CITY OF DANA POINT AGENDA REPORT URSULA LUNA-REYNOSA, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Transcription

1 10/07/14 Page 1 Item #10 CITY OF DANA POINT AGENDA REPORT Reviewed By: DH _X_ CM _X_ CA _X_ DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2014 TO: FROM: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL URSULA LUNA-REYNOSA, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP ), VARIANCE (V ), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP ) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP ) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 248,850 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL WITH 250 ROOMS THAT WILL RANGE FROM TWO TO FIVE STORIES IN HEIGHT. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT AND TO DEVIATE FROM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS THROUGH A SHARED PARKING AND VALET PROGRAM. A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) HAS BEEN PREPARED TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DANA POINT HARBOR DRIVE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE COASTAL COUPLET COMMERCIAL (C-CPC) AND COASTAL VISITOR COMMERCIAL (C-VC) ZONES OF THE DANA POINT SPECIFIC PLAN. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council take the following action: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission action and adopt Resolution No XX denying CDP , Variance V , CUP and SDP entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DANA POINT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION S DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP ), VARIANCE (V ), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP ) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP ) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 248,850 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL WITH 250 ROOMS THAT WILL RANGE FROM TWO TO

2 10/07/14 Page 2 Item #10 BACKGROUND: FIVE STORIES IN HEIGHT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DANA POINT HARBOR DRIVE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE COASTAL COUPLET COMMERCIAL (C-CPC) AND COASTAL VISITOR COMMERCIAL (C-VC) ZONES OF THE DANA POINT SPECIFIC PLAN. In December 2009, the project applicant, Michael Draz/Beverly Hills Hospitality Group (the Applicant ), submitted a request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Variance, Conditional Use Permit and a Site Development Permit, for demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a new 258 room hotel that will range from two to five stories in height (the Project ). The application included a Variance to exceed the maximum allowable building height and to deviate from some of the required setbacks, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow an alternative to off-street parking regulations as well as implementation of a valet parking program for the hotel and accessory uses. A robust public process provided numerous opportunities for the community to provide input and public testimony on the Project as follows: June 28, 2011 Scoping Meeting July 24 September 6, day EIR public review and comment period November 18, 2013 Planning Commission Study Session November 16, 2013 On Site Planning Commission Special Meeting December 9, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing February 10, 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 14, 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing As a result of the comments received at the various public meetings, the Project underwent numerous design changes since the initial application. The version of the Project that was considered by the Planning Commission on April 14, 2014 is referred to as Modified Option B. At the conclusion of the April 14, 2014 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission voted 4-0 approving Resolution to deny Modified Option B which is attached as Supporting Document D. On April 28, 2014, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission denial action. The appeal letter is attached as Supporting Document E. On September 16, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission s decision to deny the project. The staff report prepared for this meeting is attached as Supporting Document B, incorporated herein for your reference. At the City Council meeting, the applicant made a presentation which included some additional materials and further possible changes to Modified Option B. Following the presentation, public testimony was taken and at the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council voted to continue the public hearing until October 7, 2014.

3 10/07/14 Page 3 Item #10 DISCUSSION: The Lead Project and the Modified Option B Project have both been designed to maximize room count and provide certain amenities in order to achieve a 4-star status for a potential hotel. Like the Lead Project, the Modified Option B Project has the same basic form and mimics the L shape of the lots that were combined for the site. While the applicant has worked to mitigate some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the community through the reduction in the number of rooms, building height, massing, and number of setback variances, the redesign of the Proposed Project/Modified Option B, still requires variances for building height and setbacks. Following the September 16 City Council hearing, the applicant submitted additional material that includes their intent to remove the fourth floor along the west wing of Modified Option B. This material is attached as Supporting Document F. The fourth floor includes 44 rooms and with its removal, the total room count is dropped to 164 and the building height would be reduced to Even with these reductions, the project would still require a height and setback variance and the hotel form would still closely follow the property lines. In other words, the form of the hotel is being dictated by the property lines of the assembled parcels. As the room count gets diminished with proposed revisions, there is an opportunity for the project to be redesigned with the objective of achieving a better overall design and form for the site. If the project had started as a 164 room project, it is likely that the design and site layout would be dramatically different than the proposed project. It is in the long-term benefit of the community to ensure that the project is designed to achieve the best possible form, scale and design for this important gateway intersection. A redesigned project could enable the project to strictly comply with the development standards. Perhaps of more importance, a redesigned project could enable the project to more appropriately conform to the applicable design guidelines resulting in a project that is consistent with the scale and character of Dana Point. To achieve these objectives the Applicant would need to submit a new project to the City. NOTIFICATION: Notices for the September 16, 2014 City Council Public Hearing were sent to property owners within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the project site. The notice was also published in the Orange County Register. In addition, notices were posted at the Dana Point City Hall, Dana Point Post Office, Capistrano Beach Post Office, and San Juan Capistrano Library (Dana Point Library is closed). Copies of the Staff Report were mailed to the Applicant/appellant prior to the September 16 City Council meeting. At the conclusion of the September 16, 2014 meeting, the item was continued to next regularly scheduled City Council meeting of October 7, FISCAL IMPACT: The appellant has paid the costs associated with the request for an appeal per the Schedule of Services Fee Charges adopted by City Council Resolution No

4 10/07/14 Page 4 Item #10 STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: In compliance with the Strategic Plan to evaluate land use issues to ensure goals, policies and programs of the General Plan reflect the community vision and mission, the proposed action supports existing Zoning Code regulations. ACTION DOCUMENTS: Page No. A. Adopt CC Resolution No xx upholding the decision by the Planning Commission and deny CDP , V , CUP and SDP ;... 5 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: B. City Council Report and attachments thereto dated September 16, 2014 (Hardcopies provided to City Council)... 8 C. City Council Action Agenda dated September 16, D. Planning Commission Resolution No E. Letter of Appeal dated April 28, F. Comparison Matrix Submitted by Applicant G. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 14, H. Final Environmental Impact Report SCH# (Available electronically:

5 10/07/14 Page 5 Item #10 ACTION DOCUMENT A RESOLUTION NO xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DANA POINT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION S DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP ), VARIANCE (V ), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP ) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP ) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 248,850 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL WITH 250 ROOMS THAT WILL RANGE FROM TWO TO FIVE STORIES IN HEIGHT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DANA POINT HARBOR DRIVE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE COASTAL COUPLET COMMERCIAL (C-CPC) AND COASTAL VISITOR COMMERCIAL (C-VC) ZONES OF THE DANA POINT SPECIFIC PLAN. Applicant: Michael Draz/Beverly Hills Hospitality Group The City Council for the City of Dana Point does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 11 th day of November, 2013, hold a duly noticed public meeting at the subject site and as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of November, 2013, hold a duly noticed public study session regarding the project as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 9 th day of December, 2013 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Project and continued the public hearing to a date certain of February 10, 2014 and again continued the public hearing to a date certain of April 14, 2014 and denied the application; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2014 an appeal was filed with the City Clerk by Michael Draz/Beverly Hills Hospitality Group; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on September 16, 2014 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the appeal of Coastal Development Permit CDP , Variance V , Conditional Use Permit CUP and Site Development Permit SDP and continued the public hearing to a date certain of October 7, 2014; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, said Council considered all factors relating to the appeal of Coastal Development Permit CDP , Variance V , Conditional Use Permit CUP and Site Development Permit SDP ; and

6 10/07/14 Page 6 Item #10 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO CDP , V , CUP AND SDP PAGE 2 WHEREAS, although a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR SCH# ) was prepared for the proposed project and the City considered the EIR in its review of the proposed project, the City is not taking any action on or certifying the EIR because the City is denying the proposed project and pursuant to CEQA does not have to take action on the EIR when it disapproves a proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Dana Point as follows; Section 1. The above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. The City Council having considered all testimony and written materials finds the appeal without merit and specifically rejects appellant s arguments that the project should be approved. Section 3. The City Council adopts the findings listed on Exhibit A of this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. The City Council denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission s denial of Coastal Development Permit CDP , Variance V , Conditional Use Permit CUP and Site Development Permit SDP Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7 th day of October, Lisa Bartlett, Mayor City Council ATTEST: Kathy M. Ward, City Clerk

7 10/07/14 Page 7 Item #10 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO CDP , V , CUP AND SDP PAGE 7 Exhibit A Coastal Development Permit CDP Variance V Conditional Use Pemit CUP Site Development Permit SDP Findings 1. The use or project proposed is inconsistent with the Dana Point Specific Plan which serves as the General Plan in this area in that the proposed building height and setbacks do not conform to the development regulations and development guidelines of the Dana Point Specific Plan. 2. The improvements proposed by the application are not consistent with the applicable Zoning Code in that, the building s height and setbacks addressed as part of this application do not conform to the applicable development standards. 3. The EIR identified unavoidable and potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated Aesthetics and Land Use. Mitigation measures and/or project design features contained within the EIR will not mitigate the potentially significant impacts of the Project and the benefits of the Project did not outweigh the environmental risks involved with the Project. 4. General Welfare. The application would result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health and safety and general welfare. 5. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject building site which, when applicable zoning regulations are strictly applied, that deprive the subject building site of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and subject to the same zoning regulations. 6. Approval of the variance application would constitute a grant of special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to the same zoning regulations.

8 10/07/14 Page 8 Item #10 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT B CITY COUNCIL REPORT DATED 9/16/14 AND ATTACHMENTS THERETO (Public may view this report on City s website with the URL:

9 10/07/14 Page 9 Item #10 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT C

10 10/07/14 Page 10 Item #10

11 10/07/14 Page 11 Item #10 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT D

12 10/07/14 Page 12 Item #10

13 10/07/14 Page 13 Item #10

14 10/07/14 Page 14 Item #10 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT E

15 10/07/14 Page 15 Item #10 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT F

16 10/07/14 Page 16 Item #10 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT G

17 10/07/14 Page 17 Item #10

18 10/07/14 Page 18 Item #10

19 10/07/14 Page 19 Item #10

20 10/07/14 Page 20 Item #10

21 10/07/14 Page 21 Item #10

22 10/07/14 Page 22 Item #10