Loading...
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 -