Planning Commission Meeting: September 20, 2006

Agenda Item: 9-E

To: Planning Commission

From: Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager

Subject: Text Amendment (06TA003) to SMMC Section 9.04.08.06.020(a) to increase the limitation on the number of guest rooms that can be added to an existing hotel in the R3 district and a Variance (06VAR012) to allow the addition of 7 guest rooms at the Hotel Oceana without providing additional on-site parking spaces.

Address: 849 Ocean Avenue

Applicant: CH Partners Limited Partnership

Recommended Action

It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions subject to findings and conditions contained in Attachment B:

1. Recommend approval of Text Amendment 06-003

2. Approve Variance 06-012

3. Approve the Statement of Official Action

Executive Summary

The applicant proposes a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.08.06.020(a) to increase the limitation on the number of guest rooms that could be added to an existing hotel in the R3 district and a Variance to allow the addition of 7 guest rooms at the Hotel Oceana without providing additional on-site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to increase the number of guest rooms through the division of existing two-room suites.

The applicant proposes three options for the proposed text amendment. In summary:

¨ Option A seeks to change existing provisions regarding what constitutes an additional guest room;

¨ Option B eliminates the limitation on the number of guest rooms that could be added to an existing hotel; and

¨ Option C increases the limitation on the number of guest rooms that could be added to an existing hotel.

Staff has reviewed all three options and conceptually supports Option C with some proposed modifications, as further discussed in the ‘Project Analysis’ section of this report.

The following issues should be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project and are addressed in this report:

· Is the proposed text amendment, to raise the limitation on the number of guest rooms that could be added to an existing hotel, consistent with the General Plan?

· Are there special circumstances and unnecessary hardships associated with the subject property that warrant the granting of a Variance to allow the additional guest rooms without providing additional on site parking spaces?

· Is the requested Parking Variance consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element?

Background

The Hotel Oceana was constructed in 1957 as a 60-family apartment building. However, sometime in 1958, the building began operation as an apartment hotel and has remained a hotel ever since. At the time of construction, the site was zoned R4, which permitted hotels. However, in 1990 the property was re-zoned to R3 with the North of Wilshire Overlay (R3NW), thereby making the hotel use nonconforming. This re-zoning affected five hotels in the R3 zone:

· Hotel Oceana;

· Cal Mar Hotel, located at 220 California Avenue;

· Huntley Hotel, located at 1111 2^nd Street;

· Sovereign Hotel, located at 205 Washington Avenue; and

· Embassy Hotel, located at 1001 3^rd Street.

In accordance with regulations governing the termination of nonconforming uses, all hotels would need to be removed prior to the 20-year amortization period for commercial uses in residential zones. The City Council considered this issue in 1994 when the Huntley Hotel applied to rezone their property to RVC (Residential-Visitor Commercial). As there were multiple hotel properties in the R3NW district, staff proposed a text amendment, in lieu of rezoning, to allow hotels as a permitted use without allowing expansion. This would have allowed the issue of hotels in the R3NW district to be addressed in a comprehensive manner.

However, on March 22, 1994, the City Council voted to only rezone the Huntley Hotel property rather than adopting the proposed text amendment. The Sovereign Hotel and the Embassy Hotel operate as apartment hotels in accordance with Settlement Agreements for each property. The Sovereign Hotel has 19 rent-controlled apartment units and 19 hotel rooms. The Embassy Hotel has 34 apartment units deed restricted for low or moderate income tenants and 52 hotel rooms. Both properties have provisions that allow the respective hotel operations as a permitted use, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreements.

Subsequent to the Council’s action, an application was submitted in 1995 for a proposed text amendment to address the situation of the Hotel Oceana and the Cal Mar Hotel. The text amendment was requested to allow hotels existing as of January 1, 1995 as a permitted use in the R3 zone, subject to certain limitations such as a cap on how many guest rooms could be added and a requirement to provide parking for the additional rooms. On November 14, 1995, the City Council approved the text amendment including the room addition limitations. The applicant is seeking to amend the room addition limitations.

Project / Site Information

The following table provides a brief summary of the project location. Additional information regarding the project’s compliance with applicable municipal regulations and the General Plan is available in Attachment A.

Project and Site Information Table

Zoning District:	R3	Site Location Map
Land Use Element Designation:	High Density Housing
Parcel Area (SF):	30,000
Parcel Dimensions:	200’W x 150’D
Existing On-Site Improvements (Year Built):	Hotel (1957)
Rent Control Status:	Exempt
Adjacent Zoning Districts and Land Uses:	North: Multi-family residential South: Multi-family residential East: Multi-family residential West: Ocean Avenue/Palisades Park

The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Ocean Avenue and Idaho Avenue and is situated in a multi-family residential neighborhood. The property is currently improved with a 3-story, 63-suite hotel with a pool/courtyard area and tuck under and subterranean parking accessed from 1^st Court alley. In reviewing the permit history for the property, staff found that all building permit records, previous staff reports, and applications as recent as 1997, have described the property as improved with a “60-suite” or “60-room” hotel. In 1996, the hotel obtained a building permit for some interior remodeling and repair work. Staff believes that during that time, 3 additional suites were added, consistent with the limitations in effect, which allowed existing hotels to add not more than 5% of existing rooms or 5 guest rooms, whichever was less, as long as the addition was accomplished by dividing existing rooms. Although there are currently 63 suites in the hotel, because the Code specifically refers to rooms existing as of January 1, 1995 as the baseline, staff is using 60 rooms as the basis for analysis in this report.

There are currently 9 two-bedroom suites, and 54 one-bedroom suites for a total of 63 “keyed” (i.e. can be locked off) rooms, including 72 rooms with beds. There have been some questions from the applicant as to what constitutes a guest room. To be consistent with past decisions, staff is considering all “keyed” rooms as guest rooms.

The proposed modifications that are pertinent to this application involve only interior remodeling of the existing guest rooms. The applicant proposes to renovate the hotel in two phases. The first phase would involve interior remodeling such that 2 one-bedroom suites on the first floor would be converted to a lounge and lock-off doors would be added to one room in 2 two-bedroom suites. This would result in 7 two-bedroom suites and 56 one-bedroom suites.

The second phase would involve adding lock-off doors to the remaining 7 two-bedroom suites resulting in a total of 70 one-bedroom suites. Although an outer door is being added to the former two-bedroom suites to provide a possible configuration of 9 two-bedroom suites and 52 one-bedroom suites, staff is being consistent with previous decisions that if there are 70 keys, the hotel has 70 guest rooms. An Architectural Review Board (ARB) application for exterior modifications is being reviewed separately. The following table illustrates the proposed modifications to the hotel:

Table 1: Existing and proposed room

	Existing	After Phase 1 renovation	After Phase 2 renovation
1 bedroom suites	54	56	70
2 bedroom suites	9	7	0
TOTAL	63	63	70

Rooms with beds

There are 58 required parking spaces within the gated subterranean garage and at grade parking that is accessed from 1^st Court alley. Valet parking is the only option available to guests who choose to park at the hotel. However, 4 of the existing parking spaces in the subterranean garage have been converted to storage areas without permits, which has effectively reduced the number of usable parking spaces to 54.

Environmental Analysis

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines whereas the project consists of interior modeling that would result in the creation of 7 additional guest rooms without an increase in floor area and the proposed text amendment would not result in reasonably foreseeable impacts as future projects in the R3 zone would require individual environmental review. The project does not involve the demolition of any structures over 40 years old and the subject property is not listed on the Historic Resources Inventory.

Project Analysis

Text Amendment to raise limitations on additional guest rooms

The applicant proposes a Zoning Text Amendment to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.08.06.020(a) in order to facilitate the addition of 7 additional rooms to the hotel. Hotels that existed as of January 1, 1995 are a permitted use in the R3 district subject to the following limitations:

“ (a) Hotels in existence as of January 1, 1995, or their replacement with a new hotel at an existing hotel site in conformance with the physical development standards in effect at the time of such replacement and located in a R2 or R3 zone in an area bounded by the centerline of Ocean Avenue to the west, the centerline of 14th Court to the east, the centerline of Wilshire Boulevard to the south and the centerline of Montana Avenue to the north, and including those R2 and R3 parcels on the north side of Montana Avenue within the east and west boundaries, provided:

(1) There is no increase in the floor area of the hotel after January 1, 1995;

(2) Any increase in the number of rooms is accomplished through subdivision of rooms existing on January 1, 1995 and does not exceed five percent of the number of rooms existing on January 1, 1995, or five rooms, whichever is less; and

(3) All other Zoning Ordinance requirements are met, including parking requirements for any addition of rooms after January 1, 1995.”

