Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

This report recommends that the City Council approve a second amendment to Planned Development No. 97-4 to allow the addition of a swimming pool, restaurant, and spa/fitness center to the Graciela extended stay hotel. The report further recommends that the Council approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-17 to allow the Graciela to sell alcoholic beverages in the expanded hotel facility.

Property Location: The subject property is located at 312 and 322 Pass Avenue at the intersection with Oak Street (Exhibit A). The Graciela hotel is currently located on the property at 322 Pass. The applicant has purchased the neighboring property to the south at 312 Pass Avenue, and is requesting to expand the hotel facility onto that property.

Zoning: The property at 312 Pass Avenue is zoned MDR-5 Media District Very High Density Residential. The property at 322 Pass Avenue 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. An amendment to the Planned Development was approved in 2003 to allow for expansion of meeting space at the Graciela and to memorialize the Graciela in its as-built configuration. Adjacent and abutting properties are zoned, MDR-5, R-4 High Density Residential, C-2 Commercial Limited Business, and Planned Development No. 94-8 (Warner Bros. Ranch Facility Master Plan).

General Plan Designation: The properties are designated as Multiple Family Medium Density Residential in the General Plan Land Use Element. The PD zoning is consistent with this land use designation. Prior to the amendments to the multifamily residential zone standards, the MDR-5 zoning was not consistent with the land use designation because it allowed for a higher density of development than that called for by the General Plan. Under the new multifamily standards and densities, however, the highest density permitted in the MDR-5 zone is below the maximum allowed by the General Plan.

Property Dimensions: The property at 312 Pass is approximately 52 feet wide at the front property line and 59 feet wide at the rear property line due to the curve of the abutting alley to the south (Willow Court). The property is about 130 feet deep with an area of 7,270 square feet. If the subject application is approved, the Public Works Department would require a 2.5-foot dedication along Willow Court for the purpose of widening the alley. This would reduce the size of the property by about 325 square feet. The property at 322 Pass 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 property at 312 Pass Avenue is currently undeveloped. The property is zoned for multifamily residential development and a development review application was approved in 2003 for a five-unit apartment building on the property. The project was never built and the development review approval has since expired. Under the recently adopted multifamily zoning standards, a maximum of three units could be built on the property (at the permitted density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area).

The property at 322 Pass Avenue is developed with the Graciela Burbank extended-stay hotel, which includes 99 hotel guest rooms and incidental lounge and meeting facilities. The hotel was originally constructed with 101 rooms based upon a substantial conformance finding from the original planned development approval, which authorized a 119-room Homestead Village extended-stay hotel (original ordinance, development agreement, and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit C-1). A 2003 planned development amendment authorized the conversion of two hotel rooms into a small conference room, reducing the room count to 99 rooms (first amendment ordinance, development agreement, and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit C-2).

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, a breakfast/meeting room of about 970 square feet, and a conference room of about 490 square feet (authorized by the first amendment). 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 fitness center for use by hotel guests and an outdoor terrace with a spa.

PD Amendment Project Description: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing hotel facility with the addition of an outdoor swimming pool and a new building with a restaurant and spa/fitness center (Exhibits B-1 and B-2). Most of the swimming pool and unenclosed outdoor cabanas would be located on the south end of the existing hotel property. The remainder of the swimming pool, additional unenclosed cabanas, and the new building would be located on the abutting property at 312 Pass Avenue.

The proposed building would be about 23 feet tall to the top of the roof with a service basement and two stories above ground. The building would be set back about 15 feet from Pass Avenue, five feet from Willow Court, and seven and one-half feet from the rear property line (due to a utility easement across the rear of the property). In front of the building along Pass Avenue and Willow Court would be an eight-foot wall that would also serve as a swimming pool enclosure along the Pass Avenue frontage. The wall is intended to have the same finish as the building itself, and a proposed condition of approval would require such. A landscaped setback would be provided in front of the wall along Pass Avenue. Although not reflected on the submitted plans, a proposed condition of approval would require pockets of landscaping to be provided along the Willow Court wall to soften the appearance of the wall.

The basement of the proposed building would be approximately 1,800 square feet and include mechanical and storage rooms. The first floor would be about 3,100 square feet of enclosed space and would include the restaurant dining room and kitchen, restrooms, and portions of the spa/fitness center including the lobby and reception areas, restrooms, and changing rooms. The second floor would be about 2,000 square feet and would include the fitness rooms and spa treatment rooms. In addition to the enclosed space, the ground floor would include a courtyard and cabana for use in conjunction with the restaurant. Four covered pool cabanas totaling about 450 square feet would be located around the pool. As shown on the plans, the square footage breakdown is as follows:

The proposed restaurant would be a high quality full-service restaurant and would be open to the general public. However, the restaurant would only be accessible through the hotel. The fitness center would be for use by hotel guests only and would not be open to the general public. The spa would include services such as massage and beauty treatments, and would be intended to primarily serve hotel guests, but is proposed to be available for use by the public by appointment only. The swimming pool and cabanas would be for use only by hotel guests and spa patrons. As with the restaurant, the spa and fitness center would be accessible only through the hotel. The restaurant and spa would not be directly accessible from a public street.

The proposed hours of operation for the restaurant are: breakfast 6:30 to 11:00 a.m., lunch 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., dinner 5:00 to 11:30 p.m., and weekend brunch 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The proposed hours of operation for the fitness center (hotel guests only) are 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. and the proposed hours for the spa (hotel guests and non-guests) are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. The pool and cabanas are proposed to be available for use by hotel guests from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. (and by spa patrons during spa hours). Proposed restrictions on the use of outdoor areas and the hours of restaurant operation are discussed further in the analysis section below.

Because a new fitness center would be included in the new building, the fitness center on the top floor of the existing hotel building would be converted to a penthouse suite, increasing the number of hotel rooms from 99 to 100. No additional parking spaces are proposed as part of the project. As discussed later in this report, the parking structure beneath the existing hotel would be utilized to provide parking for the expanded hotel facility.

The applicant is requesting approval of the proposed expansion so that their hotel business can attract a greater clientele, including vacationing families. The Graciela has found that the limited amenities available onsite, including the lack of a swimming pool, have limited their clients to a predominantly business traveler audience. In an effort to expand their client base and attract families and other travelers aside from people on business, the Graciela wishes to provide additional on site amenities, including the pool and restaurant.

CUP Amendment Description: In January 2002, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2001-17 to allow the Graciela to serve alcoholic beverages in conjunction with hotel room service and food service throughout the hotel, including the lounge area pursuant to a Type 47 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license, and from in-room self-service bars pursuant to a Type 66 ABC license. The CUP has been amended several times and extended following several sunset periods. The CUP was most recently extended by the Council on December 14, 2004 for a three-year period ending on January 31, 2008 (resolution and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit D). The applicant did not initially request, and staff did not recommend, any change to the permit expiration date. However, subsequent to the Planning Board hearing on this matter, the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the City Council consider granting the CUP on a permanent basis, not subject to any further sunset provisions (Exhibit B-3).

Because CUPs run with the land and not the business and are approved to apply to a specific piece of land, the Graciela�s CUP applies only to the property at 322 Pass Avenue. For the Graciela to serve alcoholic beverages in the expanded hotel facility at 312 Pass Avenue, the CUP must be amended. The applicant wishes to expand alcohol service into the new restaurant, spa/fitness center, and pool area, and has applied to amend the CUP accordingly (Exhibit B-1). Further, the applicant is requesting to change the current restriction on hours of alcohol service. Under the existing CUP, alcohol may only be sold after 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and after 11:30 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. The applicant requests that alcohol service be permitted to begin at 8 a.m. seven days per week.

Although CUPs are typically approved by the Planning Board and are considered by the City Council only on appeal, this CUP is unique in that it is already under the purview of the City Council due to the sunset period and renewal requirement. Under the current conditions of approval, the CUP must be brought before the City Council for renewal before the sunset date, or the CUP will expire. The Planning Board does not have the ability to renew the CUP. Therefore, staff believes that it would be appropriate for the City Council to approve any requested amendments to the CUP, as has been done in the past with this particular CUP. Further, approval of the CUP amendment is dependent upon approval of the planned development amendment, since the CUP amendment is for the purpose of selling alcohol at a facility that will not be built unless the planned development amendment is approved. Therefore, the Planning Board acted only in a recommending capacity for this CUP as it did for the planned development, and the City Council will take the final action to approve or deny the CUP amendment. Because the ability to renew the CUP is within the purview of the Council, the applicant�s request to permanently renew the CUP, made subsequent to the Planning Board hearing, does not require consideration by the Planning Board.

Municipal Code Conformance: Planned Development No. 97-4 provides the zoning for the property at 322 Pass Avenue. Development of the property is governed by the PD conditions of approval and the first amendment thereto. Aside from the conversion of the fourth floor fitness center to a hotel room, no physical changes are proposed to the existing hotel building. The number of hotel rooms would increase from 99 to 100, but no square footage would be added to the existing building. The first amendment to the planned development memorialized the Graciela hotel as it is built, and did not prohibit a future increase in the number of hotel rooms back up to the original 101 rooms.

The property at 312 Pass Avenue on which the new building would be built is zoned MDR-5 Media District Very High Density Residential. Because the subject planned development and accompanying development review application were deemed complete prior to the effective date of the recently adopted changes to the multifamily development standards, the basis for comparison of the proposed structure is the previous multifamily standards. The proposed structure�s compliance with the previous standards is shown in the following table. The table includes those standards that would be applicable to the subject project; standards such as open space and parking requirements apply only to residential units and as such would not be applicable to the proposed project.

As noted above, the proposed project would not add any parking spaces to the existing hotel. The code parking requirement for a restaurant that is �an integral part of a hotel� is five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The parking requirement for the spa would be the commercial/retail parking rate of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Although fitness centers/gymnasiums have separate parking requirements of six spaces per 1,000 square feet, the gym would be open only to hotel guests, and is therefore captured under the parking provided for the hotel rooms. Based upon these requirements, the proposed structure would require 22 total additional parking spaces (including outdoor restaurant dining areas). The applicant is proposing to amend the limitations on the meeting space in the existing hotel such that the overall parking demand for the establishment would not increase, and additional parking spaces would not be required. This is discussed further below.

The Media District Specific Plan established a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.1 for non-residential projects in the Media District based upon the office-equivalent gross square footage (OE-GSF) of the project. Projects that would exceed the OE-GSF FAR are required to obtain approval to use a portion of the Development Opportunity Reserve (DOR) that created a pool of extra square footage for the Media District area. Although the subject property is currently zoned for residential development, the change to a planned development zone to accommodate a non-residential use would make the project subject to the FAR limitation.

Based upon the OE-GSF FAR, the original Graciela hotel site would have been limited to 97 hotel rooms. The original Homestead Village planned development approved the use of 8,178 square feet of DOR for the provision of up to 119 hotel rooms. The first amendment to the planned development, which memorialized the as-built state of the Graciela, reduced the DOR allotment to 1,347 square feet for the provision of 101 hotel rooms. Although the hotel now has only 99 rooms, the DOR allotment remained for the 101 rooms. Therefore, converting the fitness center back to a hotel room for a total of 100 rooms would not require any additional DOR.

The OE-GSF FAR and DOR for the Graciela is based upon the number of hotel rooms only and does not include the ancillary meeting or dining facilities. It could therefore be argued that the construction of the new building to expand the existing hotel would be covered under the original FAR calculation. However, even if the building were considered as a separate use, it would fit within the 1.1 FAR and would not require any DOR. The restaurant and spa/fitness center uses in the new building have an OE-GSF factor of one. Therefore, the 7,270 square foot lot could have up to 7,997 square feet (7,270 x 1.1 x 1) of restaurant, spa, gym, or other commercial space. The total enclosed space of the proposed building is 6,980, well below the FAR limitation.

Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Section 31-1116 requires approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) before any business can sell alcoholic beverages for on- or off-premises consumption, unless otherwise exempted by the Code. The existing CUP for the Graciela was approved pursuant to the requirements of that Section. The CUP would be amended as described above consistent with the requirements of Section 31-1116.

Because it is located within 150 feet of a residential zone, the proposed project would be subject to the Residentially Adjacent Commercial and Industrial Uses (RACI) Ordinance. The proposed project would satisfy the residentially adjacent design requirements per BMC Section 31-1153 pertaining to glare, venting, and waste disposal. Aside from design requirements, the RACI ordinance requires a conditional use permit for any residentially adjacent business that operates between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. By its nature, a hotel is a 24-hour business. Because the proposed project would be subject to a planned development, it can through the planned development approval operate as a 24-hour business, not subject to the conditional use permit requirement. Nonetheless, staff is proposing conditions of approval pertaining to the operating hours of the restaurant, spa, and outdoor swimming pool consistent with the spirit of the RACI ordinance, as discussed in the analysis section below.

Public Correspondence: As of the publication of this report, staff had received three letters in support of the proposed project and one letter that expressed concern about traffic and parking impacts that the letter�s authors were concerned may result from the proposed project (attached as Exhibits G-1 through G-4). In addition to the letters attached to this report, one letter was submitted by the Family Service Agency of Burbank in support of the proposed project. Staff notes that the applicant hosted two community meetings in fall 2004 and a third meeting in August 2005 to discuss the proposed project with area residents.

Surrounding Properties: The subject property is surrounded by commercial and multiple family residential uses. The existing hotel is compatible with surrounding uses and has not had any detrimental impacts on neighboring properties. Staff has 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. The proposed expansion of the hotel would not substantially increase the hotel�s size or operations. Only one hotel room would be added, and the new facilities would be intended to primarily service hotel guests. Existing hotel operations would be adjusted to accommodate the additional parking demand from the expanded facility so as to avoid increasing the overall parking demand and causing any potential parking impacts on nearby streets. The proposed building would be in character with the existing hotel and surrounding development, and would be smaller in size and height than a multifamily residential project that would otherwise be built on the property. Staff believes that the proposed expansion is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would not create any detrimental impacts.

When the first planned development amendment was processed in 2003, staff retained the services of Kaku Associates to conduct a parking study at the hotel. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the existing parking supply at the hotel was adequate to serve existing and potential future needs. Kaku staff distributed surveys to hotel guests, lobby lounge patrons, and persons attending meetings and events at the hotel to develop a parking model that described the parking demand patterns at the Graciela. The model was 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 scheduled 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, it was determined that up to 112 persons could attend events or meetings at the hotel at a single time, and a condition of approval was accordingly placed upon the planned development. This assumed that the hotel was at full capacity with 99 rooms occupied, that the lounge area contained the maximum number of people allowed under Building Code occupancy standards (75 people), and that an average full employee shift was on duty (13 people). Such a full capacity occurrence would be quite rare, and day to day parking demand at the hotel was shown to be substantially lower. This maximum demand was calculated by determining the number of meeting attendees that would equal a total demand of 140 parking spaces, which was determined to be the total number of vehicles that could be effectively parked in the Graciela�s subterranean garage through the use of stack parking by a valet service.[1]

For the subject expansion, the fitness center is proposed to be available for use by hotel guests only, and the pool would be for use only by hotel guests and spa patrons. Therefore, no additional parking demand would be generated by those uses. However, with the proposed addition of a restaurant and spa, both of which would be available for use by persons who are not hotel guests, additional parking demand would be generated at the hotel. To address this concern and to prevent an increase in overall parking demand, the applicant proposed to subtract the capacity of the restaurant from the 112-person limit on persons attending meetings or events at the hotel. The applicant proposes an occupancy limit of 48 people in the restaurant dining room and an additional 20 people in the outdoor courtyard and cabana area, for a total of 68 people.[2] The applicant did not propose any additional reduction for persons using the spa.

Rather than simply subtracting 68 from 112 as the applicant proposed, staff utilized the parking model from the original Kaku parking study, as shown in the table below, to determine how many persons could attend events or meetings at the hotel, with the addition of the restaurant and spa facility. The following assumptions were used:

As the table shows, a maximum of 70 people could attend events at the hotel to maintain an overall parking demand of 140 spaces. This is a reduction of 42 people below the current limit of 112. While this approach is not as conservative as simply subtracting 68 from 112, staff believes that it is a better approach because it utilizes the original parking model to more accurately reflect the differences in parking demand and use patterns between restaurant patrons and meeting attendees. A proposed condition of approval would adjust the limit on the number of meeting attendees to 70 people.

In addition to subtracting the 68 restaurant patrons, the applicant requested the flexibility of closing the outdoor patio and cabana areas, which would further limit the restaurant capacity to 48 people, for the purpose of allowing additional meeting attendees at the hotel. The following table uses the same assumptions as the above table, but assumes only 48 restaurant patrons rather than 68. As shown in the table, the number of allowed meeting attendees increases 70 to 78. This is only a modest increase, again due to the differences in the non-hotel factor, time factor, and auto factor between meeting attendees and restaurant patrons. A proposed condition of approval would provide the hotel with the flexibility of closing the outdoor dining area for the purpose of increasing the maximum number of meeting attendees to 78 people, as reflected in the table.

