SR-400-004-10 (3)~r+ . .
City Councii Report
~ City of
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: April 11, 2006
Agenda Item: t C
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Interim Director, Planning and Community Development
Subject: Existing Non-conforming Hotel and Motel Uses in Residential Districts
within the Coastal Zone.
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance
modifying Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.18.040 to allow for the
continuation of existing non-conforming hotel and motel uses in residential districts
within the Coastal Zone.
Executive Summary
The owner of the Bayside Hotel at 2001 Ocean Avenue filed an application for a text
amendment to allow the hotel to remain in operation beyond September 2008. At the
time that the hotel was built, in the early 1950s, the area was zoned R-4, and hotels
were permitted. The hotel became legally non-conforming in 1989 when the area was
re-zoned to Ocean Park Medium Multiple Family district (OP-3), which does not permit
hotels or motels. Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.18.040 requires
the amortization of commercial uses in residential zones within 20 years of the date of
1
adoption (September 1988); therefore, the hotel must be discontinued, removed or
altered to a conforming use by September 2008.
The applicant proposed Text Amendment 05-004 to modify SMMC Section 9.04.18.040
by adding a new paragraph (j) to allow for the continuation of existing non-conforming
hotel and motel uses in residential districts within the Coastal Zone, including the OP-3
district. The hotel and motel uses would remain legal non-conforming.
As the ordinance would allow for the continued operation of existing hotels/motels, there
are no budget impacts.
Discussion
Analysis
The proposed text amendment applies to non-conforming hoteis and motels that have
been continuously operated since prior to the adoption of SMMC Section
9.04.18.040(b), or non-conforming hotels and motels which have been authorized by an
Administrative Approval, Development Review Permit, Conditional Use Permit or
Development Agreement prior to the date of adoption. The existing non-conforming
hotel/motel wou~d be operated in compliance with such approva~ and could not expand
or intensify in use.
2
The approval of the attached ordinance wilf aflow owners of legal nonconforming
hotels/motels located on residentiafly zoned parcels within the Coastal Zone to continue
to operate their facilities if they meet the following criteria:
1} The existing hotel/motel is located on a residentia{ly-zoned parcel within the
Coastal Zone (portions of the R2R, R-3, R-4, OP-2, OP-3, RVC, and R2B
zoning districts) ;
2) The existing hotel/motel has been in continuous operation since the adoption
of SMMC Section 9.04.18.040 (September 1988), or has been authorized by
an Administrative Approval, Development Review Permit, Conditional Use
Permit or Development Agreement and is being operated in compliance with
such approval; and
3) The hotel/motel is not expanded or intensified in use
The proposed ordinance will enable the owners of the hotels and mote{s to invest in
maintenance and improvements to ensure that their existing hotels and motels will be
preserved throughout their useful life. In addition, the continued operation of these
hotels and motels will sustain the economic benefits provided to the City from these
businesses through taxes and preservation of existing jobs.
The approval of the proposed ordinance is consistent with the intent of Proposition S,
approved by voters in 1990, which established the Beach Overlay District. Propositian
S prohibited new hotels and motels but did not mandate the discontinuation of existing
hotels and motels within the Beach Overlay District.
If the proposed ordinance is not adopted, the applicant would be required to discontinue
operation of the Bayside Hotel by 2008. Although the net loss to the City is unknown,
3
there would be loss of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the site and loss of any jobs
associated with the hotel use. In 2005, the hotel paid approximately $210,000 in TOT,
and currently has 12 full time employees, and 9 part time employees. The zoning
regulations would require any new use to comply with the permitted uses in the OP-3
residential district.
Commission Action
On February 15, 2006, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the
City Council approve the ordinance amendment (Planning Commission staff report and
mllluteS: http://santa-monica.org/planning/commission/~endas/pc2006/pa20060215.htm)
In forwarding a recommendation to the Council, the Commission found that the
amendment is consistent with Land Use Element Objective 1.1 which states that City
policies should work to improve the quality of life for all residents by providing a balance
of land uses consistent with:
^ Fulfilling the City's role as a regional recreational and business center; and
^ Ensuring the fair treatment of property owners and residents of the City.
Alternatives
In evaluating the ordinance, staff considered the option of limiting the proposal to the
OP-3 area rather than all residential districts in the Coastal Zone, but recommends
more inclusive language to allow greater support for the potential benefits of preserving
existing hotels that meet these specific conditions.
4
In addition to the recommended action, the Council may:
1) Adopt the proposed ordinance with modified text fanguage, or
2) Disapprove the proposed ordinance.