Based on the 60 rooms that existed at the Hotel Oceana on January 1, 1995, the hotel has already added an additional 3 guest rooms (i.e. 5% of 60), which is the maximum permitted by Code. Although the building permits are unclear as to whether additional parking was provided, the applicant has indicated that they believe no additional parking was provided for the 3 rooms. As the hotel has already reached the maximum number of guest rooms, no additional rooms could be added without a text amendment to either clarify the construction activities that constitute an additional guest room or change the limitations on the number of rooms that could be added.

The applicant proposes three options for the Text amendment:

Option A: Add subsection 9.04.08.06.020(h) to change existing provisions regarding what constitutes an additional guest room:

“ (h) The addition of a second entry/exit door in any existing hotel or motel guest accommodation that has only one entry/exit door but contains two or more separate bedrooms, in order that the guest accommodation can be rented as a single suite or as separate single-bedroom suites, is allowed and does not constitute a room addition for purposes of the limitation in Section 9.04.08.06.020(a)(2). Any such work, however, at a multi-bedroom suite will trigger the requirements to either provide additional parking as required by Zoning Ordinance Table 9.04.10.08.040 or obtain a parking variance.”

Option B: Amend Section 9.04.08.06.020(a)(2) to eliminate the limitation on the number of rooms that could be added:

“ (2) Any increase in the number of rooms is accomplished through subdivision of rooms existing on January 1, 1995 ~~and does not exceed five percent of the number of rooms existing on January 1, 1995, or five rooms, whichever is less~~; and”

Option C: Amend Section 9.04.08.06.020(a)(2) to raise the limitation on the number of rooms that could be added:

“ (2) Any increase in the number of rooms is accomplished through subdivision of rooms existing on January 1, 1995 and does not exceed twenty-five percent of the number of rooms existing on January 1, 1995, or ~~five~~ fifteen rooms, whichever is less; and”

Staff does not support Option A because it would represent a departure from past decisions regarding the addition of guest rooms to existing hotels. The basis of the original November 1995 text amendment that permitted hotels to remain in the R3 zone was that the hotels could continue to operate and add guest rooms as long as the increase in guest rooms was accomplished through the subdivision of existing rooms and there was no increase in floor area. These provisions were added to ensure that the adjacent residential neighborhood would not be adversely impacted through increases in floor area of the hotels. The fact that the text amendment specifically referred to the subdivision of existing rooms has led to consistent decisions that the subdivision of rooms, resulting in an increase in the number of “keyed” rooms, means an increase in the number of guest rooms. Option A describes the current situation at the Hotel Oceana where two-bedroom suites are proposed to be converted to 2 one-bedroom suites while continuing to allow the option of renting the accommodation as a single two-bedroom suite. This option would not change the existing limitations on the addition of guest rooms but would conflict with existing provisions that determine when an existing hotel is considered to have an increase in guest rooms and would therefore require additional parking.

Staff also has concerns regarding Option B, which would entirely remove the restriction on the addition of hotel rooms. As discussed above, the approval of the text amendment to allow the two hotels to remain in predominantly multi-family residential neighborhoods was based on the expectation that they would not cause any adverse impacts to the surrounding area through the addition of floor area. The limitations on additions to existing hotels exist to ensure that there is a balance between the successful operation of the hotel and protecting the residential character of the area in which the hotels are situated. Option B would allow the hotels to add an unlimited number of guest rooms within the existing floor area as long as additional parking, or some other alternative, could be provided.

Staff has reviewed all three options and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a modified version of Option C. Staff recommends adding language that would require applicants to demonstrate that there will be no adverse parking impact to the neighbourhood as a result of an increase in guest rooms. Therefore, staff proposes to modify Option C as follows:

(3) All other Zoning Ordinance requirements are met, including parking requirements for any addition of rooms after January 1, 1995. If a parking variance is requested, the applicant shall be required to submit a parking analysis which demonstrates that the increase in guest rooms will not result in an adverse parking impact to the surrounding neighborhood.”

