SR-8-A (192)~~
P&Z:DKW DB:PC/cup93001 Santa Monica, California
Planning Commission Mtg: September l, 1993
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT Conditional Use Permit 93-001, Text Amendment 93-001
Address: 1703-1715 Ccean Front Walk
(Previously referenced as 1702 Appian Way)
Applicant: Santa Monica Hotel Associates, Ltd
INTRODUCTION
Action Application for a Conditional Use Permit and Text Amend-
ment to amend the Zoning Ordinance definition of a bed and break-
fast facility and to allow the construction of a 24-guest-room
facility which would be considered a bed and breakfast facility
if the proposed text amendment were adopted by the City Council.
Reconmendation Recommendation of denial to City Council.
Perm_t Streamlining Expiration Date: November 24, 1993 for CUP;
not appiicable to Text Amendment.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The sub~ect property is a 19,200 square foot parcel located
between Ocean Front Walk (AKA "The Promenade") and Appian Way
having a frontage cf 120 feet Surrounding uses consist of a
oublic parki~g lot across Pacific Terrace to the north in the BP
(Beach Parking) District, multifamily housing on the ad~acent lot
to the south in the R3R (Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal
Residential) D~strict, the Loews Hotel across Appian Way to the
east in the RVC (Res~dential Visitor Commercial) District, and
the Santa Monica State Beach across Ocean Front Walk to the west.
The sub~ect site contair.s 5 rental units removed from the rental
market pursuant to the Ellis Act. A portion of the site is used
as an access to the beach from the Loews Hotel.
Zon~r_g District: R3R, Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal
Residential District
~and Use District Oceanfrcnt District
Parcei Area: 120' X 160' = 19,200 sq.ft.
- 1 - • DOQ~3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed is the demolition of two residential buildings with five
units, removed from Rent Control via the Ellis Act, and the con-
struction of a 2-story, 24-room v_sitor facility with subter-
ranean parking and a dining room Each guest room would be ar-
ranged in a"suite" fashion with a front room and a larger room
at the back.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND G~NERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is inconsistent with the ex-
isting Zoning Ordinance and the proposed Text Amendment is incon-
sistent with Proposition S(passed on November 5, 1990) and the
General Plan
CEQA STATUS
Tne project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class
3(14) and 5(10) of the City of Santa Monica Guidelines for the
Implementation of CEQA.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
A Rent Control clearance form is on file showing that the exist-
ing rental units on site have been removed from the rental market
via the Ellis Act.
FEES
The oroject ~s not sub~ect to any special planning fees.
PUBLIC NOTIFiCATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20 080, within 30 days
after the sub~ect application was deemed complete, the applicant
posted a sign on the property stating the following information.
Pro~ect case number, brief project description, name and
telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and
location of ~ublic hearing, and the Planning and Zoning Division
phone number It is the applicant's responsibility to update the
hearing date if it is change3 after posting.
In addition, oursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20 22 050,
notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and
residential and commercial tenants of property located within a
500 foot radius of the pro~ect at least ten consecutive calendar
days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in
Attachment B.
- z - ~ 00~14
ANALYSIS
Background
On March 25, 1992, the Planning Commission approved CUP 90-084 to
allow the ccnstruction of a 10-unit condominium at the sub~ect
parcel. On July 13, 1993, the Zoning Administrator granted Per-
formance Standards Permit 93-002 to allow the demolition of one
of the structures on the site and the construction of a tennis
court for the use of the on-site resident. Each of these proj-
ects, in addition to the proposed 24-room guest facility, is
mutually exclusive, by the construction of one project, it would
be impossible to also accommodate another one of the pro~ects.
On November 6, 1990, voters in Santa Monica passed Proposition S,
thereby creating a"Beach Overlay District" west of Ocean Avenue
in which new hotels and motels are listed as prohibited uses.
The sub~ect parcel is located in the R3R/Beach Overlay District,
which means the only type of overnight guest facility permitted
on the site would be a bed and breakfast facility. The Zoning
Ordinance defines such a facility as "a building or portion of a
building used as a temporary lodging place for individuals which
does not have more than four guest rooms and one kitchen. ~~ In
the R3R District, a bed and breakfast facility is permitted with
a Conditional Use Permit
The proposed 24-room facility does not meet the Zoning Ordinance
definition of bed and breakfast and would therefore be considered
a hotel, which is defined as "a building, group of buildings, or
portion of a building which is designed for or occupied as the
temporary lodging place of individuals for less than 30 consecu-
tive days, including, but not limited to, an establishment held
out to the public as an apartment hotel, hostel, inn, time share
pro~ect, tourist court, or other similar use." Therefore, the
proposed facility is a prohibited use pursuant to Proposition S.
By amending the definition of bed and breakfast facility, the
applicant seeks to make the proposed 24-room facility a condi-
tionally permitted use in the R3R/Beach Overlay District.
Proposed Text Amendment
The proposed Text Amendment is contained in Attachment C. The
proposed language would allow bed and breakfast facilities in the
R3R and RVC Districts with a maximum of 6 guest rooms per lot and
the consolidation of a maximum of four lots. The subject site
contains fou~ lots, of which two have already been consolidated
(Attachment D). The Text Amendment includes a provision which
states that "a B&B facility may be positioned on the consolidated
lots in such a manner that there may be more than six guest rooms
on any one iot" as long as the total number of rooms does not
exceed a forriula of six times the number of lots.
The proposed Text Amendment would alter the definition section of
the Zoning Ordinance but not the development standards in the R3R
- 3 -
, ~~n;~,
District Under the definition change, the project would qualify
as a bed and breakfast facility, and would be sub~ect to the
height and setback requirements of the R3R District and the park-
ing standards contained in Section 9.04.10.08.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance
Text Amendment Conformance with Proposition S
When Proposition 5 was adopted in 1990 to prohibit hotels west of
Ocean Avenue, the Zoning Ordinance contained the existing defini-
tion of "hotel" and "bed and breakfast facility" such that any
temporary lodging place with more than four rooms would meet the
definition of a"hotel." On November 9, 1992, the City Attor-
ney's office prepared Memorandum Opinion no. 92-31 which states
in part•
Although it would be permissible to amend the definition
of bed and breakfast under the Zoning Ordinance, and for
such amendment to have application in other parts of the
City, the new definition would have no effect for purposes
of determining whether such use was authcrized in the
Beach Overlay District. The definition change could not
be considered to amend the provisions of Proposition S,
since Section X of that enactment states that it may only
be amended or repealed by the voters of the City of Santa
Monica. (Page 3 of Attachment E.)
The City Attorney's opinion further states that "since Proposi-
tion S was drafted to be incorporated into the existing Zoning
Ordinance, the definitions of 'hotel' and 'motel' as they existed
at the time of the passage of the Proposition govern the inter-
pretation of the Proposition."
Prior to filing the proposed text amendment, and in writing after
the prooosal was filed, the applicant was advised that it would
be in conflict with Proposition S for temporary lodging facili-
ties to be allowed to exceed 4 guest rooms on the subject parcel
The applicant has stated that he does not agree with the City
Attorney's opinion on this matter.
Pro~ect Design
The proposed facility would contain 24 guest rooms in a suite
format within three 2-story structures over a 24-space subter-
ranean parking garage. The facility would contain a small lobby
and administrative area and a small dining area for the use of
guests. The dining area would not have a kitchen The building
would open onto a lawn court and rose garden to the south, where
the Loews Hotel beach accessway is also located. All rooms would
be accessible from open walkways. At the second story, the
buildings would be ~oined by the open corridors.
No dining tables or similar commerc~al uses are proposed for the
outdoor lawn area. Any commercial use of this space would in-
crease the parking requirement and FAR for the project.
- 4 - ' (1(~1] r
During the preparation of this report, the applicant was ques-
tioned regarding the very small amount of administrative area
shown on the project plans. The applicant responded that an on-
site manage may reside permanently in one of the rooms, utilizing
the front of the room as an office. When asked to confirm this
aspect of the proposal and identify the room intended for occu-
pancy, the applicant stated that he could not say for certain if
the manager would reside on-site, and that this issue could be
decided at the Planning Commission public hearing. The issue has
a bearing on the approval of the pro~ect because it results in
the creation of a residential unit and a reduction in the number
of guest rooms on the site
The property is owned by Santa Monica Hotel Associates, Ltd.,
which also owns the Loews Hotel across Appian Way. The applicant
has stated there would be no shared administrative uses between
the two properties.
Parking and Circulation
The subterranean parking garage would be accessed from Pacific
Terrace and has been approved by the City Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
The proposal does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance in terms of
the number of required parking spaces and the number of loading
spaces. Section 9 04.10.10.030 requires a:ninimum of 2"freight
and equipment off-street loading spaces" for a pro~ect of this
size, whereas the applicant proposes one loading space. Section
9.04.10.08.D4D requires a minimum of 1 space per guest room plus
code requirements for any additional areas. The pro~ect con-
tains approximately 900 square feet of dining area, which, based
on the restaurant rate of 1 space per 75 square feet, would re-
quire a total of 12 parking spaces, plus 24 guest rooms which
require a total of 24 spaces, for a grand total of 36 spaces re-
quired; a total of 24 spaces are proposed. The pro~ect conforms
to all other development standards applicable in the R3R Dis-
tr~ct, as shown in A~tachment A.
The application contains a statement that the applicant will "add
one level of subterranean parking to state-owned (city-leased)
parking lot immediately to the north across Pacific Terrace for
beachgoing visitors and residents in the area (not for Bed and
Breakfast guests). However, the applicant has provided no plans
of the proposed subterranean parking garage, nor has he provided
any preliminary indication of approval by the State or the City.
General Plan Conformance
Objective 1 5 of the General Plan states that the City should
encourage the expansion of "visitor accommodations and related
uses ~n the Oceanfront area, while protecting the residential
mix " The proposed Text Amendment is consistent with the visi-
tor-serving emphasis contained in the General Plan. However, the
passing of Proposition S six years after the General Plan was
adopted indicates that the City had accomplished a desirable mix
- 5 - ~~~i~
of visitor-serving accommodations west of Ocean Avenue in that
time period. Therefore, the proposed amendment would be in con-
flict with the General Plan's objective to "protect the residen-
tial mix" within the Oceanfront District.
Conclusion
The proposed 24-room guest facility is a prohibited use within
the R3R District unless the proposed Text Amendment is adopted
The proposed Text Amendment is in violation of Proposition S,
which may only be amended only by the voters of the City of Santa
Monica. The City Council does not have the authority tc make
this amendment. In addition, the proposal is not in conformance
with the General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the
proposed pro~ect.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a recommenda-
tion of denial to the City Council of the proposed Text Amendment
and Conditional Use Permit based upon the following findings:
TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS
The proposed Text Amendment is inconsistent in principle
with the goals, ob~ectives, policies, land uses and pro-
grams specified in the adopted General Plan, in that it is
inconsistent with Land Use and Circulation Element Objec-
tive 1.5, which states that the City shall protect the
existing residential mix within the Oceanfront District,
and that it is inconsistent with Proposition S, adopted by
the voters of Santa Monica in November of 1990, which en-
visioned that small size visitor accommodations of up to 4
rooms would adequately address future tourist needs when
combined with existing accommodations available in the
Beach Overlay District.
The public health, safety an3 general welfare do not re-
quire the adoption of the proposed amendment, in that the
proposal violates a citizen-sponsored initiative the terms
of wh~ch may only be amended by a vote of the people, that
a desirable mix of residential and visitor-serving uses
has been achieved within the Beach Overlay District and
that any future visitor accommodations should be small
operations that are compatible with the area's residential
character.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The proposed use is not one conditionally permitted within
the subject district and does not comply with all of the
applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Compre-
hensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that the pro-
posed temporary lodging facility contains over four guest
rooms and is defined as a hotel in ~he Zoning Ordinance,
~ ~~~Id
- 6 -
and in that hotels are a prohibited use within the Beach
Overlay District.
2. The proposed use would impair the integrity and character
of the district in which it is to be established or lo-
cated, in that it is a prohibited use.
3. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
it is a prohibited use within the Beach Overlay District.
4. The proposed use is inconsistent with the goals, objec-
tives, and policies of the General Plan, in that it is not
consistent with Objective 1 5 of the Land Use and Circula-
tion Element of the General Plan, which states that the
City shall protect the existing residential mix of uses in
the Oceanfront District in order to maintain land use di-
versity and character.
Prepared by Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner
Attachments•
A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Language of Proposed Text Amendment
D. Parcel Assessor's Map Snowing Project Site
E. City Attorney Memorandum Opinion 92-31, and Supplemental
Response Regarding 1701 Ocean Avenue Proposed Bed and Break-
fast Facility
F. Radius and Location Map
G. Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties
H. Correspondence
I. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
DB
PC/cup930D1
OS/25/93
- ~ - ~n~lc
ATTACHMEIVT C
`- Q0~?0