ITEM 7-A
Council Mtg: January 25, 1994 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation to Deny
Text Amendment 93-001, Conditional Use Permit 93-001;
Address: 1703-1715 Ocean Front Walk (Previously
referenced as 1702 Appian Way); Applicant: Santa
Monica Hotel Associates, Ltd.; Appellant: Law Offices
of Rosario Perry for Santa Monica Hotel Associates,
Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council uphold the decision
of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal of Text Amendment
(TA) 93-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 93-001 to amend the
Zoning Ordinance definition of "bed and breakfast facility" to
permit a project with 24 guest rooms and a CUP to allow the
construction of such a facility. Bed and breakfast facilities
are currently limited to four or fewer guest rooms and are
conditionally permitted in the R3R-B (Medium Density Multiple
Family Coastal Residential/Beach Overlay) District where the
subject parcel is located. Staff is recommending denial based on
the fact the use is in conflict with Proposition S.
On September 1, 1993, the Planning Commission voted to recommend
that the City Council deny the proposed Text Amendment and
Conditional Use Permit. The Commission's motion to recommend
denial passed with four affirmative votes and one abstention.
The Planning Commission's recommendation was appealed by the Law
Offices of Rosario Perry on September 13, 1993.
BACKGROUND
Proposition S
On November 6, 1990, voters in Santa Monica passed Proposition S,
creating a "Beach Overlay District" west of Ocean Avenue in which
new hotels and motels are listed as prohibited uses. Therefore,
the subject parcel's location within the R3R/Beach Overlay
District prohibits all overnight guest facilities with the
exception of bed and breakfast operations. At the time
Proposition S was adopted, the Zoning Ordinance defined a bed and
breakfast as "a building or portion of a building used as a
temporary lodging place for individuals which does not have more
than four guest rooms and one kitchen." In the R3R District, a
bed and breakfast facility is permitted with a Conditional Use
Permit.
Text Amendment Conformance with Proposition S
On November 9, 1992, the City Attorney's office prepared
Memorandum Opinion no. 92-31 which states in part:
Although it would be permissible to amend the definition
of bed and breakfast under the Zoning Ordinance, and for
such amendment to have application in other parts of the
City, the new definition would have no effect for purposes
of determining whether such use was authorized in the
Beach Overlay District. The definition change could not
be considered to amend the provisions of Proposition S,
since Section X of that enactment states that it may only
be amended or repealed by the voters of the City of Santa
Monica. (Page 3 of Attachment G.)
The City Attorney's opinion further states that "since Proposi-
tion S was drafted to be incorporated into the existing Zoning
Ordinance, the definitions of 'hotel' and 'motel' [and 'bed and
breakfast'] as they existed at the time of the passage of the
Proposition govern the interpretation of the Proposition."
Since the proposed guest facility does not meet the Zoning
Ordinance definition of bed and breakfast it would be considered
a hotel, which is defined as "a building, group of buildings, or
portion of a building which is designed for or occupied as the
temporary lodging place of individuals for less than 30 consecu-
tive days, including, but not limited to, an establishment held
out to the public as an apartment hotel, hostel, inn, time share
project, tourist court, or other similar use." Therefore, the
proposed facility is a prohibited use pursuant to Proposition S.
Prior to filing the proposed text amendment, and in writing after
the proposal was filed, the applicant was advised that it would
be in conflict with Proposition S for a temporary lodging facili-
ties to exceed 4 guest rooms on the subject parcel. The
applicant responded that he does not agree with the City
Attorney's opinion on this matter.
Proposed Text Amendment
The proposed Text Amendment language would allow bed and
breakfast facilities in the R3R and RVC Districts with a maximum
of 6 guest rooms per lot and the consolidation of a maximum of
four lots (Attachment F). The subject site contains four lots,
of which two have already been consolidated, and a third is in
the process of being consolidated. The Text Amendment includes a
provision which states that "a B&B facility may be positioned on
the consolidated lots in such a manner that there may be more
than six guest rooms on any one lot" as long as the total number
of rooms does not exceed a formula of six times the number of
lots.
