SR-400-002-01 (13)
f!C'c~ ooz-o/
/2-A
,IAN 2 7 1~81
califg~a 3 1987
C/ED:RAS Santa Monica,
Council Mtg: January 27, 1987
TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial Of A
Ordinance Text Amendment To Section 9119.B.3.g.
To Permit Hotels On Main street South Of Bay.
Zoning
(SMMC)
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council continue the appeal
to May 12, 1987 to allow a representative advisory group to
conduct a public review process as described herein for the
purpose of reviewing and making recommendations on this and any
other proposed amendments to the Main street Special Commercial
District. Further, the report recommends that the council direct
staff to assist in convening the advisory group and to bring back
to the Council their recommendations.
BACKGROUND
On September 8, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on an application for a text amendment to the Main Street
Special Commercial District (hereafter referred to as the CM
District) which would allow hotels north of Bay Street by
Conditional Use Permit (Attachment A). The amendment requested
by the applicant would strike the words "north of Bay Street"
from section 9119. B. 3. g. (SMMC) . The Text Amendment application
was considered by the Planning commission concurrently with other
applications for a General Plan Amendment to permit 6 stories and
64 feet; a Development Review Application 336 for a mixed use
- 1 -
/2-A
JAN 2 7 1911
FEB 1~11
project including hotel, residential, retail, restaurant and
office; and a Conditional Use Permit Application 409 for a
restaurant over 49 seats. The Planning Commission denied all
applications in connection with this project pursuant to the
findings attached to the statement of Official Action (Attachment
B) .
On September 10, 1986 the applicant, Peter de Krassel, appealed
the Planning Commission denial of the Text Amendment only
(Attachment C). On september 23, 1986 the Council accepted that
appeal and set a hearing date. The appeal hearing, originally
scheduled for November 25, 1986, was rescheduled for January 13,
1987 and on that date was continued to January 27, 1987 at the
appellant's request.
ANALYSIS
Under Section 9119.B.3.g. (SMMC), hotels are permitted north of
Bay Street only with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Hotel
uses are prohibited unless specifically permitted. Therefore, a
Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is required to permit any
hotel to be located south of Bay street. The applicant's
proposed amendment (Attachment DJ would delete the reference to
the location so that section 9119.B.3.g would read "g. Hotels and
hostels, (not motels)."
The amendment would permit hotels by conditional Use Permit
anywhere along Main street in the CM District. without
attempting to analyze the economic viability of hotels, staff
- 2 -
estimates that there are a number of locations along Main street
where such a development might occur.
Consistency with Adopted policies
Policy 1.5.4. of the Land Use Element encourages "day and night
pedestrian activity along the street frontage(s) of Main
Street.. .by requiring active uses oriented to walk-in traffic,
especially retail and commercial recreation, small inns and
restaurants. " Hotel uses would encourage day and night
pedestrian activity. However, to be consistent with the
reference to II small inns, II a size limitation would be
appropriate.
Policy 1.6.7. of the Land Use Element specifies that "Main street
should accommodate a variety of uses, inCluding commercial uses,
which provide daily necessities, places of employment, and
leisure time opportunities for those living in the surrounding
community and the greater Santa Monica area, as well as for the
area's large number of tourists. Such uses include but are not
limited to retail stores, off ices, banks, delicatessens,
laundromats, and small restaurants." Although hotel uses would
not provide for daily necessities for local residents, they do
provide employment and leisure time opportunities consistent with
this policy.
Section 9119 of the Zoning Ordinance (SMMC), under Legislative
Findings, makes the Statement of Intent that tiThe Main street
special commercial District is established to encourage physical
improvements of low to moderate scale which will continue to be
- 3 -
compatible with nearby commercial and residential uses... II . In
order for hotels to be consistent with the intent of the Zone
District they would have to be of low and moderate scale.
compatibility With surrounding Uses
Main street is specified on the Land Use Element map as being
Neighborhood Commercial, and although the intent of the CM
district is to encourage a greater variety of commercial and
residential uses other than just neighborhood commercial, it is
clear that such uses should be compatible with surrounding
commercial and residential uses.
The Initial study (Attachment E) which was prepared for this
project examined the environmental affects of an alternative
project consisting of a retail/office development on the proposed
site. The study concluded that a retail/office project of
approximately the same square footage as the proposed project
would contribute significantly more traffic and noise to the
area, would generate the need for more electricity and, as a
result of the increased traffic, would increase air pollutants.
Impacts on geotechnical resources and fire and police protection
would remain approximately the same regardless of which
alternative is developed.
Currently hotels would be permitted in the CM4 district north of
Bay where more intense uses serve as a transitional area between
the C4 Highway Commercial District and the less intense CM2 and
CM3 uses. In a similar manner, the CM4 parcels south of pier
- 4 -
could also serve to provide for the scaling down of development
between the City of Los Angeles and the rest of Main street.
Public Review
Policy 1.6.7. of the Land Use Element states that "Future
proposals to change the Main street Special Commercial District
and Main Street Plan shall be considered by the Planning
Commission and City council only after review by residents,
business people, and property owners 1 i ving and working in the
area." Currently, neither the Land Use Element nor the Municipal
Code specify any particular process which must occur to satisfy
this policy requirement.
The applicant presented testimony to the Planning commission that
information about the proposed text amendment and the related
project was widely distributed in the area and that a number of
public meetings were held to allow residents, merchants, property
owners, and other interested parties to review the proposal and
make comments.
Conclusion
By combining the policies contained in the Land Use Element and
the Main street Special Commercial District with the conclusion
of the Initial study that a mixed use development with a hotel is
less intensive than an office/retail complex of approximately the
same square footage, small hotels could be deemed consistent with
the adopted policies of the city.
staff, while supportive of the hotel uses in concept, if limited
in size and location, concludes that the the intent of the Land
- 5 -
Use Element has not been implemented. Staff recommends that the
amendment be continued for ninety days to permit a public review
process to take place which replicates, to the extent possible,
the original process that produced the Main street Plan.
COMMUNITY PROCESS
At the time the Council set this appeal for hearing, staff was
directed to report on options regarding further review and
amendment of the Main Street Plan. While staff believes strongly
that there should be only one formal process for amending the
zoning Ordinance (that recommended in the revised zoning code
itself), Policy 1.6.7. of the Land Use Element does specify that
changes to the eM District should be considered only after a
public review process has occurred. This public review process,
which would apply to any group or individual proposing an
amendment to the zone district, should occur prior to the formal
process spelled out in the code.
There are two basic approaches to satisfying this policy
requirement and still maintaining one city-wide text amendment
procedure. First, the applicant could be responsible for seeing
that information is made available to the community and that
public meetings are held prior to filing an application with the
city. In this scenario the public review process utilized would
be described in the application and the city would deem the
process adequate or inadequate for action.
The second and preferred approach is to request the various
interest groups which participated in the preparation of the
- 6 -
original plan to appoint representatives to conduct a pUblic
review process similar to that which produced the plan and to
develop recommendations on proposed amendments to the CM
district.
staff recommends that the advisory group consist of ten members,
balanced to represent the various interests in the area, and
suggests that two members of the review group be appointed by the
neighborhood organization: one each appointed by Sea Colony,
Santa Monica Shores, and the senior housing proj ects; and five
appointed by the organizations representing the merchants and
developers on Main street.
It is envisioned that this advisory group would review the
request which is the subject of this appeal and bring forward a
recommendation to the City Council on May 12, 1987. Staff should
work with the various interests to assist in convening the
advisory group.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
section 9149 C(4) sets forth the procedure the council shall
follow when considering a text amendment application denied by
the Planning Commission. The council by a majority vote of the
voting membership may uphold the Planning Commission action and
deny the appeal, grant the appeal, or continue it.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or financial impact on the city.
- 7 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council:
1. Continue the appeal to the regular Council meeting of May 12,
1987 to allow a representative advisory group of ten members
to
conduct
a
pUblic
review
process
and
to
make
recommendations on this and any other proposed amendments to
the Main street Special Commercial District; and
2. Direct staff to assist in convening this advisory group.
Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachment A - September 8, 1986 Planning Commission staff report
Attachment B - Planning Commission Statement of Official Action
Attachment C - Appeal Letter
Attachment D - Application for Text Amendment
Attachment E - Initial Study
SF:RAS
Scrtch3
01/22/87
- 8 -
, ,
,'1
ATTACHMEN'.:' .n..
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Commun~ty and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: September 8, 1986
TO: The Honorable Planning Commisslon
FROM: R. Ann Slracusa, Dlrector of Plannlng
SUBJECT: DR 336, CUP 409, EIA 799, To Permlt the Constructlon of
a 71, 250 Sq. Ft. Ml..xed Use Development Wlth Hotel,
Office, Resldential and Retall Space.
Address:
Applicant;
3105-3109 Maln Street
Scratch Beach Inn, Ltd.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 28,720 sq. ft. parcel located on the
east slde of Na~n Street, and bounded by Har ~ne Street to the
north, Second Street to the east and an alley to the south. The
property has 155.9' of frontage on Main Street. Surroundlng uses
cons~st of cormnercial uses (Cr-i4) to the north, the Powerhouse
Theatre (CM4) and Clty boundary to the south, mult~-fan~ly
res1dential uses to the east (R3) and cornmerc1al.uses to the west
( cr-14) .
20nlng D1..strlct:
CH4
Land Use D1..strlct:
Commerclal Corrldor
Parcel Area:
28, 720 Sq. F t.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed proJect conslsts of a s~x-story 71,250 sq.ft. mlxed
use bUlldlng wlth a 64 unlt hotel, SlX res~dentlal unlts totallng
4,800 sq. ft., 4,300 square feet of ground floor retal1 space,
L 620 square feet of offices, and a 1,780 sq. ft. 100-150 seat
restaurant. ~he pro] ect. also lncl udes a two-level subterranean
garage w1th 146 parklng spaces. As proposed, the proJect
requ1res a Text Amendment to the ZODlng Ordlnanee to allow hotels
south of Bay Street, a General Plan Amendment to permit a helght
llmit of 6 stor~es, 64', and a parking variance to permit 134
parking spaces to be in tandem and operated through a valet
park1ng system. A Condlt~onal Use Permlt 1..S requlred per Sect10n
9119B2.m&n to permlt a contiguous use 1n excess of 8,600 sq.ft.
of floor area, and in excess of 75 feet of contlguous ground
floor frontage on Maln Street. A CUP lS also needed for
restaurants over 50 seats per SeetloD 9119826 (SMMC). Currently
-
- 1 -
- ."",
the s~te 15 occup~ed by a restaurant, ~ts assoc~ated parking, a
slngle story commerc1al bU11dlng and an electrlcal substat~on.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORtlANCE
The proposed proJect ~s ~nconslstent w1th the Mun~c1pal Code and
the General Plan In the following respects (Attachment A):
Hotels are not perm1tted south of Bay Street 1n the Maln Street
Speclal CommerClal District [Sect1on 9119B2G (SMMC)].
The helght l~mi t for
proposed proJect 15 6
C1rculation Elements).
the CH4 zone
stor1.es, 64'
1S 4 storles, 47',
(POllCY 1. 6.7 Land
and
Use
the
and
A parklng variance wl11 be requlred to perm1.t 134 spaces to be
located 1.n tandem wlth a valet system.
CEQA STATUS
An Initlal Study has been prepared for th~s proJect. Cop~e5 of
the Init1al Study were dlstributed to the Plannlng CowmlSSlon 1n
July at the beg1nn~ng of the 30 day publ~c reVlew per1od.
Conunents rece~ved durlng the review perlod and responses to the
COIT~ents are ~ncorporated ~nto the F~nal Inlt~al study (Exh~Olt
B). Addl.t1onally, comments were rece~ved from the State
Department of Transportatlon, D~ Vls~on of Aeronaut1cs and fro",
the Los Angeles Regl.on of the Ca11forn.:;..a Regl.on 'i-iater QuaIl ty
Control Board followlng closure of the publ1c reVlew perlod.
(Exhlblt C) These corr~ents have been forwarded to the appllcant
and Plannlng staff recowmends that the Plannlng Commlss~on
conslder them when evaluatlng the proposed proJect.
ANALYSIS
Build1ng He~ght
As proposed, the proJect lS 6 storles, 64', in helght. In that 4
:stories, 47', 15 the he~ght l~mlt In the CM4 zone an arendcent to
the Land Use and C1.!"culatlon Elements of the General Plan 1S
required to permlt th~s development. The appl~cant has indlcated
in his appllcatlon fOr a General Plan Amendment that thlS
amendnent is consLstent wlth the ~ntent of PolLcles 1.5.6, 1.5.8
and 1.6.3 of the Land Use and CLrculatlon Elerrents. Wh1le
Pollc~es 1.5.'6 and 1.6.3 pel:"r:\~t an increased helght lu'ut '-N"l"';:h
s1te reVlew, they only pertaln to the Oceanfront Dlstrlct and the
Broadway Cow.merClal Carr ldor. Addl tlonally, whl1e Policy 1.5.8
perm~ts hotel helghts to be governed by the perr.:~tted bu~ldl:1g
helght 1.p feet rather than by the number of storles, thls
pertalns to the Oceanfront D~strlct. Furtherr;tore, as proposed
th~s proJect exceeds both the bUl1dlng he1ght calculated ~n feet
and storles for the CM4 Dlstrlct.
After careful rev~ew of thls proposed amendnent, Plann1ng staff
feels that the eX1stlng he1ght 11ffilts on Ma~n Street as outllned
1.n Polley 1.6.7 of the Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements
- 2 -
contribute to the low-scale qual~ty and pedestrlan or~ented
characterlstics of the street and should not be altered.
Addltlonally shadlng lmpacts on adJacent propert~es would be
lncreased as a result of the lncreased height limlt. Staff
malnta1ns that the present height 11ml t of 4 stor1es, 47' 1S
adequate to accommodate co~merc1al development in the CM4
D1strict.
Proposed Hotel Use
As proposed, the proJect includes a 64 unlt hotel with support
fac~ll. tles l.ncl ud1ng a health club, sW1.mllung pools and lounge
area. Vnder Sect10n 911983g hotels are only perm1.tted north of
Bay Street w1th approval of a Condl.tional Use Permit. Hotel uses
are proh1b1ted unless spec1f1cally perm1tted. Therefore, a Text
Amendment to the Zon~ng Ordl.nance ~s requ1.red to perm1 t th1S
hotel whl.ch 1S located south of Bay Street. The 1n1 tl.al Study
wh~ch was prepared for thl.s proJect examlned the environmental
affects of an alternatl.ve proJect cons1stlng of a reta1ljoffl.ce
development on thl.S site. The study concluded that a
reta1ljofflce proJect of approxlmately the same amount of square
footage as the proposed proJect would contr1bute slgn1flcantly
more trafflc and nOlse to the area, would generate the need fer
more electr1c~ ty and as a result of the lncreased trafflC a"n
lncrease in pollutant a1r eml.SS 10ns would result. 1rapacts on
geotechnl.cal resources, f~re and police protectl.on would rema~n
approx1mately the same regardless of WhlCh alterna~lve lS
developed.
As outll.ned in Sectl.cn 9119 (SHIvlC) of the ~lal.n Street Speclal
Corf'Jnerc~al Dlstr~ct Regulat~ons, Na~n Street has hlstorlcally
accommodated a v3r~ety of uses for the reS1aents of the
surroundlng area and for the area's tourlsts. Add~tlonally, the
street lS located near a popular beach area wh1ch 1S frequented
by a large number of Vlsltors. The Ma~n Street Speclal
Commercl.al Distrlct was estab1~shed to encourage low to moderate
scale developments wh.l.ch w1ll be compat.l.ble wlth the ex~st1ng
comrnercl.al and resldentlal uses and w1l1 provlde a varlety of
services and goods "consl.stent wl.th the hlstor1cal pattern".
By co~bln~ng the Mal.n Street Speclal Commerclal Dlstrlct pollc1es
wlth the conclus1ons of the Inl.tlal Study that a ffilxed use
development wlth a hotel lS less lntenslve ln many respects than
an offlcejreta1.1 complex of approxl~ately the same square
footage, Plan~lng staff supports the concept of perrnlttlng small
hotels on Maln Street south of Bay Street. However, wh11e staff
is support1ve of the use ~n concept, pursuant to LUE Pol~cy 2.1,
the Planning COIT~lSS10n recently lndlcated, consl.stent w1th prlor
staff recommendatlons, that changes to the Text of the Maln
Street Pian should occur as a result of a publ1C process where
there .1.5 consl.derable publlC part1c1patlon. Therefore, for
conslstent app1icatl.on of the LUE POllCY, staff recorrmends that
any amendments to the eM Dlstr1ct occur only through a pub11.c
process conslstent wlth that used ln establlsh1ng the eM D~str1ct
standards.
- J -
Parking and Traff~c Analysls
A traff~c ~mpact study prepared by Mohle, Grover and Associates
analyzed intersectlon capaclty before and after complet~on of the
proJect. The study concluded that wh11e there would be an
increase in trafflC volume as a result of this proJect, no
signlflcant trafflC impacts on the adJacent street system would
occur.
As proposed, the proJect includes a total of 146 parking spaces
wlth 134 parking spaces located 1n tandem. The appllcant
proposes to provlde a valet park1ng attendant to serve the
development. A separate varlance hearlng before the Zonlng
Admlnlstrator 1S requlred to permlt these tandem park1ng spaces.
Conclus1on
The proposed proJect does ~ not conform to the Municipal Code
requirements for the CM4 District or the Land Use Element
polic1es for the Maln Street Commerclal Corridor. Plannlng staff
cannot support an amendment to the General Plan to allow 6
stor1es, 64', on Maln Street, and feels that a Text Amendment to
the Zon~ng Ordlnance allowlng hotels on Ma~n Street, south of Bay
Street should only occur through a publlC part1clpatlon process;
therefore, staff recommends denlal of the proposed proJect as
subl'lltted.
RECOrvIMENDh'T IOK
Planning staff respectfully recorrmends:
1. That the Plannlng Commlsslon deny the proposed amenanent to
the Land Use Element pertalnlng to the perml tted helghts on
Maln Street accordlng to the flndlngs below.
2. That the Plannlng CO~~lsslon deny the proposed text amendment
to the CM Dlstr~ct based on the flndings below.
3. That the Plann~ns COITJU1SSlon deny DR 334, and CUP 409 based
on the flndlngs below.
General Plan Amendwent Flndlng for Cenlal
1. The proposed amendnent does not represent good plannlng
practlce in that the Land Use Element Standards were the
result of a comprehenslve plannlng process deslgned to
provlde for a future of coordlnated, adJusted and harmonlous
deve~opment on Maln Street. 'Ihe eXlstlng standards reflect
future needs that wll1 best promote publlC health, safety,
morals, convenlence I and the general welfare whlle taklng
J.nto account the need for eff1c~ency and econoMY to the
development process. Any amendment to the development
1ntensltles proposed wlthout a thorough rev~ew by resldents,
buslness people, and property owners IJ.v1.ng and worklng In
the area would conf11.ct w~th the Clty'S goal of publ1C
- 4 -
partlcipat~on as outllned In Po11cy 1.6.7 of the adopted Land
Use Element.
Text P~endment Findlngs for Denlal
1. The proposed amendment to the Zon1ng Code text lS not in
accordance W1 th good zon1ng pract1ce or in the publ1C
interest ~n that in accordance W1 th POllCY 2.1 and 1.6.7
of the Land Use and C1rculat1on Elements changes to the
zoning ord1nance should occur as a result of a publlC pro-
cess wh~ch ~nvolves citizen and neighborhood participatlon
to ensure that the publlC conven1ence is met.
Development ReV1ew Find1ngs for Den1al
1. The development lS lnconslstent with the flndlngs and pur-
pose of Ord1nance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The phYS1Cal locatlon and placement of proposed structures
on the Slte are not compatlble and do not relate harrno-
nlou51y to surroundlng sites and nelghborhoods ln that the
proposed proJect exceeds the helght Ilm1t permltted ln the
CM4 zone and includes a 64 unit hotel WhlCh lS not a per-
mltted use south of Bay Street 1n the Maln Street Speclal
COITmerclal Dlstrlct.
3. The proposed development is incons15tent wlth the General
Plan of the Clty of Santa Monlca and the Zonlng OrOlnance
in that the proJect does not conform to the helght, bul~,
use and urban des1gn pol1cles for the Maln Street Co~~er-
c~al Corr1dor as spec1f1ed In the Land Use Element of the
General Plan and does not conform to the approprlate CM4
standards contalned In the Zonlng Ordlnance.
Condlt1onal Use Permlt F1ndings For Den1al
4. The proposed use and locatlon are not In accordance .....1. th
good zon1ng practlce or 1n the public lnterest ln that the
proJect exceeds the helght Ilmlt permltted 1n the Land Use
Element and lncludes a hotel over 8,600 sq. ft. Wh1Ch lS a
:<Slngle contlguous use and 15 not a perm1tted use uhder the
Maln Street Spec1al Cornmerclal D1str1ct regulatlons.
The proposed use lS lncompatlble w~th eXlst1r.g and poten-
tlal uses w1thln the general area In that hotels are cur-
rently not a perml tted use on Na1n Street, south of Bay
Street.
Prepared "by: Karen Rosenberg, ASSOc1ate Planner
KR:nh
DR336
08/26/86
- 5 -
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GE~ERAL PLAN CONFOR}IANCE
Category
Perm1tted Use
Height
Setbacks
Front yard
Sldeyard
Rearyard
F.A.R.
Park1ng
MunlClpal Code
CM4: permlts
retail, offlce
and resident1al
unJ..ts above 1st
floor. Hotels
prohibited
south of Bay
Street
Requires public
inv~ted uses at
ground floor
4 stor~es, 47'
3% of sJ..te
area x stor~es
= 861. 6 x 6 ;;
51169.6 sq.ft.
None requlred
None requlred
3.3
Hotel: 76
.. spaces
(64 rooms =
48 spaces
requJ..red +
8.500 sq.ft.
@ 1:300 =
28 spaces
requ1red)
Off1ce: 5 spaces
0.620 sq.ft. @
Land Use
Element
Same as
MUn:lClpal Code
Same as
r--lunlc1pal Code
Same as
Nunlcipal Code
Same as
f'Iunlclpal Code
Same as
t-1un~c1pal Code
2.5
Same as
HunlcJ..pal Code
- 6 -
ProJect
M1.xed use hotel,
retal.l, offlce,
resident1al
complex
(Hotel use not
permitted under
current Code)
6 stor1es, 64'
L 903 sq. ft. at
f1rst floor
(dces not include
846 sq. ft. patJ..o
at;"ea covered by
roof)
a nlnlITIUn of
1,350sq.ft.
floors 2-6
south: 7'
north: none
None prov1ded
2.48
146 parkJ..ng
spaces provlded
1:300 = 5
spaces requlred)
Resldent1al: 11 spaces
(A total of
6 unlts,
4 unlts requlre
2 spaces/unit
1 unlt requlres
1. 5/spaces/unlt
1 un1t requlres
l/space/unlt
= 11 spaces
required)
Retail: 14 spaces
(4,300 sq.ft. @
1:300 = 14
spaces requlred)
Restaurant: 20 - 30 spaces
(100-150 seats @
1:5 seats =
20-30 spaces
requ1red)
Total Park1ng
Requlred =
l26-136 spaces
(depends upon
nunber of
res~aurant
seats
"
- 7 -
(
r
Insert 1
The proposed amendment would allow, open site reVlew,
approval of hotel and/or inn projects throughout the Ma1n
Street Commercial D1strlct. Th~s amendment request is belng
made In conJunctlon wlth a proposed bed and breakfast lnn at
the current slte of Scratch restaurant.
The proposed use of a mlxed use commerc1al complex wlth
substantlal square footage devoted to a bed and breakfast inn
would be a welcome additlon to the ne1ghborhood. The
commerclally zoned propertles adJacent to the subJect are in
the process of development as offlce/retal1 complexes. The
entlre Maln Street area has become a reglonally recogn1zed
shopplng/restaurant area. The oceanfront dlstrlct
lmmedlately to the west of the subJect parcel is one of
Southern Callfornla's flnest and well known recreat10nal
areas. The ocean, beach, Maln Street and Venlce Boardwalk
are all wlthln a short walk.
As far as appl1cant knows, the proposed bed and breakfast lnn
lS the only full service fac111ty of its klnd proposed for
the area. Glven lts proxlmlty to the range of recreat10nal
V1S1tor orlented areas, the lnn would become the central
Vls1tor servlng faCl11ty of the Ma1n Street Commerc1al
Dlstrlct. In fact, the City has encouraged the expanSlon of
new flrst class tranSlent occupancy rooms. The faclllty
would permlt the Vls1tor to the Maln Street area to stay
there rather than return to a hotel In Westwood or West Los
Angeles area, lmpactlng favorably the number of trafflc ~r1ps
in the Maln Street area.
The fac111ty wlll create a need for the type of ne1ghborhood/
communlty servlng facll1tles that the Maln Street plan
enV1Slons. Those OccuPYlng the rooms wlll be 1n need of many
of the same serVlces as those llving in the surround1ng
communlty. A drug store, travel services, bakery, florlst
and photo shop are all 1ntegral components of creatlng a full
service Bed and Breakfast Inn. The sculpture garden and
patio area wll1 all be open to the publlC as wlll the health
club, by membershlp.
(-
/-
~
'.
Insert 2
with the proposed amendment, the Plann1ng CommlSS10n can
declde, on a site-by-site bas1s, the sU1tabllity of hotel/
lnn proJects at proposed sites. In the case of the proposal
for a bed and breakfast 1nn at the Slte of Scratch, the
parcel ltself appears to be equally sUltable to e1ther the
proposed or currently permltted uses.
The current zonlng for the subJect parcel would perm1t
construct1on of a four story off1ce retall center. Such a
fac1llty would generate cons1derably more traffic than the
proposed structure w1th 1tS emphas1s on tranSlent and
permanent hous1ng.
Current developments 1n the 1mmed1ate area all are or1ented
toward office/retall centers. The proposed bed and breakfast
lnn wlll help crate the dlvers1ty Wh1Ch the Santa Mon1ca Land
Use Element suggests 1S the baSlS for contlnued success of
the Maln Street commerc~al d1strlct.
Hlstorlcallly the area has been oriented toward provldlng
trans lent res1dences.
. ,
..
(~
r
\.
Insert 3
The new language, as proposed, w~ll allow the Plann1ng
Comm1SS10n to make thlS deterrn1nat~on on a slte by slte
bas1s. In the case of the proposal at hand, the hotel/1nn
use would not be detr1mental. In fact the proposed use lS
beneficlal to surrounding nelghbors.
The proposed structure would generate substant1ally less
trafflc than the currently perrnlssible uses. All traff1c to
the structure wll1 enter off Marine Avenue and all parklng
wl1l be valet - 24 hours a day.
The faClllty wll1 help create greater securlty for all
res~dents In the area. The faC111ty ltself wlll have 24 hour
a day securlty.
The facilltles available to guests of the lnn wlll be
avallable to those livlng in the ne1ghborhood. A varlety of
conven1ently located comrnun1ty orlented serVlces such as a
drug store, bakery, health club and flor1st wlll all be
essentlal elements of the bed and breakfast lnn.
e
e
1e2-fl
JAN 1 3 1987
C/ED:RAS: L/tJd-OO/;i. -6/
Council Mtg: January 13, 1987
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation To continue Appeal Of Planning
Commission Denial of Text Amendment To The CM District
And Set New Hearing Date
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council continue the appeal
filed by Peter de Krassel of the Planning Commission denial of a
Text Amendment to the CM District to January 27, 1987.
BACKGROUND
On September 23, 1986, the Council accepted an appeal filed by
Peter de Krassel of the Planning commission denial of a Text
Amendment to the CN: District to permit hotels south of Bay
street. At that time the matter was set for public hearing on
November 25, 1986. Because the November 25 meeting of the City
council was an organizational meeting with no regular agenda
items scheduled, this pUblic hearing was continued to January 13,
1987. The applicant has requested that this matter be continued
to January 27, 1987.
This Text Amendment application was considered by the Planning
commission concurrently with other applications for a General
Plan Amendment to permit 6 stories and 64 feet; a Development
Review Application 336 for a mixed use project including hotel,
residential, retail, restaurant and office~ and a Conditional Use
- 1 -
a-A
JAN 1 3 1981
e
e
Permit Application 409 for a restaurant over 49 seats. On
September
9,
1986,
the
Planning
Commission
denied
all
applications in connection with this project. The applicant has
appealed only the denial of the Text Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the city council continue the
appeal filed by Peter de Krassel of the Planning Commission
denial of a Text Amendment to the CM District from January 13,
1987, to January 27, 1987.
Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Community and Economic Development Department
RAS
Scrtch4
01/07/87
- 2 -