SR 04-26-2022 6A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 26, 2022
Agenda Item: 6.A
1 of 36
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica
Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning
Commission's Denial of Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow Meal and
Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing
Restaurant
Recommended Action
Staff recommends Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt the determination that the proposal to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing
restaurant to the public is exempt under CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (Class
1) for Existing Facilities, in that the project involves the operation, repair,
maintenance, permitting, leasing, or licensing of an existing hotel to extend its
guest-only meal and alcoholic beverage services to the public in its existing
onsite restaurant;
2. Introduce for first reading a proposed ordinance to amend Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.08.020 to establish a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
requirement for an existing legal, nonconforming hotel restaurant located within
the R2 and R3 zoning districts to request approval to provide meal service to the
general public, provided that certain criteria are met;
3. Grant the appeals of Planning Commission’s denial of two Conditional Use
Permits associated with the Oceana Hotel’s request to 1) provide meal service to
the general public pursuant to the proposed text amendment; and 2) modify the
hotel’s existing alcohol CUP to provide service to the general public;
4. Approve Conditional Use Permits 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090; and
5. Approve the Statement of Official Action.
Executive Summary
City Council is being asked to approve a proposed Zoning Text Amendment (20ENT-
0236) and two Conditional Use Permit applications (20ENT-0237 and 20ENT-0091) in
6.A
Packet Pg. 704
2 of 36
response to applications filed by the owner of the Oceana Hotel, located at 849 Ocean
Avenue
The Oceana Hotel’s Request
The Oceana Hotel is a 70-room hotel located in the R3 (Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential District). At the time the hotel was built in 1958, lodging was a permitted
use in the zone. Today, new hotels are not permitted in the R3 District, and the
Oceana Hotel is classified as a legal, non-conforming use.
The Oceana Hotel has an existing restaurant with food and beverage services that
can only be offered and available to the hotel’s guests and their visitors. The Oceana
now proposes to offer food and beverage services in its existing restaurant to
members of the general public. The restaurant would not increase in size or
capacity.
As a legal nonconforming use, the City’s current regulations prohibit the Hotel from
extending the existing restaurant’s services to the general public. The applicant has
proposed a Text Amendment that would create the opportunity to extend its existing
restaurant meal and alcoholic beverage services to the general public. The service
enhancement would increase the economic viability of the existing restaurant and
support one of the hotel’s goals of being a local and favorite dining option for the
surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed Text Amendment, as modified by staff, would amend land use
regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically Santa Monica Municipal Code
“SMMC” Section 9.08 (Multi-Unit Residential Districts), to allow an existing legal,
nonconforming hotel restaurant located within the R2 and R3 zoning districts to provide
meal service to the general public, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). The text amendment would limit such requests to a legal, nonconforming hotel
that has an existing restaurant that currently provides full sit-down meal service and
has an existing alcohol CUP. Upon review of potentially eligible hotels, the Oceana
Hotel is the only hotel currently in the R2 or R3 Districts that meet these criteria. The
6.A
Packet Pg. 705
3 of 36
CUP requirement will provide an opportunity for public review and input on the hotel’s
request to ensure neighborhood needs are understood and addressed.
Consistent with the staff-recommended CUP requirement that would be established by
the proposed Text Amendment, the applicant filed for new Conditional Use Permit
21ENT-0090 to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing restaurant to the general public
within established indoor and outdoor dining facilities on the hotel property.
The applicant also filed Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237 to amend the hotel’s
existing Conditional Use Permit 96CUP-009 associated with its current ABC Type 70
alcohol license to provide alcohol service to the general public with the hotel’s full-
service restaurant meal service with an ABC Type 47 alcohol license (On-Sale General
– Eating Place).
The Planning Commission’s Consideration and Applicant Appeal
On June 9, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to: 1) make a formal
recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Text Amendment; and 2)
consider the CUP applications. Staff outlined its support for the proposed Text
Amendment and also recommended that the Planning Commission vote to approve the
two CUP applications, with the express limitation that such approvals would only be
valid upon City Council approval of the Text Amendment.
As discussed more fully in this report, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-3, did
not recommend that Council approve the Text Amendment. The Planning Commission
also reviewed and took a formal action to deny the Oceana Hotel’s requests for
approval of the two CUP applications, primarily based on its failure to recommend that
the City Council approve the text amendment necessary to allow the CUPs to move
forward.
The applicant filed two timely appeals of the Planning Commission’s denial of the CUP
applications, arguing that there is ample evidence in the record to make the findings for
both applications. Moreover, the appeals state that the applicant fully supports the full
6.A
Packet Pg. 706
4 of 36
range of both the staff-recommended conditions and recommended conditions
included in the Planning Commission’s denial of the CUPs that directly address project
operations to ensure that the restaurant’s service to the public would be appropriately
managed without creating impacts to the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the Text Amendment is not
subject to appeal because the Planning Commission only provides a recommendation
to the City Council for its consideration.
The Council’s Considerations
The City Council is being asked to consider whether to:
• Approve the Text Amendment based on the findings set forth in the proposed
Ordinance provided in Attachment “A”; and
• Grant both appeals and approve both CUP applications based on the findings
and conditions of approval provided in Attachment “B”.
The approvals for the CUP applications would not become effective unless and until the
proposed Text Amendment is adopted by the City Council and the enabling ordinance
becomes effective, 30 days after second reading.
The following issues that are addressed in this report should be considered by the City
Council in its review of the proposed Text Amendment and CUPs:
• The appropriateness of the proposed Text Amendment to allow existing legal
nonconforming hotels in the R2 or R3 Zoning Districts to apply for a CUP to
expand its existing full-service restaurant to the general public, provided certain
criteria are met.
• The appropriateness of extending existing guest/visitor only alcohol service to the
general public in conjunction with full-service restaurant meal service within an
existing legal nonconforming hotel located within the R2 or R3 Zoning Districts.
6.A
Packet Pg. 707
5 of 36
• The effectiveness of the recommended conditions of approval in minimizing any
potential adverse impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood in
conjunction with the proposed expansion of meal and alcohol service to the
general public.
The City Council’s Consideration and Settlement
On November 23, 2021, the City Council considered the Text Amendment and the
appeals of Planning Commission’s denial of the two CUP applications. A motion to
introduce the Text Amendment for first reading failed by a 3-3 vote, with one council
member absent. Without the Text Amendment, the proposed use would not be
conditionally permitted within the applicable Zoning District. Because the Council did
not introduce the Text Amendment for first reading, the two appeals could not be
upheld, and the CUP amendments could not be approved. Thus, Council voted to deny
the appeals and the CUP applications by a 5-1 vote, with one council member absent.
On February 22, 2022, the City Council, by a 7-0 vote, approved a settlement with the
applicant that would result in termination of threatened litigation over alleged procedural
irregularities in the City Council’s proceedings on November 23, 2021. Under the
settlement, the City Council agreed to conduct a de novo hearing to consider anew the
Text Amendment and appeals of the Planning Commission’s denial of the two CUP
applications. The settlement requires the City Council to conduct the de novo hearing
prior to June 30, 2022 with all seven City Council members present.
Background – Project Site Information
Zoning District Medium Density Residential (R3)
Land Use Element
Designation
Medium Density Housing
Parcel Area (SF)/Dimensions 30,000 square-foot rectangular lot / 200’ W x 150’ D
Existing On-Site
Improvements
Approximately 62,200 square-foot 3-story, 70-room
hotel above subterranean parking level
Rent Control Status Exempt - Commercial Property
6.A
Packet Pg. 708
6 of 36
Adjacent Zoning Districts &
Land Uses
North: R3 – Multi-Unit Residential
East: R3 – Multi-Unit Residential
South: R3 – Multi-Unit Residential
West: OS-BCH – Palisades Park
Historic Resources Inventory
The building not listed on the HRI.
Site Location Map:
The Oceana Hotel is located at the northeast corner of Ocean and Idaho Avenues
within the R3 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. The site is surrounded
by multi-family residential buildings along its north, south, and east sides, but fronts
Palisades Park and the ocean) along its west facade. There are preferential parking
restrictions on Idaho Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street, and on other
streets in the immediate area, which limit parking without a permit between the hours
of 6pm and 8am daily.
Ocean Ave
Idaho Ave
Palisades Park
Oceana Hotel
2nd St
6.A
Packet Pg. 709
7 of 36
Background – Hotel Use and Zoning
The parcel at 849 Ocean Avenue was developed in 1957 with a 3-story, 192-room, 60
family apartment building above a subterranean parking garage within the R4 zoning
district. In May 1958, the apartment began its transition into a hotel. Under the Hotel’s
zoning designation at the time, both apartment buildings and hotels were permitted
land uses.
Over a span of many years, the hotel use has been constant and continuous, but the
underlying zone of the property has changed, along with associated regulations for
those designations, resulting in the hotel identified at different times as a permitted
use, a legal nonconforming use, and an allowed use (Limited Use authorized subject to
certain limitations), as more fully explained in Attachment “H”.
Today, the 70-room hotel maintains a central courtyard with a pool that is the hotel’s
primary public space. Entries to all rooms/suites are accessible from interior
corridors. The building’s subterranean parking is accessible from the adjoining First
Court alley at the rear. The building design and configuration minimizes potential noise
impacts to within the hotel interior spaces and helps prevent noise from impacting
nearby residential buildings.
As a boutique hotel, a range of amenities were established and incorporated into the
existing menu of services and amenities to enhance guest experience, including an
onsite restaurant, food service, alcoholic beverage service in common areas, in-room
mini bar, pool, excursion/sightseeing packages, spa/massage services, event planning,
transportation connection, among others.
For many hotels that have long been in continuous operation, these amenities predate
specific zoning requirements, including the need for separate review, approval or
entitlement applications, such as a CUP. The Oceana Hotel is no different. For
example, the hotel possesses an onsite restaurant, an ABC Alcohol License Type 70,
and Conditional Use Permit (96CUP-009) that allow the operator the ability to provide
meal and alcoholic beverage services to its guests and their visitors in the restaurant
6.A
Packet Pg. 710
8 of 36
and in certain common areas, such as around the pool deck, including the ability to
supply alcoholic beverages in refrigerators/mini bars, and in-room through room
service. The existing alcohol service within the aforementioned areas will be
maintained to hotel guests.
In addition to the Alcohol CUP noted above for the Oceana Hotel, other relevant
permits and approvals include the following:
• 95ARB-185: façade remodel and interior renovation of hotel).
• 95TA-005 & 006, 95ZC-001, 95GPA-001: associated with Ordinance 1832
(CCS).
• 06TA-003 & 06VAR-012 associated with Ordinance 2213 (CCS);
o created seven additional guest rooms within the existing floor area;
o Variance to waive the requirement to provide seven additional parking
spaces.
6.A
Packet Pg. 711
9 of 36
Figure 2: Site plan highlighting the existing onsite restaurant space and patio dining area and
other features that are part of the hotel guest amenities.
6.A
Packet Pg. 712
10 of 36
Figure 3: Exterior Elevations along Ocean and Idaho Avenues (June 2018).
Project Analysis
The applicant’s proposal to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing full-service restaurant to
the general public and to provide associated alcohol service with its meal service
would require review and approval of the following three applications which are each
discussed in this section of the report:
1. Text Amendment (20ENT-0236) to modify SMMC 9.08 and associated land
use regulations to establish a new CUP requirement for existing hotels
located in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts to open its existing restaurant to
the general public provided that the following criteria are met:
a. The hotel use was established and in existence as of January 1, 1995;
6.A
Packet Pg. 713
11 of 36
b. The Alcohol Conditional Use Permit allowing the onsite service of alcoholic
beverages to hotel guests and their visitors in guest rooms and in certain
common areas was approved by the City prior to July 23, 2015; and
c. The hotel’s existing restaurant prepares meals to order from a set menu in an
existing hotel kitchen for consumption on the premises; provides sit down
meal service during restaurant operating hours for breakfast, lunch and
dinner; and the hotel’s ancillary restaurant use has existed since prior to
July 23, 2015.
2. Conditional Use Permit (21ENT- 0090) to authorize the Oceana Hotel to open
its onsite restaurant to the general public, subject to operational conditions of
approval and contingent on Text Amendment approval; and
3. Conditional Use Permit (20ENT-0237) to amend the hotel’s existing alcohol
CUP (96CUP-009) to provide alcohol service to the public as part of the hotel’s
restaurant meal service, subject to operational conditions and contingent on
Text Amendment approval.
Overview of Proposed Text Amendment
The applicant’s proposal to open its existing onsite restaurant to the general public
would be considered an intensification of the legal nonconforming hotel use under
SMMC 9.27.050(E). Intensification of a legal nonconforming use is generally
prohibited; however, consistent with the principles set forth in SMMC Chapter 9.27,
which sets forth the Zoning Ordinance’s Nonconforming Uses and Structures
provisions, the City has the ability to determine whether a certain amount or type of
intensification of use may be permitted. Accordingly, the proposed Text Amendment as
modified by staff, provides an opportunity to extend the operations of an existing
restaurant in a legal nonconforming hotel to the general public, but also includes a
process to evaluate and impose operational conditions that may be needed to manage
this type of proposed incremental expansion of the hotel’s existing restaurant meal
service.
6.A
Packet Pg. 714
12 of 36
The Text Amendment would not allow for an expansion of an existing restaurant, nor
would it change the underlying identification of Hotels and Motels as a prohibited use
in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts. The proposed approach is designed to permit only
a modest incremental change in operations, and stands in contrast to a more impactful
scenario where an existing legal nonconforming hotel may seek to establish wholly
new restaurant meal service and alcohol service where none historically has been
provided on site.
Similarly, as noted in the Background section of this report, the Oceana Hotel
was permitted to add/create seven guest rooms with the adoption of a 2006 Text
Amendment that specifically allowed this expansion of the existing legal nonconforming
hotel.
The draft Text Amendment presented in this report reflects staff-recommended revisions
after evaluating the applicant’s original proposal, the overall goal and intent for the
request, and considering the potential impacts and benefits of the request to allow the
Oceana Hotel to open its existing guest-only restaurant to the public.
The proposed amendments to SMMC Section 9.08.020 and Table 9.08.020
regulating land uses within the Multi-Unit Residential Districts is provided in
Attachment “A”.
Purpose of Creating a New Conditional Use Permit Requirement
The Text Amendment proposes a new Conditional Use Permit requirement to provide
a discretionary process to review the necessity of special conditions to manage
potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed Text Amendment
would amend SMMC Section 9.08 (Multi-Unit Residential Districts), specifically SMMC
Section 9.08.020 – Land Use Regulations – to establish a Conditional Use Permit
requirement for an existing hotel restaurant located within the R2 and R3 Zoning
Districts to request approval to provide sit down meal service to the general public
provided that certain criteria are met.
6.A
Packet Pg. 715
13 of 36
The new CUP application requirement recommended under the proposed Text
Amendment requires the hotel’s request to be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission in a noticed public meeting. If adopted by Council, the new CUP
requirement would create a clear process for a legal non-conforming hotel to request
changes that involves public participation in order to hear, collect, consider, and
incorporate feedback from community members at large and from those who live in the
neighborhood.
The input raised by residents and the neighborhood is important to consider in the
context of a public hearing. For this reason, requiring a new CUP to open the
existing restaurant to the public is a sensible requirement in addition to the standard
requirement for amending an existing alcohol CUP when a change in license type or
a substantial change in mode or character of the alcohol service is proposed. The CUP
process allows for public input during a public hearing regarding proposed hotel
operations. Moreover, the CUP process provides an opportunity for the Planning
Commission to impose additional operational conditions as necessary in order to
mitigate potential commercial-related impacts and protect the integrity of the
residential neighborhood. Staff-recommended conditions are presented for
consideration later in this report.
Criteria for Requesting a Conditional Use Permit
The Text Amendment provides three criteria that must be met in order for a hotel
property to be eligible to apply for a CUP to open an existing hotel restaurant to the
general public in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts. These criteria are recommended in
order to ensure that such a request is an incremental expansion of an existing,
ancillary hotel amenity versus a request to initiate a broader expansion of brand new
food service activities that could result in greater impacts to the neighborhood:
1. The hotel use was established and in existence as of January 1, 1995;
6.A
Packet Pg. 716
14 of 36
2. The Alcohol Conditional Use Permit allowing the onsite service of alcoholic
beverages to hotel guests and their visitors in guest rooms and in certain
common areas was approved by the City prior to July 23, 2015; and
3. The hotel’s existing restaurant prepares meals to order from a set menu in an
existing hotel kitchen for consumption on the premises; provides sit down meal
service during restaurant operating hours for breakfast, lunch and dinner;
and the hotel’s ancillary restaurant use has existed since prior to July 23, 2015.
Proposed Criterion 1: The current Text Amendment proposal aligns with the general
construct established in 1995 that acknowledged hotels that were in existence as of
January 1, 1995 were deemed to be an allowed use and differentiated from a new hotel
use which remained a prohibited use in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts. The
purpose of this criterion is to establish parameters for applicability that are tied to the
historical evaluation of lodging in the multi-unit districts where the continuation of this
use has been deemed to be appropriate based on having a longstanding presence in
the neighborhood without causing significant or adverse impacts to the area.
Proposed Criterion 2: The requirement to have an alcohol CUP that was approved
prior to the adoption of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update, when hotel uses in the R2
and R3 Districts were deemed legal nonconforming, reinforces the incremental or
modest nature of the requested expansion of alcohol service at the property subject
to a discretionary public hearing, in contrast to allowing the potential for initiating brand
new alcohol service where no alcohol service is currently authorized on the property in
any form. Hotels and motels with existing guest-only alcohol service would be required
to amend its existing CUP in order to permit the extension of alcohol service to the
general public in conjunction with its existing restaurant meal service.
Proposed Criterion 3: This criterion requires that a hotel’s existing restaurant
prepares meals to order from a set menu in an existing hotel kitchen for
consumption on the premises; provides sit down meal service during restaurant
operating hours for breakfast, lunch and dinner; and the hotel’s ancillary restaurant use
6.A
Packet Pg. 717
15 of 36
has existed since prior to the effective date of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update, and
is similarly designed to reinforce the incremental or modest nature of a requested
expansion of restaurant service to the general public.
Oceana’s Eligibility Under Criteria
Staff has reviewed the Oceana Hotel’s permit history and operations to confirm that
the property meets all three criteria:
1) Oceana Hotel was established prior to 1995;
2) The hotel serves alcoholic beverages to guests and their visitors under
ABC Type 70 and an approved CUP as of July 23, 2015. The Oceana Hotel
currently holds an ABC Type 70 alcohol license which provides the ability for the
hotel to supply alcoholic beverages in refrigerators in guest rooms and serves
alcoholic beverages within specified common areas within the hotel’s property.
The associated Conditional Use Permit 96CUP-009 was approved by the
Planning Commission on August 7, 1996 and places limitation on alcohol service
only to registered guests and their visitors.
3) The hotel is equipped with an existing kitchen that currently prepares
meals for breakfast, lunch and dinner service as part of their onsite guest amenity
as of July 23, 2015. Based on permit record review, the onsite restaurant and
kitchen has been in existence in one form or another on the hotel’s property for
at least 15 years.
Eligibility of Other Hotels in the R2 and R3 Districts
The implications of the proposed Text Amendment on other existing hotel located in the
R2 and R3 Zoning Districts was raised by Wilmont Neighborhood Group members and
residents during a meeting with City staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing
and also during public testimony. Staff has compiled a list of hotels/motels in the R2
and R3 Zoning Districts as provided below. The proposed and qualifying criteria 1-3
were applied to the seven hotels/motels identified in the chart. Only one hotel meets
6.A
Packet Pg. 718
16 of 36
all three criteria and therefore qualifies to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to open
its existing onsite restaurant to the public.
Name
Zone
Existing
Hotel in
Operation as
of January 1,
1995
Hotel’s
Ancillary
Restaurant Use
Established
prior to July 23,
2015
Existing
Alcohol
CUP
Approved
prior to
July 23,
2015
Palm Motel
2020 14th Street
R2 Yes No No
Rest Haven Motel
815 Grant St
R2 Yes No No
Oceana Hotel
849 Ocean Ave
R3 Yes Yes Yes
Cal Mar Hotel
220 California Ave
R3 Yes No No
Sea Blue Motel
1670 Ocean Ave &
28,36 Arcadia Terrace
R3 Yes No No
Palihouse Hotel
1001 3rd Street
R3 Yes No No
Pavilions Motel
2338 Ocean Park Blvd
R3 Yes No No
Table 1: Existing legal nonconforming hotels/motels in the R2 and R3 zones (May 2021).
Analysis of Proposed CUP for Restaurant Service & Potential Neighborhood Impacts
Although the Oceana Hotel existed briefly as an apartment building, it has been in
continuous operation as a hotel since 1958. In its 63-plus years, the hotel has
developed and implemented a range of guest-related services and amenities typically
available at a boutique hotel of this kind, including an onsite restaurant. Because
these services and amenities are generally viewed as customary and since the
hotel is an older establishment, many of these services/amenities predate code-
related requirements.
The Oceana filed a similar proposal and application in April 2015 to open the
restaurant to the public, but the application was withdrawn in August 2015. Although
6.A
Packet Pg. 719
17 of 36
the processing of this application was not completed, this demonstrates the
ownership’s long-standing interest in opening its restaurant to the public and is
responsive to the consistent inquiries the hotel has received from nearby residents who
have expressed interest in having this dining experience in their own neighborhood.
6.A
Packet Pg. 720
18 of 36
Figure 4: Images of the dining room and patio dining area in courtyard.
As was shared by the applicant, the purpose of the Text Amendment and CUP
application is to allow the restaurant to become a local- and neighborhood-serving
amenity that can offer residents a new dining option and experience. Similarly, the
restaurant is permitted to offer meals for takeout, which is customary and considered
ancillary to the established use.
Also expressed by the ownership, like so many other hotels and businesses in the
hospitality industry, the Oceana Hotel has been financially impacted by the Covid-19
pandemic since its success is directly linked to the traveling public. Opening the
restaurant and extension of its services to the public would assist in its economic
recovery effort.
On the other hand, the hotel is located within the R3 Residential District
surrounded on three sides by mostly two- to four-story multi-unit apartment or
condominium buildings and faces Palisades Park. The neighborhood is located a
couple of blocks north of Downtown Santa Monica. For this reason, the proposal to open
the hotel’s existing restaurant to the public may be seen as another layer of
6.A
Packet Pg. 721
19 of 36
commercial intrusion into a residential zone. The applicant team reached out to
immediate neighbors to gauge the level of support or opposition and on April 6, 2021,
the applicant team met with the Wilmont Neighborhood Group to share the details of the
proposal, hear concerns, and gather input from the community.
In summary, there is both support for the request from the community and also
concern over commercial intrusion and impacts associated with potential noise,
traffic/circulation, parking, deliveries, and other commercial activity-related matters,
including the concern that this proposal would create an authorization for other existing
hotels in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts to create new restaurant and alcohol service
where none currently exists.
Figure 5: Dining Room and Patio Dining Layout – Combined Dining Area 1,556 SF / 67 Seats
Restaurant/Dining Room Patio Dining (in courtyard)
1,072 SF / 49 seats 484 SF / 18 seats
The existing restaurant dining room is approximately 1,072 SF and accommodates up
to 49 seats. An outdoor dining patio located next to the pool and in the courtyard is
also available for restaurant dining. This space is about 848 SF with 18 seats. Both
6.A
Packet Pg. 722
20 of 36
dining spaces and layout are shown above in Figure 5. The combined restaurant
dining space totals 1,556 SF and 67 seats. A restaurant waiting area is also shown in
the lobby.
The restaurant is located along the front primary façade next to the lobby facing
Ocean Avenue and by extension Palisades Park across the street and can be seen
from the public right-of-way. Its entry and access to the dining patio can only be
achieved internally by going through the hotel lobby and turning right into the
courtyard. This layout seemingly prevents restaurant guests from waiting or entering
on the exterior street facade of the restaurant or queuing in the public right-of- way
and potentially generate noise impacts to adjoining residential buildings.
Noise generated from the interior of the restaurant, and particularly the outdoor dining
patio will be contained within the central courtyard and will be minimized to nearby
buildings. Further, the location of the primary entry for hotel and restaurant
guests is located approximately midway on the front façade and away from the
periphery of the building closest to the north and south residential buildings and by
design will help limit noise impact to those residents. The hotel’s primary facade
fronting Palisades Park is also a benefit as it ensures that no residential buildings or
residents will be impacted by the restaurant.
The hotel, as a commercial entity, has continually existed next to and among its
residential neighbors for over 63 years without creating significant adverse quality of
life impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. In past years, there have been some
violations relating to exceeding construction hours or some aspects of the valet
service, but all were resolved in a timely manner. The hotel property is fully built out
and is legal, nonconforming with respect to aspects such as setbacks, building height,
and parcel coverage. It is unlikely that other significant improvements are possible or
will be pursued in the future within the envelope of the existing building. Nonetheless, a
variety of qualify of life concerns were expressed by nearby residents and the
surrounding neighborhood relating to potential noise impacts generated by additional
restaurant guests as well as competition for limited parking and circulation in and
6.A
Packet Pg. 723
21 of 36
around the hotel. The Planning Commission’s recommended conditions of approval
are intended to address and are reflective of these concerns.
Parking and Access
The 70-room hotel provides 66 parking spaces (58 striped and 8 in drive aisles
through valet) in its subterranean parking garage. The existing onsite restaurant in
its current operation with meal service limited to hotel guests is a hotel amenity. It is
not considered a separate stand-alone business. Parking at the facility is exclusively
valet operated. A Mobility Division-approved valet plan (20AVP-0005) is on file for
this property. The combined square footage of the existing restaurant, including patio
dining is 1,556 square feet. In terms of opening the existing restaurant to the public,
additional parking would be calculated at 50% of the rate of one space per 300 square
feet. This would result in a total of 2.5 spaces, which is rounded up to 3 spaces.
Additional parking is not required for this proposal pursuant to SMMC Section
9.28.020(B)(2), which waives the parking requirement for up to three spaces.
However, from a practical standpoint, in order to assess whether the applicant’s
proposal would be impactful to the neighborhood, staff evaluated the earlier
parking analyses prepared for the property associated with prior applications and
requested additional information to assess parking utilization prior to March 2020
and now, as lodging and hospitality activity is on the rise. Based on this review,
while additional parking is not required by code, the hotel’s existing parking supply
can satisfactorily accommodate an incremental increase in activity at the property
associated with opening the existing restaurant to the public based on a substantial
decrease in parking demand generated by the primary lodging use due in large part to
the prevalence of ride-hailing/transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft
that serve visitors and tourists in destination communities like Santa Monica.
In 2006, the Planning Commission approved a parking variance (06VAR-012) and
Text Amendment (06TA-003) to allow the addition of seven guest rooms (from 63 to 70
rooms) without providing additional parking based on a parking demand study
prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, which concluded that with 70 guest rooms,
6.A
Packet Pg. 724
22 of 36
the hotel would generate a peak parking demand of 49 parking spaces (measured at 1
a.m.); thereby, 17 spaces would remain unoccupied. This demand is below the 66 on-
site parking spaces that can be provided in the subterranean garage in conjunction
with valet parking operation. At that time, staff verified that the parking spaces are
never fully occupied even when the hotel is fully booked, and it was noted that the
hotel does not offer banquet facilities or meeting rooms that could generate parking
demand beyond the level that can be accommodated by the onsite parking facility.
A more recent parking count conducted in 2015 also by Linscott, Law & Greenspan
found that from Thursday, May 7, 2015 through Saturday, May 9, 2015 between the
hours of 6:00 AM and midnight, it was observed that the peak parking demand was
29 spaces. During the same time period, it was also noted that the hotel occupancy
ranged between 93% and 100%. Between the 2006 and 2015 parking study, the
advent and increased popularity of ride hailing services such as Uber (founded in
2009) and Lyft (founded in 2012) have significantly decreased guests’ reliance on
the hotel’s onsite parking. Both parking studies were completed prior to the pandemic
under the same condition further ensuring their accuracy.
In the intervening years since the 2006 and 2015 parking studies, the hotel has
remained unchanged in terms of the number of rooms and the guest services/amenities
it provides. It is reasonable to anticipate that opening the existing restaurant to the
general public has the potential to generate additional parking demand, however, the
applicant maintains that over the past five years, the hotel’s parking garage has
been typically less than 50% utilized, which is consistent with and supported by the
Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2006 and 2015 parking studies.
Regarding anticipated parking demand associated with a restaurant opening to the
public, although additional parking is not required for the proposed change of use from
a guest- serving restaurant to a restaurant that will open to the public, it is also worth
noting the following:
• Hotel guests can be restaurant guests.
6.A
Packet Pg. 725
23 of 36
• The hotel is located in close proximity to downtown and will benefit from the
“park once”, many destinations approach to parking generally employed by
visitors to downtown.
• The hotel is located in a residential neighborhood and is likely to attract nearby
residents who can walk or bike to the restaurant.
• The surrounding neighborhood is generally regulated by preferential parking
with the exception of Montana Avenue further north and Ocean Avenue where
there are metered parking spaces across the street adjacent to Palisades Park.
These preferential parking districts further safeguard the neighborhood from
new and potential impacts relating to noise, parking and circulation.
• There has been decreased parking demand at the hotel due to the advent and
popularity of ride hailing services such as Uber and Lyft and bikeshare programs
and scooters.
• The hotel is located near/along a protected bike path making restaurant easily
accessible.
Based on an evaluation of the hotel property configuration, it does not appear that
additional onsite parking can be accommodated. The hotel’s parking supply can
be managed to support opening the existing onsite restaurant to the public.
Furthermore, as presented in the next section of the staff report addressing staff-
recommended conditions, the hotel would be required to implement an incentive
program for customers to walk or bicycle to the restaurant from the surrounding
neighborhood and maintain a valet service to continue to manage its existing parking
resource effectively. Please see Attachment “G” for background information about
parking at the hotel.
Analysis of Proposed Alcohol CUP Amendment
The applicant proposes to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit 96CUP-009
that has been integrated with the hotel operation and services since 1996. This
alcohol CUP and related ABC Type 70 License (On-Sale General – Restrictive
Service) permitted the hotel establishment to serve alcoholic beverage to its guests
6.A
Packet Pg. 726
24 of 36
and their visitors in certain common areas, such as around the pool deck, including
the ability to supply alcoholic beverages in in-room refrigerators/mini bars, and in
guest rooms through room service. The existing alcohol service within the
aforementioned areas will be maintained for hotel guests. The proposed alcohol CUP
amendment only proposes to authorize alcohol service to the general public in the
areas shown on the plans, specifically, the restaurant and outdoor patio dining area in
conjunction with meal service.
The amendment to the existing CUP is necessary in order to allow the hotel the ability
to extend alcohol service to the public and to align with the proposed meal service
in its restaurant, and any approval would be contingent on Council also approving both
the Text Amendment and CUP for opening the restaurant to the public. If approved, the
Oceana Hotel will apply for an ABC Type 47 (On-Sale General – Eating Place)
license. As this is a customary alcohol license for restaurants, staff supports the
proposed CUP amendment of 96CUP-009 subject to the operational conditions
presented in the next section of this report.
Summary of Planning Commission Action and Community Input
On June 9, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
considered Text Amendment 20ENT-0236 and Conditional Use Permits 20ENT-0237
and 21ENT-0090. Following an extensive policy discussion about the Text Amendment
and review of the operational parameters for the restaurant in conjunction with the
Conditional Use Permit applications, the Commission was split, as was the public
sentiment about the project. A total of 31 emails were received and 15 were in favor,
while 16 were against the proposal. During the hearing, 26 callers registered to speak
and provide public comments that supported and opposed the proposal for a variety of
reasons noted below.
During the deliberation, several key issues were raised, including:
• Discussion regarding whether the project qualifies for a CEQA Class 1
Exemption;
6.A
Packet Pg. 727
25 of 36
• Whether the proposed Text Amendment constitutes “spot zoning” since it may
only benefit one property, or whether the applicability criteria are appropriately
narrow in order to ensure such requests represent incremental expansion of
activity;
• Policy discussion regarding legal, non-conforming uses and whether such uses
should be allowed to expand/increase activity, in particular commercial uses in
residential zones; and
• Clarification on staff-recommended conditions of approval, particularly, the
requirement for annual compliance review and valet parking of bicycle and other
micro mobility devices.
The following is a brief summary of the key points raised during public comment during
the hearing and provided in writing.
Concerns were expressed by nearby residents and the Wilshire Montana
Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont):
• The Text Amendment would allow more commercial intrusion into a residential
neighborhood;
• Allowing the intensification of a nonconforming commercial use sets a
precedent;
• Noise impacts from patrons, the valet operation, and noise from the garage door
accessed from the alley; and
• Concern over potential parking spillover into the neighborhood.
Residents provided support for the Oceana Hotel’s proposal:
• The Oceana Hotel has been a long-standing and positive presence in the
neighborhood;
• The Oceana Hotel should be able to open its restaurant to the public because it
would help create a more walkable community and be a neighborhood-serving
use in an area that lacks dining options that are within walking distance;
• The proposal would facilitate economic recovery; and
6.A
Packet Pg. 728
26 of 36
• The request is being proposed in a careful manner that will not create impacts to
the neighborhood.
A motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Text Amendment was made
on the basis that the project facilitates economic recovery, provides a process for
public input and creates a neighborhood-serving use where there are none presently.
This motion resulted in a 3-3 vote, which resulted in a technical denial of the Text
Amendment.
While the Commission discussed several alternative motions, such as to continue the
Conditional Use Permit applications until the City Council has made the determination
on the Text Amendment, the Planning Commission believed that a vote of denial for
the CUPs would be a more efficient decision as it would allow the applicant the
opportunity to appeal the decisions to the City Council and, at that point, the City
Council would consider the Text Amendment and appeal of the Conditional Use
Permits at the same time.
Through its denial of both CUPs, the Planning Commission articulated the rationale for
its decision and a list of modifications to the staff-recommended conditions that should
be included as part of the staff recommendation to the City Council:
• The Commission did not pass a motion to recommend approval of the Text
Amendment to the City Council; therefore, there is no basis for approving the
CUPs to permit the restaurant to provide meal and alcohol serve the general
public;
• Conditions should be modified to address the following:
o Hours of operation that include a 10:00 PM closing hour on Sunday;
o Valet service that includes bicycle and micro-mobility device valet;
o Requirement for multi-year annual review for evaluating compliance with
conditions of approval that also includes a clear process for public
6.A
Packet Pg. 729
27 of 36
participation, including an assessment of parking operations and parking
demand generated by the restaurant; and
o Removal of a condition addressing a limitation on private events.
This motion passed by a vote of 6-0. The Planning Commission’s adopted Statement
of Official Action (STOA) is provided as Attachment “D”.
During Commission discussion, a concern was also expressed that the Class 1 CEQA
exemption could not be supported due to lack of empirical data or evidence to
determine a baseline condition to support a finding that the project is a negligible
expansion of the existing facility. However, no CEQA determination was made by the
Commission since CEQA does not apply when a project is denied. A discussion on
the project’s eligibility for a Class 1 exemption is set forth in the Environmental Analysis
section below.
The Commission’s recommendations for CUP conditions of approval have been
incorporated as part of the staff recommendation for City Council’s consideration.
Appeal Analysis
The appeals of the denial of Conditional Use Permit applications 20ENT-0237 and
21ENT-0090 were filed on June 17, 2021. In the appeal statement, the
applicant/appellant asserts that the Planning Commission should have followed staff’s
recommendations for approval of both Conditional Use Permit applications and the
Planning Commission’s denial of these applications was not supported by evidence or
appropriate findings. Moreover, the appellant stated that they accept the proposed
conditions discussed by the Planning Commission.
The proposed Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit applications, as a matter
of policy and precedent, presented challenges to the Planning Commission due to the
potential long-term implications resulting from a broader code amendment given the
hotel’s location within a residential zone. The Commission also discussed a desire to
strike a balance between the policy goals identified by the Land Use and Circulation
6.A
Packet Pg. 730
28 of 36
Element (LUCE) regarding complete neighborhoods and neighborhood preservation,
as well as the needs borne out of the current economic hardship on businesses from
the COVID-19 pandemic.
For these reasons, the Commission was divided, as was the public input. The denial of
both CUP applications was primarily due to the Commission’s inability to make an
affirmative recommendation on the proposed Text Amendment to the City Council,
following a 3-3 vote. Instead of continuing the CUP applications to a future hearing
date following potential approval of the required Text Amendment by the City Council,
in the interest of simplicity and efficiency, creating a clearer record of decision, the
Planning Commission denied both Conditional Use Permit applications.
This action allows the City Council to act on both the Text Amendment and CUP
applications in one de novo hearing where there is the opportunity to provide all the
background and context for consideration at the same time.
While the order and/or timing of review for this Text Amendment and CUP appeals is
not common, it is not legally infirm to review and take action on the Text Amendment
and CUPs in the same public hearing. The CUPs, if approved by the City Council,
would not become effective, and the Oceana Hotel could not commence operations in
accordance with the CUPs, unless and until the Ordinance implementing the Text
Amendment becomes effective.
Staff-Recommended Conditions of Approval
In evaluating the applicant’s proposal to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing onsite
restaurant to the public, the staff-recommended Conditional Use Permit process
provides an opportunity for community feedback and the imposition of conditions of
approval to ensure that the restaurant operates in a manner that does not create
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. This section of the report provides an
outline of the staff- recommended project-specific conditions of approval addressing
both the restaurant and its proposed alcohol service in the dining room and interior
6.A
Packet Pg. 731
29 of 36
patio seating area. The Planning Commission’s recommendations are incorporated in
staff’s recommendation.
Hotel Restaurant CUP Conditions
1. Hours of operation for the restaurant will be from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM
Sunday through Thursday; and from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM on Friday and
Saturday, except that meal service in the outdoor patio dining area shall end at
10:00 PM.
2. Food must be available at all times and at all public places where alcohol is
served, including at any counter seating during the restaurant operating hours.
3. Deliveries of supplies and provisions in direct support of the hotel and
restaurant operation shall occur no more than three (3) days per week between
the hours of 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM.
4. The existing onsite restaurant shall only be associated with the hotel by
ownership and shall not become a standalone restaurant, leased, owned or
operated by a separate entity, including a chef not employed by the hotel.
5. The hotel restaurant shall develop and maintain an incentive program (such
as offering free appetizers, a free nonalcoholic drink or similar promotion) to
any neighborhood patron who walks, bikes, or uses another form of micro-
mobility (e.g., shared bicycles and scooters) to the restaurant.
6. The existing restaurant shall be maintained and operated as a full-service
restaurant with set menu and waitstaff.
7. Dining services associated with the hotel restaurant to the general public shall
be conducted within the restaurant dining room and specified common
areas as identified by the submitted plans dated April 19, 2021.
6.A
Packet Pg. 732
30 of 36
8. Valet parking shall be provided for hotel and restaurant guests arriving by
personal vehicles, including bikes and other modes of transportation. The
existing approved valet service plan shall be maintained to accommodate
hotel and restaurant guests.
9. There shall be no queuing associated with valet parking on or along Idaho
Avenue. Valet and associated queuing shall be conducted in front of the hotel
along Ocean Avenue in accordance with the Mobility Division-approved valet
plan on file.
10. Parking spaces shall not be occupied by or used for storage of items other
than vehicles.
11. Signs shall be posted to remind guests to minimize noise/conversation
while outside.
12. Consistent with the purpose of SMMC Section 9.41.080(B), the applicant shall
file a compliance report for three consecutive years, with the first report filed
within one (1) year after the effective date of this Conditional Use Permit
21ENT-0090, to review the effectiveness of and level of compliance with the
terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval. After submittal of
this compliance report, staff shall either set the matter for a public hearing which
is noticed in the same manner as the original permit application or submit the
compliance report to the Planning Commission as an information item to enable
the Planning Commission to determine whether a public hearing is necessary.
The information item will be posted on the City’s website and notice shall be
given by any additional means deemed appropriate by the Director. Upon
review of the compliance report at this public hearing, if any, the Planning
Commission may add or revise terms and conditions to the extent necessary to
ensure effective conditions of approval.
6.A
Packet Pg. 733
31 of 36
Alcohol CUP Amendment Conditions
1. There shall not be a bar within the restaurant or in any public or common areas
on the premises that exclusively serves alcoholic beverages. The existing bar
shown on the floor plan dated April 19, 2021 shall be available for all meal
service during all operating hours.
2. Alcoholic beverages service and consumption shall only be provided and
served to patrons in conjunction with meal service or food to non-hotel guests.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The hotel has existed among its residential neighbors since 1958 as a permitted use,
allowed limited use, and legal nonconforming use as a result of changes in its
underlying zone from R4, R3 within the North of Wilshire Overlay District, and at
present, R3 Zoning District. The changes to the land use designations over the years
reflects the balance that has been sought to both support long-standing hospitality
businesses while also protecting the residential neighborhood that is also
characterized by its adjacency to Ocean Avenue, a prominent boulevard with
public open space amenities located directly to the west.
While the hotel use is decidedly commercial in nature, and with the limited exceptions
of some reported complaints relating to construction hours and valet service that
have been resolved, the hotel ownership and operation have over the years been
generally a good neighbor. No adverse impacts have been reported. However, as a
result of the proposal to open its existing restaurant to the public, new and site-specific
operational conditions are proposed for consideration for both conditional use permits
to ensure that the hotel and its restaurant will continue to be good neighbors and a
benefit to the residents in the area.
More specifically, as noted in the preceding section of this report, staff has proposed
to further limit delivery days and hours compared to what the Noise Ordinance
permits for businesses within 100 feet of residentially zoned properties; restaurant
hours are proscribed with additional limitations on weekend evening hours outdoors; a
6.A
Packet Pg. 734
32 of 36
commitment to implement an incentive program is required to encourage residents to
walk or bicycle to the restaurant; and a requirement to submit a compliance report
one year after the effective date of the CUP for opening the Oceana Hotel’s restaurant
to the public.
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Consistency
According to the LUCE, the Oceana Hotel is located in the Wilshire-Montana
(Wilmont) Neighborhood and recognizes that neighborhood-specific goals and
strategies are essential in preserving and enhancing neighborhoods throughout the
city. The Wilshire-Montana neighborhood is the City’s largest multi-family
residential neighborhood. In addition to the highest concentration of multi-unit
housing, the district includes a number of restaurants, hotels, and motels.
This neighborhood seeks to protect and preserve its character-defining features,
and among its citywide and neighborhood goals, include Goal LU3, Policies LU3.3 and
LU4.2 and Goal N3, Policies N3.1 seek to focus on creating local-serving uses,
particularly uses that serve residents’ daily needs and are located within easy walking
distance in order to reduce the frequency and length of trips. While Goal N3.2 seeks to
allow small-scale retail uses in neighborhoods with a land use designation of Low-
Density Residential, Medium- Density Residential or High-Density Housing.
The Oceana Hotel was developed among and prior to the construction of other
apartment or condominium buildings in the area when the use was permitted in the
R3 Zoning District. The hotel has become a fixture in the Wilmont neighborhood and
a familiar feature in Wilmont. Currently, the existing onsite 1,556 SF restaurant is an
amenity serving only hotel guests, the proposal to open the restaurant and its food
and drink services to the general public meets and is supported by the above-
mentioned citywide and neighborhood goals.
Environmental Status
The proposal to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing restaurant to the public is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA
6.A
Packet Pg. 735
33 of 36
Guideline Section 15301 (Class 1) for Existing Facilities, in that the project involves
the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, or licensing of an existing
hotel to extend its guest-only meal and alcoholic beverage services to the public
in its existing onsite restaurant which is a negligible and incremental expansion of the
existing on-site restaurant use. The proposal does not involve new construction,
expansion of the existing building, and does not involve the demolition of any
structures over 40 years old. The subject property is not listed on the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory. More specifically, the project would not result in any proposed or
future expansion of the restaurant’s existing kitchen, dining room, and seating capacity
in the dining room or outdoor dining patio. The proposal utilizes all features and
functions of the existing onsite guest-serving restaurant, including kitchen and wait
staff, while extending the same dining service to the general public. Further, the
proposal would not increase or expand the capacity beyond what the existing
restaurant and its seating capacity/occupancy is able to accommodate under the plans
submitted with the applications providing the general layout of the physical indoor and
outdoor dining space.
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Findings
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent
with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans in that the Oceana Hotel
is located in the Wilshire-Montana (Wilmont) Neighborhood and the LUCE
recognizes that neighborhood-specific goals and strategies are essential in
preserving and enhancing neighborhoods throughout the city. The Wilshire-
Montana neighborhood is the City’s largest multi-family residential neighborhood.
In addition to the highest concentration of multi-unit housing, the district includes
a number of restaurants, hotels, and motels. Citywide and neighborhood LUCE
goals seek to protect and preserve the character-defining features as set forth in
Goal LU3, Policies LU3.3 and LU4.2 and Goal N3, Policies N3.1 which seek to
create local-serving uses, particularly uses that serve residents’ daily needs and
are located within easy walking distance in order to reduce the frequency and
length of trips. While Goal N3.2 seeks to allow small-scale retail uses in
neighborhoods with a land use designation of Low-Density Residential, Medium-
6.A
Packet Pg. 736
34 of 36
Density Residential or High-Density Housing. The Oceana Hotel has existed in
this neighborhood since 1958 and was developed among and prior to the
construction of other apartment or condominium buildings in the area when the
use was permitted in the R3 Zoning District. Through its 63 years in operation, it
has become a fixture in the Wilmont neighborhood and a familiar feature in
Wilmont. Currently, the existing onsite 1,556 SF restaurant is an amenity serving
only hotel guests, the proposal to open the restaurant and its food and drink
services to the general public meets and is supported by the above-mentioned
citywide and neighborhood goals.
2. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent
with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an
orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare in that the amendments create a new discretionary Conditional Use
Permit process that both supports a longstanding Santa Monica business by
allowing a managed, incremental expansion of its existing meal service to the
public and ensures that appropriate conditions of approval would be required to
protect the residential neighborhood via a permit process that provides an
opportunity for input in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
Conclusion
The Oceana Hotel has been operating in the residentially-zoned neighborhood on
the corner of Ocean Avenue and Idaho Avenue since 1958. The applicant requests
approval for the hotel’s existing, guest-only restaurant to serve the general public with a
priority on being a neighborhood-focused dining option. Staff supports this Text
Amendment application and the associated Conditional Use Permits because the
creation of the new discretionary CUP process supports a longstanding Santa Monica
business, allows public participation in the decision-making process, ensures that
appropriate conditions of approval are included to protect the residential
neighborhood, and incorporates important community input on the request.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
6.A
Packet Pg. 737
35 of 36
1. Adopt the CEQA findings in this staff report under “Environmental Status”;
2. Introduce for first reading a proposed ordinance to amend Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.08.020 to establish a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
requirement for an existing legal, nonconforming hotel restaurant located within
the R2 and R3 zoning districts to request approval to provide meal service to the
general public, provided that certain criteria are met;
3. Grant the appeals of Planning Commission’s denial of two Conditional Use
Permits associated with the Oceana Hotel’s request to 1) provide meal service
to the general public pursuant to the proposed text amendment; and 2) modify
the hotel’s existing alcohol CUP to provide service to the general public;
4. Approve Conditional Use Permits 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090; and
5. Approve the Statement of Official Action.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact to the City or budget action necessary as a
result of the recommended action.
Prepared By: Beth Rolandson, Administrative Services Officer
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Draft City Council Statement of Official Action
B. Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022
C. Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021
D. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, June 9, 2021
E. Public Notification
F. Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context Photographs
6.A
Packet Pg. 738
36 of 36
G. Background Parking Information
H. Table of Relevant Zoning Designations and Regulations
I. Written Comments
J. Written Comment
K. PowerPoint Presentation
6.A
Packet Pg. 739
1
City of Santa Monica City Planning Division
CITY COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: 21ENT-0138 (Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237)
21ENT-0139 (Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090) LOCATION: 849 Ocean Avenue
APPELLANT: OCBSM Owner LLC
APPLICANT: OCBSM Owner LLC PROPERTY OWNER: OCBSM Owner LLC
CASE PLANNER: Rathar Duong, Associate Planner REQUEST: Appeals of Planning Commission denials of two Conditional Use Permit applications to provide alcohol and meal services to
the general public offered by the Oceana Hotel’s existing onsite
restaurant. These services are currently limited only to hotel guests and their visitors. Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090 seeks to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing restaurant to the general public within established indoor and outdoor dining
facilities on the hotel property. Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-
0237 seeks to amend the hotel’s existing Conditional Use Permit 96CUP-009 associated with the hotel’s existing ABC Type 70 alcohol license (On-Sale General-Restrictive Service) to provide alcohol service to the general public in conjunction
with the hotel’s full-service restaurant meal service. Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090 was submitted pursuant to Council’s approval of Text Amendment 20ENT-0236. CEQA STATUS: The proposal to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing restaurant to the public is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline
Section 15301 (Class 1) for Existing Facilities, in that the project involves the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, or licensing of an existing hotel to extend its guest-only meal and alcoholic beverage services to the public in its existing onsite restaurant which is a negligible
and incremental expansion of the existing on-site restaurant
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
2
use. The proposal does not involve new construction, expansion of the existing building, and does not involve the demolition of any structures over 40 years old. The subject
property is not listed on the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory. More specifically, the project would not result in any proposed or future expansion of the restaurant’s existing kitchen, dining room, and seating capacity in the dining room or outdoor dining patio. The proposal utilizes all features and
functions of the existing onsite guest-serving restaurant,
including kitchen and wait staff, while extending the same dining service to the general public. Further, the proposal would not increase or expand the capacity beyond what the existing restaurant and its seating capacity/occupancy is able
to accommodate under the plans submitted with the
applications providing the general layout of the physical indoor and outdoor dining space.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
April 26, 2022 Determination Date
X
Appeal granted based on the following findings.
Appeal Denied; Application approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below.
Other:
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: April 26, 2022
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: October 26, 2026
4.5 years following the Effective Date of Action.
(2.5 years pursuant to SMMC
9.37.090(A)(1) + 2 years pursuant to Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2698 (CCS) adopted on March 22, 2022.)
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*: 12 months
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
3
* Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit.
The City Council, having held a public hearing on April 26, 2022, hereby approves Appeals 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090 to allow the Oceana Hotel to extend services
currently provided by its existing onsite restaurant to the general public and associated alcohol service with meals.
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to
the Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
FINDINGS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
A. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning District and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the Municipal Code as permitted by the approval and adoption of Text Amendment 20ENT-0236 by the City Council. The proposed opening of the existing onsite restaurant to the public meets the three criteria established by the text amendment and allows application for the required Conditional Use Permit as in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts. The restaurant is not an entirely new use, but an existing ancillary use to the Oceana Hotel currently only serving hotel guests.
SMMC Section 9.31.040(B) requires a Conditional Use Permit for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverage. The applicant has requested to amend the hotel’s existing Conditional Use Permit that was originally approved for alcohol service associated with an ABC Type 70 License (On-Sale General – Restrictive Service) in order to allow the hotel the ability to extend alcohol service to the public and to align with the proposed meal service in its existing hotel restaurant pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License (On-Sale General – Eating Place).
B. The proposed use is consistent with the Goals and Policies specified for the Multi-Unit Residential Districts land use district of the General Plan. The proposal to
open an existing onsite restaurant to the public and provide alcohol service pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License and Type 70 license in an existing hotel location within the R3 (Medium Density Residential) District is consistent with and supports a number of LUCE’s goals and policies, including Goal LU3, Policies
LU3.3 and LU4.2 and Goal N3, Policies N3.1 seek to focus on creating local-
serving uses, in particular uses that serve residents’ daily needs and are located within easy walking distance in order to reduce the frequency and length of trips. While Goal N3.2 seeks to allow small-scale retail uses in neighborhoods with a land use designation of Low-Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential or
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
4
High-Density Housing. C. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that the restaurant is an existing amenity within the Oceana Hotel. The proposal to open and offer its meal service and its alcoholic beverage service to the public pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License and maintain its ABC Type 70 License does not involve the expansion, construction, or remodel of the existing kitchen and dining room. The existing building footprint and restaurant location within the hotel will remain unchanged. The restaurant occupies approximately 1,556 SF that includes the outdoor dining patio in the courtyard on the ground floor.
D. As conditioned herein, the proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the land uses are to remain. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses are to remain, in that the site has been continuously occupied by a hotel since 1958 and its existing onsite restaurant is currently available to guests only. The existing operation is not known to adversely impact the surround neighborhood. The proposed opening of the restaurant to the public does not involve changes to the existing hotel facility or its mode of operation nor does it involve expansion of the existing restaurant. The proposed alcohol service pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License is compatible with the hotel’s current ABC Type 70 License and both are customary components of a hotel and its full service restaurant. The hotel’s existing restaurant will continue to serve hotel guests while new restaurant patrons are likely to come from the surrounding residential neighborhood and therefore is not anticipated to generate adverse impacts. The availability of a new restaurant in the neighborhood will expand on the existing local-serving goods and services.
E. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the operation in that the existing hotel and its onsite restaurant for guests have been a longstanding feature in the residentially-zoned neighborhood for over 63 years. With the exception of new non-hotel guests dining at the restaurant, the proposed opening of the existing restaurant to the public will not result in changes to the location and size of the restaurant. As conditioned herein, the proposed restaurant hours of operation is between 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM Monday to Thursday and 7:00 AM - 11:00 PM Friday to Sunday and to the surrounding neighborhood and its mode of operation will not substantially change in conjunction with proposal to open up the restaurant to the public. It is anticipated that new restaurant patrons will be from the surrounding neighborhood since the restaurant is intended to be local- and neighborhood-serving. The proposed alcohol service pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License is compatible with the hotel’s current ABC Type 70 License and both are customary components of a typical hotel and its full service restaurant.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
5
F. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that existing restaurant by design is internally located within the hotel. Access to the restaurant is through the lobby where there is a waiting area, and into the central courtyard. There will be no openings associated with the restaurant that will open onto the street. The existing configuration eliminates the likelihood of diners congregating, waiting, or queuing outside the building and along Ocean Avenue. The outdoor patio dining will also be located within the courtyard. Any potential noise impacts from the increase in diners to the restaurant will be blocked by the by the building and limited to within the courtyard. Alcohol service pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License is compatible with the hotel’s current ABC Type 70 license and both are customary components of a typical hotel and its full-service restaurant. As conditioned herein, alcohol service associated with the ABC Type 47 License will be provided in tandem with meal service within the 67-seat, 1,556 SF restaurant between 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM Monday – Thursday and 7:00 AM -11:00 PM on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, except that meal and alcohol service in the outdoor dining patio will end at 10:00 PM in order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
G. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant environmental impacts or any potentially significant environmental impacts have
been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation measures incorporated in the project or a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted. The requested Conditional Use Permit is required to establish a publicly-
accessible hotel restaurant in the R3 Zoning District. While meal and alcohol beverage services will be extended to the general public within a restaurant pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License, the restaurant is an existing feature of the
Oceana Hotel that is currently only available to hotel guests. There are no physical changes or expansion associated with the requested restaurant CUP. The proposal to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing restaurant to the public is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (Class 1) for Existing Facilities, in that the project involves the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, or licensing of an existing hotel to extend its guest-only meal and alcoholic beverage services to the public in its existing onsite restaurant which is a negligible and incremental expansion of the existing on-site restaurant use. The proposal does not involve new construction, expansion of the existing building, and does not involve the demolition of any structures over 40 years old. The subject property is not listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. More specifically, the project would not result in any proposed or future expansion of the restaurant’s existing kitchen, dining room, and seating capacity in the dining room or outdoor dining patio. As such, the proposal will not generate any environmental-related impacts.
H. The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. The proposed restaurant would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
6
convenience, or general welfare in that the use and associated activities would be compatible within the context of its commercial setting as a hotel operation. It is generally expected that a boutique hotel like Oceana would feature an onsite restaurant and whereby such restaurants are typically open to the public. The Oceana Hotel has existing at the site over 63 years when it was initially a permitted use. Throughout its 63 years in operation, it has not cause longstanding adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and has generally been a responsible operator and a good neighbor. The alcohol service pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License is compatible with the hotel’s current ABC Type 70 license and both are customary components of a typical hotel and its full service restaurant. Alcohol service associated with the ABC Type 47 License will be provided in tandem with meal service within the 67-seat, 1,556 SF restaurant between 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM Sunday – Thursday and 7:00 AM -11:00 PM on Friday and Saturday, except that meal and alcohol service in the outdoor dining patio will end at 10:00 PM. As proposed, the alcohol service would not create any adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood when operated consistent with the recommended conditions of approval and the requirements of the State of California Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
1. The proposed alcohol sales will not adversely affect the welfare of neighborhood residents in a significant manner in that the use will be located within an existing
hotel’s onsite restaurant. While the hotel and its restaurant are located within the R3 residential Zoning District, the hotel with its ancillary restaurant was a permitted use within the residentially-zoned neighborhood for over thirty years. Further, the property has been serving alcoholic beverages under ABC Type 70 License (On-Sale General – Restrictive Service) since 1996 to hotel guests and
their visitors without incident or adverse effects pursuant to Conditional Use Permit 06CUP-009. It is not anticipated that extending alcohol service with full meal service to guests and the public at the restaurant pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License (On-Sale General – Eating Place) would adversely affect the public welfare and negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood as the restaurant is
intended to be local- and neighborhood-serving and appropriate conditions have been required to stipulate the hours and floor plan associated with the restaurant’s alcoholic beverage service in order to ensure that operations will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that the existing restaurant located inside a hotel without a separate bar area or entertainment is not typically known to contribute to objectionable problems associated with alcohol outlets. The hotel is only one two such alcohol outlets located within a 500-foot radius of the site (the other is the Jonathan Club
located on Palisades Beach Road). Additionally, it is anticipated that the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval will minimize any impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and general vicinity. The hotel currently
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
7
holds an ABC Type 70 License which was granted in 1996. The required amendment to existing alcohol CUP 06CUP-009 is to allow the existing restaurant the ability to serve alcoholic beverages with full meal service and as such, this
type of outlet is not anticipated to contribute significantly to alcohol related
problems in and around the area. Furthermore, there have not been reports of alcohol-related incidents associated with this hotel and restaurant in the past. 3. The proposed use will not detrimentally affect nearby neighborhoods considering
the distance of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches, schools,
hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and other existing alcohol outlets. More specifically, while the existing hotel and its onsite restaurant is located across the street from Palisades Park and residential uses, the hotel has been serving alcoholic beverages to its guests since 1996 with an ABC Type 70 License
without incidents and the proposed extension of alcohol service with a full-service
restaurant is pursuant to an ABC Type 47 License and does not permit the sale of alcohol for off-site consumption. Furthermore, the proposed conditions of approval, such as prohibition on a separate bar area or entertainment will minimize the potential impacts on the residential uses in the vicinity.
4. The sale of alcohol will not increase traffic congestion or generate a demand for parking that will adversely affect surrounding businesses and residents in that additional parking associated with the proposal to open the existing onsite restaurant to the public is not required. The full-service restaurant will continue to
provide service to the hotel guests. Moreover, the onsite restaurant is intended to
be local- and neighborhood-serving and will likely be drawings visitors from the surrounding neighborhoods.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Restaurant-Related Conditions
1. Seating arrangements for sit-down patrons shall not exceed 67 (49 interior and 18 exterior) seats. Bar area seating shall not exceed 4 seats; restaurant seating shall not exceed 67 seats; customer waiting area seating shall not exceed 5 seats.
2. Hours of operation for the restaurant will be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday
through Thursday; and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, except that meal service in the outdoor patio dining area shall end at 10:00 PM. No "after hours" operations shall be permitted. Alcohol service to any outdoor seating area adjacent to a public street or sidewalk shall cease one hour in advance of the
operating hours otherwise permitted.
3. Food must be available at all times and at all public places where alcohol is served, including at any counter seating during the restaurant operating hours.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
8
4. Deliveries of supplies and provisions in direct support of the hotel and restaurant
operation shall occur no more than three (3) days per week between the hours of
9:00 AM – 6:00 PM. 5. The existing onsite restaurant shall only be associated with the hotel by ownership and shall not become a standalone restaurant, leased, owned or operated by a
separate entity, including a chef not employed by the hotel.
6. The hotel restaurant shall develop and maintain an incentive program (such as offering free appetizers, a free nonalcoholic drink or similar promotion) to any neighborhood patron who walks, bikes, or uses another form of micromobility, to
the restaurant.
7. The existing restaurant shall be maintained and operated as a full-service restaurant with set menu and waitstaff.
8. Dining services associated with the hotel restaurant to the general public shall be
conducted within the restaurant dining room and specified common areas as identified by the submitted plans dated April 19, 2021. 9. Valet parking shall be provided for hotel and restaurant guests arriving by personal
vehicles, including bikes and other modes of transportation. The existing approved
valet service plan shall be maintained to accommodate hotel and restaurant guests. 10. There shall be no queuing associated with valet parking on or along Idaho Street.
Valet and associated queuing shall be conducted in front of the hotel along Ocean Avenue in accordance with the Mobility Division-approved valet plan on file. 11. Parking spaces shall not be occupied by or used for purposes of storing items other than vehicles.
12. Signs shall be posted to remind guests to minimize noise/conversation while outside. 13. Consistent with the purpose of SMMC Section 9.41.080(B), the applicant shall file
a compliance report for three consecutive years, with the first report filed within one (1) year after the effective date of this Conditional Use Permit 21ENT0090, to review the effectiveness of and level of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval. After submittal of this compliance report, staff shall either set the matter for a public hearing which is noticed in the same
manner as the original permit application or submit the compliance report to the Planning Commission as an information item to enable the Planning Commission to determine whether a public hearing is necessary. The information item will be
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
9
posted on the City’s website and notice shall be given by any additional means deemed appropriate by the Director. Upon review of the compliance report at this public hearing, if any, the Planning Commission may add or revise terms and
conditions to the extent necessary to ensure effective conditions of approval.
Administrative 14. The City Council’s approvals of CUP 20ENT-0237 and CUP 21ENT-0090 by
approving appeals 21ENT-0138 and 21ENT-0139 shall not become effective
unless and until the City Council adopts an ordinance approving Text Amendment 20ENT-0236. The approval of these permits shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within 4.5 years from the permit’s effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction or actual
commencement of the use granted by these Conditional Use Permits if a building
permit is not required. 15. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official
Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of
approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City
Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds
for potential permit revocation. 16. Prior to operation of the hotel restaurant pursuant to Conditional Use Permits 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090, the applicant shall post a notice at the building
entry stating that the site is regulated by a Conditional Use Permit and the Statement of Official Action, which includes the establishment’s conditions of approval, and the establishment’s approved floor plan, and is available upon request. This notice shall remain posted at all times the establishment is in operation.
17. Within thirty (30) days from date of the approval of the Statement of Official Action, the applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Statement of Official Action for this project to the local office of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control department.
18. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or a business license, or commencement of alcohol service as applicable, the operator shall submit a plan for approval by the Director of Planning regarding employee alcohol awareness training programs and policies. The plan shall outline a mandatory alcohol awareness training program for all employees having contact with the public and
shall state management's policies addressing alcohol consumption and inebriation. The program shall require all employees having contact with the public to complete a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
10
sponsored alcohol awareness training program within 90 days of the effective date of this approval. In the case of new employees, the employee shall attend the alcohol awareness training within 90 days of hiring. In the event the ABC no longer
sponsors an alcohol awareness training program, all employees having contact
with the public shall complete an alternative program approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. The operator shall provide the City with an annual report regarding compliance with this condition. This project shall be subject to any future City-wide alcohol awareness training program condition
affecting similar establishments.
19. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or a business license, or commencement of alcohol service as applicable, the operator shall also submit a plan describing the establishment's designated driver program, which shall be
offered by the operator to the establishment's patrons. The plan shall specify how
the operator will inform patrons of the program, such as offering on the menu a free non-alcoholic drink for every party of two or more ordering alcoholic beverages.
20. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of
this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 21. Applicant is advised that projects in the California Coastal Zone may need approval
of the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of any building permits by
the City of Santa Monica. Applicant is responsible for obtaining any such permits. 22. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively, "City") from any
claims, actions, or proceedings (individually referenced as "Claim" and collectively referenced as "Claims") against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090 or any Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant's project. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Claim and shall cooperate fully in the
defense. Nothing contained in this paragraph prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following occur: i. The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs. ii. The City defends the action in good faith.
iii. Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the Applicant. iv. In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all, or any, provisions of any approvals granted for the Project, or is commenced for any other reason against the City for the act or omissions
relating to the Applicant's project, within fourteen (14) days following notice of such action from the City, the Applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
11
satisfactory to the City ("the Security") in a form satisfactory to the City, and in the amount of $100,000 to ensure applicant's performance of its defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligations to City. The Security amount shall
not limit the Applicant's obligations to the City hereunder. The failure of the
Applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express acknowledgment and agreement by the Applicant that the City shall have the authority and right, without consent of the Applicant, to revoke the approvals granted hereunder.
Conformance with Approved Plans 23. This approval is for those plans dated April 19, 2021, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be
consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of
approval. 24. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A substantial change in mode or character shall be subject to Planning
Commission Review. A substantial change in mode or character of operation shall
include, but is not limited to, a change in operational hours that extends past the approved hours of operation, a 5 percent increase in the floor area of the premises, a 10 percent increase in the shelf area used for the display of alcoholic beverages, queuing outside the establishment, age requirements for entry, checking
identification at the door, implementing a cover charge, offering bottle service, or
a 5 percent increase or decrease in the number of seats in any restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages, but in no case shall the increase exceed any established seating limitation in the underlying zoning district. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Director of Planning. No expansion in number of seats, intensity of operation, or outdoor areas shall occur without prior approval from the City of Santa Monica and State ABC. 25. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance review when the
building plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica prior to building permit issuance. Fees 26. As required by California Government Code Section 66020, the project applicant is hereby notified that the 90-day period has begun as of the date of the approval of this application, in which the applicant may protest any fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as a condition of approval of this development. The fees, dedications, reservations,
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
12
or other exactions are described in the approved plans, conditions of approval, and/or adopted city fee schedule.
Project Operations
27. 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.
28. No exterior activity such as trash disposal, disposal of bottles or noise generating trash, deliveries or other maintenance activity generating noise audible from the exterior of the building shall occur during the hours of 11:00pm to 7:00am daily. In addition, there shall be no outdoor cleaning of the property with pressurized or
mechanical equipment during the hours of 9:00pm to 7:00am daily. Trash
containers shall be secured with locks. Alcohol-Related Conditions
29. No alcoholic beverage shall be sold for consumption beyond the premises.
30. Except for special events, alcohol shall not be served in any disposable container such as disposable plastic or paper cups.
31. The primary use of the premises shall be for sit-down meal service to patrons as
a full-service restaurant. 32. Bottle service shall mean the service of any full bottle of liquor, wine, or beer, of more than 375 ml, along with glass ware, mixers, garnishes, etc., in which patrons
are able to then make their own drinks or pour their own wine or beer. Liquor bottle service shall be prohibited. Wine and beer bottle service shall not be available to patrons unless full meal service is provided concurrent with the bottle service. All food items shall be available from the full-service menu.
33. The establishment shall maintain a kitchen or food-serving area in which a variety of food is prepared and cooked on the premises. 34. The establishment shall serve food to patrons during all hours the establishment is open for customers.
35. Customers shall be permitted to order meals at the bar at all times the bar or restaurant is open for business. 36. There shall be no cover charge or minimum drink purchase requirement.
37. Any minimum purchase requirement may be satisfied by the purchase of beverages or food.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
13
38. Take out service shall be only incidental to the primary sit-down use. 39. The primary use of the outdoor dining area shall be for seated meals service.
Patrons who are standing in the outdoor seating area shall not be served.
40. No dancing or live entertainment beyond that allowed in the restaurant definition contained in the Zoning Ordinance shall be permitted on the premises.
41. No organized queuing of patrons at the entry or checking of identification to control
entry into and within the establishment shall be permitted. There shall not be any age limitation imposed restricting access to any portion of the restaurant. 42. The establishment shall not organize or participate in organized “pub-crawl” events
where participants or customers pre-purchase tickets or tokens to be exchanged
for alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. 43. No video or other amusement games shall be permitted on the premises.
44. No more than three television screens, including video projectors or similar
audio/visual devices, shall be on the premises. None of these televisions or projections surfaces shall exceed 60 inches measured diagonally. 45. Parking lot illumination shall be provided and maintained.
46. The owner shall prohibit loitering in the parking area and shall control noisy patrons leaving the restaurant. 47. Employees of the establishment shall walk a 100-foot radius from the facility at
some point prior to 30 minutes after closing and shall pick up and dispose of any discarded beverage containers and other trash left by patrons. 48. Window or other signage visible from the public right-of-way that advertises beer or alcohol shall not be permitted.
49. Applicant is on notice that all temporary signage is subject to the restrictions of the City sign ordinance. 50. The project shall at all times comply with the provisions of the Noise Ordinance
(SMMC Chapter 4.12). 51. There shall not be a bar within the restaurant or in any public or common areas on the premises that is exclusive only to the service of alcoholic beverage. The existing bar shown on the floor plan dated April 19, 2021 shall be available for all
meal service.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
14
52. Alcoholic beverages service and consumption shall only be provided and served to patrons in conjunction with meal service or food to non-hotel guests.
53. The primary use of the premises shall be a hotel.
54. No alcoholic beverage shall be sold for consumption beyond the premises. 55. Alcohol shall only be stored within the refrigerators in guest rooms where none of
the occupants are under the age of 21. Room service of alcoholic beverages is
permitted to serve alcohol to adult guests for consumption in their rooms and shall not be performed between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Restocking of the refrigerators shall be performed in the course of scheduled room service activities, and shall not be performed between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
56. No video or other amusement games shall be permitted on the premises, except in-room television video games. Final Design
57. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. 58. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in
accordance with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.130, 140, and 150. Refuse areas shall
be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize noise and visual
impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no residential water heaters shall be located on the roof.
59. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the location and screening of such meters. 60. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the
applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility requirements.
61. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti-graffiti materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
15
Standard Conditions 62. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is
adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot, unless otherwise permitted
by applicable regulations. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical equipment is installed within a sound-rated parapet enclosure. 63. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in
compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided
by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone.
64. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Mobility Division. 65. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural
Review Board.
66. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through compliance with the City’s graffiti removal program.
Environmental Mitigation
67. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Public Works for its approval. The recycling plan shall include:
1) List of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled; 2) Location of recycling bins; 3) Designated recycling coordinator;
4) Nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service; 5) Pick-up schedule; and 6) Plan to inform tenants/ occupants of service. 68. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and
remodeling where plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon urinals and low flow shower heads. POLICE
69. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or a business license, or commencement of alcohol service as applicable, a security plan shall be submitted
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
16
to the Chief of Police for review and approval. The plan shall address both physical and operational security issues.
70. Prior to the commencement of alcohol service, the applicant shall participate in the
Santa Monica Alcohol Awareness for Retailers Training (S.M.A.A.R.T) program conducted by the Santa Monica Police Department COMPLIANCE
72. The applicant authorizes reasonable City inspection of the property to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval imposed by the City in approving this project and will bear the reasonable cost of these inspections as established by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.72.010 and Resolution No. 9905 (CCS)
or any successor legislation thereto. These inspections shall be no more intrusive
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
17
VOTE for Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237 (Appeal 21ENT-0138) Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain: Absent: VOTE for Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090 (Appeal 21ENT-0139)
Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent:
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
________________________________ _____________________________ Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Date
Acknowledgement by Permit Holder I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit
approval. ______________________________ Print Name and Title Date
______________________________ Applicant’s Signature Date
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Draft City Council Statement of Official Action [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
1
City Council Meeting: April 26, 2022 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LAWFUL NONCONFORMING HOTEL RESTAURANT LOCATED WITHIN THE R2 OR R3 ZONING DISTRICT THAT MEETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE MEAL
AND ALCOHOL SERVICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2020 and April 19, 2021, the Oceana hotel filed
applications for two Conditional Use Permits, 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090, to provide
meal and alcohol services offered by the Oceana Hotel’s existing onsite restaurant to the
general public; and
WHEREAS, also on October 7, 2020, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 9.46.030(C), the Oceana filed an application for a text amendment, 20ENT-
0236, to establish a Conditional Use Permit requirement to allow a lawful nonconforming
hotel restaurant located in the R2 or R3 District that meets minimum requirements to
provide meal and alcohol service to the general public; and
WHEREAS, hotel uses have been in existence in the R2 and R3 zoning districts
since at least 1958; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
1543 (CCS), which prohibited hotel uses in certain areas of the R2 and R3 Districts and
provided that those uses would be subject to termination within 20 years; and
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
2
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
1832 (CCS), which established that even though hotels were not permitted in the R2 and
R3 Districts, hotels in existence as of January 1, 1995, or their replacement, would be
considered permitted uses, subject to certain standards and limitations, and that such
hotels were permitted to increase the number of rooms by five percent or five rooms,
whichever is less; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
2213 (CCS), which increased the limitation on the number of guest rooms that could be
added to a hotel existing as of January 1, 1995 in the R2 and R3 Districts to twenty-five
percent, or fifteen rooms, whichever is less; and
WHEREAS, the City’s new Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 9.01 through 9.52 of
Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”), became effective on
July 24, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance reclassified hotels in R2 and R3 Districts in
existence as of January 1, 1995 as lawful nonconforming uses, subject to the provisions
of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.27.050, including a prohibition against a
substantial change in mode or character of the lawful nonconforming use; and
WHEREAS, hotels located in the R2 and R3 Districts as of January 1, 1995 have
become known and long-standing neighborhood features; and
WHEREAS, allowing lawful nonconforming restaurant uses in those hotels that
had received a Conditional Use Permit to serve alcohol as of the adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance to serve the general public will expand the local-serving uses available to the
neighborhood within walk or short distance away; and
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
3
WHEREAS, establishing a Conditional Use Permit requirement for such an
expansion to general public use will provide a discretionary public hearing process to
review the necessity of requiring special conditions to manage and avoid potential
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and to further safeguard the residents and
protect the integrity of the neighborhood while providing residents the opportunity to enjoy
expanded goods and services in and around the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2021, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.46.060(D), the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider its recommendations to the City Council, and, after considering oral and
written testimony, a motion to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council
amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to establish a conditional use permit requirement
to allow a lawful nonconforming hotel restaurant located within the R2 or R3 Districts that
meets minimum requirements to provide meal and alcohol services to the general public
failed on a 3-3 vote, resulting in a technical denial of the recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing
to consider the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and desires
to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City
Council at the public hearing on April 26, 2022 regarding the proposed changes to the
text of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
4
1. The Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent in principle
with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan, in particular
Citywide and Neighborhood goals and policies of the Land Use Circulation
Element (LUCE) adopted on July 6, 2010. Goal LU3, Policies LU3.3, LU4.2,
and Goal N3, Policies N3.1 seek to focus on creating local-serving uses,
particularly uses that serve residents’ daily needs and are located within
easy walking distance in order to reduce the frequency and length of trips.
Goal N3.2 seeks to allow and support small-scale retail uses in
neighborhoods with a land use designation of Low-Density Residential,
Medium-Density Residential or High-Density Housing. The Oceana Hotel
was constructed in 1957 and has been continuously operated as a hotel at
this location since 1958 in the R3 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning
District.
The request to amend Article 9 of the Municipal Code, specifically
Chapter 9.08, Table 9.08.020: Land Use Regulations to permit an existing
hotel’s onsite restaurant in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts to open up to the
public as a Limited use is consistent with the above-mentioned goals and
policies provided three criteria are met and by way of a new Conditional Use
Permit application. The existing 1,556 SF restaurant is a guest amenity
providing meal and drinks services to hotel guests only. While expanding
its services as a publicly-accessible restaurant, it will continue to provide
the same services to hotel guests while allowing nearby residents to dine at
the restaurant. As a known and long-standing neighborhood feature, the
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
5
restaurant will expand the local-serving uses available to the neighborhood
within walk or short distance away. Finally, the subject text amendment
creates a new Conditional Use Permit requirement to open an existing
restaurant to the public in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts which provides a
discretionary public hearing process to review the necessity of requiring
special conditions to manage and avoid potential impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood; this is consistent with the LUCE Goal N9 which emphasizes
the importance of protecting, preserving, and enhancing the Wilshire-
Montana residential neighborhood where the subject property is located.
2. The proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with the
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an
orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare in that the hotel and its existing restaurant has been
operating at this location since 1958 and among its residential neighbors
without causing adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The
proposed ordinance amendment would permit an existing hotel to request
to open its existing onsite restaurant to the public provided that certain
criteria are met that are included to ensure that the existing use is an
established feature in the neighborhood. The proposed text amendment
creates a new Conditional Use Permit requirement to review the necessity
of requiring special conditions to manage and avoid potential impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood to further safeguard the residents and protect
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
6
the integrity of the neighborhood while providing residents the opportunity
to enjoy expanded goods and services in and around the neighborhood.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.08.020 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.08.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.08.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Multi-Unit Residential Districts.
The regulations for each district are established by letter designations listed below. These
designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or
structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with
specific limitations listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a
Minor Use Permit.
“–” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-
classifications not listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when
they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily
associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and
which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. The table
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
7
also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the
right-hand column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use Classification *For uses within specified areas, see
Section 9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.
Single Unit Dwelling P P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex P P P
Multiple-Unit Structure P P P
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit Residential P P P
Single-Room Occupancy Housing P P P
Group Residential MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing P P P
Senior Group Residential P P P Section 9.31.310, Senior Group Residential
Elderly and Long-Term Care CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelters – CUP CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
Large P P P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care, Large
Small P P P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care, General MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Residential Care, Limited P P P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Residential Care, Senior L (2)/MUP L (2)/MUP L (2)/MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Hospice, General MUP MUP MUP
Hospice, Limited P P P
Supportive Housing P P P
Transitional Housing P P P
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP CUP CUP
Child Care and Early Education CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
8
TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use Classification *For uses within specified areas, see
Section 9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Facilities and Early Education Facilities
Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP
Community Gardens P P P
Cultural Facilities CUP CUP CUP Limited to Designated Landmarks
Park and Recreations Facilities, Public P P P
Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP
Commercial Uses
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See sub-classifications below.
Automobile Storage Use CUP (3) CUP (3) –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Leasing L (4)/CUP L (4)/CUP – Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.
General Market CUP (5) CUP (5) CUP (5)
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage Sales Section 9.31.150, General Markets in Residential Districts
Lodging See sub-classifications below.
Bed and Breakfast CUP CUP CUP Within Designated Landmarks only. Section 9.31.090, Bed and Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels – – CUP
Hotels and Motels established prior
to January 1, 1995 with an existing
onsite restaurant that intends to
open to the public
L(10)/CUP L(10)/CUP
Mobile Food Truck Off-Street Venues – MUP (7) – Section 9.31.190, Mobile Food
Truck Off-Street Venues
Personal Services, Physical Training – L (9) –
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.
General Retail Sales, Small-Scale – CUP (8) –
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P P P
Utilities, Minor P P P
Specific Limitations:
(1) Reserved.
(2) Facilities for 6 or fewer residents are permitted by right. Other facilities require approval of a Minor Use Permit.
(3) Limited to automobile storage use associated with and adjacent to existing auto dealerships that were legally established
before July 6, 2010, and according to the standards of Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage.
(4) Auto dealership uses existing as of July 6, 2010 are considered permitted uses. Expansions to existing dealerships in
residential zones are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and must conform to the standards in Section
9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage. New auto dealerships and expansions of existing dealerships
inconsistent with Section 9.31.070 are prohibited.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
9
TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use Classification *For uses within specified areas, see
Section 9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
(5) Only stores up to 2,500 square feet may be allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Stores must be located at
least 300 feet from another retail food and beverage services use.
(6) Reserved.
(7) Mobile food truck off-street venues shall only be located on the R3A overlay parcels located between Ocean Park Boulevard
and Hill Street along the east side of Neilson Way.
(8) Limited to bicycle and skate rental facilities along Ocean Front. Other general retail sales uses are not permitted.
(9) Limited to youth-serving studios of less than 3,000 square feet offering performing arts, dance, martial arts, physical
exercise, and similar types of instruction in buildings designed and constructed for commercial purposes across an alley
from the Downtown district subject to a passenger loading and drop-off plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director.
(10) An existing hotel use in the R2 or R3 District that includes an onsite restaurant that provides meal service for hotel guests
and their visitors, and has an existing Alcohol Conditional Use Permit allowing for the service of alcohol to guests and their
visitors for onsite consumption, shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing onsite restaurant to
provide meal service to the general public, and may seek to amend its existing Alcohol Conditional Use Permit, if (or when)
applicable, to allow the existing hotel restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages to the general public, provided that:
1. The hotel use was established and in existence as of January 1, 1995;
2. The Alcohol Conditional Use Permit allowing the onsite service of alcoholic beverages to hotel guests and their visitors
in guest rooms and in certain common areas was approved by the City prior to July 23, 2015; and
3. The hotel’s existing restaurant prepares meals from a set menu to order in an existing hotel kitchen for consumption on
the premises; provides sit down meal service during restaurant operating hours for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; and
the hotel’s ancillary onsite restaurant use has existed since prior to July 23, 2015.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices thereto
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies
and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the
provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. 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 Council 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.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
10
SECTION 5. 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:
_______________________
SUSAN Y. COLA Interim City Attorney
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Ordinance Oceana Text Amendment Council 4-26-2022 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
Attachment C – Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
5/13/2021 Mail - Planning Commission Comments - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/planningcomment@smgov.net/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210510006.03 1/1
20ENT-0236 ( Text Amendment ) 20ENT-0237 ( Conditional Use Permit to amend
existing 96CUP-009 ) 21ENT-0090 ( Conditional Use Permit t0 open existing hotel
restaurant to the general public )
George Garlock <george@kga.design>
Fri 5/7/2021 9:13 AM
To: Planning Commission Comments <planningcomment@smgov.net>
EXTERNAL
849 Ocean Avenue
Applicant & property owner OCBSM Owner LLC
Planning Commission,
As a local resident at 701 Ocean Avenue we see a great community service in having restaurants that are
in walking distance from where we live. The majority of the local users of this restaurant that are not
hotel guests would walk not drive to the Oceana Hotel.
Please approve this very worthy improvement to our community.
George Garlock
701 Ocean Avenue #107
Santa Monica, Ca 90402
702 278-6229
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
5/17/2021 Mail - Planning Commission Comments - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/planningcomment@smgov.net/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210510006.08 1/1
Wednesday May 19th 2021 @5:30 PM HEARING - 849 ocean Avenue - 20ENT-0236,
20ENT-0237, 21ENT-0090
Jim Berchtold <kimobe@comcast.net>
Fri 5/14/2021 7:24 AM
To: Planning Commission Comments <planningcomment@smgov.net>
EXTERNAL
Planning Commission Members - I and my recently deceased wife have lived at 701 Ocean Avenue since
2012. During neighborhood strolls we would often comment that it would be very handy to be able to
grap coffee or a meal at the Oceana Hotel. We have a number of elderly owners who would be ecstatic
with that venue so close and within walking distance.
Please approve this application and make us all happy! I don’t think the service would increase traffic
significantly over current usage and there is valet service already available for guests.
Thank you, James J Berchtold
Sent from my iPhone
Jim Berchtold
701 Ocean Avenue PH F
SANTA MONICA CA 90402
Cell 503.310.0805
Kimobe@comcast.net
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Doug Sparr
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Oceana Hotel proposed restaurant expansion
Date:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 9:08:15 PM
Attachments:IMG_4992.MOV
EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Doug Sparr. I live at 850 2nd street, the building that is directly across the
alley from the Oceana Hotel. I am writing you to voice my concerns regarding the
Oceana's desire to open its restaurant/bar to the public as well as an ongoing noise
issue in the alleyway from their electric garage doors.
I have lived in this building since 2007. My unit is on the third floor, on the west side
facing the Oceana. During my residency here the Oceana has undergone two major
renovations, the most recent being about 2-3 years ago during which they installed
two new electric garage doors in the alleyway, one of which, if not both appear to beprimarily used for valet parking. The motors on these doors are extremely loud and
are a major nuisance, particularly during the evening and overnight hours. I have
heard the doors opening and closing at all hours of the night, and they frequently
disrupt my sleep. The noise is obtrusive even with the windows closed. Moreover,given that my unit does not have air conditioning, and that I enjoy fresh air, I have my
windows open close to year round.
I have attached a video I took some time between 2:00-3:00am as an example of thenoise. It is louder in person. The video only captures the door closing after it had
already opened to let a car in. It makes the same sound when it opens to let the car in
or out so the noise per car is twice as long as seen/heard in the video. Regardless of
the outcome of the vote on the restaurant, I, and my neighbors would like the hotel toinstall quieter doors to mitigate the noise, if not get rid of the electric doors altogether.
My concerns regarding the restaurant are that it will undoubtedly increase the number
of cars both in the alleyway, and going in and out of those garage doors. Hotelownership/management may argue that they expect the majority of public customers
to be walk-in. No doubt, some may walk in off the street during the day on the
weekends when there are a lot of people in Palisades Park, but undoubtedly a lot of
customers will be driving to the restaurant, particularly at night. Except for the parkingon Ocean avenue, most of the street parking in the neighborhood is permit parking,
hence there is not much street parking for these added customers. Plus, given that
the hotel is high end, it will likely attract customers who are more than willing to valet
park rather than look for a space and then feed the meter. Consequently, this willincrease the number of cars going in and out those garage doors. There is also the
possibility that the valet parkers may leave some cars temporarily parked in the alley.
In the zoom meeting last month, the hotel general manager said the restaurant is onlypermitted to be open until 9:00pm. According to the GM, there is a big pent up
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
demand for the public to be able to go to the Oceana for drinks and/or meals. An
additional concern I have is if the conditional use permit is amended to allow the
restaurant open to the public, it will set a precedent for the hotel to seek to amend
other conditional uses. That is, if the restaurant is as successful as the hotel hopes,
they may at some point seek to extend the hours of use beyond 9:00pm increasingthe noise levels when many of us are already retiring for the night.
I have loved living in this neighborhood. It is a fantastic location close to the beautiful
beaches and coastline of Santa Monica, and it is very quiet despite its proximity to thepromenade, the pier, and the beach. The Oceana has been in an unique position to
be able to operate a commercial establishment in a residential neighborhood. We all
have been able to co-exist relatively well. Let's keep it that way. There is no need for
an increase in commercial activities in this area.
I will reiterate that my primary concern is the noise in the alley vis-a-vis the electric
garage doors. At the very least, please make the hotel amend that issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Doug Sparr
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
5/19/2021 Mail - Planning Commission Comments - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/planningcomment@smgov.net/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210510006.08 1/1
OCEANA RESTAURANT TEXT AMENDMENT and CUP APPLICATION - ITEM 9-A
Nancy Cetner <nancet511@gmail.com>
Tue 5/18/2021 9:09 PM
To: Planning Commission Comments <planningcomment@smgov.net>
1 attachments (652 KB)
OCEANA HOTEL.pages;
EXTERNAL
I am sending an email in support of the OCEANA to open a
restaurant to members of the public. I am a strong supporter of
Santa Monica Businesses.
Thank you,
Nancy Cetner
--
Nancy Cetner
nancet511@gmail.com
310-998-7988
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Juan Robles
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:849 Ocean Avenue - Oceana
Date:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 10:23:28 PM
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica Planning Commission,
As a property owner and resident of less than a block away, I strongly oppose the expansion/change of the currentdesignation of 849 Ocean Avenue. My concern is that such change will potentially change the character of theneighborhood which is meant to be residential. The sought after changes will increase traffic and make the area havea more commercial appeal which will disturb the residential nature of the neighborhood.
Please feel free to contact me:
Juan Robles917 2nd Street 201Santa Monica, CA 90403(972) 740-8976
Thank you!
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
5/19/2021 Mail - Planning Commission Comments - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/planningcomment@smgov.net/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210510006.08 1/1
planning comments - 5/19/2021 Oceana 849 Ocean
David Rindlaub <rindlaub@gmail.com>
Wed 5/19/2021 9:49 AM
To: Planning Commission Comments <planningcomment@smgov.net>
1 attachments (33 KB)
20210519 Santa Monica Planning Commission Letter - Oceana.pdf;
EXTERNAL
Please find attached planning commission comments and confirm receipt.
thank you,
David Rindlaub
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
David Rindlaub
rindlaub@gmail.com
May 19th, 2021
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica Planning Commission
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, Ca 90401
Re: 849 Ocean Ave
20ENT-0236
20ENT-0237
21ENT-0090
Hearing Date: May 19th, 2021
Dear Chairperson Landres, Vice-Chairperson Paster and Honorable Commissioners:
I urge you to not approve all of the proposals referenced above.
Granting these approvals would result in the following impacts, incompatible with the current residential
and recreational character of the neighborhood. I reside on the opposite side of the same block as the
Oceana Hotel on 2nd St.:
-Increased street parking demand, impacting opportunity for recreational use of Palisades Park
and the beach.
-Increased demand and cueing of vehicles for valet parking ingress egress with increased
blocking of traffic including the bicycle traffic lane.
-Increased vehicle traffic by valet service circling block to access the hotel garage using Montana
Ave, 2nd St or 1st Court, and Idaho Ave.
Sincerely,
David Rindlaub
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
5/19/2021 Mail - Planning Commission Comments - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/planningcomment@smgov.net/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20210510006.08 1/1
Item 19-A - Oceana restaurant
Cynthia Rose <Cynthia.Rose@SMSpoke.org>
Wed 5/19/2021 10:25 AM
To: Planning Commission Comments <planningcomment@smgov.net>
1 attachments (33 KB)
2021-05 Oceana Sandpiper PC .pdf;
EXTERNAL
Dear Planning Commissioners
I am unable to speak tonight because of a prior commitment with CalBike.
Please accept this attached letter as my emphatic support Staff’s recommendation on this item.
--
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
May 19, 2021
Planning Commissioners
Item 19-A - Oceana restaurant
I am unable to speak tonight because of a prior commitment with CalBike. Please accept
this letter as my support of Staff’s recommendation on this item.
My comments below are rooted in a strong commitment to local, walkable and bikeable
businesses in our neighborhoods, and are based on my own experience and those of
others who advocate for a growing pedestrian and bicycle street culture.
I reside in mid city. For many years our neighborhood enjoyed eating at Le Petit Cafe, a
small-scale, low-impact brasserie on Colorado Avenue operated by the Bourget family. The
restaurant and staff were part of the fabric of our neighborhood. Le Petit Cafe closed a few
years back but has recently and happily been resurrected as Le Petit Chez Mimi. The cafe
provides a local and beloved alternative to the larger, corporate restaurants in the mid city
area that have survived almost exclusively on the patronage of drivers who demand space
to park - a valuable resource we’ve learned can be better utilized more equitably.
I provide this background because I envision the Sandpiper restaurant at the Oceana Hotel
as a similar kind of place where people can walk and bike from the Wilshire-Montana and
north of Montana Ave neighborhoods — as well as from other parts of the city — to enjoy a
meal in a more intimate setting than is offered in Santa Monica’s vibrant, but busier
Downtown core or Montana Avenue. Even better, the chef will accommodate the needs of
vegans and vegetarians, providing a welcoming and more sustainable menu experience for
everyone.
Staff has recommended certain conditions that take needs of people walking and biking
into consideration. I strongly urge the Hotel to incorporate these into their application:
incentives extended to pedestrian and bicycle customers and provision of a bike valet for
restaurant patrons, for convenience and bicycle security.
Finally, quiet is an unexpected phenomenon that we all came to appreciate during the early
days of the pandemic. A small restaurant incorporated in a low-key hotel is an ideal place
to relax and actually converse in relaxed, good company. A publicly-available Sandpiper
would provide an alternative to the higher volume (albeit exciting) environment easily found
elsewhere in establishments downtown and along the boulevards.
Again, I support this proposal. I hope you will send it along to the City Council for final
approval.
I appreciate your consideration.
Thank you,
Cynthia Rose
Cynthia@BerettaRose.com
Mid-City Neighborhood
Santa Monica, CA
90404
CYNTHIA ROSE
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Grafton Harper
To:Planning Commission Comments; Shawn Landres
Subject:Wednesday May 19th 2021 @5:30 PM HEARING - 849 ocean Avenue - 20ENT-0236, 20ENT-0237, 21ENT-0090
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 10:50:58 AM
EXTERNAL
Planning Commission Members -
I understand that once again The Oceana is petitioning to allow for non-residents to take mealsand potentially alcoholic beverages at their location at 701 Ocean.
I live at 837 Lincoln Blvd. and frequently walk past the building on my way to the Palisade.
Frankly I am already alarmed at the amount of reckless driving activity already taking place at
that address. There seem to be fast-moving valets or residents pulling from the passengerspaces in front of the building all the time. The pedestrian crossing has become nothing short
of hazardous as north-bound drivers have little choice but to swing around the traffic there andthen come to a screeching halt before hitting crossing pedestrians.
I understand the arguments. Who wouldn't want to get a cup of coffee or snack at a lovely
location? That's not the point. The point: This is a residential neighborhood that has no trafficinfrastructure to handle a restaurant space with outside visitors.
Wouldn't it be nice if I could have a cigar shop in the lobby of my building and a little coffee
shop on my roof too. I'm sure my neighbors would love that.
People invest in neighborhoods believing that their government will look out for their safetyand welfare by sticking to existing code and holding back the incursions of commercial
activity on the very streets that their tax dollars support. There is always someone wanting tosell something where people live. It is human nature. If a food truck pulled up there, you'd
cite it.
Reject this coffee non-sense and see it for what it is. Commercial incursion into residentialspaces.
Thank you,
Grafton____________________________
Grafton S. Harpergraftonharper@gmail.com (My new inbox as of 12/2018)
Lost track of me?
Permanent Forwarding available at grafton.harper.1998@anderson.ucla.edu
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Beverly Grossman Palmer
To:Planning Commission Comments
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Councilmember Kevin McKeown;
Christine Parra
Subject:Oceana Hotel: May 19 Planning agenda item 9-A
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:11:30 AM
Attachments:210519 Planning Commission Item 9-A.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please see the attached letter on behalf of Wilmont resident Elizabeth Van Denburgh regarding Item
9-A on the May 19, 2021 Planning Commission agenda. The item concerns a zone text amendment
and two CUPs to permit expanded food and alcohol service at the Oceana Hotel.
Beverly Grossman Palmer
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
T: 310-576-1233
F: 310-319-0156
Dir: 310-933-5930
IMPORTANT NOTICE: At this time, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
Packages requiring signatures will be returned undelivered – do not serve papers by this
method. While our office is closed, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP consents to electronic service in
all of its matters. Please serve by electronic mail to bpalmer@strumwooch.com AND to our Senior
Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at loliver@strumwooch.com. We reserve the right to object to any
notice or delivery of any kind if not actually received by counsel before all statutory deadlines.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified thatany disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictlyprohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived byMimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brandprotection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecasthelps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; andto lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL J. STRUMWASSER 10940 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2000 TELEPHONE: (310) 576-1233
BRYCE A. GEE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 FACSIMILE: (310) 319-0156
BEVERLY GROSSMAN PALMER WWW.STRUMWOOCH.COM
DALE K. LARSON
CAROLINE C. CHIAPPETTI FREDRIC D. WOOCHER
JULIA G. MICHEL † ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN
SALVADOR E. PÉREZ SENIOR COUNSEL
† Also admitted to practice in Washington
May 19, 2021
Via electronic mail
City of Santa Monica
Planning Commission
Via email to planningcomment@smgov.net
Re: May 19 Agenda Item 9-A: Oceana Hotel Zone Text Amendment, Alcohol and
Food Expansion of Service
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We write on behalf of Elizabeth Van Denburgh, a resident of the Wilmont community
who is concerned about the encroachment of commercial enterprises, and in particular hotel uses,
into the residentially-zoned neighborhood. The request of the Oceana Hotel is one such
example, and should therefore be carefully considered lest it pave the way for other businesses in
the area to undertake similar projects that expand previous entitlements. Permitting a zone text
amendment for the benefit of this specific property that directly undermines the intent of the
Council in adopting the zoning ordinance provisions in 2015 sets the City on a path towards
other future deviations from the standards and weakens the provisions of the nonconforming
ordinance.
The applicant acknowledges that the Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The
City’s nonconforming use ordinance is intended to allow for “continued occupancy and
maintenance of structures . . . so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet
the provisions of this Chapter.” (SMMC, § 9.27.010.) For nonconforming uses, “a
nonconforming use of a building or a portion of a building . . . shall neither be expanded into any
other portion of the building nor changed except to a conforming use.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 D.)
The code has very specific rules regarding the intensification of nonconforming restaurant uses:
“A nonconforming use shall not be permitted to substantially change in mode or character of
operation. A substantial change in mode or character of operation shall include, but is not limited
to, addition of uses, a change in operational hours that extends past 11:00 p.m. any night Sunday
through Thursday and/or midnight on Friday and/or Saturday or begins before 7:00 a.m., a 5
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Santa Monica Planning Commission
May 19, 2021
Page 2
percent increase in the floor area of the premises, or a 5 percent increase in the number of seats
in any restaurant, but in no case shall the increase exceed any established seating limitation in the
underlying zoning district.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 E.)
Staff correctly concluded that the Oceana’s request to revise its Conditional Use Permit
to allow both food and alcohol service to the general public would constitute an impermissible
intensification of use under the zoning code’s provisions for nonconforming uses. The examples
provided in the ordinance are not intended to be exhaustive of the possibilities for intensification,
and it would seem that allowing the general public to dine at the hotel would have the same types
of impacts as a small (5 percent) increase in floor area or seating capacity. Opening the hotel
restaurant for non-guests will likely result in an increased number of people traveling to the hotel
for the purpose of dining there who now do not have any reason to make this trip.
In fact, the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings
such as, “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;” and “will not increase the
demand for parking on-site.” (See Exhibit @, pp. 2-3.) The 1996 findings also note that “[t]he
proposed use will not adversely effect the welfare of neighborhood residents in a significant
manner in that the use will be allow[ed] for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service
to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel
related impacts.” (Id. pp. 3-4.) Staff’s conclusion that the change to allow for outside use is an
impermissible intensification is well-supported.
The Applicant’s Proposal
The applicant has proposed a Zone Text Amendment to address the limitation in the
nonconforming ordinance, suggesting text for a proposed amendment to section 9.31.040,
creating an exemption that appears to be custom-designed for the Oceana. This proposal would
create a new section in the code provision that discusses alcoholic beverage permits. The
applicant alternatively proposes to add a new section to section 9.27.050 on nonconforming uses
that specifies that a legal nonconforming hotel is permitted to change from serving guests to
serving the general public without intensifying the use under the nonconforming use provisions
of the zoning code. It would appear to be a more appropriate placement in the code to in the
section on nonconforming businesses, since this is the reason for the need for the exception and
it is better understood in that context.
The applicant also proposes a more expansive alternative, that “hotels that existed as of
January 1, 1995 in residential zones can be listed in Table 9.08.020 as permitted uses.” This
change would be inappropriate to make without significant further discussion. The staff report
lists several other nonconforming hotels in the City. Re-writing the code to make them again
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Santa Monica Planning Commission
May 19, 2021
Page 3
conforming is like opening Pandora’s box for all of these properties and should be dismissed out-
of-hand without much more robust consideration and outreach for affected properties.
Staff Proposal
The staff report for this item substantially revises the applicant’s proposal, creating a
number of operational requirements that relate to the dates that the various uses at the property
were rendered non-conforming. Instead of codifying these requirements as an exemption to the
intensification provisions in the nonconforming ordinance, it places these requirements in the
zoning code’s use table. Like the applicant’s proposal, there is a universe of only one property in
the City that meets these requirements. None of these requirements has a specific bearing on the
impact of the expanded operations. They simply assure that the operations have been extant at
the current level for a number of years.
Policy Implications
What the applicant’s and the staff’s proposed approach have in common is that they make
a hole in the existing nonconforming ordinance. As recently as 2015, the Council determined
that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified. This proposal does exactly
that. And while it may be said that in this case, only a small change is permitted, this kind of
action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users who are watching. It is unknown what
other types of proposals can be justified by other nonconforming businesses, but it can be said
that for certain that this proposal will increase the incursion of the commercial environment into
this residentially-zoned neighborhood. This is precisely what the zoning code attempted to
avoid.
While the proposal here may be so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business,
if it is adopted, what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar
exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with all sorts of loopholes? This is a path
that has the potential for significant abuse. The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple
and clear. The application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no
need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant has proposed two new Conditional Use Permits. Application 20ENT-0237
requests a new CUP for alcohol service to the general public, and Application 21ENT-0090
requests a new CUP for food service to the general public. In order to grant a CUP, the
Municipal Code requires the following findings:
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Santa Monica Planning Commission
May 19, 2021
Page 4
“A. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning District and
complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the
Municipal Code.
B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
C. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.
D. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel
if the land uses are to remain.
E. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the
District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but
not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the
operation.
F. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates
harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.
G. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant
environmental impacts or any potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced
to less than significant levels because of mitigation measures incorporated in the project or a
Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted.
H. The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.” (SMMC, § 9.41.060.)
These findings require factual support. There is no record of any environmental review
of the proposed zone text amendment or Conditional Use Permit, so there is no basis to conclude
whether the intensification of use would have impacts that has not been mitigated. The applicant
claims that opening the restaurant to the general public would have a net reduction in traffic
because neighbors could walk to the restaurant instead of driving elsewhere to eat. This is pure
speculation, not supported by any analysis. Isn’t it equally likely that patrons will drive from
elsewhere to this restaurant? The neighboring residents already live within a short walk to
downtown where there are numerous restaurants. It seems more likely that new driving demand
will be created by opening a new restaurant at the hotel. No discussion is provided of how to
accommodate the increased parking demand that this will impose in the area. While the staff
report looks at some parking studies from 2006 and 2015 to conclude that the hotel has adequate
parking, there is no evidence that traffic generation from similarly sized restaurants was studied
in connection with this application.
The Planning Commission should deny the requested entitlements. The applicant knew
that it owned a nonconforming hotel. The City has already made the decision that hotels are not
a permitted use in this neighborhood, because such businesses have negative external impacts on
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Santa Monica Planning Commission
May 14, 2021
Page 5
neighbor residents. While the existing hotels are permitted to continue operating, they should
not be allowed to intensify their operations when the City has already determined that no other
similar businesses should operate in those locations in the future.
Yours very truly,
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
Beverly Grossman Palmer
Cc: Mayor Sue Himmelrich (sue.himmelrich@smgov.net)
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan (Kristin.mccowan@smgov.net)
Councilmember Phil Brock (phil.brock@smgov.net)
Councilmember Gleam Davis (gleam.davis@smgov.net)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre (Oscar.delatorre@smgov.net)
Councilmember Kevin McKeown (kevin.mckeown@smgov.net)
Councilmember Christine Parra (Christine.parra@smgov.net)
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Kevin Kozal
To:Planning Commission Comments; Melissa Zak
Subject:Fw: Planning Commission Hearing May 19th. Agenda Item 9A Text amendment and CUP applications for the
Oceana Hotel
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:23:57 AM
Attachments:PC 2021.05.14 (CUP and Text Amendment Apps.).final.pdf
EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon,
My apologies, I sent this email to the Planning Commissioners on Monday and forgot to cc
both of you.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin V. Kozal | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 451-4138 | F: (310) 392-3537 | kozal@hlkklaw.com
HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you
may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you
have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can
be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.
From: Kevin Kozal
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 2:06 PM
To: Elisa Paster <Elisa.Paster@SMGOV.NET>; Shawn Landres <Shawn.Landres@SMGOV.NET>;
mario.fonda-bonardi@smgov.net <mario.fonda-bonardi@smgov.net>; Jim Ries
<Jim.Ries@SMGOV.NET>; Nina Fresco <Nina.Fresco@SMGOV.NET>; leslie.lambert@smgov.net
<leslie.lambert@smgov.net>; ellis.raskin@smgov.net <ellis.raskin@smgov.net>
Cc: David Martin <david.martin@smgov.net>; Jing Yeo <Jing.Yeo@SMGOV.NET>; Roxanne Tanemori
<Roxanne.Tanemori@SMGOV.NET>; Rathar Duong <rathar.duong@smgov.net>; Heidi von Tongeln
<Heidi.vonTongeln@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Planning Commission Hearing May 19th. Agenda Item 9A Text amendment and CUP
applications for the Oceana Hotel
Dear Commissioners,
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Please see my attached letter in support of Staff’s recommendation for approval of the text
amendment and CUP applications for the Oceana Hotel.
Thank you.
Kevin
Kevin V. Kozal | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 451-4138 | kozal@hlkklaw.com
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you
may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you
have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can
be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
(310) 451-4138
May 17, 2021
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica Planning Commission
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Hearing Date: May 19, 2021
Agenda Item: 9A (Oceana Hotel)
Application Nos. 20ENT-0090 (CUP for restaurant), 20ENT-0237 (CUP to
amend 96CUP-009 for alcohol service), 20ENT-0236 (Text Amendment)
Address: 849 Ocean Avenue
Applicant: OCBSM Owner LLC
Our File No. 20122.009
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the ownership of the Oceana Hotel located at
849 Ocean Avenue. The Oceana is seeking an amendment to its existing alcohol CUP,
a restaurant CUP, and a related text amendment to allow the Oceana’s existing guest-
only restaurant to also serve the general public, with no expansion of size, seating
capacity or hours of operation.
The Applicant is in full support of the Staff’s recommendations for approval of
these applications and has no objections to any of the Staff Report’s proposed
conditions of approval. We urge a favorable recommendation of the text amendment to
the City Council, and the Commission’s approval of the CUPs to allow the restaurant’s
food and alcohol service to patrons, regardless of whether they are hotel guests.
These applications merit your approval for several reasons:
• The Oceana’s restaurant already exists and will not be expanded. Serving
members of the general public does not involve any new construction,
enlargement of the existing restaurant facilities or the addition of seating.
Rather, it simply involves allowing neighbors and others from the general
public to enjoy the restaurant.
• The Oceana’s restaurant has a proven track record and has not resulted
in any adverse neighborhood impacts. As confirmed in the Staff Report,
kozal@hlkklaw.com
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Santa Monica Planning Commission
May 17, 2021
Page 2
the Oceana’s restaurant has been serving meals and beverages to hotel
guests and their invitees for many years. There have been no
neighborhood complaints (most notably no noise complaints) related to
the restaurant operations.
• Nearby residents wish to dine at the Oceana’s restaurant and this
application responsibly advances the City’s goals of providing
neighborhood-serving commercial uses and reducing vehicle trips. The
Oceana’s request to open its restaurant to the general public is based in
part upon nearby residents’ requests that they be allowed to dine at the
restaurant, just as the hotel guests do. This outcome will be beneficial to
the neighborhood in that it will provide a dining location that local residents
can simply walk to without having to drive elsewhere in the City. This
existing location advances the City’s goals of providing neighborhood-
serving commercial uses that encourage walking and bike riding instead
car trips. This will advance the following policies of the LUCE:
o Encourage uses that meet daily needs such as grocery stores, local-
serving restaurants and other businesses and activities within walking
distance of residences to reduce the frequency and length of vehicle
trips. (LUCE Policy LU4.2)
o Encourage commercial uses that provide goods and services to
support daily life within walking distance of neighborhoods. (LUCE
Policy N3.1).
• Allowing the Oceana’s restaurant to serve the public will not cause
adverse neighborhood impacts. Because of the unique configuration of the
Oceana’s guest rooms and restaurant, allowing the general public to
patronize this restaurant will not adversely impact adjacent residents.
o The restaurant does not have a separate entrance/exit to the outside.
The only way to access the restaurant is by entering through the hotel
lobby and walking along the interior courtyard near the pool to the
restaurant entrance. As such, there will not be any queuing or
congregating outside an entrance to the restaurant along Ocean
Avenue.
o There are no enclosed interior hallways to the rooms at the Oceana
Hotel. Rather the hotel room doors open onto walkways surrounding
and facing the pool. The restaurant opens to the pool deck. Thus, any
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Santa Monica Planning Commission
May 17, 2021
Page 3
noise from the restaurant that would have an impact on nearby
residents, would necessarily have a greater impact on hotel guests.
The Oceana Hotel has absolutely no interest in operating its
restaurant in a manner that would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of
its own hotel guests. In fact, the Oceana Hotel has a vested interest in
making sure the restaurant operation is quiet and creates no adverse
noise impacts.
o There cannot be any concerns about overconcentration because
surrounding properties will not qualify for alcohol CUPs.
We respectfully urge the Commission to adopt Staff’s recommendations to
recommend the City Council approve the text amendment and approve the Conditional
Use Permits subject to the City Council’s approval of the text amendment.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin V. Kozal
cc: David Martin
Jing Yeo
Roxanne Tanemori
Rathar Duong
Heidi von Tongeln
F:\WPDATA\20122\009 (CUP and Text Amendments)\Cor\PC 2021.05.14 (CUP and Text Amendment
Apps.).final.docx
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Doug Frampton
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:849 Ocean Avenue (Ocean Hotel conditional use permits )
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:24:20 AM
EXTERNAL
My name is Doug Frampton, I've shared the alley with the Oceana Hotel for the last 6+ years. I'm writing to voice my opposition to Oceana's request to open its restaurant and bar to the
general public. Since their most recent remodel, they've shown themselves to be inconsiderateneighbors. It started with weeks of construction workers killing time with too loud
conversations in the alley before construction could start. Then to the two roll up gates thatwere installed in the alley, one for deliveries and one for parking, that open and close with a
too loud metal cranking noise. Oceana claiming half the parking spaces in front of theirbuilding on Ocean Ave for their valets to use when they have their own parking garage
seemed selfish in light of our neighborhood's limited amount of permit-only parking. They'dgotten better since March '20 for the most horribly unfortunate of reasons, the COVID
lockdown. But even with the limited number of guests they've been receiving over the lastfew months, the amount and increasingly poor timing of their noise has returned.
Since the Wilmont neighborhood monthly meeting on April 6 in which I first heard aboutOceana's expansion plans, I documented no fewer than ten deliveries to their alley facing,
rolling delivery gate before 8AM, 4 of those arriving before 7AM, the earliest at 6:20AM. One of these pre 8AM deliveries was today (5/19). My work has kept me from sleeping at
home for ~10 days between 4/6 and now, it would seem safe to assume there were more. Along with guests coming back to the hotel is the return of the alley facing, rolling parking
gate welcoming cars into their underground parking without much regard to time of day. Asmore guests return to the hotel, that gate will only get busier. And now their request to open
the restaurant and bar to the general public? I'm anxious to hear their plan on how and wherethey're going to legally park the additional amount of cars in the surrounding neighborhood.
I'm also dreading the subsequent increase in the amount of early morning deliveries. TheOceana has stated that they're only asking for the restaurant to stay open until 9PM, but if it's
as successful as they're hoping it to be, it'll be only a matter of time before they'll want 10PMor beyond, adding to the nuisance.
Looking at this situation from a broader perspective, if the Oceana continues to winconcessions to improve their situation to the detriment of the people living in the surrounding
neighborhood, will all of the other boutique hotels around Wilmont start wanting their piece atour expense?
Thank you for your consideration.Doug Frampton
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:alexb226
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR THE OCEANA HOTEL’S BENEFIT
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:51:10 AM
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:
Regarding 20ENT-0236, 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the OceanaHotel receiving approval from the city of Santa Monica to allow the
general public (as opposed to only their hotel guests) to dine anddrink in their restaurant, bar, deck or pool area. I have lived next door
to the hotel since before its inception, and they have beeninconsiderate neighbors throughout. They routinely break the law by
having deliveries in our shared alley (First Court) outside of thepermitted hours, frequently at 6am and midnight, for which I have
often called the police. The trucks always sit with their engines on.They slam open and close their back doors, which is incredibly loud
and jarring, especially at 6am! The drivers themselves routinely andrepetitively yell into the hotel’s garages to announce their
arrival. Their two main garages that open onto our shared alley havepneumatic motors which are unreasonably loud. These garages are
not only where deliveries enter the building, they are also where theirvalets park guest’s cars at ALL hours of the day and night. So it
would be reasonable to assume the frequency of the piercing noisethey make would increase significantly if they were to have more
frequent guests to their property.
At the Wilmont neighborhood group’s April meeting, Mr. Yoon, thehotel’s manager, was asked repeatedly to offer any and all benefits to
our neighborhood that these changes to the hotel might bring. Theonly benefit he came up with was having (yet another) restaurant and
bar close to home where we could eat or drink. We already havedozens of these establishments. Even hundreds of them, depending
upon your perspective.
The hotel currently has 70 rooms, and only 40 parking spaces. Whereare they going to park the cars of all the additional guests they expect
to have with a restaurant available to the general public? Parking inour neighborhood is already extremely difficult to find for us
residents, and they would take away even more of those spots.
The city has already given them ample gifts, with 3 majorrenovations of the inside and outside of the hotel, and an entire half
block of what used to be street parking for the public removed alongOcean Avenue, and given to the hotel for their valet area. The hotel
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
has routinely broken the law in the past, and now they want ourzoning laws changed for them! Furthermore, they are seeking a
CUP from the city so that they can upgrade to a 47 liquor license in aresidential neighborhood. If the Oceana is allowed
these proposed waivers, permits and/or new laws, more properties inthe immediate area and in the greater Santa Monica area will no
doubt follow suit. This is a residential area, not a business area, andwe residents ought to have a semblance of quiet enjoyment in our
homes!
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,Alexandra Baron
Wilmont neighborhood resident
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Albin Gielicz
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Full support for Oceana Hotels CUP request
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:55:20 AM
EXTERNAL
Chair Landres and Planning Commissioners,
As a local resident and community leader, I fully support the Oceana Hotel’s application for atext amendment and Conditional Use Permits that will allow non-hotel guests to access its
restaurant. Please consider and support Planning Staff’s recommendation and vote in favor ofthose minor changes.
A neighborhood-friendly restaurant will encourage residents and visitors to have a meal within
walking distance of their homes. This is especially important to Santa Monicans like me wholove seeing reduced dependence on the car and more biking and walking in my neighborhood.
This hotel has always been and continues to be a great neighbor and asset to Santa Monica. It
is well-managed and operates quietly and responsibly. I have no doubt that they will continuethis culture as they welcome more guests into their restaurant.
Again, I ask you to vote yes on the Oceana’s proposal and allow it to move forward to the City
Council for further consideration.
Thank you for your consideration.
Albin Gielicz511 Montana
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh
To:Shawn Landres; Elisa Paster; Jim Ries; Nina Fresco; Leslie Lambert; ellis.rankin@smgov.net; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Planning Commission - 5/19/21 - 849 Ocean Ave - Wilmont Board Opposes intensification of Ocean, a non-
conforming use
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:55:56 AM
EXTERNAL
Chair Landres and Planning Commission Members,
The Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) opposes the approval ofthe two CUPs to provide alcohol and meal services to the general public given the
intensification of a nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. As well, theapplication for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no need to create an
exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance. The applicant's proposal is not anInterim Zoning Exemption based on the pandemic, but a permanent change to a
nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. The intensification of Oceana in aresidential neighborhood surrounded by multifamily housing and on an alley with
multifamily housing will impact this neighborhood forever. There is no doubt that the Oceanawhich Hilton announced in January 2021 to be part of its LXR Hotels & Resorts will be
marketing and intensifying its commercial impact on our neighborhood. This is not about afew neighbors stopping by for coffee, but the intensification of non-hotel guests' use of the
facility be it for dining, conferences, functions or other non-hotel guest activities.
The Oceana's 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findingssuch as, "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their
visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;" and "will not increasethe demand for parking on-site." The 996 findings also note that "the proposed use will not
adversely effect the welfare of the neighborhood residents in a significant manner in that theuse will be allowed for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service to registered
guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel relatedimpacts."
In 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be
intensified. This proposal does exactly that. The use of a text amendment to change the codeis custom-designed for the Oceana; it allows a legal nonconforming hotel to change from
serving guests to serving the general public without intensifying the use under thenonconforming use provisions of the zoning code. This zoning change starts making "swiss
cheese" or a "hole" in the existing nonconforming ordinance. This kind of action serves as aprecedent for other nonconforming users to pursue other types of proposals that expand the
commercialism in the neighborhood. This proposal will increase the incursion of thecommercial environment into our residentially zoned neighborhood. And this is previously
what the zoning code worked to stop.
This proposal may be so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business, if it is adopted,what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling
the non-conforming ordinance with loopholes. The two parking studies noted, 2006 and 2015,focused on the number of cars of hotel visitors, not the number of cars visitors who will be
driving to drinks and meals at 849 Ocean Blvd. will be pushing to this destination. Theannouncement in January 2021, of the Hilton XLR marketing relationship, will put one of the
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
most powerful hospitality businesses to continue grow business - hotel guests and if thisproposal is approved, non-hotel guests into our residential neighborhood.
Willmont members, for the past three membership meetings, have approved the following
resolution: "Wilmont supports the halt of commercial invasion and expansion into residentialneighborhoods and supports parking standards that allow existing residents to park on the
street near their homes." Our residents continue to be surprised by the commercial invasioninto our neighborhood including the 24/7 Palihouse at 3rd and Washington. What is next?
The Sovereign and Charmont apartment buildings being sold so they can evict hundreds ofresidents and turn them into hotels? Please support Wilmont and the neighborhood residents
and reject the two CUPS and proposed text amendments.
Thank-you
Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)Chair, Elizabeth Van Denburgh
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Marc Spilo
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:9-A Support
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:57:01 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Chair Landres and Planning Commissioners,
As a long term resident of a condominium located on Ocean Avenue, I support the Oceana’s
application to make their restaurant available to the public.
The Oceana Hotel is a charming and peaceful hotel on the quiet end of Ocean Avenue. The hotel
guests are fortunate to have access to the restaurant services, those of us living in the area would
also benefit from having a walkable, intimate place to relax and see the lovely hotel, it’s views and
enjoy a meal. If approved, the Oceana would be the ideal neighborhood “boutique” stop for those
of us out for a walk in Palisades Park or on a bicycle ride on the City’s beautiful new bike path.
I respectfully urge you to arrive at a positive vote on the application and recommend that the City
Council grant final approval.
Thank you for your time.
Marc Spilo
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Valerie Griffin
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:9-A Restaurant at Oceana hotel
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 12:03:04 PM
EXTERNAL
One of the things I like most about living in Wilmont is being able to walk to neighborhooddining. Opening the restaurant in the Oceana Hotel to include people who are not hotel guests
would expand dining opportunities for Wilmont residents without making any other impact onthe neighborhood!
It would allow the neighbors who have wanted to dine at that restaurant for years finally enjoy
this dining experience in their neighborhood.
This is a unique opportunity to enhance the neighborhood.
Valerie GriffinWilmont resident for over 20 years
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Jim Pickrell
To:emvandenburgh@gmail.com; Jim Pickrell; Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Oceana hotel request to convert residential property to commercial restaurant use
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 12:05:01 PM
EXTERNAL
Greetings,
My name is Jim Pickrell. I am at Santa Monica resident, at 927 6th Street, just a few blocksfrom the location where the Oceana Hotel has proposed to open a restaurant in a residentially
zoned piece of property.
In my opinion, they are lucky to be able to operate a hotel in a residential neighborhood.
If Hilton Hotels, or whoever owns this property, wants to have a restaurant in theneighborhood, there are any number of empty storefronts on the 3rd St. Promenade where they
would receive no objections at all.
There is no reason the city should feel on the defensive for enforcing residential zoningrestrictions. No good reason for changing the zoning has been presented.
Thanks,
Jim Pickrell
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Edward
To:Shawn Landres; Elisa Paster; Jim Ries; Nina Fresco; Leslie Lambert; ellis.rankin@smgov.net; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Planning Commission - 5/19/21 - 849 Ocean Ave.
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 1:50:20 PM
EXTERNAL
Chair Landres and Planning Commission Members,
I oppose the request by the Oceana Hotel, at 849 Ocean Avenue, that it be allowed to serve alcohol
and meals to non-hotel guests.
I acknowledge that Ocean Avenue is unique. But the Oceana Hotel is far north of the commercially
zoned area of Ocean Avenue. And it is in an area of the avenue that remains zoned as residential,
not commercial. Limitations of the current zoning should remain.
I oppose the request for the reasons outlined in our letter submitted by our Wilmont Board. As a
resident of Santa Monica since 1980, I believe our reasoning aligns with the historical and cultural
history of Santa Monica as a resident-centric beach town, and with the vision that many of us have
held for several decades about what the future of Santa Monica should be.
Respectfully,
Ed Hunsaker
Wilmont Board Member
814 Idaho Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Smartin007
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:20ENT-0236 ( Text Amendment ) 20ENT-0237 ( Conditional Use Permit to amend existing 96CUP-009 ) 21ENT-
0090 ( Conditional Use Permit t0 open existing hotel restaurant to the general public )
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 2:10:09 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Planning Commission,
Allowing The Oceana Hotel to open up to the public at large will have a detrimental impact onthe surrounding residential community.
It seems like it will just take away from the area and result in more traffic and noise and less
parking. I'm a member of the community near 4th and Montana not too far from the hotel andam concerned if free space for local residents is taken up by assorted cars from their valet
parking service.
I would imagine they have constraints on how many cars they can fit in their garage so if theydo open up to the general public, where is the overflow going to be?
Thank you,
Stephen Martin
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Strumpell Kent
To:Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Nina Fresco; Leslie Lambert; Shawn Landres; Elisa Paster; Ellis Raskin; Jim Ries
Cc:David Martin; Planning Commission Comments
Subject:849 Ocean Ave. item 9A
Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:58:17 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I believe the request by the applicant to serve the general public in its restaurant is reasonable and should beconsidered for the following reasons. Restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, etc can be valuable neighborhood resourcesaccessible by walking, biking and short car trips. Food services within the community, such as the restaurant atOceana, can make our city more livable by allowing access to daily needs without having to use a car. The more wecan create "complete communities" with a decent mix of daily needs close by, the more we can reduce traffic andmeet other city goals for greenhouse gas reduction, etc.
Please consider the community benefits that this proposal could create in your discussions tonight.
Thank you,
Kent Strumpell1211 B Michigan Ave.Santa Monica
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Jim Pickrell
To:emvandenburgh@gmail.com; Jim Pickrell; Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Re: Oceana hotel request to convert residential property to commercial restaurant use
Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 5:42:30 PM
EXTERNAL
It is my understanding that this meeting is postponed. I am resubmitting my comments.
Thanks
Jim Pickrell
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:04 PM Jim Pickrell <jim.pickrell@gmail.com> wrote:Greetings,
My name is Jim Pickrell. I am at Santa Monica resident, at 927 6th Street, just a few blocks
from the location where the Oceana Hotel has proposed to open a restaurant in aresidentially zoned piece of property.
In my opinion, they are lucky to be able to operate a hotel in a residential neighborhood.
If Hilton Hotels, or whoever owns this property, wants to have a restaurant in the
neighborhood, there are any number of empty storefronts on the 3rd St. Promenade wherethey would receive no objections at all.
There is no reason the city should feel on the defensive for enforcing residential zoning
restrictions. No good reason for changing the zoning has been presented.
Thanks,
Jim Pickrell
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Joshua Canter
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Public Comment - 849 Ocean Avenue
Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 11:06:23 AM
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a resident at 832 3rd St and would like to advocate for approval to allow the Oceana Hotel to serve the general
public in their restaurant.
As a prime location, this hotel should serve both visitors to our city and locals alike. The benefit to the local
community would help offset some of the more troublesome parts of a hotel in the area.
I encourage the Planning Commission to help mediate any concerns, but ultimately move forward with approval.
Thank you,
Josh Canter
832 3rd St
Santa Monica, CA 90403
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Juan RoblesTo:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:RE: 20ENT-0236, 20ENT-0237, 20ENT-0090 - 849 Ocean Avenue - Oceana
Date:Friday, May 28, 2021 12:17:45 PM
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica Planning Commission,
As a property owner and resident of less than a block away, I strongly oppose the expansion/change of the current designation of 849 Ocean Avenue. My concern
is that such change will potentially change the character of the neighborhood which is meant to be residential. The sought after changes will increase traffic and
make the area have a more commercial appeal which will disturb the residential nature of the neighborhood. For the June 9, 2021 5:30 PM meeting the proposal tochange of the text from a designated "limited only to hotel guests and their visitors" overreaches the the nature of EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 which is aboutsocial distancing. Therefore, again I strongly oppose the expansion/change of the current designation of 849 Ocean Avenue.
Please feel free to contact me:
Juan Robles
917 2nd Street 201Santa Monica, CA 90403(972) 740-8976
Thank you!
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:BRUCE GOLDSMITH
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Oceana Conditional Use Permit
Date:Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:36:45 AM
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:
I live on the same block close to Oceana Hotel (Pacifican 801 Ocean Ave.). I am all in
favor of of the hotel offering food and beverage service to the general public. I think it
would be beneficial to neighbors to have access to the hotel's bar and restaurant.
Thank you.Bruce Goldsmith
801 Ocean Ave.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Kylie Dodd
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:20ENT-0236, 20ENT-0237, 20ENT-0090
Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 7:10:48 AM
EXTERNAL
I am in full support of the Oceana Hotel receiving the necessary permits to open their restaurant to the public. I live
at 850 2nd Street (right behind the hotel). The hotel is a great neighbor and operates a professional establishment. I
often walk to Montana Ave or the Fairmont Hotel down the road for dinner - it would be wonderful to be able to
support the business that’s right in my backyard.
Thank you for the consideration!
Kylie Dodd
Sent from my iPhone
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Sean Berman
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:20ENT-0236, 20ENT-0237, 21ENT-0090
Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 7:20:49 AM
EXTERNAL
As a resident who lives within 1 block from the Oceana, I think allowing the Oceana to open their dining services to
the public would be a terrific idea, especially in light of the fact that the city planners of Santa Monica have turned
Ocean Avenue into a virtual parking lot with their insane new lane redesign that causes traffic to come to a crawl
and making it impossible to travel south of Wilshire after 7pm (dinner time). Thus having another option to dine
locally and not have to traverse this travesty of city planning gone wrong, Ocean Avenue, would be lovely. It would
also be nice to allow the hotel to recover some of their certainly lost revenues they incurred during these unfortunate
lockdowns.
-Sean
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Leslie Brothers
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:non-conforming use at Oceana Hotel
Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:03:32 PM
EXTERNAL
Hello.
I live on 12th St. and enjoy walks along Ocean Ave. in my
neighborhood. The stretch overlooking the ocean is neighborhood-
friendly and walking-friendly at this time.
I oppose the variance Oceana Hotel is asking for to permit alcohol
and dining service to non-residents of the hotel. More cars and
traffic from outside would have a negative impact on the peacefulness
of this stretch of sidewalk and street in Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Leslie Brothers
937 12th., Santa Monica
(20 year resident of Santa Monica)
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:kartichoke@aol.com
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:WE OPPOSE THE OCEANA"S TWO CUP"S AND TEXT AMENDMENT
Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 2:05:25 PM
EXTERNAL
o: plannningcomment@smgov.net by NOON on Wednesday June 9th (this
Wednesday)
Subject: Planning Commission Mtg. 6/9/21 - Item 9A - OPPOSE Oceana CUPs
and text amendment
Dear Chair Landres and Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of the Wilmont neighborhood. I oppose approvals of the two CUPs
and text amendment requested by the Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean. I am against the
intensification of a non-conforming use in my neighborhood as well as a text
amendment that should be denied because there is no need to create an examption
that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance. If you approve this variance to the
ordinance, where will it stop? Our residents continue to be blindsided by the
continuing commercial invasion into our neighborhood including the 24/7 Palihouse at
3rd & Washington, the event space being built at 4th & Montana as well as the
ongoing battle against short-term vacation e.g, AirBnB and corporate rentals. What is
next? The Sovereign and Charmont apartments buildings being sold so they can
evict hundreds of residents and turn them into hotels? The city revenue to be
generated from these CUPs will be minimal but the impact on traffic, parking and
noise in my neighborhood will not. Please support Wilmont and the neighborhood
residents and reject the two CUPs and proposed text amendment.
Sincerely,
Kay Ward
101 Calif. Ave.
Santa Monica
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From: Dr Michael Cahn <velocipedus@gmail.com>
Date: June 8, 2021 at 16:15:51 PDT
To: plannningcomment@smgov.net
Cc: Wilmont Board <wilmontinfo@gmail.com>
Subject: Wilmont Opera sings again: The old Not In My Back Yard song revisited
Dear Members of the planning commission.
Wilmont encourages residents to sing the old song into your inbox: Not in My Back Yard. This is a song
of exclusion, of
entitlement, of purity of land use, of residents against outsiders, it is a song that has acquired a distinctive
foul smell these days,
and I hope my friends at the Wilmont Board will adapt their tune to a more inclusive melody soon. The
chorus of Protect Our
Neighborhood is now plain poisonous, the old LUCE adage that neighborhood character shall be
maintained has revealed its
divisive and exclusionary face. I trust you will hear these pleas for what they are: the last remnants of a
"get out of my hood"
attitude, a failure to share, and a deep lack of imagination to appreciate the benefits of development. The
stale song of traffic,
parking, keep out does not represent the more welcoming residents, who do not see any variation as a
threat to their continued
existence.
I hope these comments help
--
Dr Michael Cahn
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Kevin Kozal
To:Elisa Paster; Shawn Landres; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jim Ries; Nina Fresco; Leslie Lambert; Ellis Raskin
Cc:David Martin; Jing Yeo; Roxanne Tanemori; Rathar Duong; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject:Oceana Hotel Planning Commission Hearing June 9, 2021 Agenda Item No. 9A
Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 5:17:20 PM
Attachments:PC 2021.06.08 (environmental review and traffic).pdf
EXTERNAL
Please see our attached letter.
Kevin V. Kozal | Attorney at Law
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200 | Santa Monica, CA 90401
O: (310) 451-4138 | kozal@hlkklaw.com
NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you
may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you
have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can
be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Aggi Raeder
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Planning Commission Mtg. 6/9/21 - Item 9A - OPPOSE Oceana CUPs and text amendment
Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 6:54:57 PM
EXTERNAL
To: plannningcomment@smgov.net
Subject: Planning Commission Mtg. 6/9/21 - Item 9A - OPPOSE Oceana CUPs and text amendment
Dear Chair Landres and Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of the Wilmont neighborhood. I oppose approvals of the two CUPs and text amendmentrequested by the Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean. I am against the intensification of a non-conforming use inmy neighborhood as well as a text amendment that should be denied because there is no need to createan examption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance. If you approve this variance to the ordinance,where will it stop? Our residents continue to be blindsided by the continuing commercial invasion into ourneighborhood including the 24/7 Palihouse at 3rd & Washington, the event space being built at 4th &Montana as well as the ongoing battle against short-term vacation e.g, AirBnB and corporate rentals. What is next? The Sovereign and Charmont apartments buildings being sold so they can evict hundredsof residents and turn them into hotels? The city revenue to be generated from these CUPs will beminimal but the impact on traffic, parking and noise in my neighborhood will not. Please support Wilmontand the neighborhood residents and reject the two CUPs and proposed text amendment.
Aggi Raeder
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Doug Sparr
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Oceana Restaurant expansion
Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 8:52:39 PM
Attachments:IMG_4992.MOV
EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Doug Sparr. I live at 850 2nd street, the building that is directly across the
alley from the Oceana Hotel. I am writing you to voice my concerns regarding the
Oceana's desire to open its restaurant/bar to the public as well as an ongoing noise
issue in the alleyway from their electric garage doors.
I have lived in this building since 2007. My unit is on the third floor, on the west side
facing the Oceana. During my residency here the Oceana has undergone two major
renovations, the most recent being about 2-3 years ago during which they installed
two new electric garage doors in the alleyway, one of which, if not both appear to beprimarily used for valet parking. The motors on these doors are extremely loud and
are a major nuisance, particularly during the evening and overnight hours. I have
heard the doors opening and closing at all hours of the night, and they frequently
disrupt my sleep. The noise is obtrusive even with the windows closed. Moreover,given that my unit does not have air conditioning, and that I enjoy fresh air, I have my
windows open close to year round.
I have attached a video I took some time between 2:00-3:00am as an example of thenoise. It is louder in person. The video only captures the door closing after it had
already opened to let a car in. It makes the same sound when it opens to let the car in
or out so the noise per car is twice as long as seen/heard in the video. Regardless of
the outcome of the vote on the restaurant, I, and my neighbors would like the hotel toinstall quieter doors to mitigate the noise, if not get rid of the electric doors altogether.
My concerns regarding the restaurant are that it will undoubtedly increase the number
of cars both in the alleyway, and going in and out of those garage doors. Hotelownership/management may argue that they expect the majority of public customers
to be walk-in. No doubt, some may walk in off the street during the day on the
weekends when there are a lot of people in Palisades Park, but undoubtedly a lot of
customers will be driving to the restaurant, particularly at night. Except for the parkingon Ocean avenue, most of the street parking in the neighborhood is permit parking,
hence there is not much street parking for these added customers. Plus, given that
the hotel is high end, it will likely attract customers who are more than willing to valet
park rather than look for a space and then feed the meter. Consequently, this willincrease the number of cars going in and out those garage doors. There is also the
possibility that the valet parkers may leave some cars temporarily parked in the alley.
In the zoom meeting last month, the hotel general manager said the restaurant is onlypermitted to be open until 9:00pm. According to the GM, there is a big pent up
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
demand for the public to be able to go to the Oceana for drinks and/or meals. An
additional concern I have is if the conditional use permit is amended to allow the
restaurant open to the public, it will set a precedent for the hotel to seek to amend
other conditional uses. That is, if the restaurant is as successful as the hotel hopes,
they may at some point seek to extend the hours of use beyond 9:00pm increasingthe noise levels when many of us are already retiring for the night.
I have loved living in this neighborhood. It is a fantastic location close to the beautiful
beaches and coastline of Santa Monica, and it is very quiet despite its proximity to thepromenade, the pier, and the beach. The Oceana has been in an unique position to
be able to operate a commercial establishment in a residential neighborhood. We all
have been able to co-exist relatively well. Let's keep it that way. There is no need for
an increase in commercial activities in this area.
I will reiterate that my primary concern is the noise in the alley vis-a-vis the electric
garage doors. At the very least, please make the hotel amend that issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Doug Sparr
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Jim PickrellTo:Planning Commission Comments; Jim PickrellCc:emvandenburgh@gmail.com; to: betzi richardson; MANJU RAMAN; Smartin007; johncysmith@gmail.com; Alissa Finerman; Laurence Eubank; Alin Wall; Armen Melkonians; Edward; Elizabeth Brooks; Reinhard KarglSubject:Comments against Oceana request for zoning changesDate:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:44:00 AM
EXTERNAL
Greetings,
As a member of the Wilmont Board, I have read the comments of Mike Cahn.
I disagree with him.
Really all he's saying is that he disagrees with us on the importance of parking and traffic and of preserving theresidential nature of our residentially zoned neighborhood.
Developers complain of "NIMBY" opposition, but "NIMBY" means a person who cares about quality of life in theirneighborhood. I refuse to apologize for this. I care a lot about the quality of life in my neighborhood. That means, Icare about parking and I care about traffic, and I want to preserve the residential nature of our residentially zonedneighborhood.
Sometimes businesses will ask for permission to operate in a residential area because there is some massive benefit to theneighborhood, such as a pool, a library or public parking. No such public benefit has been mentioned here.
Please vote against further commercial development/restaurants/bars in our residentially zoned neighborhood. If theowners of the Oceana wish to open a restaurant there are plenty of open storefronts on the Promenade where they canopen a restaurant and will have no opposition.
Many thanks,
Jim PickrellWilmont Board
From: Dr Michael Cahn <velocipedus@gmail.com>Date: June 8, 2021 at 16:15:51 PDTTo: plannningcomment@smgov.netCc: Wilmont Board <wilmontinfo@gmail.com>Subject: Wilmont Opera sings again: The old Not In My Back Yard song revisited
Dear Members of the planning commission.
Wilmont encourages residents to sing the old song into your inbox: Not in My Back Yard. This is a song of exclusion, ofentitlement, of purity of land use, of residents against outsiders, it is a song that has acquired a distinctive foul smell these days,and I hope my friends at the Wilmont Board will adapt their tune to a more inclusive melody soon. The chorus of Protect OurNeighborhood is now plain poisonous, the old LUCE adage that neighborhood character shall be maintained has revealed itsdivisive and exclusionary face. I trust you will hear these pleas for what they are: the last remnants of a "get out of my hood"attitude, a failure to share, and a deep lack of imagination to appreciate the benefits of development. The stale song of traffic,parking, keep out does not represent the more welcoming residents, who do not see any variation as a threat to their continuedexistence.
I hope these comments help--Dr Michael Cahn
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Pari White
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Planning Commission Mtg. 6/9/21 OPPOSE Oceana CUPS and Text Amendment
Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 8:42:26 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Chair Landres and Planning Commissioners:
My condo on the street level of Ocean Ave between what the approved, much-expanded
Miramar Hotel and the Oceana.
Now the Council proposes to link the new Expanded Miramar to an Expanded Oceana to
further encroach on the residential area of Santa Monica. Does Santa Monica take a % tax on
all operations of hotels, including dining and meeting rooms? Yes, righ? This is all about
money--money for Oceana, money for Hilton, and money for the Council.
Will the City's grasping of every single last dollar--without regard to Santa Monica's residents--
ever end?
The Council is expanding the commercial zone inch by inch, foot by foot. Thus, if you continue
to do this there is no justification for restricting residents from a non-conforming use allowing
them to unrestricted short-term rental of their condos, right? Why should Oceana/Hilton be
able to get a waiver if we can't? I'll even pay a hotel tax--that is what this is all about--the City
getting its money.
And no, don't start with the old saw that the money is for us, the residents; the City can't
seem to wean itself from further subsidizing the low-wage, low-taxpaying real estate
developers like Mr. Dell and Hilton).
So I oppose the approval of the two CUPS and text amendment by the Oceana Hotel at 849
Ocean Ave. There is no justification for intensifying a non-conforming use in my residential
neighborhood. We do not need new restaurant goers or meeting sites, which will increase the
auto and pedestrian traffic--YET AGAIN--in our residential neighborhood. All f
Indeed, as stated above, if this is granted then I will propose that we Ocean Avenue residents
be granted a non-conforming use allowing for short-term rentals of any duration for real
property between California & Ocean and the Oceana. Or perhaps I should propose to our
HOA that our vuilding be sold to a hotel chain? Oceanfront property is extremely valuable
today. In fact, perhaps our HOA could propose a new "opportunity zone" from California Ave
to Montana. Afterall, why should we residents be short-changed when real estate developers
are allowed to expand into our residential neighborhood?
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
I oppose the two CUPS and proposed text amendments.
Sincerely,
P. White
101 California Avenue, Apt. 102
Santa Monica, CA 90403
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Elizabeth BrooksTo:Jim PickrellCc:Planning Commission Comments; emvandenburgh@gmail.com; to: betzi richardson; MANJU RAMAN; Smartin007; johncysmith@gmail.com; Alissa Finerman; Laurence Eubank; Alin Wall; Armen Melkonians; Edward; Reinhard KarglSubject:Re: Comments against Oceana request for zoning changesDate:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 9:42:30 AM
EXTERNAL
Well-said, Jim. Thank you.Elizabeth B.
On Jun 9, 2021, at 7:43 AM, Jim Pickrell <jim.pickrell@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings,
As a member of the Wilmont Board, I have read the comments of Mike Cahn.
I disagree with him.
Really all he's saying is that he disagrees with us on the importance of parking and traffic and of preserving theresidential nature of our residentially zoned neighborhood.
Developers complain of "NIMBY" opposition, but "NIMBY" means a person who cares about quality of life in theirneighborhood. I refuse to apologize for this. I care a lot about the quality of life in my neighborhood. That means, Icare about parking and I care about traffic, and I want to preserve the residential nature of our residentially zonedneighborhood.
Sometimes businesses will ask for permission to operate in a residential area because there is some massive benefit to theneighborhood, such as a pool, a library or public parking. No such public benefit has been mentioned here.
Please vote against further commercial development/restaurants/bars in our residentially zoned neighborhood. If theowners of the Oceana wish to open a restaurant there are plenty of open storefronts on the Promenade where they canopen a restaurant and will have no opposition.
Many thanks,
Jim PickrellWilmont Board
From: Dr Michael Cahn <velocipedus@gmail.com>Date: June 8, 2021 at 16:15:51 PDTTo: plannningcomment@smgov.netCc: Wilmont Board <wilmontinfo@gmail.com>Subject: Wilmont Opera sings again: The old Not In My Back Yard song revisited
Dear Members of the planning commission.
Wilmont encourages residents to sing the old song into your inbox: Not in My Back Yard. This is a song of exclusion, ofentitlement, of purity of land use, of residents against outsiders, it is a song that has acquired a distinctive foul smell these days,and I hope my friends at the Wilmont Board will adapt their tune to a more inclusive melody soon. The chorus of Protect OurNeighborhood is now plain poisonous, the old LUCE adage that neighborhood character shall be maintained has revealed itsdivisive and exclusionary face. I trust you will hear these pleas for what they are: the last remnants of a "get out of my hood"attitude, a failure to share, and a deep lack of imagination to appreciate the benefits of development. The stale song of traffic,parking, keep out does not represent the more welcoming residents, who do not see any variation as a threat to their continuedexistence.
I hope these comments help--Dr Michael Cahn
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:alexb226
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Planning Commission Meeting 6/9/21 - Item 9A - OPPOSE Oceana CUPs and Text Amendment
Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 10:55:43 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Chair Landres and Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of the Wilmont neighborhood. I oppose approvals of the two
CUPs and text amendment requested by the Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean. I amagainst the intensification of a non-conforming use in my neighborhood as well as
a text amendment that should be denied because there is no need to create anexemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance. This is not about a few
neighbors stopping by for coffee. It’s about the intensification of non-hotelguests’ use of the facility, be it for drinking, dining, conferences, functions,
tailored events, or other non-hotel guest activities which will negatively impactparking, traffic, and noise in our residential neighborhood. It is about the
continued commercialism, invasion, and expansion into residentialneighborhoods.
If you approve this variance to the ordinance, where will it stop? Our residents
continue to be blindsided by the continuing commercial invasion into ourneighborhood including the 24/7 Palihouse at 3rd & Washington, the event space
being built at 4th & Montana as well as the ongoing battle against short-termvacation e.g., AirBnB and corporate rentals. What is next? The Sovereign and
Charmont apartments buildings being sold so they can evict hundreds of residentsand turn them into hotels? The city revenue to be generated from these CUPs will
be minimal but the impact on traffic, parking and noise in my neighborhood willnot. Please support Wilmont and the neighborhood residents and reject the two
CUPs and proposed text amendment.
Thank you,
Alexandra Baron850 2nd Street
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Doug Frampton
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Planning Commission Meeting 6/9/21 - Item 9A - OPPOSE Oceana CUPs and Text Amendment
Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:11:31 AM
EXTERNAL
I am a resident of the Wilmont neighborhood. I oppose approvals of the two CUPs and textamendment requested by the Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean. I am against the intensification of a
non-conforming use in my neighborhood as well as a text amendment that should be deniedbecause there is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
This is not about a few neighbors stopping by for coffee. It’s about the intensification of non-hotel guests’ use of the facility, be it for drinking, dining, conferences, functions, tailored
events, or other non-hotel guest activities which will negatively impact parking, traffic, andnoise in our residential neighborhood. It is about the continued commercialism, invasion, and
expansion into residential neighborhoods.
If you approve this variance to the ordinance, where will it stop? Our residents continue to beblindsided by the continuing commercial invasion into our neighborhood including
the 24/7 Palihouse at 3rd & Washington, the event space being built at 4th & Montana as wellas the ongoing battle against short-term vacation e.g., AirBnB and corporate rentals. What is
next? The Sovereign and Charmont apartments buildings being sold so they can evicthundreds of residents and turn them into hotels? The city revenue to be generated from these
CUPs will be minimal but the impact on traffic, parking and noise in my neighborhood willnot. Please support Wilmont and the neighborhood residents and reject the two CUPs and
proposed text amendment.
Regards,Doug Frampton
850 2nd Street
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh
To:Planning Commission Comments; Shawn Landres; Leslie Lambert; ellis.rankin@smgov.net; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries;Elisa Paster
Cc:David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject:Planning Commission - 6/9/21 - Item 9A - 849 Ocean Ave. - Wilmont Board Opposes Intensification of OceanaHotel, a non-conforming use in Wilmont
Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:47:17 AM
Attachments:image.png
EXTERNAL
June 9, 2021
Chair Landres and Planning Commission Members,
The Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) opposes the
approval of the two CUPs to provide alcohol and meal services to the general public
given the intensification of a nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood.
As well, the application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there
is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance. The
applicant's proposal is not an Interim Zoning Exemption based on the pandemic, but a
permanent change to a nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. The
intensification of Oceana in a residential neighborhood surrounded by multifamily
housing and on an alley with multifamily housing will impact this neighborhood
forever. There is no doubt that the Oceana which Hilton announced in January 2021
to be part of its LXR Hotels & Resorts will be marketing and intensifying its
commercial impact on our neighborhood. This is not about a few neighbors stopping
by for coffee, but the intensification of non-hotel guests' use of the facility be it for
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
dining, conferences, functions or other non-hotel guest activities.
The Oceana's 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on
findings such as, "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel
guests and their visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding
uses;" and "will not increase the demand for parking on-site." The 996 findings also
note that "the proposed use will not adversely effect the welfare of the neighborhood
residents in a significant manner in that the use will be allowed for a Type 70
restricted license, allowing alcohol service to registered guests of the hotel and their
visitors only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel related impacts."
In 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be
intensified. This proposal does exactly that. The use of a text amendment to change
the code is custom-designed for the Oceana; it allows a legal nonconforming hotel to
change from serving guests to serving the general public without intensifying the use
under the nonconforming use provisions of the zoning code. This zoning change
starts making "swiss cheese" or a "hole" in the existing nonconforming ordinance.
This kind of action serves as a precedent for other nonconforming users to pursue
other types of proposals that expand the commercialism in the neighborhood. This
proposal will increase the incursion of the commercial environment into our
residentially zoned neighborhood. And this is previously what the zoning code
worked to stop.
This proposal may be so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business, if it is
adopted, what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with loopholes. The two parking
studies noted, 2006 and 2015, focused on the number of cars of hotel visitors, not the
number of cars visitors who will be driving to drinks and meals at 849 Ocean Blvd. will
be pushing to this destination. The lack of operational impact and how it would be
mitigated is missing as well. With additional non-hotel guests arriving there will be
additional noise, traffic and parking. How will a conference or onsite wedding of 50
people be addressed? These lack of details concern us and provide us no
confidence that the arrival of non-hotel guests using the facility will not adversely
impact the neighborhood. The announcement in January 2021, of the Hilton XLR
marketing relationship, will put one of the most powerful hospitality businesses to
continue growing business - hotel guests and if this proposal is approved, non-hotel
guests into our residential neighborhood. We have applauded the city’s work in
ensuring short-term and corporate rentals do not replace our neighborhoods and
residents with tourists. Please support the same policy with respect to the expansion
of a non-conforming use in our neighborhood.
Willmont members, for the past three membership meetings, have approved the
following resolution: "Wilmont supports the halt of commercial invasion and expansion
into residential neighborhoods and supports parking standards that allow existing
residents to park on the street near their homes." Our residents continue to be
surprised by the commercial invasion into our neighborhood including the 24/7
Palihouse at 3rd and Washington. What is next? The Sovereign and Charmont
apartment buildings being sold so they can evict hundreds of residents and turn them
into hotels? Please support Wilmont and the neighborhood residents and reject the
two CUPS and proposed text amendments.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Thank-you
Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Chair, Elizabeth Van Denburgh
2
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Doug Sparr
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Objection to Oceana Hotel restaurant expansion
Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:49:04 AM
Attachments:Rebuttal to Oceana Hotel.pdf
EXTERNAL
Hi,
Attached is a letter from a neighbor of mine at 850 2nd Street stating their objections
to the proposed change in the conditional use permit at the Oceana Hotel. For privacy
reasons they have asked me to submit it on their behalf.
Sincerely,
Doug Sparr
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
To Whom It May Concern:
Regarding 20ENT-0236, 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090
This letter is intended to express my strong opposition to the applicant’s request for approvals of
two Conditional Use Permits to provide alcohol and meal services to the general public for the
property offered by the *Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. The vision set
out by the City of Santa Monica and documented on the City Manager’s website reads as
follows:
“City Manager's Office leads the team of City departments and staff to achieve the City
Council's vision of a thriving community of sustainable wellbeing. Our mission is to foster
collaboration and innovation to create a 21st century city that works for everyone.”
By permitting this hotel to add the above-mentioned Conditional Use Permits, the Department is
not supporting the goals of our mission statement for the city.
I have lived at the building behind the hotel for over 30 years and so have a long-history with it
as my neighbor. After completing multiple expensive renovations of the property, records
suggest that they planned to hire the well-known chef in 2019, Raphael Lunetta, to run a guest-
only hotel restaurant, consistent with their current licensure. Their business plan looks to have
changed in response to the pandemic and its toll on hotel bookings, not the need or wish of its
neighbors to add yet another restaurant and its potential for expansion.
For more information, please refer to the link below.
https://la.eater.com/2019/3/26/18282705/oceana-santa-monica
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the hotel first applied for a limited license back in 1996.
Though records from the Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) records only reflect one violation
within the past eight years or so, I understand that there have been complaints to the Santa
Monica Police Department regarding business practice violations in relation to its operation of
the hotel. I have witnessed continued problems with deliveries outside of permitted hours, loud
noise from delivery and valet personnel, increased trash and cigarette butts against our building,
patrons of the hotel who go in/out of cars late in the evening and early in the mornings (talking
loudly, slamming doors), and more. I believe that adding the requested permits will increase the
noise even more, decrease the number of parking spaces outside the facility available for
homeowners, and increase the number of alcohol-related problems that have already take over
Santa Monica. It is my understanding that the SMPD is already overwhelmed; more areas to
closely patrol is not what they need at this juncture.
Page One
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Finally, there are about 41 long-standing hotels and hundreds of restaurants that have suffered
greatly from the pandemic and need visitor help to survive. Our support should be to those
establishments who have received government funding to support business maintenance, not to
the opening of new ones in nonpermitted areas. This will only open the door to other small hotels
that will follow the same requests. (*Of note, according to the Santa Monica Finance
Department, this property holds a different business name than recorded on the Public
Hearing Notice.)
The restriction of the permit for the property at the ABC Type 70 restrictions should remain as is
or at minimum put on hold until the Santa Monica City Hall reopens for desk help. Most of the
contact numbers, including the one given for this meeting (310) 458-8341, do not work to get a
live person; this prevents acquiring needed information and documentation.
Respectfully Submitted anonymously,
I have intentionally not signed this letter and released my name for privacy reasons. I do not have
access to the necessary technology and so asked a colleague to send it on my behalf.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Page Two
.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Cuppy TheCupGuy
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Oceana Rezoning
Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 1:59:30 PM
EXTERNAL
Hi,
I would like to make an anonymous plea for the rejection of the rezoning of The Oceana hotel to allow public sale
of food and alcohol. As a resident of the building directly behind the hotel, parking, littering and noise are already
an issue. By allowing a bar and restaurant to open in a residentially zoned areas, filled with families, you
jeopardize the ability to live in a quiet area where many residents have lived for decades. The sound of backing
up trucks, intoxicated patrons and lack of parking for residents would cause many to reconsider why they moved
here in the first place.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
From:Alin Wall
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Planning Commission meeting 6/9/21-Item 9A-Oceana Hotel FOR CUP"s
Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 4:23:06 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Planning Commission-
I live in the Wilmont neighborhood and have no problem with allowing the general public to eat and
drink in the Oceana’s hotel restaurant. I simply do not see hoards of people flooding our
neighborhood to eat in a small hotel restaurant. I actually would love to be able to walk the 8 blocks
from my home and have a nice quiet dinner at the Oceana and watch the sunset as we use to do
several years ago. Please vote to approve their CUP’s.
Thank you,
Alin Wall, CPA
Of Counsel
Family Office & Business Management Services
alin.wall@armaninoLLP.com
11766 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 900 | Los Angeles, CA 90025
(310) 478-4148 ext 5704 main | (310) 745-5704 direct | (310) 709-2857 mobile | (310) 703-1104 fax
LinkedIn | armaninollp.com
At Armanino, our purpose is to be the most innovative and entrepreneurial firm that makes a positive
impact on the lives of our clients, our people and our communities. Achieving our purpose requires a
culture that unleashes the power of diversity and creates an environment in which every member of the
Armanino team feels respected, valued for their uniqueness and experiences, connected to their
colleagues and the firm, confident to speak up, and comfortable to be themselves. Our differences make
us stronger, smarter and more innovative. All are welcome at Armanino.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE:This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may containconfidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any actionin reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this by mistake,please contact the sender immediately. Check here for information about Armanino's use of certain personal information.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Correspondence provided to the Planning Commission, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
1
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBERS: 20ENT-0237 (Conditional Use Permit to amend 96CUP-
009 for alcohol service) 21ENT-0090 (Conditional Use
Permit for restaurant)
LOCATION: 849 Ocean Avenue
APPLICANT: OCBSM Owner LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: OCBSM Owner LLC
CASE PLANNER: Rathar Duong, Associate Planner
REQUEST: The applicant requests approvals of two Conditional Use Permits to provide meal and alcohol services to the General public offered by the Oceana Hotel’s existing
onsite restaurant. These services are currently limited only
to hotel guests and their visitors. Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090 seeks to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing restaurant to the general public within established indoor and outdoor dining facilities on the hotel property.
Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237 seeks to amend the
hotel’s existing Conditional Use Permit 96CUP-009 associated with the hotel’s existing ABC Type 70 alcohol license (On-Sale General-Restrictive Service) to provide alcohol service to the general public in conjunction with the hotel’s full-service restaurant meal service pursuant to a
an ABC Type 47 License (On-Sale General-Eating Place).
The proposed project requires modifications to land use regulations contained in Article 9 of the Municipal Code.
Therefore, an application to amend the Santa Monica
Municipal Code (SMMC) will also be considered by the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 54A35E1F-109E-498F-8C48-1AA488CB249B
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
2
Commission for formulation of a recommendation to the
City Council. Text Amendment 20ENT-0236 seeks to amend SMMC Section 9.08 (Multi-Unit Residential Districts), specifically SMMC Section 9.08.020 – Land Use Regulations to establish a Conditional Use Permit
requirement for an existing legal, non-conforming hotel
restaurant located within the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts to request approval to provide meal service to the general public provided that certain criteria are met. The Oceana Hotel is located in the R3 (Medium Density Residential)
Zoning District.
The approval of Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237 to amend 96CUP-009 for alcohol service and Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090 for opening the onsite hotel
restaurant to the public are contingent on City Council’s
approval of Text Amendment 20ENT-0236.
CEQA STATUS: Projects that are denied are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline
Section 15270(a).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 9, 2021 Determination Date
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
X Denied.
Other:
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED:
June 24, 2021
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY
PERMITS GRANTED:
n/a
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE
EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*:
n/a
*Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the CityPlanning Division prior to expiration of this permit.
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 54A35E1F-109E-498F-8C48-1AA488CB249B
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
3
FINDINGS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS (20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090) A. Upon consideration of the proposal and associated applications in a public hearing and after hearing public testimony, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Alcohol Outlet findings required by SMMC Sections 9.41.060 and 9.31.040(C) cannot be made
in the affirmative by the Planning Commission in support and approval of Conditional Use Permit applications 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090 to amend an existing alcohol CUP (96ENT-009) to permit a Type 47 license in conjunction with opening up the existing onsite hotel restaurant to the general public for meal and alcohol service. 849 Ocean Avenue is located within the R3 (Medium Density Residential) District and the
existing Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. A publicly-accessible restaurant and by extension, the service of alcoholic beverages with meal service are not permitted uses by the Zoning Ordinance within the R3 Zoning District and is specifically prohibited by SMMC Section 9.08.020, Table 9.08.020 – Land Use Regulations without first modifying certain permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance
through a Text Amendment to allow the existing restaurant meal service and associated alcohol service to be provided to the general public. The Planning Commission considered this proposed Text Amendment (20ENT-0236) and, by a vote of 3-3, did not recommend approval.
Further, use-related conditions specifying the following were not included in the staff-recommended conditions of approval for the two CUPs: 1) hours of operation that include a 10:00 PM closing hour on Sundays; 2) valet service that includes bicycle valet; 3) a requirement for multi-year annual review for evaluating compliance with conditions of approval that also includes a clear process for public participation,
including an assessment of parking operations and parking demand generated by the restaurant; and 3) a condition addressing the limitation on private events.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 54A35E1F-109E-498F-8C48-1AA488CB249B
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
4
VOTE for Denial of Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237 Ayes: Fonda-Bonardi, Fresco, Lambert, Landres, Raskin, Ries
Nays:
Abstain: Absent: Paster VOTE for Denial of Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090
Ayes: Fonda-Bonardi, Fresco, Lambert, Landres, Raskin, Ries Nays: Abstain: Absent: Paster
NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of
this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010. I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. _____________________________ _____________________________ Shawn Landres, Chairperson Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: 54A35E1F-109E-498F-8C48-1AA488CB249B
7/21/2021
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, June 9, 2021 (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 20ENT-0236 (Text Amendment) 21ENT-0138 (Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237) 21ENT-0139 (Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090)) 849 Ocean Avenue APPLICANT: OCBSM Owner LLC PROPERTY OWNER: OCBSM Owner LLC A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request: Appeals of Planning Commission denials of two Conditional Use Permit applications to provide alcohol and meal services to the general public offered by the Oceana Hotel’s existing onsite restaurant. These services are currently limited only to hotel guests and their visitors. Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090 seeks to open the Oceana Hotel’s existing restaurant to the general public within established indoor and outdoor dining facilities on the hotel property. Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237 seeks to amend the hotel’s
existing Conditional Use Permit 96CUP-009 associated with the hotel’s existing ABC Type 70 alcohol license (On-Sale General-Restrictive Service) to provide alcohol service to the general public in conjunction with the hotel’s full-service restaurant meal service. The proposed project requires modifications to land use regulations contained in Article 9 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, an application to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) will also be
considered by the City Council for approval and adoption. Text Amendment 20ENT-0236 seeks to amend SMMC Section 9.08 (Multi-Unit Residential Districts) to establish a new Conditional Use Permit requirement
for an existing legal, non-conforming hotel restaurant located within the R2 and R3 zoning districts to request approval to provide meal service to the general public provided that certain criteria are met. At the time of the public hearing, the City Council will also be considering compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Oceana Hotel is located in the R3 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning
District. After holding a public hearing on June 9, 2021, the Planning Commission denied the Condition Use Permit applications and did not make an affirmative recommendation to Council for the proposed Text
Amendment.
On February 22, 2022, the City Council voted 7-0 to approve a settlement with the applicant that included holding a de novo public hearing to consider the proposed project anew. DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022 AT 6:30 PM LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the public hearing via email to councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov or via mail to City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, California 90401. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public record. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments. You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed instructions on how to comment in person. Address your comments to: City Clerk Re: Oceana Hotel Appeal VIA EMAIL: councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, 90401
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Public Notification [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Rathar Duong at (310) 458-2200 ext. 5114, or by e-mail at rathar.duong@santamonica.gov. For disability-related accommodations, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or (310) 917-6626 TDD at least 72 hours in advance. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written
materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free). Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing. ESPAÑOL : Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-2275.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Public Notification [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
OCEAN AVENUE IDAHO AVENUEFIRST COURT(PUBLIC ALLEY)
(E) PLANTING
MAIN
ENTRANCE
EXISTING
COURTYARD
(OPEN TO SKY)150.20'⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊⅊
⅊⅊⅊
ELEVATOR
(E) PLANTING
EXISTING 3-STORY
BUILDING WITH
BASEMENT PARKING
AREA OF PUBLIC
ACCESS AT ENTRY
LEVEL SHOWN COLORED
(SEE ENTRY LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN)
PUBLIC SIDEWALK
RESTAURANT
DINING ROOM
ELEV
VEHICULAR ACCESS
TO BASEMENT
PARKING
LOBBY
WAITING
PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS TO
HOTEL
STAIRS
ADA
LIFT
PATIO DINING
PATIO DINING
NORTH
OVERALL SITE PLAN
1" = 20'-0"
APRIL 19, 2021
Oceana Beach Club Hotel
849 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, California 90403
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context Photographs (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
43
65
87
109
1211
13
14
15
16
17 21
4344
45
46
47
48 49
49 SEATS
COUNTER
SEATING
120 SQ. FT.
RESTAURANT
ENTRY
EXTERIOR
FACING STREET
PUBLIC
CIRCULATION
FAU
GUESTROOM
103
T
(E) EMPLOYEE
STAIR
(E) CHAIR LIFT
AREA
(E) LOBBY
(E) STORAGE/
LUGGAGE
RESTROOM
DINING
ROOM
T(E) ELEVATOR
(E) ENTRY
(E) OFFICE
NEW
RESTROOM
WAITING AREA
43
5
61
2
PATIO DINING
PATIO DINING
FIRE PIT
TREE WELL
TREE WELL
TO KITCHEN AND
RESTAURANT STORAGE
BELOW
5 1
2
4
201918
22 26252423
30292827
34333231
35
36
38
37
39
40
42
41
3
21
11
12
8
7
910
SWIMMING
POOL
OUTDOOR
COURTYARD
299 SQ. FT.
130 SQ. FT.
127 SQ. FT.
92 SQ. FT.
1295 SQ. FT.
227 SQ. FT.
RESTAURANT
60 SQ. FT.
892 SQ. FT
NOT ASSOCIATED
WITH RESTAURANT
NOT ASSOCIATED
WITH RESTAURANT
13 14 15
16 17 18
AREA AND SEATING COUNT:
WAITING AREA:
AREA 92 SF
SEATS 5
RESTAURANT DINING RM:
AREA (includes 1,072 SF
60 sf restroom
and 120 sf bar)
SEATS 49
PATIO DINING:
AREA 484 SF
SEATS 18
KITCHEN (ON FLOOR BELOW):
AREA ±1,800 SF
STAFF ONLY (STORAGE):
AREA (299 SF not associated
with Restaurant)NORTH
ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
3/16" = 1'-0"
April 19, 2021
Oceana Beach Club Hotel
849 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, California 90403
PUBLIC DINING
SEATING
PUBLIC
CIRCULATION
STAFF
ONLY
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context Photographs (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
OCEANA HOTEL PHOTOS FOR DISCRETIONARY PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT April 19, 2021
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context Photographs (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context Photographs (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context Photographs (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
April 19, 2021
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context Photographs (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Existing 3rd Floor Patio 6.A.fPacket Pg. 848Attachment: Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context Photographs (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text
Image of the existing 3rd floor patio
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Project Plans, Rendering, and Neighborhood Context
Image of existing 3rd floor patio
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Project Plans,
BACKGROUND PARKING INFORMATION – OCEANA HOTEL
Excerpts from the 2006 Parking Study by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan
• The study forecasted that with 70 guest rooms, the hotel would generate a peak parking demand of 49 parking spaces at 1:00 am when guests are typically in
for the evening. This demand is below the 58 existing on-site parking spaces,
in addition to 8 vehicles that could be stored in the parking drive aisles through the valet parking operation.
• With 70 rooms and 66 parking spaces (with valet), the parking ratio is 0.94
parking spaces per room; code requires one parking space per room.
• The hotel provided data from its computer logs which confirmed that an average of 65% of the occupied rooms utilized the parking garage during the period of the parking study.
• The hotel also performed a guest arrival survey from August 23, 2006 - August 29, 2006 to determine:
1) the percentage of occupied rooms that used the parking garage and,
2) the percentage of guests arriving at the hotel who utilized the parking garage.
Over the 7-day survey period, when the hotel was operating at approximately 94% occupancy, an average of 68% of occupied rooms and arriving guests had
vehicles parked in the garage.
• Approximately 1/3 of the guest arrivals each day are dropped off either by a
taxi or private vehicle not parked at the hotel.
• Many guests are corporate travelers or families who rent multiple rooms, but share one vehicle.
Excerpts from the 2015 Parking Count by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan
• The study surveyed parking spaces within the hotel’s garage from Thursday
May 7 through Saturday May 9, 2015 between 6:00 AM and midnight each day. The peak hotel guest parking demand was 29 spaces and the hotel’s occupancy varied between 93% and 100%.
• Avante Agurs, Oceana’s Assistant Manager confirmed that even at 100%
occupancy pre-pandemic, no more than 25 cars were parked in the garage at any one time (letter attached).
• Since 2015, ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft have increased in popularity and usage. The Oceana Hotel estimates that immediately prior to
the pandemic, guest parking in the Hotel was slightly less than in 2015.
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Background Parking Information (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Background Parking Information (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Background Parking Information (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60
Attachment “H” Table 1. Summary of Relevant Zoning Designations and Regulations
Timeframe Parcel Zoning Relevant Regulation
1948 – 1990 R4 Ordinance 148 (CCS) and subsequent zoning ordinance amendments: Hotels are a Permitted Use 1990 – 1995 R3-NW Ordinance 1543 (CCS): Parcel rezoned from R4 to R3
and created the North of Wilshire (NW) Overlay District. Hotels are not permitted. Existing commercial uses in certain residential districts are subject to the municipal
code’s termination of nonconforming buildings and uses provisions (twenty years for the subject property). 1995 – 2015 R3-NW / R3 Ordinance 1832 (CCS): Allows the retention and the replacement of a long-standing use that does not cause adverse or significant impacts in the neighborhood.
Hotels existing as of January 1, 1995 are determined
to be an Allowed Use: a Limited Use only authorized in
accordance with the standards and limitations set forth as additional land use regulations in the Multiple Family Residential Districts. Hotels existing as of January 1, 1995 are permitted to increase the number of hotel rooms or rebuild subject to certain
requirements. Ordinance 2131 (CCS): Eliminated the NW Overlay District in 2004 and affirmed that hotels existing as of January 1, 1995 are determined to be an Allowed
(Limited) Use. 2006 – 2015 R3 Ordinance 2213 (CCS): Hotels existing as of January
1, 1995 are an Allowed Use (a Limited Use) and may increase the number of guest rooms subject to certain requirements.
July 24, 2015 – to the Present
R3 Current Zoning Ordinance for Multi-Unit Residential Districts: Hotels and Motels are not a permitted use in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts and are permitted after
review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the
R4 Zoning District.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Table of Relevant Zoning Designations and Regulations (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment,
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Bethany Longest <longestbeth@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:17 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White
Subject:Stop Oceana Hotel
EXTERNAL
Mayor Sue Himmelrich,
I urge you to stop the Oceana Hotel from opening their restaurant and bar to the general public. I live in the same
neighborhood as the Oceana Hotel. It’s a peaceful part of town, for the most part. I’m a nurse at Providence St. John’s
Health Center who is raising my three year old boy with my husband. I bike to work. We take walks to palisades park
daily to walk our dog and play with our son. I would love to be able to stay in this neighborhood and raise my son, who
will eventually go to Roosevelt Elementary School.
My fears are this:
1.More congestion on Ocean Ave near the Hotel. We already have to be super careful on the pedestrian crosswalk due
to cars not stopping for us.
2.Increase noise in the alley which backs up to our apartment building
3.More trucks making deliveries, possibly violating the 0700 am code.
I don’t know if I’m completely understanding this correctly, but it looks like one CUP is to allow non‐guests to eat and
drink at the Oceana hotel restaurant/bar and another CUP is to extend the non‐conforming use zoning for Wilshire
Montana Neighborhood Coalition. As a tax‐paying, working member of the community, I urge you to stop these CUP
expansions. I really feel strongly that it will negatively impact our quality of life in this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Bethany Longest, BSN, RN &
Derek Longest
Item 6.A 11/23/21
1 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Bethany Longest <longestbeth@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:27 AM
To:Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc:Derek Longest; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject:Stop Oceana Hotel
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I urge you to stop the Oceana Hotel from opening their restaurant and bar to the general public. I live in the same
neighborhood as the Oceana Hotel. It’s a peaceful part of town, for the most part. I’m a nurse at Providence St. John’s
Health Center who is raising my three year old boy with my husband. I bike to work. We take walks to palisades park
daily to walk our dog and play with our son. I would love to be able to stay in this neighborhood and raise my son, who
will eventually go to Roosevelt Elementary School.
My fears are this:
1. More congestion on Ocean Ave near the Hotel. We already have to be super careful on the pedestrian crosswalk due
to cars not stopping for us.
2. Increase noise in the alley which backs up to our apartment building
3. More trucks making deliveries, possibly violating the 0700 am code.
I don’t know if I’m completely understanding this correctly, but it looks like one CUP is to allow non‐guests to eat and
drink at the Oceana hotel restaurant/bar and another CUP is to extend the non‐conforming use zoning for Wilshire
Montana Neighborhood Coalition. As a tax‐paying, working member of the community, I urge you to stop these CUP
expansions. I really feel strongly that it will negatively impact our quality of life in this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Bethany Longest, BSN, RN &
Derek Longest
Item 6.A 11/23/21
2 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:star4769@aol.com
Sent:Thursday, November 18, 2021 11:38 AM
To:councilmtgitems; star4769@aol.com
Subject:CITY CLERK RE: Comments concerning 840 Ocean Avenue 20ENT-0236 21ENT-1038 20ENT-0237
21ENT-1039 21ENT-0090
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council.
I reside at 858 Third Street (Third Street & Idaho Avenue) which is two short blocks from the Oceana Hotel. I
received notice of the hotel's appeal of previous denials to their Conditional Use Permit for the operation of
dining facilities and an on-site bar which would be open to the public from 7:00 AM till 10:00 PM Sunday through
Thursday and until 11:00 PM on Friday and Saturday.
This appeal opens up an entirely new set of circumstances for our residential neighborhood based on the added
traffic and inconvenience caused by the possible approval of this project should it subsequently be approved
at your November 23rd Meeting.
The objections I would like to make are based on the following points:
The letter from the Oceana Hotel concerning their "surplus parking" in terms of present parking statistics
does not take into account the added parking necessary for a restaurant and bar open to the public. Their
estimates are based on the current situation of hotel guests only. It also does not consider that the only
non-hotel guests are those that current guests invite into the hotel. Therefore, the hotel letter is irrelevant.
A restaurant / bar open to the public generates possible vehicle traffic equal to the number of patron on a
particular evening. It is not unheard of for each of the patrons to drive their own vehicle to the hotel in
order to dine or drink at the facility. A very high percentage of the patrons of the new restaurant will not
be taking public transportation or arriving in an UBER, generating a high volume of vehicles for the Valet
Parking Station.
The hotel's parking estimate for unused parking spaces in based on one vehicle for each room. Generally,
the guests in each room do not arrive at the hotel in individual vehicles and usually arrive in a single
vehicle. A restaurant and bar generates many more vehicles per hour during business hours. Where are
these valet parked vehicles to go during peak hours, especially if extensive advertising, promotion and
social media campaigns are enacted to promote dining and entertaining at the hotel?
It is my belief that the Valet Parking attendants will certainly not turn away patrons once the available on-
site parking spaces are filled, especially during the evening hours. In my experience, these valets will
seek out street parking in the nearby neighborhood, in spite of Resident Only Parking restrictions that are
currently in place, perhaps causing residential parking permit holders to be inconvenienced and
prevented from parking near their apartments. These are important residents of the neighborhood where
the Oceana Hotel wants to go into the restaurant and bar business.
In addition, the potential patrons, and the valet attendants themselves, will view the parking adjacent to
the Palisade Bluffs as ideal for their use. Many of the residents use these parking spaces for second
vehicles not permitted in their apartment buildings where they are limited to one parking space.
It is a fact that not all of the diners or bar patrons will use the valet service at the hotel. Many potential
patrons are not comfortable with random valet attendants driving their vehicles. Assuming that most
valets are trustworthy (although many are not), many patrons driving expensive and pristine vehicles do
not want to take a chance on injuring their cars, especially since most valet contracts exempt them from
damage to the vehicles they park.
I am fairly certain that the existing downtown restaurants, those that obey the existing zoning laws, will
not be pleased with the possible approval of this appeal. In addition, possible approval opens residential
neighborhoods to similar requests. What is to say that, if this is approved, Pali House (a few blocks away)
Item 6.A 11/23/21
3 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
will not request similar zoning variances? Perhaps Brookside (senior living a blockaway) will see an
opportunity to open to diners after their senior residents finish dinner early in the evening?
Oceana Hotel's proposed count of dining room tables, poolside tables and bar seating does not take into
account the ten seats in their nearby Conference Room, which adds more possible patrons to the mix.
The Oceana Hotel claims that it has been a good neighbor for many years. May I remind the City Council
that this only happened because they did not operate a full service restaurant and bar during this time.
Therefore the chance for less than neighborly behavior was never a prior consideration.
While I appreciate the hotel's offer of free beverages and appetizers for those living nearby, having lived
in this neighborhood for over forty years, I never found the hotel to be welcoming to those living around
them. On may occasions I have watched most the hotel staff curtly deny questions concerning directions
and other information from those walking near the hotel. Indeed, many were discouraged from even
entering the lobby.On one occasion, I was turned away from their lobby when I stopped in to ask about
their rates and room availability for one of my foreign clients. This may just have been a member of the
hotel staff having a bad day but it is concerning to me nonetheless. Things may have changed but that is
my impression of staff and management.
Therefore, I request that the approval of the zoning variances for Oceana Hotel be rejected based on the current
zoning ordinances for Multi-Unit Residential Districts in R2 and R3 Zoning Districts and, in addition, the absence
of planning for the above restaurant and bar problems pointed out. The neighborhood residents do not generally
benefit from another restaurant and bar nearby, especially with so many established restaurants and bars exist a
few short blocks from their homes (North of Montana) and apartments. The Fairmont Hotel., for example, is only a
short walk away, and has been for decades.
The only institution benefiting from this request is the hotel itself without much concern for their neighbors.
James R. Firth
858 Third Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 6.A 11/23/21
4 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marc Spilo <marc@spilo.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 18, 2021 12:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oceana Hotel dining
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
On May 19, I wrote to the Planning Commission to support the Oceana’s application to make their restaurant available to
the public. I still strongly support the project and hope you will grant their appeal on Tuesday night.
The Oceana Hotel is a charming and peaceful hotel on the quiet end of Ocean Avenue. The hotel guests are fortunate to
have access to the restaurant services. Those living in the neighborhood would also benefit from having a walkable,
intimate place to relax and see the lovely hotel, its views and enjoy a meal. If approved, the Oceana would be the ideal
neighborhood “boutique” stop for neighbors out for a walk in Palisades Park or on a bicycle ride on the City’s beautiful
new bike path. I respectfully urge you to consider Staff's recommendation and grant the appeal.
Thank you for your time.
Marc Spilo
Item 6.A 11/23/21
5 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Doug Sparr <sparrmandingo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, November 19, 2021 9:04 AM
To:Gleam Davis
Cc:David White; councilmtgitems
Subject:Oceana Hotel's CUPs to Open Restaurant to Public
Attachments:garage door at night.MOV; No parking alley signs.jpeg; Delviery truck video.mov
EXTERNAL
Hi Ms. Davis,
My name is Doug Sparr. I am writing you regarding the two Conditional Use Permits to allow the
Oceana Hotel to open their indoor and outdoor restaurant to the general public. I live at 850 2nd
Street, the apartment building on the corner of 2nd & Idaho, adjacent to the Oceana. My unit is on the
westside of the building facing the alley that we share with the Oceana. I have been in this unit for
over 14 years.
The hotel is in an unique situation in that it is a commercial establishment operating in a residentially
zoned area. I, and some of my neighbors, are opposed to this potential change in the Hotel’s
operations. The following are some of the concerns that I personally have.
1) Increase noise in the alley.
There have always been constant noise issues in the alley related to the Oceana. They have gone
through two major renovations since I have lived here. The first in 2007 and the second ten+ years
later. Sometime after the 2nd renovation they installed two electric garage doors used primarily for
valet parking and hotel deliveries. The motors on the doors are very loud and are disruptive both
during the day while I work, and more importantly overnight. I have been awoken countless number of
times at all hours of the night. I fear that the increased patronage at the restaurant will increase the
number of valeted cars going in and out of the garages, particularly at night given they are trying to
get the restaurant hours to the public extended until 11:00pm.
I have attached a video showing the door closing in the middle of the night after a car went
in it. Note that motor has two cycles each time a car enters or leaves, going up and then
closing. This video only captures the second part, so the noise generated is twice as long
as you hear in the video.
2) More commercial trucks in the alley.
Expanded restaurant service may lead to increased trucks in the alley and on the streets. Delivery
trucks and maintenance trucks park in the alley despite the fact that there are “No parking in the
Alley” signs affixed to the hotel’s building as well as freestanding signs on my side of the alley (See
attached photo). Delivery trucks frequently arrive and start offloading their deliveries well before
7:00am, which I am told is the allowable start of the workday. (see attached video) They also
occasionally make deliveries at night. The expansion of their restaurant operations may lead to
Item 6.A 11/23/21
6 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
increased truck deliveries, exacerbating this problem as well as adding congestion to 2nd street,
where they sometimes park as well. If you don’t already know, at some point in the last 14 years, the
hotel was able to get sole control of the parking on the block of Ocean in front of their hotel that they
use strictly for valet parking. I do not understand why their delivery trucks can’t park and unload there.
3) Opening Pandora’s Box.
I am concerned that allowing the hotel to change this conditional use will potentially make it much
easier for them to expand their operations even more in the future. One thing I love about my location
is despite my close proximity to downtown Santa Monica, the pier, the beach, and the retail area on
Montana Avenue, I live in a relatively quiet residential neighborhood. I don’t want it to change. The
Oceana is now under the marketing umbrella of Hilton Hotels luxury brand LXR Hotels &
Resorts. This deal occurred in early 2021 and no doubt, they will devote sufficient marketing and
promotional resources to grow the hotel’s restaurant and lounge business. Some of the other hotels
in the area, e.g. The Fairmont, The Huntley and The Shore Hotel have been successful in growing
their nighttime bar and restaurant businesses, which brings with it increased cars, congestion and
noise. I do not want that for my neighborhood.
Theoretically I would not typically be opposed to a hotel opening their restaurant to the
general public. But given the hotel’s location in a residential area, I fear this change will
adversely impact the quality of the life of nearby residents.
I am, however, a realist and understand there is considerable support among the council
to approve this change. In that event, I urge you to attach strict, enforceable guidelines on
the Hotel’s operations in the alley and on 2nd street, i.e. when deliveries can be made,
where trucks can park, and to force them to retrofit their garage doors to make them much
quieter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Doug Sparr
Item 6.A 11/23/21
7 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Strumpell Kent <kentstrum@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 19, 2021 2:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6-A, Oceana
EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I believe the request by the applicant to serve the general public in its restaurant is reasonable, beneficial and should be
considered for the following reason.
Restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, etc can be valuable neighborhood resources accessible by walking, biking and short car
trips. (I wish there more such places within walking distance of where we live in the Pico Neighborhood). Far from
being a burden on the surrounding community, I think this low‐key resaurant at the Oceana could prove to be a local
gem, an amenity that nearby residents will come to value highly.
Food services within the community can make our city more livable by allowing access to daily needs without having to
use a car. The more we can create "complete communities" with a decent mix of essential services close by, the more
we can reduce traffic and meet other city goals for livability, greenhouse gas reduction, etc. Please consider these
community benefits when you discuss the applicant's appeal and Staff's well‐reasoned recommendation to grant it.
Thank you,
Kent Strumpell
1211 B Michigan Ave.
Santa Monica
Item 6.A 11/23/21
8 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
November 19, 2021
Santa Monica Mayor and City Council
Item 6-A - Oceana Hotel Restaurant
Please accept this letter as my continued support of Staff’s recommendation regarding the
Oceana Hotel’s appeal initially sent to Planning Commission last May.
My comments below remain rooted in a strong commitment to local, walkable and bikeable
businesses in our neighborhoods, and are based on my own experience and those of
others who advocate for a growing pedestrian and bicycle street culture.
I reside in mid city. For many years our neighborhood enjoyed eating at Le Petit Cafe, a
small-scale, low-impact brasserie on Colorado Avenue operated by the Bourget family. The
restaurant and staff were part of the fabric of our neighborhood. Le Petit Cafe closed a few
years back but has recently and happily been resurrected as Le Petit Chez Mimi. The cafe
provides a local and beloved alternative to the larger, corporate restaurants in the mid city
area that have survived almost exclusively on the patronage of drivers who demand space
to park - a valuable resource we’ve learned can be better utilized much more equitably.
I provide this background because I envision the Sandpiper restaurant at the Oceana Hotel
as a similar kind of place where people can walk and bike from the Wilshire-Montana and
north of Montana Ave neighborhoods — as well as from other parts of the city — to enjoy a
meal in a more intimate setting than is offered in Santa Monica’s vibrant, but busier
Downtown core or Montana Avenue. Even better, the chef will accommodate the needs of
vegans and vegetarians, providing a welcoming and more sustainable menu experience for
everyone.
Staff has recommended certain conditions that take needs of people walking and biking
into consideration. The Hotel listened and has incorporated these items (I previously
encouraged) into their application: incentives extended to pedestrian and bicycle
customers and provision of a bike valet for restaurant patrons, for convenience and bicycle
security.
Finally, quiet is an unexpected phenomenon that we all came to appreciate during the early
days of the pandemic. A small restaurant incorporated in a low-key hotel is an ideal place
to relax and actually converse in relaxed, good company. A publicly-available Sandpiper
would provide an alternative to the higher volume (albeit exciting) environment easily found
elsewhere in establishments downtown and along the boulevards.
Again, I support the Hotel’s proposal. I hope you vote to grant the Oceana Hotel’s appeal.
I appreciate your consideration.
Thank you,
Cynthia Rose
Cynthia@BerettaRose.com
Mid-City Neighborhood
Santa Monica, CA
90404
CYNTHIA ROSE
Item 6.A 11/23/21
9 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 11/23/21
10 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave –
1
Vernice Hankins
From:kartichoke@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; kristin.mcgowan@smgov.net; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la
Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject:ITEM 6A 11/23/2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members
From: Kay Ward, 101 Ocean Avenue resident and Wilshire-Montana member
Subject: Appeal by Oceana Hotel, a nonconforming use in Wilmont since 1990, of two CUP's and text
amendment to allow food and drink to the general public which were denied by Planning
Commission--DENY APPEAL
The appeal of the Oceana Hotel should be denied for the following reasons:
--Neighbors and many residents have expressed their concerns to you about the impact that parking,
deliveries (usually early and late), noise and traffic will have. The residents of 850 Second Street, the
apartment building across the alley, have also outlined that such interference in their lives in addition
to staff talking and smoking in the alley and the lack of recourses deprives them of their right to a
peaceful existence.
--This is spot zoning, as described by three Planning Commissioners.
--Once the damage is done, there is no mitigation or return for the Wilmont neighborhood.
--The 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings such as "the
license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors thereby minimizing
any potential impact on surrounding uses."
--The issue is the increase in occupancy and turnover of those seats, not just the number of seats.
--A reminder that in 2015 the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not
be intensified. These CUP's and text amendment do exactly that. This 4-5 star hotel will also price out
most neighbors.
The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non-conforming hotel to ask for any intensification in
the Wilmont neighborhood and this appeal should be denied.
Thank you.
Kay Ward
Ocean Avenue resident
Item 6.A 11/23/21
11 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete;
Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David Martin
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: Council 11/23/21 item 6-A -- Oceana Hotel appeal -- OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
November 21, 2021
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 11/23/21 agenda item 6-A – Oceana Hotel appeal – OPPOSE
Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section
9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission's Denial of Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow Meal and
Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant
The FOSP Board supports the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) in
a) - opposing the proposed text amendment to the Municipal Code, and
b) - opposing the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permits in order to intensify a
nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
1) In 1957, the Oceana was built as an apartment building.
2) In 1958, it became a hotel, which was allowed because it was zoned R4.
3) In 1990, the property was rezoned R3, which then made the hotel a “legal nonconforming commercial use”
which was required to be discontinued and removed, or altered to conform to R3, within 20 years (i.e., by
2010).
4) In 1995, the Oceana got approval to allow hotels in existence as of 1/1/1995 to remain, but to not allow
expansion of such establishments. The text amendment allowed up to 5% increase within an existing
building envelope, but the staff report indicated that staff would not recommend for expansion of the hotel,
but only allow improvements and repairs to be made.
Item 6.A 11/23/21
12 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
5) In 1996, the Oceana's CUP approval specifically based its conclusions on granting a liquor license on
findings such as, "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors,
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;" and "will not increase the demand for
parking on-site."
6) Sometime after 2005, a restaurant was added to serve hotel guests. Before then, food was only allowed to
be delivered to hotel.
7) In 2015, the City Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified.
8) In 2021, the Oceana Hotel has been added to Hilton’s LXR Hotels & Resorts marketing, and the owners
want to open the bar and restaurants to the general public – a further intensification of a nonconforming
commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
“LXR Hotels & Resorts Celebrates U.S. Debut with Oceana Santa Monica”
Exclusive retreat known for unparalleled, personalized service and immersive, local experiences to join LXR’s
collection of independent, luxury properties.
https://newsroom.hilton.com/lxr/news/lxr-hotels-resorts-opens-oceana-santa-monica
“LXR Hotels & Resorts, Hilton’s collection of independent, luxury properties, today announced its U.S.
debut with the addition of the recently redesigned Oceana hotel, an intimate 70-room coastal oasis
situated along the coveted beach district of Santa Monica. The property is owned and operated by JRK
Property Holdings, Inc.
“Steps from the pristine California coast yet tucked into an exclusive, residential enclave, Oceana
provides a retreat for discerning travelers with the elevated comforts of a dream beach home coupled
with the uniquely personalized service for which LXR Hotels & Resorts are known.
"The resort exudes a glamorous yet sophisticated sensibility and inspires a captivatingly local and
uniquely personal experience that engages guests with warm Californian hospitality, aligning with
LXR’s core philosophy of providing a bespoke and immersive experience. The intimate property will
connect each guest with a curated lens into Santa Monica design, wellness and lifestyle, creating
memories that linger long after guests depart….
“Oceana joins the growing collection of more than 10 open or soon-to-be-open LXR properties in the
world’s most sought-after destinations….Oceana provides a rare opportunity to experience Santa
Monica like a local resident of the coveted beach district. Driving along Ocean Avenue, the first vision
of Oceana is the hotel’s stately, ivy-clad facade, quietly at home among the neighborhood’s other
beautiful residences….
"Following a nearly $30 million transformation of the former Oceana Beach Club Hotel, the stunning
beachside home-away-from-home delivers a rare private residential experience in Santa Monica’s
most coveted neighborhood north of Wilshire Boulevard….
Item 6.A 11/23/21
13 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
“Meals are always prepared to guest specifications and can be served in any of the dining venues.
Oceana’s dining experiences include:
Sandpiper: Oceana’s main restaurant sets the scene for an intimate experience reminiscent of a private
beach home with a picturesque seaside backdrop, but with the added comforts of five-star service and
elegant cuisine.
The Veranda: There is no better venue for al fresco dining at Oceana. Here, guests can enjoy full
access to Oceana’s breakfast, lunch and dinner menus with the benefit of enjoying your meal poolside.
Whether reclining in James Perse chaise lounges or cozying up by the fire pit, The Veranda is the
perfect space to exercise your refined palette while taking advantage of always sunny Santa Monica.
Sunset Terrace: With panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean, the Sunset Terrace is the perfect rooftop
lounge location to relax, imbibe and enjoy the majesty of the sun sinking into the horizon. And for sushi
lovers, we are excited to announce our exclusive Nobu Pop-Up Experience featuring some of the famed
delicacies only Nobu chefs can provide.
Oceana’s authentic expression of Southern California cuisine also includes rare tequila tasting flights
in the spring in partnership with Casamigos.”
This is not about a few nearby neighbors, all living within walking distance, stopping by
the Oceana Hotel for coffee.
The proposed CUPs and text amendment are about non-hotel guests using this high-end facility for dining,
conferences, and other functions.
As one of the Planning Commissioners noted, before the Commission turned down the owner’s request for the
CUPs, this request amounts to spot zoning.
Approval of the appeal and the text amendment could also serve as a precedent for other commercial interests
that may want to expand into residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica.
The 2010 LUCE (Land Use & Circulation Element) said on page 2, “The LUCE conserves the City’s
neighborhoods.” It continues on page 3, “The community identified the following core values: Preserve
Existing Neighborhoods. The highest priority of the community was the preservation of the existing
character and scale of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods.”
Again, the FOSP Board supports residents in the Wilmont neighborhood and the Board of the Wilshire-
Montana Neighborhood Coalition in
a) - opposing the proposed text amendment to the Municipal Code, and
b) - opposing the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permits in order to intensify a
nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
Item 6.A 11/23/21
14 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
4
=
Item 6.A 11/23/21
15 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
November 22, 2021
Via electronic mail
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401
Via email to councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov Re: Opposition to November 23 Agenda Item 6-A: “Introduction and First Reading of
an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section
9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission’s Denial of Two Conditions Use Permits to Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant”
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and the Honorable City Council:
We write on behalf of Elizabeth Van Denburgh, a resident of the Wilmont community
who is concerned about the encroachment of commercial enterprises, and in particular hotel uses,
into the residentially-zoned neighborhood. The request of the Oceana Hotel is one such
example, and should therefore be carefully considered lest it pave the way for other businesses in
the area to undertake similar projects that expand previous entitlements. Permitting a zone text
amendment for the benefit of this specific property that directly undermines the intent of the
Council in adopting the zoning ordinance provisions in 2015 sets the City on a path towards
other future deviations from the standards and weakens the provisions of the nonconforming
ordinance.
The ordinance proposed by staff allows “an existing hotel use in the R2 or R3 district that
includes an onsite restaurant that provides meal service for hotel guests and their visitors . . .
shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing onsite restaurant to
provide meals service to the general public,” but only if the hotel was established prior to 1995
and the restaurant was operating since July 23, 2015. (See Draft Ordinance Amending
Municipal Code Table 9.08.020 to add footnote 10.) This is a classic example of spot zoning:
Item 6.A 11/23/21
16 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
the exemption is written to apply only to one property in the City, giving it greater freedom than
any other nonconforming hotel operation to alter its restaurant operations. Although written as if
it is generally applicable, the law applies to class of one, and only one, business, and could never
apply to any other given the operational dates included in the ordinance. Such legislation has the
appearance of an arbitrary act, particularly given the specificity of the qualifying conditions. The
Council should reject this spot-zoning and hold the Oceana Hotel to the same standards as other
hotels that are operating in residential zones in the City.
Non-Conforming Hotel Operations
The applicant acknowledges that the Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The
City’s nonconforming use ordinance is intended to allow for “continued occupancy and
maintenance of structures . . . so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet
the provisions of this Chapter.” (SMMC, § 9.27.010.) For nonconforming uses, “a
nonconforming use of a building or a portion of a building . . . shall neither be expanded into any
other portion of the building nor changed except to a conforming use.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 D.)
The code has very specific rules regarding the intensification of nonconforming restaurant uses:
“A nonconforming use shall not be permitted to substantially change in mode or
character of operation. A substantial change in mode or character of operation
shall include, but is not limited to, addition of uses, a change in operational hours
that extends past 11:00 p.m. any night Sunday through Thursday and/or midnight
on Friday and/or Saturday or begins before 7:00 a.m., a 5 percent increase in the
floor area of the premises, or a 5 percent increase in the number of seats in any
restaurant, but in no case shall the increase exceed any established seating
limitation in the underlying zoning district.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 E (emphasis
added.).)
Staff correctly concluded that the Oceana’s request to revise its Conditional Use Permit
to allow both food and alcohol service to the general public would constitute an impermissible
intensification of use under the zoning code’s provisions for nonconforming uses. The examples
provided in the ordinance are not intended to be exhaustive of the possibilities for intensification,
and it would seem that allowing the general public to dine at the hotel would have the same types
of impacts as a small (5 percent) increase in floor area or seating capacity. Opening the hotel
restaurant for non-guests will likely result in an increased number of people traveling to the hotel
for the purpose of dining there who now do not have any reason to make this trip.
In fact, the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings
such as, “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;” and “will not increase the
Item 6.A 11/23/21
17 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
demand for parking on-site.” (See Exhibit A, pp. 2-3.) The 1996 findings also note that “[t]he
proposed use will not adversely effect the welfare of neighborhood residents in a significant
manner in that the use will be allow[ed] for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service
to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel
related impacts.” (Id. pp. 3-4.) Staff’s conclusion that the change to allow for outside use is an
impermissible intensification is well-supported.
The Applicant’s Proposal
The applicant has proposed a Zone Text Amendment to address the limitation in the
nonconforming ordinance, suggesting text for a proposed amendment to section 9.31.040,
creating an exemption that appears to be custom-designed for the Oceana. This proposal would
create a new section in the code provision that discusses alcoholic beverage permits. The
applicant alternatively proposes to add a new section to section 9.27.050 on nonconforming uses
that specifies that a legal nonconforming hotel is permitted to change from serving guests to
serving the general public without intensifying the use under the nonconforming use provisions
of the zoning code. It would appear to be a more appropriate placement in the code to in the
section on nonconforming businesses, since this is the reason for the need for the exception and
it is better understood in that context.
The applicant also proposes a more expansive alternative, that “hotels that existed as of
January 1, 1995 in residential zones can be listed in Table 9.08.020 as permitted uses.” This
change would be inappropriate to make without significant further discussion. The staff report
lists several other nonconforming hotels in the City. Re-writing the code to make them again
conforming is like opening Pandora’s box for all of these properties and should be dismissed out-
of-hand without much more robust consideration and outreach for affected properties.
Staff Proposal
The staff report for this item substantially revises the applicant’s proposal, creating a
number of operational requirements that relate to the dates that the various uses at the property
were rendered non-conforming. Instead of codifying these requirements as an exemption to the
intensification provisions in the nonconforming ordinance, it places these requirements in the
zoning code’s use table. Like the applicant’s proposal, there is a universe of only one property in
the City that meets these requirements. None of these requirements has a specific bearing on the
impact of the expanded operations. They simply assure that the operations have been extant at
the current level for a number of years. This is a classic example of spot zoning: giving one
property a more expansive use than is permitted at other similarly situated properties. This is
particularly problematic because the conditions identified for the applicability of this exemption
are unrelated to any meaningful zoning-related impacts of the changed use.
Item 6.A 11/23/21
18 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
June 9, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing Recognizes Spot Zoning Nature of Request
At the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, several Commissioners noted with
great concern the spot zoning nature of the text amendment. Commissioner Raskin noted that the
zone text amendment was “so narrowly tailored,” and that it appeared to have “no rational basis”
why this hotel could open to public dining but other hotels in R2 or R3 zones could not open a
restaurant. Commissioner Raskin also noted that it would be difficult to justify the substantial
public benefit of opening this non-conforming hotel to public dining. Commissioner Fonda-
Bonardi also commented that the proposal appeared to be spot zoning and that the purpose of
non-conforming uses was to gradually phase-out non-authorized uses. This use would actually
increase the operations of the hotel, in a neighborhood that is impacted by other commercial
uses. Commissioner Fresco also found that the zoning ordinance was spot zoning and that any
expansion of restaurant use in this area should be done in a more comprehensive manner.
Policy Implications
These proposals make a hole in the existing nonconforming ordinance. As recently as
2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified.
This proposal does exactly that. And while it may be said that in this case, only a small change
is permitted, this kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users who are
watching. It is unknown what other types of proposals can be justified by other nonconforming
businesses, but it can be said that for certain that this proposal will increase the incursion of the
commercial environment into this residentially-zoned neighborhood. This is precisely what the
zoning code attempted to avoid.
While the proposal here may be so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business,
if it is adopted, what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar
exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with all sorts of loopholes? This is a path
that has the potential for significant abuse. The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple
and clear. The application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no
need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant has proposed two new Conditional Use Permits. Application 20ENT-0237
requests a new CUP for alcohol service to the general public, and Application 21ENT-0090
requests a new CUP for food service to the general public. In order to grant a CUP, the
Municipal Code requires the following findings:
Item 6.A 11/23/21
19 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
“A. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning
District and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and
all other titles of the Municipal Code.
B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
C. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.
D. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the land uses are to remain.
E. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation,
number of employees, or the nature of the operation.
F. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.
G. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially
significant environmental impacts or any potentially significant environmental
impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation measures incorporated in the project or a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted.
H. The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.” (SMMC, §
9.41.060.)
These findings require factual support. There is no record of any environmental review
of the proposed zone text amendment or Conditional Use Permit, so there is no basis to conclude
whether the intensification of use would have impacts that has not been mitigated. The applicant
claims that opening the restaurant to the general public would have a net reduction in traffic
because neighbors could walk to the restaurant instead of driving elsewhere to eat. This is pure
speculation, not supported by any analysis. Isn’t it equally likely that patrons will drive from
elsewhere to this restaurant? The neighboring residents already live within a short walk to
downtown where there are numerous restaurants. It seems more likely that new driving demand
will be created by opening a new restaurant at the hotel. No discussion is provided of how to
accommodate the increased parking demand that this will impose in the area. While the staff
report looks at some parking studies from 2006 and 2015 to conclude that the hotel has adequate
Item 6.A 11/23/21
20 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
parking, there is no evidence that traffic generation from similarly sized restaurants was studied
in connection with this application.
The Council should deny the requested entitlements. The applicant knew that it owned a
nonconforming hotel. The City has already made the decision that hotels are not a permitted use
in this neighborhood, because such businesses have negative external impacts on neighbor
residents. While the existing hotels are permitted to continue operating, they should not be
allowed to intensify their operations when the City has already determined that no other similar
businesses should operate in those locations in the future.
Yours very truly,
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
Beverly Grossman Palmer
Cc: Mayor Sue Himmelrich (sue.himmelrich@smgov.net)
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan (Kristin.mccowan@smgov.net)
Councilmember Phil Brock (phil.brock@smgov.net)
Councilmember Gleam Davis (gleam.davis@smgov.net)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre (Oscar.delatorre@smgov.net)
Councilmember Lana Negrete (Lana.negrete@smgov.net)
Councilmember Christine Parra (Christine.parra@smgov.net)
Item 6.A 11/23/21
21 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
EXHIBIT A
Item 6.A 11/23/21
22 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 11/23/21
23 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
�-.,,_ • • EDECTIVE DATE(Sl OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED: August 21, 1996 EXPIRATION DATE(S) OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: Fighteeo (J 8� Months Conditional Use Permit (CUP 96-009) LENGTH QF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION QF EXPIRATION DATE<.S.): Any request for an extension of the expiration date m�t be re�ived in the Planning and Zoning Division prior to expiration of this permit. One six (6) rnonfb extensioo Conditional Use Permit (CUP 96-009) CONDITJONALUSEPERMIIFJNDINGS 1.The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject district and complies withall of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use andZoning Ordinance", in that an alcohol license in conjunction with a hotel is conditionallypermitted in the R3-NW district of the Zoning Ordinance.2.The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it isto. be established or located, in that the R3-NW district permits existing hotels, and alcoholservice will be ancillary to the function of the existing hotel establishment3.The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that the. ·parcel is a standard lot witl>, no unusual characteristics.4.The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel ifthe present land uses are to remain, in that the issuance of an alcohol license to allow alcohol�ervice to hotel guests and their visitors is compatible with the existing hotel use.5.The proposed use would be compatible with existing and permissible land uses within thedistrict and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that the zoning ofthe site conditionally permits the issuance of an alcohol license in conjunction with anexisting hotel facility, and that the license type _ensures alcohol service will be limited tohotel guests and their visit�rs thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses.2
Item 6.A 11/23/21
24 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
-�• •
6.There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensurethat the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety, in that the site islocated in an urbaniz.ed area adequately served by existing infrastructure.
7.Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in that parking will be provided in theexisting hotel parking lot and that the proposed use will allow alcohol service to registeredhof:el guests and their visitors only, which will not increase the demand for parking on-site.
8.The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relatesharmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the proposed alcohol license. will befor an allowed hotel in existence prior to January 1, 1995 which is consistent with the R3-NW district zoning which allows hotels in existence before January I, 1995 or their
replacement with a new hotel.
9.The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan,in that the Land Use Element of the General Plan classifies the land use as High Density
Housing which 8:1Jows hotels.
I 0. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience,
or general welfare, in that the proposed use would occur at an existing hotel and would not
intensify that use.
) · 11.The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable performance standards contained inSubchapter 9.04.12 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning. Ordinance, in that no performance standard pennit is required.
12.The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration of such uses in the immediatevicinity, in that the proposed alcohol license will be for an existing hotel, and in that thistype of outlet has not contributed significantly to alcohol related problems in the city.
ALCQHQL OUTLET FINDINGS
1.The proposed use and location are in accordance with good zoning practice, in the publicinterest, and necessary that substantial justice be done in that the alcohol license will be for
a an existing hotel in the R3-NW district
2.The proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of neighborhood residents in asignificant manner in that the use will be allow for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing
alcohol service to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby notsignificantly increasing hotel related impacts.
3.The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the areain that a hotel use with alcohol service for hotel guests and their visitors only is not typically·
·3
Item 6.A 11/23/21
25 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
"'· • • considered to contribute to objectionable problems associated with alcohol outlets. furthermore, this type of outlet has not contributed significantly to alcohol related problems in the city. 4.The proposed use will not detrimentally affect nearby neighborhoods considering thedistance of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals,playgrounds, parks, and other existing alcohol outlets in that the conditions for approval,such as the requirement that only registered guests of the hotel and their visitors -may beserved alcohol, will minimiz.e the potential affect on the residential uses in the vicinity.s� The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential uses within the general area inthat the hotel is in the R3-NW (North of Wilshire Overlay) district, and a hotel with analcohol license is compatible with permitted uses.6.Traffic and· parking congestion will not result from the proposed use in that parking for theuse is available on-site and the proposed Type 70 alcohol license will not result in increasedparking demand.7.The public health, safety, and general welfare are protected in that conditions of approval torequire responsible dispensation of alcohol are included herein.8.No harm to adjacent properties will result in that the conditions of approval will ensure thatthe establishment operates as a hotel with ancillary alcohol service.9.The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan in that the Land UseElement of the General Plan designates the area as High Density Housing and the ZoningOrdinance allows for existing hotels within this area.CONDITIONS QF APPROVAL 1.This approval is for those plans dated April 24, 1996, and amended July 9, 1996, a copy ofwhich shall be �tained in the files of the Planning and Zoning Division. Projectdevelopment shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwisespecified in these ·conditions of approval.2.The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article IX of the MunicipalCode, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and G�neral Plan policies ofthe City of Santa Monica.3.To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate ·of Occupancy, projectowner shall submit a recycling plan to the ·Department of Environmental and Public WorksManagement for its approval. Toe recycling plan shall include 1) list of materials such aswhite paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled; 2) location of recycling4
Item 6.A 11/23/21
26 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 11/23/21
27 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 11/23/21
28 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 11/23/21
29 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The Board of NOMA supports the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) in
opposing the approval of the two CUPs to provide alcohol and meal services to the general
public, which will cause the intensification of this nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. The application for the zone text amendment should be denied as well; there is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the nonconforming ordinance.
The applicant's proposal is not an Interim Zoning Exemption based on the pandemic, but a
permanent change to a nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. The
intensification of Oceana in a residential neighborhood surrounded by multifamily housing will impact this neighborhood forever.
There is no doubt that the Oceana, which Hilton announced in January 2021 to be part of its LXR Hotels & Resorts, will be marketing and intensifying its commercial impact on the neighborhood. This is not about a few neighbors stopping by for coffee, but the intensification
of non-hotel guests' uses of the facility, be it for dining, conferences, functions or other non-hotel guest activities.
The Oceana's 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings such as, "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors,
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;" and "will not increase the
demand for parking on-site."
The 1996 findings also note that "the proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of the neighborhood residents in a significant manner in that the use will be allowed for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors
only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel related impacts."
In 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified. This proposal does exactly that. The use of a text amendment to change the code is custom designed for the Oceana; it allows a legal nonconforming hotel to change from serving guests to serving the general public, without intensifying the use under the nonconforming use
provisions of the zoning code. This zoning change will make "swiss cheese" or a "hole" in the
existing nonconforming ordinance.
This kind of action serves as a precedent for other nonconforming users to pursue other types of proposals and thus will expand commercial uses in residentially zoned neighborhoods. This is exactly what the zoning code was designed to stop.
This proposal is so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business, the Oceana Hotel; if it
is adopted, what is to prevent other businesses from lobbying for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with loopholes. The two parking studies in 2006 and 2015, only focused on the number of cars generated by hotel visitors, not the number of cars from visitors driving to drinks and meals at this property.
Item 6.A 11/23/21
30 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
The announcement in January 2021, of the Hilton LXR marketing relationship will enable one of
the world’s most powerful hospitality entities to grow this commercial business – increasing
hotel guests and, if this proposal is approved, non-hotel guests into our residential neighborhood.
NOMA applauded the city’s work in ensuring short-term and corporate rentals do not inundate our neighborhoods and residents with tourists. Please support the same policy with respect to the expansion of a non-conforming use in the Wilmont neighborhood.
The NOMA Board asks the Council to reject the two CUPS and proposed text amendments.
Item 6.A 11/23/21
31 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 1:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Shore Hotel
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: MICHAEL DE VILLIERS <mdevilliers@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Shore Hotel
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please support Shore Hotel’s plans to bring affordable lodging and a cafe (licensed to serve alcohol) to the Second Street
ground floor space of their property. As a 90401 resident, I welcome these amenities and the activation of the
streetscape this will bring.
On a tangential note, retail space height should not be regulated. The 14’ minimum makes no sense and may well have
contributed to current vacancies downtown. In this case, Shore’s ingenuity should be applauded for trying to turn their
sow’s ear into a silk purse.
Thank you
Michael de Villiers
1115 Arizona Avenue
Item 6.A 11/23/21
32 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 12:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam
Davis
Subject:Item 6.A. REJECT Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing
Restaurant
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
Residents are counting on you to stop commercial businesses from creeping into our residential neighborhoods.
I support my neighbors in Wilmont and oppose Oceana’s plan to open their restaurant services to anyone other than
their hotel guest.
If my neighbors wish to eat and drink nearby, I recommend they patronize the businesses on Montana Avenue.
Please reject Ocean’s plans and prevent a portentous precedent.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident in NOMA
Item 6.A 11/23/21
33 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Juan Robles <juan_m_robles@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 3:57 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please block 849 Ocean Avenue from Becoming a Full Service Restaurant
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
As a property owner and resident of less than a block away, I strongly oppose the
expansion/change of the current designation of 849 Ocean Avenue. My concern is that such change
will potentially change the character of the neighborhood which is meant to be residential. This hotel
already offers valet service to their patrons and is quite busy. The regulations and restrictions where
set in place in order to protect the character of the neighborhood. I strongly oppose any change that
alters the residential character of our community. The amendment to sell alcohol and expand service
to any person will certainly increase traffic to the business seeking for this change but will also
certainly increase added traffic and will alter the residential zoning of out community. Santa Monica
City Council Members please block any text amendments that will compromise the appeal of the
residential nature of our neighborhood.
Please feel free to contact me:
Juan Robles
917 2nd Street 201
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 6.A 11/23/21
34 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Spedstur <spedstur@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 4:49 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: OPPOSITION TO OCEANA HOTEL -- STOP THE OCEANA HOTEL RESTAURANT AND BAR
EXPANSION
EXTERNAL
From: Spedstur <spedstur@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 4:17 PM
To: 'gleam.davis@smgov.net' <gleam.davis@smgov.net>; 'phil.brock@smgov.net' <phil.brock@smgov.net>;
'christine.parra@smgov.net' <christine.parra@smgov.net>; 'lana.negrete@smgov.net' <lana.negrete@smgov.net>;
'sue.himmelrich@smgov.net' <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>; 'Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net'
<Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net>; 'oscar.delatorre@smgov.net' <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>;
'david.white@santamonica.gov' <david.white@santamonica.gov>; 'councilmetgitems@stanamonica.gov'
<councilmetgitems@stanamonica.gov>
Subject: OPPOSITION TO OCEANA HOTEL ‐‐ STOP THE OCEANA HOTEL RESTAURANT AND BAR EXPANSION
STOP THE OCEANA HOTEL RESTAURANT AND BAR EXPANSION
STOP THE EXPANSION OF THE COMMERCIAL ZONE NORTH OF CALIFORNIA AND INTO
OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
I have been a resident of the 900 block of Ocean Avenue since 1985.
I write to vehemently object to and oppose the repeated efforts by the Oceana Hotel to open their restaurant and
bar to the general public. I write to ask you to deny this new request by the Oceana to open its bar and
restaurant to the general public.
The Oceana Hotel owners should be fined for continuing to waste taxpayer dollars with their repeated
applications to expand their business and further destroy the residential neighborhood in which they are located.
The Oceana Hotel knew the rules when they opened the hotel. In fact, they have previously violated those rules
when a number of years ago they illegally allowed non-guests to use their restaurant and bar.
From the get-go the Oceana Hotel has proven to be terrible neighbors, playing fast and loose with the rules to
the detriment of local residents.
Adding insult to injury, the Oceana are THE WORST NEIGHBOR. THE WORST!
When the company which owns the Oceana Hotel purchased the apartment building and applied for
permits to convert and construct the hotel, they were required to send out notices about their work to the
neighborhood on multiple occasions. Most times notices were never received, or they arrived after the
date by which we could object, respond or attend a hearing.
Item 6.A 11/23/21
35 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Originally the Oceana had the equivalent of three or four spots for valets. Depending on the size of the
car, there was one or two public spots immediately north of the valet section and, depending on the size
of the car three or four public spots immediately south of the valet section. The public spots referenced
above were almost always by their valet parked cars. I know this because I not only witnessed this, but
because the valets put a sticker on the window or hanging from the rear-view mirror. Parking on Ocean
Avenue is very limited and when no other public spots were available and hotel valets were asked to
move their valet car(s) parking on public spots they always refused. They were prohibited from parking
guest cars on the public street – but they did it anyway because it was easier than using their
garage. When complaints were made to hotel management, they said valets were contractors and they
had no control over them. Talk about shirking responsibility and being bad neighbors…Oceana
management and owners are the worst neighbors.
With the Fairmont the Huntley Hotel and other local hotels increasing their nighttime activities, the
nighttime noise levels around the neighborhood have skyrocketed – especially after midnight when the
hotel bars and clubs close down.
The Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The requests to allow both food and alcohol service to
the general public constitutes an impermissible intensification of use under the zoning conde’s
provisions for nonconforming uses. This is not a request for a variance but an intensification of a use in
Wilmont.
Valets often speed off with cars of visitors
Valets often don’t look before leaving from the curb with visitor cars
Valets often double park visitors’ cars
Valets often leave vehicles daily and overnight parked in valet spots instead of moving them to their
parking lot
When delivering cars to guests, valets often roll through the stop sign at Idaho/Ocean, almost causing
accidents. I myself have narrowly avoided being hit by them numerous times.
If the noise and crowding and valet drivers are bad now…what will it be like if the Oceana is granted a permit
to serve non-guests in its restaurant and bar? This doesn’t even address the issue of parking in the
neighborhood and the dangerous driving by the valets.
When restaurant was first installed it was supposed to be for hotel guests only. They flagrantly violated that and
allowed outsiders to use the restaurant. They were caught and told to cease and desist. I don’t know if a fine
was issued, but it should have.
Then there is the increased traffic for deliveries, laundry and staff. As of now, early in the morning trucks park
in the alley or on Idaho to unload/load food, linens and who knows what else…leaving the trucks idling
spewing noise and pollution.
Add to that the staff that goes in the alley on their breaks – smoking cigarettes or weed and talking and laughing
loudly among themselves an on their phones.
Its long past due for the city council to stop giving the business community – the Oceana Hotel in this instance
—everything they want. What about us that live here? Especially those us on Ocean Avenue where noise is
worse, where vendors, musical acts and food truck are now parking or setting up tables north of
Washington. Complaints have been made, opposing views have been given as to what is legal without
resolution and the devolution of this part of our once great Ocean Avenue continues. Allowing the Oceana to
expand their operations would hasten that decline, making living here more of a nightmare then it has become..
Item 6.A 11/23/21
36 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
According to the pink notice we received asking for comment, it says, the Oceana is non-conforming…and that
it “requests to provide meal service to the general public provided that certain criterial are met.” I can assure
you that if past is prologue, they will ignore that criteria repeatedly…just as they did years ago when, despite
their permits, they served non-guests in their restaurant.
Bottom line is – The Oceana Hotel is a bad neighbor and there is no reason to expect that their behavior or the
impact on our neighborhood will improve.
We are hoping all members of the City Council will not disappoint us and will take the sides of residents and
not business and developers.
Thank you.
Item 6.A 11/23/21
37 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Carl Hansen <cjh268@cornell.edu>
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 6:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6-A Support for Oceana Appeal
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of Staff's recommendation to grant the Oceana Hotel's appeal, and allow the hotel to open its
restaurant to the public.
I have resided in the Wilshire Montana neighborhood for almost a decade, and am strongly supportive of pedestrian‐
friendly, small‐scale businesses that serve the needs of the community ‐‐ especially pedestrians and cyclists ‐‐ and, just
as important, help build relationships between the public and the people who own and operate those establishments,
which are essential to the achieving the objective of the complete neighborhoods concept. I regularly use the bike path
and walk with friends in Palisades Park, and it would be so great to have a local place to grab a bite or drink here.
Thank you for your consideration,
Carl Hansen
e: cjh268@cornell.edu
c: (760) 613 ‐ 4290
Item 6.A 11/23/21
38 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Jeremy Stutes <jeremystutes@me.com>
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 6:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6-A
EXTERNAL
City Councilmembers,
I participated in the June 9 Planning Commission hearing as an enthusiastic supporter of the Oceana's CUP and text
amendment application.
I am submitting this email to express my support of Staff's recommendation. Planning Commission's denial of the
Oceana CUP and text amendment applications did not seem proportionate to what was being proposed ‐‐ opening a few
tables at its restaurant, as available, to members of the public. I was glad when the hotel submitted an appeal.
In a neighborhood blessed with a safe and beautiful pedestrian experience, it makes sense to permit the Oceana to
extend a quiet, intimate dining experience to its neighbors who pass by. Also, the Ocean Avenue bike path practically
delivers bicyclists to the Oceana's door. A quick, casual breakfast or lunch at the Oceana would be a great experience in
a city that values cycling.
I trust you will consider Staff's recommendation carefully, and vote to grant the hotel's appeal.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Stutes
Item 6.A 11/23/21
39 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Albin Gielicz <samoalbin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 6:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; gleam.davis@gmail.com; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan
Subject:Item 6-A - Grant the Oceana's appeal
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
As a local resident and community leader, I have supported the Oceana Hotel’s application for a text amendment and
Conditional Use Permits that would allow non-hotel guests to access its restaurant, and expressed that support when the
matter was before the Planning Commission. I urge you to consider and support Staff's recommendation to grant
the hotel's appeal.
A small, neighborhood‐friendly restaurant will encourage residents and visitors to have a meal within walking distance of
their homes. This is especially important to Santa Monicans like me who love seeing reduced dependence on the car and
more biking and walking in my neighborhood. This hotel has always been and continues to be a great neighbor and asset
to Santa Monica. It is well‐managed and operates quietly and responsibly. I have no doubt that they will continue this
culture as they welcome more guests into their restaurant. Again, I ask you to grant the appeal and allow the Oceana to
welcome its neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Albin Gielicz
511 Montana
Item 6.A 11/23/21
40 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 8:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre;
Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; David White; Clerk Mailbox; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 6-A, Nov. 23, 2021 - OPPOSE the approval of Oceana Hotel CUPs and text
amendment
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors supports our friends in the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood
Association (Wilmont) in their request to the Council (below) to NOT allow the intensification of a
commercial venture in a residential neighborhood (Agenda Item 6-A).
. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 6-
A.
Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
Section 9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission's Denial of Two Conditional Use Permits to
Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant
Please protect our friends and neighbors in Wilmont.
We have read and considered the petition that has been submitted to the Council by Chair Elizabeth
Van Denburgh and we urge you to consider how this change of use could impact the quality of life of
the people who live near the Oceana.
You are their elected officials and they deserve your consideration and protection.
Thank you.
Tricia Crane
Chair, Northeast Neighbors
##
November 16, 2021
RE: Oppose approval of appeal of Oceana Conditional Use Permits and text amendment to intensify
a nonconforming use in our residential neighborhood
____________________________________________________
Item 6.A 11/23/21
41 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) opposes the approval of the two
CUPs to provide alcohol and meal services to the general public given the intensification of a
nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. As well, the application for the zone text
amendment should be denied because there is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear
purpose of the nonconforming ordinance. The applicant's proposal is not an Interim Zoning
Exemption based on the pandemic, but a permanent change to a nonconforming business in the
Wilmont neighborhood. The intensification of Oceana in a residential neighborhood surrounded by
multifamily housing and on an alley with multifamily housing will impact this neighborhood
forever. There is no doubt that the Oceana which Hilton announced in January 2021 to be part of its
LXR Hotels & Resorts will be marketing and intensifying its commercial impact on our
neighborhood. This is not about a few neighbors stopping by for coffee, but the intensification of non-
hotel guests' uses of the facility be it for dining, conferences, functions or other non-hotel guest
activities.
The Oceana's 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings such as,
"the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;" and "will not increase the demand for
parking on-site." The 1996 findings also note that "the proposed use will not adversely effect the
welfare of the neighborhood residents in a significant manner in that the use will be allowed for a
Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors
only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel related impacts."
In 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be
intensified. This proposal does exactly that. The use of a text amendment to change the code is
custom designed for the Oceana; it allows a legal nonconforming hotel to change from serving guests
Item 6.A 11/23/21
42 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
to serving the general public without intensifying the use under the nonconforming use provisions of
the zoning code. This zoning change starts making "swiss cheese" or a "hole" in the existing
nonconforming ordinance. This kind of action serves as a precedent for other nonconforming users
to pursue other types of proposals that expand the commercialism in the neighborhood. This
proposal will increase the incursion of the commercial environment into our residentially zoned
neighborhood. And this is previously what the zoning code worked to stop.
This proposal is so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business, the Oceana Hotel; if it is
adopted, what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions,
riddling the non-conforming ordinance with loopholes. The two parking studies noted, 2006 and
2015, focused on the number of cars of hotel visitors, not the number of cars visitors who will be
driving to drinks and meals at 849 Ocean Blvd. will be pushing to this destination. The
announcement in January 2021, of the Hilton XLR marketing relationship, will put one of the most
powerful hospitality businesses to continue grow business - hotel guests and if this proposal is
approved, non-hotel guests into our residential neighborhood. We have applauded the city’s work in
ensuring short-term and corporate rentals do not replace our neighborhoods and residents with
tourists. Please support the same policy with respect to the expansion of a non-conforming use in
our neighborhood.
Willmont members, for the past three membership meetings, have approved the following resolution:
"Wilmont supports the halt of commercial invasion and expansion into residential neighborhoods and
supports parking standards that allow existing residents to park on the street near their homes." Our
residents continue to be surprised by the commercial invasion into our neighborhood including the
24/7 Palihouse at 3rd and Washington. What is next? The Sovereign and Charmont apartment
buildings being sold so they can evict hundreds of residents and turn them into hotels? Please
Item 6.A 11/23/21
43 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
4
support Wilmont and the neighborhood residents and reject the two CUPS and proposed text
amendments.
Thank-you
Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Chair, Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 6.A 11/23/21
44 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Jordan Sholem <jordansholem@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 10:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6-A: please grant appeal
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
I reside a block away from the Oceana Hotel. I have supported the hotel's application for Conditional Use Permits and the
Text Amendment that would make the hotel restaurant -- a small dining space which is currently available only to
hotel guests -- accessible to the public.
I understand that the Planning Commission denied the hotel's application in June, and that you are considering the hotel's
appeal of that decision. I urge you to grant the appeal.
The north end of Ocean Avenue would benefit greatly from having a small, quiet neighborhood-friendly restaurant. We are
a community of walkers and cyclists, and having a three-meal dining option a few blocks from our homes would be
amazing.
The hotel's proposal will have virtually no public-facing impact. The hotel is merely looking to fill existing interior tables
so they can run the restaurant efficiently and create bonds with their neighbors and community members.
I appreciate your consideration, and hope that you will vote to grant the appeal.
Many thanks and Happy Thanksgiving,
Jordan Sholem
Jordan Sholem
(310) 721 5678
Item 6.A 11/23/21
45 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Meepos <bmeepos@meeposcpa.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 6:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Council Item 6-A
EXTERNAL
Item 6-A
Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members:
As a resident of Santa Monica and a fan of neighborhood-serving restaurants, I want to express my support City Staff's
recommendation to grant the Oceana Hotel's appeal of the Planning Commission decision.
The Oceana is a low-profile, boutique hotel facing the quiet end of Ocean Avenue. It is the perfect fit for the area. The
guests at the hotel are fortunate to have access to the hotel's great little restaurant.
For several years passersby have expressed interest in stopping by and having a meal there. It's unfortunate that at the
present time they must be politely turned away in the hotel lobby. To remedy this situation, the hotel applied for the
appropriate approvals to allow members of the public to enjoy the food and a wonderful view of Santa Monica Bay.
The Planning Commission's denial was a disappointment to me and my friends, so I was pleased that the Oceana
persisted and filed an appeal.
The restaurant could be the quiet, low‐key dining spot that is conspicuously missing from the neighborhood. I hope you
consider the simplicity of the hotel's Conditional Use Permit and Text Amendment applications, and I urge you to arrive
at a positive vote on the appeal.
Thank you for your time.
Bobby Meepos
Robert Meepos, CPA
Managing Partner
Meepos & Company, CPA's
409 Washington Blvd.
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
B: 310-827-2525 x101
F: 310-827-4958
www.meeposcpa.com
Item 6.A 11/23/21
46 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Marni Zapakin <mzapakin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 7:37 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; lana.negret@smgov.net; Phil
Brock; Gleam Davis
Cc:David White; councilmtgitems
Subject:Stopping the Oceana Hotel Opening their Restaurant and Bar to the General Public
EXTERNAL
Hello ‐ I'm a resident of 850 2nd Street. My apartment faces the alley that is shared with Oceana Hotel. I urge you to
NOT amend Oceana's CUP to open their restaurant to the general public for food/alcohol service.
The hotel's garage already wakes me up as they receive deliveries early AM. If they open the restaurant/bar to the
general public, the noise level will be extremely disturbing and not right for a residential area.
Please consider this when voting today.
Thank you,
Marni Zapakin
850 2nd Street Resident
Item 6.A 11/23/21
47 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Kaci Courtright <kacicourtright@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 9:30 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Nov 23rd, Agenda Item #6A for Oceana Hotel
EXTERNAL
I live on 3rd and Montana Ave, and I am strongly in favor of Oceana Hotel extending its use permits so that neighbors of
the hotel can eat and drink in its restaurant.
I'd like to bring to attention that R3 zoning permits "community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential
environment." Well, this hotel and its restaurant are certainly appropriate and fit all qualifications.
At the present, the nearest restaurant and bar is over a half a mile away. We residents need a place to walk to for a nice
meal. We deserve the right to enjoy Oceana's offerings just as much as any visitor of the hotel. I disagree that it would
bring undesirable traffic. This area already suffers from added pedestrians due to the sandy walking path and its
proximity to the pier, and reckless driving has always been an issue which is a matter to be monitored by the police, not
Oceana Hotel, which has a valet.
If older, pre‐existing residents of Santa Monica are encouraging a "no", then I can assure City Council that it would be a
mistake to listen to them ‐ young and old, new and long‐time residents can all benefit from this adaptation of use
permit. It's people who say no to change that stunt Santa Monica's progress and prevent fellow neighbors from enjoying
a nice meal at a nearby facility. Just because it is open to the public doesn't mean that you have to go, it only means that
you have the option; and it wouldn't be fair to remove someone else's option.
Let's support local businesses. Let's share a meal together. Please vote "Yes" to approve the opening of this restaurant
to local residents.
Thank you.
‐‐
Kaci Courtright
Item 6.A 11/23/21
48 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
David Rindlaub
rindlaub@gmail.com
November 23rd, 2021
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90401
councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re:November 23 5:30 PM Agenda Item 6 - 849 Ocean Avenue
Dear Councilmembers:
I urge you to not override judgement of planning commission and not approve the proposed ordinance
(agenda item referenced above)
Adopting this ordinance would result in the following impacts, incompatible with the current residential and
recreational character of the neighborhood. I reside on the opposite side of the same block as the
Oceana Hotel on 2nd St.:
- Increased street parking demand, impacting opportunity for recreational use of Palisades Park
and the beach. The hotel already permanently occupies what would otherwise be street parking
area for valet use.
- Increased demand and cueing of vehicles for valet parking ingress egress with increased
blocking of traffic including the bicycle traffic lane.
- Increased vehicle traffic by valet service circling block to access the hotel garage using Montana
Ave, 2nd St or 1st Court, and Idaho Ave. Each valet use drives around the block either through
the residential alley (1st Court) or residential street (2nd St) to access the hotel’s parking garage.
- Increased impact of services (deliveries and trash removal)
Sincerely,
David Rindlaub
Item 6.A 11/23/21
49 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellis Raskin <ellis.raskin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:21 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine
Parra
Cc:David White; Joseph Lawrence; Jing Yeo; Rachel Kwok; Heidi von Tongeln; councilmtgitems; Clerk
Mailbox
Subject:Agenda Item 6A - Oceana Hotel Appeal
EXTERNAL
Dear Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Hon. Councilmembers,
Tonight, you are being asked to approve a CEQA exemption for this project (Class 1 Exemption; CEQA Guidelines section
15301). According to the staff report, the project will not cause environmental impacts because "the project would not
result in any proposed or future expansion of the restaurant's existing kitchen, dining room, and seating capacity" (staff
report at p. 32).
This is incorrect. The whole point of the requested entitlements is to allow more customers to dine at the restaurant,
which means that more people will be traveling to the hotel relative to baseline conditions. The impacts of this
increased vehicular travel have not been studied.
Accordingly, common sense tells us that the new vehicle trips will have the potential to cause conflicts with LUCE
Policies, including (but not limited to) LU2.5 ("Achieve vehicle trip reduction through comprehensive strategies") and
T15.1 ("Reduce automobile trips starting or ending in Santa Monica, especially during congested periods, with the goal
of keeping peak trips at or below 2009 levels").
At the very least, we have a duty to study these potential impacts so that we can make informed decisions about traffic
impacts in our community (and air quality, GHG, and parking impacts). There is no need to rush through this process
without completing the due diligence that our community deserves.
Best,
Ellis Raskin
Item 6.A 11/23/21
50 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:10 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam
Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc:David White
Subject:City Council Meeting, 11/23/21, Item 6A -- Appeal by Ocean Hotel, a nonconforming use in Wilmont
since 1990 of two CUPs and text amendment to allow food and beverage service to the public which
were denied by Planning Commission – DENY APPEAL
EXTERNAL
November 21, 2021
Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
The appeal of the Oceana Hotel should be denied for the following reasons:
This is a classic example of spot zoning as described by three Planning Commissioners. It is a noncormforming 24/7
hotel in a residential R3 zone that is trying to intensify and further commercialize a residential area.
As recently as 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be
intensified. These CUPs and text amendment do exactly that. The staff report focuses on the restaurants staying at
the same number of seats but the issue is the increase in occupancy and turnover of those seats. This increase in
occupancy and turnover in the restaurant intensifies the commercialism in the neighborhood through more
deliveries, more staff, more employee and customer parking in neighborhood (preferred parking only at night on Idaho
with no preferred parking on Montana, Ocean (with Oceana taking half the block of Ocean with its valet parking zone)
and 2nd Street. and increased use of the garage squeaky gates. The staff report continues to state the impact on the
neighborhood will be insignificant with no data, no comparison to similar public restaurants and no admitting this 4‐5
star hotel (room rates from $600 ‐$1,000) will price out most neighbors. Once the damage is done, there is no
mitigation or return for the residents of the Wilmont neighborhood,
Let’s remember the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on
findings such as “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their
visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses”
Item 6.A 11/23/21
51 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Neighbors and many residents have provided their feedback that the intensification of the Oceana Hotel will impact
parking, noise and traffic. The residents of 850 2nd Street, the apartment building across the alley have outlined that
deliveries start occurring at 6:30 am and late into the night, parking garage gates are noisy during 24/7, staff are talking
and smoking in alley and there is no current process/recourse for these issues to be resolved or addressed. How would
you like to live across the alley from this? There is currently no city process nor is there a planned process that helps
these residents “manage potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood” outlined in this staff report. Once
again, the promise of enforcement of STOAs and CUPs are made but cannot be delivered on by the city. Code
enforcement is understaffed, redeployed to help at the pier, is not staffed for nights or weekends and often cannot
respond quickly enough when many of the issues occur.
Finally, this kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users. If adopted what is to prevent other
businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the non‐conforming ordinance with
loopholes. The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple and clear. The application for the zone text amendment
should be denied because there is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
The LUCE’s first principle is “Preserve the Neighborhoods. Many ran on supporting and protecting residents’
neighborhoods. The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non‐conforming hotel to ask for any intensification in the
Wilmont neighborhood and this appeal should be denied.
Thank‐you
Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 6.A 11/23/21
52 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Valerie Griffin <valeriegryphon@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems; David Martin; Roxanne Tanemori
Subject:City Council 2021-11-23, Item 6-A Oceana
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
I have been a Wilmont resident for more than 20 years.
One of the things I like most about living in Wilmont is being able to walk to neighborhood dining. Opening the
restaurant in the Oceana Hotel to include patrons who are not hotel guests would expand dining opportunities for
Wilmont residents without making any other impact on the neighborhood! It would allow the neighbors who have
wanted to dine at that restaurant for years to finally enjoy this quiet and casual dining experience close to their homes.
This is a unique opportunity to enhance the neighborhood. Right now, it's especially important to give us new places,
like this, to go as we approach a more normal existence.
Please grant the applicant's appeals of the Planning Commission’s denial of the two CUPS and approve the full
application as your Staff has recommended.
Thank you.
Valerie Griffin
Item 6.A 11/23/21
53 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rosemary Sostarich <r.sostarich@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6A City Council Mtg 11/23/21
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
I am asking you to deny the appeal of the Oceana Hotel restaurant and bar expansion. Please deny this intensification of
a non‐conforming 24/7 hotel in an R3 neighborhood.
I have lived in Santa Monica since the 1970s. I have seen a lot of changes in this city I love. Some of the changes were
excellent and some had me wondering what the heck they were thinking. Then there were those decisions made that
turned out not in the best interest of the city and the residents. This appeal by the Oceana is one of them.
We have so many restaurants that we lost during the pandemic. Some have come back and others couldn’t do it. We
need to support the restaurants that are struggling to survive. Those are the ones we can support. The Oceana is an
expensive boutique hotel asking us to support them when they have never been supportive of the neighborhood since
they opened.
Please deny their appeal. Thank you.
Rosemary Sostarich
900 Black Ocean Ave.
Item 6.A 11/23/21
54 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:George Garlock <george@kga.design>
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 4:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6-A 849 Ocean Avenue applicant & property owner OCBSM Owner LLC
EXTERNAL
November 23, 2021
Mayor Himmelrich and City Councilmembers,
As a local resident for the past seventeen years and retired Architect residing at 701 Ocean Avenue in Santa
Monica, I respectfully request you grant this applicant's appeal for this very worthy improvement to our
community. Keeping in the spirit of Santa Monica to be a walking city not a driving city this restaurant offers
neighbors like myself and my wife an alternative to getting in our cars and driving to dinner when such a lovely
amenity exists a block away. The small number of local users of this restaurant would have minimal or no
measurable impact on the parking at the Oceana Hotel.
In keeping with our city's walkable goals please grant approval of the applicant's appeal.
George F Garlock
701 Ocean Avenue #107
Santa Monic, Ca 90402
Cell: 702 278‐6229
Item 6.A 11/23/21
55 of 55 Item 6.A 11/23/21
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Written Comments (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Constance Chesnut <cchesnut27@msn.com>
Sent:Friday, April 22, 2022 3:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oceana Hotel Appeal
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
Please do not grant the appeal of Oceana Hotel to open the hotel restaurant to the public.
This is a mostly residential area and current zoning is residential. Do not further degrade the residential
character of our neighborhood. The hotel is already one of several commercial and non conforming
commercial enterprises in the area which should be contained not expanded. If an exemption is granted it will
make it easier for others to expand their commercial activities further degrading the neighborhood. .
The very argument used by Oceana is that another hotel on Ocean Ave received permission for a similar
exemption, a hotel which is located in a commercially zoned tourist part of downtown Santa Monica and not a
neighborhood similar to North of Wilshire residential. That neighborhood and its activities are what we do
not want to have in the area of the Oceana.
The argument that it would provide a restaurant in walking distance is also specious. This area does not need
another expensive restaurant and would undoubtedly attract
more cars, traffic and parking problems in an already parking challenged area.
If this appeal is granted it is only a matter of time before the other non conforming commercial enterprises in
this otherwise quiet residential area will also apply for further zoning use exemptions. Do not let this happen.
Thank you,
Constance Chesnut
124 Idaho Ave # 202
Santa Monica, CA 90403
310‐394‐4384
Item 6.A 04/26/22
1 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:jaime francis <jaimefrancis71625@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 22, 2022 1:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:oceana hotel appeal.
EXTERNAL
you know i find it amazing the way you are giving the oceana hotel such a hard time just to allow the public to use their
restaurant and yet any tom, dick or harry with a permit can sell sandwiches, juices and coffee from a food truck across
the street on ocean ave and his only rent is the money he puts in the meter.
you guys are so unfair and biased against real business that pay taxes, insurance and workers comp etc and you give
them hell. !!!
shame on you all!!!
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6.A 04/26/22
2 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:David White
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 6:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Oceana Rezoning
For written comment for the April 26, 2022 City Council meeting.
David White
City Manager
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Steven Wettenstein <swettenstein@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 4:32 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Oceana Rezoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Mr. White,
I am writing out of concern for revised zoning, which would allow the Oceana restaurant to open for
non‐hotel users.
My wife and I moved to The Sundial apartments in February of last year. We originally expressed
concern about living next to a busy establishment and we're assured by the building manager it was a
quiet block. We were specifically told that the hotel, which our apartment directly faces, was not a
destination for anyone except people staying here, it is not a public restaurant, and therefore there
would be less worry of additional noise, crime, foot traffic. Almost immediately, we've had issues,
tenants of the hotel throwing garbage on our patio, loud music up until 4am, and we've also recently
had a break in at our building. I brought concerns about the rezoning to our building manager, who
refused to even notify tenants of the hearing, leading me to believe she was already convinced by those
representing the hotel to their interests.
As my wife and I are now starting a family, we are incredibly concerned that the place we call our home
will now face increased foot traffic, noise, lack of parking for those coming to visit our baby, drunk
people getting out of dinner late and waking us and our baby up. Not to mention an increase in
deliveries in the alleyway will increase disturbances. There are plenty of places in our area on Montana
Item 6.A 04/26/22
3 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
and Wilshire for commercial use and restaurants, with tenants who knew the situation when they
moved in. For us to be baited to a residential neighborhood and switched right when we are about to
have a baby is unfortunate. I believe in helping those in the community over the needs of
corporations, and hope you will consider this when voting for the provision.
Best,
Steven
Item 6.A 04/26/22
4 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Kaplan <rkcompany@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 21, 2022 5:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: OPPOSITION TO OCEANA HOTEL -- STOP THE OCEANA HOTEL RESTAURANT AND BAR
EXPANSION
EXTERNAL
From: Robert Kaplan <rkcompany@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 5:06 PM
To: 'Gleam Davis' <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; 'Phil Brock' <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>;
'christine.parra@smgov.net' <christine.parra@smgov.net>; 'lana.negrete@smgov.net' <lana.negrete@smgov.net>; 'Sue
Himmelrich' <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; 'Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net' <Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net>;
'oscar.delatorre@smgov.net' <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>; 'David White' <David.White@santamonica.gov>;
'councilmetgitems@stanamonica.gov' <councilmetgitems@stanamonica.gov>
Subject: OPPOSITION TO OCEANA HOTEL ‐‐ STOP THE OCEANA HOTEL RESTAURANT AND BAR EXPANSION
STOP THE OCEANA HOTEL RESTAURANT AND BAR EXPANSION
STOP THE EXPANSION OF THE COMMERCIAL ZONE NORTH OF CALIFORNIA AND INTO
OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
I have been a resident of the 900 block of Ocean Avenue since 1985.
I write to vehemently object to and oppose the repeated efforts by the Oceana Hotel to open their restaurant and
bar to the general public. I write to ask you to deny this new request by the Oceana to open its bar and
restaurant to the general public.
The Oceana Hotel owners should be fined for continuing to waste taxpayer dollars with their repeated
applications to expand their business and further destroy the residential neighborhood in which they are located.
The Oceana Hotel knew the rules when they opened the hotel. In fact, they have previously violated those rules
when a number of years ago they illegally allowed non-guests to use their restaurant and bar.
From the get-go the Oceana Hotel has proven to be terrible neighbors, playing fast and loose with the rules to
the detriment of local residents.
Adding insult to injury, the Oceana are THE WORST NEIGHBOR. THE WORST!
When the company which owns the Oceana Hotel purchased the apartment building and applied for
permits to convert and construct the hotel, they were required to send out notices about their work to the
neighborhood on multiple occasions. Most times notices were never received, or they arrived after the
date by which we could object, respond or attend a hearing.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
5 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Originally the Oceana had the equivalent of three or four spots for valets. Depending on the size of the
car, there was one or two public spots immediately north of the valet section and, depending on the size
of the car three or four public spots immediately south of the valet section. The public spots referenced
above were almost always by their valet parked cars. I know this because I not only witnessed this, but
because the valets put a sticker on the window or hanging from the rear-view mirror. Parking on Ocean
Avenue is very limited and when no other public spots were available and hotel valets were asked to
move their valet car(s) parking on public spots they always refused. They were prohibited from parking
guest cars on the public street – but they did it anyway because it was easier than using their
garage. When complaints were made to hotel management, they said valets were contractors and they
had no control over them. Talk about shirking responsibility and being bad neighbors…Oceana
management and owners are the worst neighbors.
With the Fairmont the Huntley Hotel and other local hotels increasing their nighttime activities, the
nighttime noise levels around the neighborhood have skyrocketed – especially after midnight when the
hotel bars and clubs close down.
The Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The requests to allow both food and alcohol service to
the general public constitutes an impermissible intensification of use under the zoning conde’s
provisions for nonconforming uses. This is not a request for a variance but an intensification of a use in
Wilmont.
Valets often speed off with cars of visitors
Valets often don’t look before leaving from the curb with visitor cars
Valets often double park visitors’ cars
Valets often leave vehicles daily and overnight parked in valet spots instead of moving them to their
parking lot
When delivering cars to guests, valets often roll through the stop sign at Idaho/Ocean, almost causing
accidents. I myself have narrowly avoided being hit by them numerous times.
If the noise and crowding and valet drivers are bad now…what will it be like if the Oceana is granted a permit
to serve non-guests in its restaurant and bar? This doesn’t even address the issue of parking in the
neighborhood and the dangerous driving by the valets.
When restaurant was first installed it was supposed to be for hotel guests only. They flagrantly violated that and
allowed outsiders to use the restaurant. They were caught and told to cease and desist. I don’t know if a fine
was issued, but it should have.
Then there is the increased traffic for deliveries, laundry and staff. As of now, early in the morning trucks park
in the alley or on Idaho to unload/load food, linens and who knows what else…leaving the trucks idling
spewing noise and pollution.
Add to that the staff that goes in the alley on their breaks – smoking cigarettes or weed and talking and laughing
loudly among themselves an on their phones.
Its long past due for the city council to stop giving the business community – the Oceana Hotel in this instance
—everything they want. What about us that live here? Especially those us on Ocean Avenue where noise is
worse, where vendors, musical acts and food truck are now parking or setting up tables north of
Washington. Complaints have been made, opposing views have been given as to what is legal without
resolution and the devolution of this part of our once great Ocean Avenue continues. Allowing the Oceana to
expand their operations would hasten that decline, making living here more of a nightmare then it has become..
Item 6.A 04/26/22
6 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
According to the pink notice we received asking for comment, it says, the Oceana is non-conforming…and that
it “requests to provide meal service to the general public provided that certain criterial are met.” I can assure
you that if past is prologue, they will ignore that criteria repeatedly…just as they did years ago when, despite
their permits, they served non-guests in their restaurant.
I’ve heard that some councilmembers are supportive of the Oceana permit. Well…to all those members of the
council that are supportive of the Oceana’s permit…, how would you like it if me and my neighbors parked on
your street taking up all the parking and blocking driveways…and then played loud music and created more
traffic and noise? I doubt you would like it…so why then would you subject the residents of this neighborhood
to the same?
The increasing commercialization of Palisades Park North of Washington is distressing. Food vendors, people
selling their wares, musicians playing for five hours on Sunday under the “gazebo” in the 900 block and
others…who when you politely ask them to face their speakers towards the ocean or lower their volume they
curse you out and threaten you. And if you call the Police, we’re lucky if they even show up….and if they do
rarely get out of their car and use their loud speaker to ask the people to quiet down, then leave and five minutes
later we’re back to where we started.
When are you going to protect what used to be a quite residential street and neighborhood? Allowing the
billionaire owner of the Oceana – Jim Lippman and his high paid lawyers to keep applying for the same permit
over and over again …forcing the city to spend tax dollars and forcing citizens to take the time to fight this, is
just not right. Enough has to be enough. How about representing residents instead of a billionaire bully’s
boutique hotel toy?
You’ve fought district elections forever…so we have no one who represents our neighborhood – no one
councilmember who we can hold accountable for all of this nonsense you keep putting on us…so that means, as
last time, some of you, maybe a majority, will vote to let the billionaire bully get his way and further destroy
what should be a quiet neighborhood because you know our votes against you if you allow this permit won’t
matter since we’ll be diluted by the votes across the city.
I know there is a lot to unpack in this letter…forgive it’s length and at times the rant, but I’m angry…as are my
neighbors….about how the city council – our elected “representatives”… have let our neighborhood slip.
Bottom line is – The Oceana Hotel is a bad neighbor and there is no reason to expect that their behavior or the
impact on our neighborhood will improve. Please vote to oppose the Oceana’s permit application, and please
do whatever you can to discourage them from doing it again. Please truly consider the impact of Oceana on its
neighbors.
We are hoping all members of the City Council will not disappoint us and will take the sides of residents and
not business, developers and a billionaire bully.
Thank you.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
7 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jim Berchtold <redtopkimo@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 4:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:849 Ocean Avenue
EXTERNAL
I live at 701 Ocean Avenue, PH F and have supported the expanded restaurant service for the oceana hotel ‐ I and a
number of other residents feel it would be wonderful to have that service so convenient ‐ thank you for considering and
approving this expanded service ‐ truely, James J Berchtold Before she passed away, my wife also supported the request
┭┮┯┰
Sent from my iPhone
Jim Berchtold
701 Ocean Avenue PH F
SANTA MONICA CA 90402
Cell 503.310.0805
redtopkimo@gmail.com ‐ effective now
Kimobe@comcast.net ‐ discontinuing the Comcast email 9/25/2021
Item 6.A 04/26/22
8 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Juan Robles <juan_m_robles@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 23, 2022 10:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Block the Oceana Hotel Appeal
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a property owner and resident of less than a block away, I strongly oppose the
expansion/change of the current designation of 849 Ocean Avenue. My concern is that such change
will alter the residential character of our neighborhood which is not meant to be a business zone. The
Oceana Santa Monica hotel was granted a restricted permit that should remain the same in order to
protect our neighborhood which is in a residential zone. Please stop this hotel's second attempt to
amend the text of the SMCC Section 9.08. As homeowners, we purchased our properties in this
location because the zoning is residential and we want to keep it that way. Santa Monica City
Council Members please block any text amendments that will compromise the appeal of the
residential nature of our neighborhood.
Please feel free to contact me:
Juan Robles
917 2nd Street 201
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Regards,
Juan Robles
Item 6.A 04/26/22
9 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Grafton Harper <graftonharper@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 12:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Subject:City Council Meeting - Oceania revote on Tues. 4/26 - Item 6A
EXTERNAL
Hello‐
At the bottom of my note is the original note I sent to the planning commission in May 2021. Please also read this earlier
note as well as my updated comments as part of the proceedings.
Note for April 26, 2022 ‐ Item 6A
I understand that due to communication technicality the matter of the Oceana restaurant service to non‐guests will
come up for a re‐vote with the City Council this week. This matter was voted down last November by a 6‐member
quorum of the City Council.
In this Trumpian era of constant litigation, the non‐resident owner (internet search indicates a Delaware Corporation) of
the Oceana has engaged land‐use attorneys to invalidate the November vote and allow the owners a second chance at
obtaining a non‐conforming use for their property at Santa Monica residents' expense.
I seriously doubt that I, a lowly resident and local property owner, could get the City Council to approve a Cigar Shop in
my condo building, especially get a second hearing and a second vote. I doubt any resident could get away with such
shenanigans. Yet, this is exactly what has been allowed to happen. Wealthy people who don't live here are spending
money to make money at the expense of the good people of Santa Monica who just want to walk their dogs, push their
baby‐strollers and exercise their legs in relative safety. These residents will pay the price for an ever more dangerous
and noisy intersection.
If the city council considers adding this non‐conforming commercial operation in our residential space, they must at the
very least send it back to the planning commission to evalutate the traffic impact on residential pedestrians. For the
record, the planning commission rejected this proposal in May of 2021 so a yes vote this week from the Council will
override the planning commission. Voting yes sends the message that the safety of voters has not been discussed at any
planning level.
Should this pass, the message to Santa Monica voters is clear. "Spend enough money here, and we'll rubber stamp
whatever non‐conforming use you want." Staff seem to put Economic Recovery over all other concerns. In this case:
Public Safety.
Sincerely,
Grafton Harper, 837 Lincoln Blvd.
Original Note to the Planning commission from May, 2021.
Planning Commission Members ‐
I understand that once again The Oceana is petitioning to allow for non‐residents to take meals and
potentially alcoholic beverages at their location at 701 Ocean.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
10 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
I live at 837 Lincoln Blvd. and frequently walk past the building on my way to the Palisade.
Frankly I am already alarmed at the amount of reckless driving activity already taking place at that
address. There seem to be fast‐moving valets or residents pulling from the passenger spaces in front of
the building all the time. The pedestrian crossing has become nothing short of hazardous as north‐
bound drivers have little choice but to swing around the traffic there and then come to a screeching halt
before hitting crossing pedestrians.
I understand the arguments. Who wouldn't want to get a cup of coffee or snack at a lovely
location? That's not the point. The point: This is a residential neighborhood that has no traffic
infrastructure to handle a restaurant space with outside visitors.
Wouldn't it be nice if I could have a cigar shop in the lobby of my building and a little coffee shop on my
roof too. I'm sure my neighbors would love that.
People invest in neighborhoods believing that their government will look out for their safety and welfare
by sticking to existing code and holding back the incursions of commercial activity on the very streets
that their tax dollars support. There is always someone wanting to sell something where people live. It
is human nature. If a food truck pulled up there, you'd cite it.
Reject this coffee non‐sense and see it for what it is. Commercial incursion into residential spaces.
Thank you,
Grafton
____________________________
Grafton S. Harper
graftonharper@gmail.com (My new inbox as of 12/2018)
Lost track of me?
Permanent Forwarding available at grafton.harper.1998@anderson.ucla.edu
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:18 AM Grafton Harper <graftonharper@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello‐
I reside near the corner of Lincoln and Montana in the Wilmont district. I have lived in Santa Monica for about a
decade and in Southern California for 35 years. I am a finance professional and a UCLA MBA.
I agree with the comments sent out by my Wilmont neighborhood association in advance of tomorrow's City Council
meeting. The project is too large, ignores the surrounding neighborhood, offers scant financial benefits for the city and
allows very wealthy out‐of‐state investors to bypass long‐established norms to make outsized profits. At the same
time, established residents and businesses are asked to accept a degraded cityscape and neighborhood experience with
little benefit returned for their sacrifice.
Basic economic analysis shows that the Miramar project offers greater than 14% returns on the hotel operations and
most likely much higher returns for the condominium portion of the project as proposed. While it is likely to cost the
investors some $200M to improve the hotel, their return on investment will be tremendous and swift. The parcel sits
on one of the most beautiful vistas on the Pacific coast. A vista made wonderful by the very absence of gigantic
structures which this Project will spoil for everyone else.
The investors purchased the property with the clear intention of achieving relief from density and height restriction
long imposed on the Wilmont area. These are restrictions that have been adhered to by other developers, builders,
Item 6.A 04/26/22
11 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
residents and tenants. This project allows a great exception and high profits but at great degradation of our Santa
Monica sunshine and ocean‐adjacent way of life.
I understand that it is hard to turn down money being invested in a city. But remember that the city did not choose
these investors or this opportunity. The investors entered this market with the intent of scoring exceptional treatment
for great profit in an area where others have been rightly restricted and mediated for decades. I did not hear the cries
of these prior investors that their returns were insufficient for their needs.
I look as a finance professional at this project with more than a little jadedness. Why would the next investor wish to
come to our city when they might imagine the ground‐rules can be skirted by a future competitor? Will not all
developers seek exceptional terms with little benefit to the city and community? I believe this project will be such an
invitation to the most base levels of development to push the height, density and footprint higher, denser and
bigger. Is this a Pandora's box we wish to cast open for our city with so little given back?
Respectfully submitted,
Grafton Harper, 837 Lincoln Blvd, (818) 516‐2363
____________________________
Grafton S. Harper
graftonharper@gmail.com (My new inbox as of 12/2018)
Lost track of me?
Permanent Forwarding available at grafton.harper.1998@anderson.ucla.edu
Item 6.A 04/26/22
12 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
April 24, 2022
Santa Monica Mayor and City Council
Item 6-A - Oceana Hotel Restaurant
Please accept this letter as my continued support of Staff’s recommendation regarding the
Oceana Hotel's application considered at Council in November. I’m glad you are hearing
this item again.
My comments below remain rooted in a strong commitment to local, walkable and bikeable
businesses in our neighborhoods, and are based on my own experience and those of
others who advocate for a growing pedestrian and bicycle street culture.
I reside in mid city. For many years our neighborhood enjoyed eating at Le Petit Cafe, a
small-scale, low-impact brasserie on Colorado Avenue operated by the Bourget family. The
restaurant and staff were part of the fabric of our neighborhood. Le Petit Cafe closed a few
years back but has recently and happily been resurrected as Le Petit Chez Mimi. The cafe
provides a local and beloved alternative to the larger, corporate restaurants in the mid city
area that have survived almost exclusively on the patronage of drivers who demand space
to park - a valuable resource we’ve learned can be better utilized much more equitably.
I provide this background because I envision the Sandpiper restaurant at the Oceana Hotel
as a similar kind of place where people can walk and bike from the Wilshire-Montana and
north of Montana Ave neighborhoods — as well as from other parts of the city — to enjoy a
meal in a more intimate setting than is offered in Santa Monica’s vibrant, but busier
Downtown core or Montana Avenue. Even better, the chef will accommodate the needs of
vegans and vegetarians, providing a welcoming and more sustainable menu experience for
everyone.
Staff has recommended certain conditions that take the needs of people walking and
biking into consideration. The Hotel listened and has incorporated these items (I previously
encouraged) into their application: incentives extended to pedestrian and bicycle
customers and provision of a bike valet for restaurant patrons, for convenience and bicycle
security.
Finally, quiet is an unexpected phenomenon that we all came to appreciate during the early
days of the pandemic. A small restaurant incorporated in a low-key hotel is an ideal place
to relax and actually converse in relaxed, good company. A publicly-available Sandpiper
would provide an alternative to the higher volume (albeit exciting) environment easily found
elsewhere in establishments downtown and along the boulevards.
Again, I support the Ocean Hotel’s proposal, I hope you vote to grant it.
I appreciate your consideration.
Thank you,
Cynthia Rose
Cynthia@BerettaRose.com
Mid-City Neighborhood
Santa Monica, CA
90404
CYNTHIA ROSE
Item 6.A 04/26/22
13 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Alissa Finerman <alissafinerman@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 24, 2022 8:57 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Cc:David White
Subject:Re Oceana Hotel - deny Appeal
EXTERNAL
Hello Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
I've been a Santa Monica resident since 2009 and want to share my input to deny the appeal of the Ocean Hotel for
several reasons:
‐ As recently as 2015, the Council already determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified.
These CUPs and text amendment do exactly that. The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non‐conforming hotel to
ask for any intensification in the Wilmont neighborhood and this appeal should be denied.
‐ Current feedback from neighbors (850 2nd st) is that there is already excessive noise with the garage. If the restaurant
has even higher occupancy rates which could lead to more cars and deliveries, common sense tells us that noise levels
will be even worse as will traffic and potentially parking.
‐ The community does not need one more expensive restaurant. The Ocean Hotel is a luxury and boutique hotel. I
checked room rates for the weekend of 5/20‐22 and the least expensive room was $1,146 + $45 resort charge plus tax.
Room rates went up to $1,632 plus the resort charge and tax. Typically, expensive hotels have expensive restaurants so
the hotel will likely be too expensive for locals. Let's be very clear, this is not about a few new neighbors stopping by for
coffee but rather the intensification of non‐hotel guests’ uses of the facility for dining, conferences, functions or other
non‐hotel guest activities (which leads to increased noise levels and traffic).
‐ The city does not have the resources or a process in place to help residents “manage potential impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood” outlined in this staff report. Once again, the promise of enforcement of STOAs and CUPs are
made but cannot be delivered on by the city. Code enforcement is understaffed, redeployed to help at the pier, and is
not staffed for nights or weekends and often cannot respond quickly enough when many of the issues occur.
I appreciate your time on this matter and hope you will vote to preserve our residential community and deny the appeal.
Many thanks,
Alissa Finerman
Item 6.A 04/26/22
14 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Neal Payton <npayton@tortigallas.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 8:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin
McCowan; Lana Negrete
Subject:Public Restaurant use in Oceana Hotel - Item 6A at Council Meeting on April 26
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council.
I am writing to support the opening of the existing restaurant in the Oceana Hotel for public use. Due to other
commitments, I am unable to be at the meeting in person, but with this letter wish to express my point of view.
I live at 1211 Grant Street, Santa Monica 90405 in the Sunset Park neighborhood. Even though I do not live in the
immediate vicinity of this restaurant I am quite familiar with the site and the area, not only because I frequent the park
across the street for recreation, but also, because as a professional architect and urbanist, I led the principal consulting
team that worked with City Staff on the Downtown Community Plan. While this site was not within the boundaries of
that Plan it was certainly visible within the lens with which we viewed the area.
I believe that allowing non‐hotel guests to dine at this restaurant will enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood
significantly. I predict it will become a go to place for residents of the immediate area and enhance their overall sense of
place within the neighborhood. And to the inevitable question, “what if such a restaurant were proposed across the
alley or at the end of the block on which I live”? I’d answer, “I can’t wait.” I would embrace the concept immediately,
and if the food and drink were good, I would become a regular patron. In fact, I look forward to the City of Santa Monica
continuing to expand the opportunity for residents to walk to the services they want by allowing an ever finer mix of
uses.
Some folks have argued that allowing this restaurant to serve non‐hotel guests is an example of “spot zoning”. I
disagree. If the applicant were proposing a sheet‐metal factory or logistics center—well that would indeed be an
example of spot zoning. However, allowing a restaurant that already exists to be open to the general public in a hotel
that already exists across the street from a public park with ocean views within the context of a residential
neighborhood is more aptly an example of mixing uses. Such land‐use diversity allows more people to walk to their
favorite restaurant and generally facilitates a more sociable neighborhood. I am aware that the leadership of the local
neighborhood association for that area has voiced opposition to this item, but such opinions do not always reflect their
constituents as I know from my own experience.
The fact that allowing the existing restaurant to be patronized by the general public needs some sort of legislative action
to be permitted should not be seen as a negative. It simply reflects a change in values from the time this original zoning
was enacted and the present day. We now understand that Euclidean Zoning (in which uses segregated from one
another) is anathema to sustainability and that a finely grained mix of uses is one of the most important elements of
combating air pollution and climate change, by getting folks out of their vehicles and onto their feet.
Thank you for your consideration of my opinion in this matter.
Best,
Neal Payton
Item 6.A 04/26/22
15 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Neal I. Payton, FAIA, FCNU
Senior Principal
Torti Gallas + Partners
Architects of a Better World
240.417.9560 mobile
Item 6.A 04/26/22
16 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:A Glennon <angelique90403@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 8:19 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Cc:David White
Subject:City Council Vote Tomorrow -
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
I have been residing in Santa Monica since 2003. I do not like the commercial expansion and I know tomorow there will
be a revote on the Oceana Hotel by the City Council. I am very concerned about the noise, the pollution and everything
else this is generating. The consequences on residents will be forever. Please think about us when you vote.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Angélique Glennon
Santa Monica Resident and Business Owner
Item 6.A 04/26/22
17 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:santa monica <santamonicagal@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 8:04 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Opposition to expansion of Oceana Hotel-
EXTERNAL
We residents oppose this project request.
Our city is turning into the crime capital/party capital ! we do not need any more c commercialization and inviting the
general public here anymore than we do.
Residents have the priority right to peace & enjoyment in their residences. We want peace and quiet restored not more
construction and more people.
I represent hundreds of resident opinions on the stop of this request.
From :
Lifetime residents 90403
Jill
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6.A 04/26/22
18 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elena Christopoulos <elena@elenachristopoulos.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 12:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:David Martin
Subject:Subject - Item 6-A
EXTERNAL
City Councilmembers,
I strongly support Staff’s recommendation to grant Hotel Oceana’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial, and
approve the CUP and text amendment.
The north end of Ocean Avenue is sadly lacking in small, neighborhood‐friendly restaurants that could serve the local
community, especially the pedestrians and bicyclists who love being near the ocean, and who would enjoy a relaxing,
hassle‐free meal out.
Approving the Oceana’s modest applications will provide a much‐needed, low‐key amenity and enhance the public
experience. Thank you for your consideration.
Elena Christopoulos
Santa Monica
Item 6.A 04/26/22
19 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 11:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete;
Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David Martin
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 4/26/22 item 6-A -- OPPOSE Oceana Hotel appeal
EXTERNAL
Once again:
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net, gleam.davis@smgov.net, kristin.mccowan@smgov.net,
sue.himmelrich@smgov.net, christine.parra@smgov.net, lana.negrete@smgov.net,
oscar.delatorre@smgov.net, phil.brock@smgov.net, david.martin@smgov.net
Sent: 11/21/2021 11:04:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: FOSP: Council 11/23/21 item 6-A -- Oceana Hotel appeal -- OPPOSE
November 21, 2021
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 11/23/21 agenda item 6-A – Oceana Hotel appeal – OPPOSE
Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
Section 9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission's Denial of Two Conditional Use Permits to
Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant
The FOSP Board supports the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) in
a) - opposing the proposed text amendment to the Municipal Code, and
b) - opposing the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permits in order to
intensify a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
1) In 1957, the Oceana was built as an apartment building.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
20 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
2) In 1958, it became a hotel, which was allowed because it was zoned R4.
3) In 1990, the property was rezoned R3, which then made the hotel a “legal nonconforming
commercial use” which was required to be discontinued and removed, or altered to conform to R3,
within 20 years (i.e., by 2010).
4) In 1995, the Oceana got approval to allow hotels in existence as of 1/1/1995 to remain, but to
not allow expansion of such establishments. The text amendment allowed up to 5% increase within
an existing building envelope, but the staff report indicated that staff would not recommend for
expansion of the hotel, but only allow improvements and repairs to be made.
5) In 1996, the Oceana's CUP approval specifically based its conclusions on granting a liquor
license on findings such as, "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel
guests and their visitors, thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;" and "will
not increase the demand for parking on-site."
6) Sometime after 2005, a restaurant was added to serve hotel guests. Before then, food was only
allowed to be delivered to hotel.
7) In 2015, the City Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be
intensified.
8) In 2021, the Oceana Hotel has been added to Hilton’s LXR Hotels & Resorts marketing, and
the owners want to open the bar and restaurants to the general public – a further intensification of a
nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
“LXR Hotels & Resorts Celebrates U.S. Debut with Oceana Santa Monica”
Exclusive retreat known for unparalleled, personalized service and immersive, local experiences to join
LXR’s collection of independent, luxury properties.
https://newsroom.hilton.com/lxr/news/lxr-hotels-resorts-opens-oceana-santa-monica
“LXR Hotels & Resorts, Hilton’s collection of independent, luxury properties, today announced
its U.S. debut with the addition of the recently redesigned Oceana hotel, an intimate 70-room
coastal oasis situated along the coveted beach district of Santa Monica. The property is owned
and operated by JRK Property Holdings, Inc.
“Steps from the pristine California coast yet tucked into an exclusive, residential enclave,
Oceana provides a retreat for discerning travelers with the elevated comforts of a dream beach
home coupled with the uniquely personalized service for which LXR Hotels & Resorts are
known.
"The resort exudes a glamorous yet sophisticated sensibility and inspires a captivatingly local
and uniquely personal experience that engages guests with warm Californian hospitality,
aligning with LXR’s core philosophy of providing a bespoke and immersive experience. The
Item 6.A 04/26/22
21 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
4
intimate property will connect each guest with a curated lens into Santa Monica design,
wellness and lifestyle, creating memories that linger long after guests depart….
“Oceana joins the growing collection of more than 10 open or soon-to-be-open LXR properties
in the world’s most sought-after destinations….Oceana provides a rare opportunity to
experience Santa Monica like a local resident of the coveted beach district. Driving along
Ocean Avenue, the first vision of Oceana is the hotel’s stately, ivy-clad facade, quietly at home
among the neighborhood’s other beautiful residences….
"Following a nearly $30 million transformation of the former Oceana Beach Club Hotel, the
stunning beachside home-away-from-home delivers a rare private residential experience in
Santa Monica’s most coveted neighborhood north of Wilshire Boulevard….
“Meals are always prepared to guest specifications and can be served in any of the dining
venues. Oceana’s dining experiences include:
Sandpiper: Oceana’s main restaurant sets the scene for an intimate experience reminiscent of a
private beach home with a picturesque seaside backdrop, but with the added comforts of five-
star service and elegant cuisine.
The Veranda: There is no better venue for al fresco dining at Oceana. Here, guests can enjoy
full access to Oceana’s breakfast, lunch and dinner menus with the benefit of enjoying your
meal poolside. Whether reclining in James Perse chaise lounges or cozying up by the fire pit,
The Veranda is the perfect space to exercise your refined palette while taking advantage of
always sunny Santa Monica.
Sunset Terrace: With panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean, the Sunset Terrace is the perfect
rooftop lounge location to relax, imbibe and enjoy the majesty of the sun sinking into the
horizon. And for sushi lovers, we are excited to announce our exclusive Nobu Pop-Up
Experience featuring some of the famed delicacies only Nobu chefs can provide.
Oceana’s authentic expression of Southern California cuisine also includes rare tequila tasting
flights in the spring in partnership with Casamigos.”
This is not about a few nearby neighbors, all living within walking distance,
stopping by the Oceana Hotel for coffee.
The proposed CUPs and text amendment are about non-hotel guests using this high-end facility for
dining, conferences, and other functions.
As one of the Planning Commissioners noted, before the Commission turned down the owner’s request
for the CUPs, this request amounts to spot zoning.
Approval of the appeal and the text amendment could also serve as a precedent for other commercial
interests that may want to expand into residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica.
The 2010 LUCE (Land Use & Circulation Element) said on page 2, “The LUCE conserves the City’s
neighborhoods.” It continues on page 3, “The community identified the following core values:
Preserve Existing Neighborhoods. The highest priority of the community was the preservation of the
existing character and scale of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods.”
Again, the FOSP Board supports residents in the Wilmont neighborhood and the Board of the Wilshire-
Montana Neighborhood Coalition in
Item 6.A 04/26/22
22 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
5
a) - opposing the proposed text amendment to the Municipal Code, and
b) - opposing the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permits in order to
intensify a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
=
Item 6.A 04/26/22
23 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 1:29 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Gleam
Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc:David White
Subject:City Cnl. Mtg. 4/26/22 - Item 6A - Wilmont Board OPPOSES two CUPS/text amendment appeal to
increase commercial intensification of a non-conforming use on Ocean Ave. and a residential
neighborhood
EXTERNAL
April 25, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
The appeal of the Oceana Hotel should be denied for the following reasons:
This is a classic example of spot zoning as described by three Planning Commissioners.
As recently as 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations
should not be intensified. These CUPs and text amendment do exactly that. The staff report
focuses on the restaurants staying at the same number of seats but the issue is the increase in
occupancy and turnover of those seats including additional cars and parking. The city traffic study
focused on existing parking and did not forecast additional parking or increased traffic due to non-
guests This increase in occupancy and turnover in the restaurant intensifies the
commercialism in the neighborhood through more deliveries, more staff, more employee and
customer parking and traffic in neighborhood (preferred parking only at night on Idaho with no
preferred parking on Montana, Ocean (with Oceana taking half the block of Ocean with its valet
parking zone) and 2nd Street. and increased use of the garage squeaky gates. The staff report
Item 6.A 04/26/22
24 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
continues to state the impact on the neighborhood will be insignificant with no data, no
comparison to similar public restaurants and no admitting this 4–5-star hotel (room rates
from $600 -$1,000) will price out most neighbors. Once the damage is done, there is no
mitigation or return for the residents of the Wilmont neighborhood,
Let’s remember the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on
findings such as “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and
their visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses”. Is it just old
fashioned to ensure that residents are protected from commercial impact?
Neighbors and many residents have provided their feedback that the intensification of the Oceana
Hotel will impact parking, noise and traffic. The residents of 850 2nd Street, the apartment building
across the alley have outlined that deliveries start occurring at 6:30 am and late into the night, parking
garage gates are noisy during 24/7, staff are talking and smoking in alley and there is no current
process/recourse for these issues to be resolved or addressed. How would you like to live across the
alley from this? There is currently no city process nor is there a planned process that helps
these residents “manage potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood” outlined in this
staff report. Once again, the promise of enforcement of STOAs and CUPs are made but cannot
be delivered on by the city. Code enforcement is understaffed, redeployed to help at the pier,
is not staffed for nights or weekends and often cannot respond quickly enough when many of
the issues occur.
The applicant is OCBSM Owner LLC, which is owned by JRK Residential Group Inc, which is
subsequently owned by JRK Property Holdings, Inc. a privately owned real estate investment
company. This company owns and operates a portfolio totaling more than $15 billion of assets
spanning thirty states. This is not a mom-and-pop small business. With its signing of a franchise
agreement with Hilton LXR Hotels & Resorts the Oceana will be marketing and intensifying its
commercial impact on the neighborhood. This is not about a few new neighbors stopping by for coffee
but the intensification of non-hotel guests’ uses of the facility be it for dining, conferences, functions or
other non-hotel guest activities.
Finally, this kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users. If adopted what is
to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the non-
conforming ordinance with loopholes. The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple and clear.
The application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no need to create an
exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
The LUCE’s first principle is “Preserve the Neighborhoods. Many ran on supporting and protecting
residents’ neighborhoods. The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non-conforming hotel to ask
for any intensification in the Wilmont neighborhood and this appeal should be denied.
Thank-you
Item 6.A 04/26/22
25 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 6.A 04/26/22
26 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Cyrus Smith <johncysmith@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 1:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Cc:David White; emvandenburgh@gmail.com; Wilmont Board
Subject:Oceana - Item 6A
Attachments:OCEANA HOTEL.jpg
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council,
I don't write too often, and the letter the Wilmont Board sent you pretty much lays out this issue clearly.
HOWEVER, there are bigger issues at play with regards to the Oceana proposal., Item‐6A.
I don't care if the multi‐billion dollar owners threaten to sue. Seems every huge hotel hedge fund enterprise
now sues to defy established, common‐sense zoning laws and seek an exemption when they want.
The rules and laws this very Council and city have studied and approved and made law, should not be cast
aside just because deep pockets try to force the issue.
Why make laws and have codes if we don't follow them?
Hotels should not be in neighborhoods. Just ask the people who live near the PaliHouse. The owners of the
Oceana don't just want to have a few quiet get‐togethers. The conglomerate wants to become the next Fig.
Please look at the "Argonaut" cover I've attached. Front page news. LXR with big plans for the Oceana, their
new "destination" hotel.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
27 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
It won't be Downtown. It will be in our neighborhood. One can just imagine how many "Temporary
neighborhood parking passes" they'll be requesting, printing out and using to "valet" park cars in the
neighborhood every day.
You did the right thing the first time around. Stand by that decision. Wilmont residents like me want local
businesses to thrive, but you folks are the ones who make the rules, and made these rules and for good
reason.
It's time to play by them or admit they mean nothing, look the other way and say "next time", which never
seems to come.
Thank you for all you do for the city.
John Cyrus Smith,
Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commissioner and former Chair
JohnCySmith@gmail.com
Item 6.A 04/26/22
28 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Bethany Longest <longestbeth@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 1:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Mtg 4/26/22 - Item 6A - Opposition to Oceana Hotel two CUPs/text amendment to
increase commercial intrusion through allowing non-guests to use Hotel Oceana restaurant/lounge
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I urge you to stop the Oceana Hotel from opening their restaurant and bar to the general public. I live in the same
neighborhood as the Oceana Hotel. It’s a peaceful part of town, for the most part. I’m a nurse at Providence St. John’s
Health Center who is raising my three year old boy with my husband. I bike to work. We take walks to palisades park
daily to walk our dog and play with our son. I would love to be able to stay in this neighborhood and raise my son, who
will eventually go to Roosevelt Elementary School.
My fears are this:
1. More congestion on Ocean Ave near the Hotel. We already have to be super careful on the pedestrian crosswalk due
to cars not stopping for us.
2. Increase noise in the alley which backs up to our apartment building
3. More trucks making deliveries, possibly violating the 0700 am code.
I don’t know if I’m completely understanding this correctly, but it looks like one CUP is to allow non‐guests to eat and
drink at the Oceana hotel restaurant/bar and another CUP is to extend the non‐conforming use zoning for Wilshire
Montana Neighborhood Coalition. As a tax‐paying, working member of the community, I urge you to stop these CUP
expansions. I really feel strongly that it will negatively impact our quality of life in this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Bethany Longest, BSN, RN &
Derek Longest
Item 6.A 04/26/22
29 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
April 25, 2022 Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members, The appeal of the Oceana Hotel should be denied for the following reasons:
• This is a classic example of spot zoning as described by three Planning Commissioners.
• As recently as 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming
operations should not be intensified. These CUPs and text amendment do exactly that. The staff report focuses on the restaurants staying at the same number of seats but the issue is the increase in occupancy and turnover of those seats including additional cars and parking. The city traffic study focused on existing parking and did not forecast additional parking or increased traffic due to non-guests This increase in occupancy and turnover in the restaurant intensifies the commercialism in the neighborhood through more deliveries, more staff, more employee and customer parking and traffic in neighborhood (preferred parking only at night on Idaho with no preferred parking on Montana, Ocean (with Oceana taking half the block of Ocean with its valet parking zone) and 2nd Street. and increased use of the garage squeaky gates. The staff report continues to state the impact on the neighborhood will be insignificant with no data, no comparison to similar public restaurants and no admitting this 4–5-star hotel (room rates from $600 -$1,000) will price out most neighbors. Once the damage is done, there is no mitigation or return for the residents of the Wilmont neighborhood,
Let’s remember the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a
license on findings such as “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses”. Is it just old fashioned to ensure that residents are protected from commercial impact?
• Neighbors and many residents have provided their feedback that the intensification
of the Oceana Hotel will impact parking, noise and traffic. The residents of 850 2nd Street, the apartment building across the alley have outlined that deliveries start
Item 6.A 04/26/22
30 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
occurring at 6:30 am and late into the night, parking garage gates are noisy during 24/7, staff are talking and smoking in alley and there is no current process/recourse for these issues to be resolved or addressed. How would you like to live across the alley from
this? There is currently no city process nor is there a planned process that helps these residents “manage potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood” outlined in this staff report. Once again, the promise of enforcement of STOAs and CUPs are made but cannot be delivered on by the city. Code enforcement is understaffed, redeployed to help at the pier, is not staffed for nights or weekends
and often cannot respond quickly enough when many of the issues occur.
• The applicant is OCBSM Owner LLC, which is owned by JRK Residential Group Inc, which is subsequently owned by JRK Property Holdings, Inc. a privately owned real estate investment company. This company owns and operates a portfolio totaling more
than $15 billion of assets spanning thirty states. This is not a mom-and-pop small
business. With its signing of a franchise agreement with Hilton LXR Hotels & Resorts the Oceana will be marketing and intensifying its commercial impact on the neighborhood. This is not about a few new neighbors stopping by for coffee but the intensification of non-hotel guests’ uses of the facility be it for dining, conferences,
functions or other non-hotel guest activities.
• Finally, this kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users. If adopted what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with loopholes. The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple and clear. The application for the zone text amendment
should be denied because there is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
The LUCE’s first principle is “Preserve the Neighborhoods. Many ran on supporting and protecting residents’ neighborhoods. The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non-conforming hotel to ask for any intensification in the Wilmont neighborhood and this
appeal should be denied.
Thank-you Board of Directors Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 6.A 04/26/22
31 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
32 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Caroline C. Vincent, Esq. <cvincent@adrservices.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 3:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Cc:David White
Subject:Oceana Hotel Commercial Expansion - Opposition
EXTERNAL
I have lived at 860 Third Street, two short blocks from the Oceana Hotel. I oppose the planned
commercialization of this mostly apartment building neighborhood for several reasons:
1. I have lived in this neighborhood for over 40 years. At some point I obtained a license to
practice law in my home, for which I agreed that I could not have any clients or staff
present in my apartment at any time (this was a time when presumably the city
understood that people with cars still use them, still need a place to park, and that
parking is difficult). The rules that apply to me should apply to all permitted business in
the neighborhood.
2. Turning an apartment building into a commercial hotel has not impacted me or traffic in
my neighborhood personally, as there is a permitted valet zone on Ocean Ave for the
guests to arrive and for Ubers to pick them up. I am impacted when trucks park in the
alley to service Brookdale, leave their vehicles and don’t allow us ingress or egress. The
promise that this would not happen went unfulfilled from day one.
3. Permitting a public restaurant in the apartment‐turned‐hotel facility is a major increase
in traffic and commercial activity. Already it is impossible for anyone to visit that does
not take an Uber, (including during the pandemic) because of prior city ill‐conceived
policies that did not permit parking for workers in the city parking lots (now being torn
down). And so city workers have been parking in our neighborhoods, reducing any
possibility for parking for residents, let alone guests. As well, because of the higher
prices, there is more density per apartment. It’s LA, lots of folks have cars. That the city
is allowing increased building now while cars are still used is bad planning.
4. Unless the city were to guarantee a new parking garage, for the guests to the hotel,
right nearby, we are going to have more parking issues for the residents who live
there. This creates more congestion. Instead, having violated their promises to
businesses in the commercial district who paid for the city lots for customers (like
Beverly Hills which still does this), the city is tearing down parking lots, apparently
hungry to attract new dollars from developer monies, thinking in a fantasy world, that in
Item 6.A 04/26/22
33 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
the sprawled out city of Los Angeles, people will stop using cars. Forget about income in
Santa Monica, businesses. Residential voters, take note of who votes to increase
density and reduce parking.
5. Pedestrians and drivers of automobiles are already at increased risks of accidents in our
increased density neighborhood (to afford current rents many folks need roommates, or
many families with children now occupy apartments). Oh, and people still own and
drive cars. The city has promoted scooters and bicycles for transportation, but has
neglected to enforce any laws to prohibit the use of skateboarders, cyclists and scooters
on sidewalks. Anyone trying to take their baby for a stroll on a carriage, or anyone living
at the Brookdale facility at 2nd and Idaho (behind my building), knows full well the
danger imposed by these creative and ill‐conceived ideas – a resident who wishes to use
their walker for a stroll on a sidewalk is risking their life. And scooters and bicyclists
have forgotten they must comply with the rules of the road, and seem oblivious and
angry, as they fly out of nowhere in front of your car because the rules do not apply to
them and you should have x‐ray vision, or insist you have exray eyes and will move out
of the way when they are right behind you on the sidewalk with a bicycle.
6. Until these increased impacts and reduction of available parking is addressed,
commercializing a highly dense residential neighborhood and guaranteeing increased
noise and accidents is a bad idea. There is also no compelling need to do this other than
grabbing some dollars to pay city staff. I am all for making sure we pay city staff but
there are many other ways to do so (let’s get creative!). How about enforcing the traffic
and safety laws that do exist, posting signs to “stop, look and listen” at street corners,
posting signs reminding scooters and bicyclists to stop at intersections because cars
have the right of way if there is no stop sign, and because pedestrians at the corner
have the right of way when entering a crosswalk.
7. A smart idea would be to require provision of an additional adjacent or nearby parking
structure to handle the increased automobile traffic and prohibit using the residential
streets for the valet to park their cars, whenever a developer decides to turn an
apartment building into a hotel, then years later turn the restaurant into a public one
where that use is not permitted. I hope that the city leaders are able to focus on the
fact that folks still drive cars in Los Angeles and need places to park them. And that folks
in residentially zoned areas expected and still expect it to be relatively quiet (as in we
sleep there).
8. Our alleyways are for egress and ingress into parking for apartment dwellers – they are
not designed for commercial vehicles that block our access.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
34 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
9. Already access to our parking is limited from time to time because folks think they can
just park in the alleyway to drop something off to a friend, because it is so difficult to
find available parking.
10. In short, the infrastructure is not in place to turn this residential neighborhood into a
commercial neighborhood.
There is no compelling reason to turn this apartment building turned hotel into a public
restaurant in a residentially zoned neighborhood.
Caroline Vincent
Attorney at Law
860 Third Street #2
Santa Monica, CA 90403
310.395.2194 Office
310.617.2042 Cell
cvincent@igc.org
Item 6.A 04/26/22
35 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Jason Mastbaum <jason.mastbaum@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 2:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems
Subject:4/26/2022 Agenda item 6A
EXTERNAL
As a resident of Wilmont who lives just a couple of blocks from Oceana, I strongly support allowing the Oceana to open
its hotel to the public. Why should I have to spend $600 a night to stay in a hotel just a couple of blocks from where I live
in order to enjoy a local restaurant? I cannot possibly imagine how opening the restaurant to the general public will
harm my quality of life, but I can very easily imagine how having a new restaurant available a short walk from my
apartment will improve it.
The small minority of vocal malcontents who have written in to object—including the Wilmont neighborhood
association, which does not speak for me on anything—are the same usual suspects who love to claim that development
doesn't do anything for residents. Yet here we have a local business trying to serve the residents, only for those same
people to now insist that serving the residents is a bad thing!
Please do the right thing and allow the Oceana to open their door to residents as another neighborhood amenity.
Thank you,
Jason Mastbaum
Item 6.A 04/26/22
36 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
April 25, 2022
Via electronic mail
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401
Via email to councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re: Opposition to April 26 Agenda Item 6-A: “Introduction and First Reading of
an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section
9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission’s Denial of Two Conditions Use Permits to Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant”
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and the Honorable City Council:
We write on behalf of Elizabeth Van Denburgh, a resident of the Wilmont community
who is concerned about the encroachment of commercial enterprises, and in particular hotel uses,
into the residentially-zoned neighborhood. The request of the Oceana Hotel is one such
example, and should therefore be carefully considered lest it pave the way for other businesses in
the area to undertake similar projects that expand previous entitlements. Permitting a zone text
amendment for the benefit of this specific property that directly undermines the intent of the
Council in adopting the zoning ordinance provisions in 2015 sets the City on a path towards
other future deviations from the standards and weakens the provisions of the nonconforming
ordinance.
The ordinance proposed by staff allows “an existing hotel use in the R2 or R3 district that
includes an onsite restaurant that provides meal service for hotel guests and their visitors . . .
shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing onsite restaurant to
provide meals service to the general public,” but only if the hotel was established prior to 1995
and the restaurant was operating since July 23, 2015. (See Draft Ordinance Amending
Municipal Code Table 9.08.020 to add footnote 10.) This is a classic example of spot zoning:
Item 6.A 04/26/22
37 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Santa Monica City Council April 25, 2022
Page 2
the exemption is written to apply only to one property in the City, giving it greater freedom than
any other nonconforming hotel operation to alter its restaurant operations. Although written as if
it is generally applicable, the law applies to class of one, and only one, business, and could never
apply to any other given the operational dates included in the ordinance. Such legislation has the
appearance of an arbitrary act, particularly given the specificity of the qualifying conditions. The
Council should reject this spot-zoning and hold the Oceana Hotel to the same standards as other
hotels that are operating in residential zones in the City.
Non-Conforming Hotel Operations
The applicant acknowledges that the Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The
City’s nonconforming use ordinance is intended to allow for “continued occupancy and
maintenance of structures . . . so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet
the provisions of this Chapter.” (SMMC, § 9.27.010.) For nonconforming uses, “a
nonconforming use of a building or a portion of a building . . . shall neither be expanded into any
other portion of the building nor changed except to a conforming use.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 D.)
The code has very specific rules regarding the intensification of nonconforming restaurant uses:
“A nonconforming use shall not be permitted to substantially change in mode or
character of operation. A substantial change in mode or character of operation
shall include, but is not limited to, addition of uses, a change in operational hours
that extends past 11:00 p.m. any night Sunday through Thursday and/or midnight
on Friday and/or Saturday or begins before 7:00 a.m., a 5 percent increase in the
floor area of the premises, or a 5 percent increase in the number of seats in any
restaurant, but in no case shall the increase exceed any established seating
limitation in the underlying zoning district.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 E (emphasis
added.).)
Staff correctly concluded that the Oceana’s request to revise its Conditional Use Permit
to allow both food and alcohol service to the general public would constitute an impermissible
intensification of use under the zoning code’s provisions for nonconforming uses. The examples
provided in the ordinance are not intended to be exhaustive of the possibilities for intensification,
and it would seem that allowing the general public to dine at the hotel would have the same types
of impacts as a small (5 percent) increase in floor area or seating capacity. Opening the hotel
restaurant for non-guests will likely result in an increased number of people traveling to the hotel
for the purpose of dining there who now do not have any reason to make this trip.
In fact, the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings
such as, “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;” and “will not increase the
Item 6.A 04/26/22
38 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Santa Monica City Council April 25, 2022
Page 3
demand for parking on-site.” (See Exhibit A, pp. 2-3.) The 1996 findings also note that “[t]he
proposed use will not adversely effect the welfare of neighborhood residents in a significant
manner in that the use will be allow[ed] for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service
to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel
related impacts.” (Id. pp. 3-4.) Staff’s conclusion that the change to allow for outside use is an
impermissible intensification is well-supported.
The Applicant’s Proposal
The applicant has proposed a Zone Text Amendment to address the limitation in the
nonconforming ordinance, suggesting text for a proposed amendment to section 9.31.040,
creating an exemption that appears to be custom-designed for the Oceana. This proposal would
create a new section in the code provision that discusses alcoholic beverage permits. The
applicant alternatively proposes to add a new section to section 9.27.050 on nonconforming uses
that specifies that a legal nonconforming hotel is permitted to change from serving guests to
serving the general public without intensifying the use under the nonconforming use provisions
of the zoning code. It would appear to be a more appropriate placement in the code to in the
section on nonconforming businesses, since this is the reason for the need for the exception and
it is better understood in that context.
The applicant also proposes a more expansive alternative, that “hotels that existed as of
January 1, 1995 in residential zones can be listed in Table 9.08.020 as permitted uses.” This
change would be inappropriate to make without significant further discussion. The staff report
lists several other nonconforming hotels in the City. Re-writing the code to make them again
conforming is like opening Pandora’s box for all of these properties and should be dismissed out-
of-hand without much more robust consideration and outreach for affected properties.
Staff Proposal
The staff report for this item substantially revises the applicant’s proposal, creating a
number of operational requirements that relate to the dates that the various uses at the property
were rendered non-conforming. Instead of codifying these requirements as an exemption to the
intensification provisions in the nonconforming ordinance, it places these requirements in the
zoning code’s use table. Like the applicant’s proposal, there is a universe of only one property in
the City that meets these requirements. None of these requirements has a specific bearing on the
impact of the expanded operations. They simply assure that the operations have been extant at
the current level for a number of years. This is a classic example of spot zoning: giving one
property a more expansive use than is permitted at other similarly situated properties. This is
particularly problematic because the conditions identified for the applicability of this exemption
are unrelated to any meaningful zoning-related impacts of the changed use.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
39 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Santa Monica City Council April 25, 2022
Page 4
June 9, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing Recognizes Spot Zoning Nature of Request
At the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, several Commissioners noted with
great concern the spot zoning nature of the text amendment. Commissioner Raskin noted that the
zone text amendment was “so narrowly tailored,” and that it appeared to have “no rational basis”
why this hotel could open to public dining but other hotels in R2 or R3 zones could not open a
restaurant. Commissioner Raskin also noted that it would be difficult to justify the substantial
public benefit of opening this non-conforming hotel to public dining. Commissioner Fonda-
Bonardi also commented that the proposal appeared to be spot zoning and that the purpose of
non-conforming uses was to gradually phase-out non-authorized uses. This use would actually
increase the operations of the hotel, in a neighborhood that is impacted by other commercial
uses. Commissioner Fresco also found that the zoning ordinance was spot zoning and that any
expansion of restaurant use in this area should be done in a more comprehensive manner.
Policy Implications
These proposals make a hole in the existing nonconforming ordinance. As recently as
2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified.
This proposal does exactly that. And while it may be said that in this case, only a small change
is permitted, this kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users who are
watching. It is unknown what other types of proposals can be justified by other nonconforming
businesses, but it can be said that for certain that this proposal will increase the incursion of the
commercial environment into this residentially-zoned neighborhood. This is precisely what the
zoning code attempted to avoid.
While the proposal here may be so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business,
if it is adopted, what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar
exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with all sorts of loopholes? This is a path
that has the potential for significant abuse. The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple
and clear. The application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no
need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant has proposed two new Conditional Use Permits. Application 20ENT-0237
requests a new CUP for alcohol service to the general public, and Application 21ENT-0090
requests a new CUP for food service to the general public. In order to grant a CUP, the
Municipal Code requires the following findings:
Item 6.A 04/26/22
40 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
“A. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning
District and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and
all other titles of the Municipal Code.
B.The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicablespecific plan.
C.The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use beingproposed.
D.The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on thesubject parcel if the land uses are to remain.
E.The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land useswithin the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be locatedwhich may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation,
number of employees, or the nature of the operation.
F.The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatiblewith and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.
G.Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially
significant environmental impacts or any potentially significant environmental
impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigationmeasures incorporated in the project or a Statement of Overriding Considerationshas been adopted.
H.The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental tothe public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.” (SMMC, §
9.41.060.)
These findings require factual support. There is no record of any environmental review
of the proposed zone text amendment or Conditional Use Permit, so there is no basis to conclude
whether the intensification of use would have impacts that has not been mitigated. The applicant
claims that opening the restaurant to the general public would have a net reduction in traffic
because neighbors could walk to the restaurant instead of driving elsewhere to eat. This is pure
speculation, not supported by any analysis. Isn’t it equally likely that patrons will drive from
elsewhere to this restaurant? The neighboring residents already live within a short walk to
downtown where there are numerous restaurants. It seems more likely that new driving demand
will be created by opening a new restaurant at the hotel. No discussion is provided of how to
accommodate the increased parking demand that this will impose in the area. While the staff
report looks at some parking studies from 2006 and 2015 to conclude that the hotel has adequate
Item 6.A 04/26/22
41 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Santa Monica City Council April 25, 2022
Page 6
parking, there is no evidence that traffic generation from similarly sized restaurants was studied
in connection with this application.
The Council should deny the requested entitlements. The applicant knew that it owned a
nonconforming hotel. The City has already made the decision that hotels are not a permitted use
in this neighborhood, because such businesses have negative external impacts on neighbor
residents. While the existing hotels are permitted to continue operating, they should not be
allowed to intensify their operations when the City has already determined that no other similar
businesses should operate in those locations in the future.
Yours very truly,
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
Beverly Grossman Palmer
Cc: Mayor Sue Himmelrich (sue.himmelrich@smgov.net)
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan (Kristin.mccowan@smgov.net)
Councilmember Phil Brock (phil.brock@smgov.net)
Councilmember Gleam Davis (gleam.davis@smgov.net)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre (Oscar.delatorre@smgov.net)
Councilmember Lana Negrete (Lana.negrete@smgov.net)
Councilmember Christine Parra (Christine.parra@smgov.net)
Item 6.A 04/26/22
42 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
EXHIBIT A
Item 6.A 04/26/22
43 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
44 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
�-.,,_ • • EDECTIVE DATE(Sl OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED: August 21, 1996 EXPIRATION DATE(S) OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: Fighteeo (J 8� Months Conditional Use Permit (CUP 96-009) LENGTH QF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION QF EXPIRATION DATE<.S.): Any request for an extension of the expiration date m�t be re�ived in the Planning and Zoning Division prior to expiration of this permit. One six (6) rnonfb extensioo Conditional Use Permit (CUP 96-009) CONDITJONALUSEPERMIIFJNDINGS 1.The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject district and complies withall of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use andZoning Ordinance", in that an alcohol license in conjunction with a hotel is conditionallypermitted in the R3-NW district of the Zoning Ordinance.2.The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it isto. be established or located, in that the R3-NW district permits existing hotels, and alcoholservice will be ancillary to the function of the existing hotel establishment3.The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that the. ·parcel is a standard lot witl>, no unusual characteristics.4.The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel ifthe present land uses are to remain, in that the issuance of an alcohol license to allow alcohol�ervice to hotel guests and their visitors is compatible with the existing hotel use.5.The proposed use would be compatible with existing and permissible land uses within thedistrict and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that the zoning ofthe site conditionally permits the issuance of an alcohol license in conjunction with anexisting hotel facility, and that the license type _ensures alcohol service will be limited tohotel guests and their visit�rs thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses.2
Item 6.A 04/26/22
45 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
-�• •
6.There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensurethat the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety, in that the site islocated in an urbaniz.ed area adequately served by existing infrastructure.
7.Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in that parking will be provided in theexisting hotel parking lot and that the proposed use will allow alcohol service to registeredhof:el guests and their visitors only, which will not increase the demand for parking on-site.
8.The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relatesharmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the proposed alcohol license. will befor an allowed hotel in existence prior to January 1, 1995 which is consistent with the R3-NW district zoning which allows hotels in existence before January I, 1995 or their
replacement with a new hotel.
9.The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan,in that the Land Use Element of the General Plan classifies the land use as High Density
Housing which 8:1Jows hotels.
I 0. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience,
or general welfare, in that the proposed use would occur at an existing hotel and would not
intensify that use.
) · 11.The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable performance standards contained inSubchapter 9.04.12 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning. Ordinance, in that no performance standard pennit is required.
12.The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration of such uses in the immediatevicinity, in that the proposed alcohol license will be for an existing hotel, and in that thistype of outlet has not contributed significantly to alcohol related problems in the city.
ALCQHQL OUTLET FINDINGS
1.The proposed use and location are in accordance with good zoning practice, in the publicinterest, and necessary that substantial justice be done in that the alcohol license will be for
a an existing hotel in the R3-NW district
2.The proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of neighborhood residents in asignificant manner in that the use will be allow for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing
alcohol service to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby notsignificantly increasing hotel related impacts.
3.The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the areain that a hotel use with alcohol service for hotel guests and their visitors only is not typically·
·3
Item 6.A 04/26/22
46 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
"'· • • considered to contribute to objectionable problems associated with alcohol outlets. furthermore, this type of outlet has not contributed significantly to alcohol related problems in the city. 4.The proposed use will not detrimentally affect nearby neighborhoods considering thedistance of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals,playgrounds, parks, and other existing alcohol outlets in that the conditions for approval,such as the requirement that only registered guests of the hotel and their visitors -may beserved alcohol, will minimiz.e the potential affect on the residential uses in the vicinity.s� The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential uses within the general area inthat the hotel is in the R3-NW (North of Wilshire Overlay) district, and a hotel with analcohol license is compatible with permitted uses.6.Traffic and· parking congestion will not result from the proposed use in that parking for theuse is available on-site and the proposed Type 70 alcohol license will not result in increasedparking demand.7.The public health, safety, and general welfare are protected in that conditions of approval torequire responsible dispensation of alcohol are included herein.8.No harm to adjacent properties will result in that the conditions of approval will ensure thatthe establishment operates as a hotel with ancillary alcohol service.9.The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan in that the Land UseElement of the General Plan designates the area as High Density Housing and the ZoningOrdinance allows for existing hotels within this area.CONDITIONS QF APPROVAL 1.This approval is for those plans dated April 24, 1996, and amended July 9, 1996, a copy ofwhich shall be �tained in the files of the Planning and Zoning Division. Projectdevelopment shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwisespecified in these ·conditions of approval.2.The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article IX of the MunicipalCode, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and G�neral Plan policies ofthe City of Santa Monica.3.To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate ·of Occupancy, projectowner shall submit a recycling plan to the ·Department of Environmental and Public WorksManagement for its approval. Toe recycling plan shall include 1) list of materials such aswhite paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled; 2) location of recycling4
Item 6.A 04/26/22
47 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
48 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
49 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
50 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Martyn Burke <burke.martyn@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 10:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Cc:David White
Subject:Oceana Hotel request-please vote NO
Please do not allow the Oceana Hotel to open as a commercial restaurant and bar.
This proposal is completely out of context with this neighborhood.
Martyn Burke
Laura Morton
Santa Monica
Item 6.A 04/26/22
51 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Kent Strumpell <kentstrum@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 12:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin
McCowan; Lana Negrete; David Martin
Subject:Item 6-A, Oceana Hotel
Dear City Councilmembers,
This letter reiterates the points I made in my letter to you in November 2021.
I believe the request by the applicant to serve the general public in its restaurant is reasonable, beneficial and should be
considered for the following reason.
Restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, etc can be valuable neighborhood resources accessible by walking, biking and short car
trips. (I wish there more such places within walking distance of where we live in the Pico Neighborhood). Far from being
a burden on the surrounding community, I think this low‐key restaurant at the Oceana could prove to be a local gem, an
amenity that nearby residents will come to value highly.
Food services within the community can make our city more livable by allowing access to daily needs without having to
use a car. The more we can create "complete communities" with a decent mix of essential services close by, the more
we can reduce traffic and meet other city goals for livability, greenhouse gas reduction, etc.
Please consider these community benefits when you discuss the hotel's application and Staff's well‐reasoned
recommendation to grant it.
Thank you,
Kent Strumpell
1211 B Michigan Ave.
Santa Monica
Item 6.A 04/26/22
52 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
April 25, 2022
Via electronic mail
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401
Via email to councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re: Opposition to April 26 Agenda Item 6-A: “Introduction and First Reading of
an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section
9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission’s Denial of Two Conditions Use Permits to Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant”
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and the Honorable City Council:
We write on behalf of Elizabeth Van Denburgh, a resident of the Wilmont community
who is concerned about the encroachment of commercial enterprises, and in particular hotel uses,
into the residentially-zoned neighborhood. The request of the Oceana Hotel is one such
example, and should therefore be carefully considered lest it pave the way for other businesses in
the area to undertake similar projects that expand previous entitlements. Permitting a zone text
amendment for the benefit of this specific property that directly undermines the intent of the
Council in adopting the zoning ordinance provisions in 2015 sets the City on a path towards
other future deviations from the standards and weakens the provisions of the nonconforming
ordinance.
The ordinance proposed by staff allows “an existing hotel use in the R2 or R3 district that
includes an onsite restaurant that provides meal service for hotel guests and their visitors . . .
shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing onsite restaurant to
provide meals service to the general public,” but only if the hotel was established prior to 1995
and the restaurant was operating since July 23, 2015. (See Draft Ordinance Amending
Municipal Code Table 9.08.020 to add footnote 10.) This is a classic example of spot zoning:
Item 6.A 04/26/22
53 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Santa Monica City Council April 25, 2022
Page 2
the exemption is written to apply only to one property in the City, giving it greater freedom than
any other nonconforming hotel operation to alter its restaurant operations. Although written as if
it is generally applicable, the law applies to class of one, and only one, business, and could never
apply to any other given the operational dates included in the ordinance. Such legislation has the
appearance of an arbitrary act, particularly given the specificity of the qualifying conditions. The
Council should reject this spot-zoning and hold the Oceana Hotel to the same standards as other
hotels that are operating in residential zones in the City.
Non-Conforming Hotel Operations
The applicant acknowledges that the Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The
City’s nonconforming use ordinance is intended to allow for “continued occupancy and
maintenance of structures . . . so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet
the provisions of this Chapter.” (SMMC, § 9.27.010.) For nonconforming uses, “a
nonconforming use of a building or a portion of a building . . . shall neither be expanded into any
other portion of the building nor changed except to a conforming use.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 D.)
The code has very specific rules regarding the intensification of nonconforming restaurant uses:
“A nonconforming use shall not be permitted to substantially change in mode or
character of operation. A substantial change in mode or character of operation
shall include, but is not limited to, addition of uses, a change in operational hours
that extends past 11:00 p.m. any night Sunday through Thursday and/or midnight
on Friday and/or Saturday or begins before 7:00 a.m., a 5 percent increase in the
floor area of the premises, or a 5 percent increase in the number of seats in any
restaurant, but in no case shall the increase exceed any established seating
limitation in the underlying zoning district.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 E (emphasis
added.).)
Staff correctly concluded that the Oceana’s request to revise its Conditional Use Permit
to allow both food and alcohol service to the general public would constitute an impermissible
intensification of use under the zoning code’s provisions for nonconforming uses. The examples
provided in the ordinance are not intended to be exhaustive of the possibilities for intensification,
and it would seem that allowing the general public to dine at the hotel would have the same types
of impacts as a small (5 percent) increase in floor area or seating capacity. Opening the hotel
restaurant for non-guests will likely result in an increased number of people traveling to the hotel
for the purpose of dining there who now do not have any reason to make this trip.
In fact, the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings
such as, “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;” and “will not increase the
Item 6.A 04/26/22
54 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Santa Monica City Council April 25, 2022
Page 3
demand for parking on-site.” (See Exhibit A, pp. 2-3.) The 1996 findings also note that “[t]he
proposed use will not adversely effect the welfare of neighborhood residents in a significant
manner in that the use will be allow[ed] for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service
to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel
related impacts.” (Id. pp. 3-4.) Staff’s conclusion that the change to allow for outside use is an
impermissible intensification is well-supported.
The Applicant’s Proposal
The applicant has proposed a Zone Text Amendment to address the limitation in the
nonconforming ordinance, suggesting text for a proposed amendment to section 9.31.040,
creating an exemption that appears to be custom-designed for the Oceana. This proposal would
create a new section in the code provision that discusses alcoholic beverage permits. The
applicant alternatively proposes to add a new section to section 9.27.050 on nonconforming uses
that specifies that a legal nonconforming hotel is permitted to change from serving guests to
serving the general public without intensifying the use under the nonconforming use provisions
of the zoning code. It would appear to be a more appropriate placement in the code to in the
section on nonconforming businesses, since this is the reason for the need for the exception and
it is better understood in that context.
The applicant also proposes a more expansive alternative, that “hotels that existed as of
January 1, 1995 in residential zones can be listed in Table 9.08.020 as permitted uses.” This
change would be inappropriate to make without significant further discussion. The staff report
lists several other nonconforming hotels in the City. Re-writing the code to make them again
conforming is like opening Pandora’s box for all of these properties and should be dismissed out-
of-hand without much more robust consideration and outreach for affected properties.
Staff Proposal
The staff report for this item substantially revises the applicant’s proposal, creating a
number of operational requirements that relate to the dates that the various uses at the property
were rendered non-conforming. Instead of codifying these requirements as an exemption to the
intensification provisions in the nonconforming ordinance, it places these requirements in the
zoning code’s use table. Like the applicant’s proposal, there is a universe of only one property in
the City that meets these requirements. None of these requirements has a specific bearing on the
impact of the expanded operations. They simply assure that the operations have been extant at
the current level for a number of years. This is a classic example of spot zoning: giving one
property a more expansive use than is permitted at other similarly situated properties. This is
particularly problematic because the conditions identified for the applicability of this exemption
are unrelated to any meaningful zoning-related impacts of the changed use.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
55 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Santa Monica City Council April 25, 2022
Page 4
June 9, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing Recognizes Spot Zoning Nature of Request
At the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, several Commissioners noted with
great concern the spot zoning nature of the text amendment. Commissioner Raskin noted that the
zone text amendment was “so narrowly tailored,” and that it appeared to have “no rational basis”
why this hotel could open to public dining but other hotels in R2 or R3 zones could not open a
restaurant. Commissioner Raskin also noted that it would be difficult to justify the substantial
public benefit of opening this non-conforming hotel to public dining. Commissioner Fonda-
Bonardi also commented that the proposal appeared to be spot zoning and that the purpose of
non-conforming uses was to gradually phase-out non-authorized uses. This use would actually
increase the operations of the hotel, in a neighborhood that is impacted by other commercial
uses. Commissioner Fresco also found that the zoning ordinance was spot zoning and that any
expansion of restaurant use in this area should be done in a more comprehensive manner.
Policy Implications
These proposals make a hole in the existing nonconforming ordinance. As recently as
2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified.
This proposal does exactly that. And while it may be said that in this case, only a small change
is permitted, this kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users who are
watching. It is unknown what other types of proposals can be justified by other nonconforming
businesses, but it can be said that for certain that this proposal will increase the incursion of the
commercial environment into this residentially-zoned neighborhood. This is precisely what the
zoning code attempted to avoid.
While the proposal here may be so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business,
if it is adopted, what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar
exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with all sorts of loopholes? This is a path
that has the potential for significant abuse. The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple
and clear. The application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no
need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant has proposed two new Conditional Use Permits. Application 20ENT-0237
requests a new CUP for alcohol service to the general public, and Application 21ENT-0090
requests a new CUP for food service to the general public. In order to grant a CUP, the
Municipal Code requires the following findings:
Item 6.A 04/26/22
56 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
“A. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning
District and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and
all other titles of the Municipal Code.
B.The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicablespecific plan.
C.The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use beingproposed.
D.The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on thesubject parcel if the land uses are to remain.
E.The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land useswithin the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be locatedwhich may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation,
number of employees, or the nature of the operation.
F.The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatiblewith and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.
G.Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially
significant environmental impacts or any potentially significant environmental
impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigationmeasures incorporated in the project or a Statement of Overriding Considerationshas been adopted.
H.The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental tothe public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.” (SMMC, §
9.41.060.)
These findings require factual support. There is no record of any environmental review
of the proposed zone text amendment or Conditional Use Permit, so there is no basis to conclude
whether the intensification of use would have impacts that has not been mitigated. The applicant
claims that opening the restaurant to the general public would have a net reduction in traffic
because neighbors could walk to the restaurant instead of driving elsewhere to eat. This is pure
speculation, not supported by any analysis. Isn’t it equally likely that patrons will drive from
elsewhere to this restaurant? The neighboring residents already live within a short walk to
downtown where there are numerous restaurants. It seems more likely that new driving demand
will be created by opening a new restaurant at the hotel. No discussion is provided of how to
accommodate the increased parking demand that this will impose in the area. While the staff
report looks at some parking studies from 2006 and 2015 to conclude that the hotel has adequate
Item 6.A 04/26/22
57 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Santa Monica City Council April 25, 2022
Page 6
parking, there is no evidence that traffic generation from similarly sized restaurants was studied
in connection with this application.
The Council should deny the requested entitlements. The applicant knew that it owned a
nonconforming hotel. The City has already made the decision that hotels are not a permitted use
in this neighborhood, because such businesses have negative external impacts on neighbor
residents. While the existing hotels are permitted to continue operating, they should not be
allowed to intensify their operations when the City has already determined that no other similar
businesses should operate in those locations in the future.
Yours very truly,
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP
Beverly Grossman Palmer
Cc: Mayor Sue Himmelrich (sue.himmelrich@smgov.net)
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan (Kristin.mccowan@smgov.net)
Councilmember Phil Brock (phil.brock@smgov.net)
Councilmember Gleam Davis (gleam.davis@smgov.net)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre (Oscar.delatorre@smgov.net)
Councilmember Lana Negrete (Lana.negrete@smgov.net)
Councilmember Christine Parra (Christine.parra@smgov.net)
Item 6.A 04/26/22
58 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
EXHIBIT A
Item 6.A 04/26/22
59 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
60 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
�-.,,_ • • EDECTIVE DATE(Sl OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED: August 21, 1996 EXPIRATION DATE(S) OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: Fighteeo (J 8� Months Conditional Use Permit (CUP 96-009) LENGTH QF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION QF EXPIRATION DATE<.S.): Any request for an extension of the expiration date m�t be re�ived in the Planning and Zoning Division prior to expiration of this permit. One six (6) rnonfb extensioo Conditional Use Permit (CUP 96-009) CONDITJONALUSEPERMIIFJNDINGS 1.The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject district and complies withall of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use andZoning Ordinance", in that an alcohol license in conjunction with a hotel is conditionallypermitted in the R3-NW district of the Zoning Ordinance.2.The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it isto. be established or located, in that the R3-NW district permits existing hotels, and alcoholservice will be ancillary to the function of the existing hotel establishment3.The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that the. ·parcel is a standard lot witl>, no unusual characteristics.4.The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel ifthe present land uses are to remain, in that the issuance of an alcohol license to allow alcohol�ervice to hotel guests and their visitors is compatible with the existing hotel use.5.The proposed use would be compatible with existing and permissible land uses within thedistrict and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that the zoning ofthe site conditionally permits the issuance of an alcohol license in conjunction with anexisting hotel facility, and that the license type _ensures alcohol service will be limited tohotel guests and their visit�rs thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses.2
Item 6.A 04/26/22
61 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
-�• •
6.There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensurethat the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety, in that the site islocated in an urbaniz.ed area adequately served by existing infrastructure.
7.Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in that parking will be provided in theexisting hotel parking lot and that the proposed use will allow alcohol service to registeredhof:el guests and their visitors only, which will not increase the demand for parking on-site.
8.The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relatesharmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the proposed alcohol license. will befor an allowed hotel in existence prior to January 1, 1995 which is consistent with the R3-NW district zoning which allows hotels in existence before January I, 1995 or their
replacement with a new hotel.
9.The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan,in that the Land Use Element of the General Plan classifies the land use as High Density
Housing which 8:1Jows hotels.
I 0. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience,
or general welfare, in that the proposed use would occur at an existing hotel and would not
intensify that use.
) · 11.The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable performance standards contained inSubchapter 9.04.12 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning. Ordinance, in that no performance standard pennit is required.
12.The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration of such uses in the immediatevicinity, in that the proposed alcohol license will be for an existing hotel, and in that thistype of outlet has not contributed significantly to alcohol related problems in the city.
ALCQHQL OUTLET FINDINGS
1.The proposed use and location are in accordance with good zoning practice, in the publicinterest, and necessary that substantial justice be done in that the alcohol license will be for
a an existing hotel in the R3-NW district
2.The proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of neighborhood residents in asignificant manner in that the use will be allow for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing
alcohol service to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby notsignificantly increasing hotel related impacts.
3.The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the areain that a hotel use with alcohol service for hotel guests and their visitors only is not typically·
·3
Item 6.A 04/26/22
62 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
"'· • • considered to contribute to objectionable problems associated with alcohol outlets. furthermore, this type of outlet has not contributed significantly to alcohol related problems in the city. 4.The proposed use will not detrimentally affect nearby neighborhoods considering thedistance of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals,playgrounds, parks, and other existing alcohol outlets in that the conditions for approval,such as the requirement that only registered guests of the hotel and their visitors -may beserved alcohol, will minimiz.e the potential affect on the residential uses in the vicinity.s� The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential uses within the general area inthat the hotel is in the R3-NW (North of Wilshire Overlay) district, and a hotel with analcohol license is compatible with permitted uses.6.Traffic and· parking congestion will not result from the proposed use in that parking for theuse is available on-site and the proposed Type 70 alcohol license will not result in increasedparking demand.7.The public health, safety, and general welfare are protected in that conditions of approval torequire responsible dispensation of alcohol are included herein.8.No harm to adjacent properties will result in that the conditions of approval will ensure thatthe establishment operates as a hotel with ancillary alcohol service.9.The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan in that the Land UseElement of the General Plan designates the area as High Density Housing and the ZoningOrdinance allows for existing hotels within this area.CONDITIONS QF APPROVAL 1.This approval is for those plans dated April 24, 1996, and amended July 9, 1996, a copy ofwhich shall be �tained in the files of the Planning and Zoning Division. Projectdevelopment shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwisespecified in these ·conditions of approval.2.The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article IX of the MunicipalCode, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and G�neral Plan policies ofthe City of Santa Monica.3.To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate ·of Occupancy, projectowner shall submit a recycling plan to the ·Department of Environmental and Public WorksManagement for its approval. Toe recycling plan shall include 1) list of materials such aswhite paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled; 2) location of recycling4
Item 6.A 04/26/22
63 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
64 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
65 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
Item 6.A 04/26/22
66 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Martyn Burke <burke.martyn@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 10:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Cc:David White
Subject:Oceana Hotel request-please vote NO
Please do not allow the Oceana Hotel to open as a commercial restaurant and bar.
This proposal is completely out of context with this neighborhood.
Martyn Burke
Laura Morton
Santa Monica
Item 6.A 04/26/22
67 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Kent Strumpell <kentstrum@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 12:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin
McCowan; Lana Negrete; David Martin
Subject:Item 6-A, Oceana Hotel
Dear City Councilmembers,
This letter reiterates the points I made in my letter to you in November 2021.
I believe the request by the applicant to serve the general public in its restaurant is reasonable, beneficial and should be
considered for the following reason.
Restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, etc can be valuable neighborhood resources accessible by walking, biking and short car
trips. (I wish there more such places within walking distance of where we live in the Pico Neighborhood). Far from being
a burden on the surrounding community, I think this low‐key restaurant at the Oceana could prove to be a local gem, an
amenity that nearby residents will come to value highly.
Food services within the community can make our city more livable by allowing access to daily needs without having to
use a car. The more we can create "complete communities" with a decent mix of essential services close by, the more
we can reduce traffic and meet other city goals for livability, greenhouse gas reduction, etc.
Please consider these community benefits when you discuss the hotel's application and Staff's well‐reasoned
recommendation to grant it.
Thank you,
Kent Strumpell
1211 B Michigan Ave.
Santa Monica
Item 6.A 04/26/22
68 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 7:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City council mtg. 4/26/22, Item 6A - OPPOSE appeal of Oceana Hotel, a non-conforming use
commercial intensification via two CUPs/text amendment to expand restaurant/alcohol use to the
general public
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I concur with the request from Wilmont that you DENY the Oceana Hotel appeal for public restaurant
and alcohol use and reiterate their points below.
The appeal of the Oceana Hotel should be denied for the following reasons:
This is a classic example of spot zoning as described by three Planning Commissioners.
As recently as 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations
should not be intensified. These CUPs and text amendment do exactly that. The staff
report focuses on the restaurants staying at the same number of seats but the issue is the
increase in occupancy and turnover of those seats including additional cars and parking. The
city traffic study focused on existing parking and did not forecast additional parking or
increased traffic due to non-guests This increase in occupancy and turnover in the
restaurant intensifies the commercialism in the neighborhood through more deliveries,
more staff, more employee and customer parking and traffic in neighborhood (preferred
parking only at night on Idaho with no preferred parking on Montana, Ocean (with Oceana
taking half the block of Ocean with its valet parking zone) and 2nd Street. and increased use of
the garage squeaky gates. The staff report continues to state the impact on the
neighborhood will be insignificant with no data, no comparison to similar public
restaurants and no admitting this 4–5-star hotel (room rates from $600 -$1,000) will
price out most neighbors. Once the damage is done, there is no mitigation or return for
the residents of the Wilmont neighborhood,
Let’s remember the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on
findings such as “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and
their visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses”. Is it just old
fashioned to ensure that residents are protected from commercial impact?
Neighbors and many residents have provided their feedback that the intensification of the
Oceana Hotel will impact parking, noise and traffic. The residents of 850 2nd Street, the
apartment building across the alley have outlined that deliveries start occurring at 6:30 am and
late into the night, parking garage gates are noisy during 24/7, staff are talking and smoking in
alley and there is no current process/recourse for these issues to be resolved or
addressed. How would you like to live across the alley from this? There is currently no city
process nor is there a planned process that helps these residents “manage potential
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood” outlined in this staff report. Once again, the
promise of enforcement of STOAs and CUPs are made but cannot be delivered on by
Item 6.A 04/26/22
69 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
the city. Code enforcement is understaffed, redeployed to help at the pier, is not staffed
for nights or weekends and often cannot respond quickly enough when many of the
issues occur.
The applicant is OCBSM Owner LLC, which is owned by JRK Residential Group Inc, which is
subsequently owned by JRK Property Holdings, Inc. a privately owned real estate investment
company. This company owns and operates a portfolio totaling more than $15 billion of assets
spanning thirty states. This is not a mom-and-pop small business. With its signing of a
franchise agreement with Hilton LXR Hotels & Resorts the Oceana will be marketing and
intensifying its commercial impact on the neighborhood. This is not about a few new neighbors
stopping by for coffee but the intensification of non-hotel guests’ uses of the facility be it for
dining, conferences, functions or other non-hotel guest activities.
Finally, this kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users. If adopted what
is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the
non-conforming ordinance with loopholes. The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple
and clear. The application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no
need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.
The LUCE’s first principle is “Preserve the Neighborhoods. Many ran on supporting and protecting
residents’ neighborhoods. The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non-conforming hotel to ask
for any intensification in the Wilmont neighborhood and this appeal should be denied.
Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 6.A 04/26/22
70 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Bruce Leddy <bruce.leddy@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 6:41 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Mtg 4/26/22 - Item 6a OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members -
I urge you to DENY THE APPEAL by the Oceana Hotel which would open their restaurant and bar to the public,
in violation of their original 1996 CUP permitting alcohol service "limited to hotel guests and their visitors
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses."
The Planning Commission rightfully denied the hotel's application, stating "The service of alcoholic beverages
with meal service are not permitted uses by the Zoning Ordinance within R3 Zoning Districts and is specifically
prohibited by SMMC Section 9.08.020..." Exempting the Oceana would set a precedent for all other property
owners to bend the zoning code to their individual interests and profit, rather than follow established zoning
regulations which protect the greater good of the community.
Please deny this appeal and require the Oceana to abide by its original agreement with the City.
Thank you for your time.
Bruce Leddy
NOMA Executive Board
22 year Santa Monica resident
Item 6.A 04/26/22
71 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:kartichoke@aol.com
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 9:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; kristin.mcgowan@smgov.net; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Cc:David White
Subject:DO NOT PERMIT THE OCEANA TO FURTHER DISRUPT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
You are elected by the residents, the citizens of Santa Monica, in order to represent THEIR best
interests--not those of multi-million dollar corporations. We deserve the peaceful and quiet use of our
neighborhood. Already neighbors close to the Oceana Hotel complain of noisy staff smoking in alleys,
loud, often after-hour deliveries and other infractions that disturb the neighborhood.
Allowing the Oceana to become a public restaurant is not consistent with our residential zoning and is
much opposed by those of us living in the Wilmont area. We do not want a commercial area such as
this would become because that will invite more traffic, parking, congestion, noise, drunk driving and
all the things that go with a commercial restaurant that also serves liquor and thrives on having more
customers. We chose to live in a residential area that was commercial-free and mostly quiet,
especially in the evenings. We chose you to enforce existing laws and zoning and to protect our
residential neighborhood's peaceful surroundings.
Please do not approve the Oceana Hotel's request.
Thank you.
Kay Ward
Wilmont
Item 6.A 04/26/22
72 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Carl Hansen <cjh268@cornell.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 9:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6-A --- Oceana Hotel
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
Thank you for hearing this matter again.
I am writing to reiterate my support of Staff's recommendation to grant the Oceana Hotel's applications to open its
Sandpiper Restaurant to members of the public.
I have resided in the Wilshire Montana neighborhood (walking distance from the Oceana) for almost a decade, and am
strongly supportive of pedestrian-friendly, small-scale businesses that serve the needs of the community -- especially
pedestrians and cyclists -- and, just as important, help build relationships between the public and the people who own and
operate those establishments, which are essential to the achieving the objective of the complete neighborhoods
concept. I regularly use the bike path and walk with friends in Palisades Park, and it would be so great to have a local
place to grab a bite or drink here.
Thank you for your consideration,
Carl Hansen
e: cjh268@cornell.edu
Item 6.A 04/26/22
73 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
David Rindlaub
rindlaub@gmail.com
April 25th, 2021
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90401
councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re:City Council Mtg. 4/26/22 - Item 6A - 849 Ocean Avenue
Dear Council Members:
I urge you to please deny the Oceana Hotel Appeal
Granting the appeal would result in the following impacts, incompatible with the current residential and
recreational character of the neighborhood. I reside on the opposite side of the same block as the
Oceana Hotel on 2nd St.:
- Increased vehicle traffic by valet service circling the block to access the hotel garage using
Montana Ave, 2nd St or 1st Court, and Idaho Ave. Each valet use drives around the block either
through the residential alley (1st Court) or residential street (2nd St) to access the hotel’s parking
garage. I walk through the alley daily and it is common to see valet drivers from the hotel exceed
the speed limit in the alley.
- Increased street parking demand, impacting opportunity for recreational use of Palisades Park
and the beach. The hotel already permanently occupies what would otherwise be street parking
area for valet use.
- Increased demand and cueing of vehicles for valet parking ingress egress with increased
blocking of traffic including the bicycle traffic lane.
- Increased impact of services (deliveries and trash removal)
Sincerely,
David Rindlaub
Item 6.A 04/26/22
74 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rosemary Sostarich <r.sostarich@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Cnl. Mtg. 4/26/22-Item 6A. OPPOSE two CUPS/text amendment appeal by the Oceana Hotel to
increase commercial intensification of a non-conforming use on Ocean Avenue in a residential
neighborhood
EXTERNAL
April 26, 2022
Mayor Hemmelrich and Council Members
The appeal of the Oceana Hotel should be denied for the following reasons:
This is a classic example of spot zoning as described by three planning commissioners. As recently as 2015, the council
determined the existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified. These CUP’s and text amendment do
exactly that.
This increase in occupancy and turnover in the restaurant intensifies the commercialization in the neighborhood through
more deliveries, more staff, more employees in customer parking and traffic in the neighborhood. I doubt you would like
it if you had people on your street taking up all the parking and blocking driveways and playing loud music and creating
more traffic and noise.
Also, early morning to late night deliveries, parking valets going in and out of the garage, staff taking breaks in the
alleyway and smoking talking loudly at all hours. If you would find this unacceptable, then why would you subject the
residence of this neighborhood to the same. The Oceana Hotel has been a bad neighbor and there is no reason to expect
that their behavior or the impact on their neighborhood will improve.
There were so many restaurants that did not make it through the pandemic. And those that did, are struggling to stay
open. I can go to two different restaurants to support them with my money or I can have a meal at the Oceana. I prefer
to help those that need our help the most and keep these restaurants in Santa Monica open.
The developers would like nothing better than to see Ocean Avenue north of California look the same as Ocean Avenue
south to the pier. The LUCE’s first principle is to preserve the neighborhoods. Many ran on supporting and protecting
residents’neighborhoods.
The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non‐conforming hotel to ask for any intensification in the Wilmont
neighborhood and this appeal should be DENIED.
Thank you,
Rosemary Sostarich
933 ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 6.A 04/26/22
75 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Rosemary Sostarich
Item 6.A 04/26/22
76 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Albin Gielicz <samoalbin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 10:53 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin
McCowan; Lana Negrete
Subject:Council Agenda Item 6-A - Support for Oceana Hotel's Text Amendment and CUP
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
As a local resident and community leader, I have supported the Oceana Hotel’s application for a text
amendment and Conditional Use Permit that would allow non-hotel guests to access its restaurant. I
expressed my support when the matter was before the Planning Commission and at the first Council hearing. I
thank you for hearing the matter again and urge you to support Staff's recommendation to grant the hotel’s
applications.
A small, neighborhood-friendly restaurant will encourage residents and visitors to have a meal within walking
distance of their homes. This is especially important to Santa Monicans like me who love seeing reduced
dependence on the car and more biking and walking in my neighborhood.
This hotel has always been and continues to be a great neighbor and asset to Santa Monica. It is well-
managed and operates quietly and responsibly. I have no doubt that they will continue this culture as they
welcome more guests into their restaurant.
Again, I ask you to vote affirmatively and allow the Oceana to welcome its neighbors. It's long overdue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Albin Gielicz
511 Montana
Item 6.A 04/26/22
77 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:betzi richardson <betzir77@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 10:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White
Subject:City Cnl. Mtg. 4/26/22 - Item 6A - Wilmont Board OPPOSES two CUPS/text amendment appeal to
increase commercial intensification of a non-conforming use on Ocean Ave. and a residential
neighborhood
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members and City Manager David White,
Please don't impose this hardship on our neighborhood!!!
Neighbors and many residents have provided their feedback that the intensification of the Oceana Hotel will impact
parking, noise and traffic. The residents of 850 2nd Street, the apartment building across the alley have outlined that
deliveries start occurring at 6:30 am and late into the night, parking garage gates are noisy during 24/7, staff are talking
and smoking in alley and there is no current process/recourse for these issues to be resolved or addressed. How would
you like to live across the alley from this? There is currently no city process nor is there a planned process that
helps these residents “manage potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood” outlined in this staff report.
Once again, the promise of enforcement of STOAs and CUPs are made but cannot be delivered on by the city.
Code enforcement is understaffed, redeployed to help at the pier, is not staffed for nights or weekends and often
cannot respond quickly enough when many of the issues occur.
Thank you, Betzi Richardson, Wilmont resident, and Wilmont.org Board member
Item 6.A 04/26/22
78 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marc Spilo <marc@spilo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 11:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin
McCowan; Lana Negrete
Subject:Item 6-A - Oceana - support
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
On May 19, I wrote to the Planning Commission to support the Oceana's application to make their restaurant available
to the public. I wrote to you on November 18 to ask you to grant the hotel's appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision.
I appreciate your consideration of this application again on Tuesday night, and hope you will vote to allow the hotel to
move forward.
The Oceana Hotel is a charming and peaceful hotel on the quiet end of Ocean Avenue. The hotel guests are fortunate to
have access to the restaurant services. Those living in the neighborhood would also benefit from having a walkable,
intimate place to relax and see the lovely hotel, its views and enjoy a meal. If approved, the Oceana would be the ideal
neighborhood boutique stop for neighbors out for a walk in Palisades Park or on a bicycle ride on the City's beautiful
new bike path.
Again, I respectfully urge you to consider Staff's recommendation and grant the appeal.
Thank you for your time.
Marc Spilo
Item 6.A 04/26/22
79 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Tej <tejbaines@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 10:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Ocean Hotel Restraunt 849 Ocean Ave Santa Monica CA 90403
EXTERNAL
To: City Clerk : Re: Oceana Appeal
We agree to CUP 21ENT‐0090 and CUP 20ENT‐0237
TO OPEN THE HOTEL’S RESTRAUNT TO THE PUBLIC
Thank you
Tel 310597 0599
Tejbaines@yahoo.com
926 Second street
Apt 202
Santa Monica CA90403
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6.A 04/26/22
80 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Veena Sadana <veenalana@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 9:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Ocean Hotel Restraunt 849 Ocean Ave Santa Monica CA 90403
EXTERNAL
To: City Clerk : Re: Oceana Appeal
We agree to CUP 21ENT‐0090 and CUP 20ENT‐0237
TO OPEN THE HOTEL’S RESTRAUNT TO THE PUBLIC
Thank you
Veena Sadana
President
Veena Lana Business Brokers Since 1983
veenalana@gmail.com
call/text 310 963‐1428
801 Ocean Ave.#405
Santa Monica CA 90403
CA Real Estate Broker BRE #00847739
Item 6.A 04/26/22
81 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 11:46 AM
To:Council Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Strongly oppose appeal 6A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
I strongly urge each one of you to vote against this appeal by this Oceania Hotel. We spent years on the standards for
our neighbors so we could enjoy quiet and peaceful neighborhoods all across our City.
By giving anyway small appeals others businesses will be encouraged to follow this time consuming process.
There are No protections offered by this appeal for parking, noise , traffic and each City services needed for this
restaurant.
Vote against this measure tonight.
Ellen Hannan
1218 9th St, Santa Monica CA 90401
310‐395‐4356
Item 6.A 04/26/22
82 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 1:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Clerk Mailbox; David White
Subject:Agenda Item 6.A. OPPOSE OCEANA HOTEL COMMERCIAL EXPANSION
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please vote NO on the Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.08.020; and
Appeals of Planning Commission's Denial of Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to
the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant.
The continued commercialization of Ocean Ave. is having deleterious effects on Wilmont neighbors.
This council cannot claim to care about the well being of residents and
the promotion of a locally based economy while simultaneously support a
multi-billion dollar private real estate group's expansion through CUP creep to
the detriment of its neighbors to promote an extremely profitable luxury
business.
The applicant is OCBSM Owner LLC, which is owned by JRK Residential Group Inc./JRK Property Holdings, Inc.
a privately owned real estate investment company which owns and operates a portfolio totaling more than $15
billion of assets spanning thirty states. This is not a small business. With its signing of a franchise agreement
with Hilton LXR Hotels & Resorts the Oceana will be marketed and its commercial impact intensified on the
neighborhood via non-hotel guests’ activities.
This kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming uses throughout the city. If adopted, what is
to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the non-conforming
ordinance with loopholes. Text amendments are a slippery slope towards expanding commercial intensification
of uses in residential areas.
Thank you,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
Item 6.A 04/26/22
83 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Doug Sparr <sparrmandingo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 1:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock
Cc:emvandenburgh@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Mtg. 4/26/22 - Item 6A - Opposition to Oceana Hotel two CUPs/text amendment
EXTERNAL
Hi,
My name is Doug Sparr. I am writing you regarding the two Conditional Use Permits to allow the Oceana Hotel
to open their indoor and outdoor restaurant to the general public. I live at 850 2nd Street, the apartment building
on the corner of 2nd & Idaho, adjacent to the Oceana. My unit is on the westside of the building facing the alley
that we share with the Oceana. I have been in this unit for over 14 years.
The hotel is in an unique situation in that it is a commercial establishment operating in a residentially zoned
area. I, and some of my neighbors, are opposed to this potential change in the Hotel’s operations. The following
are some of the concerns that I personally have.
1) Increase noise in the alley.
There have always been constant noise issues in the alley related to the Oceana. They have gone through two
major renovations since I have lived here. The first in 2007 and the second ten+ years later. Sometime after the
2nd renovation they installed two electric garage doors used primarily for valet parking and hotel deliveries. The
motors on the doors are very loud and are disruptive both during the day while I work, and more importantly
overnight. I have been awoken countless number of times at all hours of the night. I fear that the increased
patronage at the restaurant will increase the number of valeted cars going in and out of the garages, particularly
at night given they are trying to get the restaurant hours to the public extended until 11:00pm.
I have attached a video showing the door closing in the middle of the night after a car went in it. Note that
motor has two cycles each time a car enters or leaves, going up and then closing. This video only captures the
second part, so the noise generated is twice as long as you hear in the video.
2) More commercial trucks in the alley.
Expanded restaurant service may lead to increased trucks in the alley and on the streets. Delivery trucks and
maintenance trucks park in the alley despite the fact that there are “No parking in the Alley” signs affixed to the
hotel’s building as well as freestanding signs on my side of the alley (See attached photo). Delivery trucks
frequently arrive and start offloading their deliveries well before 7:00am, which I was told is the allowable start
of the workday. (see attached video) They also occasionally make deliveries at night. The expansion of their
restaurant operations may lead to increased truck deliveries, exacerbating this problem as well as adding
congestion to 2nd street, where they sometimes park as well. If you don’t already know, at some point in the last
14 years, the hotel was able to get sole control of the parking on the block of Ocean in front of their hotel they
use strictly for valet parking. I do not understand why their delivery trucks can’t park and unload there.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
84 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
3) Opening Pandora’s Box.
I am concerned that allowing the hotel to change this conditional use will potentially make it much easier for
them to expand their operations even more in the future. One thing I love about my location is despite my close
proximity to downtown Santa Monica, the pier, the beach, and the retail area on Montana Avenue, I live in a
relatively quiet residential neighborhood. I don’t want it to change. My understanding is that The Oceana is
owned by a large real estate investment company, and they have entered into a franchise agreement with Hilton
Hotels luxury brand LXR Hotels & Resorts. No doubt they have and will devote sufficient financial, marketing
and promotional resources to grow the hotel’s restaurant and lounge business. Some of the other hotels in the
area, e.g. The Fairmont, The Huntley and The Shore Hotel have been successful in growing their nighttime bar
and restaurant businesses, which brings with it increased cars, congestion and noise. I do not want that for my
neighborhood.
4) Intensification of a Nonconforming Use
The Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The requests to allow both food and alcohol service to the
general public constitutes an impermissible intensification of use under the zoning code’s provisions for
nonconforming uses. This is not a request for a variance but an intensification of a use in Wilmont (Wilshire
Montana Neighborhood Coalition).
5) Unneccesary
There are hundreds of eating and drinking establishments throughout Santa Monica for both residents and
visitors. There is no need for another one, particularly in a residential neighborhood. It adds no value to this
neighborhood.
Theoretically I would not typically be opposed to a hotel opening their restaurant to the general public. But
given the hotel’s location in a residential area, I fear this change will adversely impact the quality of the life of
nearby residents.
I am, however, a realist and understand there is considerable support among the council to approve this change.
In that event, I urge you to attach strict, enforceable guidelines on the Hotel’s operations in the alley and on 2nd
street, i.e. when deliveries can be made, where trucks can park, and to force them to retrofit their garage doors
to make them much quieter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Doug Sparr
850 2nd Street, Apt. 310
Item 6.A 04/26/22
85 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sharf, Jesse <JSharf@gibsondunn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Lana
Negrete
Subject:Oceana Hotel
EXTERNAL
To The Santa Monica City Council:
I am a long time resident of Santa Monica, and wish to express my support for the proposal to allow the Oceana Hotel to
serve non hotel guests.
My wife and I, along with our adult children, frequent businesses in Santa Monica on a regular basis, and the location of
the Oceana Hotel makes it the perfect spot for those who live in northern Santa Monica. In fact, I do not own a car, and
I often walk by the Oceana Hotel (I live about 1.5 miles away), and it is a shame that local residents are deprived of the
opportunity to stop by and grab a leisurely meal in a beautiful setting, in their city.
I strongly encourage granting the Oceana Hotel’s request to open to the public. It would be great for the neighborhood
and the city of Santa Monica.
Note that I would have shown up in person to express my support, but I am out of town, and unable to do so. I am
happy to address any concerns, and can be reached by email or at either of the numbers below at any time.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jesse Sharf
GIBSON DUNN
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3026
Tel +1 310.552.8512 • Fax +1 213.229.6638 • Cell +1 310.922.1493
JSharf@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com
This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to
you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ for information regarding the firm and/or our privacy policy.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
86 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Pari White <pariwhite@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:REHEARING on 4-26-2022: Council Appeal Hearing for Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean Ave (Text
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit applications)
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:
I own a condominium at Ocean Avenue and California. I am on the ground floor‐‐my windows directly face the
path of the drinkers and restaurant‐goers carousing up and down Ocean between Wilshire and the Oceana
Hotel. When the Marathon came down Ocean and end in from of my condo, the attendees sat (and stood) on
the garden walls in front of my windows. The apartment house next door is the same. Any back‐ups at the
light at Ocean and California will essentially be a back‐up in our living rooms.
1. The City should mandate the hotel zoning exception be cancelled and the hotel revert to its
apartment/condo status to provide the needed housing in Santa Monica.
No "good" deed goes unpunished: The Oceana Hotel was an apartment/condo providing housing in Santa
Monica and it was permitted to convert to a hotel. I haven't checked all the zoning action, but it appears it was
permitted add a guest restaurant and bar services (it charges $22 for some drinks). It doesn't take much
imagination to hear the then‐hotel developers whining those guests had to have food and drink!
Now the current developer (Hilton) wants to expand the generously granted hotel zoning to include PUBLIC
restaurants (its website claims 2 restaurants) and POOL BAR WITH LIVE MUSIC and the Ocean Avenue‐exposed
(view over Palisades Park) Bar on the 3rd floor.
This amendment may have been requested because Hilton Oceana website seeks to have a robust meeting
and event business. As we know from with direct entrances on Ocean Avenue (Oceana has only one) this
means group buses and many more cars to accommodate guests AND meeting participants.
I can picture trying to walk your dogs around the block and being faced with the loading and unloading
blocking the sidewalk.
No more quiet walks in Palisades Park in the evening. Now we'll watch the fireworks up and down the Coast
with booming music and boisterous drinkers from the Terrace.
There is no turnout at the Oceana Hotel. More people coming and going, particularly drinking or partying
ones, will be disastrous for the elderly, the dogwalkers, children==RESIDENTS. Maybe, like the Miramar, the
Hilton will put a check‐in podium out on the sidewalk to accommodate meeting attendees?
If the amendment is granted this could become a lively night spot with live music AND an expanded bar
(picture the BAR at the top of the Shangrai La) and the noise when walking by the Bungalow Bar on Ocean
near Wilshire.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
87 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
3
2. No guests have stated a need for publicly available restaurants and bars (I went through the comments
on TripAdvisor). In fact, the guests complain about the current noise from the pool area. There are
positive guest comments on the private restaurant so no worries about reservations.
3.
4. No Santa Monica residents have complained about the availability of restaurants in the neighborhood.
We have wonderful restaurants a few blocks away at the Miramar, on Wilshire, and on Montana. It is
ridiculous to disrupt this residential neighborhood with a service needed by the neighborhood.
4.
5. The City can't seem to wean itself from further subsidizing the low‐wage real estate developers like
Hilton. Two public restaurants, a public LIVE MUSIC venue, AND a public open‐to‐Ocean Avenue street
and Palisades Park, and the larger meetings and events Hilton is promoting, means more low wage
workers who need to drive and park in the neighborhood.
6.
7. Parking for Residents will be worse. On TripAdvisor the Oceana manager advises guests to use the
local Ocean Avenue parking if they don't want to pay $62 for valet parking. Expanded restaurants and
bars will directly impact the available parking for residents (even with residential stickers, parking is at
a premium. And where will our dinner guests park with those spaces now taken by Oceana's expanding
service?
6.
7. I oppose the approval of the two CUPS and text amendment by the Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean Ave.
There is no justification for intensifying a non‐conforming use in my residential neighborhood. We do
not need new restaurant goers or meeting sites, which will increase the auto and pedestrian traffic‐‐
YET AGAIN‐‐in our residential neighborhood. All f
Indeed, as stated above, if this is granted then I will propose that we Ocean Avenue residents be granted a
non‐conforming use allowing for short‐term rentals of any duration for real property between California &
Ocean and the Oceana.
Or perhaps I should propose to our HOA that our building have its zoning changed and we sell to a hotel
chain? Oceanfront property is extremely valuable today.
Perhaps our HOA could propose a new "opportunity zone" from California Ave to Montana. Afterall, why
should we residents be short‐changed when real estate developers are allowed to expand into our residential
neighborhood?
I oppose the two CUPS and proposed text amendments.
Sincerely,
P. White
101 California Avenue, Apt. 102
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 6.A 04/26/22
88 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
4
Item 6.A 04/26/22
89 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:16 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Kristin
McCowan
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6-A. OPPOSE Oceana's CUP/text amendment
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please protect Santa Monica residents and preserve the character of our residential neighborhoods.
Allowing Oceana to break their agreement of keeping food and drink service only for hotel guest is a dangerous
precedence that will harm our community.
Intensification of commercial activity is a slippery slope. Refuse the slide.
We are counting on your dedication to the residents’ and community’s longterm interests.
Stand firm to protect residents. Oppose staff recommendations, honor the Planning Commission decision and stop
Oceana from opening their restaurant service to non‐hotel guest.
Do not invite commercial businesses into residentially zoned areas.
Please uphold community standards.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 6.A 04/26/22
90 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Pari White <pariwhite@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:Planning Commission Mtg. 4/26/2022 OPPOSE Oceana CUPS and Text Amendment
EXTERNAL
Dear Chair Landres and Planning Commissioners:
I own a condominium at Ocean Avenue and California. I am on the ground floor‐‐my windows directly face the
path of the drinkers and restaurant‐goers carousing up and down Ocean between Wilshire and the Oceana
Hotel. When the Marathon came down Ocean and end in from of my condo, the attendees sat (and stood) on
the garden walls in front of my windows. The apartment house next door is the same. Any back‐ups at the
light at Ocean and California will essential be a back‐up in our living rooms.
1. The City should mandate the hotel zoning exception be cancelled and the hotel revert to its
apartment/condo status to provide the needed housing in Santa Monica.
No "good" deed goes unpunished: The Oceana Hotel was an apartment/condo providing housing in Santa
Monica and it was permitted to convert to a hotel. I haven't checked all the zoning action, but it appears it was
permitted add a guest restaurant and bar services (it charges $22 for some drinks). It doesn't take much
imagination to hear the then‐hotel developers whining those guests had to have food and drink!
Now the current developer (Hilton) wants to expand the generously granted hotel zoning to include PUBLIC
restaurants (its website claims 2 restaurants) and POOL BAR WITH LIVE MUSIC and the Ocean Avenue‐exposed
(view over Palisades Park) Bar on the 3rd floor.
This amendment may have been requested because Hilton Oceana website seeks to have a robust meeting
and event business. As we know from with direct entrances on Ocean Avenue (Oceana has only one) this
means group buses and many more cars to accommodate guests AND meeting participants.
I can picture trying to walk your dogs around the block and being faced with the loading and unloading
blocking the sidewalk.
No more quiet walks in Palisades Park in the evening. Now we'll watch the fireworks up and down the Coast
with booming music and boisterous drinkers from the Terrace.
There is no turnout at the Oceana Hotel. More people coming and going, particularly drinking or partying
ones, will be disastrous for the elderly, the dogwalkers, children==RESIDENTS. Maybe, like the Miramar, the
Hilton will put a check‐in podium out on the sidewalk to accommodate meeting attendees?
If the amendment is granted this could become a lively night spot with live music AND an expanded bar
(picture the BAR at the top of the Shangrai La) and the noise when walking by the Bungalow Bar on Ocean
near Wilshire.
Item 6.A 04/26/22
91 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
7
2. No guests have stated a need for publicly available restaurants and bars (I went through the comments
on TripAdvisor). In fact, the guests complain about the current noise from the pool area. There are
positive guest comments on the private restaurant so no worries about reservations.
3.
4. No Santa Monica residents have complained about the availability of restaurants in the neighborhood.
We have wonderful restaurants a few blocks away at the Miramar, on Wilshire, and on Montana. It is
ridiculous to disrupt this residential neighborhood with a service needed by the neighborhood.
4.
5. The City can't seem to wean itself from further subsidizing the low‐wage real estate developers like
Hilton. Two public restaurants, a public LIVE MUSIC venue, AND a public open‐to‐Ocean Avenue street
and Palisades Park, and the larger meetings and events Hilton is promoting, means more low wage
workers who need to drive and park in the neighborhood.
6.
7. Parking for Residents will be worse. On TripAdvisor the Oceana manager advises guests to use the
local Ocean Avenue parking if they don't want to pay $62 for valet parking. Expanded restaurants and
bars will directly impact the available parking for residents (even with residential stickers, parking is at
a premium. And where will our dinner guests park with those spaces now taken by Oceana's expanding
service?
6.
7. I oppose the approval of the two CUPS and text amendment by the Oceana Hotel at 849 Ocean Ave.
There is no justification for intensifying a non‐conforming use in my residential neighborhood. We do
not need new restaurant goers or meeting sites, which will increase the auto and pedestrian traffic‐‐
YET AGAIN‐‐in our residential neighborhood. All f
Indeed, as stated above, if this is granted then I will propose that we Ocean Avenue residents be granted a
non‐conforming use allowing for short‐term rentals of any duration for real property between California &
Ocean and the Oceana.
Or perhaps I should propose to our HOA that our building have its zoning changed and we sell to a hotel
chain? Oceanfront property is extremely valuable today.
Perhaps our HOA could propose a new "opportunity zone" from California Ave to Montana. Afterall, why
should we residents be short‐changed when real estate developers are allowed to expand into our residential
neighborhood?
I oppose the two CUPS and proposed text amendments.
Sincerely,
P. White
101 California Avenue, Apt. 102
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 6.A 04/26/22
92 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
8
Item 6.A 04/26/22
93 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 1:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete;
Christine Parra; Phil Brock; david.white@santamonic.gov; Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Subject:Oppose 6.A - City Council Agenda for April 26, 2022
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
I request that the Council reject and oppose the two CUPs and text amendment to expand
restaurant/alcohol to the general public in a non-conforming use in the R3 neighborhood at Ocean
and Idaho (Agenda Item 6.A).
The 1996 CUP allowing alcohol specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings
such as "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors
thereby minimizing any potential impact on surroundings uses."
The neighborhood surrounding the Oceana Hotel should be protected from the inevitable commercial
intensification that would result from two CUPs/text amendment to expand restaurant/alcohol use to
the general public.
Thank you.
Tricia Crane
Item 6.A 04/26/22
94 of 94 Item 6.A 04/26/22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana Hotel Text Amendment, CUP and Appeal (60 mins))
City Council April 26, 2022
Oceana Hotel
Text Amendment &
Conditional Use Permit Appeals
849 Ocean Avenue
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Oceana Hotel’s Request
Oceana Hotel request:
Offer meal and beverage services to the public at existing onsite restaurant in R3 zone
Increase economic vitality & support a local-serving dining destination for neighborhood
Request requires new process: proposed Text Amendment to allow legal-nonconforming hotel to
open existing restaurant to the public –staff-recommended new CUP requirement
Two CUPs necessary for Oceana Hotel:
New CUP to open existing hotel restaurant to the public
Modify hotel’s existing alcohol CUP to align with restaurant service
Planning Commission failed to make an affirmative recommendation to Council on Text Amendment
proposal; Commission denied two CUPs
Appeals filed –Council’s review of the two CUPs is de novo
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Staff Recommendation
1.Adopt the determination that the proposal is exempt from CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (Class 1)
for Existing Facilities;
2.Introduce for first reading -ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance:
Establish CUP requirement for existing legal, nonconforming hotel restaurant in R2/R3 Zones to
request approval to provide meal service to the public, provided certain criteria are met.
3.Grant appeals of Planning Commission’s action & approve two CUPs for Oceana Hotel’s request to:
Provide meal service to the public
Modify existing alcohol CUP for service consistent with restaurant operations
CUPs would only be valid if Text Amendment is approved
3.Approve the Statement of Official Action.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Key Issues for Consideration
Whether proposed Text Amendment appropriately balances the following goals:
Promoting economic recovery
Supporting complete neighborhoods
Providing opportunity for public input in hearing process
Appropriateness of extending existing guest/visitor-only alcohol service to the public with restaurant
meal service
Effectiveness of recommended conditions of approval to minimize any potential impacts to the
surrounding residential neighborhood
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Project Location
849 Ocean Avenue
•R3 (Medium Density Residential)
•Site is improved w/ a 3-story, 70-room hotel (since 1958) above subterranean parking
(built in 1957 as an apartment)
•Surrounded by multi-unit buildings within the same zoning district.
R3
Ocean Ave elevation Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Site Context
A
B
C
A B
C
•Located within the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood (Wilmont) and
the City’s largest multi-family residential neighborhood.
•Scale of hotel blends in with existing development. Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Site Plan
Ocean Ave
1st Court Alley
Idaho Ave150’200’
Courtyard/Pool
(E) Restaurant
Patio Dining
Courtyard design with guest
rooms surrounding the central
open space.
Restaurant has an interior
entry from courtyard.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Three Applications for the Oceana Hotel’s request:
Text Amendment 20ENT-0236
•Amend SMMC Section 9.08 to establish a CUP requirement for an existing legal, nonconforming hotel
restaurant in the R2/R3 Zones to provide meal service to the public, if certain criteria are met.
Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090
•Oceana Hotel’s new CUP application for the restaurant
Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237
•Amend Hotel’s existing 96CUP-009 alcohol license to align alcohol service with proposed restaurant service (ABC Type 47 license).
Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines -Section 15301 (Class 1)
Project Applications
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsOverview of Text Amendment
•Proposed TA would amend SMMC Section 9.08 (Multi-Unit Residential Districts),SMMC Section
9.08.020 Land Use Regulations to establish and require a CUP for an existing hotel restaurant in the
R2 and R3 Zoning Districts to request approval to provide meal service to the general public as a
permitted limited (L)use if certain criteria are met.
•TA does not change the underlying identification of Hotels and Motels as a prohibited use in the R2
and R3 Zoning Districts.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsPurpose of Creating New CUP
•Staff recommendation:to create a discretionary process
•Establish a clear process for legal non-conforming hotel to request changes
•Allow public participation to hear,collect,and incorporate feedback from the community in a
public hearing
•Opportunity to impose appropriate conditions to mitigate potential impacts
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Criteria for Requesting a CUP
1.The hotel use was established and in existence as of January 1,1995;
2.The Alcohol Conditional Use Permit allowing the onsite service of alcoholic beverages to hotel
guests and their visitors in guest rooms and in certain common areas was approved by the City
prior to July 23,2015;and
3.The hotel’s existing restaurant prepares meals to order from a set menu in an existing hotel
kitchen for consumption on the premises;provides sit down meal service during restaurant
operating hours for breakfast,lunch and dinner;and the hotel’s ancillary restaurant use has
existed since prior to July 23,2015.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Oceana’s Eligibility Under Criteria
1.The hotel use was established and in existence as of January 1,1995;
•Oceana Hotel was established in 1958
•Deemed an allowed use
•Longstanding presence in R3 zone without negative impacts to neighborhood
2.The Alcohol Conditional Use Permit allowing the onsite service of alcoholic beverages to hotel
guests and their visitors in guest rooms and in certain common areas was approved by the City
prior to July 23,2015;and
•96CUP-009 was approved in 1996 for Type 70 alcohol service to guests and their visitors in
common areas,in mini bars
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Oceana’s Eligibility Under Criteria
3.The hotel’s existing restaurant prepares meals to order from a set menu in an existing hotel
kitchen for consumption on the premises;provides sit down meal service during restaurant
operating hours for breakfast,lunch and dinner;and the hotel’s ancillary restaurant use has
existed since prior to July 23,2015.
•Hotel is equipped with a full kitchen preparing meals for guests and their visitors
•Restaurant/kitchen in existence for more than 15 years
There are seven hotels/motels in R2/R3 zones and only one meet all three criteria.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsAnalysis of Proposed CUP for Restaurant & Evaluation of Neighborhood Impacts
The purpose of this CUP requirement
•to provide a public hearing process and hear public input
•to provide an opportunity to consider operational conditions that may be necessary to protect
neighborhood from potential impacts
•Contingent on Council approving Text Amendment
Discussion of potential neighborhood impacts
•Noise from patrons,garage door
•Competition for and availability of parking
•Commercial intrusion into residential neighborhood
•Intensification of a nonconforming use
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsAnalysis of Proposed CUP for Restaurant & Evaluation of Neighborhood Impacts
Noise Concerns
•Restaurant entry is located internally from courtyard
•Guest rooms surround courtyard,restaurant,and patio dining area –noise is contained within
•Waiting area in lobby
•Eliminate likelihood of waiting and queuing outside building
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Central Courtyard
& Pool Patio Dining
( E ) Restaurant
Restaurant Entrance
Waiting Area
Lobby
Hotel Entry
Restaurant Capacity
Dining Room: 1,072 SF / 49 seats
Patio Dining: 484 SF / 18 seats
________________________
Total: 1,556 SF / 67 seats
Ocean Ave
Analysis of Proposed CUP for Restaurant & Evaluation of Neighborhood Impacts
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsParking & Circulation
•The hotel provides 66 parking spaces (58 striped and 8 in drive aisles through valet service),
•Based on SF of the restaurant (1,556 SF), 3 new spaces are required; however,
-SMMC Section 9.28.020(B)(2) which waives the parking requirement for up to three spaces in
conjunction with a change in use, and
•Preferential Parking Districts exist in the area –along Idaho Ave and on streets S and SE of the site
•Parking studies conducted in 2006 & 2015 by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan support the applicant’s
assertion that existing parking spaces are underutilized.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsRestaurant Dining Areas
Photos of restaurant dining
and patio dining areas.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsAnalysis of Proposed Alcohol CUP Amendment
•To amend existing CUP 96CUP-009 approved in 1996 which permits the hotel ABC Type 70
License (On-Sale General –Restrictive Service)
•Permits the onsite service and consumption of alcohol beverages by guests and their visitors
in guest rooms (mini-bars) and certain common areas.
•Permits the restaurant to provide alcohol service in conjunction with meal service if the
restaurant CUP is approved.
•Obtain and apply for a new ABC Type 47 License (On-Sale General –Eating Place), and will
•Retain the existing Type 70 license
•Contingent on Council approving Text Amendment and restaurant CUP
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsSummary of Planning Commission Action & Community Input
Planning Commission and the Community were divided:
•31 email correspondence were received (15 in favor and 16 against proposal)
•26 callers expressed both support and opposition
Planning Commission voted 3:3 and raised the following issues:
•Appropriateness of CEQA Class 1 exemption determination
•Whether or not Amendment constitutes “spot zoning”
•Policy discussion on expanding non-conforming commercial uses in residential zone
•Clarification on staff-recommended conditions of approval –bike/micro-mobility valet
•Frequency of annual compliance review
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsSummary of Planning Commission Action & Community Input
Neighborhood opposition cited:
•commercial intrusion into residential neighborhood.
•Intensification of nonconforming use is precedent setting
•Noise impact from patron,valet,garage door
•Parking spillover in neighborhood
Neighborhood support cited:
•Oceana Hotel is a positive business in the neighborhood
•Proposal creates a walkable community and is local-serving use
•Facilitates economic recovery
•Operational conditions will address neighborhood concerns
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsAppeal Analysis
Reasons for Planning Commission’s denial of the CUPs:
•Primarily based on inability to agree on a positive recommendation to Council on Text Amendment
•Concern for long-term implications/policy due to hotel’s location in residential zone
•How to strike balance between LUCE policy goals for a complete neighborhood and neighborhood
preservation
Reasons for appeal:
•Sufficient evidence to support proposal
•Planning Commission denials were not supported by appropriate findings
Council’s review of CUPs is a de novo hearing.
If approved,CUPs would not become effective unless and until Text Amendment becomes effective.
Staff analysis:
•Extending meal &alcohol service to public is a modest/incremental expansion of existing operations
that have had a long-term presence in neighborhood
•Thorough set of operational conditions included with CUPs
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsHotel Restaurant and Alcohol CUP Conditions
Staff-recommended conditions include:
•Hours of Operation
•Valet service
•Operate as a full-service restaurant
•No bar permitted
•Alcohol service with meals only to non-hotel guests
•Prohibition on becoming a standalone restaurant
•Limitation on special/private events
•Restricted delivery to 3 days/week b/t 9am-6pm
•Incentive program for patrons who walk, bike…etc.
•Requirement to provide report on compliance with conditions
•Sign posting to minimize noise
•Parking spaces/area to be used for parking not storage
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsHotel Restaurant and Alcohol CUP Conditions
Planning Commission modified conditions, include:
•Limit Hours of Operation limited to 10:00 PM Sunday-Thursday and 10:00 PM daily in patio
•Remove staff-recommended condition on regarding limitation on special/private events
•Provide valet service for bicycle and other modes of transportation
•Require hotel to provide a multi-year report on compliance with conditions
•Planning Commission will receive report; community notification
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsApplicant’s Proposed Modified Conditions
Additional and modified conditions proposed by applicant in response to recent comments
•The restaurant will close at 10:00 PM on Friday and Saturday.
Previously: Hours of operation for the restaurant will be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday; and
11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, except that meal service in the outdoor patio dining area shall end at 10:00 PM.
•Deliveries in the alley will be limited to three days a week on weekdays only (Monday, Wednesday and
Friday) with no weekend deliveries.The delivery hours will be limited to 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
Previously:Deliveries of supplies and provisions in direct support of the hotel and restaurant operation shall occur no
more than three (3)days per week between the hours of 9:00 AM –6:00 PM.
•For any members of the general public arriving by car to the restaurant after 7:00 PM, the carports
located adjacent to the north garage entrance will be used first before parking spaces in the garage to
minimize the use of the garage door to access parking after 7:00 PM.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Neighborhood Compatibility
•Hotel is a long-standing use among its residential neighbors
•Zone changes through the years intended to strike a balance to support long-standing
hospitality business while protecting residential neighborhood
•Hotel has been good neighbor over the years; complaints were corrected promptly
•Site-specific operational conditions will ensure neighborhood protection and the restaurant is a
benefit to residents
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
LUCE Consistency
•This neighborhood seeks to protect and preserve its character-defining features.
•Goal LU3, Policies LU3.3 and LU4.2 and Goal N3, Policies N3.1 seek to focus on creating local-serving uses, particularly uses that serve residents’ daily needs and are located within easy walking distance in order to reduce the frequency and length of trips.
•Goal N3.2 seeks to allow small-scale retail uses in neighborhoods with a land use designation of Low-Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential or High-Density Housing.
Oceana Hotel is located in the Medium-Density Residential neighborhood.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Environmental Analysis
CEQA Exemption under Section 15301 (Class 1) for Existing Facilities
•Operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or
private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or noexpansion of existing or former use.
There are no exceptions to the use of the Class 1 exemption, such as unusual circumstances.
Examples include:
•Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if:(A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available
and consistent with General Plan, and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Environmental Analysis
CEQA Exemption under Section 15301 (Class 1) for Existing Facilities
Proposed project is eligible for a Class 1 Exemption based on the following:
•Does not involve construction or expansion of the existing building;
•Would not result in any proposed or future expansion of the existing kitchen, dining room, or seating capacity (interior or exterior);
•Proposal utilizes all existing features and functions of existing restaurant, kitchen, and wait staff;
•Proposal would not increase restaurant and seating capacity beyond the limits of the existing restaurant under submitted plans;
Per the City’s adopted Transportation Thresholds for review of projects subject to CEQA (adopted June 2020):
•Up to 50,000 SF of commercial use is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact and shall not be subject to further vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) analysis.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Text Amendment Findings
1.The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans in that the Oceana Hotel
•located in the Wilmont Neighborhood and Citywide and LUCE neighborhood goals seek to protect and
preserve character-defining features consistent with Goal LU3, Policies LU3.3 and LU4.2 and Goal N3,
Policies N3.1 which seeks to create local-serving uses that serve residents’ daily needs within walking
distance and Goal N3.2 seeks to allow small-scale retail in Low –High Density residential neighborhoods.
2.The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the purposes of
the Zoning Ordinance to promote growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and
protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that…
•amendments create a new discretionary CUP process to allow incremental expansion, allowing for public input, and inclusion of appropriate conditions to protect and ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Recommendation
1.Adopt the determination that the proposal is exempt under CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (Class 1)
for Existing Facilities;
2.Introduce for first reading the ordinance provided as Attachment “A” approving the proposed Text
Amendment to allow an existing legal nonconforming hotel in the R2 or R3 Zoning Districts to apply
for a CUP to open its existing full-service restaurant to the general public;
3.Grant the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit 21ENT-0090 to allow the Oceana Hotel to
open its existing restaurant to the general public, subject to the staff-recommended findings and
conditions; and
4.Grant the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit 20ENT-0237 to amend the Oceana Hotel’s
existing CUP for alcohol service to align with the hotel’s restaurant operations, subject to the staff-
recommended findings and conditions;
5. Approve the Statement of Official Action.
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Comments Questions
Item 6.A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsBackground -Hotel Use & Zoning
1948-1990:R4 Zone >Hotels are permitted use –Apartment was built in 1957 >converted to hotel in 1958
1990-1995:R3-NW Zone >zone change prohibited hotels
1995-2015:R3-NW /R3 Zone >Hotels existing as of January 1,1995 are determined to be an Allowed Use:
a Limited Use subject to Zoning requirements.
2006-2015: R3 Zone > Hotels existing as of January 1, 1995 are an
Allowed Use (a Limited Use) and may increase room count.
July 24, 2015 –Present: R3 Zone > Hotels and Motels are not a permitted
use in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts and are permitted after review
and approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the R4 Zoning District.
Item 6-A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Text Amendment Applicability
Name Zone
Existing Hotel in
Operation as of
January 1, 1995
Hotel’s Ancillary
Restaurant Use
Established prior to
July 23, 2015
Existing Alcohol CUP
Approved prior to
July 23, 2015
Palm Motel
2020 14th Street
R2 Yes No No
Rest Haven Motel
815 Grant St
R2 Yes No No
Oceana Hotel
849 Ocean Ave
R3 Yes Yes Yes
Cal Mar Hotel
220 California Ave
R3 Yes No No
Sea Blue Motel
1670 Ocean Ave & 28,36
Arcadia Terrace
R3 Yes No No
Palihouse Hotel
1001 3rd Street
R3 Yes No No
Pavilions Motel
2338 Ocean Park Blvd
R3 Yes No No
Item 6-A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Preferential Parking Network
Oceana Hotel
Item 6-A
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement Conditions
Revised Conditions of Approval:
11. Valet parking shall be provided for hotel and restaurant guests arriving by personal
vehicles, including bikes and other modes of transportation. The existing approved valet
service plan shall be maintained to accommodate hotel and restaurant guests.
Amended Condition # 11
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement ConditionsCorrected Condition #32
32. Liquor bottle service shall be prohibited. Wine and beer bottle service shall
not be available to patrons unless full meal service is provided concurrent with
the bottle service. For purposes of this paragraph, ”bottle service” means the
service of any full bottle of liquor, wine, or beer of more than 375 ml, along with
glass ware, mixers, garnishes, or other items used for the mixing of drinks, which
patrons are able to then use to make their own drinks or pour their own wine or
beer. All food items shall be available from the premises’ full-service menu.
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana
Easement Conditions
Revised Conditions of Approval:
15. Pursuant to Consistent with the purpose of SMMC Section 9.41.080(B), the applicant
shall file a compliance report for three consecutive years, with the first report filed within
one (1) year after the effective date of this Conditional Use Permit 21ENT0090,to review
the effectiveness of and level of compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Conditional Use Permit approval. After submittal of this compliance report, staff shall
either set the matter for a public hearing which is noticed in the same manner as the
original permit application or submit the compliance report to the Planning Commission as
an information item to enable the Planning Commission to determine whether a public
hearing is necessary. The information item will be posted on the City’s website and notice
shall be given by any additional means deemed appropriate by the Director. Upon review
of the compliance report at this public hearing, if any, the Planning Commission may add or
revise terms and conditions to the extent necessary to ensure effective conditions of
approval.
Amended Condition # 15
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5005 : (REHEARING) 849 Ocean Ave – Oceana