Option C is consistent with past decisions regarding the addition of guest rooms to existing hotels and also maintains a limitation on the number of additional hotel rooms that can be added to an existing hotel. The limitation of a 25% increase in the number of rooms is consistent with the parking demand study provided by the applicant which shows that only 43 out of 58 spaces are currently used, when the hotel is at full capacity (this is further discussed in the Variance analysis below). This leaves 15 parking spaces available for additional guest rooms at a ratio of 1 space for each guest room, which is consistent with Code requirements. Therefore, staff is recommending the maximum allowable increase in rooms to be 25% of the number of rooms that existed on January 1, 1995 or 15 guest rooms, whichever is less. As the Hotel Oceana had 60 guest rooms on January 1, 1995, Option C would allow the hotel to add up to 15 guest rooms (60 x 0.25) to the property while still requiring that there be no expansion in floor area, the increase in rooms is accomplished through the subdivision of existing rooms, and any increase in guest rooms would require additional parking. Staff’s recommended revision would also require that the preparation of a parking analysis in the event that a parking variance is requested.

Variance for parking reduction

If the Planning Commission finds the text amendment is acceptable and therefore, allows the 7 additional guest rooms, the hotel is required to provide 7 additional parking spaces based on a ratio of 1 space/guest room. Staff supports the granting of the Variance because the hotel could provide sufficient on-site parking for the proposed 7 additional guest rooms, as supported by a parking demand study and discussed in the analysis below.

The Hotel Oceana is required to provide 7 additional parking spaces. The 58 existing parking spaces for the 63 existing rooms are grandparented as legal nonconforming. As mentioned above, 4 of the existing parking spaces are currently being used for storage in the subterranean parking garage. These parking spaces were converted to storage without permits. Staff is recommending that those parking spaces be reverted to their original parking use and that the storage of materials not interfere with the parking garage function (Condition #1).

The following table compares the parking requirements for the site with the existing and proposed parking configuration:

Table 2: Hotel Oceana Parking Comparison

	Before Renovations	After Renovations
Number of parking spaces required	58	65
Number of parking spaces provided	54 (with 4 additional spaces being illegally used as storage)	66 (includes reversion of 4 storage spaces and 8 vehicles in drive aisles)
Number of guest rooms	63	70
Number of parking spaces provided per room	0.86	0.94

The applicant’s proposal does not provide any additional striped parking because the applicant contends that parking demand at the property is such that the existing 58 available parking spaces are never fully used. The applicant prepared a parking demand study, attached to this report, that observed parking demand at the hotel over three evenings (Attachment E). The study found that at the peak demand time of 1 a.m., when most guest are typically in for the evening, the hotel used 35 to 43 parking spaces or a maximum ratio of 0.7 spaces/guest room (based on 43 spaces for 63 guest rooms). The study forecasted that with 70 guest rooms, the hotel would generate a peak parking demand of 49 parking spaces. 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 (Condition #2).

The applicant also contends that the addition of a keyed door to existing two-bedroom suites would not constitute an additional guest room because it would not result in a floor area expansion or any new rooms with beds. Staff disagrees with the applicant’s interpretation of what constitutes an additional guest room but recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a Parking Variance based upon the submitted empirical evidence and site visits by staff that verified the parking spaces are never fully used, even when the property is at full capacity. In addition, the hotel does not have any formal banquet or meeting facilities and serves food and beverages to hotel guests only.

An explanation of why the parking garage is underutilized is summarized in the attached supplemental letter report dated August 29, 2006. As part of the letter report, the hotel provided data from their computer logs which confirm 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 to 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. This data supports the conclusion of the parking study that the underutilization of the parking garage could be attributed to the fact that:

· 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; and

· The hotel arranges car rentals, through rental agencies, for guests and vehicles are not always parked at the hotel.

The unique circumstance of the property is that it is one of two hotels located in the R3 zone that could be impacted by amendments to the zoning ordinance, and since 1958, has continuously operated as a hotel without creating adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The hotel is fully built out and is nonconforming with respect to setbacks, building height, and parcel coverage, and therefore, does not have additional room to construct new parking spaces. The hotel parking is also exclusively valet operated.

The hotel currently has 63 suites including 72 rooms with beds. With the proposed interior renovations, the actual number of rooms with beds would be reduced to 70 because 2 rooms are being converted to a lounge area for guests only. Therefore, although the number of suites will be increased to 70, the number of rooms with beds will be reduced, thereby reducing the intensity of the nonconforming use.

Although the parking demand study has shown that the parking spaces are usually not fully utilized; should additional parking be needed, the applicant has submitted a valet parking plan which shows that 8 additional cars could be parked in the drive aisles of the parking garage for a total of 66 parking spaces. Although vehicle storage in the drive aisles is not technically counted as required striped parking, this configuration shows that if needed, the property could theoretically comply with the Code requirement of 1 parking space/guest room for the 7 additional guest rooms. The valet parking plan, including vehicle parking in the drive aisles, and parking demand study have been reviewed and accepted by the Transportation Management Division.