The proposed Text Amendment would alter the definition section of
the Zoning Ordinance but not the development standards in the R3R
District. Under the definition change, the project would qualify
as a bed and breakfast facility, and would be subject to the
height and setback requirements of the R3R District and the park-
ing standards contained in Section 9.04.10.08.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
An attachment to the appeal form includes a brief statement that
"the City Attorney Opinion was based upon an incorrect
interpretation of the zoning code and the definitions of Bed and
Breakfast" (Attachment D). A more complete argument by the
applicant/appellant is contained in correspondence to the
Planning Commission dated July 28, 1993, and contained in
Attachment E. In this correspondence, the applicant/appellant
states the following:
The needs of our City and its people should not be subject
to a straight jacket type interpretation. Especially
since such an interpretation is 100% inconsistent with
three years of City Council zoning amendments. The CAO
[City Attorney's Opinion] with its insistence on the
freezing of zoning laws which existed at the S date,
overly restricts the City's ability to deal with the S
[sic] zone.
Although it is true that several zone changes have occurred in
the Beach Overlay District, none of these changes allowed hotels
or other uses specifically prohibited by Proposition S. A denial
of the proposed Text Amendment would be entirely consistent with
City policy and, rather than being "overly restrictive," would
comply with the spirit and the letter of Proposition S.
PROPOSED PROJECT
Prior Actions on Subject Property
On March 25, 1992, the Planning Commission approved CUP 90-084 to
allow the construction of a 10-unit condominium at the subject
parcel. On July 13, 1993, Performance Standards Permit 93-002
was approved to allow the demolition of one of the structures on
the site and the construction of a tennis court for the use of
the on-site resident. Each of these projects, in addition to the
proposed guest facility, is mutually exclusive; by the
construction of one project, it would be impossible to, at the
same time, accommodate another one of the projects.
Planning Commission Action
A public hearing for TA 93-001 and CUP 93-001 was held before the
Planning Commission on September 1, 1993. With four affirmative
votes and one abstention, the Planning Commission voted in favor
of the staff recommendation to recommend that the City Council
deny the proposal. The Planning Commission's recommendation was
based on a finding by the City Attorney that the proposed project
would be in violation of Proposition S.
Project Design
The applicant/appellant is proposing significant changes to the
originally-proposed project design, including a reduction from 24
to 16 guest rooms. If the Text Amendment is approved by the City
Council, it is recommended that the CUP application and design
changes return to the Planning Commission for review. As
originally proposed, the facility would have contained 24 guest
rooms in a suite format within three 2-story structures over a
24-space subterranean parking garage.
The property is owned by Santa Monica Hotel Associates, Ltd.,
which also owns the Loews Hotel across Appian Way. The applicant
has stated there would be no shared administrative functions
between the two properties.
The application contains a statement that the applicant will "add
one level of subterranean parking to state-owned (city-leased)
parking lot immediately to the north across Pacific Terrace for
beach-going visitors and residents in the area (not for Bed and
Breakfast guests)." The applicant has also stated that he is
willing to provide a security patrol as a condition of approval.
The applicant has provided no plans of the proposed subterranean
parking garage, nor has he provided any preliminary indication of
approval for this structure by the State or the City.
General Plan Conformance
Objective 1.5 of the General Plan states that the City should
encourage the expansion of "visitor accommodations and related
uses in the Oceanfront area, while protecting the residential
mix." The proposed Text Amendment is consistent with the visi-
tor-serving emphasis contained in the General Plan. However, the
passing of Proposition S six years after the General Plan was
adopted indicates that the City had accomplished a desirable mix
of visitor-serving accommodations west of Ocean Avenue in that
time period. Therefore, the proposed amendment would be in con-
flict with the General Plan's objective to "protect the residen-
tial mix" within the Oceanfront District.
Conclusion
The proposed guest facility is a prohibited use within the R3R
District unless the proposed Text Amendment is adopted. The
proposed Text Amendment is in violation of Proposition S, which
may only be amended by the voters of the City of Santa Monica.
In addition, the proposal is not in conformance with the General
Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny
the proposed project.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080, within 30 days
after the subject application was deemed complete, the applicant
posted a sign on the property stating the following information:
Project case number, brief project description, name and
telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and
location of public hearing, and the Planning and Zoning Division
phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the
hearing date if it is changed after posting.
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050,
notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and
residential and commercial tenants of property located within a
500 foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar
days prior to the Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment A.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the proposed
Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit based on the Planning
Commission recommended findings contained in Attachment C.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director, LUTM
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner, Planning &
Zoning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Attachments:
A. Notice of Public Hearing
B. Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
C. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action
D. Appeal form with Attachment
E. Correspondence from Applicant/Appellant
F. Language of Proposed Text Amendment
G. City Attorney Memorandum Opinion 92-31, and Supplemental
Response Regarding 1701 Ocean Avenue Proposed Bed and Break-
fast Facility
H. Radius and Location Map
I. Correspondence from Members of Public
J. Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties
K. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations