance to clarify when nonconforming uses and buildings
must be removed.
It is also recommended tha~ the City Counc~l re~eCt the applicant's
appeal at the Planning Commission's denial of the am~ndment of the
8
General Plan amendment frorn High ~ensity Residential to Oceanfront,
~one Change from R31VW ~.o RVC and the proposed t~xt amendment ta the
RVC sectlon af the Code. Tf the Council wished to pursue these
opt~ons, staff would return with appropriate text amendments and a
General Plan Amendmen~.
Prepared ]~y.Suzanne Frick, Director af Planning & Carnrnunity
Development
D Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Attachments:
A. Notice of Public Hearing
B. Radius and Location Map
C Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading
D. Appeal Form anci Letter from Appllcant's Attarney Dated October
16, 1995
E. Applicar±t's Proposed Text Amendrnent 95-Oa6
F. Photographs of Site and Surroundang Properties
9
o;~
ATTA~I~ENT A
rt;
~1 T 2
OFFICIAL NDTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Sub~ect af Hearxng Text Amendrnent 95-OQS. 4R General Plan Amendment 95-Oal. Zone
Change 95-OQ1 and Text Amendment 95-D06
849 Ocean A~~enue, R3NW
Apphcant CH Partners & Oceana Hotel
A Public Hearing will be held b5~ the Santa Monica Czty Councxl on the following requests
Application for a Text Amendment (TA 95-005) to allow hotels as a permitted use in the North
of Wilslure O~~erlay (NW} district, application [a amend the Variance section of the Municipal
code to allow ~~ariances to renovaie, upgrade and replace existing nonconformmg buildmg
features relatmg to buildmg access, appl~cation to make a clar~fymg amendrnent to the
Nonconforming regulat~ons, and appeal af the Plamm~g Commission's dennial of Application for
a General Plan Amendment (GPA 95-001) from High Densrty Residential to Oceanfront, a Zone
Change (ZC 95-001) from Medium Densrty Multiple Fam~ly Residential District with a North
of WilsYure Qverla}r (R3NW) to Residential Visitor Commercial (RVC} for the property at 849
Ocean Avenue, and Text Amendment (TA 95-006} to amend the description of the boundaries
in the Maximum Build~ng Height and FAR table m the de~elopment standards in the RVC
distract (Planner D K Webster)
TIl1ZE: Tuesday, No~ember 14, 1995 AT 6:30 P.M.
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHA117BER, ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA l~ZOr~ICA, CALIFORI~iIA
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ENCOURAGES PUBLIC COMMENTS YNTERESTED
PERSONS MAY COMMENT AT THE HEARING, OR BY WRITING A LETTER
Letters should be addressed to
Mayor and C~~y Council
1685 Mam Street
Santa Momca, Cal~fornia 9{]401
Addiuonal ~nfarmatian ma}~ be abtained from the Plamm~g and Zonu~g Divisian To request
revie« of a pro~ect f~le andlor for rnare infarmation, please call (314} 45$-8341.
The meetmg facility ~s handicapped accessible If you ha~Te any special needs such as sign
language intergreting. please cantact the Office ~f the Disabled at {310} 458-8701. Ciry Hall
is served by Big Blue Bus Lines 2, 3 and 8. Public parking is available on the south side of
C~ty Hall
~~~
Pursuant to California Ga~ernment Code Sectian 65Q09(b}, if this matter is subsequently
challenged in Court, the challen~e may be lirnited to only thase issues raised at the Publ~c
Hearing described m tlus notice.~or m written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa
Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearu~g
Esto es una noticia de una audencia publica para revisar applicaciones propomendo desarrollo
en Santa Monica Si deseas mas informacion, fa~~or de Ilamar a Elsa Gonzalez en Ia Di~ision
de Plantificacion al numero (310) 458-8341
~~ ~
1 1 ~ 1 i7~~lY1~l 4 1 ~
~~ ~
_--,_- = Y - ~i I ~ ~ ~ e
_ .; ~ _ Y _ .- i~
. ,. - i~~~~ y v~ ss y ~ j Y- ~~ _~ `} ~S .~~~ x s s ~ b
-- • ~ . ` ~~' i r - ~ I~ ~ ' x_i_ ~~.~ J .
j 4 ~ r s= s= ., , ~ ~ i 4 ~ ~' . ~ f . k, C _,___
z - _ -'F:
- . _ . ~ s k ~ , , ~ - ~ ~ .~ ~ 'if~ ji+ _ ,~~ _ i ~- ,~ ' J ~ `r
- 5~ :~ M ' ~J ~ I `
' -. ~ S ' ~ ~ _ J _ ' Y `i `F G i a a ~ ~ I Y _ h _ n ' ~` -
~ VF 5!~, 9 3' 9 Y Sj ~~
_ x '3Ji Ef" s. , ,~ , r ~ ~ _ ~ L : e~ ~301 371, v , . i' S~~ ~i. _ <. ~ K , ~3~1~ 3^~~ --
= E RI m I"~tv ~ e
o ~ zl °~ x;~_,_ - ; ~,~~~ ",~ ~. ~.~ ~ '~- ~. ,/'~ _ __--~ ~
8„ ~ ~ p S 9 ~~~ ~ S~ 3(VS~ g x ~ht(~~F_ 9 4' i
- B - - D x E ~ . .~ g 7 I , FiJ ti~l ~~, . ~ .
x 23~ i ~j ~ ~I 9Y9 ' 2 , ; E2 . 3 ~1S~!~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ . sc . w i u .e I n. s! u~ :~c~~l I s.- I g ~v i m i re ~ r: "~e ,° ~~ ~ J ~
x , ~ e u
_ - ~ w 5~4 s.- : ~~ e ~; i ra ~ w ~~o : ~ I~ I ~• w1 ~ cc : u • r ~.q~ Y i u rY
~' ~~ 33~ .31:~~~ • i 19~817 ~5~~~ ~,~ ~`
;e g: ~~ T i Z V I C !d [~y/y''~ - Y ~ I T .Z ~ ~ C' N N I i Il
I~ _y~s 5 R 3~ 7'J~r:~~V":~x~S'%R _SI 9.rSInA~~ .x
I '~ ~!a~ „ ~ . ~ ..- 4 ~ ¢ ~ . ~ s . L- 2Gi I ,~ ffii !0~
~ °' `
-- e5 y ~ $F~'.OtiO
~.~- ~~ ~ I~ e ~cl ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I~ . ~ - ~, k ~ ~ ~ ~
~ QCs u a ~s ,x s. I e s ~ I
' ~~~ S .. ~;~ ° i ~ - ~s ~ tt} -'~ ~ ~ i~~ -
- '`D ~ ~ ~-`; f 100 '"~40 41: ~ 44: ~ I ; c~ ~ 10[~ !~4 ,,'~ ~ ~_ :(07.
=a:: z ~
~~O - I ~ ~--~IR4• : x _ _ w -+' ~ - . - i- ~ ~ F u ~ ~
I Z !: Y I ~ 11 ~ P f~ k i -~,~ - I ' I `J'
' ~ Q ~ I Z ~ T~~~~ T~ ~ ~IL ~4G'JR ~" ,~y - , x O I ,~' ~ O - M ~ ~9= ~y' i Z •
~r..f .
~ p ~ ~/1 i ,~ ~~Y ,1E 4 e Uy a , /U _ i~ ~~ ;- ry I u ' tn .~
, I ~ - x ~•~~*~ si` , Y 4 °i1~ !~ ~~ ~I _ ~g x ~ ~J~. ~.
s g 9: Y R
_ 0` r I7~~ • ~ : a W~~ { .~ r w .c !W n' SGti ; x ._ x . ~ ~ . ~ , . ~10: x io2`
=, E 0 C EAN ° AVE °
f 53 ~ r-:~=-F ~. ~ 1N~ - .,
__ /~ ~ oT c a '~,§, ! 5 3 ~_~~_ --
~ • ~ ~--}T~, ~~ ~' lf
~,' ' ` _' ;~ 8 '~ ~~
~_-~~ '~ e i~i ~ }
- - Q a aEM~.~ ~ IF']
_ `"~ Y J~-~ i- ~~'j - ~w ~ x. x~ <F,,. s~~ ",
s w_' ~' ~~ ~ ..~ ~ - ~ 1rsT _ g R R ~ u
K ~z~,F~ 'N" s- ''s i ~~ 3:~ ~2E^~=~;
~*f~:~~~ R~cF~ Lv ^ - ~ 1~ ~ ..., g ~
i ~aro ~"~ ~g'~~R 7' I~0 ~h 0 F ~ 1 a.~,=. ,~
_ - a - u li^ T'I~Ix ~., _
~+rr' - ~ • - ~ : ~ ~ _ ~
~~ .~ Y - ~ • 7 ~ ~ fe ~ -1 Y
:{
/
/ _ - :.~ -~r_Y~ ~r_ ~•
~ S 'r ; ~ .. .A~ xA ^ b _~,
s,~'-~yl~ ~ = ~ ~
.3 ~ :~ 5:p;`r,a tl*-i ir
'~: . ~ aly.~.
3 6 s~ ~ f' ]
x Ix _ r~saix
:~YxeIY;4 ~ rv
_ ~ -' _
KK~I
,u': •:,; i~w'~e; i_
~~w. _~:;
>~ ,T,~~`~
- _ _ __.. ...p roni ~aenca B~AGH EXTE
r __~ ~ ~_~~-.,T,-.r LOTS M-P,6L~'c 25 TOWN OF S M,_~~,c
649 OCEAN AVE -~. -
• 4 - 20 - 95
-~-__~.-- . .==rF
_~i~~~C
fltl~iV~S ~Y~!-ir rIJR N~hrti'M.~''~
CK'=
:~ ~ ~~~'~~~ •1~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
.~.~~-,<. .~ =~ ~~~~.~~<<
" 4
~y/ A'csMCp
i r ~ 5'eci ^~~
~~,.~. ~~,f1~,~,.
~ ~ v
'~ ~.._.;?' _~~~.=.. Q M ~5 - 050
, nf~
~111~~i1LY1~1Y1 ~
r? ~ ~
018
CA:f:~atty\muni~laws~mhs~ocea
City Caunci~ Meeting 11-14-95 5anta Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Cauncil Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY GOUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDTNG ZONING
ORDINANCE SECTIDN 9.04.08.56.D20 REGARDING PERMITTED
USES IN THE NW OVERLAY DISTRTCT, AND AMEND~NG
SECTION 9.04.18.040 REGARDING TERMINATI~N
OF NONCONFORMTNG BUILDINGS AND USES
WHEREAS, an application was filed to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a hotel in the NW ~verlay District to make
certain improvements and to be exempt from the requirement of
removal of the structure within twenty years as a nonconforming
building or nonconforming use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissian held a public hearing on the
proposed applicatian and made recommendations to the City Council
following the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing ~n the
propdsed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that the
proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the
1
. 019
adopted General Plan, in that the text amendment to the NW
regulations will allow the retention of uses which do nat create
significant neighborhoad impacts; the amendment to the Variance
regu~ations wil~ allow consideratian of replacement of existing
nonconfor~ming acc~ss features which would otherwise not be
possible to replace or upgrade; and the amendment to the
nonconforming regulations would clarify existing code provisions
in a manner cansistent with how the provisians have historically
been interpreted; and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare
require the adoption of the proposed amendment, in that hotel uses
have been in existence in the district since 1957 without causing
adverse impacts in the neighborhood; the amendMent to the Variance
section of the cQde wiil. all.ow the upgrading and replaceinent of
existing nonconforming access features; and the amendment to the
Nonconforming section of the code will clarify existing code
provisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.Q4.08.56.a2o of the 5anta Monica
Municipal Code is amended to read as fallows:
2
., ~1 ~ ~
9.04.08.55.020 Permitted uses.
The fallowing uses shall be permitted in the NW
Overlay District:
(a) Al~ uses listed as permitted uses within the
residential district in which the parcel is lacated.
f k~; lic7*.C : a '_n ~'~C1:;tr11c~~+ .: , :~! .l~:n~l :]'~r I , ~ ~i ~'•-, , r
`.~~+ir rc;.~: ;-.r.•,~r.~ :.it'~ .~ n~±:. :.c:.-E'. 7* •~l f+x:.-t i1'~ ~l'7l'C'I
:ite i:: r:c~n:~r~~~~ar,:•c+ •~;r;~ rr,t~ ;»}r i~:al ~3c~~eI~,E~m•:~yti
~ t irr~ ~ rr:• ~ n ~{ : e~~~~ at th~+. t L;~e rt s'u~:l' rt~E~]:~c•e+m[+n,- .
~;re~w i r.r.1;
;~ y •I':~crr~ i:: r.~ i~~c•rr~:~s-e ~ n t'~~ ~ 1 c-~:r .~ r~:,~ c~l
r` c h~4c~ ~f ~c=r Jan +tar~ ] . :~r~'f~
(a j An•~ i~..r~+:~ ~.~• ir~ rr~c ~....nr r c.f ~~e. •. i,
.~~~f.c+~•.~1 . ::ltd `:1A_~r~;~ ~ Jt,.~: ~r ~;_:.,r~ :~[ r~[:;•:, tX .: C_1 c~ ; 1:
l.~ni~~~r~: 1 ~ ~•,s~~ ar~] cic~c~r: nnt ex.:~~.i ~.~•C: ;,:~: ff ~'!F1t c~f th•:
n~~i~~~r~r :; l .•:e~~~, c~x i~~t irc~ ;~n .~~: u-ir} 1, 1 -i'. , a.*.- = i:~
ro~,r,~ ,..I: i~,~~c~t~_r ~~; 1 c~.;~-; +;r~r!
t~~ j ,~1] otF~cr !~r ~.~y t:r~ i^t~~:c: ~ t~~~u i r c~rr^ ~r:
r~rr. :ac~t, ~nr-.u:~:~-~ F~rkir~q rc_;~a±rr;+c.~~~, se~r rlfli t~:a.:;r i«~
rt' r~.cs-;; ~aitc:r ;~.~iu~i: ;• 3 ~ 1~».
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.18.040 is
amended to read as follows:
9.04.18.040 Termination of nonconfarming
buildinqs and usss.
Nonconforming commercial or industrial buildings and
3
r Q~] ~
L~.
uses in the R1, R2, R2R, R3, R4, and RVC Districts shall
be discontinued and removed or altered to confor~n to the
provisions of this Chapter within the fo~iawing time
limits from the effective date of this Chapter:
(a} A nonconforming use which does not occupy a
structure, other than those uses listed below: one year.
{b) All buildings on the property used as a part of
a business conducted on the property: twenty years. ~',~i~~
:~:: :;~+:-t i _:*~ ; ~;; cinr:; not = c~~~ti . r~+ tl'r :-r~~~~•a I ~.i
~c:~; :~^ t tr•r• ;:u; t,~~ i]:3 ° r~~;:: t 4^r: ~:::~: occ~i~ :=~i.~ tl~e-~ ~•i: i l ~ i r.•.
1: 7.J~,.~'I':1'IYi'~~ 1~ ':ht.+ X:,~11~"f~ R~1.5~r1c'~ :1' C.`:^: .•];: ~•]r-I' ~"
IP1 vihl•~.. t.':C+ !Y.. I~!~*le~ ]C: Ie:,:Atr!d~ ~ithr'!r ~-: .7 ~.IyxYlr~e+ii
~1::E'r .3 C'i7~ ~~ 1 ~ Or:.~ ~ I ~~ WI~x': I t`!~ ~ ;1:'f ~ 1 .1.'~~ : .~};E~r~- +i) ~l
~,_ari:~C.°~7~1('~~ 'Y.iilf:.~l':~:a C:['~"~~ ~t ~ C:f ~] l]:'[' '.IJ~, i[ C'i tc~ . l: ar'
~: [' ~' I:' 1 ~' .
(c) V~hic].e storage Zots and vehic].e sales ].ots r
five years.
(d} Parking lots on residentia~ zaned parcels shall
be permitted ta remain provided:
{1} The coa~mercial parcel supported by the
residential parking lat is not redeveloped for another
use.
(2} The lot remains as a surface level parking
lot.
(3) The use or uses existing an the commercial
4
u ~ ~~~
parcel supported by the residential parking lot do not
change. For purposes of this requirement, a change of
use shall be de~ined as any new use which requires more
intense parking standards than exists on the effective
date of this Chapter.
(4) The square foatage of the existing
cammercial building on the commercia]. parcel is not added
to or enlarged beyand fifty percent of the floor area
existing on the effective date of this Chapter.
(5) The required parking for any new addition
or expansion under fifty percent is not located on the
residentially zoned parking lot. A parking lot on a
residentially zoned parcel shali revert to residential
use when one or more of the above conditions are nat met.
{e) Existing commercial or industrial uses in
residential districts with valid conditional use permits
that do not cantain time limits: five years.
The Planning Commission may extend the five-year
periad, but in no case more than ten years, provided the
applicant demonstratES that exceptional circumstances
prevented the terminatian of the use. A public hearing
shall ba cQnduct~d in accordance with the provisions fox
canditional use permits in Part 9.04.2Q.22.
(f) Notwithstanding any ather provision of this
Sectian, if a canditional use p~rmit for an existing
commercial or industrial use in a residentia~ district
5
~~ 023
has a specific time period that sueh conditional use
terminates, the conditional use permit shall terminate
pursuant to the permit and not this Section.
SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9,0~.20.10.030
is amended to read as foliows:
9.04.20.10.G30 Appli~ability.
The Zoning Administrator may grant a variance from
the requirements of this Chapter to:
(a} Allow modification of the minimum lot sizes or
minimum pa~cel dimensions;
(b) Allow the modification of the number and
dimensions of auta~obile parking spaces, loading spaces,
and driveway requirements inciuding th~se set by
Performance Standards, Use Permit Special Standards,
Special Conditians far Conditional Uses, regulations of
the various zoning districts, the Off-Street Parking
Requirements, and the Off-Street Laading Requirements;
(c) Allow the modification of fence heights;
(d) Allow the modification of yard setbacks or
parcel caverage on:
(1) Parcels having a depth of 90 feet or less
or a width of 39 feet or l~ss,
(2} Nonrectilinear parcels ar rectangular
parcels an which paral].el property lines differ in length
a minimum of five feet,
6
~. ~~~
(3) Parcels with a 12.5-foot grade
differential or more, as measured fram either a~y point
on the front parcel line to any point on the rear parcel
line, or from any point on a side parcel line to any
point an the opposing side parcel linE,
( 4} Additians to the same f laor of an existing
building which is noncon~orming as to yard setbacks,
where such addition follaws the line of the existing
building but in no case is closer than four feet to a
property line,
(5) Parcels in the CM District on which
ralocated structures that are identified on the
Historical Resources Survey as having a ~alue of 1
through 5D or which are determined to be historically
significant by the Landmarks Commissa.on are located. A
vara.ance may apply only to the relacatad strticture;
(e) For projects conform~ng to stata density bonus
guidelines, allow encroachment into no more than 15
percent of one side yard setback, and into 15 percent of
either the front or rear yard setback, and, except in
those zones where an increase in parcel co~cterage for
state density bonus projects is alr~ady permitted, allow
an increase in parcei caverage by no more than ten
percent of parcel area. ~n no case shall a r~ar yard
setback of less than five (5} feet be allowed;
(f) Allow buildings to exceed district height
7
Y. . 025
limits by no mare than five (5) feet in one of the
follow~ng situations;
(1) If a parcel has a grade differential af
12.5 feet or more, as measured from either any point on
the front parcel line to any paint on the rear parcel
line, or from any point an a side parcel line to any
paint on the opposing side parcel line,
{2) To allow an addition to an existing
stxucture that is legally nonconfarming as to height
provided the addition does not exceed the height line of
the existing bui~ding;
(g) Allow an addition to an existing building that
is legal~y nonconfarming as to height provided all of the
following criter~a are met:
(1) The additian doe5 nat exceed the height
line af the exxsting building~
(2j The addition does not exceed two (2)
percent of the total floor area of the building,
(3) The addition does not increase lot
coverage or the overall footprint of the building,
(4) The addition does not increase the density
or number af inhabitants or increase the intansity of use
of the building,
(5) The addition otherwise conforms to the
regulatians of the district in which it is located,
(6} There is no feasible alternative method of
8
~ ozs
attaining the desired use,
(~) There is no substantial adverse impact to
adjacant buildings, existing streetscape, privacy, nor
significant increases to the mass and bulk af the
building;
{h) A11ow the replacement of an existing
residential building in an OP District that is legally
nonconforming as to height where the parcel has a grade
differential of 12.5 feet or more, as measured from
either any point an the front parcel line to any point on
the rear parcel line, ar from any point on a side parcal
line to any paint on the opposing side parcel line
pravided the following criteria are met:
(1) The replacement structure does not exceed
the height line of the existing building,
(2) The replacement structure does not
increase the density or square faotage beyond the
existing structure or increase the intensity of use of
the building,
(3) The replacement structure otherwise
conforms to the regulation of the district in which it is
located,
(4) There is no substantial adverse impact to
adjacent buildings, existing streetscape, pri~acy, nor
significant increases to the mass and bulk of the
9
`" ~~~
building;
(i) Ail~w the modification of the required front
yard setback to allow, in the case of existing
development, a detached garage pro~ided all of the
following criteria are met:
{1) The lot is less than 1D0 feet in depth,
{2) The on-site use is a single-family
dwelling,
{3} No ~11ey access is available to the site;
(j ) Allow the modification of the side yard setback
for primary windows in the OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 Districts
when the imgasi.tion of the required setback would
severely canstrain development an the project, an
alternative setback would still sata.sfy private open
space requirements, and maintain privacy for the
occupants of the pro~ect.
(k) Allow an additional story which would otherwise
not be permitted far an existing residential structure
provided all of the following criteria are met:
(1} Tha existing structure has a finished
first flo4r J.evel that is more than three feet above
average natural grade or theoretical grade,
(2) The street frontage and overall massing
are compatible with the existing scale and neighborhood
context,
10
(~ 2 ~
(3) The addition does not enlarge the first
floor of the existing residence such that a non-
conforming condition is expanded;
(4) The averall height af the structure with
the additional story does not exceed the height limit in
feet of the zoning district in which it is located;
(5) The addition otherwise conforms to th~
regulations af the district in which it is located.
( 1 ) •• 1 ~:~r ":~c: m•~cst3 .c:-~~ ~c~::, ~r ra•r.~- r~:., : r
~;.I.i:~l':r'1l} ~i ~~~nr-~nr:~r •'n:; ~t.i L~.~:i; ~~c:.:r ~. r.~r,- ~: c•:=
. ..~~'r~ .~~ .•t ;~+~-. r: :~E~ ~. :i:,:::-~;, ti•=:~.::~r;ic::-, :~r.•] :.~r~.l ~~:: , ~.r
lr.~t...r~:, 1.1-~i` E:rc:: i-:~. ,F:eltc•r -~-•~i r.li.~:~• ~:rr E.. ar~:r~ at
_•n nxr~r l;~r O[ thr b..~._:~.:7•~, ~.~•.:1 u~~ .3+~~i*~:~~. .~:~ir;~ [:+,
[: ~ c:: •: c rr~:'~ +~ . ~ k ~r.. r := , _~* o~ _ ~ r+.a .
[ _ ; !':~r :~n~i : f ic~~t L~:~, r~~:icv~! `'..:n ~~r
rf. E)i .':..'l'~t'll~ 11= 1'1[7 1':.xl~ : ilt!L.:a I V[+ r:~Al:~ ~~dl~~ C:~:r+: fl:~t
:~~CC:~~3 i f~r ~_ c xF~:sticl ~;~c::: e~x~ r.r f~~ »cr:~c,tt ~ c, r'~' rn~ L r-a ~ 1~r -; ,
~.~d
f~) . i1[ . ~ca ~ t 1:: 1~'_:;:1, t~~:ic~.•it ~ c~rl c.r
~ [+.~ . :[~R ~ ~~'1: ~ C' i ~.^.~'Y 11:'~T'~~4 ^.~. .f~'.C'€ ; ; t:? ~'lf' k:11 . . ~ ' 1~~; "i
I';)~C;r:2~ L~1C' ~a: ~~]tif~~:. 2iL':.t:1Pr :L' e~~f~V 'i A:1~:~+.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Munic~pal Code or
appendices thereto, inconsistent with the provisions of this
ordinance, to the extent of such incansistencies and no further,
11
'~~Q
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect
the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase af this ardinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any campetent
jurisdiction, such decision sha11 not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Cauncil hereby
dec~ares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
e~ery section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared
invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause this ordinance, or a summary thereof to be p~b~ished once in
the official newspaper within 15 days after ~ts adoption. This
ordinance shall be effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
~~
MARSHA JONE M4UTRIE
City Attorn
12
r~~
~1 ~~ ~~~~~ ~
~~~
~A City of
Santa Monica
Land Use and Trans~ortation Management Depa~iment
Plan~fng and Zonin~ alvEsfan
{31Dy 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
FE~: ~$1 d 2. 0 0
Date Frfed October 16 , 19 9 5
Rece~ved By
Receipt Na.
~~~e CH Partners and Oceana Hotel
Address ~~° Lawrence & Harding, i250 6th Streetr Suite 3~Qr Santa i~onica CA 904~
Contact PerSan ~hrzstopher '~t. Hardina, Es +. phon~ ~ 3I0 ) 3~~-10 Q 7
Please describe the ~roJect a~d dec~sEOr~ to be appealed p~anning Cammission Denial of General
alan Amendment 95-DO1, Zone Chanqe 95-Q41 and Text Amendinent ~5-446.
95-006
CaSeNumber General Plan Amendment 95-001, Zane Chanae 95-•001. '~~~t Amendment
Address 849 Ocean Avenue, Santa l~ionica~ CA
Ap~i~cant CH Partners and Oceana Hotel
Ongrnal Hearir~g Da#e Oc~aber I1~ 1995
Or~gi^aiA~t~or The pZannis a Co:ami~sion der.ied ~ac'~ of Lr~e above-reference~
app~2cations.
Psease state the speciiic reason(s) for the appeas See Ietter attached h~reto .
~
C
S~rature ~ p~+~ October 16 ~ 199 S
~or /~.!~1cKee, S~r.i v'ice ~resi~ent ~,~ Z
~ Asset ~?ana~e?ne~t x` -
-.~~~~_ ~~ '=:-~~ _~' _r-~ _~ ~- _
LAk'RENCE & HAADING
A OROFESSIONAL CO,ipOR/~~~ON
ATTCRNEYS PT LAW
aTOPMER 1M iiARP~NG
SRD A 4AWRENC6
ETF1 L KUTCFIER
i V K02AL
'IH FIlJfi6ARQ
1Z50 517CTM S7REET
SU~TE 300
SP~'iTA MON1G4 GALiFORNIA 904p1-1~02
TE~EPr+O~IE (3~01 393-~007
F4CSlMILE I3~01 658-~959
WRiTER S ~~RECT OIAL
VIA HAND DELIVERY
(37D) 451-29fi8
October 16, 1995
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1585 Mazn Street, Room 24a
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Appea~ of Planning Commission Denial of General
Plan A~endment 95-~OI, Zone Change 95--OQ1 and Text
Amendment 95-OQ6
Our Fi].e No. ~156.3
Dear Councilmembers:
Thzs letter explains the reasons for the appeal filed by
CH Partners and the Oceana ~otel ("Applicants"} with respect to the
Planning Commission's denial of the above-refex~enced appZications.
The above-referenced applications were filed as one of
twa alternative appl~cation packages designed to address the Oceana
Hotel's concerns about its non-conforming use status. A~ a non-
canforr~ing co~nmex~cial use in a residential (NW-R3 j distr~ct, the
Oceana Hate~ is required by the Zaning Ordinance to cease operat~ng
~n or about 2010. To address th~s problem, applicants fiZed the
following twa application packages: (i} Text Amendment App~.~cation
95--005 autY~ozizing exist~ng hotels as a permitted use in the NW
averlay district ("Taxt Amendment Appiication*'), and (2} the
applicat~ons subject to th2s appeal, which are designed to re-zone
the Dceana Hotel from NW-R3 ta RVC ("Map Amendment Application"}.
On actober 11, 1995, the Plannir~g Cammission unanimausly
recomzttended approva~ af the Text Amendment Applicatian and denia~
af the Map Amendment Application. App~zcants support the Planning
Cammission's recommendation, which adequate~y addresses their
concerns. Applicants believe the best course available t~ the City
Council is to fo~low the Planning Commissian's recommendation.
Nevertheless, Applicant5 have elected ta appea~ the Map
Amendntent Applicativn because such an appeal is necessary far the
City Cauncil to cons~der the propos~d zoning map amendment as an
alternat~ve means of addressing this problem. Appiicants are aware
that w~th respect to the Huntley Hotel, the City Council elected to
~33
L awR~N~~ & HARDi~G
~ pppFE'JSIONAL CORPO~i~T~ON
qYTORNEYS AT L.^.W
Santa Monica City Co~xncii
October 16, 5995
Page 2
address a similar problem b~ rezoning the Huntley Hote~ to RVC
rather than by adopting a zoning text amendment. Thus, Applicants
ha~re chosen to ~~].e this appeal to ensure the City Cauncil has both
optians availab~e to it when considering how ta addr~ss the Oceana
Hote~'s dilemma.
In this regard, the City Attorney's office has confirmed
that, absent this appeal, the City Caunci~ will not be able to
consider remapping the Oceana Hotel property to RVC as an
alternative to the City Staff's and Planning Commissian's
recommendation to approue the Text A,mendmant Applicatian.