General Plan Consistency

The proposed text amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that Objective 1.1 of the Land Use Element states that the City seeks to, “Improve the quality of life for all residents by providing a balance of land uses consistent with fulfilling the City’s role as a regional recreational and business center…” The proposed text amendment would only affect two hotels located in the R3 district. The building was constructed in 1957 and has been continuously operated as a hotel since 1958. Increasing the limitation on number of hotel rooms would allow the hotel to continue to operate as a boutique property without causing disruption to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The guest room additions are associated with an interior remodel of the entire hotel and will be accomplished through the subdivision of existing two-room suites and not a floor area expansion. Furthermore, the property would still have to comply with all Zoning Ordinance requirements, including Code required parking. The number of guests will not increase as the increase in guest rooms takes advantage of existing accommodations and is being proposed to provide the option of renting single two-bedroom suites as separate one-bedroom suites.

The granting of a Variance is consistent with the General Plan in that Circulation Element Policy 4.7.1. states that, “City parking standards should be adhered to, except with respect to parking requirements for hotels, residential uses, and mixed use projects which need further study.” This policy indicates that there is some flexibility with respect to parking standards for hotels. As previously discussed, the parking demand study and staff’s site observations show that the hotel’s on site parking is underutilized because it is likely that most guests arrive at the hotel by taxi or shuttle from the airport. In addition, Circulation Element Policy 4.7.3 states that, “Most efficient use of parking facilities should be encouraged, including provisions for compact cars, tandem parking in conjunction with free valet services.” The proposed parking operation at the Hotel Oceana is consistent with the policy in that it is a 100% valet parking operation and if needed, 8 additional vehicles could be stored in the drive aisles of the subterranean parking garage.

Public Notification

The public notice for this project was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press on September 10, 2006 and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any public comment.

Alternative Actions

In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the following with respect to the project:

A1. Continue the project for specific reasons, consistent with applicable deadlines and with agreement from the applicant.

A2. Articulate revised findings and conditions to recommended Approval OR Denial, with or without prejudice, Text Amendment 06-003.

A3. Articulate revised findings and conditions to Approve OR Deny, with or without prejudice, Variance 06-012.

Conclusion

The proposed text amendment recommended by staff would raise the limitation on the addition of rooms to existing hotels to 25% of the existing number of rooms or 15 rooms, whichever is less. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan and would allow the Hotel Oceana, which has continuously operated since 1958, to add 7 additional guest rooms through the subdivision of existing rooms and without an increase in floor area. The Hotel Oceana is one of two hotels located in the R3 zone and requires the text amendment for the continued successful operation of the hotel. The increase in guest rooms would not result in a greater number of guests as the addition takes advantage of existing accommodations. The increase in guest rooms merely allows the option of renting a single two-bedroom suite as two one-bedroom suites. The proposed amendment provides a balance between supporting existing visitor-serving uses while protecting the character of the surrounding residential area by ensuring that the restriction on increase in guest rooms, floor area, and parking still remain.

The requested Parking Variance could only be considered if the proposed text amendment is recommended for approval. The request to allow the addition of 7 guest rooms without providing additional on site parking spaces is reasonable given the physical constraints to constructing additional parking on the site and the underutilization of the existing parking spaces, as demonstrated in the parking demand study and as observed by staff. The proposed interior renovations will result in the number of rooms with beds being reduced to 70 because 2 rooms are being converted to a lounge area for guests only. Therefore, although the number of suites will be increased to 70, the number of rooms with beds will decrease thereby reducing the intensity of the nonconforming use. The proposed valet parking plan also shows that if needed, the parking garage could accommodate an additional 8 vehicles in the drive aisles for a total of 66 parking spaces. Although vehicle storage in the drive aisles could not technically count as required parking, the parking configuration has been reviewed and accepted by the Transportation Management Division because it is a valet parking operation. Therefore, the Hotel Oceana would have sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the proposed 7 additional guest rooms.

