Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, April 26, 2022

1 Vernice Hankins
From: Bethany Longest <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:17 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Stop Oceana Hotel

EXTERNAL
Mayor Sue Himmelrich,
I urge you to stop the Oceana Hotel from opening their restaurant and bar to the general public. I live in the same neighborhood as the Oceana Hotel. It’s a peaceful part of town, for the most part. I’m a nurse at Providence St. John’s Health Center who is raising my three year old boy with my husband. I bike to work. We take walks to palisades park daily to walk our dog and play with our son. I would love to be able to stay in this neighborhood and raise my son, who will eventually go to Roosevelt Elementary School.

My fears are this:

1. More congestion on Ocean Ave near the Hotel. We already have to be super careful on the pedestrian crosswalk due to cars not stopping for us.

2. Increase noise in the alley which backs up to our apartment building

3. More trucks making deliveries, possibly violating the 0700 am code.

I don’t know if I’m completely understanding this correctly, but it looks like one CUP is to allow non‐guests to eat and drink at the Oceana hotel restaurant/bar and another CUP is to extend the non‐conforming use zoning for Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition. As a tax‐paying, working member of the community, I urge you to stop these CUP expansions. I really feel strongly that it will negatively impact our quality of life in this neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Bethany Longest, BSN, RN &
Derek Longest
Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Bethany Longest <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:27 AM
To: Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock Cc: Derek Longest; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Stop Oceana Hotel

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I urge you to stop the Oceana Hotel from opening their restaurant and bar to the general public. I live in the same neighborhood as the Oceana Hotel. It’s a peaceful part of town, for the most part. I’m a nurse at Providence St. John’s Health Center who is raising my three year old boy with my husband. I bike to work. We take walks to palisades park daily to walk our dog and play with our son. I would love to be able to stay in this neighborhood and raise my son, who will eventually go to Roosevelt Elementary School.

My fears are this:

1. More congestion on Ocean Ave near the Hotel. We already have to be super careful on the pedestrian crosswalk due to cars not stopping for us.

2. Increase noise in the alley which backs up to our apartment building

3. More trucks making deliveries, possibly violating the 0700 am code.

Sincerely,
Bethany Longest, BSN, RN &
Derek Longest
Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: CITY CLERK RE: Comments concerning 840 Ocean Avenue 20ENT-0236 21ENT-1038 20ENT-0237 21ENT-1039 21ENT-0090

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council.

I reside at 858 Third Street (Third Street & Idaho Avenue) which is two short blocks from the Oceana Hotel. I received notice of the hotel's appeal of previous denials to their Conditional Use Permit for the operation of dining facilities and an on-site bar which would be open to the public from 7:00 AM till 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and until 11:00 PM on Friday and Saturday.

This appeal opens up an entirely new set of circumstances for our residential neighborhood based on the added traffic and inconvenience caused by the possible approval of this project should it subsequently be approved at your November 23rd Meeting.

The objections I would like to make are based on the following points:
 The letter from the Oceana Hotel concerning their "surplus parking" in terms of present parking statistics does not take into account the added parking necessary for a restaurant and bar open to the public. Their estimates are based on the current situation of hotel guests only. It also does not consider that the only non-hotel guests are those that current guests invite into the hotel. Therefore, the hotel letter is irrelevant.  A restaurant / bar open to the public generates possible vehicle traffic equal to the number of patron on a particular evening. It is not unheard of for each of the patrons to drive their own vehicle to the hotel in order to dine or drink at the facility. A very high percentage of the patrons of the new restaurant will not be taking public transportation or arriving in an UBER, generating a high volume of vehicles for the Valet Parking Station.
 The hotel's parking estimate for unused parking spaces in based on one vehicle for each room. Generally, the guests in each room do not arrive at the hotel in individual vehicles and usually arrive in a single vehicle. A restaurant and bar generates many more vehicles per hour during business hours. Where are these valet parked vehicles to go during peak hours, especially if extensive advertising, promotion and social media campaigns are enacted to promote dining and entertaining at the hotel?  It is my belief that the Valet Parking attendants will certainly not turn away patrons once the available onsite parking spaces are filled, especially during the evening hours. In my experience, these valets will seek out street parking in the nearby neighborhood, in spite of Resident Only Parking restrictions that are currently in place, perhaps causing residential parking permit holders to be inconvenienced and prevented from parking near their apartments. These are important residents of the neighborhood where the Oceana Hotel wants to go into the restaurant and bar business.  In addition, the potential patrons, and the valet attendants themselves, will view the parking adjacent to the Palisade Bluffs as ideal for their use. Many of the residents use these parking spaces for second vehicles not permitted in their apartment buildings where they are limited to one parking space.  It is a fact that not all of the diners or bar patrons will use the valet service at the hotel. Many potential patrons are not comfortable with random valet attendants driving their vehicles. Assuming that most valets are trustworthy (although many are not), many patrons driving expensive and pristine vehicles do not want to take a chance on injuring their cars, especially since most valet contracts exempt them from damage to the vehicles they park.
 I am fairly certain that the existing downtown restaurants, those that obey the existing zoning laws, will not be pleased with the possible approval of this appeal. In addition, possible approval opens residential neighborhoods to similar requests. What is to say that, if this is approved, Pali House (a few blocks away) Item 6.A
11/23/21
3 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 will not request similar zoning variances? Perhaps Brookside (senior living a blockaway) will see an opportunity to open to diners after their senior residents finish dinner early in the evening?  Oceana Hotel's proposed count of dining room tables, poolside tables and bar seating does not take into account the ten seats in their nearby Conference Room, which adds more possible patrons to the mix.  The Oceana Hotel claims that it has been a good neighbor for many years. May I remind the City Council that this only happened because they did not operate a full service restaurant and bar during this time.

Therefore the chance for less than neighborly behavior was never a prior consideration.  While I appreciate the hotel's offer of free beverages and appetizers for those living nearby, having lived in this neighborhood for over forty years, I never found the hotel to be welcoming to those living around them. On may occasions I have watched most the hotel staff curtly deny questions concerning directions and other information from those walking near the hotel. Indeed, many were discouraged from even entering the lobby.On one occasion, I was turned away from their lobby when I stopped in to ask about their rates and room availability for one of my foreign clients. This may just have been a member of the hotel staff having a bad day but it is concerning to me nonetheless. Things may have changed but that is my impression of staff and management.

Therefore, I request that the approval of the zoning variances for Oceana Hotel be rejected based on the current zoning ordinances for Multi-Unit Residential Districts in R2 and R3 Zoning Districts and, in addition, the absence of planning for the above restaurant and bar problems pointed out. The neighborhood residents do not generally benefit from another restaurant and bar nearby, especially with so many established restaurants and bars exist a few short blocks from their homes (North of Montana) and apartments. The Fairmont Hotel., for example, is only a short walk away, and has been for decades.

The only institution benefiting from this request is the hotel itself without much concern for their neighbors.

James R. Firth
858 Third Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 6.A
11/23/21
4 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marc Spilo <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 12:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oceana Hotel dining

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
On May 19, I wrote to the Planning Commission to support the Oceana’s application to make their restaurant available to the public. I still strongly support the project and hope you will grant their appeal on Tuesday night.

The Oceana Hotel is a charming and peaceful hotel on the quiet end of Ocean Avenue. The hotel guests are fortunate to have access to the restaurant services. Those living in the neighborhood would also benefit from having a walkable, intimate place to relax and see the lovely hotel, its views and enjoy a meal. If approved, the Oceana would be the ideal neighborhood “boutique” stop for neighbors out for a walk in Palisades Park or on a bicycle ride on the City’s beautiful new bike path. I respectfully urge you to consider Staff's recommendation and grant the appeal.

Thank you for your time.

Marc Spilo
Item 6.A
11/23/21
5 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Doug Sparr <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 9:04 AM
To: Gleam Davis
Cc: David White; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oceana Hotel's CUPs to Open Restaurant to Public Attachments: garage door at night.MOV; No parking alley signs.jpeg; Delviery truck video.mov

EXTERNAL
Hi Ms. Davis,
My name is Doug Sparr. I am writing you regarding the two Conditional Use Permits to allow the Oceana Hotel to open their indoor and outdoor restaurant to the general public. I live at 850 2nd Street, the apartment building on the corner of 2nd & Idaho, adjacent to the Oceana. My unit is on the westside of the building facing the alley that we share with the Oceana. I have been in this unit for over 14 years.

The hotel is in an unique situation in that it is a commercial establishment operating in a residentially zoned area. I, and some of my neighbors, are opposed to this potential change in the Hotel’s operations. The following are some of the concerns that I personally have. 1) Increase noise in the alley.

There have always been constant noise issues in the alley related to the Oceana. They have gone through two major renovations since I have lived here. The first in 2007 and the second ten+ years later. Sometime after the 2nd renovation they installed two electric garage doors used primarily for valet parking and hotel deliveries. The motors on the doors are very loud and are disruptive both during the day while I work, and more importantly overnight. I have been awoken countless number of times at all hours of the night. I fear that the increased patronage at the restaurant will increase the number of valeted cars going in and out of the garages, particularly at night given they are trying to get the restaurant hours to the public extended until 11:00pm.

I have attached a video showing the door closing in the middle of the night after a car went in it. Note that motor has two cycles each time a car enters or leaves, going up and then closing. This video only captures the second part, so the noise generated is twice as long as you hear in the video.
2) More commercial trucks in the alley.

Expanded restaurant service may lead to increased trucks in the alley and on the streets. Delivery trucks and maintenance trucks park in the alley despite the fact that there are “No parking in the Alley” signs affixed to the hotel’s building as well as freestanding signs on my side of the alley (See attached photo). Delivery trucks frequently arrive and start offloading their deliveries well before 7:00am, which I am told is the allowable start of the workday. (see attached video) They also occasionally make deliveries at night. The expansion of their restaurant operations may lead to Item 6.A
11/23/21
6 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 increased truck deliveries, exacerbating this problem as well as adding congestion to 2nd street, where they sometimes park as well. If you don’t already know, at some point in the last 14 years, the hotel was able to get sole control of the parking on the block of Ocean in front of their hotel that they use strictly for valet parking. I do not understand why their delivery trucks can’t park and unload there. 3) Opening Pandora’s Box.

I am concerned that allowing the hotel to change this conditional use will potentially make it much easier for them to expand their operations even more in the future. One thing I love about my location is despite my close proximity to downtown Santa Monica, the pier, the beach, and the retail area on Montana Avenue, I live in a relatively quiet residential neighborhood. I don’t want it to change. The Oceana is now under the marketing umbrella of Hilton Hotels luxury brand LXR Hotels & Resorts. This deal occurred in early 2021 and no doubt, they will devote sufficient marketing and promotional resources to grow the hotel’s restaurant and lounge business. Some of the other hotels in the area, e.g. The Fairmont, The Huntley and The Shore Hotel have been successful in growing their nighttime bar and restaurant businesses, which brings with it increased cars, congestion and noise. I do not want that for my neighborhood.

Theoretically I would not typically be opposed to a hotel opening their restaurant to the general public. But given the hotel’s location in a residential area, I fear this change will adversely impact the quality of the life of nearby residents.

I am, however, a realist and understand there is considerable support among the council to approve this change. In that event, I urge you to attach strict, enforceable guidelines on the Hotel’s operations in the alley and on 2nd street, i.e. when deliveries can be made, where trucks can park, and to force them to retrofit their garage doors to make them much quieter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Doug Sparr
Item 6.A
11/23/21
7 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Strumpell Kent <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 2:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6-A, Oceana

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I believe the request by the applicant to serve the general public in its restaurant is reasonable, beneficial and should be considered for the following reason.

Restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, etc can be valuable neighborhood resources accessible by walking, biking and short car trips. (I wish there more such places within walking distance of where we live in the Pico Neighborhood). Far from being a burden on the surrounding community, I think this low‐key resaurant at the Oceana could prove to be a local gem, an amenity that nearby residents will come to value highly.

Food services within the community can make our city more livable by allowing access to daily needs without having to use a car. The more we can create "complete communities" with a decent mix of essential services close by, the more we can reduce traffic and meet other city goals for livability, greenhouse gas reduction, etc. Please consider these community benefits when you discuss the applicant's appeal and Staff's well‐reasoned recommendation to grant it.

Thank you,
Kent Strumpell
1211 B Michigan Ave.

Santa Monica
Item 6.A
11/23/21
8 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
November 19, 2021
Santa Monica Mayor and City Council
Item 6-A - Oceana Hotel Restaurant
Please accept this letter as my continued support of Staff’s recommendation regarding the Oceana Hotel’s appeal initially sent to Planning Commission last May.

My comments below remain rooted in a strong commitment to local, walkable and bikeable businesses in our neighborhoods, and are based on my own experience and those of others who advocate for a growing pedestrian and bicycle street culture.

I reside in mid city. For many years our neighborhood enjoyed eating at Le Petit Cafe, a small-scale, low-impact brasserie on Colorado Avenue operated by the Bourget family. The restaurant and staff were part of the fabric of our neighborhood. Le Petit Cafe closed a few years back but has recently and happily been resurrected as Le Petit Chez Mimi. The cafe provides a local and beloved alternative to the larger, corporate restaurants in the mid city area that have survived almost exclusively on the patronage of drivers who demand space to park - a valuable resource we’ve learned can be better utilized much more equitably.

I provide this background because I envision the Sandpiper restaurant at the Oceana Hotel as a similar kind of place where people can walk and bike from the Wilshire-Montana and north of Montana Ave neighborhoods — as well as from other parts of the city — to enjoy a meal in a more intimate setting than is offered in Santa Monica’s vibrant, but busier Downtown core or Montana Avenue. Even better, the chef will accommodate the needs of vegans and vegetarians, providing a welcoming and more sustainable menu experience for everyone.

Staff has recommended certain conditions that take needs of people walking and biking into consideration. The Hotel listened and has incorporated these items (I previously encouraged) into their application: incentives extended to pedestrian and bicycle customers and provision of a bike valet for restaurant patrons, for convenience and bicycle security.

Finally, quiet is an unexpected phenomenon that we all came to appreciate during the early days of the pandemic. A small restaurant incorporated in a low-key hotel is an ideal place to relax and actually converse in relaxed, good company. A publicly-available Sandpiper would provide an alternative to the higher volume (albeit exciting) environment easily found elsewhere in establishments downtown and along the boulevards.

Again, I support the Hotel’s proposal. I hope you vote to grant the Oceana Hotel’s appeal.

I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you,
Cynthia Rose
[email protected]
Mid-City Neighborhood
Santa Monica, CA
90404

CYNTHIA ROSE
Item 6.A
11/23/21
9 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
Item 6.A
11/23/21
10 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject: ITEM 6A 11/23/2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members
From: Kay Ward, 101 Ocean Avenue resident and Wilshire-Montana member Subject: Appeal by Oceana Hotel, a nonconforming use in Wilmont since 1990, of two CUP's and text amendment to allow food and drink to the general public which were denied by Planning Commission--DENY APPEAL
The appeal of the Oceana Hotel should be denied for the following reasons:
--Neighbors and many residents have expressed their concerns to you about the impact that parking, deliveries (usually early and late), noise and traffic will have. The residents of 850 Second Street, the apartment building across the alley, have also outlined that such interference in their lives in addition to staff talking and smoking in the alley and the lack of recourses deprives them of their right to a peaceful existence.
--This is spot zoning, as described by three Planning Commissioners. --Once the damage is done, there is no mitigation or return for the Wilmont neighborhood. --The 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings such as "the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses."
--The issue is the increase in occupancy and turnover of those seats, not just the number of seats. --A reminder that in 2015 the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified. These CUP's and text amendment do exactly that. This 4-5 star hotel will also price out most neighbors.

The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non-conforming hotel to ask for any intensification in the Wilmont neighborhood and this appeal should be denied.

Thank you.

Kay Ward
Ocean Avenue resident
Item 6.A
11/23/21
11 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David Martin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: Council 11/23/21 item 6-A -- Oceana Hotel appeal -- OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
November 21, 2021
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 11/23/21 agenda item 6-A – Oceana Hotel appeal – OPPOSE Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section

9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission's Denial of Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant

The FOSP Board supports the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) in a) - opposing the proposed text amendment to the Municipal Code, and b) - opposing the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permits in order to intensify a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood. 1) In 1957, the Oceana was built as an apartment building.

2) In 1958, it became a hotel, which was allowed because it was zoned R4. 3) In 1990, the property was rezoned R3, which then made the hotel a “legal nonconforming commercial use” which was required to be discontinued and removed, or altered to conform to R3, within 20 years (i.e., by 2010).
4) In 1995, the Oceana got approval to allow hotels in existence as of 1/1/1995 to remain, but to not allow expansion of such establishments. The text amendment allowed up to 5% increase within an existing building envelope, but the staff report indicated that staff would not recommend for expansion of the hotel, but only allow improvements and repairs to be made.

Item 6.A
11/23/21
12 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 5) In 1996, the Oceana's CUP approval specifically based its conclusions on granting a liquor license on findings such as, "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors, thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;" and "will not increase the demand for parking on-site."
6) Sometime after 2005, a restaurant was added to serve hotel guests. Before then, food was only allowed to be delivered to hotel.

7) In 2015, the City Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified. 8) In 2021, the Oceana Hotel has been added to Hilton’s LXR Hotels & Resorts marketing, and the owners want to open the bar and restaurants to the general public – a further intensification of a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
“LXR Hotels & Resorts Celebrates U.S. Debut with Oceana Santa Monica” Exclusive retreat known for unparalleled, personalized service and immersive, local experiences to join LXR’s collection of independent, luxury properties.
https://newsroom.hilton.com/lxr/news/lxr-hotels-resorts-opens-oceana-santa-monica

“LXR Hotels & Resorts, Hilton’s collection of independent, luxury properties, today announced its U.S. debut with the addition of the recently redesigned Oceana hotel, an intimate 70-room coastal oasis situated along the coveted beach district of Santa Monica. The property is owned and operated by JRK Property Holdings, Inc.

“Steps from the pristine California coast yet tucked into an exclusive, residential enclave, Oceana provides a retreat for discerning travelers with the elevated comforts of a dream beach home coupled with the uniquely personalized service for which LXR Hotels & Resorts are known. "The resort exudes a glamorous yet sophisticated sensibility and inspires a captivatingly local and uniquely personal experience that engages guests with warm Californian hospitality, aligning with LXR’s core philosophy of providing a bespoke and immersive experience. The intimate property will connect each guest with a curated lens into Santa Monica design, wellness and lifestyle, creating memories that linger long after guests depart….
“Oceana joins the growing collection of more than 10 open or soon-to-be-open LXR properties in the world’s most sought-after destinations….Oceana provides a rare opportunity to experience Santa Monica like a local resident of the coveted beach district. Driving along Ocean Avenue, the first vision of Oceana is the hotel’s stately, ivy-clad facade, quietly at home among the neighborhood’s other beautiful residences….
"Following a nearly $30 million transformation of the former Oceana Beach Club Hotel, the stunning beachside home-away-from-home delivers a rare private residential experience in Santa Monica’s most coveted neighborhood north of Wilshire Boulevard….

Item 6.A
11/23/21
13 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
3 “Meals are always prepared to guest specifications and can be served in any of the dining venues.

Oceana’s dining experiences include:
 Sandpiper: Oceana’s main restaurant sets the scene for an intimate experience reminiscent of a private beach home with a picturesque seaside backdrop, but with the added comforts of five-star service and elegant cuisine.
 The Veranda: There is no better venue for al fresco dining at Oceana. Here, guests can enjoy full access to Oceana’s breakfast, lunch and dinner menus with the benefit of enjoying your meal poolside.

Whether reclining in James Perse chaise lounges or cozying up by the fire pit, The Veranda is the perfect space to exercise your refined palette while taking advantage of always sunny Santa Monica.  Sunset Terrace: With panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean, the Sunset Terrace is the perfect rooftop lounge location to relax, imbibe and enjoy the majesty of the sun sinking into the horizon. And for sushi lovers, we are excited to announce our exclusive Nobu Pop-Up Experience featuring some of the famed delicacies only Nobu chefs can provide.
 Oceana’s authentic expression of Southern California cuisine also includes rare tequila tasting flights in the spring in partnership with Casamigos.”
This is not about a few nearby neighbors, all living within walking distance, stopping by the Oceana Hotel for coffee.

The proposed CUPs and text amendment are about non-hotel guests using this high-end facility for dining, conferences, and other functions.

As one of the Planning Commissioners noted, before the Commission turned down the owner’s request for the CUPs, this request amounts to spot zoning.

Approval of the appeal and the text amendment could also serve as a precedent for other commercial interests that may want to expand into residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica.

The 2010 LUCE (Land Use & Circulation Element) said on page 2, “The LUCE conserves the City’s neighborhoods.” It continues on page 3, “The community identified the following core values: Preserve Existing Neighborhoods. The highest priority of the community was the preservation of the existing character and scale of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods.”

Again, the FOSP Board supports residents in the Wilmont neighborhood and the Board of the WilshireMontana Neighborhood Coalition in a) - opposing the proposed text amendment to the Municipal Code, and b) - opposing the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permits in order to intensify a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood.

Item 6.A
11/23/21
14 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
4 =
Item 6.A
11/23/21
15 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
November 22, 2021
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 November 23 Agenda Item 6-A: “Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section

9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission’s Denial of Two Conditions Use Permits to Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant”
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and the Honorable City Council:

We write on behalf of Elizabeth Van Denburgh, a resident of the Wilmont community who is concerned about the encroachment of commercial enterprises, and in particular hotel uses, into the residentially-zoned neighborhood. The request of the Oceana Hotel is one such example, and should therefore be carefully considered lest it pave the way for other businesses in the area to undertake similar projects that expand previous entitlements. Permitting a zone text amendment for the benefit of this specific property that directly undermines the intent of the Council in adopting the zoning ordinance provisions in 2015 sets the City on a path towards other future deviations from the standards and weakens the provisions of the nonconforming ordinance.

The ordinance proposed by staff allows “an existing hotel use in the R2 or R3 district that includes an onsite restaurant that provides meal service for hotel guests and their visitors . . . shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing onsite restaurant to provide meals service to the general public,” but only if the hotel was established prior to 1995 and the restaurant was operating since July 23, 2015. (See Draft Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Table 9.08.020 to add footnote 10.) This is a classic example of spot zoning:

Item 6.A
11/23/21
16 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
the exemption is written to apply only to one property in the City, giving it greater freedom than any other nonconforming hotel operation to alter its restaurant operations. Although written as if it is generally applicable, the law applies to class of one, and only one, business, and could never apply to any other given the operational dates included in the ordinance. Such legislation has the appearance of an arbitrary act, particularly given the specificity of the qualifying conditions. The Council should reject this spot-zoning and hold the Oceana Hotel to the same standards as other hotels that are operating in residential zones in the City.

Non-Conforming Hotel Operations
The applicant acknowledges that the Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The City’s nonconforming use ordinance is intended to allow for “continued occupancy and maintenance of structures . . . so long as the uses, continued occupancy, and maintenance meet the provisions of this Chapter.” (SMMC, § 9.27.010.) For nonconforming uses, “a nonconforming use of a building or a portion of a building . . . shall neither be expanded into any other portion of the building nor changed except to a conforming use.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 D.) The code has very specific rules regarding the intensification of nonconforming restaurant uses:
“A nonconforming use shall not be permitted to substantially change in mode or character of operation. A substantial change in mode or character of operation shall include, but is not limited to, addition of uses, a change in operational hours that extends past 11:00 p.m. any night Sunday through Thursday and/or midnight on Friday and/or Saturday or begins before 7:00 a.m., a 5 percent increase in the floor area of the premises, or a 5 percent increase in the number of seats in any restaurant, but in no case shall the increase exceed any established seating limitation in the underlying zoning district.” (SMMC, § 9.27.050 E (emphasis added.).)
Staff correctly concluded that the Oceana’s request to revise its Conditional Use Permit to allow both food and alcohol service to the general public would constitute an impermissible intensification of use under the zoning code’s provisions for nonconforming uses. The examples provided in the ordinance are not intended to be exhaustive of the possibilities for intensification, and it would seem that allowing the general public to dine at the hotel would have the same types of impacts as a small (5 percent) increase in floor area or seating capacity. Opening the hotel restaurant for non-guests will likely result in an increased number of people traveling to the hotel for the purpose of dining there who now do not have any reason to make this trip.

In fact, the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings such as, “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;” and “will not increase the Item 6.A
11/23/21
17 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
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
11/23/21
18 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
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
11/23/21
19 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
“A. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning District and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the Municipal Code.

B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

C. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.

D. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the land uses are to remain.

E. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the operation.

F. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.

G. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant environmental impacts or any potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation measures incorporated in the project or a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted.

H. The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.” (SMMC, §

9.41.060.)
These findings require factual support. There is no record of any environmental review of the proposed zone text amendment or Conditional Use Permit, so there is no basis to conclude whether the intensification of use would have impacts that has not been mitigated. The applicant claims that opening the restaurant to the general public would have a net reduction in traffic because neighbors could walk to the restaurant instead of driving elsewhere to eat. This is pure speculation, not supported by any analysis. Isn’t it equally likely that patrons will drive from elsewhere to this restaurant? The neighboring residents already live within a short walk to downtown where there are numerous restaurants. It seems more likely that new driving demand will be created by opening a new restaurant at the hotel. No discussion is provided of how to accommodate the increased parking demand that this will impose in the area. While the staff report looks at some parking studies from 2006 and 2015 to conclude that the hotel has adequate Item 6.A
11/23/21
20 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
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
11/23/21
21 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21

EXHIBIT A
Item 6.A
11/23/21
22 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
Item 6.A
11/23/21
23 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
�- .,,_ • •
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
11/23/21
24 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
-� • •

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
11/23/21
25 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
"'· • •
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
11/23/21
26 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
Item 6.A
11/23/21
27 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
Item 6.A
11/23/21
28 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
Item 6.A
11/23/21
29 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The Board of NOMA supports the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) in opposing the approval of the two CUPs to provide alcohol and meal services to the general public, which will cause the intensification of this nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. The application for the zone text amendment should be denied as well; there is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the nonconforming ordinance.

The applicant's proposal is not an Interim Zoning Exemption based on the pandemic, but a permanent change to a nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. The intensification of Oceana in a residential neighborhood surrounded by multifamily housing will impact this neighborhood forever.

There is no doubt that the Oceana, which Hilton announced in January 2021 to be part of its LXR Hotels & Resorts, will be marketing and intensifying its commercial impact on the neighborhood. This is not about a few neighbors stopping by for coffee, but the intensification of non-hotel guests' uses of the facility, be it for dining, conferences, functions or other non-hotel guest activities.

The Oceana's 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings such as, "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors, thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;" and "will not increase the demand for parking on-site."
The 1996 findings also note that "the proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of the neighborhood residents in a significant manner in that the use will be allowed for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel related impacts." In 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified. This proposal does exactly that. The use of a text amendment to change the code is custom designed for the Oceana; it allows a legal nonconforming hotel to change from serving guests to serving the general public, without intensifying the use under the nonconforming use provisions of the zoning code. This zoning change will make "swiss cheese" or a "hole" in the existing nonconforming ordinance.

This kind of action serves as a precedent for other nonconforming users to pursue other types of proposals and thus will expand commercial uses in residentially zoned neighborhoods. This is exactly what the zoning code was designed to stop.

This proposal is so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business, the Oceana Hotel; if it is adopted, what is to prevent other businesses from lobbying for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with loopholes. The two parking studies in 2006 and 2015, only focused on the number of cars generated by hotel visitors, not the number of cars from visitors driving to drinks and meals at this property.

Item 6.A
11/23/21
30 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21

The announcement in January 2021, of the Hilton LXR marketing relationship will enable one of the world’s most powerful hospitality entities to grow this commercial business – increasing hotel guests and, if this proposal is approved, non-hotel guests into our residential neighborhood.

NOMA applauded the city’s work in ensuring short-term and corporate rentals do not inundate our neighborhoods and residents with tourists. Please support the same policy with respect to the expansion of a non-conforming use in the Wilmont neighborhood.

The NOMA Board asks the Council to reject the two CUPS and proposed text amendments.

Item 6.A
11/23/21
31 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 1:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Shore Hotel
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: MICHAEL DE VILLIERS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Shore Hotel

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please support Shore Hotel’s plans to bring affordable lodging and a cafe (licensed to serve alcohol) to the Second Street ground floor space of their property. As a 90401 resident, I welcome these amenities and the activation of the streetscape this will bring.

On a tangential note, retail space height should not be regulated. The 14’ minimum makes no sense and may well have contributed to current vacancies downtown. In this case, Shore’s ingenuity should be applauded for trying to turn their sow’s ear into a silk purse.

Thank you
Michael de Villiers
1115 Arizona Avenue
Item 6.A
11/23/21
32 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 12:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis
Subject: Item 6.A. REJECT Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
Residents are counting on you to stop commercial businesses from creeping into our residential neighborhoods.

I support my neighbors in Wilmont and oppose Oceana’s plan to open their restaurant services to anyone other than their hotel guest.

If my neighbors wish to eat and drink nearby, I recommend they patronize the businesses on Montana Avenue.

Please reject Ocean’s plans and prevent a portentous precedent.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident in NOMA
Item 6.A
11/23/21
33 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Juan Robles <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 3:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please block 849 Ocean Avenue from Becoming a Full Service Restaurant

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
As a property owner and resident of less than a block away, I strongly oppose the expansion/change of the current designation of 849 Ocean Avenue. My concern is that such change will potentially change the character of the neighborhood which is meant to be residential. This hotel already offers valet service to their patrons and is quite busy. The regulations and restrictions where set in place in order to protect the character of the neighborhood. I strongly oppose any change that alters the residential character of our community. The amendment to sell alcohol and expand service to any person will certainly increase traffic to the business seeking for this change but will also certainly increase added traffic and will alter the residential zoning of out community. Santa Monica City Council Members please block any text amendments that will compromise the appeal of the residential nature of our neighborhood.

Please feel free to contact me:

Juan Robles
917 2nd Street 201
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 6.A
11/23/21
34 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Spedstur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 4:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO OCEANA HOTEL -- STOP THE OCEANA HOTEL RESTAURANT AND BAR

EXPANSION

STOP THE OCEANA HOTEL RESTAURANT AND BAR EXPANSION

STOP THE EXPANSION OF THE COMMERCIAL ZONE NORTH OF CALIFORNIA AND INTO

OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
I have been a resident of the 900 block of Ocean Avenue since 1985.

I write to vehemently object to and oppose the repeated efforts by the Oceana Hotel to open their restaurant and bar to the general public. I write to ask you to deny this new request by the Oceana to open its bar and restaurant to the general public.

The Oceana Hotel owners should be fined for continuing to waste taxpayer dollars with their repeated applications to expand their business and further destroy the residential neighborhood in which they are located.

The Oceana Hotel knew the rules when they opened the hotel. In fact, they have previously violated those rules when a number of years ago they illegally allowed non-guests to use their restaurant and bar.

From the get-go the Oceana Hotel has proven to be terrible neighbors, playing fast and loose with the rules to the detriment of local residents.

Adding insult to injury, the Oceana are THE WORST NEIGHBOR. THE WORST!  When the company which owns the Oceana Hotel purchased the apartment building and applied for permits to convert and construct the hotel, they were required to send out notices about their work to the neighborhood on multiple occasions. Most times notices were never received, or they arrived after the date by which we could object, respond or attend a hearing.

Item 6.A
11/23/21
35 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2  Originally the Oceana had the equivalent of three or four spots for valets. Depending on the size of the car, there was one or two public spots immediately north of the valet section and, depending on the size of the car three or four public spots immediately south of the valet section. The public spots referenced above were almost always by their valet parked cars. I know this because I not only witnessed this, but because the valets put a sticker on the window or hanging from the rear-view mirror. Parking on Ocean Avenue is very limited and when no other public spots were available and hotel valets were asked to move their valet car(s) parking on public spots they always refused. They were prohibited from parking guest cars on the public street – but they did it anyway because it was easier than using their garage. When complaints were made to hotel management, they said valets were contractors and they had no control over them. Talk about shirking responsibility and being bad neighbors…Oceana management and owners are the worst neighbors.
 With the Fairmont the Huntley Hotel and other local hotels increasing their nighttime activities, the nighttime noise levels around the neighborhood have skyrocketed – especially after midnight when the hotel bars and clubs close down.
 The Oceana Hotel is a legal nonconforming use. The requests to allow both food and alcohol service to the general public constitutes an impermissible intensification of use under the zoning conde’s provisions for nonconforming uses. This is not a request for a variance but an intensification of a use in Wilmont.
 Valets often speed off with cars of visitors
 Valets often don’t look before leaving from the curb with visitor cars  Valets often double park visitors’ cars
 Valets often leave vehicles daily and overnight parked in valet spots instead of moving them to their parking lot
 When delivering cars to guests, valets often roll through the stop sign at Idaho/Ocean, almost causing accidents. I myself have narrowly avoided being hit by them numerous times.

If the noise and crowding and valet drivers are bad now…what will it be like if the Oceana is granted a permit to serve non-guests in its restaurant and bar? This doesn’t even address the issue of parking in the neighborhood and the dangerous driving by the valets.

When restaurant was first installed it was supposed to be for hotel guests only. They flagrantly violated that and allowed outsiders to use the restaurant. They were caught and told to cease and desist. I don’t know if a fine was issued, but it should have.

Then there is the increased traffic for deliveries, laundry and staff. As of now, early in the morning trucks park in the alley or on Idaho to unload/load food, linens and who knows what else…leaving the trucks idling spewing noise and pollution.

Add to that the staff that goes in the alley on their breaks – smoking cigarettes or weed and talking and laughing loudly among themselves an on their phones.

Its long past due for the city council to stop giving the business community – the Oceana Hotel in this instance —everything they want. What about us that live here? Especially those us on Ocean Avenue where noise is worse, where vendors, musical acts and food truck are now parking or setting up tables north of Washington. Complaints have been made, opposing views have been given as to what is legal without resolution and the devolution of this part of our once great Ocean Avenue continues. Allowing the Oceana to expand their operations would hasten that decline, making living here more of a nightmare then it has become..

Item 6.A
11/23/21
36 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
3 According to the pink notice we received asking for comment, it says, the Oceana is non-conforming…and that it “requests to provide meal service to the general public provided that certain criterial are met.” I can assure you that if past is prologue, they will ignore that criteria repeatedly…just as they did years ago when, despite their permits, they served non-guests in their restaurant.

Bottom line is – The Oceana Hotel is a bad neighbor and there is no reason to expect that their behavior or the impact on our neighborhood will improve.

We are hoping all members of the City Council will not disappoint us and will take the sides of residents and not business and developers.

Thank you.

Item 6.A
11/23/21
37 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Carl Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 6:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6-A Support for Oceana Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of Staff's recommendation to grant the Oceana Hotel's appeal, and allow the hotel to open its restaurant to the public.

I have resided in the Wilshire Montana neighborhood for almost a decade, and am strongly supportive of pedestrian‐ friendly, small‐scale businesses that serve the needs of the community ‐‐ especially pedestrians and cyclists ‐‐ and, just as important, help build relationships between the public and the people who own and operate those establishments, which are essential to the achieving the objective of the complete neighborhoods concept. I regularly use the bike path and walk with friends in Palisades Park, and it would be so great to have a local place to grab a bite or drink here.

Thank you for your consideration,
Carl Hansen
e: [email protected]
c: (760) 613 ‐ 4290
Item 6.A
11/23/21
38 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jeremy Stutes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 6:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6-A

EXTERNAL
City Councilmembers,
I participated in the June 9 Planning Commission hearing as an enthusiastic supporter of the Oceana's CUP and text amendment application.

I am submitting this email to express my support of Staff's recommendation. Planning Commission's denial of the Oceana CUP and text amendment applications did not seem proportionate to what was being proposed ‐‐ opening a few tables at its restaurant, as available, to members of the public. I was glad when the hotel submitted an appeal.

In a neighborhood blessed with a safe and beautiful pedestrian experience, it makes sense to permit the Oceana to extend a quiet, intimate dining experience to its neighbors who pass by. Also, the Ocean Avenue bike path practically delivers bicyclists to the Oceana's door. A quick, casual breakfast or lunch at the Oceana would be a great experience in a city that values cycling.

I trust you will consider Staff's recommendation carefully, and vote to grant the hotel's appeal.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Stutes
Item 6.A
11/23/21
39 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Albin Gielicz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 6:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan
Subject: Item 6-A - Grant the Oceana's appeal

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
As a local resident and community leader, I have supported the Oceana Hotel’s application for a text amendment and Conditional Use Permits that would allow non-hotel guests to access its restaurant, and expressed that support when the matter was before the Planning Commission. I urge you to consider and support Staff's recommendation to grant the hotel's appeal.

A small, neighborhood‐friendly restaurant will encourage residents and visitors to have a meal within walking distance of their homes. This is especially important to Santa Monicans like me who love seeing reduced dependence on the car and more biking and walking in my neighborhood. This hotel has always been and continues to be a great neighbor and asset to Santa Monica. It is well‐managed and operates quietly and responsibly. I have no doubt that they will continue this culture as they welcome more guests into their restaurant. Again, I ask you to grant the appeal and allow the Oceana to welcome its neighbors.

Thank you for your consideration.

Albin Gielicz
511 Montana
Item 6.A
11/23/21
40 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 8:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; David White; Clerk Mailbox; Denise Anderson-Warren Subject: City Council Agenda Item 6-A, Nov. 23, 2021 - OPPOSE the approval of Oceana Hotel CUPs and text amendment

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors supports our friends in the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Association (Wilmont) in their request to the Council (below) to NOT allow the intensification of a commercial venture in a residential neighborhood (Agenda Item 6-A). . ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
6-
A.

Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.08.020; and Appeals of Planning Commission's Denial of Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public at the Oceana Hotel’s Existing Restaurant Please protect our friends and neighbors in Wilmont.

We have read and considered the petition that has been submitted to the Council by Chair Elizabeth Van Denburgh and we urge you to consider how this change of use could impact the quality of life of the people who live near the Oceana.

You are their elected officials and they deserve your consideration and protection.

Thank you.

Tricia Crane
Chair, Northeast Neighbors
##
November 16, 2021
RE: Oppose approval of appeal of Oceana Conditional Use Permits and text amendment to intensify a nonconforming use in our residential neighborhood
____________________________________________________
Item 6.A
11/23/21
41 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) opposes the approval of the two CUPs to provide alcohol and meal services to the general public given the intensification of a nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. As well, the application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the nonconforming ordinance. The applicant's proposal is not an Interim Zoning Exemption based on the pandemic, but a permanent change to a nonconforming business in the Wilmont neighborhood. The intensification of Oceana in a residential neighborhood surrounded by multifamily housing and on an alley with multifamily housing will impact this neighborhood forever. There is no doubt that the Oceana which Hilton announced in January 2021 to be part of its LXR Hotels & Resorts will be marketing and intensifying its commercial impact on our neighborhood. This is not about a few neighbors stopping by for coffee, but the intensification of nonhotel guests' uses of the facility be it for dining, conferences, functions or other non-hotel guest activities.

The Oceana's 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings such as, "the license type ensures alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses;" and "will not increase the demand for parking on-site." The 1996 findings also note that "the proposed use will not adversely effect the welfare of the neighborhood residents in a significant manner in that the use will be allowed for a Type 70 restricted license, allowing alcohol service to registered guests of the hotel and their visitors only, thereby not significantly increasing hotel related impacts." In 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified. This proposal does exactly that. The use of a text amendment to change the code is custom designed for the Oceana; it allows a legal nonconforming hotel to change from serving guests Item 6.A
11/23/21
42 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
3 to serving the general public without intensifying the use under the nonconforming use provisions of the zoning code. This zoning change starts making "swiss cheese" or a "hole" in the existing nonconforming ordinance. This kind of action serves as a precedent for other nonconforming users to pursue other types of proposals that expand the commercialism in the neighborhood. This proposal will increase the incursion of the commercial environment into our residentially zoned neighborhood. And this is previously what the zoning code worked to stop.

This proposal is so narrowly crafted as to apply to only a single business, the Oceana Hotel; if it is adopted, what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the non-conforming ordinance with loopholes. The two parking studies noted, 2006 and 2015, focused on the number of cars of hotel visitors, not the number of cars visitors who will be driving to drinks and meals at 849 Ocean Blvd. will be pushing to this destination. The announcement in January 2021, of the Hilton XLR marketing relationship, will put one of the most powerful hospitality businesses to continue grow business - hotel guests and if this proposal is approved, non-hotel guests into our residential neighborhood. We have applauded the city’s work in ensuring short-term and corporate rentals do not replace our neighborhoods and residents with tourists. Please support the same policy with respect to the expansion of a non-conforming use in our neighborhood.

Willmont members, for the past three membership meetings, have approved the following resolution:
"Wilmont supports the halt of commercial invasion and expansion into residential neighborhoods and supports parking standards that allow existing residents to park on the street near their homes." Our residents continue to be surprised by the commercial invasion into our neighborhood including the 24/7 Palihouse at 3rd and Washington. What is next? The Sovereign and Charmont apartment buildings being sold so they can evict hundreds of residents and turn them into hotels? Please Item 6.A
11/23/21
43 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
4 support Wilmont and the neighborhood residents and reject the two CUPS and proposed text amendments.

Thank-you
Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Chair, Elizabeth Van Denburgh

Item 6.A
11/23/21
44 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Jordan Sholem <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 10:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6-A: please grant appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
I reside a block away from the Oceana Hotel. I have supported the hotel's application for Conditional Use Permits and the Text Amendment that would make the hotel restaurant -- a small dining space which is currently available only to hotel guests -- accessible to the public.

I understand that the Planning Commission denied the hotel's application in June, and that you are considering the hotel's appeal of that decision. I urge you to grant the appeal.

The north end of Ocean Avenue would benefit greatly from having a small, quiet neighborhood-friendly restaurant. We are a community of walkers and cyclists, and having a three-meal dining option a few blocks from our homes would be amazing.

The hotel's proposal will have virtually no public-facing impact. The hotel is merely looking to fill existing interior tables so they can run the restaurant efficiently and create bonds with their neighbors and community members.

I appreciate your consideration, and hope that you will vote to grant the appeal.

Many thanks and Happy Thanksgiving,
Jordan Sholem
Jordan Sholem
(310) 721 5678
Item 6.A
11/23/21
45 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Robert Meepos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 6:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 6-A

EXTERNAL
Item 6-A
Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members:

As a resident of Santa Monica and a fan of neighborhood-serving restaurants, I want to express my support City Staff's recommendation to grant the Oceana Hotel's appeal of the Planning Commission decision.

The Oceana is a low-profile, boutique hotel facing the quiet end of Ocean Avenue. It is the perfect fit for the area. The guests at the hotel are fortunate to have access to the hotel's great little restaurant.

For several years passersby have expressed interest in stopping by and having a meal there. It's unfortunate that at the present time they must be politely turned away in the hotel lobby. To remedy this situation, the hotel applied for the appropriate approvals to allow members of the public to enjoy the food and a wonderful view of Santa Monica Bay.

The Planning Commission's denial was a disappointment to me and my friends, so I was pleased that the Oceana persisted and filed an appeal.

The restaurant could be the quiet, low‐key dining spot that is conspicuously missing from the neighborhood. I hope you consider the simplicity of the hotel's Conditional Use Permit and Text Amendment applications, and I urge you to arrive at a positive vote on the appeal.

Thank you for your time.

Bobby Meepos
Robert Meepos, CPA
Managing Partner
Meepos & Company, CPA's
409 Washington Blvd.

Marina del Rey, CA 90292
B: 310-827-2525 x101
F: 310-827-4958
www.meeposcpa.com
Item 6.A
11/23/21
46 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Marni Zapakin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 7:37 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis
Cc: David White; councilmtgitems
Subject: Stopping the Oceana Hotel Opening their Restaurant and Bar to the General Public

EXTERNAL
Hello ‐ I'm a resident of 850 2nd Street. My apartment faces the alley that is shared with Oceana Hotel. I urge you to NOT amend Oceana's CUP to open their restaurant to the general public for food/alcohol service.

The hotel's garage already wakes me up as they receive deliveries early AM. If they open the restaurant/bar to the general public, the noise level will be extremely disturbing and not right for a residential area.

Please consider this when voting today.

Thank you,
Marni Zapakin
850 2nd Street Resident
Item 6.A
11/23/21
47 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Kaci Courtright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 9:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Nov 23rd, Agenda Item #6A for Oceana Hotel

EXTERNAL
I live on 3rd and Montana Ave, and I am strongly in favor of Oceana Hotel extending its use permits so that neighbors of the hotel can eat and drink in its restaurant.

I'd like to bring to attention that R3 zoning permits "community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment." Well, this hotel and its restaurant are certainly appropriate and fit all qualifications.

At the present, the nearest restaurant and bar is over a half a mile away. We residents need a place to walk to for a nice meal. We deserve the right to enjoy Oceana's offerings just as much as any visitor of the hotel. I disagree that it would bring undesirable traffic. This area already suffers from added pedestrians due to the sandy walking path and its proximity to the pier, and reckless driving has always been an issue which is a matter to be monitored by the police, not Oceana Hotel, which has a valet.

If older, pre‐existing residents of Santa Monica are encouraging a "no", then I can assure City Council that it would be a mistake to listen to them ‐ young and old, new and long‐time residents can all benefit from this adaptation of use permit. It's people who say no to change that stunt Santa Monica's progress and prevent fellow neighbors from enjoying a nice meal at a nearby facility. Just because it is open to the public doesn't mean that you have to go, it only means that you have the option; and it wouldn't be fair to remove someone else's option.

Let's support local businesses. Let's share a meal together. Please vote "Yes" to approve the opening of this restaurant to local residents.

Thank you.
‐‐
Kaci Courtright
Item 6.A
11/23/21
48 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
David Rindlaub
[email protected]
November 23rd, 2021

VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90401
[email protected]
Re: November 23 5:30 PM Agenda Item 6 - 849 Ocean Avenue Dear Councilmembers:

I urge you to not override judgement of planning commission and not approve the proposed ordinance (agenda item referenced above)
Adopting this ordinance would result in the following impacts, incompatible with the current residential and recreational character of the neighborhood. I reside on the opposite side of the same block as the Oceana Hotel on 2nd St.:
- Increased street parking demand, impacting opportunity for recreational use of Palisades Park and the beach. The hotel already permanently occupies what would otherwise be street parking area for valet use.
- Increased demand and cueing of vehicles for valet parking ingress egress with increased blocking of traffic including the bicycle traffic lane. - Increased vehicle traffic by valet service circling block to access the hotel garage using Montana Ave, 2nd St or 1st Court, and Idaho Ave. Each valet use drives around the block either through the residential alley (1st Court) or residential street (2nd St) to access the hotel’s parking garage. - Increased impact of services (deliveries and trash removal) Sincerely,
David Rindlaub
Item 6.A
11/23/21
49 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:21 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Cc: David White; Joseph Lawrence; Jing Yeo; Rachel Kwok; Heidi von Tongeln; councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Subject: Agenda Item 6A - Oceana Hotel Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Hon. Councilmembers,
Tonight, you are being asked to approve a CEQA exemption for this project (Class 1 Exemption; CEQA Guidelines section 15301). According to the staff report, the project will not cause environmental impacts because "the project would not result in any proposed or future expansion of the restaurant's existing kitchen, dining room, and seating capacity" (staff report at p. 32).

This is incorrect. The whole point of the requested entitlements is to allow more customers to dine at the restaurant, which means that more people will be traveling to the hotel relative to baseline conditions. The impacts of this increased vehicular travel have not been studied.

Accordingly, common sense tells us that the new vehicle trips will have the potential to cause conflicts with LUCE Policies, including (but not limited to) LU2.5 ("Achieve vehicle trip reduction through comprehensive strategies") and T15.1 ("Reduce automobile trips starting or ending in Santa Monica, especially during congested periods, with the goal of keeping peak trips at or below 2009 levels").

At the very least, we have a duty to study these potential impacts so that we can make informed decisions about traffic impacts in our community (and air quality, GHG, and parking impacts). There is no need to rush through this process without completing the due diligence that our community deserves.

Best,
Ellis Raskin
Item 6.A
11/23/21
50 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:10 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White
Subject: City Council Meeting, 11/23/21, Item 6A -- Appeal by Ocean Hotel, a nonconforming use in Wilmont since 1990 of two CUPs and text amendment to allow food and beverage service to the public which were denied by Planning Commission – DENY APPEAL

EXTERNAL
November 21, 2021
Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
The appeal of the Oceana Hotel should be denied for the following reasons:
 This is a classic example of spot zoning as described by three Planning Commissioners.  It is a noncormforming 24/7 hotel in a residential R3 zone that is trying to intensify and further commercialize a residential area.  As recently as 2015, the Council determined that existing nonconforming operations should not be intensified.  These CUPs and text amendment do exactly that.  The staff report focuses on the restaurants staying at the same number of seats but the issue is the increase in occupancy and turnover of those seats.  This increase in occupancy and turnover in the restaurant intensifies the commercialism in the neighborhood through more deliveries, more staff, more employee and customer parking in neighborhood (preferred parking only at night on Idaho with no preferred parking on Montana, Ocean (with Oceana taking half the block of Ocean with its valet parking zone) and 2nd Street. and increased use of the garage squeaky gates.  The staff report continues to state the impact on the neighborhood will be insignificant with no data, no comparison to similar public restaurants and no admitting this 4‐5 star hotel  (room rates from $600 ‐$1,000) will price out most neighbors.  Once the damage is done, there is no mitigation or return for the residents of the Wilmont neighborhood,  Let’s remember the 1996 CUP specifically based its conclusions on granting a license on findings such as “the license type ensure alcohol service will be limited to hotel guests and their visitors thereby minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses” Item 6.A
11/23/21
51 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
3  Neighbors and many residents have provided their feedback that the intensification of the Oceana Hotel will impact parking, noise and traffic.  The residents of 850 2nd Street, the apartment building across the alley have outlined that deliveries start occurring at 6:30 am and late into the night, parking garage gates are noisy during 24/7, staff are talking and smoking in alley and there is no current process/recourse for these issues to be resolved or addressed.  How would you like to live across the alley from this?  There is currently no city process nor is there a planned process that helps these residents “manage potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood” outlined in this staff report.  Once again, the promise of enforcement of STOAs and CUPs are made but cannot be delivered on by the city.  Code enforcement is understaffed, redeployed to help at the pier, is not staffed for nights or weekends and often cannot respond quickly enough when many of the issues occur.
 Finally, this kind of action serves as a precedent to other nonconforming users.  If adopted what is to prevent other businesses to lobby for the enactment of similar exemptions, riddling the non‐conforming ordinance with loopholes.  The nonconforming ordinance as it exists is simple and clear.  The application for the zone text amendment should be denied because there is no need to create an exemption that guts the clear purpose of the ordinance.

The LUCE’s first principle is “Preserve the Neighborhoods. Many ran on supporting and protecting residents’ neighborhoods. The Oceana Hotel has exceeded its right as a non‐conforming hotel to ask for any intensification in the Wilmont neighborhood and this appeal should be denied.

Thank‐you
Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)

Item 6.A
11/23/21
52 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Valerie Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; David Martin; Roxanne Tanemori
Subject: City Council 2021-11-23, Item 6-A Oceana

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

I have been a Wilmont resident for more than 20 years.

One of the things I like most about living in Wilmont is being able to walk to neighborhood dining. Opening the restaurant in the Oceana Hotel to include patrons who are not hotel guests would expand dining opportunities for Wilmont residents without making any other impact on the neighborhood! It would allow the neighbors who have wanted to dine at that restaurant for years to finally enjoy this quiet and casual dining experience close to their homes.

This is a unique opportunity to enhance the neighborhood. Right now, it's especially important to give us new places, like this, to go as we approach a more normal existence.

Please grant the applicant's appeals of the Planning Commission’s denial of the two CUPS and approve the full application as your Staff has recommended.

Thank you.

Valerie Griffin
Item 6.A
11/23/21
53 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Rosemary Sostarich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6A City Council Mtg 11/23/21

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
I am asking you to deny the appeal of the Oceana Hotel restaurant and bar expansion. Please deny this intensification of a non‐conforming 24/7 hotel in an R3 neighborhood.

I have lived in Santa Monica since the 1970s. I have seen a lot of changes in this city I love. Some of the changes were excellent and some had me wondering what the heck they were thinking. Then there were those decisions made that turned out not in the best interest of the city and the residents. This appeal by the Oceana is one of them.

We have so many restaurants that we lost during the pandemic. Some have come back and others couldn’t do it. We need to support the restaurants that are struggling to survive. Those are the ones we can support. The Oceana is an expensive boutique hotel asking us to support them when they have never been supportive of the neighborhood since they opened.

Please deny their appeal. Thank you.

Rosemary Sostarich
900 Black Ocean Ave.

Item 6.A
11/23/21
54 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: George Garlock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 4:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6-A 849 Ocean Avenue applicant & property owner OCBSM Owner LLC

EXTERNAL
November 23, 2021
Mayor Himmelrich and City Councilmembers,
As a local resident for the past seventeen years and retired Architect residing at 701 Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica, I respectfully request you grant this applicant's appeal for this very worthy improvement to our community. Keeping in the spirit of Santa Monica to be a walking city not a driving city this restaurant offers neighbors like myself and my wife an alternative to getting in our cars and driving to dinner when such a lovely amenity exists a block away. The small number of local users of this restaurant would have minimal or no measurable impact on the parking at the Oceana Hotel.

In keeping with our city's walkable goals please grant approval of the applicant's appeal.

George F Garlock
701 Ocean Avenue #107
Santa Monic, Ca 90402
Cell: 702 278‐6229
Item 6.A
11/23/21
55 of 55 Item 6.A
11/23/21

Santa Monica City CouncilApril 26, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
April 26, 2022