CEQA Status
The project is categoricaily exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Class 5,
Section 15305(a) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the proposal allows for
a minor alteration in land use limitations to permit existing non-conforming hotel and
motel uses to remain.
Budget/Financial Impact
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
Prepared by:
Sarah D. Lejeune, AICP, Senior Planner
5
Approved:
,-
(
Andy Agle
Interim Director
Planning and Community Development
Attachments:
Forwarded to Council:
A. Proposed Ordinance
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\baysidehoteltextamend-1.doc
City Council Meeting 4-11-06 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
9.04.18.040 TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF EXISTING NON-CONFORMING
HOTEL AND MOTEL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE COASTAL
ZONE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.18 040(b),
nonconforming commercial buildings and uses shall be discontinued by September
2008 if the use is not authorized in the zoning district or overlay district in which the
building is located; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment would authorize legal nonconforming
hotels/motels located on residentially zoned parcels within the Coastal Zone to continue
to operate if the existing hotel/motel has been in continuous operation since September
1988 or is being operated in compliance with a specified land use permit and the
hotel/motel is not expanded or intensified in use; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2005, the owner of the Bayside Hotel, Darius
Nourafshen, filed an application for a text amendment substantively the same as the
proposed text amendment; and
1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed text amendment
at a public hearing on February 15, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City
Council approve the request as modified by staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this proposed Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment on April 11, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan,
specifically Land Use Objective 1.1 which provides that the quality of life for all residents
should be improved by providing a balance of land uses that are consistent with fulfilling
the City's role as a regional recreational and business center, and ensuring fair
treatment of property owners and residents of the City in that this amendment permits
the continued operation of existing non-conforming hotel/motel uses throughout the
useful life of buildings designed for that specific purpose; and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of
the proposed amendment in that the general welfare of the City is enhanced when the
owners of visitor serving hotels and motels are allowed to continue to use of their
building throughout the building's useful life and the continued operation of these hotels
and motels will continue to provide economic benefits to the City and will preserve lower
wage job opportunities to residents and others,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
2
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.18.040 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.04.18.040. Termination of
nonconforming buildings and uses.
Nonconforming commercial or industrial buildings and
uses in the R1, R2, R2R, R3, R4, RVC, OP-1, OP-2, OP-3,
OP-4 and OP-Duplex Districts shall be discontinued and
removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this
Chapter within the following time limits from the effective
date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter:
(a) A nonconforming use which does not occupy a
structure, other than those uses listed below: one year.
(b) All buildings on the property used as a part of a
business conducted on the property, except as provided
below: twenty years. This subsection does not require the
removal of nonconforming buildings if the use occupying the
building is authorized in the zoning district or overlay district
in which the building is located, either as a permitted use, a
conditionally permitted use, a use subject to a performance
standards permit, or a use subject to a use permit.
(c) Vehicle sales, service, storage and repair
buildings and uses shall be permitted to remain provided:
3
(1) The vehicle sales, service, repair and storage
buildings are not expanded as provided in Section
9.04.18.020 and the use is not intensified as provided in
Section 9.04.18.030.
(2) The commerciai parcel supported by the vehicle
sales, service, repair and storage buildings is not
redeveloped for another use.
(d) Automobile storage lots which are used for short
or long-term parking of vehicles for sale or lease at an off-
site or on-site automobile dealership or for service or repair
at an on-site automobile dealership shall be permitted to
remain provided:
(1) The automobile storage lot is not expanded or
enlarged.
(2) The commercial parcel supported by the
automobile storage lot is not redeveloped for another use.
(e) Parking lots on residential zoned parcels shall
be permitted to remain provided:
(1) The commercial parcel supported by the
residential parking lot is not redeve)oped for another use.
4
(2) The lot remains as a surFace level parking lot.
(3) The use or uses existing on the commercial
parcel supported by the residential parking lot do not
change. For purposes of this requirement, a change of use
shall be defined as any new use which requires more
intense parking standards than exists on the effective date of
the ordinance codified in this Chapter.
(4) The square footage of the existing commercial
building on the commercial parcel is not added to or
enlarged beyond fifty percent of the floor area existing on the
effective date of this Chapter.
(5) The required parking for any new addition or
expansion under fifty percent is not located on the
residentially zoned parking lot. A parking lot on a
residentially zoned parcel shall revert to residential use when
one or more of the above conditions are not met.
(fl Existing commercial or industrial uses in
residential districts with valid conditional use permits that do
not contain time limits, except as otherwise provided in this
Section, including subsection (i): five years.
5
The Planning Commission may extend the five-year
period, but in no case more than ten years, provided the
applicant demonstrates that exceptional circumstances
prevented the termination of the use. A public hearing shall
be conducted in accordance with the provisions for
conditional use permits in Part 9.04.20.22.
(g) Existing general office, medical office and
neighborhood-serving buildings and uses in existence as of
1982 shall be allowed to remain provided the building is not
expanded as provided in Section 9.04.18.020 and the use is
not intensified as provided in Section 9.04.18.030.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Section, if a conditional use permit or a use permit for an
existing commercial or industrial use in a residential district
has a specific time period that such conditional use
terminates, the use shall terminate pursuant to the permit
and not this Section. A limited duration conditional use
permit or use permit may be extended or renewed, whether
or not the conditional use permit or use permit has already
expired, upon a showing that:
6
(1) The use has been in continuous operation since
the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance (September 8,
1988);
(2) There will be no change, expansion or
intensification of the use; and
(3) All the findings of fact established in Section
9.04.20.12.040 (conditional use permit) or Section
9.04.20.11.040 (use permit) can be made in an affirmative
manner. Before extending or renewing a conditional use
permit or use permit, a public hearing shall be conducted in
accordance with Part 9.04.20.22. The Planning Commission
(or City Council on appeal) may approve, conditionally
approve, or deny such an extension or renewal application,
in whole or in part. The Planning Commission (or City
Council on appeal) may impose such conditions as may be
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare and secure the objectives of the General
Plan, including conditions designed to insure compatibility of
the existing commercial or industrial use with neighboring
residential uses. Notwithstanding the granting of an
extension or renewal of a conditional use permit or use
permit, the commercial or industrial use shall remain a legal
nonconforming use subject to Section 9.04.18.030, and as a
7
nonconforming use, it shall be permitted to continue only so
long as the use remains substantially the same type of use
as the use of the property on the effective date of the Zoning
Ordinance and the basic operational features of the use and
its impact on the neighborhood are not altered.
(i) Commercial and industrial uses that would
otherwise terminate pursuant to subsection (fl of this Section
shall be permitted to remain and are not required to be
discontinued, removed, or altered to conform to the
provisions of this Chapter provided all of the following
conditions are met:
(1) The building in which the uses are located has
been in existence since the effective date of this Chapter
(September 8, 1988);
(2) The building was specifically designed,
approved and built for the commercial or industrial use(s);
(3) The building is not demolished or substantially
remodeled;
(4) The property on which the building is located is
adjacent to, or across an alley from, a commercial district;
8
(5) There will be no change, expansion, or
intensification of the use; and
(6) The conditional use permit has been extended in
accordance with this subdivision (6). Before extending a
conditional use permit, a public hearing shall be conducted
in accordance with Part 9.04.20.22. The findings of fact
established in Section 9.04.20.12.040 (b)-(I) shall be made in
an affirmative manner. The Planning Commission (or City
Council on appeal) may approve, conditionally approve or
deny such an extension application, in whole or in part. The
Planning Commission (or City Council on appeal) may
impose such conditions as may be deemed necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and
secure the objectives of the General Plan, including
conditions designed to insure compatibility of the existing
commercial or industrial use with neighboring residential
uses. Notwithstanding the granting of an extension of a
conditional use permit, the commercial or industrial use shall
remain a legal nonconforming use subject to Section
9.04.18.030, and as a nonconforming use, it shall be
permitted to continue only so long as the use remains
substantially the same type of use as the use of the property
on the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance and the basic
9
operational features of the use and its impact on the
neighborhood are not altered.
Notwithstandina subsection 9.04.18.040tb), a hotel
or motel located on a residentiallv-zoned aarcel within the
Coastal Zone shall be aermitted to remain qrovided that it
meets one of the two criteria in subdivision (1) of this
subsection Q) and meets the criterion in subdivision (2} of
this subsection (j):
~) The hotel or motel either: ~A) has been in
continuous operation since September 1988; or (B) the hatel
or motel was authorized aursuant to an Administrative
Appraval, Development Review Permit, Conditional Use
Permit or Development Aqreement approval prior to
September 1988 and is bein.g operated in campliance with
such approval; and
(2) Such hotel or motel is not abandoned as provided
in Section 9.04.18.030(b), is not expanded as provided in
Section 9.04.18.030(d) and is not intensified as provided in
Section 9.04.18.030(e).
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
10
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Counci! hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
MA HA JO MOUTRIE
City A orney
11