October 7, 2014
DOHENY HOTEL DEVELOPER WITHDRAWS PROJECT
At tonight's city council meeting,the Developer of the Doheny Hotel was scheduled to present changes in the project to gain its approval. At the meeting it was announced that on October 6 a letter was received from the developer withdrawing the application for approval. The developer stated his intention to submit a new plan to the Planning Commission which would be more in compliance with the city's zoning codes. The new plans would address the concerns expressed by the city council, the planning commission and the community. No time frame was given for this process to begin.
September 17, 2014
“DO OR
DIE” FOR RESIDENTS
SEPTEMBER 16, CITY COUNCIL MEETING REPORT
DOHENY
HOTEL PROJECT
At the September 16, city council meeting, the appeal of the Doheny Hotel project was
discussed for several hours until 11:00 PM.
Residents spoke against many aspects of the project including the
unlawful variances requested for height and setbacks, the unattractive
hotel elevations, the high density land use and the use of .76
acres of Lantern Bay Park land. The city
council didn’t approve the project, but Councilmen Weinberg, Olvera and Brough
placed residents in a last chance “Do or Die” situation.
While the City Council suggested that more changes were
required, our three councilmen, Olvera,
Weinberg and Brough voted to give this developer one last chance for approval
at the October 7 city council meeting.
But this really isn’t a last chance for the developer, who will always
have the option of going back to the Planning Commission with a revised
project. In reality, this is a “Do or
Die” proposition for residents, who will barely have a chance to see any
proposed changes and no opportunity to appeal the decision.
The appropriate action, supported by Councilmen Bartlett and
Schoeffel would have been to send this back to the Planning Commission, the
most knowledgeable about the details of
the project. Councilman Brough, who
received campaign donations from this developer, did not voluntarily recuse
himself from voting, as requested by residents (his was the deciding vote). Regarding the use of the park's land, Dana Point's legal counsel , Patrick Munoz, felt
he could find a way to circumvent the requirements of the Lantern Bay deed
restrictions.
Once again Councilman Brough, Olvera and Weinberg showed
their favoritism toward special interests and developers at the expense of
residents, who they purport to represent.
This threesome is joined by other
Town Center Committee members Mike Powers, Harold Kaufman and Bob Theel (paid advocate for the Doheny Hotel).
Residents need to know that city council candidate Harold
Kaufman is endorsed by Messrs. Theel, Brough, Powers, and Wickstrom. Candidate Muller is endorsed by Messrs. Powers,
Olvera, and Theel. Candidate Wickstrom is supported by Weinberg, Olvera, Kaufman and
Powers. No matter what these candidates
say to win votes, can they really be TRUSTED?
Major decisions that favor developers over residents and
affect the future of Dana Point are
being made by this incestuous group of people.
The city staff is also under the direction of this city council. The residents of Dana Point deserve better
representation.
September 17, 2014
COUNCILMAN BROUGH VOTES TO SPEND IT ALL
In another action at the September 16 Dana Point city
council meeting, Councilman Brough along with Councilmen Olvera and Weinberg voted to immediately spend $7.7 million on
the Del Prado improvements, making the total spent in 24 months on Town Center more
than $17.1 million, taken from the
city’s reserves.
Residents were hoping for a more fiscally responsible
approach to the use of this money and a budgeted plan, given the fact that the Town
Center build out will probably take 10 to 15 years. So far the only benefit of the spending has
been to property owners in Town Center. Perhaps a fiscally prudent decision
from Mr. Brough should not have been anticipated, since a "Notice of Default"on his home mortgage was filed in Orange County.
The use of taxpayer money on the Town Center Plan, which was referred to by the city's Planning Department as "rolling the dice", and the huge discounts on
development fees being offered as an incentive to Dana Point developers seem incompatible with Mr. Brough’s conservative claims and campaign promises. Mr.
Brough also accepted campaign donations from a developer whose project is under
consideration by the council and declined from voluntarily recusing himself, as
requested by residents. His was the deciding vote on a recent decision
regarding this project.
Voters need to ask : Is this whom we can trust to be capable of
making prudent decisions and represent us, not special interest groups, in the state assembly? Is a lack of personal, fiscal responsibility a suitable character trait for someone who will be handling millions of dollars of taxpayer money?
September 16, 2014
CRISIS:
THE DOHENY HOTEL APPEAL
City
Council Meeting September 16
Community
Center – Del Obispo 6:00 PM
GENERAL ISSUES
· The Planning Commission after extensive review
of the project unanimously rejected this project. Now the developer has appealed the decision
to the City Council. Unfortunately
several Council members seem to be so pro development that they may vote to
approve the project. Residents must
express their objections to make the council aware of voter outrage.
· Residents feel the density, size and height of
this hotel on such a small lot are unsuitable for the location and result in
ugly hotel elevations, particularly along the important PCH corridor, where the
view would be unsightly rows of windows, blank walls and delivery vehicles and
cause an unavoidable negative impact on the appearance of Dana Point and views
from neighboring properties.
· It should also be noted that while residents
would support a suitable hotel on the site, there was considerable opposition
at Planning Commission meetings regarding the Doheny Hotel project. Many residents feel that because the project
was denied by the Planning Commission it is no longer under consideration by
the city.
· The Final EIR dated July 2013 stated that “the
project is not consistent with the goals of the DPSP, since the project appears
incompatible in scale, mass and form with adjacent structures and development
pattern of the neighborhood.” (page 3.1-28)
It further states regarding Option B that “…land use impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.”
(page 291)
· The impact on traffic, deliveries, noise, glare
and bicycle safety at this busiest intersection in Dana Point has not been
adequately addressed. There are many
conditions imposed by the city for this project that would be difficult if not
impossible to monitor, such as the percentage of deliveries allowed on PCH.
· The exit of vehicles from the hotel with a U-turn on Harbor Drive close to PCH
would hinder the ability of people to
enter Doheny State Beach and the Harbor.
· It is
unclear how delivery trucks would access the hotel’s PCH delivery area
if coming from the 5 Fwy, which could
result in dangerous u-turns on PCH or at other Dana Point intersections.
· Developer has stated he desires to sell the
project to a 4 star hotel chain. Dana Point has a surfeit of 4 star hotels, some encountering financial difficulty in the
past and ownership changes. To justify
the requested variances, has the developer provided any occupancy projections or any financial data
to determine whether this hotel would be successful and a benefit to
Dana Point? Residents believe that this
hotel would undermine the city’s high quality, “4 star” reputation and the
occupancy and room rates of existing
four star hotels. Several hotels have
voiced their criticism of this project.
DESIGN ISSUES
· If the developer is considering changes from the
plan he submitted to the Planning Commission, it would be appropriate for the
plan to be resubmitted to the Planning Commission rather than the City Council
for consideration.
· The Dana Point zoning code for the Doheny Hotel is
35 feet.
· The Doheny Hotel contains six stories not
five as indicated. First floor
52,595 sq. ft.; mezzanine floor 24,648 sq. ft.; second (third) floor 42,520 sq.
ft.; third (fourth) floor 39,550 sq.
ft.; fourth (fifth) floor 25,953 sq. ft.
; fifth (sixth) floor 25,050 sq. ft.
Total square footage 210,316 sq. ft.
· The height of the hotel is 68.5 feet, 33.5 feet over the allowed limit thereby requiring
variances; variances are also being
requested for zero rear and side setbacks which will adversely affect adjacent
properties.
· The hotel’s 250 rooms in 1.5 acres is an
unacceptable density of 167 rooms per acre.
· The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is in the Dana Point zoning code
is 1.75; although this FAR apparently
does not explicitly apply to this project, the hotel greatly exceeds this limit
at 3.21 (210,316 sq. feet of building space in 1.5 acres). The Planning Department has not taken the
time to get the Dana Point zoning code approved for this area. Approving this project with this FAR would
set a dangerous precedent for other projects in this area.
· The entrance way would require a 24.5 foot high retaining wall to maintain the
entranceway’s 17 foot elevation. The
contour lines indicate that the far side of the entrance way has an elevation
of approximately 41 feet. This will
create an unsightly and dangerous wall that would be seen when entering the
Harbor area, rather than the natural hillside of the park.
· This wall would require four or five feet of additional
height for safety purposes. The city could be held responsible for accidents by
allowing this dangerous and unacceptable feature in a public park where
children could fall over 25 or 30 feet unto the concrete below.
· The parking levels are so densely packed, with
lifts, tandem parking and parking in the aisles, it will make the retrieval of
cars extremely difficult. This is the
result of the unacceptable density of the hotel.
· The Planning Commission after considerable study
took issue with the number of parking spaces provided by the hotel, feeling it
was inadequate.
LANTERN BAY PARK LAND
· The Hotel plans to use .76 acres of Lantern Bay
Park land as an entrance to the hotel. The
use of Lantern Bay Park land in exchange for 50 public parking spaces is a
gimmick. They are primarily valet,
impossible to monitor and will probably be used by hotel patrons. The grant is a huge benefit to the developer,
increasing the size of his property by 51% from 1.5 acres to 2.26 acres.
(Plans indicate that all the public parking spaces will be valet.)
· The lack of onsite parking for employees
numbering at least 100 people for a 4 star hotel of this size offsets any
possible parking benefit to the public.
· Residents, therefore, hereby request that
Lantern Bay Park land be excluded for use in the Doheny Hotel project. It is a valuable, prime location along Harbor
Drive and has the potential for future use for public good such as for a
skateboard area, a visitor center, restrooms an attractive fountain or garden,
a trolley stop….
· Attached is a copy of the Grant Deed for Lantern
Bay Park in which Orange County transfers ownership of the park to Dana
Point. Item 6 NO TRANSFERS states “Grantee [ Dana Point] shall not sell,
convey, assign, or transfer its rights in the Property except to another public
entity to be used for open space park purposes.” There could also be deed
restrictions from the transfer of the property from the original owner to
Orange County.
· It would be hard to understand how the project
could be approved prior to the granting of the use of the park’s land, since
the hotel’s entrance is an integral part of the hotel’s design. Any approval of the project, therefore ,
should be conditioned on the land grant being legal and after it has been approved
at a future city council meeting.
LEGAL ISSUES
· The variances requested do not meet the
necessary legal requirements and would be unlawful. Any economic or visual
benefits to the city as suggested by the developer for his project are not
valid justifications for a variance.
Approving these variances would be irresponsible and would promote
litigation costly to the city.
· Developer has stated that he desires to sell the
project to a 4 star hotel chain, which require the large number of rooms and
hotel facilities. An increase in
profit is the developer’s motivation in
asking for variances.
· The legality of using Lantern Bay Park land for
this project is discussed above. The granting of rights to use parkland is contrary to the deed restrictions when the park was transferred to Dana Point and will undoubtedly be challenged in court.
· Attached please find a copy of a Los Angeles
Times article about litigation against the city of Hollywood for granting
unlawful variances to Target. Residents hereby request that the city council
avoid granting illegal or even questionable variances or take an action
regarding the park land that could result in costly litigation.
· The developer contributed to the election
campaign of one council member and attempted to do so with a second. This gives the appearance of trying to
influence the vote on this project.
Residents hereby request that, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, any council member who has received such
funds voluntarily recuse himself from voting on this project.
· It is hoped that the Beverly Hills Hospitality
Group, the developer, as a good faith
gesture but not as a requirement for approval will pay any fees owed the city
to date and before it might again file for bankruptcy owing the city
substantial funds.
GRANT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, a
- (the "Grantor"), hereby grants
to the
CITY
OF DANA POINT, a California municipal
corporation ("Grantee"), that certain real property
("Property") located in
the City of Dana Point,
County of Orange,
State of California, described in the legal description attached hereto as Attachment No. l and incorporated herein
by
this
reference,
subject
to
all matters of
record, and further subject to all of the following:
1.
Maintenance Obligations of
Grantee. Grantee shall be responsible
to
maintain
the
Property in a good condition and repai r, in accordance
with the Grantee's maintenance standards for public parks.
2.
Use as Public Park. The
Property shall
be restricted, in perpetuity, for use as an open
space public park, and may not be used for any other purpose, except
uses incidental to park
uses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantee
shall have the right to reserve the use of all
or a portion of the Property, for limited durations, for public events,
private events (e.g. weddings) or events sponsored
by Grantee. Grantee
shall also have the right
to close all or portions of the Property
for maintenance and repairs, as determined reasonably necessary by the
City, in the City's
discretion.
3.
No Construction or Improvements. Grantee
shall not construct
any improvements on the Property which would be considered
inconsistent with park uses
or
amenities.
It
is acknowledged that grantee may add an amphitheater or restrooms in the future
to enhance the uses of the park by the public. Grantee
will cooperate with County on possible removal/replanting of trees with regard to HOA view concerns tied to the Harbor revitalization project.
4.
Zoning.
The Property
shall remain zoned
as open space, for park use.
5.
No Leases. Grantee shall not enter into any lease agreements inconsistent with park uses with respect to all or any portion of the Prope1iy.
6.
No Transfers. Grantee shall not sell, convey,
assign, or transfer
its rights in the Property,
except to another
public entity to be used for open space park purposes.
7.
“As-Is." Grantee
represents and warrants
to Grantor that Grantee
has made its own independent inspection of the Property
and, except for Grantor's indemnification obligations set forth in Section 7 of that certain Agreement
for Conveyance of Property, between
Grantor and Grantee of even date herewith, Grantee hereby agrees
to accept the Property in its "as-is" condition.
[signatures on next page]
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The land situated in the City of Dana Point, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:
[That portion of Tract No. 959 in the City of Dana Point, County of Orange, State of California, as per map filed in Book 30, pages 46 through 50 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county and that portion of Lot 2 of fractional Section 23, T8S, R8W, S.B.M., and that portion of the Rancho Boca de La Playa as shown on a map recorded June 29, 1887 in Book 4, pages 118 and 1 19 of Patents, Records of Los Angeles County, California described in a deed to the County of Orange recorded on January 5, 1982 as Document No. 82-0001971 of Official Records in the office of said County Recorder.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that certain right of way for road purposes" as reserved and described in said deed to the County of Orange.]
August 24, 2014
URGENT DANA POINT QUESTIONS
·
Is the Dana
Point city council representing the best interests of ALL Dana Point residents?
·
Are
city councilmen too closely allied with Town Center interests and Dana Point
developers?
·
Are
they rushing development projects through before residents can elect three new
city councilmen in November?
·
Dana
Point residents must act now before it’s too late.
Councilmen
Bill Brough and Carlos Olvera serve on a Town Center Committee, along with
several Town Center property and business owners, advising the city’s spending
on $24 million for Town Center. With the
closely allied Councilman Steven Weinberg, the three councilmen recently high
jacked a city council meeting and voted to quickly appropriate $7.7 million of
Dana Point cash and reserves for Del Prado sidewalks and palm trees. During this time, developers and Town Center
property owners have contributed to Mr. Brough’s campaign for election to the
state assembly.
On September
16, the city council will be hearing the appeal from the developer of the
Doheny Hotel to overturn the unanimous denial of the project by the Planning
Commission. This project is an
overbuilt, 258 room eyesore, on a small lot, requesting multiple variances and using
Lantern Bay Park land. Mr. Brough has
already stated that he will NOT recuse himself because of the campaign donations. Rather than working with residents and the
Planning Commission, does the developer feel he already has three city council
votes needed to easily approve the project? Is he in a hurry because two of his supporters will soon term out of their city council seats?
The
Majestic project in Town Center was presented to the Planning Commission for
approval by the Dana Point Community Development Department with amazing
speed. Was the city staff under
pressure to hurry up the process? The
project was recommended for approval although it contained multiple variance
requests, special permits and city concessions.
No information was given to residents or required staking done prior to
the Planning Commission meeting. This
project will come before the Planning Commission again on September 8.
Dana
Point Residents for Responsible Development (DPRRD) supports growth and suitable
projects in Dana Point that conform to zoning regulations. Please attend the Planning Commission meeting
for the Town Center Majestic Project on Monday, September 8, and the City
Council meeting on the Doheny Hotel appeal on Tuesday, September 16. It is urgent that Dana Point residents act now.
August 17, 2014
WRITE THE CITY COUNCIL
The city council meeting to hear the Doheny Hotel appeal is scheduled for September 16. Before then please write your city councilmen to urge them to uphold the Planning Commission denial of this project. Here are the email addresses of your councilmen:
bbrough@Dana Point.org ssweinberg@danapoint.org colvera@danapoint.org lbartlett@danapoint.org sschoeffel@danapoint.org
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
August 3, 2014
DOHENY
HOTEL
DEVELOPER APPEALS TO THE DANA POINT CITY
COUNCIL
AFTER
DENIAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Dana Point City Council Meeting September 16
Dana Point City Hall 5:30 PM
·
VARIANCE :
Hotel height is 68.5 feet – 33.5 feet over the allowed 35 feet
·
VARIANCE: Hotel is 5 stories when only 3 stories are
allowed
·
VARIANCE: Project requires variances for zero rear and
side setbacks
·
City
will provide .76 acres of public parkland for the hotel’s entrance; a 50% increase in the size of the property
·
Project
has 258 rooms on 1.5 acres – 172 rooms per acre
· Average
Density of Marriott, Best Western, Ritz Carlton, Doubletree and St Regis is
58.6 rooms per acre
·
Traffic
congestion at busiest Dana Point intersection; proposed development projected
to generate 1,409 additional daily vehicle trips weekdays and 1,266 on
Saturdays per traffic report
·
35% of
loading and deliveries provided on Pacific Coast Highway
·
Significant
increase in traffic at entrance to Doheny State Beach where U-Turn is required
by people exiting the hotel
·
Parking
provided is questionable with allowed public parking being mainly valet
·
Approval
would set a precedent for future development
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT STATES
·
Despite efforts to provide visual relief, the project is not
consistent with the goals of the Dana Point Specific Plan, since the project is
incompatible in scale, mass and form
·
Property’s height and bulk not consistent with other
structures and introduces a higher density land use
June 21, 2014
REJECTION OF DOHENY HOTEL PROJECT
When the Planning Commission rejected the Doheny Hotel project it cited the gross nature of the variance requests and the fact that the square acre density and size of the project were excessive for the lot. While many residents vigorously opposed the project, some liked it because the hotel would replace the unattractive shack that is currently on the site. I hope they will consider the following facts:
The project consists of 250 rooms on 1.5 acres with the use of an additional .76 acres of Lantern Bay Park land, a 50% increase in the size of the developer's parcel. Including the parkland, the density is 111 rooms per acre. Without the city's park land it would be 166 rooms per acre. (It is questionable why the developer was allowed public park land for his project.) The project entails 5 stories, when three are allowed,and up to 68.5 feet, requiring a variance of approximately 40 feet over the allowed 35 feet. Variances are also required to allow zero rear and side setbacks. (The average rooms per acre of the Marriott, Best Western, Ritz Carlton, Doubletree and St Regis is 58.6 rooms per acre.)
Other factors considered included the fact that the project is located at the busiest intersection of the city creating traffic and safety issues. Exiting the hotel would require U-Turns at the state park and 35% of the hotel's loading and unloading would be needed on PCH. The amount of hotel parking provided in the plan was questioned. The majority of public parking allowed in the plan was for valet parking. The entrance to the hotel would be located on the Lantern Bay Park land.
The Environmental Impact Report stated that the final, revised proposal offered by the developer did not change the fact that the project would result in a significant impact on the existing visual character or quality of the site and the surrounding area. The negative impact from the massing of the project, the land use, the height and set back variances were found to be significant. Several options for the project were proposed more in keeping with Dana Point's requirements. So far the developer has rejected these options and has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.
June 21, 2014
DOHENY HOTEL DEVELOPER APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL
Several weeks ago the developer of the Doheny Hotel appealed to the Dana Point city council to overturn the Planning Commission's rejection of the project. the Planning Commission rejected the proposal in April primarily because the height and density of the project did not meet city requirements. Dana Point residents actively opposed the project as well.
It is alarming to note that the Doheny Hotel developer has close ties to the Town Center Committee, a special interest group promoting the development of Dana Point's Town Center. Several members on the Town Center Committee have actively supported the Doheny Hotel project. Two city councilmen are on the Committee and some members serve as consultants. The developer of the hotel has donated campaign money to several city council members.
At the June 17 city council meeting, the Town Center Committee virtually controlled the city council and its vote to adjust the budget to include $7.7 million for Del Prado improvements in Town Center. Residents should be concerned that the Committee will be controlling the vote when the appeal is heard by the city council.
The date for the city council to hear the appeal has not yet been determined. Please see the Town Center section to read about the June 17 council meeting.
April 19, 2014
PLANNING COMMISSION
REJECTS DOHENY HOTEL PROPOSAL
The Planning Commission's rejection of the Doheny Hotel Proposal was long overdue. From the onset the proposal required major exceptions to the Dana Point building codes, more than doubling the acceptable height limit. It incorporated Lantern Bay city parkland to create an entrance to the hotel. Many of the developer's promises would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the city to enforce. The extremely high density proposed for the hotel created major traffic and delivery truck problems on PCH and at the already congested intersection.
The developer could take the proposal to the Dana Point city council, which could overturn the commission's ruling. A mystery remains as to why the city staff spent so much time supporting this proposal and why the developer felt he could include city parkland for the entrance to the hotel. The developer spent a great deal of money on the plans and an Environmental Impact Report when the commission's approval was highly unlikely. Each councilman needs to act responsibly and reaffirm the commission's rejection of the proposal. Failure do do so will make the council appear to be under the influence of the developer or a special interest group.
Developers who come to Dana Point need to know that the city leadership will support the vision the community chose for its future and insist that the city's regulations be followed in their projects. Only then will developers show the city the respect it deserves and propose projects that are mutually beneficial.
DEVELOPER WINS but DANA POINT LOSES
DEVELOPER WINS
- Height of hotel is 76 feet which
far exceeds the 35 foot limit
- Additional
height vastly increases number of rooms to 258 and 5+ stories
- Use of Lantern Bay public parkland
adds additional
property for enhanced entrance way
- Setback at street is less than
regulation allows, maximizing building size on lot
- Value of his property is tripled,
quadrupled or more
DANA POINT LOSES
- Unacceptable loss of public
parkland
- Hotel
height is doubled from 35 feet to 76 feet
- Hotel
is oversized for amount of property and does not meet setback requirements
- Approval sets precedent for Hollywood like city environment
- Added hotel capacity magnifies
traffic congestion at busy intersection
- Added
hotel capacity creates no additional revenue for city due to over capacity at
other hotels
- Safe pedestrian and bicycle access
not addressed
- Hotel is inconsistent with Dana Point Specific
Plan
- Traffic flow for delivery trucks and autos is inadequate, particularly to/from 5 FWY
- No analysis of additional traffic at
intersection due to Harbor revitalization
- Noise and light from outdoor pool
and patios adversely
affect nearby neighborhoods
- Extra
hotel capacity adds to city’s water and sewage requirements
- Inadequate
space and landscaping for Dana Point marker at corner as specified in Dana
Point Specific Plan
- Inordinate amount of time and
money spent by Dana Point staff, Planning Commission and residents
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR PROJECT STATES- Despite efforts to provide
visual relief, the project is not consistent with the goals of the Dana Point
Specific Plan, since the project is incompatible in scale, mass and form
- The PCH Scenic
Corridor Plan recommends two story height limitation
- Property’s height and bulk
not consistent with other structures and introduces a higher density land use