TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Mark Danaj, City Manager
FROM:
Richard Thompson, Community Development Director
Laurie Jester, Planning Manager
SUBJECT:Title
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of a Master Use Permit Amendment for Modifications to the Shade Hotel on the Metlox Site at 1221 North Valley Drive (Community Development Director Thompson).
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO AMEND THE MASTER USE PERMIT
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, and direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the Planning Commission decision to amend the Master Use Permit subject to conditions.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
The Shade Hotel is a 38-room hotel that is part of the Metlox project that was approved by the City Council through a Master Use Permit in July 2002. An Amendment to the Master Use Permit for the Shade Hotel was approved in 2005. Manhattan Inn Operating Company, LLC ("Applicant") seeks City approval of an amendment to the Master Use Permit for the Metlox project related to the Shade Hotel ("Subject Property"). Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.84, Planning Commission approval is required for the proposed modifications.
The Planning Commission held four Public Hearings on the item, on February 12, March 12, April 23 and May 28, 2014. The Applicant and the neighbors worked closely together to develop a balanced compromise. At the May 28 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission, Applicant and a resident designated by a number of residents as the neighbor representative ("Neighbor Representative") reviewed and discussed each of the conditions of approval, and suggested modifications to some of the conditions. At the conclusion of the review and discussion, the Applicant and the Neighbor Representative indicated to the Planning Commission Chair that they were generally supportive of the conditions, as modified. After such extensive public input and Commission discussion, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 14-08 (4:0:1) approving the Master Use Permit Amendment with 41 conditions. (Attachment 1)
A complete public record of the evidence presented at the Commission meetings, including the oversized and late attachments and several reports from the City's noise consultant, is posted on the City's website under the February 12, March 12, April 23 and May 28, 2014 Planning Commission meetings, and was previously distributed to the City Council on August 20, 2014. Such documents are hereby incorporated by this reference. The Use Permit Amendment provides revisions for noise mitigation measures, hours of operation, food service, special events, alcohol service, and other modifications. If this Use Permit Amendment is approved by the City Council it will become the effective approval for the Shade Hotel.
Appeal
An appeal was filed on June 9, 2014 by Nate Hubbard, the neighborhood representative and two other residents, Wayne Partridge and Don McPherson (collectively "appellants"). The appellants would like the City Council to consider additional conditions related to further enclosure of the Terrace, Lobby soundproofing, Skydeck closing hours, parking requirements, and occupancy limits, as discussed in more detail later in this report. The Appellants also assert that this amendment requires additional California Environmental Quality Act review and a coastal development permit and that the Applicant has violated the terms of the 2005 amendment to the Master Use Permit. The Planning Commission discussed these issues in detail at the four meetings, heard extensive public comment, and approved the Resolution with revised conditions to address concerns raised at the hearings.
Staff met with the neighbors and discussed some of their concerns with a representative from the Shade and the City noise consultant after the appeal was filed. Additionally the applicant has plans for the noise mitigation improvements for the Terrace and the front entry vestibule in Building plan check and it is the Applicant's goal to have the permits ready to issue shortly after the City Council action on the appeal if the project is approved.
DISCUSSION:
Grounds for Appeal
The appellant's grounds for appeal are outlined in their appeal application (Attachment 2). Additional information from the appellants was distributed to the City Council on August 20, 2014. Two late emails, from the appellant and the applicant, were received and are included as attachments 3 and 4. A summary of the grounds for appeal, and a brief response to each item and which condition or finding in the Resolution addresses the item, is provided below.
1. Terrace Building and Fire Code Requirements
The appellants believe that Terrace can be further enclosed. Staff has met several times on the Shade site with the Building Official, the Fire Chief, other Building and Fire personnel, the applicant and architects to discuss these Code requirements. Since there are three hotel rooms over the Terrace with balconies that are the required Building and Fire emergency egress, light and ventilation, the Codes require that the Terrace remain open and accessible.
Resolution No. PC 14-08 condition numbers 8 and 22 address this item.
2. Terrace Door Enclosure
The appellants would like a door at the south entrance to the Terrace for noise mitigation. The City's noise consultant conducted extensive studies and other very specific noise mitigation improvements are required including new acoustic glass on the south wall of the southeast corner of the Terrace, sealing of gaps, acoustic panels and "clouds" (draped acoustic material) on the ceiling and acoustic curtains surrounding the area. These noise mitigation improvements are designed to be very effective at reducing noise levels to address neighbors' concerns.
Resolution No. PC 14-08 Condition numbers 2, 6 and 8, and findings N through Q and S address this item.
3. Lobby Facade Soundproofing
The appellants feel that the Lobby noise mitigation is not adequate. However, the extensive studies conducted by the City's noise consultant concluded that the proposed noise mitigation would be effective. The Lobby improvements include new front double-door entry vestibule off of Valley Drive with acoustic glass, with self-closing doors and the doors may not be propped open between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The vestibule is gurney size and will meet all emergency and access requirements.
Resolution No. PC 14-08 Condition number 9 and findings N through Q and S address this item.
4. Skydeck Closing Time
The appellant expresses concerns that the Skydeck closing time is increasing from 10:00 to 10:30 p.m. The Commission felt with the limitations allowing only the house system for amplification (no additional amplifiers), no amplified live entertainment or live music, and microphone use, as well as food and drink service ending at 9:30, any potential issues are addressed. Additionally, at 10:00 p.m. all music must be off, lights turned up and customers reminded of closing time. At 10:30 the area must be vacated except staff may remain for one hour.
Resolution No. PC 14-08 Condition numbers 6, 7, 18 and 24 address this item.
5. Parking Requirements
The appellant believes that the more parking is required. The project is not increasing the square footage, or the number of hotel rooms or changing the use on the site. The site will continue to operate as a hotel with secondary support services. The Code does not require any additional parking.
Resolution No. PC 14-08 Condition numbers 32 and 33 and findings L and S address this item.
6. Coastal Permit Amendment
The appellant believes that a Coastal Permit is required. A Coastal Permit is not required as there are no relevant coastal issues, no intensification of use or increase in occupancy as the occupancy remains the same as originally approved by the Fire Department and posted on the site in 2005, and the hotel will continue to provide accessory food and drink service.
Resolution No. PC 14-08 finding H addresses this item.
7. Additional CEQA review required
The appellants believe that additional CEQA review is required. At the time the application was submitted, staff reviewed the application to determine whether any additional CEQA review might be necessary, and concluded that the additional impacts, if any, that might arise from the amendment have already been adequately analyzed in the 2001 EIR for the Metlox project. The Planning Commission found that the amendment is within the scope of the Metlox EIR as addressed in detail in Resolution No. PC 14-08.
Resolution No. PC 14-08 finding I addresses this item.
8. 2005 Use Permit Violations
The appellants' letter states that they believe that the Shade violates the conditions of the current 2005 Use Permit. As stated in the following section, the proposed conditions will mitigate any adverse impacts arising from the use. In addition, there have been no complaints regarding the Shade in more than nine months.
9. Occupancy Limits
The appellant indicates that the information on the occupancy limits approved in the 2005 Use Permit needs to be provided. The 2005 Use Permit did not include occupancy limits within the conditions. The Fire Department and Building Safety Division determine and establish occupancy limits based on health and safety Code requirements. Only one set of occupancies has ever been approved and posted on the site, in 2005 by Fire and Building Safety. The Use Permit does not determine occupancy but it can be stated in the Use Permit conditions for clarity as is proposed in this 2014 Use Permit.
Condition numbers 19 and 21 address this item.
In the last two years staff is only aware of two substantiated Use Permit or noise violations related to the Shade Hotel. The most recent violation was a noise violation complaint in November 2013 during a Fashion Show which resulted in the City Prosecutor filing a misdemeanor complaint.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A significant amount of the Planning Commission discussion on May 28 focused on Conditions 18 and 19, the definition of "Closed," and the hours of operation. The conditions allow more flexibility in hours for the indoor areas, the Zinc bar and Lobby and the Conference Room, where potential noise and other impacts can be mitigated more easily, and generally more restrictions with the hours, the service of drinks and food, and the ending of music and entertainment in the outdoor areas.
Many other conditions also address noise mitigation such as Condition 5 which requires all of the noise mitigation improvements, as well as controls related to operations of the sound system, balconies, valet, taxis, queue, staff parking, buses, and drop-off, be completed within five months of the final approval (Conditions 2, 7-9, 15 and 24-31). Events with over 100 people after 10:00 p.m. are limited during this five-month period until the improvements are completed.
Functions are limited to 12 per year and special events over 100 people require approval through the annual Entertainment Permit as detailed in Condition 4. Conditions 6 and 7 regulated entertainment and amplified sound, and Conditions 12 and 16 require doors and windows closed after 10 p.m. and compliance with the Code noise standards. Condition 17 requires noise compliance verification by the City noise consultant, with very specific sound specifications and criteria that need to be met as detailed in Condition 2. A third party security staff person is required for special events as indicated in Condition 24.
Day to day full food service is limited to the Terrace, with up to 12 seats of spillover into the Lobby, as well as food service for special events as indicated in Condition 32, with marketing and menu posting limits in Conditions 33 and 34.
Condition 35 requires review for condition compliance and Condition 37 requires the applicant to sign an affidavit accepting the conditions of approval within 30 days of the final project approval.
The Commission felt that it was important to be more specific in the definitions, particularly with "closing" and hours of operation, certain operational details, and refinement to the Use Permit, so that the conditions are not subject to interpretation and are easily enforceable. At the same time the Commission felt that it was important to balance the hotel's ability to provide guest services and a hospitality environment while minimizing impacts to the neighbors.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission felt that the current operations of the hotel have minimized impacts to the neighborhood. There is no evidence of recent noise violations and the hotel management has taken steps, such as an increase in security and modified sound systems, to successfully address and mitigate issues. The Commission focused on conditions that provide a balanced approach to capture and reflect the current hotel operations, while clarifying the provisions of the Use Permit and requiring milestones to implement improvements to address concerns of the neighbors.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, and direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the Planning Commission decision to amend the Master Use Permit subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. PC 14-08, May 28, 2014
2. Appeal dated June 9, 2014
3. Email and Attachments from Appellants Regarding Shade Hotel Appeal, August 25, 2014
4. Email from Shade Owner Responding to Appellants Email Regarding Shade Hotel Appeal, August 25, 2014
(Please note that the complete record before the Planning Commission has been distributed to the City Council and is available to the public on the City's website.)