Prepared by: Jing Yeo, AICP, Senior Planner

Paul Foley, Principal Planner

Attachments

A. General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet

B. Draft Statement of Official Action

C. Public Notification & Comment Material

D. Photographs

E. “Parking Analysis for the Hotel Oceana Renovation Project” prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, May 31, 2006

F. Supplemental Letter Report for the Hotel Oceana Parking Study prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, August 29, 2006

G. Project Plans (Site Plan, Floor Plans, Valet Parking Plan)

F:\CityPlanning\Share\PC\STRPT\06\849 Ocean Avenue\06VAR012 & 06TA003 849 Ocean Avenue PC SR #2.doc

CATEGORY	LAND USE ELEMENT	MUNICIPAL CODE	PROJECT
Permitted Use	---	Hotels existing as of January 1, 1995 are a permitted use in the R3 zone subject to the following standards: (1) There is no increase in floor area of the hotel after January 1, 1995; (2) Any increase in the number of rooms is accomplished through subdivision of rooms existing on January 1, 1995 and does not exceed five percent of the number of rooms existing on January 1, 1995 or five rooms, whichever is less; and (3) All other Zoning Ordinance requirements are met, including parking requirements for any addition of rooms after January 1, 1995. [SMMC 9.04.08.06.020(a)]	Text Amendment Requested. Existing hotel constructed in 1957 and is proposing to add 7 additional guest rooms.
Number of Parking Spaces	N/A	One parking space per guest room. Existing 58 Additional 7 Total 65 [SMMC 9.04.10.08.040]	Variance Requested. Applicant proposes to not provide any additional parking beyond the 58 spaces that already exist.

ATTACHMENT B

DRAFT STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

City of Santa Monica

City Planning Division

DRAFT

PLANNING COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

PROJECT INFORAMTION

CASE NUMBER: Text Amendment 06-003 and Variance 06-012

LOCATION: 849 Ocean Avenue

APPLICANT: CH Partners Limited Partnership

Property Owner: CH Partners Limited Partnership

CASE PLANNER: Jing Yeo, Senior Planner

REQUEST: Application for a Text Amendment (06TA003) to SMMC Section 9.04.08.06.020(a) to increase the limitation on the number of guest rooms that can be added to an existing hotel in the R3 district and a Variance (06VAR012) to allow the addition of 7 guest rooms at the Hotel Oceana without providing additional on-site parking spaces.

CEQA STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Sections 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines whereas the project consists of an interior remodel that would result in the creation of 7 additional guest rooms without an increase in floor area and the proposed text amendment would not result in reasonably foreseeable impacts as future projects in the R3 zone would require individual environmental review.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

September 20, 2006	Determination Date
X	Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below.
	Denied.
	Other:

EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED:	October 5, 2006 subject to City Council approval of Text Amendment 06-003
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED:	18 months from effective date of ordinance approving Text Amendment 06-003
*LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES:**	6 months

* Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning 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.

FINDINGS:

TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS

1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that Objective 1.1 of the Land Use Element states that the City seeks to, “Improve the quality of life for all residents by providing a balance of land uses consistent with fulfilling the City’s role as a regional recreational and business center…” The proposed text amendment would affect two hotels located in the R3 district. The building was constructed in 1957 and has been continuously operated as a hotel since 1958.

Increasing the limitation on number of hotel rooms would allow the hotel to continue to operate as a boutique property without causing disruption to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The guest room additions are associated with an interior remodel of the entire hotel. The two-bedroom suites that will have locked doors added to each bedroom will result in twice the number of rooms but will be achieved through a subdivision of existing rooms and not a floor area expansion. The limitation of a 25% increase in the number of rooms is consistent with the parking demand study provided by the applicant which shows that only 43 out of 58 spaces are currently used, when the hotel is at full capacity. This leaves 15 parking spaces available for additional guest rooms at a ratio of 1 space for each guest room, which is consistent with Code requirements. As the Hotel Oceana had 60 guest rooms on January 1, 1995, the proposed amendment would allow the hotel to add up to 15 guest rooms to the property while still requiring that there be no expansion in floor area, the increase in rooms is accomplished through the subdivision of existing rooms, and any increase in guest rooms would require additional parking. The number of rooms with beds will not increase as the increase in guest rooms takes advantage of existing accommodations and is being proposed to provide the option of renting single two-bedroom suites as separate one-bedroom suites.

2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment to the R3 zone allowable uses in that the hotel has been continuously operating since 1958 without causing adverse impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed amendment provides a balance between supporting existing visitor-serving uses while protecting the character of the surrounding residential area by ensuring that the restrictions on increase in guest rooms, floor area, and parking still remain.

VARIANCE FINDINGS

1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Specifically, the Oceana Hotel is one of two hotels located in the R3 zone and since 1958, has continuously operated as a hotel without creating adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The existing physical configuration of the property, with nonconforming building setbacks, makes it difficult to add more parking area as the property is already fully developed with 58 at grade and subterranean parking spaces.

2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located in that the hotel has been in continuously operated since 1958 and is one of two hotel properties located in the R3 district. The property does not have any banquet or meeting facilities and serves food and beverages only to guests. The hotel historically has not caused any adverse impacts to the surrounding multi-family residential neighborhood. Guests that drive to the hotel are also prevented from parking on the surrounding streets for extended periods because of resident permit parking zones. The parking demand study shows that at peak demand, the existing 63-suite hotel uses a maximum of 43 parking spaces, which is below the 58 existing, onsite parking spaces. The study also showed that on average, 68% of occupied and rooms and guests arriving at the hotel utilized the onsite parking spaces. This means that approximately 1/3 of the guest arrivals each day are dropped off and that many guests rent multiple rooms but share one vehicle. With the proposed 70 guest rooms, it is anticipated that the peak parking demand will be 49 parking spaces. In addition, because the parking exclusively valet operated, the project has been conditioned to allow the parking of 8 additional vehicles in the drive aisles of the subterranean parking garage. With the underutilization of the existing parking spaces and the ability to provide additional vehicle storage, should the need arise, the requested Variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding area.

3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships in that the property is already fully developed with a three-story hotel that has nonconforming setbacks. The existing configuration of the property does not allow enough room to construct 7 additional parking spaces anywhere on the property. The only way to provide additional parking would be to construct an additional level of subterranean parking, which would be unpractical, would prevent the timely completion of hotel renovations, and would disrupt the operation of the hotel for an extended period of time.

4. The granting of a variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, Circulation Element Policy 4.7.1. states that, “City parking standards should be adhered to, except with respect to parking requirements for hotels, residential uses, and mixed use projects which need further study.” This policy indicates that there is some flexibility with respect to parking standards for hotels. As previously discussed, the parking demand study and staff’s site observations show that the hotel’s on site parking is underutilized because most guests arrive at the hotel by taxi from the airport. In addition, Circulation Element Policy 4.7.3 states that, “Most efficient use of parking facilities should be encouraged, including provisions for compact cars, tandem parking in conjunction with free valet services.” The proposed parking operation at the Hotel Oceana is consistent with the policy in that it is a 100% valet parking operation and if needed, 8 additional vehicles could be stored in the drive aisles of the subterranean parking garage. The Transportation Management Division has reviewed and accepted the proposed valet parking plan.

5. The variance would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be located in that the hotel has been continuously operating since 1958 without causing adverse impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Oceana Hotel is also one of two hotels located in the R3 district and therefore, would not disrupt the existing residential character of the area. The requested Parking Variance proposes that the 58 existing parking spaces, with an additional 8 vehicles to be stored in the drive aisles, could sufficiently accommodate the parking demand of the proposed 70-room hotel without impairing the integrity or character of the area. The parking is exclusively valet operated with all parking accessed from 1^st Court alley and vehicles parked either in the at grade parking or in the gated subterranean parking garage. Hotel guests who choose to drive to the hotel are also prevented from parking in surrounding residential streets due to resident permit parking zones.

6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the site is a rectangular-shaped parcel, 200’ wide and 150’ in depth and is fully developed with a three-story hotel. The existing physical configuration of the site allows no room for the construction of additional parking spaces on site.

7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed variance would not be detrimental to public health and safety in that the subject property is located within a developed urbanized environment that is adequately served by existing infrastructure, public utilities and services. It is not anticipated that approval of the subject application will create a need for additional utilities or services.

8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject variance proposal in that the pedestrian entrance for the hotel is from the Ocean Avenue sidewalk and the parking spaces are accessed from 1^st Court alley. The parking is exclusively valet operated with a valet route that travels north on Ocean Avenue, east on Montana Avenue, south on 1^st Court alley, and west on Idaho Avenue.

9. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property in that due to the existing improvements on the property, the only way to add more parking spaces would be create an additional level of subterranean parking. This would disrupt the operation of the hotel and the planned renovations for the hotel. Without the parking variance, the hotel would not be able to add the lock-off doors to 9 two-bedroom suites, resulting in deprivation of the use of the property.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Project Specific Conditions

1. The 4 parking spaces currently being used for storage in the subterranean parking garage shall be reverted to their original parking use. This condition shall be satisfied prior to final inspection.

2. On-site parking shall be valet operated and permitted to store a maximum of 8 vehicles in the drive aisles of the subterranean parking garage. A valet parking plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Management Division prior to issuance of building permits for the hotel’s interior remodel.

Administrative

3. The Planning Commission’s approval, conditions of approval, or denial of this application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the Planning Commission’s determination in the manner provided in Part 9.04.20.24, Sections 9.04.20.24.010 through 9.04.20.24.040. (An appeal of the approval conditions of approval, or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with the City Clerk within ten consecutive days following the date of Planning Commission determination in the manner provided in Part 9.20.14, Section 9.20.14.070.) Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within eighteen months from the effective date of the ordinance implementing the proposed text amendment. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction. However, the permit shall also expire if the building permit expires, if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within the time periods specified in SMMC Section 8.08.060. One six-month extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions shall not be granted if development standards or the development process relevant to the project have changed since project approval.

4. 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 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 Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation.

5. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design Compatibility Permit.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Conformance with Approved Plans

8. This approval is for those plans dated July 25, 2006, 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.

9. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.

10. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.

Construction Plan Requirements

11. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may be heard outdoors.

Construction Period

12. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc.

13. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions. Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval.

14. Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements, permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed construction. The notice shall be mailed to property owners and residents within a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of construction.

15. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work.

16. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.

Standard Conditions

17. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical equipment is installed within a sound-rated parapet enclosure.

18. 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.

19. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Transportation Management Division.

ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT (EPWM)

Drainage

20. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management (EPWM) pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval, the applicant shall contact EPWM to determine applicable requirements, which include the following:

· Non-stormwater runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;

· An sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the same day they are tracked off-site;

· Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the street or adjoining properties;

· Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction site shall be allowed to leave the site;

· Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and topography of the site; and

· New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at least twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or principles, such as increasing permeable surfaces, diverting or catching runoff via swales, berms, and the like; orientation of drain gutters towards permeable areas; modification of grades; use of retention structures and other methods.

21. Automotive repair facilities and dealerships, parking areas and structures, automotive paint shops, gas stations, equipment degreasing areas, and other facilities generating wastewater with significant oil and grease content are required to pretreat these wastes before discharging to the City sewer or storm drain system. Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site. In cases where settleable solids are present (or expected) in greater amounts than floatable oil and grease, a clarifier unit will be required. In cases where the opposite waste characteristics are present, an oil/water separator with automatic oil draw-off will be required instead. The Environmental and Public Works Management Department will set specific requirements. Building permit plans shall show the required installation.

Hazardous Materials

22. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a report from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form by the Environmental and Public Works Management/Environmental Programs Division. The report shall consist of a hazardous materials survey for the structure proposed for demolition. The report shall include a section on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast AQMD Rule 1403, the asbestos survey shall be performed by a state Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall be performed by a state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous materials to be considered by the industrial hygienist shall include: mercury (in thermostats, switches, fluorescent light); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including light Ballast), and fuels, pesticides, and batteries.

Streets

23. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project.

24. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project as determined by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management. Approval for this work shall be obtained from the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management prior to issuance of the building permits.

25. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the Department of Environmental and Public Works.

Environmental Mitigation

26. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management 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.

27. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added. (Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low flow shower head.)

Construction Period Mitigation

28. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the project construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall:

1) Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect;

2) Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction;

4) Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construction;

5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations;

6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other persons;

7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent buildings;

8) Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location;

9) Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;

10) State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is proposed;

11) Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures;

12) Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel;

13) Provide a drainage plan;

14) Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for parking;

15) List a designated on-site construction manager;

16) Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the reuse/recycling of construction waste;

17) Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact materials in building construction; and

18) Provide a construction period water runoff control plan.

VOTE

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 Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.

__________________________________ _________________________

Gwynne Pugh, AIA, ASCE, Chairperson 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

Applicant’s Signature

Project Location and Permit Processing Time Limits
Project Address:	849 Ocean Avenue
Application Filing Date:	May 25, 2006
CEQA Deadline:	Does not apply to legislative actions
PSA Deadline:	Does not apply to legislative actions
Total Processing Time:	84 days (from date application was deemed complete)

The applicant provided the following information regarding attempts to contact area property owners, residents, and recognized neighborhood associations:
Neighborhood Group	No contact information provided.
Adjacent Neighbors	No contact information provided.
Community Meetings	No contact information provided.
Other: