Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

This report recommends that the City Council approve a request by Belvedere Hotels and Resorts, LLC to amend Planned Development No. 97-4. The original Planned Development was approved in 1998 for a 119-room extended stay hotel. The requested amendment would allow the conversion of two hotel rooms into a conference room. The proposed amendment would also memorialize a 1999 substantial conformance finding that allowed the construction of a 101-room extended stay hotel with incidental lounge and meeting facilities. If approved, the proposed amendment would require modifications to the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-17, which allows the hotel to sell alcoholic beverages. This report accordingly recommends that the Council approve an amendment to that conditional use permit and extend the permit beyond its current trial period, which will end in January 2004.

Property Location: The subject property is located at 322 N. Pass Avenue at the intersection with Oak Street (Exhibit A).

Zoning: The subject property is zoned Planned Development No. 97-4. This Planned Development (PD) was approved in 1998 to allow the subject property to be developed with a Homestead Village extended-stay hotel. Former Community Development Director Robert Tague made a finding in 1999 that the Graciela hotel as built today was in substantial conformance with the original PD. Adjacent and abutting properties are zoned MDR-5 Media District Residential Multiple High Density, R-4 Residential Multiple Medium Density, C-2 Commercial Limited Business, and Planned Development No. 94-8 (Warner Bros. Ranch Facility Master Plan).

General Plan Designation: The subject property is designated as Multiple Family Medium Density Residential in the General Plan Land Use Element. The zoning is consistent with this land use designation.

Property Dimensions: The subject property is approximately 250 feet wide and 129 feet deep with a site area of approximately 32,615 square feet.

Street Classification: Pass Avenue is classified as a secondary arterial street and Oak Street is classified as a collector street in the General Plan Circulation Element.

Paved Width of Street: Pass Avenue has a 90-foot right-of-way with a paved street width of approximately 65 feet. Oak Street has a 65-foot right-of-way with a paved street width of approximately 35 feet. Pass Avenue has two southbound lanes and two northbound lanes with a center turning lane and no street parking in front of the subject property. Oak Street has one eastbound and one westbound lane with street parking directly in front of the subject property but not across the street.

Sidewalk/Parkway Width: The sidewalk is approximately 12 to 13 feet wide on both sides of Pass Avenue, including a landscaped parkway area along the subject property. The sidewalk and parkway are approximately 15 feet wide on both sides of Oak Street.

Current Development of the Site: The project site is developed with the Graciela Burbank extended-stay hotel, which includes 101 hotel guest rooms and incidental lounge and meeting facilities. The original hotel for which the PD approval was given was to be a 119-room Homestead Village extended-stay hotel. The hotel was not envisioned at that time to include any on-site food service, lounge, or meeting facilities. Subsequent to the PD approval, the property was sold to the applicant, who sought approval from the City to proceed with development of the Graciela hotel under the previous PD approval. A 1999 substantial conformance finding by then-Community Development Director Robert Tague approved the hotel to be built as it exists today under the terms of the original PD. As such, the subject PD amendment would memorialize the existing hotel and incorporate the modification requested by the applicant (Exhibits B-1 and B-2). The following table outlines the differences between the existing hotel and those original PD conditions of approval (Exhibit C) that were specifically related to development standards. The proposed amended conditions of approval for this PD amendment reflect the current hotel building (Exhibit B-3).

*OE-GSF is office-equivalent gross square footage � see Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-2107(a)

The Graciela has been the subject of controversy and debate as a result of the Director�s substantial conformance finding to allow kitchen, lounge, and meeting facilities at the hotel. This issue is discussed in detail in a City Council staff report that was prepared in response to concerns raised during public hearings for the Graciela�s conditional use permit application to sell alcoholic beverages at the hotel (see below). That report, dated December 4, 2001, is attached hereto as Exhibit D to provide additional background information on the history of the project.

The Graciela has a kitchen located in the subterranean parking garage to provide on-site food preparation for room service, the lounge area, and for meetings held at the hotel. On the ground floor of the hotel are a lobby of about 378 square feet, a lounge area of about 1,135 square feet, and a breakfast/meeting room of about 970 square feet (indicated as �meeting room� and �buffet� on the attached plans). The lounge area includes a small bar and sofas, chairs, and tables for dining. The breakfast/meeting room has a built-in room divider to allow it to be used as two smaller meeting rooms, and is used to serve breakfast to hotel guests and for meetings, parties, luncheons, and other such events hosted by guests of the hotel and outside groups and organizations. Behind the breakfast room is an outdoor patio area. The fourth (top) floor of the hotel has a small gym for use by hotel guests and an outdoor terrace with a spa.

PD Amendment Project Description: The applicant is proposing to convert two of the hotel guest rooms on the ground floor near the lobby into a single conference room of approximately 490 square feet, with a maximum capacity of 30-35 people (Exhibits B-1 and B-2). The wall between the two rooms would be removed, and the bathroom of one of the rooms would be converted to a small pantry area to serve the meeting room. The other bathroom would remain. The meeting room would have fold-up �Murphy� beds along one wall such that the room could be used as a guest room if necessary. The conference room alone is approximately 490 square feet; the total work area including the meeting room, bathroom, and new pantry is about 756 gross square feet. No additional square footage would be added to the existing building and no exterior modifications would occur.

The applicant originally approached staff regarding the subject request in 2002 in conjunction with a request to amend the conditional use permit (CUP) that allows alcohol service at the hotel (see below). Staff analyzed the request in light of the original PD approval, the substantial conformance finding, and the potential impacts that could result from allowing the additional meeting space, especially with regard to traffic and parking. The proposed project would increase the meeting space available at the hotel and would increase opportunities for non-hotel guests to travel to the hotel. As such, staff was concerned that allowing the expansion of the existing meeting space could generate additional traffic and parking demand. A substantial conformance finding that approves physical changes to a PD project cannot be issued for a trial period or revoked at a later time if it is determined that the change has created impacts on surrounding properties. Staff determined that the proposed alterations were not in substantial conformance with the original project approval or the subsequent substantial conformance finding, and advised the applicant that a Planned Development and Development Agreement amendment would be required.

Subsequent to that request, the hotel apparently began using the two hotel rooms as two separate conference rooms rather than as hotel guest rooms, and Murphy beds have already been installed in one of the rooms. While this conversion was not approved by the City, staff has refrained from taking any enforcement action on this issue pending the outcome of the subject application. If this PD amendment is denied by the City Council, the hotel would be required to convert the two rooms back into permanent hotel guest rooms and stop using them for meetings or events.

Staff notes that although the rooms have been in use, which increases the meeting space at the hotel over that which was approved by the 1999 substantial conformance finding, the analysis conducted in this report is based only upon the total number of persons attending events at the hotel with an assumption of 99 hotel rooms. The parking and traffic studies are based only upon the total number of persons, regardless of how those people are using the interior space of the hotel. Although the additional meeting space increases the hotel�s capacity for meetings and events today, the analysis is based upon the future condition that would be approved by this PD amendment. The conclusions would therefore be the same whether or not the two rooms were currently being utilized for meetings.

Staff further notes, however, that the environmental baseline utilized for environmental analysis assumed that the two rooms were still being utilized as hotel guest rooms, not as meeting rooms. Since use of the space for meetings rather than as hotel guest rooms has the potential for greater impacts, using a baseline assumption of two hotel guest rooms better captures the potential impacts of converting the two rooms into meeting space.

Substantial Conformance Finding: As noted above, this PD amendment would also memorialize and incorporate the 1999 substantial conformance finding that allowed the hotel to be built as it exists today. Because the existing facility is based upon the substantial conformance finding in addition to the original conditions of approval, it would be difficult to amend the PD without formally recognizing the project as it exists today and amending the PD conditions of approval accordingly. In addition to the plans showing the proposed work (Exhibit B-2), the applicant has submitted as-built plans for the entire hotel facility (Exhibit B-3). The proposed conditions of approval would amend the original conditions and incorporate the as-built plans such that the PD would formally recognize the hotel as it exists today. This amendment and any future amendments would then use the hotel as now built as the baseline, rather than the original entitlements and project description.

Although staff is proposing that this PD amendment incorporate new conditions of approval to memorialize the hotel as it exists, it is important to note that the Council�s discretion in requiring changes to the existing facility is limited. The Graciela received a finding of substantial conformance, was issued building permits based upon that finding, and constructed the existing hotel consistent with those permits. Therefore, the Graciela has certain vested rights in the existing structure. Some of the staff proposed conditions of approval would impose operating restrictions on the hotel that are not in place today, and would prohibit certain future actions, but would not require any physical modifications to the existing facility beyond those requested by the applicant. However, staff further notes that the PD and Development Agreement processes provide an opportunity for open negotiation between an applicant and the City Council in achieving a project that provides benefits to both the applicant and the community.

Existing CUP for Alcohol: On January 29, 2002, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-17 on appeal from the Planning Board to allow the Graciela to serve alcoholic beverages in conjunction with hotel room service and food service throughout the hotel, including the lounge area, and from in-room self-service bars. One of the conditions placed upon the CUP by the Council prohibited the hosting �cocktail parties, hosted meals, or other similar pre-planned social gatherings in the public areas of the subject property.� At the City Council meeting of October 29, 2002, the CUP was brought before the City Council for a six-month review as required by the conditions of approval. During the Council meeting, a representative of the Graciela requested that the Council consider deleting the above condition of approval such that the hotel would be permitted to host luncheons, business meetings, dinners, and other similar gatherings in the public areas of the hotel. On November 26, 2002, the City Council approved the applicant�s amendment request. The final amended conditions of approval are attached as Exhibit E. The CUP includes conditions regarding the time and manner in which alcohol may be served, and includes additional conditions related to operating standards for the hotel as related to alcoholic beverages.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-17 was originally approved subject to a one year trial period, after which the permit would sunset and become ineffective unless extended by the Council. The purpose of the trial period was for the Council to determine whether the service of alcoholic beverages resulted in any detrimental impacts on surrounding properties or created any incompatibilities with nearby residential uses. The CUP would have expired in January 2003, but was extended by the Council at the November 26, 2002 hearing until January 31, 2004. Given the proximity to the permit�s expiration, staff is recommending that the Council act in addition to amending the CUP to renew the CUP for an additional approximate one-year trial period until January 31, 2005. This would eliminate the need for staff to bring this item back to the Council in one month.[1]

Typically, an amendment to the conditions of approval of a CUP requires the permittee to file an application and go through the normal CUP process, including a public hearing before the Planning Board. In this case, however, the CUP is already under the jurisdiction of the City Council due to the annual renewal requirement. Further, the Council is the approving body for the PD amendment that may conflict with the existing CUP. It may be inappropriate for the Planning Board to approve modifications to a CUP that are dependent upon the City Council�s adoption of a PD amendment. Therefore, staff believes that it is appropriate for the Council to consider amending the CUP at the time that the PD is considered. The public hearing has been noticed as a public hearing for consideration of both the PD and CUP amendments, including renewal of the CUP.

Conflicting CUP Conditions: Due to a conflict with the proposed PD conditions, staff recommends that the Council eliminate one CUP condition, if the Council elects to approve the PD amendment. Specifically, condition no. 9 limits the number of persons that may attend events at the hotel to 75 people. As discussed later in this report, the proposed PD conditions would conflict with this existing condition. Although it could be replaced with an amended condition, this requirement relates to the overall operation of the hotel as well as to alcohol service, and staff believes that it is more appropriate for the condition to be part of the PD that provides the zoning for the property. Staff is also recommending that variations of several other CUP conditions be incorporated into the amended PD conditions to ensure that the ongoing operational standards are addressed by the underlying zoning in the event that the CUP is no longer in place. These conditions are: no. 4 � advertising of lounge area, no. 8 � restriction on food service, no. 10 � restriction on outdoor event hours, no. 11 � restriction on outdoor noise, no. 12 � valet service requirement, and no. 13 � shuttle service requirement. Staff is proposing to modify condition no. 11 to be more restrictive, such that music and other amplified sound would not be permitted in any outdoor area as opposed to only restricting noise on the outdoor terrace. These affected conditions would be removed from the CUP and found only in the PD. If the Council decides to deny the PD amendment, staff would recommend retaining all of these conditions as part of the CUP.

Municipal Code Conformance: Planned Development No. 97-4 provides the zoning for the subject property. Development of the property is therefore governed by the PD conditions of approval and by the 1999 substantial conformance finding. The proposed project to convert two hotel rooms would not result in any physical modifications to the exterior of the structure, the addition of any square footage, or any changes to the primary use of the property as an extended-stay hotel.

The only development standard issue that is raised as part of the subject request is the provision of parking for the expanded meeting space. The parking demand for a small meeting room is greater than that of two hotel guest rooms, as reflected by the Burbank Municipal Code requirements for hotels (1 space per room) versus places of public assembly (1 space per 5 fixed seats and/or 1 space per 28.6 square feet of area without fixed seats). Because the project site is zoned as a PD, there is an opportunity to provide flexibility in the number of required parking spaces to take advantage of the shared parking arrangement between the hotel and meeting room uses and specific parking demand patterns at this hotel. As discussed later in this report, a parking study was conducted to gain an accurate picture of the expected parking demand after the proposed room conversion.

Public Correspondence: Prior to and during the Planning Board hearing for the PD amendment, staff received three letters from nearby residents regarding the subject application (Exhibits F-1 through F-3). The residents generally expressed their opposition to the subject request, stated their concerns about the history and evolution of the hotel project, and questioned the ability of the hotel to provide adequate on-site parking for the expanded meeting space.

Surrounding Properties: The subject property is surrounded by commercial and multiple family residential uses. The hotel is compatible with surrounding uses and has not had any detrimental impacts on neighboring properties. Between the City Council�s renewal of the alcohol CUP in November 2002 and the mailing of the public notice for the Planning Board hearing for this project in October 2003, staff received no complaints from residents regarding the hotel or any impacts that it may be having on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is not aware of any problems related to the hotel�s service of alcoholic beverages or any adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

An issue recently arose concerning delivery vehicles parking in no parking zones on Oak Street to make deliveries to the hotel. This matter was discussed with Graciela representatives, the Police Department, and the Public Works Department, and has been resolved. The proposed conditions of approval reinforce the need for delivery vehicles to park legally during deliveries and address the use of the driveway area for delivery purposes.

To determine the parking demand of the existing hotel and the potential increased demand resulting from the subject request, staff retained the services of Kaku Associates to conduct a parking study at the hotel (Exhibit G). The purpose of the study was to determine whether the existing parking supply at the hotel is adequate to serve existing and potential future needs, if the subject request were approved.[2]

Hotel staff and room occupancy records indicated that weekday evenings represent the peak parking demand period at the hotel, when occupancy rates are at their highest and scheduled evening events occur. Working with hotel staff, Kaku identified three weekdays in late June and early July 2003 on which to conduct parking utilization surveys. The surveys were conducted on a weekday evening with no scheduled event to determine a baseline, on a weekday evening with a relatively small scheduled event with 15 attendees, and a weekday evening with a relatively large scheduled event with 67 attendees. Kaku staff conducted parking utilization surveys by physically counting the number of vehicles parked in the Graciela garage every 30 minutes from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. The peak parking demand observed over all three survey days was on a Wednesday evening during the large event of 67 attendees, where 64 parking spaces (about 60 percent) were occupied.

In order to further document current parking demand and usage patterns, Kaku prepared survey questionnaires that were distributed to hotel guests, event/meeting room attendees, lounge patrons, and hotel employees for several weeks in June and July 2003. Copies of the actual questionnaires and documentation of the responses are included in the appendices of the attached parking study. Summaries of the responses are included in the main text of the parking study.

Based upon the survey responses and actual parking counts, Kaku developed a parking model to describe the parking demand patterns at the Graciela. As discussed in the study, the raw demand calculations were adjusted based upon several factors, including the percentage of lounge and meeting room users who were hotel guests (and would hence not create any additional parking demand), time factor ratios (to account for people arriving at and departing from events at various times), and automobile mode split factors (to account for the percentage of hotel guests with their own vehicle on the site, and for more than one lounge patron or meeting attendee arriving in the same vehicle).

Based upon this parking model, Kaku determined that the peak parking demand at the Graciela would be expected to be 130 parking spaces. This demand assumes that the hotel is at full capacity with 99 rooms occupied, that both the lounge area and meeting space contain the maximum number of people allowed under Building Code occupancy standards (75 people in the lounge area and 98 people in the existing and proposed meeting rooms), and that an average employee shift is on duty (13 people). As noted in the parking study, such a full capacity occurrence would be quite rare, and day to day parking demand at the hotel would likely be substantially lower. Although the existing conditional use permit on the property limits the number of event attendees to 75 people, staff determined that the parking analysis should reflect the maximum potential occupancy of the building in the event that the condition of approval were removed or changed at a future time, as recommended in the subject PD amendment.

With 107 garage parking spaces, the Graciela would appear to be 23 parking spaces short of satisfying the maximum possible demand. However, in their study of the Graciela�s parking garage, Kaku determined that up to 140 vehicles could be effectively parked in the garage through the use of stack parking by a valet service. To determine the point at which a valet service would be required, staff used the adjustment factors developed by Kaku to calculate how many event attendees would generate a parking demand of 107 spaces, assuming full occupancy of the hotel and lounge area and an average number of employees. Staff determined that 64 event attendees would create a parking demand of 107 spaces. Table 4 from the parking study (found on page 13 of the study) is recreated below with this substitution for the number of event attendees:

As a result of this determination, staff initially proposed a condition of approval that would require the hotel to provide a valet service at any time the total number of attendees at one or more scheduled events exceeded 64 people, but not at other times. This would have allowed the hotel to use a self-parking system when the parking demand was not expected to exceed the number of spaces in the garage. After further consideration however, staff revised the recommendation prior to the Planning Board hearing, and recommended that a valet parking service be required at all times regardless of the number of event attendees, consistent with the existing CUP condition. Staff believes that requiring a valet service at certain times but not others presents an enforcement difficulty, as no one other than the Graciela staff would know if a valet service was truly required at any given time. Requiring a valet service at all times allows for straightforward and simple enforcement and ensures that the additional stack-parking capacity of the garage will always be available in case it is unexpectedly needed.

Using the same methodology described above, staff determined that 112 event attendees would create a parking demand of 140 spaces, the absolute maximum that could be accommodated on-site even with the use of a valet parking system. Table 4 from the parking study is again recreated below with a substitution for the maximum number of event attendees:

A proposed condition of approval would prohibit the hotel from scheduling any event or combination of events that would result in more than 112 event attendees being on-site at any given time. This would ensure that all parking could be accommodated on-site through the use of a valet service. Staff notes that 112 event attendees demanding 140 parking spaces exceeds the theoretical maximum demand of 98 attendees and 130 parking spaces used in the study and described above. However, the study number was generated using the maximum estimated occupancy of the interior meeting space based on Building Code requirements. It would be possible, however, for the hotel to maximize the use of its interior space, and schedule events with additional people in the outdoor patio area at the rear of the building and/or the fourth floor terrace area, resulting in more than 98 event attendees on-site at one time. Therefore, staff recommends establishing an absolute maximum to help ensure that parking demand can always be accommodated.

Staff notes that these calculations assume full occupancy of the hotel and lounge area, which will not likely be a common occurrence. With fewer vehicles on-site from either hotel guests or lounge patrons, additional event attendees could be accommodated in the on-site parking garage. However, given the inability of the hotel to predict either the hotel or lounge occupancy with any degree of certainty, staff is taking the most conservative approach in setting this threshold. Staff also acknowledges that predicting parking demand is not an exact science, and that the actual parking demand in different situations may vary and not exactly reflect the parking model developed by Kaku. Using more conservative numbers in setting thresholds, however, will accommodate for the imperfections in the model and help to ensure that the parking demand is satisfied.

As mentioned earlier in this report, a condition of approval on the existing CUP requires the hotel to cap the number of event attendees at 75. Staff recommends that this condition of approval be removed from the CUP if it is renewed and replaced by the new PD condition with a cap of 112. This condition was established by the Council in an effort to provide a maximum degree of protection without full knowledge of the parking demand patterns at the hotel. Now that a parking study has been completed and a parking model developed to predict actual demand with a greater degree of accuracy, staff believes that it is appropriate to revise the conditions of approval to reflect the findings of the parking study. Because this requirement is related to the operation of the hotel as a whole as well as the alcohol service, staff recommends that it be included as a PD condition rather than as a CUP condition.

The Graciela currently offers a valet parking service that is free of charge to event attendees and lounge patrons that are not hotel guests. The hotel also offers a free shuttle to the Burbank Airport and to major employment and entertainment destinations in the area. Both of these services are required by the CUP conditions. Because the parking study was conducted with these features in operation, the parking utilization patterns and resulting parking model are at least partially dependent upon the continued offering of these amenities. If event attendees that are not hotel guests are charged for valet parking, some drivers may instead park on public streets or other parking lots in the area, possibly impacting the surrounding neighborhood. If a shuttle service is no longer offered, it is very likely that more hotel guests will be required to use rental vehicles to get to and from the hotel, which would change the ratio of hotel guests with cars used in the parking study. As such, proposed conditions of approval would require that the valet service be free of charge to non-guests, and that a free shuttle service be provided for hotel guests. Again, staff recommends that these conditions be included in the PD and removed from the CUP, if approved.

Staff does not believe that the service of alcoholic beverages at the hotel attracts non-hotel guests in an amount that would create substantial additional parking demand beyond the same hotel without alcoholic beverages. Nonetheless, staff notes that this parking study was conducted while alcohol was being served at the hotel pursuant to the approved CUP. Therefore, any potential parking impacts resulting from the alcohol service are captured in the parking model. Renewing the CUP to allow alcohol service to continue would not result in any parking impacts that were not already examined in the study and incorporated into the recommendations.

Using the results of the surveys collected for the parking study, Kaku determined that the average vehicle generation rate of event attendees at the hotel is 0.73 vehicles per person. This number is due to the fact that some event attendees are hotel guests and do not generate additional traffic, and that in some cases multiple event attendees arrive in the same vehicle.

Using this ratio, it is estimated that each meeting or event held in the proposed new meeting room would generate about 48 vehicle trips, 24 in and 24 out (see page 15 of the parking study). This is based upon a maximum attendance of 33 people per event, based upon Building Code occupancy standards for the room. It is anticipated that no more than two or three events would be held per day in the proposed room on the busiest day, and that such events would be spread out throughout the day and not occur in immediate procession or all occur during AM or PM peak travel periods. City of Burbank Transportation staff reviewed this data and determined that traffic impacts on the street system in the vicinity of the project would be minimal, and that no significant impacts or degradation in levels of service would occur as a result of creating the new meeting room.

Staff acknowledges that these new daily trips would be in addition to those trips already occurring due to the existing meeting space, and other trips from hotel guests and lounge patrons. Nonetheless, no substantial impacts are anticipated on the surrounding street system. Traffic generated by the hotel disperses rapidly as it moves away from the site, and as such would have no impacts on other streets or intersections in the area. Staff notes that if the subject request were denied and the new meeting room was not created, the need for hotel guests and outside organizations to hold meetings would not decrease and the meetings would be held at other locations in the community. The same total number of vehicle trips would still be generated at other locations in the city.

The service of alcoholic beverages at the hotel has not resulted in a substantial increase in vehicle trips above what would have otherwise existed at the hotel. The continued service of alcoholic beverages if the CUP is renewed would not result in any traffic impacts.

Allowing additional meetings and social gatherings at the hotel through an increase in the size of the existing meeting space could potentially lead to increased noise. It may also be argued that the service of alcoholic beverages may lead to increased noise over what would otherwise occur. Such noise may impact nearby residential properties during nighttime hours, especially given the proximity of multiple family dwellings along the rear property line. As such, staff is proposing a condition of approval, adopted from the existing CUP, that would not allow any meetings or social gatherings to occur in any outdoor area after 10 p.m., seven days per week. Another proposed condition would prohibit the playing of music or use of any amplified sound in any outdoor area, a requirement adopted from the existing CUP but proposed to be more restrictive than under the CUP. While any activity at the hotel would be required to comply with the noise standards of the Burbank Municipal Code, staff believes that the proposed conditions of approval would provide an extra layer of protection to ensure that noise impacts on nearby residential properties are avoided.

Hotels are 24-hour operations by the nature of their business. However, it is very unlikely that large numbers of hotel guests or event attendees would be coming and going during late hours. The expanded meeting space as proposed through the subject amendment would be utilized during the same hours as the existing meeting space and should not result in any expansion of meeting hours. As mentioned above, a proposed condition of approval would prohibit any outdoor activities after 10 p.m., which would minimize noise impacts on surrounding residential properties. Persons leaving the hotel in the evening following a late meeting or event would exit out the front door on Pass Avenue, minimizing noise impacts on the residential neighborhood to the rear of the hotel.

The existing CUP limits the service of alcohol from 5 p.m. to 12 midnight Monday through Thursday, 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. Friday, 11:30 a.m. to 1 a.m. Saturday, and 11:30 a.m. to 12 midnight Sunday. Staff believes that these restrictions effectively address the previous concerns of area residents regarding the potential impacts of alcohol service during the day and/or late evening hours. Staff further believes that the prohibition of alcohol service prior to 5 p.m. mitigates any potential concerns regarding alcohol consumption at daytime weekday events, especially in light of the subject request to expand the existing meeting space.

Department Comments: The PD amendment application was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment. The Building Division and the Fire Department stated code requirements (Exhibits H-1 and H-2). The Fire Department noted that Building and Fire Code exiting requirements must be satisfied. Building Division staff indicated after a preliminary review of the project plans that the proposed room conversion would not likely result in any exiting problems and that the existing exiting pathways should be adequate to meet code standards.

The Police Department stated its opinion that the subject application should be denied if the parking demand cannot be satisfied by on-site parking (Exhibit H-3). As discussed above, the parking study concluded that the on-site parking would be adequate to meet the anticipated demand, subject to certain restrictions as in the proposed conditions of approval.

No other departments or divisions had any comments on the subject application or wished to impose any conditions of approval.

Environmental Review: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was completed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would have no significant environmental impacts.[3] A Negative Declaration was accordingly prepared and released for public comment (Exhibits I-1 and I-2). The public review period started on October 20, 2003 and ended on November 10, 2003. As of the publication of this report, staff has received no comments regarding the Negative Declaration aside from one of the previously mentioned resident letters (Exhibit F-1). That resident stated his �opposition� to the Negative Declaration but did not provide any specific comments on the content of the document or its conclusions.

Extension of CUP: Rather than bring this CUP back to Council next month for a renewal hearing, staff recommends that the Council act now to extend the CUP for an additional trial period through January 31, 2005. Since the hotel has served alcoholic beverages for almost two years, staff believes that the Council has adequate information to make a determination about whether to extend the CUP for an additional trial period. Staff does not anticipate any additional information becoming available between now and January to present to Council. Staff is not aware of any adverse impacts that have resulted from the sale of alcoholic beverages at the hotel through the in-room self-service bars, room service, or with food service throughout the hotel.

Because a PD can be used as a tool to incorporate other entitlements, it would be possible for the Council to permit alcohol service through this PD amendment, and allow the CUP to sunset. However, the PD provides the underlying zoning for the subject property, which provides a greater degree of permanence. The current CUP includes a sunset clause such that it must be renewed annually by the Council. Such a condition could not practically be utilized with a PD. As discussed throughout this report, staff is recommending that all CUP conditions that are applicable to the operation of the hotel as a whole, with or without alcohol service, be moved to the PD conditions. This would allow the conditions to apply whether or not the CUP for alcohol service is in place. Staff recommends that the alcohol CUP be maintained separate from the PD such that the alcohol service and related conditions of approval are not incorporated into the underlying zoning of the property.

Planned Development Design Review Criteria: Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-19124 requires that all PD projects observe certain design criteria. As discussed earlier in this report, the applicant has certain vested rights in the existing hotel. Therefore, staff�s analysis of the design criteria is limited only to the applicant�s request to convert two hotel rooms into a new meeting room, the main subject of this PD Amendment. Staff believes that the proposed amendment would satisfy the criteria.

(a) The design of the overall planned development shall be comprehensive and shall embrace land, buildings, landscaping, and their interrelationships and shall be substantially consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Element of the General Plan.

The proposed room conversion would not change the overall design or function of the existing hotel. The new meeting room as proposed would function well with the existing meeting space, and its location on the ground floor near the lobby is appropriate in the overall layout and operation of the hotel. The proposed meeting room would not change the hotel�s consistency with any General Plan goals or policies.

(b) The planned development shall provide for adequate permanent open areas, circulation, off-street parking, and pertinent pedestrian amenities. Building structures and facilities and accessory uses within the planned development shall be well integrated with each other and to the surrounding topographic and natural features of the area.

The proposed room conversion would not affect any exterior features of the existing hotel or decrease any outdoor open space areas or affect any pedestrian amenities. The proposed conditions of approval governing the provision of valet parking, restricting the number of people attending scheduled events, and requiring specific vehicle circulation patterns would ensure that adequate circulation and off-street parking supplies are maintained.

(c) The planned development shall be compatible with existing and planned land use on adjoining properties.

The proposed room conversion would involve only interior work and would not change the exterior of the existing hotel in any way. As such, physical compatibility with surrounding land uses would not be affected. The proposed conditions of approval concerning parking, hours of use for outdoor areas, and restriction of noise in outdoor areas would minimize any impacts on nearby residential properties that might result from the proposed expansion of meeting space.

(d) Any private street system or circulation system shall be designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and the handicapped, without creating a disruptive influence on the activity and functions of any area or facility.

With the proposed conditions of approval, the driveway area on Pass Avenue and the parking garage access on Oak Street would provide for a safe and efficient circulation system between the subterranean garage and the public streets.

(e) The public street system within or adjacent to a planned development shall be designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles (including transit vehicles), pedestrians, bicycles, and the handicapped. Public streets shall be designed using standard City lane widths, capacities, and travel speeds. The design shall also include adequate space and improvements for transit vehicles and facilities for bicycle and pedestrian circulation. City standard entrance control requirements shall be maintained. Design of major streets shall also provide sidewalks, adequate street lighting, and concrete median islands on arterial streets.

The proposed room conversion would add an insignificant number of additional trips to streets in the immediate vicinity of the hotel and would have no impact on traffic circulation patterns. With the proposed conditions of approval, access points would be adequately controlled to provide for safe and efficient circulation.

(f) Common area and recreational facilities shall be located so as to be readily accessible to the occupants of residential uses.

The project contains no residential uses. However, the proposed meeting room would be centrally located on the ground floor near the lobby and easily accessible.

(g) Compatibility of architectural design and appearance, including signing throughout the planned development, shall be sought. In addition, architectural harmony with surrounding neighborhoods shall be achieved so far as practicable.

The proposed room conversion would not involve any exterior modifications to the existing hotel and would have no impact on architectural compatibility.

(h) Where applicable, an adequate variety of uses and facilities shall be provided in order to meet the needs of the planned development and adjacent neighborhoods.

The proposed meeting room would expand the existing meeting space at the hotel to provide additional opportunities for hotel guests, community organizations, and businesses to host meetings, luncheons, and other functions. This serves the needs of both the users of the planned development (hotel guests) and the greater community.

(i) The planned development and each building intended for occupancy shall be designed, placed, and oriented in a manner conducive to the conservation of energy.

The proposed room conversion would not alter the overall design or orientation of the hotel, and would not impact its energy efficiency.

Requirements for Granting a CUP: Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-1936 requires that six specific findings be made prior to approving a CUP. Staff believes that the findings can be made for the subject CUP, and that an extension of the CUP is warranted.

(1) The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Chapter 31 of the Burbank Municipal Code.

Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-1116 requires a CUP to be approved prior to any establishment selling alcoholic beverages for on- or off-premises consumption, unless exempted by code. Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-19132 allows for discretionary entitlements such as CUPs to be processed in a planned development zone subsequent to planned development approval.

(2) The use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located.

Allowing the Graciela to continue serving alcoholic beverages would not be detrimental to the hotel use permitted in the Planned Development No. 97-4 zone and would provide an important amenity for hotel guests. The alcoholic beverage service has not had any adverse affects on the hotel operation or hotel guests.

(3) The use will be compatible with other uses on the same lot, and in the general area in which the use is proposed to be located.

The service of alcoholic beverages is typical for a hotel and is compatible with the hotel use itself and surrounding properties. The hotel use itself is compatible with surrounding residential and commercial properties. The service of alcoholic beverages does alter the overall hotel operation in a way that would create incompatibilities with surrounding uses and properties.

(4) The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all of the yards, setbacks, walls, landscaping, and other features required to adjust the use to the existing or future uses permitted in the neighborhood.

The subject CUP controls only the service of alcoholic beverages at the hotel. It does not involve any physical alterations to the hotel facility. The areas in which alcohol would be served were either approved as part of the original project entitlements or would be approved by the proposed PD amendment. Alcoholic beverage service does not substantially alter the hotel operation, and as such the existing hotel facility is adequate to accommodate all space and parking needs associated with the service of alcoholic beverages.

(5) The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use.

Approval of the subject CUP would not generate any traffic impacts beyond those generated by the overall hotel use. The existing street system in the area is adequate to handle any associated traffic and the circulation system would not be affected.

(6) The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, convenience, safety, and welfare.

The proposed conditions of approval would ensure that the alcoholic beverage service is provided so as to protect hotel users and surrounding uses and properties.

PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION: The Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the subject PD amendment on November 10, 2003 (draft minutes attached as Exhibit J-1). Following comments by two members of the public at the hearing, all of the Board members expressed their general support for the requested PD amendment, subject to certain restrictions, and began deliberating regarding the proposed conditions of approval. The Board approved the following changes to the staff-proposed conditions of approval:

� As noted above, staff changed the recommendation regarding the provision of a valet parking service to require that a service be provided at all times. The Board was supportive of this change, and voted to eliminate the condition requiring valet service only at certain times and to amend condition no. 8 to require the service at all times. The applicant expressed their opposition to this condition and stated that they were supportive of providing a valet service only when needed, as determined by the parking study, but not at all times.

� The Board eliminated a staff-proposed condition that would have prohibited any vehicles, except shuttle and delivery vehicles, from being parked in the driveway on Pass Avenue. The applicant expressed their opposition to this condition due to the desire of some guests to have their vehicles parked in the driveway rather than in the garage, and because of the need for the valet service to temporarily park cars the driveway area when they are brought up from the garage. Staff�s intent with this condition was to ensure that adequate space was available for delivery vehicles to use the driveway as a loading zone when necessary. In lieu of this condition, the Board amended condition no. 11 to require that vehicles parked in the driveway not interfere with delivery activities, and that no vehicles obstruct the sidewalk. Staff is supportive of this change, because it would allow the driveway to continue to be used for limited parking as desired by the applicant and hotel guests, while ensuring that the driveway can also be used for delivery activities.

� As reflected in the attached minutes, the initial version of the staff-proposed conditions would have prohibited the use of the fourth floor terrace for any events or public assembly use due to Building Code exiting issues. However, prior to the Planning Board meeting, staff determined that the terrace could be utilized for public assembly purposes with the single existing exit so long as no more than 49 people were present on the terrace at one time. Staff recommended that the condition be changed to reflect this allowance. The Board was supportive of allowing the applicant to use the terrace for events, and voted to amend condition no. 13 accordingly.

The above amendments were all approved unanimously (5-0). The proposed conditions of approval include all of these amendments. After amending the conditions, the Board voted unanimously
(5-0) to recommend approval to the City Council of the PD amendment and Development Agreement and Negative Declaration related thereto (resolution attached as Exhibit J-2).

With incorporation of the proposed conditions of approval, the conversion of two hotel guest rooms into a meeting room would have little impact on the overall operation of the existing hotel, and would not result in any impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The parking study prepared for this application provides information to determine the maximum number of event attendees to ensure that the on-site parking supply is adequate to meet any anticipated demand. Appropriate operational standards for parking, noise, and other issues have been established in the proposed conditions of approval to minimize the impacts of meetings and other events at the hotel.

In addition to approving the applicant�s request, staff views this amendment as an opportunity to memorialize the hotel as it exists today and impose appropriate operating restrictions to ensure that the expanded use of the hotel for meetings and other functions does not impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. Staff believes that the proposed amendment would allow the hotel to continue providing meeting facilities for community groups and businesses while being a good neighbor and minimizing impacts on nearby properties.

The Graciela has been serving alcoholic beverages to hotel guests, lounge patrons, and event attendees for about two years and no adverse affects on either the hotel itself or surrounding properties and uses have resulted. The service of alcoholic beverages does not alter the overall hotel operation or produce any impacts beyond those of the hotel as a whole. Renewing the conditional use permit to allow the hotel to continue serving alcoholic beverages is not expected to result in any negative impacts or issues of incompatibility with surrounding uses.

This project is a private development with no financial involvement by the City. No fiscal impacts would result from the PD or CUP amendments.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to approve the first amendment to Planned Development No. 97-4 and the Development Agreement related thereto, and adopt the proposed resolutions to approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-17 and the Negative Declaration related to the PD and CUP amendments.

Exhibit J-1 Minutes of Planning Board meeting of November 10, 2003 (draft not yet approved by Board)

J-2 Planning Board Resolution No. 2914 dated November 10, 2003 recommending approval of PD

[1] Staff would recommend that the Council permanently approve the CUP with no additional trial period. However, the original conditions of approval on the CUP require the CUP to renewed for at least three one-year trial periods before being permanently approved. If approved by the Council, the subject renewal would begin the third one-year trial period. The Council would therefore have the option at the next renewal, one year from now, to permanently approve the CUP.

[2] Note: Although the traffic study assumed that eight vehicles could be parked in the at-grade driveway on Pass Avenue, staff believes that this area was not intended to serve as a parking area, and as such has not counted those spaces for the analysis and recommendations in this report. Only the 107 subterranean spaces and the additional valet stacking capacity of the subterranean garage are considered for the purpose of determining parking supply.

[3] Although the proposed amendment would incorporate necessary changes to the conditions of approval to reflect the hotel as it exists today, the environmental review only analyzes the proposed hotel room conversion to meeting space. As directed by the State CEQA Guidelines, the environmental baseline is the hotel as it exists today. Therefore, adopting amended conditions of approval to memorialize the existing situation in and of itself creates no physical environmental change and is not analyzed in the environmental document. As noted earlier, however, the environmental baseline assumed a 101-room hotel rather than a 99-room hotel with two rooms converted to meeting space, since such conversion would be formally approved by this PD amendment.

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, December 9, 2003

AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 97-4 AND

RECOMMENDATION: