The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-06-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 08-051 SHERATON PROJ (2)Agenda Item: 13 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Q) AGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR i, CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 1 j=� DATE: June 14, 2016 SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 08-051, VACATING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE FORMER SHERATON PROJECT, AND REFERRING THE REVISED PROJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Jason Crawford RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council adopt a resolution sustaining the appeal of Master Case 08-051, vacating the decision of the Planning Commission, and returning the currently proposed project for a 101,000 square -foot hotel and 4,000 square -foot restaurant to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. BACKGROUND On March 29, 2008, a 136,000 square -foot, 88 -foot tall, 200 -room Sheraton Hotel proposal was submitted to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposal included 7,600 square feet of conference space. The project required a Conditional Use Permit, and was approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 7, 2009. The project was appealed to the City Council by the Positive Solutions Association on July 21, 2009, and was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on September 8, 2009. The City Council directed the applicant to conduct additional public outreach and return at a future meeting. The applicant took no further action and did not return to the City Council. In March 2016, a new applicant, Oliver Hotel Group, LLC, submitted a proposal for a hotel project on the same site as the former Sheraton Hotel project. The revised project concept proposes a 101,000 square -foot, 60 -foot tall, 134 -room hotel facility. The project includes a 340 square -foot meeting space for hotel guests. The hotel brand has yet to be determined by the applicant, but calls for an all -suite facility, with kitchens in each guest room. Also included in the project is a 4,000 square -foot, free-standing restaurant that would be open to the public. Page 1 PacketPg. 78 Since the appeal hearing before the City Council in September 2009, the following has occurred: • The City adopted a new General Plan • The City adopted a new Unified Development Code • The State of California processed amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act • The City adopted new local guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act The following reflect the differences between the former Sheraton project and the proposed project submitted by the Oliver Hotel Group, LLC: • The revised project is approximately 28 feet shorter than the Sheraton Hotel • There are fewer rooms in the revised project • The footprint of the revised project has changed • The on-site circulation characteristics of the revised project have changed • The revised project has different landscaping • There is less conference space in the revised project • The revised project has different architecture than the Sheraton Hotel • The environmental impacts of the revised project are different than the Sheraton Hotel In matters where appeals are made to the City Council, Unified Development Code Section 17.07.070(B) provides that the City Council can "...refer the item back to the Commission for further proceedings with or without direction." By sustaining the appeal made by the Positive Solutions Association, the City Council effectively ends the appeal process in favor of the appellant. The recommendation for the City Council to vacate the 2009 Planning Commission decision to approve the Sheraton project and adopt the associated environmental document would not deny the project; rather it would nullify the decision, allowing for future consideration of the revised project. The revised proposal from Oliver Hotel Group, LLC, would then be brought before the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact as a result of this item. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Page 2 Packet Pg. 79 13.a RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 08-051, VACATING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE FORMER SHERATON PROJECT, AND REFERRING THE REVISED PROJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION WHEREAS, on March 19, 2008, a proposal (Sheraton Project) was submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for a 136,000 square -foot, 88 foot -tall, 200 -room Sheraton Hotel located at 26501 McBean Parkway in the community of Valencia, and WHEREAS, the Sheraton Project required a Conditional Use Permit which required a public hearing before the Planning Commission; and w Y 0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Sheraton Project on July 7, 2009. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the Sheraton Project and adopted the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration by a vote of 4-0; and R WHEREAS, on July 21, 2009, Positive Solutions Association appealed the decision of .0 C R the Planning Commission, claiming that the Sheraton Project was in violation of the Unified Development Code (UDC), was not consistent with the City's General Plan, and required an 00 Environmental Impact Report; and r WHEREAS, the duly noticed appeal hearing of the Sheraton Project was held before the City Council on September 8, 2009. At that time, the City Council indicated that the applicant should conduct additional public outreach, and return to a future meeting to advise the City Council of their results; and WHEREAS, the applicant did not return to the City Council on the Sheraton Project, and the appeal of the Sheraton Project was never closed; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2016, the Oliver Hotel Group, LLC, submitted a revised proposal of a 101,000 square -foot, approximately 60 -foot tall, 134 -room hotel and a 4,000 square - foot restaurant (Oliver Project) at the same location as the former Sheraton project; and WHEREAS, over six years have passed between the appeal hearing date and the submittal of the Oliver Project; and WHEREAS, during the time between the appeal hearing and the submittal of the Oliver project, the City of Santa Clarita adopted anew General Plan; and WHEREAS, during the time between the appeal hearing and the submittal of the Oliver Project, the City of Santa Clarita adopted anew UDC; and Packet Pg. 80 Resolution Page No. 2 13.a WHEREAS, during the time between the appeal hearing and the submittal of the Oliver Project, the State of California amended regulations within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, during the time between the appeal hearing and the submittal of the Oliver Project, the City of Santa Clarita amended local CEQA guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Oliver Project is significantly different than the formerly proposed Sheraton Project, and requires a thorough review by the Planning Commission to determine its consistency with the City's General Plan, UDC, and CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does hereby determines and finds as follows: SECTION 1. This Resolution is hereby adopted by the City Council, sustaining the appeal of the Sheraton Project (Master Case 08-051). SECTION 2. This Resolution is hereby adopted by the City Council, vacating the approval of the Planning Commission for the Sheraton Project and the adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (Master Case 08-051) made at their duly noticed public hearing on July 7, 2009. SECTION 3. This Resolution is hereby adopted by the City Council, pursuant to UDC Section 17.07.070(B). The City Council remands the proposed Oliver Project to the Planning Commission for review and consideration based on: 1) the passage of time between the most recent appeal hearing and submittal date of the Oliver Project; 2) the adoption of the City's new General Plan and UDC; 3) amendments to CEQA regulations and local CEQA guidelines; and 4) significant differences between the Sheraton Project and Oliver Project. Upon return of the Oliver Project to the Planning Commission, the project will be subject to all the procedural requirements of the UDC and all applicable standards of CEQA and the UDC. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2016. Packet Pg. 81 00 N Resolution 13.a Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Kevin Tonoian, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted bythe City Council ofthe City of Santa Clarita, California, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14a' day of June 2016, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS w Y NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: _ m w Y ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: N R .0 C d R CITY CLERK U) N r Packet Pg. 82