Sincerely,
~~--~- ~-~
Christopher M. Har ng
of LAWRENCE & HARDING
a Pro£essional Corporatian
CMH:mm
1155~5m1tr~12.003
cc : Mr . Jahn Mciiee
~ ~ `i
AT~A~HI~IE~ E
n35
~
Proposed Text Amendinent Lanqu~ge
Project Address: 849 Ocean Avenue
Applicant: CH Partners, A California L~mited Partnership
If the Oceana Hotel parcel is re-zoned RVC, then the table at
Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.08.12.060 regazding development
standards in the RVC District mus~ be amended. The applYCant
suggests that the relevant portion of the table be amended to read:
"East side af Ocean Avenue to First Court from
Calozado Avenue ~o California Avenue and
parceZs on the east side of Oc~an Avenue to
Fix~st Court between idaho and M~ntana
Avenues. " (New languaqe ~s under~.irted) .
5v~xffn17.x1
~3s
AT~'AC~ME~ITT' ~
C~37
~3~
~~9 4cean A~ en~c. Santa 1~~1on~ca
ry~ ~:~.r ; `
~
~'+~~ _
F--~', ~~i ~)~i'.L"] i j-~.~IC' ~i~11'~ ~~i.~-lC ~~'"L::1]C Li~[~~II7~ ~[~liitl
it)c~ ~n<< II:,,e, ,• 1h~ lhr«-S.~`~r~ ~'~"r~~~ ~3uildir.•~i
j? ~ a
Fron: ~[ Oc~ana H:+[~1 -~1~•n~ ncean -~<<enue
~-~9 Ocean f1~-enu~. Santa ~1on~ca
Re ;- . f Oczana Hu[~1 L~~~ €:in« \c+rth
3'~_-~rt ~., ; ia~.en [r~~m I~~h~~ a~.enuc iThr~ Lle~ i~ I~;r<. C-~~~rt'~
.. ~4['
L
~~•~,7 ~i.i~ c~~ (_)~eina I~.~:~I ~~li.~ccnt t~~ Idahc~ _~~.enu~
~-~9 Ocean A~~enue. Santa ~~1on~ca
P;~~~rr'-. t,~ ~hr ~.,utn e: tn~ Ocear.~ H~tel ~acrc~cs Idan~~ .~~~er.ue
i Ih~ ~~r.c: ~~ ~h~~ I'~~r,~rc ~~ ~Jce:~n ~;~crue`,~
~ ~ ~
~`~.Z;~r~l`, i~~ Ill~ :\C~Cth ~~! I}lE ~C~~IId H~Ie~ ~~OI7~ QC~~I] _~~i:IIUt
___ r,., , . _ -----~--..r - _ ...__~i~i't
~~9 Ocean ~~-enue, 5anta 141on~~a
_~-
~~'-~~':.Cl~ . t71:'. Ji~UI}` O~ ~~~.1'1.1 fit7:~~ ~4:,~5~ J:.~.1}]~~ -~\CP.L2
T[]c lt:ei.t I,^ l.;l~ ~;i.iL'rC 1~ ~u.l~[` ~'~ ~I1::C~
~
i
f x/
-
~
. .~ ~s---- ~~'~-_~--r.~,,,.^±lsc-
, _ ~ _ ~ ..
-ti
n42
}~;~~~+~-i~ t:i j~~ ~.1~' c~~ .~:~ ~f~2a:1 i HC'C~~ -~ ;[i~S ~'IiS~ ~.~i.l~i
~+-~g Ocean _~~'enue. Santa '~lonica
~
,
5
~`
~~- -~~
\ I~il ~~i F~ l~J~~L::~y J~ iT~. '~:r~~•~ ~)~° lil ~~EE']lllt
I~'i~[liiC T~1F~" jf~`P' !~l~ ~'C.~[lI C~i I}l~ ~)C~BIZd HOLc'~}
_~r=
i
! ~
/ •
' ~ I
r ~ •
~~,'
~
~
P~~:ure Tai~en on F~r~t Caurt ~.oak~ntr to [h~ 5otith
•~h~ Rc -r ~~: the G~~ana Iiotel i~ in the R~,h[ Pori~[~n nf cn~s P~~i~re`E
~-~9 Ocean A~-en~e. Santa :~1o~ica
` ~j~~~~
~~` y~~:
~~,~,~-
~~ ~
~
-~.
---.~
h
~ Een o= Pa:~~atle~ Par~..~~r~~s~ ()~e~n ~~enu~
E':~tu;; Tak~~ [ram thc Froa[ ~[ the C)ce.tna H~}te[`~
~~~r:a 5~d~ ot O:.c:+na Hol~l