Staff notes that the parking 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 required by the planned development conditions of approval, the Graciela currently offers a valet parking service that is free of charge to event attendees and lounge patrons that are not hotel guests, and a free shuttle to the Bob Hope Airport and to major employment and entertainment destinations in the area. Because the parking study was conducted with these features in operation, the parking utilization patterns and resulting parking model are 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 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, staff recommends that the conditions of approval that require these services be retained.

Staff does not believe that the service of alcoholic beverages in the restaurant would attract non-hotel guests in an amount that would create substantial additional parking demand beyond the same restaurant without alcoholic beverages. Nonetheless, staff notes that this parking study was conducted while alcohol was being served at the hotel and to non-hotel guests in the lobby lounge area. Therefore, any potential parking impacts resulting from the alcohol service are captured in the parking model.

The average PM peak hour trip generation rate for a �quality restaurant� is 7.49 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed restaurant would therefore generate about 14 trips in the PM peak hour based solely on square footage. However, as noted above in the parking study, it is estimated that only 52 percent of restaurant patrons would be people other than hotel guests who would actually drive to the site. The remainder would be hotel guests that would already be on site and would not generate additional vehicle trips. Therefore, the restaurant could generate as few as seven trips during the PM peak hour. There is no established trip generation rate for a spa. The closest comparable use is a health club/gymnasium, which generates 2.7 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area during the PM peak hour. This equates to 10 trips during the PM peak hour, again based only on square footage and assuming that all clients are not hotel guests. It is more likely that a large percentage of spa clients would be hotel guests, which would reduce the number of trips generated. Further, the only available comparable trip generation rate is for a gymnasium, which by its nature has a higher rate of customer volume and turnover than a spa.

Even using the most conservative approach, however, the proposed addition of the restaurant and spa would generate a maximum 24 trips during the PM peak hour. This is well below the City�s threshold of 50 trips, at which further traffic analysis is deemed necessary. Any traffic impacts on the street system in the vicinity of the project site would be minimal and no significant impacts or degradation in levels of service would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Any exterior noise from the hotel facility has the potential to impact nearby residential properties, especially given the proximity of multiple family dwellings along the rear property line. Conditions of approval on the existing planned development prohibit any meetings or social gatherings in any outdoor area after 10 p.m. seven days per week and prohibit the playing of live or recorded music or the use of amplified sound in any outdoor area at any time. Staff proposes that these conditions of approval be retained, except as related to the use of outdoor pool cabanas and dining areas.

These outdoor areas, as well as the enclosed restaurant dining room, are exposed to the residential projects along the rear of the Graciela property. The proposed building would be located along the rear property line between the pool and dining areas and the abutting residential project. However, that portion of the building would be single-story, meaning that the upper floors of the adjacent apartment building could still be exposed to noise impacts. The applicant has requested to be able to play music in the outdoor dining and pool cabana areas. The proposed conditions of approval would allow music in those areas only, but would require that the music not be audible at the rear property line or from the neighboring residential property across Willow Court. Staff believes that it would be reasonable to allow the use of the swimming pool, cabanas, and outdoor dining areas past 10 p.m. The swimming pool is an amenity for hotel guests, and staff believes that 10 p.m. is too early to close a pool that hotel guests may wish to use while vacationing. Similarly, staff believes that it is not reasonable to prohibit the use of outdoor dining areas after 10 p.m. The applicant has requested that the pool be allowed to remain open until 11 p.m. and that the restaurant remain open until at least 11:30 p.m.

As noted above, the proposed project would be exempted through the planned development approval from complying with the hour restrictions of the RACI ordinance. However, in the spirit of the RACI ordinance, staff recommends that the restaurant and the outdoor swimming and dining areas be required to close between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m., consistent with RACI hours. This would help ensure that no late night noise impacts result from the use of these areas. 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 restriction would provide an extra layer of protection to ensure that late night noise impacts on nearby residential properties are avoided. Because the fitness center would be available to hotel guests only and because it is located indoors and away from the abutting residential property, staff is not proposing to restrict the hours of operation of the fitness center. Staff proposes that the spa portion of the building be subject to the same operating hour restrictions as the restaurant, since it would be available for use by the public. These proposed hour restrictions are compatible with the operating hours requested by the applicant.

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. As mentioned above, the existing conditions of approval prohibit music and amplified sound outside, and prohibit outdoor events after 10 p.m. A proposed new condition of approval would prohibit use of the restaurant, spa, outdoor swimming pool, and outdoor dining areas after 12 midnight, seven days per week. The only way to access either of these areas is through the hotel itself. Persons leaving the hotel in the evening hours 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 past 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.

The applicant has requested to amend the CUP conditions to allow alcohol service beginning at 8 a.m. seven days per week. Although staff recommended denial of this requested change, the Planning Board voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed hour change. The Planning Board agreed with the applicant�s argument that the Graciela is no longer an �unknown quantity� as was the concern at the time the CUP was originally approved. The Board members stated that they appreciated the desire to serve alcoholic beverages with brunch and lunch meals and poolside during the day.

Staff�s recommendation for denial of this request is based on the fact that the neighborhood surrounding the Graciela has not changed since the CUP was originally granted and the situation about which the Council expressed concern has not changed. There are still residences and a child day care facility in proximity to the hotel. The City Council was previously concerned about this, and restricted the hours of alcohol service accordingly. With the addition of a restaurant and swimming pool, there is an increased desire for the hotel to serve alcoholic beverages earlier in the day so as to provide alcoholic drinks with lunch service and poolside throughout the day. However, staff believes that the previous concerns expressed by the Council and the community about allowing alcoholic beverages to be served during daytime meetings and events also apply to serving alcoholic beverages in the restaurant.

Staff agrees with statements made by Planning Board members that the Graciela has proven itself to be responsible in its service of alcoholic beverages. Further, the Police Department and License and Code Services office report that there have been no complaints or problems at the Graciela related to the service of alcoholic beverages. However, based upon the previous concerns expressed by the Council and the community, staff continues to recommend against any changes to the current hour restrictions.

In December 2004, staff recommended that the City Council permanently approve the Graciela�s CUP rather than extend it for an additional limited period. The Council voted to extend the permit for an additional three-year period. With the subject application, the Graciela is requesting to expand the scope of their existing CUP by allowing alcoholic beverage service in the proposed restaurant, spa, and swimming pool area. This introduces a new and unknown element into the CUP. As noted above, the Graciela has been a responsible operator in its service of alcoholic beverages and the City has not received any complaints or calls for service resulting from the Graciela�s alcoholic beverage sales. For this reason, staff does not anticipate that there will be any problems resulting from expanded alcohol service at the restaurant, spa, or pool. Nonetheless, alcoholic beverage sales in the expanded hotel facility will be a new and unknown aspect of the CUP. Therefore, staff believes that it would be appropriate to retain the existing sunset requirement of the CUP. This would effectively allow for a one- to two-year trial period for alcohol sales at the restaurant, spa, and pool. If no problems arise before the CUP is scheduled to sunset, staff would recommend at that time that the CUP be renewed permanently, not subject to any additional sunset provisions. At this time however, when the applicant is requesting that the nature and scope of the CUP be changed, staff believes it would appropriate to retain the sunset clause should any problems arise from the expanded alcoholic beverage service.

Department Comments: The subject application was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment. The Building Division and the Fire Department stated code requirements (Exhibits E-1 and E-2).

The Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department stated that all street trees must remain in place (Exhibit E-3).

The Police Department stated its requirements for lighting, fencing, addressing, and door locking. The Police would require a posted sign regarding construction hours, a truck route plan, and a site plan of the property. The Police Department would also require all subterranean areas to be fitted with a radio repeater system to facilitate emergency communications in those areas (Exhibit E-4). Police staff stated that there are ongoing issues with the existing repeater system in the Graciela�s subterranean garage. Staff has followed up with the applicant, and that issue has since been addressed to the Police Department�s satisfaction.

Staff spoke separately with the Police Department�s Vice/Narcotics unit regarding the request to expand the service of alcoholic beverages into the expanded facility and to change the starting time of alcohol service to 8 a.m. The staff stated that they reviewed all arrests and police calls for service at the Graciela over the past two years and found no incidents that were related to the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. The Police therefore stated that they do not have any concerns about the sale of alcoholic beverages as part of the expanded facility or changing the hours of alcohol service to begin at 8 a.m., but also requested that the License and Code Services Division share its opinion on the matter.

License and Code Services also reported that they had received no complaints related to the service of alcoholic beverages at the Graciela. License and Code did however express concern over the service of alcoholic beverages around the swimming pool during daytime hours due to the possibility of over-consumption in a relaxed poolside atmosphere. As noted above, however, staff is recommending that the current restriction on hours of alcohol service remain in place, so this would not be a concern on weekdays, where alcohol service would not begin until 5 p.m. On weekends, alcoholic beverage service would be permitted poolside during the day after 11:30 a.m. While over-consumption of alcoholic beverages is a possibility whenever alcohol is available, staff does not believe that it would be a significant issue in this situation. Since neither the Police Department nor License and Code Services have received any complaints or calls for service related to alcoholic beverages, staff believes that alcohol consumption is not currently a problem at the Graciela and is not likely to become a problem.

The Electrical Division of Burbank Water and Power (BWP) stated that service to the proposed building would come from an existing meter room located at the rear of the Graciela property (Exhibit E-5). While BWP staff stated in their memo that access to the meter room would be affected by the new project, they further reviewed the plans and determined that the access proposed by the applicant as shown on the project plans would be adequate.

The Water Division of BWP stated its requirements for providing water service to the project and the related fees that would be required (Exhibit E-6).

The Public Works Department stated general code requirements, and would require a 2.5-foot dedication along Willow Court for the purpose of widening the alley to 20 feet (Exhibit E-7). This dedication is reflected on the project plans. Public Works would require the applicant to reconstruct the alley approach and install landscaping and irrigation along the parkway of Pass Avenue. The Water Reclamation and Sewer Division would require the installation of a grease interceptor in the proposed restaurant. The Traffic Engineering Division would require a 10-foot corner cutoff to be observed at the intersection of Willow Court and Pass Avenue to maintain visibility for motorists exiting Willow Court. This cutoff is reflected in the wall design on the proposed plans.

The area of Willow Court where the required dedication would occur contains several power poles along the edge of the alley. With the alley widening, these power poles would be further in from the edge of the alley. Because of the complexity and difficulty of relocating power poles, BWP policy is that when an alley is widened, the existing power poles remain in place and are not moved. Therefore, the applicant is responsible only for dedicating the property and paving the widened alley, and is not responsible for moving the power poles. In addition, there is a power pole located in the parkway of Pass Avenue near the alley approach. As noted above, the Public Works Department requested that the alley approach be widened and reconstructed by the applicant to match the widened alley. However, BWP requested that the alley approach be left in place to provide additional protection for the power pole. If the approach were widened by 2.5 feet to match the alley, there would be little to no protection provided for the power pole from vehicles existing the alley. Therefore, the existing alley approach will be left in place and the applicant will not be required to reconstruct the approach. Although the approach will now not match the widened alley, the wider alley is still desired and beneficial to facilitate two-way traffic.

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. A Negative Declaration was accordingly prepared and released for public comment (Exhibits F-1 and F-2). The public review period started on September 6, 2005 and ended on September 26, 2005. As of the publication of this report, staff had received no comments regarding the Negative Declaration.

Planned Development Design Review Criteria: Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-19124 requires that all planned development projects observe certain design criteria. Staff believes that the proposed expansion of the Graciela hotel would satisfy the criteria.

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 to expand the subject CUP onto the neighboring property.

The Planning Board considered the proposed planned development and conditional use permit amendments at a public hearing on September 26, 2005. As of the publication of this report, the minutes from the Planning Board meeting were not yet complete. Staff has attempted to document as completely as possible the Planning Board�s discussion at the hearing. There were no public speakers at the hearing.

Some Board members expressed concern about the lack of additional parking being constructed for the proposed project. However, the Board believed that the requirement to provide a valet service would alleviate parking concerns by increasing the effective capacity of the on-site parking garage and allowing for the most efficient means of parking vehicles at the hotel. Some Board members noted that the proposed project was not creating any additional means of ingress or egress from the hotel garage, and that the traffic circulation patterns in the area would remain the same. One Board member noted that the hotel�s primary client base are people who would prefer to use a valet parking service and would not be likely to park on the street in lieu of using the valet service.

One Board member raised a concern about valet parking in a subterranean garage and the effect that stack parking could have on the ability of emergency crews to access the structure. Staff raised this question with Burbank�s Fire Marshal, who stated that valet parking actually provides several distinct advantages to emergency responders, including the following:

With regard to the alcohol request, most Board members agreed with the applicant�s argument that the Graciela is no longer an �unknown quantity� as was the concern at the time the CUP was originally approved. The Board members stated that they appreciated the desire to serve alcoholic beverages with brunch or lunch meals and poolside during the day. Some Board members specifically discussed the nearby child care center, which was a concern of the City Council when the CUP was originally approved, and stated their belief that the service of alcoholic beverages during the day would not have an impact on the child care center and should not be a concern. Board member Gabel-Luddy recommended that the City Council consider granting the applicant�s request for extended alcohol service hours, but she had no opinion on what hours would be appropriate. The Board ultimately voted 4-0-1 (with Board member Gabel-Luddy abstaining) to recommend approval of the applicant�s request to begin serving alcoholic beverages at 8 a.m. seven days per week.

Some Board members expressed concern about the architectural look and style of the building and the fact that the building would not satisfy the fa�ade break requirements otherwise required under the existing zoning. Staff explained that the proposed structure would meet the fa�ade break requirement on the front fa�ade, and would provide fa�ade variation of some type on all facades. The Board also questioned the amount of landscaping to be provided, and was particularly concerned about the lack of landscaping along Willow Court. The Board was ultimately satisfied with the proposed architecture and design, but voted 5-0 to recommend an additional condition of approval to require pockets of landscaping along the Willow Court perimeter wall. Staff agrees with the need for landscaping along Willow Court to soften the appearance of the wall, and the proposed conditions of approval have been drafted accordingly.

The Planning Board members all expressed their support for the proposed project and believed that the project would be a good addition to the existing hotel and provide additional amenities for the hotel guests. Some Board members believed that a restaurant and pool were necessary amenities for a �high caliber� hotel such as the Graciela. Some Board members also noted that the restaurant and spa were not intended to be, and would not likely be, destinations of their own that would draw large numbers of people to the hotel, and were instead intended to primarily serve hotel guests. All Board members stated their opinion that the Graciela hotel was a high quality operation that had proven itself to be a good neighbor and a valued business in the community. The Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the planned development and conditional use permit amendments (Exhibit H).

This project is a private development with no financial involvement by the City. No fiscal impacts would result from the requested planned development or conditional use permit amendments.

With incorporation of the proposed conditions of approval, the proposed addition of the swimming pool, restaurant, and spa/fitness center to the existing hotel would be consistent and compatible with existing development patterns in the area and would not result in any impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed adjustments to the existing hotel operation would accommodate the additional parking demand to be generated by the expanded facility and ensure that the overall parking demand for the hotel as a whole does not increase. Appropriate operational standards for parking, noise, and other issues have been established in the proposed conditions of approval to minimize the impacts of the hotel on nearby properties.

The Graciela has been serving alcoholic beverages to hotel guests, lounge patrons, and event attendees for over three 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. Amending the conditional use permit to allow the hotel to serve alcoholic beverages in its expanded facility is not expected to result in any negative impacts or issues of incompatibility with surrounding uses. Although there have been no complaints or police calls for service related to alcohol service and the Graciela has shown itself to be a responsible operator, the concerns expressed by the Council in its original approval of the conditional use permit regarding nearby residential and child care uses have not changed, and staff therefore recommends that the existing restrictions on the hours of alcohol service be retained.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

Exhibit B-1 - Planned development and conditional use permit amendments application Package (including development review application)

Exhibit C-1 - Ordinance No. 3483 approving Planned Development No. 97-4 with the Development Agreement and conditions of approval related thereto

C-2 - Ordinance No. 3628 approving the First Amendment to Planned Development No. 97-4 with the Development Agreement and conditions of approval related thereto

Exhibit D - City Council Resolution No. 26,486 approving amendments to Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-17

[1] The Graciela has 107 striped parking spaces in its subterranean garage. Because the conditions of approval require the use of a valet service at all times, the effective capacity of 140 spaces with the use of a valet service was used for the parking study.

[2] The Building Code sets the occupancy rate for seated dining at one person per 15 square feet of space. Based on this requirement, the restaurant dining room and outdoor dining areas could have a combined total of 98 people, greater than the 68 proposed by the applicant. However, the applicant stated that they do not intend to have more than 68 people in the restaurant for the purpose of maintaining a high quality atmosphere with a lower concentration of people, and are therefore willing to limit the number of diners to 68. A proposed condition of approval would establish this limit.

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, November 1, 2005

SECOND AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 97-4 AND

RECOMMENDATION: