SR-12-A (37)
Ljo2,.-oog
f2-A
C/ED:PB:DKW:LM
Council Mtg: April 25, 1989
APR 2 5 1989
Santa Monica, california
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Proposed Four
Story, Sixty-Six Room Addition to the Existing Three
Story Eighty-Two Room Comfort Inn at Located at 2801
Santa Monica Boulevard. Applicant/Appellant: Doug Lowe
for Charles Ting.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's denial of Development Review (DR) 367A, Zone Change
28, and Initial Study (EIA) 836 with findings that the proposed
addition does not relate harmoniously with and step down to the
adjacent residential district, the proposed parking plan does not
conform to the requirements of the former Santa Monica Municipal
Code section 9129F4, and the requested zone change is not
appropriate.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of an
application for site review to permit the construction of a four
storyj40', 66 room addition to the existing three story, 82 room
Comfort Inn located at 2801 Santa Monica Boulevard.
Also
associated with the requested site review is the rezoning of the
rear parking lot from R2 to R2A, and adoption of a Negative
Declaration based on EIA 836. Removal of the 21 unit Dawn Dee
- 1 -
12-A
APR 2 5 1989
Motel will be required to allow construction of the proposed
addition.
Under the proposal, 18 parking spaces below the existing hotel
would be retained, with access taken from the rear alley. The
existing curb cut on Santa Monica Boulevard would be removed. A
total of 35 parking spaces would be provided under the new
addition, with access taken from Santa Monica Boulevard and
Harvard Street. The R2 zoned parking lot would be restriped and
landscaped, and a total of 52 parking spaces provided (51 parking
spaces currently exist). Access to the rear parking lot would be
taken from both Harvard Street and the alley. A complete
description of the project can be found in the Planning
Commission staff report dated December 14, 1988 (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
At the July 20, 1987 meeting of the Planning commi.ssion, a
proposal to construct a four story/54', 66 room addition to the
comfort Inn was denied by a vote of 6-1. The project was denied
due to: 1) a failure to landscape the R2 zoned parking lot as
required by code; 2) the lack of a code required loading space;
and, 3) the project's size and height (Attachment A).
At the October 27, 1987 meeting of the city Council, the Planning
Commission's denial of DR 367 was upheld by a vote of 7-0. The
Council remanded the project to the Planning Commission for
building redesign, and redesign of the parking layout to conform
to the requirements of SMMC Section 9129F4 (Attachment C).
- 2 -
Revised plans for the proposed addition were subsequently filed
by the applicant on January 28, 1988, and deemed complete by
Planning staff on April 5, 1988. The revised plans were deemed
complete before April 29, 1988, and therefore not subject to the
requirements of the interim zoning ordinance (1441 (CCS)). The
revised plans included landscaping of the R2 zoned parking lot,
the provision of a loading space, and the reduction of building
height from four stories/56' to four storiesj40'. The use of
compact parking spaces, and the zone change were still proposed
as part of the revised plans.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Zone Change
The subject proposal includes a zone change for the existing
parking lot at the rear of the hotel from R2 to R2A. This change
in zoning would permit use of the site for parking by right
rather than depending on a Use Variance which was issued in 1971.
The Use Variance has no expiration date.
The existing 82 room Comfort Inn requires a total of 54 parking
spaces based on the former zoning code's parking requirement of
one space for each of the first 40 rooms, and one space per each
three rooms in excess of 40. There are currently a total of 51
parking spaces existing on the two R2 zoned lots, and 18 parking
spaces existing at-grade, below the hotel.
The proposed 66 room addition would require a total of 48 parking
spaces based on the same parking requirement, and considering the
- 3 -
addition independently of the existing structure. A total of 35
at grade parking spaces are proposed under the new addition, and
the remaining 13 parking spaces will be obtained on the R2 zoned
parcel. Denial of the zone change will prevent the R2 zoned
parking lot from being used to satisfy the new addition's parking
requirement, effectively preventing the proposal from going
forward.
General Plan Land Use Element POlicy 1.2.2 states that "surface
parking lots zoned residentially adjacent to commercial
corridors, when redeveloped, should be reserved for residential
use or public open space on the surface (use for underground
parking is acceptable). This policy shall not apply to lots
zoned "All Off-Street Parking District."
staff originally determined that the proposed landscaping and
restriping of the R2 zoned parking lot would not constitute a
redevelopment of the site. In addition, since the existing
hotel, which is supported by the R2 zoned parking lot, is not
being redeveloped, Policy 1.2.2 would not be applicable.
staff suggested that the applicant file a zone change for the
parking zoned lot from R2 to R2A, when the original application
was filed, in light of the pending adoption of a new zoning
ordinance, and the proposed inclusion in the zoning ordinance of
a 20 year sunset clause relating to use of residential lots for
surface parking. By rezoning the rear parking lot to R2A it
could be used to satisfy a portion of the new addition's parking
requirement. Based on Policy 1.2.2, the rezoning of the lot from
- 4 -
.
R2 to R2A would allow the parking lot to remain as long as the
use for which it is attached is maintained. Thus, the proposed
66 room addition could be permitted to use parking on the R2A
zoned parcel for as long as the use is not intensified, or the
building is not expanded.
Under the current zoning code adopted on September 7, 1988,
residentially zoned lots used for surface parking shall be
permitted to remain if: 1) the commercial parcel supported by the
residential parking lot is not redeveloped~ 2) the lot remains as
a surface parking lot; 3) the use or uses on the commercial
parcel supported by the residential parking lot do not change; 4)
the square footage of the existing commercial parcel is not
added to or enlarged beyond 50% of the floor area existing on the
effective date of the zoning ordinance; and,S) the required
parking for any new addition or expansion under 50% is not
located on the residentially zoned parking lot. This would allow
the existing 88 room hotel to be maintained without the loss of
the surface parking lot. At the time the original proposal was
submitted, the draft zoning ordinance included a 20 year sunset
clause for residentially zoned parking lots.
If the R2 parking lot is rezoned to R2A, and the proposed
expansion of the Comfort Inn is approved, under the current
zoning ordinance, the surface parking lot could be maintained if:
1) the commercial parcel supported by the "A" parcel is not
redeveloped; 2) the lot remains as a surface parking lot; 3) the
square footage of the existing building is not added to or
expanded beyond 50% of the floor area existing on the effective
- 5 -
date of this Chapter (SMMC section 9032.2); and, 4) the required
parking for any new addition or expansion of less than 50% of the
floor area is not located on the "A" parcel. There is no sunset
clause in the new zoning ordinance relating to residentially
zoned lots used for surface parking.
Project Design
The project is consistent with the development standards set
forth in the General Plan and Municipal Code in effect at the
time the project was deemed complete.
The project has been modified since the first appeal was brought
before the City Council. The building's overall height has been
reduced from 4 stories/56' to 4 stories/40', and the roofline has
been changed. A parapet wall extends approximately 6' above the
roof to screen mechanical equipment. A textured paving area is
proposed from the rear parking lot to the rear entrance of the
hotel, and a loading space is proposed per code. The rear
parking lot would also be landscaped per code requirements,
however, a 5' landscaped setback is not provided adjacent to the
residential district as required by the Planning Commission in
the past, and specifically required of this project.
The project is not consistent with the previous Municipal Code as
it relates to minimum parking stall dimensions. Under SMMC
section 9129F4, the minimum stall size is 8'-6" X 18'. There is
no provision for the use of compact parking spaces (7'-6" X 15').
The applicant was directed by the Council to conform to the
requirements of that code section, however, the revised plans do
- 6 -
not indicate compliance with that requirement. No application
for a variance from this requirement has been filed.
site Review
Under General Plan Land Use Element Pol icy 1. 6. 2 an FAR of 2. 0
and height limit of 3 stories/4S' is permitted with development
review, and an FAR of 2.5 and height limit of 4 stories/56' is
permitted with site review. The subject proposal has an FAR of
2.49, and an overall height of 4 stories/40', thus requiring site
review.
The General Plan indicates that site review should be denied if:
1) the project does not meet the height, bulk, setback, lot
coverage, use and design criteria contained in the zoning code:
2) the project developer does not mitigate adverse environmental
impacts identified in the initial study or environmental impact
report; 3) the project developer does not provide on-site
housing, or parks and open space in the number or amount
specified by the Elements or subsequent City ordinances or does
not pay a fee in-lieu of providing the mitigations on-site; and,
4) a standard staff analysis determines that the proj ect is
inconsistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan.
The subject proposal complies with the major development
standards set forth in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The
Initial study prepared for the project indicates that there are
no adverse environmental impacts. Finally, the provision of
affordable hotel rooms should benefit the city, and provide
additional revenues through hotel taxes.
- 7 -
The Planning Commission's denial of the proposed addition to the
Comfort Inn was based on findings that the the addition did not
meet the bulk and setback requirements set forth in the General
Plan by stepping down and relating to the adjacent residential
district. An example of the requested relationship between
residential and commercial uses is shown in figure 13 on page 69
of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (Attachment
F). In addition, the Planning Commission could not find that the
proposal was consistent with the Municipal Code due to the use of
compact parking spaces. Finally, the Planning Commission found
that the proposed zone change was not necessary, not in the
public interest, and that the residentially zoned lots should be
reverted to residential use or open space.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Reversal of the Planning Commission's determination, and approval
of the proposed addition, would result in increased revenues to
the City from hotel taxes. Conversely, by upholding the Planning
commission's determination, the revenue associated with
development of the hotel would not be realized.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council uphold the
Planning Commission's determination, and deny the sUbject appeal
with the findings contained in the Planning Commission's
statement of Official Action dated December 14, 1988 (Attachment
A) .
- 8 -
If the City Council should choose to approve the subject
proposal, the findings and conditions contained in the Planning
Commission staff report dated December 14, 1989 should be
adopted.
In addition, if the Council should choose to approve
the subject proposal, the City Attorney should be directed to
prepare an ordinance adopting the requested zone change, and a
Negative Declaration based on EIA 836 should be adopted.
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Assistant Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Attachments: A. Planning Commission statement of Official
Action dated December 14, 1988
B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated
December 14, 1988
C. City Council statement of Official Action
October 27, 1988
D. Appeal Letter
E. Figure 13 of LUCE
F. Correspondence (if any)
G. Initial Study
H. Project Plans
LM
PC/DR367ACC
04/18/89
- 9 -
\ l~
A"'Ac...'MME:.N T A
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NL~BER: DR 367A, Zone Change 28, EIA 836
LOCATION: 2801 Santa Monica Boulevard
APPLICANT: Charles Ting
REQUEST:
To Permit the Removal of the 21 unit Dawn Dee
Motel and the Construction of a 4 story/40', 66
Room Addition to an Existing 3 story, 82 Room
Motel
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
12/14/88
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and sub-
ject to the conditions below.
X Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS
1. That the development is inconsistent with the findings and
purpose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of the proposed struc-
tures on the site are incompatible with and do not relate
harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that
the project does not step down or relate to the height limit
of the adjacent residential district, which is inconsistent
with Policy 3.2.1 of the Land Use Element. In addition, the
project does not include a 5' landscape strip adjacent to the
residential district.
3. The existing and/or proposed rights of way and facilities for
both pedestrian and automobile traffic will not be adequate
to accommodate the anticipated results of the proposed
development in that the parking layout of the proposed
development does not conform to the requirements of former
SMMC section 9129F4, which requirement was in effect on April
8, 1988, the date on which the application for the proj ect
was deemed complete.
4. The proposed development is inconsistent with the General
Plan of the city of Santa Monica in that Policies 3.1.1 and
3.2.1 require that the perceived mass of the structures be
minimized through the use of stepbacks to the height limit of
- 1 -
the adjacent residential zones, and as proposed this project
does not provide any stepbacks on the north elevation.
ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS
1. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the goals, objec-
tives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the
General Plan.
2. The public necessity, public convenience and general welfare
do not require the proposed z one change from R2 to R2A in
that the existing land use is a legal non-conforming use
which should be reverted back to a residential or open space
use as part of the redevelopment of the adjacent site for the
proposed motel expansion.
3 . Good zoning practice does not require the proposed zone
change from R2 to R2A in that Pol icy 1. 2 . 2 of the Land Use
and circulation Element states that surface parkinq lots
zoned residential, adjacent to highway commercial corridors,
when redeveloped should be reserved for residential uses or
public open space. The parking for the proposed motel expan-
sion should, therefore, be incorporated on-site, within the
proposed development, thereby making the two R2 zoned parcels
available for redevelopment.
VOTE
Ayes: Pyne, Mechur, Lambert, Kaufman, Hecht, Farivar, Nelson
Nays:
Abstain
Absent:
Vacancy:
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final ~etermination of the Planninq Commission of
the City ot Santa Monica.
~~?d- ~~.. v~ /91'7
sf2nature date 21
~'l9_~#' Lc..-.v/..- A.J~~~.r/' ti~Q;'-/,..r~-r
:print name and title ? ?
LM
hp/STDR367A
12/28/88
- 2 -
<2
A"TA(~t\.\E.N.T B
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
DATE: December 14, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: DR 367A, EIA 836, Zone Change 28, To Permit the Removal
of a 21 Unit Motel and the Construction of a 4
Storyj40', 66 Room Addition to an Existing 3 Story 82
Room Motel. A Zone Change is Requested to Permit the
Two R2 Zoned Parcels at the Rear to be Rezoned R2A.
Address:
Applicant:
2801 Santa Monica Blvd.
Charles Ting
SUMMARY
Action: Development Review, Zone Change, and Initial Study to
permi t the construction of a 4 story, 66 room addition to the
Comfort Inn. The proposal is being reviewed under the
requirements of the former zoning ordinance.
Recommendation: Approval.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 32,400 square foot parcel located on
the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Harvard Street
and Yale Street having a frontage of 216 feet along Santa Monica
Boulevard and a frontage of 150 feet along Harvard Street. The
subject property also includes a 15,000 square foot surface level
parking lot located behind the site on the east side of Harvard
Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue which is
composed of two seperate legal parcels. The parking lot has a
frontage of 80 feet along Harvard Street, and is separated from
the Comfort Inn by a IS' wide alley. Surrounding uses consist of
multi family residential uses (R2) to the north, commercial uses
(C4) to the south, commercial uses (C4) to the east, commercial
uses (C4) to the west.
Zoning District:
C4, R2
Land Use District:
Commercial Corridor, Residential
Parcel Area:
C4: 216' x 150' = 32,400 sq. ft.
R2: 80' x 187.5' = 15,000 sq. ft.
- 1 -
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposal is to permit the removal of the existing 21 unit
Dawn Dee Motel and the construction of a 4 story 66 room addition
to the existing 82 room Comfort Inn located at 2801 Santa Monica
Boulevard. Eighteen parking spaces below the existing building
will be retained with access taken from the alley at the rear of
the building. An existing driveway along Santa Monica Boulevard
will be removed.
A total of 35 at-grade parking spaces will be provided on the
ground floor of the new addition. Access to these spaces will be
provided from Santa Monica Blvd. and HaTVard Street.
Additionally, the existing surface parking lot to the rear of the
site will be restriped and landscaped, and a total of 52 parking
spaces will be provided. There are a total of 51 parking spaces
existing on the two R2 zoned parcels at the present time.
Access to this lot will continue to be provided from Harvard
Street and Santa Monica Boulevard, and the alley adjacent to the
lot. In 1971 a Variance was issued to permit this R2 lot to be
used for surface level parking in cotlnection with the motel
operation (Attachment B). The applicant is requesting a zone
change from R2 to R2A which would permit surface level parking by
right as permitted under the prior Zoning Ordinance.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project was deemed complete prior to April 29, 1988
and is therefore subject to the development requirements as
contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the
Municipal Code in effect at that time. The proposed project is
consistent with the Municipal Code and in conformity with the
General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
An Initial Study and Addendum to Initial study have been prepared
for this project, and approval of a Negative Declaration is
recommended. A public review period for the draft Initial study
commenced on May 22, 1987 and concluded on June 22, 1987. No
public comments on the draft Initial Study were received. An
addendum to the Initial Study has been prepared by Planning staff
in order to address the revised proj ect plans. The original
Final Initial study and Addendum to Initial study are attached
for review.
FEES
The project is not subject to the Parks and Housing Mitigation
Fees contained in the adopted Land Use Element.
- 2 -
BACKGROUND
The subject proposal was scheduled for the October 5, 1988
Planning commission meeting. The applicant requested that the
project be continued in order to study potential alternatives
relating to parking and building design. No alternatives have
been submitted, and the same proposal is being brought back to
the Planning Commission for review.
At the July 20, 1987 meeting of the Planning Commission, the
applicant's original proposal to construct a 4 story/54', 66
room, addition to the existing 82 room Comfort Inn was denied
(Attachment C). The Planning Commission denied the project for
the following reasons: 1) a failure to landscape the rear parking
lot as required by code: 2) a failure to provide a loading space
as required by code; and, 3) the project's excessive size and
height. In addition, the Planning Commission found that the Rent
Control Department, being a responsible agency under CEQA, should
have been notified of any proposed development that will effect
its resources, and allowed to respond to the draft Initial Study.
At the October 27, 1987 meeting of the City Council, the Planning
Commiss ion's denial of DR 367 and Z one Change 28 was upheld.
Planning staff had recommended that the project be remanded back
to the Planning Commission for redesign, and that the Planning
Commission's denial of Zone Change 28 be reversed (Attachment D).
The City Council denied the appeal and remanded the project back
to the Planning Commission for redesign of the building, and a
redesign of the rear parking lot in order to conform with SMMC
9129F4 (Attachment E). The proposed Zone Change was also
remanded back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
The applicant has resubmitted plans for a 4 story, 66 room,
addition to the Comfort Inn. The revised project plans include
landscaping of the rear parking lot, the provision of a loading
space as required by SMMC 9130B, and a reduction of the
building's overall height fro11\ 4. stories/54' to 4. stories/401.
The applicant is still requesting the rezoning of the rear
parking lot from R2 to R2A. The issue regarding parking space
dimensions, conformance with SMMC Sec. 9l29F4, has since been
resolved. Under Ordinance 1321, Section 2(f) (3), review of final
parking lot layout is subject to the review and approval of the
Parking and Traffic Engineer. The subject plans have been
reviewed and approved by the Parking and Traffic Engineer, and
compact spaces have been permitted.
Staff has notified the Rent Control Department of the proposed
development of the subject site. It is the determination of the
Rent Control Department that a removal permit for the Dawn Dee
Motel is necessary. In the normal processing of a project that
requires a removal permit, the removal permit is obtained prior
to the project being brought before the Planning commission. A
condition requiring that a removal permit be obtained prior to
the issuance of building permits for the 66 room addition comfort
- 3 -
Inn has been placed on the project since the a removal permit was
not obtained prior to the project being submitted for review.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Zone Change
The applicant is requesting a zone change for the parking area at
the rear of the hotel from R2 to R2A. This change in zoning
would permit the use of the area for parking by right rather than
depending on the variance for such use which was issued in 1971.
Policy 1.2.2. states that surface parking lots zoned
residentially adjacent to highway commercial corridors when
redeveloped, should be reserved for residential use or pUblic
open space on the surface (use for underground parking is
acceptable). The surface level parking lot at the rear of the
proposed addition represents the precise land use situation
addressed by the pol icy. In that the appl icant proposes to
landscape the lot, one could argue that this constitutes
redevelopment. However, staff maintains that this is a minor
modification to an existing use and will not alter the
characteristics of the site or represent a further encroachment
of commercial uses into residential areas but will serve to
improve the appearance of the lot, thereby, lessening its impact
on the adjacent residences.
The existing variance to permit surface level parking on this R2
lot does not have an expiration date. Under the new Zoning
Ordin ~ce the existing surface parking lot would be permitted to
conti.._e so long as no new additions to the hotel are proposed.
The proposed addition of 66 hotel rooms, however, does require
the use of some parking on the R2 lot, and as such would require
the rezoning of the parcel from R2 to R2A in order to be
permitted. The applicant has the option of providing all parking
for the proposed addition on-site, or adding the Off-Street
Parking District classification to the R2 designation. This
would not eliminate the ability to develop residential units to
R2 standards on the lot. Planning staff maintains that the
parking lot provides a transition between the commercial
buildings on Santa Monica Boulevard and the residential
development on Harvard Street, and the zone change should be
approved. As outlined in the Initial Study, the parking lot
lighting should be designed to be directed away from adj acent
residential properties while ensuring a safe parking area for the
motel guests. Additionally, the parking lot should be screened
and landscaped in conformance with Section 9127.J.l and section
9112 (SMMC).
Project Design
The proposed addition is consistent with the General Plan and
Municipal Code requirements in effect at the time the project was
deemed complete. Site review is required for both the proposed
height and FAR. The design of the proposed addition is generally
compatible with the existing Comfort Inn.
- 4 -
The Initial Study indicates that the Architectural Review Board
should pay particular attention to the rear elevation which faces
the residential units to the north and has minimal detailing and
articulation. The applicant has attempted to provide some
detailing on the rear facade through the use of a mansard roof
with dormer windows. In their review the Architectural Review
Board should also pay particular attention to the exterior
colors, textures and materials and landscaping to insure that a
visually consistent design is provided throughout the project.
Additionally, the Initial study recommends that a clearly defined
pedestrian access to the motel from the surface parking lot be
designed.
The project has been modified from the original proposal brought
before the Planning commission. The building's overall height
has been reduced from 4 stories/54' to 4 stories/40'. There has
been no reduction in the total floor area proposed. A parapet
wall will extend approximately 6' above the building's roofline
in order to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. In addition, a
textured paving area has been proposed from the rear parking lot
to the rear entrance of the building in order to provide a
clearly designated pedestrian access. The rear parking has also
been landscaped per code requirements. The applicant has used a
mansard roof treatment with dormer windows on the fourth floor of
the building's northern and southern elevations to reduce the
building's overall height, and to increase its articulation. The
provision of building articulation and a pedestrian walkway
address design concerns raised in the Initial Study.
Traffic ImpaC'+:s
A traffic
Associates.
project on
significant
analysis was prepared for this project
The study concluded that the impact of the
the local street system will be minimal
impacts due to project-related traffic.
by OKS
proposed
with no
Conclusion
The proposed addition is consistent with the policies and
objectives of the Land Use Element in that it provides a
pedestrian oriented design at the street frontages. Approval of
the zone change is necessary to approve the proposed 66 room
addition to the Comfort Inn Hotel. Failure to approve the zone
change would result in a technical denial of the Development
Review application since required parking for the proposed
addition is to be provided on the R2 lot.
The Planning Commission must act on the subject proposal at this
meeting due to Permit Streamlining constraints. The application
was submitted on January 28, 1988, and deemed complete on April
8, 1988. The six month time limit would have expired on October
8, 1988, however, a 90 day extension was granted. The last date
for a public hearing is December 21, 1988.
- 5 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning commission approve DR 367A,
EIA 836, Zone Change 28 with the following findings and
conditions.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FINDINGS
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Final Initial Study
and Negative Declaration should be certified in that:
1. The Commission has reviewed and considered the contents of
the Final Initial Study and Negative Declaration, consisting of
the Draft Initial study and Negative Declaration, public
comments, and responses.
2. The Final Initial study and Negative Declaration adequately
review and analyze potential environmental effects of the
proposed project.
3. The environmental review was conducted in accordance with
applicable state and City CEQA guidelines including preparation,
notification, and content requirements.
4. A Negative Declaration is appropriate, in that the Initial
study provides sufficient data to support a finding that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
FINDINGS
1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures
on the site are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the project is
designed to be compatible with the existing building
through the use of arched openings, raised planters and
varied setbacks along the street frontages. With the pro-
vision of additional articulation on the rear facade as
outlined in the conditions herein, a suitable transition
to the residential buildings will be provided.
3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development including off-street parking facilities
and access thereto in that a total of 105 parking spaces
with access from the alleys, Harvard street and Santa
Monica Blvd. are provided for the existing motel and pro-
posed addition which is in excess of the Municipal Code
requirements.
4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety facilities (includinq, but not limited to,
- 6 -
sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices,
protective services, and public utilities) will be ade-
quate-to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the zoning Ordinance
in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use
and urban design policies for the Commercial Corridor as
specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
conform to the appropriate zoninq requirements in effect
at the time the project was deemed complete.
ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS
1. The public necessity, public convenience and general wel-
fare require the proposed zone change from R2 to R2A in
that the change will not alter the existing land use
characteristics of the site, further, the zone change will
ensure the continued availability of off-street parking
for the existing hotel and new addition, while not
eliminating the ability to develop residential units on
the site in the future.
2. Good zoning practice requires the proposed zone change
from R2 to R2A in that the change will conform the zoning
classification to the existing land use on the property in
question; does not represent a change in intensity or na-
ture of the land use; does not represent a further en-
croachment of commerc ~l uses into residential areas, pro-
vides an adequate bu~.er between the commercial develop-
ment on Santa Monica Boulevard and the abutting R2
residential development on Harvard Street; and will ensure
that adequate parking continues to be provided for the
existing motel and new addition.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning commission
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of
Planning.
3. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval.
4. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
- 7 -
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
5. The parking lot shall be striped, screened and landscaped
in conformance with code requirements in effect at the
time the application for development was deemed complete.
6. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened in accordance with code requirements in effect
at the time the application for development was deemed
complete.
8. A 5 to 6 foot solid masonry wall shall be provided along
property lines which abut residential property in accor-
dance with code requirements in effect at the time the
application for development was deemed complete.
9. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
10. No noise generating compressors or other such equipment
shall be placed adjacent to neighboring residential
buildings.
11. Openable windows shall be pre ~ded throughout the project,
in a manner consistent with applicable building code and
energy conservation requirements.
12. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the city's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
13. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights-of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
14. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and/or directed
away from adjacent residential properties, with any such
lighting not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illumination
beyond the perimeter of the subject property.
15. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of twenty days from the date of determination or/ if ap-
pealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal.
- 8 -
16. This approval is for those plans dated 6/21/88, a copy of
which shall be maintained in the files of the city Plan-
ning -Oivision. Project development shall be consistent
with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these
conditions of approval.
17. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from
the site shall cover any load with a tarpaulin or other
secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The Architectural Review Board, in their review shall pay
particular attention to the design of the rear elevation
and shall consider requiring additional detailing and ar-
ticulation to reduce the project's visual mass. The Ar-
chitectural Review Board should also review the project's
pedestrian orientation and amenities: exterior colors,
textures and materials, window treatment; glazing: and
landscaping in order to ensure that the addition is com-
patible with the existing building. The Board should also
consider measures to reduce the mass and scale of the
building by varying the setbacks on the upper floors.
2. The Architectural Review Board should carefully review the
rear elevation and consider requiring a clearly defined
pedestrian access into the motel from the parking lot at
the rear.
3. The parking lot shall be landscaped ~nd screened in con-
formance with code requirements in e1 ~ct at the time the
application for development was deemed complete. These
requirements include a 5' landscape strip adjacent to all
public rights-of-way, and 1 tree per 1,200 square feet of
paved parking area.
4. Prior to the issuance of building permits I a removal per-
mit must be obtained from the Rent control Board.
5. Low flow toilets shall be provided as required by the
General Services Department.
6. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
7. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
- 9 -
8. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from
the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or
other-secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Assistant Planner
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Variance Determination Allowing Surface Parking
On an R2 Lot.
c. Planning Commission statement of Official
Action.
D. City Council staff Report of October 27, 1987.
E. City council statement of Official Action.
F. Planning Commission Staff Report of July 6, 1987
G. Initial Study and Addendum to Initial Study
H. Correspondence
LM:nh
DR367A
11/29/88
- 10 -
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category
Permitted Use
Height
F.A.R.
Parking
Municipal Code
C4: Highway
Commercial,
Permits Hotels
and Motels
R2: Permits
Residential
6 Stories/90'
3.3
1 Space/Room
for 1st 40
Rooms + Plus
1 Space/3
Rooms OVer 40
Rooms
Existing: 82
Rooms =' 54
Spaces
Addition: 66
Rooms =' 49
103 Parking
Spaces Required
Land Use
Element
Commercial
Corridor,
Permits
Hotels, Motels
3 Stories/45,
or
4 Stories/56'
With Site
Review
2.0; 2.5 With
Site Review
Same as
Municipal Code
- 11 -
Project
66 Room Addition
to Existing 82
Room Motel
4 Stories/40'
45,320 sq. ft.
existing; 35,484
sq. ft. prop.:
80,804/32,400 -
2.49 FAR.
105 Parking
Spaces provided
--..;
. .JIi#--~-
-......
~
~
/ - ~ l;,,-..~'o.:;': 1
,.
1- :'I.~:':~-JG3 .:t:;J :'E::::?~I~;A !'::~
0: -::';E Z"::..I:N~ A ~r..-:I;i:S7E.ATCR
L~0~ ~?~:~ArIJi FOR A
........ -" '" .~ ... ~
VJi...."i.----^...,,,~'.
"JSZ
)
_~~ app:~~atloa ;0= a Varl~~ce { ~SE )!ro~ the r~:es,
=eb~:3~lcns and pr:y~s~cr.s o! Chapter :. A=t~cle :Z. ~unlclpal
Code of Santa vcn~ca, ~avl~g Jeen ::~ed ~y Senor & Erspamer
a.: ~he 0r~LO-~ , c! -:h"se cer~a:..n pr"e:ises S.l tua-eed l.~
-:r.e C:;.ty or. ..oa.!l,ra ~-or..~;::a, COWl-:y of Los .A."'lgeles, State of
Ca:1!c~c~~. :escr~~ed as
Lots 3,4,5.10, & 12. Serra Vista
Heights, ~. ~o. 3 as recorded
in the Of:!1.ce of: It;b.e County Re-
corder, Coun~ of Los Angeles,
Cal~fornia
~.J a hearl~g havlng been ~eld upon sald appl~cation as requlred
jy Cnr.?~er 1, A:tlcle IX, o~ tbe Munlclpal Cede of Santa Monica,
the Z~Nll{G A~~I~ISTRATCU new ma~es the following flnd~gs of fact.
i. 7hat the strlct appl1ca~lon of the ~rovlslo~S of
~h~p~e= 1, Art~cle IX, of t~e ~lcl~al Co~e of S~ta ~on1ca
wcut~ =esult 10 practlcal d~ff~cultles or unr.ecessary hards~ps
~nccnS~3~ent w1th the general p~rpose and lotent of this Chapter.
~n ~t.;),t
the ~sta11at~oD or the mi~'mal cooking !aci11ties in 12 of the
57 u,nJ.ts coust."ltu:tes a reasonaole use of motel property.
2. ~t ~here ARE except~o~~l c~=c~stance5 or CO~~lt~ccS
appl1cable ~o the property lnvolved or to the intended use or
develop~e~t of the property that do not apply ger.era~ly to other
~=cpe!ty ~ t~e s~e nelghoc=~~cd or tene, ~n chat
the number of ~ts so treated is small in co~arlson to the
tota~ deve~opaeut.
3. !hat the grantlng of a var.la.:lce YlCt.'LD NeT BE
mater~ally de~rlmental to the publlC ~elrare or lnJur~ous to tbe
property O~ lcprove~en~s, ~n such zone or ~e~g~bo~hoCd ~ wc~c~
the property lS located, 1:1. t~~t
tl:1.e facJ.ll.ties are not su.eb. as to create b.ou.sekeeping nTl't1;s.
- 1 -
Allh:liNEN1 ~
//
:HE?EFORE, the Zoni~; A~~~ist~ator dete~~~nes tbat the
~cq~e:ted varlance be }t herewlth 15 g~~~ted r~OQ the ~ule5.
~egulat~~ns acd p~OV1Sl ns ot Chapter 1, A=t~cle ~\. ~~~~cl~al
Code of Santa ~onlca. .rmlttlng the appl1Callt or :essee or
succossor :~ int~~~ to use tee ~ro~erty herel~be!ore descrlte~
(2815 Santa i'Io!Uca Blvd. ,R2 &) p4J, to per:u.t the :ul.S~allatio.tl. of
.... - "11_"
Dwyer lUtchen UnitS fJ! the ser~eS 400 nod.els in 12 :otel um.ts and
fur~~er to use all o! ~ots 10 & 12 Serra V~sta Ee~ghts Ext~slcn
No. 3 for pa:~ ~ connectiQ~ ~th the motel operatlon.
SU3';ZCT TO THE ?Ou..O\JING TERMS Al'fD CO:'iDI ': IONS .
a. The var~ance hereby allowed 15 conditional upon the
;r:v:leges oelng utllized wlth~n 180 days atter the e!!ect~ve eate
t~ereof. and l! not uti11zed or construc~lon work 15 not begun
wlt~ln sald tlme, and carrled on diligently to completlon of at
least one usable unlt. thlS authori~atlon shall become void and
arv pr1v~lege or variance granted hereby shall be deemed to have
lapsed.
b. That the appllcant ~all comply with all other ~rovisions
of Chnpter 1. Article IX. ~un~clpal Code at Santa ~on1ca. and
wlth all othe~ per~inent ordinances ot the City ot Santa ~onica.
c. Tbat the w:u.ts installed shall be Dwyer 400 Series units.
d. That all resldential uses and structures shall be removed
from Lots 10 0 1.2 Serra Vista Heights Extension No.3. the lot
paved and a solJ.d masollry ....al1. not less tr.JI~ S' nor :more than 6'
l.n. b.e~ght be COJlStructed along the W'l,. lot line ot Lot 12 except
tl1a.t tl:le front 15' ot the wall s~1-!. be not less than. 3' nor :l10re
than 3*' 1n height.
e. That a solid masc:cry vall not less than ;,' ]lor more than
3~' l.n heJ.gb.t shall be construl:ted aeross tb.e !ront prope:ty lines
of Lots 10 &: 12.
:f. That the apartmeuts located on Lot 14. Serra Vista H8J.gh.~ s
Extens1.on No. 3 shall be opera:ted as a.psr~ents onlY and :c.Qi; a.a B.tI.
e~ens~on of or & part ot the :l1otel operat10n~ rentals to be tor
pe::'~od.s of not less than ;0 ci.ays. 1!he apart:m.euts are not to be used
tor or rented to transients or Fersons s~ less th~~ 30 days.
DATl!:D- 'lb.is?Q day ot September ,19E
Z. A. CASE NO: 3303-iJ
ADDRESS: 2817 Santa ~onica Blvd.., R.2 & C4
Not effective until conditions
set !orth in Sec.9146B5 or tne
~uniclpal Code shall have been ~et.
~
~ Sj/w/ LUNSFORD
Zan~ Administrator
A.cting
- 2 -
---