Loading...
SR-6-A (19)l~~ PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT CASE NUMBER: CUP 93-001, TA 93-001 LOCATION: 1703-1715 Ocean Front Walk (Previously referenced as 1702 Appian Way) APPLICANT: Santa Monica Hotel Associates, Ltd. CASE PLANNER: Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner REQUEST: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 24-guest room facility as a Bed and Breakfast with a Conditional Use Permit CEQA STATUS: Categorically Exempt pursuant to Class 3(14) and 5(10) of the City of Santa Monica Guide- lines for the Implementation of CEQA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 9-1-93 Date. Approved based on the following findings and sub- ject to the conditions below. Denied. X Other. Recommendation of Denial to the City Council. FINDINGS TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS 1. The proposed Text Amendment is inconsistent with Proposi- tion S, adopted by the voters of Santa Monica in November of 1990, which envisioned that small size visitor accommo- dations of up to 4 rooms would adequately address future tourist needs when combined with existing accommodations available in the Beach Overlay District. 2. The public health, safety and general welfare do not re- quire the adoption of the proposed amendment, in that the proposal violates a citizen-sponsored initiative the terms of which may only be amended by a vote of the people, that a desirable mix of residential and visitor-serving uses - ~ - ~'p_r,~3 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 i. 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 the Zoning Ordinance, 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. VOTE ON A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Ayes: Breisch, Parlee, Weremiuk, Zinner Nays: Abstain: Pyne Absent: O'Connor, Mechur NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or- dinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1400. I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurate- ly reflects the final determination of the Planninq Cammission of the City of Santa Monica. - 2 - ' C~~~~ ' ~C~~ ~ /o ~ ~ ~~/_3 ignature date ~ Ralph Mechur, Chairperson Please Print Name and Title I hereby aqree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledqe that failure to compiy with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. Applicant's Signature Print Name and Title PC/cp001sta DKW:bz ~ ooaz~ - 3 - ATTACHMENT D ~, ~. oo~~., ' Citv of Santa 1Vlonica Community and Economic Devefopment DeparimeM Plannirg and Zoninp Dlvislan (213)458-8341 APPEAL FORM FEE:;100.00 Date Faed ~~ + 3 Recerved by , . _ /~oit-c.P_ Receipt No ~'r` %3 - ~ / U Name LAW OFFTCRS OF ROSARTO PERRY Address 1'243 (1CRA'~I AVRNT;E_ SANTA MONICA. CAT.IFORNIA 90401 CantactPerson ROSARIO PERRY Phone (310)394-9831 FAX:310-394-4294 Please descnbe the pro~ect and deasan b be appealed BED & BREAKFAST AS PER PLAVS SU$:IITTEa TO PLANNIIvG COMMISSIOn CaseNumber CO:VDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-001, TEXT AMEND*fE:IT 93-001 Addre3S 1702 APPItLti WAY Applicant $, I,~. CnPLAN. A GENERAL PARTIvER FOR SAICTA KOnICA HOTEL aSSOCIATES Onginal hearing date SEPTEMSER 1,1993 Onginal aCtion DENIED Please state the specttic reaso~(8) br ihe appeal CITY ATTORNEYS OPI:VIO:I IIv'CORRECT STATEMEnT OF LAid $EE ATTACHED LETTER A.ID LETTER FILED Sr'ITH COMPIISSIOI~ERS ~l I~ If add'maal spxe s needad, usa Dack of brm ~, g~~~ ~ ~ ~~ SEPTEHBER 13, 1993 R(~ ARIO PERRY ~ Qpr?5 List of Appeal Deadlines* Variance decisions: 14 days (S2~iC Section 9.04.20.10.080) Home Occupation decisions: 14 days (SPII~SC Section 9.04.20.04.060) Temporary Use Permit decisions involving projacte having span of 45 days or more: 7 days (SNBdC Section 9.04.20.08.060) Performance Standards Permit decisions: 14 days (51~4+IC Section 9.04.20.08.060) Reduced Parking Permit decisions: 14 days (S2R~IC Section 9.04.20.26.070) Administrativa Approvals (revocation thereof only): 7 days (SN~IC Section 9.04.20.28.050) Ocean Park Yard Reduction Permits: 14 days (S2~iC Section 9.04.20.32.070) Architectural Review Board decisions: l0 days (SrIIIC Section 9.32.160) Landmarks Commission decisions: l0 days (SNaiC Section 9.36.180) Conditional Use Permit decisions: 14 days (SN~IC Section 9.04.20.12.080) Development Review Permit decisions: 14 days (Section 9.04.20.14.070) Tentative Map decisions: 10 days (SNII~SC Saction 9.20.14.070) *Appeal periods begin on next business day following the decision. Appeal periods ending on weekends or holidays are extended to the next busineas day. Appeals must be filed on forms available from Planning and Zoning office and be accompanied by appropriate filing fee. See Santa Monica Municipal Code for more information. k/appeal DKW:bz - 1 - , LAW OFfICES OF ' R O S A R 1 O P E R R Y 1333 OCEAN AVENUE SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 tele (310] 394-9831 screen (310~ 395-0645 September 13, 1993 12:32 pm Fax [310) 394-4294 Cilt~/ ~iOUllCI~ City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, Ca 90401 RE. Conditional Use Permit 93-001, Text Amendment 93-001 - Dear City Councilmember: I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on September 1, 1993 denying the approval of the Bed and Breakfast pro~ect in the above ref- erenced case. The Planning Commissioner felt that the pro~ect could not be denied because of an opinion given them by the City Attorney's office We feel that decision, for the reasons stated in our correspondence to the Planning Commissioners, was incorrect. The City Attorney opirnon was based upon an incorrect interpretation of the zoning code and the definitions of Bed and Breakfast. Sincerely Rosario Perry 09-13-93appeai.frame 1 ,_ 0,~~~~ ATTACHMENT E i~ eooz~ fele I310) 394-9831 luly 28, 1993 I Od0 am IAW OFFICES Of R O 5 A R 1 O P E R R Y 1333 OCEAN AVENUE SMlTA MONICA, CA 90d01 streen (310)395-~645 fox (310) 394-4294 /~'~ ~2~~ j S(/Z c~ ~ir ~ N JU( 1993 N ~ • V •~ Vy'j~ City Planning Commissioners ~ ~ ive ~a ~ i~~ < City of Santa Mornca << ~~"'~'"~~ ` 't~~~ 1685 Main Street, ~is~ Santa Monica, Ca. 90401 b~£~zt~1 A. Explanation Of Our Project Proposal. 7he proposal our clients have before you on August 4,1993 is one of the _ most worthwhile and beneficial projects which has come before the Planning Commission in years. We do not state this lightly. This project if approved, wi11 do the following: (1). It will substantially increase the quality of life for the 2,000 or so resi- dents who live within the neighborhood by prov~ding a private secunty patro! for them (see detads below); (2). It will bnng additional income to the city m the amount of approximateiy S240,000 per year in bed tax revenue and increased property and parking taxes; (3). It will replace a proposed 8 unit condommium project, which has been approved for the site; (4). It will mcrease families abdities to come to Santa Monica and enjoy the beach and pier; and (5). It is 100% responsive to the wishes of the neighbors. Our applicat~on is a request to build a Sed and Breakfast facility at the property located at 1701 Promenade (hereinafter referred to as "B&B"). The pro~ect is designed to have 24 rooms and one small prep kitchen, all withm one two story structure. There will be 24 parking spaces all underground. The pro~ect is proposed to be built on 3 of 4 contiguous lots. Each lot is 40 x 125. The pro~ect is a two story structure, which wi~l be no higher than the existing build~ngs presently on the lot. The architect, Wade Killefer, has attempted to design the pro~ect, keeping the flavor of Santa Monica bungalow, and breaking up the second floor of the structure so that it resembles three smaller buildings. The exact design wili have to be worked out with the ARB, but the theme is to make the bwlding as small as possibie. The applicant has been before you before with a different project for this same property. Applicant was given approval to build an 8 to 10 urnt condomin- ium. Applicant is currently proceeding with the plans for the 8 unit condominium 07-27-93PC.frame 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 $ and is presently before the ARB. Appl~cant, however, prefers ta budd a B&B, and will condition approvai of the B&B on the relinquishment of the condominwm approval. In addition, the neighborhood, which has been kept mformed of our pro- posal through public meetings and fiiers, would also rather see a B&B than another condominium. Especially smce the applicant has agreed as a condition of approval of the S&B, the provid~ng of private security patral in the +mmediate neighborhood. (see below for details). in addition to the project itseif, there is before you a text amendment request. We wish to change the formula for computing the number of rooms that are ailowed in B&B. This change does NOT increase the number of rooms which a B&B can have. Under the existing zoning definition of B&B (see below for detailed explanation) a B&B facility can have 4 rooms per building with no limita- tion on the number of buildings within the facility. Therefore, if a facility had 6 budd- ings, it could have 24 rooms. If a facility had 10 buildmgs it could have 40 rooms. There is no limitation. Our amendment provides that a B&B can have 6 rooms per lot rather than 4 rooms per building. This change is not an increase in the number of rooms a B&B can have, but is only a change in how the maximum number of rooms are com- puted. In some situat~ons +t will lower the number of rooms a B&B can have, and in some situations it might mcrease the number. Under our prosed amendment, the number of rooms a B&B could have would be limited to 6 per LOT, with no more than 4 lots being able to be combined ~n a Sacdity. This would mean that a S&B could have no more than 24 rooms. [Our present site actually has 6 buddmgs existing on it, and we could have 24 rooms even under the exiting code]. There is not much else to our proposal. We are therefore, somewhat sur- pr~sed at the problems the City staff has with it. Staff takes the position, that even though B&Bs are allowed on the site, the City Council cannot amend the defmition of B&B from what it was when Prop S passed (November 6, 1990), or it would amount to a violation of the Prop S initiative. Since the amendment would onfy amount to a change in the formula for computing the maximum number of rooms allowed m a B&B facility, and since it would not increase the number of rooms allowed in a B&B facility per se; the question then becomes: "Why the City Staff opposition." B. Definition Of B~B The structure of the B&B project, as proposed, fits within all zoning ciassifi- July 28. 1993 g ~' ~ 0~~ 4 cations and requirements except for the (imitation in the B&B definition of 4 rooms per buildmg. Thus, the Pianrnng Commission needs to recommend to the City Council approvai of a text amendment if ~t wishes to also recommend approval of the B&B. Once the Planrnng Commission votes on this pro~ect it must go to the City Council for their action on the text amendment. A bed and breakfast is defined in the zoning code as follows: "Bed and Breakfast Facility. A buiiding 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. "9.04.02.030 A building is defined in the zoning code as follows: " Building. Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of any indi- vidual, animal, process, equipment, goods or materials of any kind or nature." 9.04.02.030 From these two definitions, one can see that there is no limitation on the number of buildmgs that can comprise a B&B facility, and thus there is no limitation on the number of rooms that a B&B can have. One could put 10 buildings on a property to get 40 rooms for the facility. Indeed, on the subject property there are 6 bwld- ings which would therefore allow 24 rooms. Our proposed amendment to the defmition of B&B does NOT increase the number of rooms allowed in a B&B. Rather it establishes a limitation on the num- ber of rooms a B&B facdity can have. It is entirely consistent with the mtentions and limitations of "S". C. Explanation Of Prop "S" Propos+tion S was passed by the voters on November 6, 1990. It was a voter sponsored mitiative, which established a"Beach Overlay DistncY' (also called "The S zone" herein). Ii was never the intention of the proponents to outlaw B&Bs within the S zone. ] Prop S established a beach overlay zone. Its North and South borders being the City limits, and its East and West borders bemg the center Ime of Ocean Avenue (and Neilson) and the Pacific Ocean. This is called the "S" zone, or the Beach Overlay District. (see 9.04.08.44.070). (The pier and the tand south to Sea Side Terrace is carved oui of and is not a part of the S zone. ] Prop S is somewhat confusing and vague as to exactly what it outlaws and what it allows withm the S zone, and a careful reading will only confuse the issues. For example ~§9.04.08.46.050 Prohibited Uses, (c) prohibits in the S zone: "Any use not specifically listed in Section 9.04.08.46.020" Now, 9.04.~8.46.020 lists three types of permitted uses, JUIy 28, 1993 8 r C~ r~' `~ (a) "All uses listed as permitted uses within the district in wh~ch the parcel is located. (b) Opens space, public beaches, parks, incidental park struc- tures, gardens, palygrounds, recreational buildings, recreational areas. (c) Pubfic parking." One would thmk then that to find the permitted uses then, one would look solely to 9.04.08.46.020. However, not so. Prop S has two other separate code sections, 9.04.08.46.030 ("Uses subject to performance standards permiY'} and 9.04.08.46.040 ("Conditionally permitted uses"). Both of these uses although not allowed via 9.04.08.46.020 are allowed in the S zone under City Planrnng inter- pretation. Prop S directs its attention primarily to "uses" and not to density, FAR {floor area ratio), and/or bulk. It was not intended as a limitation on size and density as it was intended as a limitaton on hotel use. What is clear through all this is that Prop S prohibits hotels and permits B&Bs. (See the City Attorney's opinion, here- inafter referred to as "CAO".) Of this we also agree. Prop S would best be interpreted to allow the City flexibdity to deal with issues which arise within the S zone. It is clear that since 1990 the City Staff has taken the same position as that urged by us now. The CAO takes the strictest possible mterpretation of Prop S, one which is entirely inconsistent with three years and scores of zoning amendments that the City has adopted since Prop S. We have diagramed these changes for you in the two accompanying maps. If the CAO were to be adopted, then all the zoning ordinances adopted since then would be dlegal, and all the restrictions imposed upon the property owners would have to be removed and restored to status quo as of Prop S pas- sage date, and the city would be subject to monetary damages for interim takmgs amounting in the millions of dollars. Its clear that the CAO has not taken into account all the important factors which go into an mterpretation of Prop. S for this Commission`s review. The needs of our City and its people should not be subject to a straight jacket type interpretation. Especially since such an interpretation is 100% inconsistent with three years of City Council zoning amendments. The CAO with its ins~stence on the freezing of the zoning laws which existed at the S date, overly restricts the City's ability to do deal with the S zone. D. Explanation Of The City Attorney's Opinion (CAO). The City Attorney's opirnon states in effect, that a change in the defiinition of B&B July 28, 1993 $ ~ 0 0 0 3 i in actuality it is "use" which Prop S sought to controf, and not numbers of rooms in any one facility. In fact, there is no fimit to the number of rooms a S&B facil~ty can have under Prop S. There is nothing in the code which supports the CAO that "a facility with more than four guests rooms. .. would meet the definition of 'hotel.'" In our opinion, the CAO takes a much too strict and narrow interpretation of Prop S, and in effect contradicts the last three years of city zonmg amendments within the S zone, after prop S was passed. The CAO states that one cannot amend any zonmg provisions which existed on S date, within the S zone. The CAO wants the Pianning Comm~ssion to freeze frame the zoning conditions which existed at S date. Almost like keeping the furniture in the room exactly in the same place as it was and never rearrangmg it. Except that since Prop S passed, the City has done such rearrangmg many times over, without any objection from the City Attorney's office. (see discussion below and two zoning maps attached). E. Explanation Of Zoning Maps. You have two maps attached to this letter. Both maps show the S zone. The first map shows the zoning as it existed on S date, the second map shows the zornng as it exists today. The difference between the maps is the changes in zoning that have taken place since S date. A companson shows that there have been ma~or changes to use, density and bulk restnctions since S date. These changes have been to increase density and use in some districts and to decrease density and use in other distncts. The CAO however, says that any such changes (increased or decreased) is a wolation of Prop S. If the CAO is correct, then each one of these changes violates prop S and must be undone. F. Security Guard Patrol This existence of this condition has come out of early meetings with the neighbors. We have responded to their requests and concerns by proposing as a condition of approval of this project, that a private security patrol be established and mamtained in the neighborhood at the sole cost of the owners of the B&B. This type of community contribution is unique, and wdl provide much needed safety for the area residents. This area is one of the most impacted crime areas of the city at present. The security patrol will be stop crime, and allow the residents of this area to en~oy their apartments in safety once again. The owners of the Santa Monica Bed & Breakfast wdl contract with ACE July 28, 1993 8 +~ fl 0 0 3 2 facility which increases the number of rooms, will make it a motel or hotel. Since motelslhotels are iliegal in the S zone, such an amendment would be dlegal, as a violation of Prop S. The exaci question posed by the CAO is as foilows: "Whether a text amendment which would alter the definition of bed and breakfast facilities by allowing such facilities to contain a targer number of rooms would conflict with the provisions of Proposition S." This "question" however, does not deal with the issues presented m our applica- tion to you. In other words, the CAO does not discuss the fact that our proposed changes do NOT increase the number of rooms m a B&B; and it does not discuss why for purposes of Prop S, 4 rooms per building is a B&B, but 6 rooms per lot is a hotel. The reason the COA doesn't discuss our project is probably because their opmion was written before our application was submitted and was therefore based upon incomplete data. We are not proposing an increase in the number of rooms for a B&B facility, but rather we are proposing to estabiish a different formula for computing the num- ber of rooms allowed in a B&B facility. Our defmition imposes the room limitation based upon lots and not buildings. This does not change the definition of B&B as it pertams to use. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and a four tire bicycle is not a car. A B&B limited to 6 rooms per lot is no less a B&B than one with 4 rooms perbudding. The CAO also states that: "Proposition S does not by its direct terms limit or control bed and breakfast facdities." And this is ciearly the case. There is nothmg in Prop S which attempts to outlaw a B&B or to define or change the previous definition of "use" which is associated with a B&B The "use" associated with a B&B is generally as follows: a facility which is small ~n scale, and provides breakfast for guests of the facility at no extra charge, and is not open to the outside public. It has no banquet or entertainments facili- t~es It is universally credited with having a home family atmosphere with common areas more like parlors than pubtic lobbies. There is no room service, nor other hotel type amenities. A hotel "use" on the other hand, is one which has much larger scale, and amenities such as pools, restaurants, roQm service, banquet rooms, conventions, seminars, food not included in pnce of the room. It is larger, and not famdy oriented. It advertises to adifferent cl~entele. July 28, 1993 g ~ 0 0 0 3 3 Secunty for the foliowmg services (with some flexibility to alter the program as necessary to better fulfdl the needs of the community as, through the operation of the program, such needs become known). The particulars of the security patrol are as follows: i. Foot and motorized cart patrol from iate afternoon/dusk untd early morrnng hours, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. 2. The patrol to consist of one person m carUbicycle and an additional person on foot patrol dunng the first few months of start up, and also thereafter during peak weekend hours as determined by need. 3. Zero toferance to cnme m the area. 4. Neighbors will have direct access to patroi person via mobile telephones. 5. Video cameras covering parking lots; 6. Patrol to make direct contact with neighbors, to guard them in walking to and from their cars; to morntor and testify as to any illegai sales of alcoho~ m the area from iiquor stores, and other places as well; 7. As much as possible, these guards to be exclusively assigned to the area, to become familiar with each neighbor, to be known on a first name basis; 8. Guards to assist in neighborhood training seminars re: security awareness; 9 Signs to b2 posted and the word to go out that the neighborhood area is heavily guarded, and those who consider cnme should move elsewhere; 10. Secunty service to establish a direct Imk of communication and cooperation with SM police department, and the pnvate security guards at the Loews and the Shutters hotels G. Parking: There Need Be Only One Space Per Room. The code does not define parking requirements for a B&B. Therefore the Planning Commission should look at other similar uses, and apply the parking requirements for those uses to a B&B. City staff has tenatively decided that the B&B needs more parkmg spaces than we feel is appropnate. The closest use to a B&B, which has parkmg defined, is a baarding house. A Boarding House is defined in the zornng code as follows: "Boardmg House. A resident~al buiidmg with common cooking and eating facifities where a room or any portion of a room is rented to a person or persons unretated to the person renting the room. Zoning Table 9.Q4.08.040 requires 1 covered space per bedroom for a boarding house There is no additional parking requirements for the dinning room where the guests eat or the parfor where they sit and visit. The staff, has decided that B&B more closely resemble hotels. Whde hotels need only provide one space per room, they must also provide addit~onal parking spaces for their restaurants and banquet rooms. Whde our B&B has neither a res- July 28, 1993 8 ~• 0 0 0 3 4 taurant nor banquet room, the staff feels that the small lobby area where the guests wiil sit and eat their rolls and drink their coffee, is a restaurant or banquet ~oom. Therefore, according to staff, we need to provide more than the 24 spaces for the 24 room facility. We feel that a B&B is more like a boardmg house than a hotel for the follow- ing reasons: First, hotels are not allowed in the S zone, but boarding houses are. so why compare a B&B to a hotei, which is an illegal use, rather than to a boardmg house which is a legai use. Second, the food served at both B&B and boarding house facilities, is restncted to guests of the facility, and is not open to the general public. If people were coming from hither or yonder to eat, it would make sense to have extra parkmg spaces for the "restaurant," within the B&B. But since people at the B&B will be only commg from their rooms, presumably already having parked their cars, there is no logical reason to reqwred extra parking for them. H. Conclusion In conclusion, this proposal is a positive addition to our City, and the neigh- borhood within which it wi11 be built. It has strong community support, and will pro- v~de many happy times for the many peopfe who come to stay and enjoy its warm hospitality/family atmosphere. It is a major improvement over the 8 unit condomin- ium pro~ect wh~ch is scheduled for the site. Given afl this, and the additional benef~t it brings of security to the residents, it should not be re~ected, based upon a City Attorney opinion which was wntten without reference to the pro~ect itself, and which was written with a much too narrow and unbending interpretation of Prop S. An interpretation, which if adopted by the Planning Commission, would undo three years of reasonable and needed zoning changes, and subject the city to millions of dollars ~n liability for temporary taking c{aims from property owners who have had the~r property re-zoned in "violation" of Prop. S. A much more open and flexible interpretation of Prop S is needed to allow the City the room it needs to care for the ever changing circumstances of such a chang- ing area as the S zone. Prop S was not intended to put a straight ~acket on the City, but rather to stop the building of large hotels within the S zone. It should not be interpreted with any other goals in mind. We hope that you will give this project your most deserved attention, and we look forward to discussing this pro~ect in person at your upcoming Planning Com- mission meeting. Smce ly Ros no rry ~~ 00035 Juiy 28, 1993 8 ATTACHMENT F ao~~~' PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMEN~ ZO SANTA MONICA ZONING ORDINANCE - "Definitions" section: I'+EA & BREAKFAST FACILITY Retain current wording of "A buildin~r or portion of a building used as a temporary lcdging place for individuals which does not have more than four guest rooms and one kitchen." Add paragraphs which follow "In the RVC and R3R z;reas only: (1) a Bed & Breakfast facility may have up to (but not more than) six guest rooms per lot and one kitchen per facility. (2) A B&B facilrty shall include all structures on a lot or consolidated lots which are used as part of the Bed & Breakfast. (3) An anplicant may consolidate contiguous lots up to a naximun, of fouz lots, for purposes of developing a B&B facility. T~e mar.ir.ium number of guest rooms <~]lowed in a facility developed on consoliZated lots shall be computed by multiplying the number of lo~s consolidated by 6. (4) A EsB facility may be positioned on the consolidated lots in such a manner that there may be more than six guest rooms on ar.}• one lot, as long as the facility shall have no more than `_he ~otal allowed in the formu_a set forth in subparagraph 3 abo:~e. Tnis prccision does not exempt the placement o£ the B&B ~acili~;• from any other development standard. _ ~~ 00037 ATTACHMENT G f- oo~~~ ~ ~; , J; --. %_ ~~ , MEMORANDUM OPINION NUMBER 92-31 DATE: November 9, 1992 TO: Renyon Webster, Planning Manager FROM: Joseph Lawrence, Acting City Attorney Mary A. Strobel, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Effect of Proposition S on Bed and Breakfast Facilities You have have asked us for an Opinion whether a text amendment which would alter the definition of bed and breakfast facilities by allowing such facilities to contain a larger number of rooms would conflict with the provisions of Proposition S. Such a conflict does appear to exist. Proposition S was a voter sponsored initiative passed on November 6, 1990 which created a"Beach Overlay District" and regulated the uses permitted within that District. The Proposition includes as permitted and conditionally permitted uses all uses listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses within the district in which the parcel is located, except those specifically prohibited by the "Prohibited Uses" Section of the Proposition. The following are listed as "Prohibited Uses:" (aj Hotels, motels. (b) Restaurants and/or food service facilities of more than 2000 square feet and/or exceeding one story in height. (c) Any use not specifically listed in [the Permitted Uses Section]. Proposition S does not by its direct terms limit or control bed and breakfast facilities. However, these facilities are affected by the Proposition to the extent any redefinition of ~'bed and breakfast" would cause such a use to also become a "hotel" or "motel." Although the Proposition did add a definition of "recreational use" to the definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance, it did not add definitions for "hotel^ or "motel." Since Proposition S was drafted to be incorporated into the existing Zoninq Ordinance, the definitions of "hotel" and "motel" as they existed at the time of passage of the Proposition govern the interpretation of the Proposition. See, e.g., Williams v. County of San Joaquin, 225 Cal. App. 3d 1326, 1332, 275 Cal. Rptr. 302, 305 (199D) ("Both the Legislature and the electorate by the initiative process are deemed to be aware of laws in effect at the time they enact new laws and are conclusively presumed to have enacted the new laws in light of existing laws having direct bearing upon them"). Accord People v. Silverbrand, 220 Cal. App. 3d1621, 1628, 270 Cal. Rptr. 261, 264 (1990). - 1 - ry 00~39 At the time Proposition S-was passed, and currently, "hotel" and "motel" are defined in Section 4000.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Hotel. A building, group of buildings, or a portion of a building which is designed for or occupied as the temporary lodging place of individuals for less than 30 consecutive days including, but not limited to, an establishment held out to the public as an apartment hotel, hostel, inn, time share project, tourist court, or other similar use. Motel. An establishment providing transient accommodations containing six or more rooms with at least 253 of all rooms having direct access to the outside without the necessity of passing through the main lobby of the building. Additionally, Section 9000.3 contains a separate definition of "bed and breakfast facility" as follows: Bed and Breakfast Facility. 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. Since the Zoning Ordinance separately defines "hotel" and "bed and breakfast facility," and such uses are treated differently under the Code, (see, e.9., the regulations for the R2 District where bed and breakfast facilities are conditionally permitted but hotels are not), a facility meeting the definition of "bed and break£ast faciiity" would not also be considered a hotel, even if the facility otherwise met the definition of '~hotel." Thus, Proposition S does not prohibit the establishment of bed and breakfast facilities in the Beach Overlay District, as those facilities were defined at the time of the passage of Proposition S. If, however, the definition of bed and breakfast facility were amended to increase the number of guest rooms which were allowable, a-conflict with Proposition S occurs. If a project were proposed for the Beach overlay District, the permissibility of such a facility would require an analysis of whether that facility would constitute a"hotel" or "motel° as those terms were defined at the time of passage of Proposition S. It appears from the current definitions af "hotel" and ^bad and breakfast facility," that a temporary lodging place with more than four guest rooms or more than one kitchen would meet the definition of "hotel". Thus, even if the definition of "bed and breakfast facility" were amended, if a temporary lodging facility with five rooms and one kitchen were proposed, since such use would have been considered a hotel (and not a bed and breakfast facility) at - z - ~ 00040 the time Proposition S was passed, such a project would be prohibited from the Beach Overlay District. Althouqh 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 authorized 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 provides that it may only be amended or repealed by the voters of t~e City of Santa Monica. See C-Y Development Co. v. City of Redlands, 137 Cal. App. 3d 926, 187 Cal. Rptr. 370 (1982) (City could-not, through subsequent legislation not submitted to the voters, alter the effect of a citizen sponsored initiative which restricted development by regulating the number of building permits which could be issued). - 3 ' ~ 00~?41 MEMORANDIIM DATE: August 25, 1993 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mary Strobel, Deputy City Attorney sUBJECT: Supplemental Response Regarding 1701 Ocean Avenue Proposed Bed and Breakfast Facility This Memorandum supplements Memorandum Opinion Number 92-31 concerning whether an amendment to the definition of Bed and Breakfast Facility, as that term applies in the Beach Overlay District, violates Proposition S. Specifically, this Memorandum addresses those points raised in the July 28, 1993 submittal from Rosario Perry, attorney for the applicant. 1. Change in the Number of Rooms Allowed in a Bed and Breakfast Facility. The proposed text amendment changes the formula for computing the number of rooms allowed in a Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Perry contends that "this change is not an increase in the number of rooms a B&B can have, but is only a change in how the maximum number of rooms are calculated." Although this contention is questionable at best, it is also based upon the faulty assumption that a bed and breakfast facility may consist of more than one building under the current Zoninq Ordinance definition. This is erroneous. The current definition of Bed and Breakfast facility reads as follows: "A buildinq, or portion of a buildinq used as temporary lodging place for individuals which does not have more than four guest rooms and one kitchen." Once a such a facility consists of more than one building, however, it falls under the definition of "hotel" which reads as follows: " A buildinq, arouo of buildinqs, or a portion of a building which is designed for or occupied as the temporary lodging place of individuals for less than 30 consecutive days including, but not limited to, an establishment held out to the public as an apartment hotel, hostel, inn, time share project, tourist court, or other similar use.'~ ~ ~fl~~2 2. Purported Confl~ct Between Recent Zonina Enactments and Proposition S. Mr. Perry misunderstands both Proposition S and the City Attorney~s Opinion when he contends that under the City Attorney Opinion, numerous recent ordinances would also violate Proposition S, "since all zoning ordinances [affecting the underlying zoning districts] adopted since [the passage of Proposition S] would be illegal." This is not the import of either Proposition S or the City Attorney's Opinion. Proposition S creates an overlay district, overlaying several existing zoning districts. Proposition S does not lock into place all zoning in those underlying districts as it existed at the time of the passage of the Proposition. First, Proposition S regulates only uses, and not other property development standards such as height, density, setbacks, etc. Thus, the City is free to change those regulations in the underlying districts without running afoul of the Proposition. Hence, many of the specific ordinances cited by Mr. Perry in his memorandum and attached map (Ords. 1582,1b14, 1617, 1575,1583,1584, 1623,1628,1624,and 1629), since they deal strictly with property development standards and not uses, are wholly irrelevant to the current analysis. Further, even with respect to uses, Proposition S is artfully drafted to allow the City to change permitted, conditionally permitted, permitted sub7ect to PSP, and prohibited uses in the underlying districts, as long as such changes do not violate the specific prohibitions of Section 9.04.08.46.050, concerning hotels, motels, or restaurants of more than 2000 square feet or exceeding one story in height. The overlay district provides that uses allowed in the underlying districts are still allowed "subject to Section 9.04.08.46.050." In other words, uses allowed in the underlying district may change, except that hotels, motels, and specified restaurants shall always remain prohibited uses in the Beach Overlay district, until the provisions of Proposition S are chanqed by a vote of the people.' As explained in Memorandum Opinion Number 92-31, Mr. Perry's proposal to make permissible that which is currently considered a hotel runs directly afoul of this mandate, and cannot be approved consonant with Proposition 5, as it affects those properties in the Beach Overlay District. ` The remainder of the ordinances cited by Mr. Perry in his memorandum and map, amend the permitted uses, but do not make hotels, motels, or restaurants larger than 2000 square feet or above one story in height permitted uses. Thus these ordinances are all "legal" and similarly irrelevant to the issue herein. ~' 00043 ATTACHMENT H ~~~ooo:~~ i : ~ _, ,' ; ~ ;=Ma;n ~~ ~ .~ o,i --• ~ ~~~ a ~. .. -_. ~ ~ ~ >~ , .~. , w ~ ~ta~rvs M,op ai ~; ~ ~ 1.oTS 3I6 CARL ~ SCNADER Scp51DF : w I TERRpC& -'702 R°PIAFf WAy - ~ f7f~ 'TFfE PRU/+lENftDE ._ w._ . ,~, o l~ ._ " _, <^ ' '.~1 `- . , i - - W I - g `t,~ ~, •- :. i _. ~,. -. - _ o - e Q - _ ~< , e - j - ~ J i. ~ . ~ :~ . ~ ~ ~ - / " u ,., '~ /. : "., ; y ~ i ~. , r ~ ~ _, i \ 1~ . ` rY/~~jh '~t. 'r ~ i - ~~'h ' ' ~~` 1 1 ; I' _l l' 1 ~, I ( ~~ I ~~~~~ _ - ;~ .. ne e I "" ~i ~e G . avENUE ~a is ~ i= ~s ~~' ~` ;a, .- W~~ ' Ji- "' _3 ;~ ; .u =~ !3: ~ _~ ~ j- n e 'L~~ ~ y~, r ~Q _ a _ ~ ` _ jJ' ~ ' WC ~I~ 3D' i rv: - ~ f ~; K~ :~. ~ a a, ro;v a ' <: = CIC}•\T} ;~ ~~ 00045 A TTACHMENT I ~ Qnn~~ dl'fu. ~ay ~iN. '~,Ad 631 cSan 1'owszo ~t. ~'~~ ~t~t~ n,,~,f,~:Q. 9oao2 €`~~~=~`~.~~: ~ 3 ~~~ ~~~~; ~~~~t ,~'~* ~ - _ ~a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ _ . . ~u~ ~ 6 - ~ o _ -- . ~, ~ , , , /~%~ ./~v ~ , _/ . ~- , . G'.'/z-P~c, - ~+~ . ~'~`1 ` ( ~ - ~-~~ ~- ~ ~ . _ ~ ~ ,' ~,~ . -`~ ~ . ,, ~ i~ _ ~ ~A~ ~~a ~ M l ~ G ' `'' _ N'~ T 6~k~"`-~~ ~- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 00047 ~ • ~ ~Z%hGP~~j I ~////~/ _ T , _, ~ q „~ / ~ ~ Y '~~/`f rL' '~ ~ • a 1~ n. - - . ~ i~~ ~1.~. r~,;, ao~a~K 1725 1.'a Jn- aonzuzade, d(~-12 cSanEa d~oni.ca, eaG:}oviia 90401 ~~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~F S: _ _ ~ ~.stt+~`• ~ Q~~ ~r .,~ i ~ ~ i i " ~ ~ ..'~a~,~L ~ • ! ~~ ~ l ~ I „~~~-~` f ~ ~y - ~~ I ~~ ' ~~ ~~- I ~ .-~ . ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ E ~~ ,~ ~~~~~ ~u9. y ~~ ~ ~ ~' - ,~ , -~ ~~ . ~~~~.~ ; ~~ ~- ~~~ , ~~ . .~~~~~. : - ~ ~ ~~~ _ . ~~~ ~~~ . ~~ ~~ c~~~~Q