HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaterials Distributed at Meeting Study Session Item Materials Distributed
At City Council Meeting
04/05/2016
5huly sec bi
Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan (SP No. 13-02)
Santa Anita Inn Property
Study Session —April 5, 2016
• On March 18, 2014,the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment,Specific Plan,Zone
Change and Mitigated Negative Declaration for CEQA for the Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan
Project("Project").The Project consists of two hotels(a Marriott Residence Inn and a Fairfield
Inn and Suites)that total 142,320 square feet of hotel space in two connected buildings, with a
total of 210 rooms, and a 50 unit hotel condominium building at 130 W. Huntington Drive.
• The Project was to be developed in two phases,with Phase 1 being the two Marriott hotels and
Phase 2 being the hotel condominium.
• On October 21, 2014, a Specific Plan Amendment was approved for the project that altered the
timing of the two phases of the Project, and the timing of the retention of a remnant portion of
the Santa Anita Inn.
• Following the approval of the Amendment,the Applicant, Staff, and respective attorneys,
attempted to work through the details of a Development Agreement between the parties.
Originally,the applicant had requested financial assistance with the project in the form of TOT
forgiveness or rebates.The City Council ultimately agreed to a "loan"of TOT,whereby the
applicant would retain TOT receipts for a period of time as a way to balance costs, and then pay
back the loan amount in full over time. In addition,the Development Agreement was to
establish parameters on the use and operation of Phase 2 as a true hotel condominium
development.This included restrictions on length of stay, requirements for CC&Rs for operation
of the units, payment of TOT, and other requirements.
The details of the Development Agreement were never agreed to, and the loan request was
dropped by the Applicant.The primary point of contention was the requirement that the units
have a limited time of stay(e.g.,90 days maximum).The applicant was told repeatedly through
the process that the site was not a residential site, and the length of stay limitation was viewed
as the best way to ensure the project was a hotel condominium and not a residential project.
The City Council opined on several different occasions(e.g.through the adoption of the General
Plan in 2010, through requests from the applicant in Study Sessions in 2013 and 2014)that the
site was NOT to be a straight residential site.
In addition, Condition#6 of the conditions of approval (attached) restricted the project to non-
residential uses.
• Phase 1 was submitted for plan check and has been ready to issue since October 2015.The Plans
have not been picked up and no permit has been paid for or issued due to financing issues, an
attempt to sell the project, and other technical reasons.
• The Applicant now contends that Phase 2 as envisioned cannot be financed and is not
developable.The restrictions envisioned to avoid residential-only use are not sustainable,
according to the Applicant and his advisors.This is consistent with the Staff's belief of these
types of hotel condominium projects. Most such projects have removed these types of
restrictions on residency.
There are several options for the City Council to consider for this project.
1. The Applicant is requesting to continue with the project as a hotel condominium project, but lift
the time of stay restriction. In this option, a revised Development Agreement would be returned
to the Council specifying the operational restrictions, but there would be no time of stay
restriction. We would work with attorneys on both sides on other entitlement changes that may
be necessary.The revised Development Agreement could be returned to the City Council within
1-2 months; if a Specific Plan Amendment is needed, perhaps 3 months.
2. Consider the Phase 2 portion of the project a straight residential project.This option would
allow the City Council to do away with the requirement for a Development Agreement.
However,the project would require a General Plan Amendment,Zone Change and revision to
the Specific Plan (along with the accompanying environmental review)to allow straight
residential uses on the property. Depending on the changes required,this is likely a 4-6 month
process.
3. Reject the changes proposed by the applicant.This option would keep the current approvals in
place. If the applicant ultimately determines that Phase 2 cannot be developed as approved and
as envisioned, a Specific Plan Amendment would be required to evaluate a new project on site.
EXHIBIT "A"
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. When Developer proceeds with the construction of Phase 1, the buildings
comprising the Santa Anita Inn and all uses not described in the Specific Plan for
the subject property shall be deemed to be non-conforming buildings and non-
conforming uses. Buildings A and B of the Santa Anita Inn shall be demolished in
order to construct the two new hotels in Phase 1. For the remaining buildings and
uses of the remaining portion of the current Santa Anita Inn (buildings C through
F), there shall be an amortization period for elimination of non-conforming uses
and demolition of non-conforming buildings ending three years following the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first of the two new hotels in Phase
1. On or before the end of such three year amortization period, all such non-
conforming uses shall cease and all such non-conforming buildings shall be
completely demolished. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, all
non-conforming uses shall cease and non-conforming buildings shall be
completely demolished no later than five years following issuance of a demolition
permit for Buildings A or B.
2. The remodeling of the portion of the Santa Anita Inn remaining shall start
construction before the construction of Phase 1 and shall include, without
limitation, a new lobby area within the existing building(s). Any changes or
alteration to the building shall be subject to review and approval by the
Development Services Director or designee, and additional design enhancements
to the building, lobby, or parking area may be required. The commencement of
Phase 2 shall be permitted only upon (1) the execution of a mutually binding
development agreement between the developer and the City that allows the City to
provide for the orderly regulation of condominium units within the Phase 2 hotel, or
(ii) the City's prior adoption of an Ordinance providing for the orderly regulation of
condominium units within the Phase 2 hotel.
3. Each set of tandem parking spaces shall be assigned to a single unit unless a 24-
hour valet service or equivalent measure is implemented. Any changes or
alteration to the parking space assignment shall be subject to review and approval
by the Development Services Director or designee.
4. No architectural features, chimneys, vents, equipment, and other accessory
rooftop structures may be placed on top of the mansard roofs of the hotel
condominium tower. The maximum height of all elements is 95 feet.
5. A Tentative Tract Map must be filed with the City and approved prior to issuance of
a building permit for Phase 2 —the hotel condominium tower.
7
6. The Phase 2 component of the development will be a hotel use and may be a hotel
condominium tower. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) shall be required to be
remitted for the Phase 2 component. The TOT requirement, as well as restrictions
on how the units will be managed, rented, and sold, shall be written into the
Homeowners Association (HOA) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
for each individual owner The individual property owner will not be able to stay
indefinitely without paying the TOT. The owners shall rent their units by using the
on-site management company. In no circumstances shall the units be used for
permanent residences. The site is not suitable for permanent residency, does not
possess facilities for such, and the City's General Plan does not allow residential
uses at the location. The draft HOA CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
any of the hotel condominium units and the CC&Rs shall notify prospective
purchasers of the transient nature of the use and that they are purchasing into a
commercial hotel development and not a residential development. If a
Development Agreement is approved for this project, the terms of the Development
Agreement shall govern on this issue.
7. In accordance with the City's Transportation Impact Fee Program, the applicant
shall pay its development impact fees, which will mitigate the project's contribution
to any cumulative impacts to the westbound 1-210 intersection at Santa Anita
Avenue.
8. The design and construction of any and all traffic signals, signing, and striping
modifications or additions to accommodate the new entrance near the intersection
of Huntington Drive and Colorado Place shall be at the applicant's/property
owner's expense.
9. Damaged sections of the existing curb and gutter on Huntington Drive shall be
removed and replaced per City of Arcadia Standards.
10. The applicant/property owner shall provide a street dedication along westbound
Huntington Drive, to create a continuous 10'-0"parkway width.
11. The applicant/property owner shall provide signage to clearly mark the monument
roundabout as "One Way," and also provide signage to clearly mark the exits from
the condominium hotel site onto westbound and eastbound Huntington Drive(s) as
"Left Turn Only."
12. New sidewalk along eastbound Huntington Drive per City Standard shall be
constructed at the applicant's/property owner's expense. The property owner and
site superintendent shall coordinate with City Engineer and Public Works Services
Director for the protection and/or replacement of existing trees within the City's
rights-of-way.
8