Santa Monica City Council
April 26, 2022

1 Vernice Hankins
From: Constance Chesnut <[email protected]>
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: jaime francis <[email protected]>
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
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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 4:32 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>
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
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Robert Kaplan <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 5:06 PM
To: 'Gleam Davis' <[email protected]>; 'Phil Brock' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Sue Himmelrich' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'David White' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> 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
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
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jim Berchtold <[email protected]>
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
[email protected] ‐ effective now
[email protected] ‐ discontinuing the Comcast email 9/25/2021 Item 6.A
04/26/22
8 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Juan Robles <[email protected]>
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Grafton Harper <[email protected]>
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
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
[email protected] (My new inbox as of 12/2018)
Lost track of me?
Permanent Forwarding available at [email protected] On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:18 AM Grafton Harper <[email protected]> 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
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
[email protected] (My new inbox as of 12/2018)
Lost track of me?
Permanent Forwarding available at [email protected] Item 6.A
04/26/22
12 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
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
[email protected]
Mid-City Neighborhood
Santa Monica, CA
90404

CYNTHIA ROSE
Item 6.A
04/26/22
13 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Alissa Finerman <[email protected]>
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Neal Payton <[email protected]>
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
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
3 Vernice Hankins
From: A Glennon <[email protected]>
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
4 Vernice Hankins
From: santa monica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 8:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to expansion of Oceana HotelEXTERNAL 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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elena Christopoulos <[email protected]> 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
2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 4/26/22 item 6-A -- OPPOSE Oceana Hotel appeal

EXTERNAL
Once again:

To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 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
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
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 fivestar 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 WilshireMontana Neighborhood Coalition in Item 6.A
04/26/22
22 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
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 nonguests 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
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 nonconforming 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
3 Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)

Item 6.A
04/26/22
26 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: John Cyrus Smith <[email protected]>
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; [email protected]; 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
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 [email protected]

Item 6.A
04/26/22
28 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Bethany Longest <[email protected]>
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
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
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 nonconforming 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
Item 6.A
04/26/22
32 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Caroline C. Vincent, Esq. <[email protected]> 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
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
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
[email protected]
Item 6.A
04/26/22
35 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
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
April 25, 2022
Via electronic mail
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Via email to [email protected]
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
Santa Monica City Council
April 25, 2022

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
Santa Monica City Council
April 25, 2022

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 outof-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
Santa Monica City Council
April 25, 2022

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 FondaBonardi 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
“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
04/26/22
41 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Santa Monica City Council
April 25, 2022

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 ([email protected])
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan ([email protected]) Councilmember Phil Brock ([email protected])
Councilmember Gleam Davis ([email protected])
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre ([email protected]) Councilmember Lana Negrete ([email protected])
Councilmember Christine Parra ([email protected]) Item 6.A
04/26/22
42 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22

EXHIBIT A
Item 6.A
04/26/22
43 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Item 6.A
04/26/22
44 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
�- .,,_ • •
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 with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that an alcohol license in conjunction with a hotel is conditionally permitted 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 is to. be established or located, in that the R3-NW district permits existing hotels, and alcohol service will be ancillary to the function of the existing hotel establishment

3. 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 if the 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 the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that the zoning of the site conditionally permits the issuance of an alcohol license in conjunction with an existing hotel facility, and that the license type _ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel 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. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety, in that the site is located 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 the existing hotel parking lot and that the proposed use will allow alcohol service to registered hof: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 relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the proposed alcohol license. will be for 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 in Subchapter 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 immediate vicinity, in that the proposed alcohol license will be for an existing hotel, and in that this type 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 public interest, 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 a significant 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 not significantly increasing hotel related impacts.

3. The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in 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
"'· • •
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 the distance 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 be served 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 in that the hotel is in the R3-NW (North of Wilshire Overlay) district, and a hotel with an alcohol license is compatible with permitted uses.

6. Traffic and· parking congestion will not result from the proposed use in that parking for the use is available on-site and the proposed Type 70 alcohol license will not result in increased parking demand.

7. The public health, safety, and general welfare are protected in that conditions of approval to require responsible dispensation of alcohol are included herein.

8. No harm to adjacent properties will result in that the conditions of approval will ensure that the 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 Use Element of the General Plan designates the area as High Density Housing and the Zoning Ordinance 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 of which shall be �tained in the files of the Planning and Zoning Division. Project development 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 Municipal Code, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and G�neral Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.

3. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate ·of Occupancy, project Management
owner shall submit a recycling plan to the ·Department of Environmental and Public Works for its approval. Toe 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 4 Item 6.A
04/26/22
47 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Item 6.A
04/26/22
48 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Item 6.A
04/26/22
49 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Item 6.A
04/26/22
50 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Martyn Burke <[email protected]>
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
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Kent Strumpell <[email protected]>
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
April 25, 2022
Via electronic mail
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Via email to [email protected]
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
Santa Monica City Council
April 25, 2022

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
Santa Monica City Council
April 25, 2022

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 outof-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
Santa Monica City Council
April 25, 2022

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 FondaBonardi 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
“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
04/26/22
57 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Santa Monica City Council
April 25, 2022

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 ([email protected])
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan ([email protected]) Councilmember Phil Brock ([email protected])
Councilmember Gleam Davis ([email protected])
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre ([email protected]) Councilmember Lana Negrete ([email protected])
Councilmember Christine Parra ([email protected]) Item 6.A
04/26/22
58 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22

EXHIBIT A
Item 6.A
04/26/22
59 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Item 6.A
04/26/22
60 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
�- .,,_ • •
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 with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that an alcohol license in conjunction with a hotel is conditionally permitted 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 is to. be established or located, in that the R3-NW district permits existing hotels, and alcohol service will be ancillary to the function of the existing hotel establishment

3. 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 if the 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 the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that the zoning of the site conditionally permits the issuance of an alcohol license in conjunction with an existing hotel facility, and that the license type _ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel 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. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety, in that the site is located 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 the existing hotel parking lot and that the proposed use will allow alcohol service to registered hof: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 relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the proposed alcohol license. will be for 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 in Subchapter 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 immediate vicinity, in that the proposed alcohol license will be for an existing hotel, and in that this type 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 public interest, 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 a significant 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 not significantly increasing hotel related impacts.

3. The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in 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
"'· • •
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 the distance 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 be served 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 in that the hotel is in the R3-NW (North of Wilshire Overlay) district, and a hotel with an alcohol license is compatible with permitted uses.

6. Traffic and· parking congestion will not result from the proposed use in that parking for the use is available on-site and the proposed Type 70 alcohol license will not result in increased parking demand.

7. The public health, safety, and general welfare are protected in that conditions of approval to require responsible dispensation of alcohol are included herein.

8. No harm to adjacent properties will result in that the conditions of approval will ensure that the 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 Use Element of the General Plan designates the area as High Density Housing and the Zoning Ordinance 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 of which shall be �tained in the files of the Planning and Zoning Division. Project development 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 Municipal Code, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and G�neral Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.

3. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate ·of Occupancy, project Management
owner shall submit a recycling plan to the ·Department of Environmental and Public Works for its approval. Toe 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 4 Item 6.A
04/26/22
63 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Item 6.A
04/26/22
64 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Item 6.A
04/26/22
65 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
Item 6.A
04/26/22
66 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Martyn Burke <[email protected]>
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
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Kent Strumpell <[email protected]>
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
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
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
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Bruce Leddy <[email protected]>
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 9:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; [email protected]; 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
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Carl Hansen <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
Item 6.A
04/26/22
73 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
David Rindlaub
[email protected]
April 25th, 2021

VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90401
[email protected]
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Rosemary Sostarich <[email protected]>
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
2 Rosemary Sostarich
Item 6.A
04/26/22
76 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Albin Gielicz <[email protected]>
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 wellmanaged 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
4 Vernice Hankins
From: betzi richardson <[email protected]>
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marc Spilo <[email protected]>
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
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Tej <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
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
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Veena Sadana <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ellen Hannan <[email protected]>
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
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
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Doug Sparr <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
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
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
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sharf, Jesse <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] • 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
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Pari White <[email protected]>
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
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
4 Item 6.A
04/26/22
89 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
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 Vernice Hankins
From: Pari White <[email protected]>
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
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
8 Item 6.A
04/26/22
93 of 94 Item 6.A
04/26/22
9 Vernice Hankins
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
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; [email protected]; 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