Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28 - Newport Dunes ResortCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH O�c+EW�R COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Hearing Date: June 13, 2000 ♦➢^ PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 28 1 uoo NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Patrick J. Alford c�CMpPN�� NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658 (949) 644 -3235 (949) 644-52% FAX (949) 644-3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort (Newport Dunes Partnership, applicant) SUMMARY: A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and swimming pools and landscaped garden areas. ACTIONS: 1. Conduct public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2000 certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 157 and adopting statement of findings and statement of overriding considerations; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2000 -_ approving, modifying, or denying General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (F) and Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. 2000 -_ approving, modifying, or denying Traffic Study No. 115; and 5. Adopt Resolution No. 2000 -_ approving, modifying, or denying the Conceptual Precise Plan for Planning Unit 1; and 6. Introduce Ordinance No. 2000 - approving or modifying Amendment 878 and Planned Community District Plan PC -48 and pass to second reading on June 27, 2000 or deny Amendment 878 and Planned Community District Plan PC -48; and 7. Introduce Ordinance No. 2000 -_ approving or modifying Development Agreement No. 12 and pass to second reading on June 27, 2000 or deny Development Agreement No. 12. Background In 1983, the City, the County of Orange, and Newport Dunes, Inc. signed a settlement agreement to resolve jurisdictional and entitlement disputes relating to the development of the project site. The development entitlements outlined in the Settlement Agreement were later incorporated into the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The project site was reclassified to the Planned Community (PC) District as part of a comprehensive update of the City's Zoning Code in 1997. The improvements permitted under the Settlement Agreement have been developed, save for those planned for the hotel site. The proposed hotel project site currently has an entitlement for a 275 - room "Family Inn" with up to 500,000 square feet of floor area. In addition, the project site has entitlementfor a 12,500 square foot restaurant located within or adjacent to the Family Inn hotel, a 15,000 square foot freestanding restaurant, and 5,000 square feet of freestanding commercial and office space. The Planning Commission recommended initiation of the General Plan amendment on February 5, 1998 and the City Council initiated the amendment on February 23, 1998. The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Code amendment on August 6, 1998. The Planning Commission held three study sessions and seven public hearings on the project between October 21, 1999 and April 20, 2000. Project Overview The proposed project is a hotel /time -share resort consisting of 370 hotel rooms and 75 time -share units'. The hotel would contain 421,000 square feet of floor area, including 31,000 square feet of conference rooms, meeting rooms, and banquet facilities; 13,650 square feet for eating and drinking establishments; 8,000 square feet for health club /spa facilities; and 4,600 square feet of retail and services. The time -share buildings would contain 160,000 square feet of floor area. The application consists of the following components: ■ Environmental Impact Report No. 157 —The environmental impact report for the project. General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (F) — The proposed change of the land use designation on the 30 -acre hotel /time -share site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Retail and Service Commercial and an amendment to the Land Use Element text to reflect the proposed increases in the number of rooms and square footage of the hotel. ■ Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 — A parallel amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. ■ Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 —An amendment to Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) to permit the maximum height limits proposed in the PC District Plan. 25 of the 75 time -share units will have the capability of being "locked -off' to create two separate rentable rooms, thereby creating up to 100 rentable units. Newpon Dunes Reson June 13,2000 Page 2 ■ Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan (PC48) -Land use and property development regulations, administrative procedures, and design guidelines for the Newport Dunes Resort. ■ Development Agreement No. 12 — An agreement between the applicant and the City relating to development rights, fees, taxes, quality assurance, and environmental protection. ■ Traffic Study No. 115 — A traffic study and Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for the project. ■ Conceptual Precise Plan —A conceptual precise plan for the hotel /time -share complex in Planning Unit 1. The project was originally submitted as a five -story, 700,000 square foot hotel /time -share project with 400 hotel rooms and 200 time -share units (including lock -off rooms) and 45,000 square feet of conference rooms, meeting rooms, and banquet facilities. The Planning Commission directed significant design changes and conditions intended to scale down the intensity of the project and its related impacts. These changes and conditions are summarized as follows: • Reduction of the number of hotel rooms from 400 to 370. • Reduction of the number of time - shares from 100 to 75 units and the number of time -share units with lock -off rooms from 100 to 25 units. • Reduction of the floor area of conference rooms, meeting rooms, banquet facilities, and other function areas from 45,000 to 31,000 square feet. • Elimination of the fifth level of the hotel. • Elimination of one of three West Time- Share Buildings. ■ Limiting all time -share buildings located along the marina bulkhead to two - stories. • Lowering the proposed pad height from 12 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 10 feet MSL for the hotel and parking structure and 9 feet MSL for the time- share buildings. • Requiring all employee and delivery traffic to access the site via Back Bay Drive. • Limiting the use and maximum occupancy levels of the function areas during summer weekends and during peak weekday traffic hours. Newport Dunes Resort June 13,2000 Page 3 Analysis This analysis is organized into six parts. Part One addresses the environmental impact report process, the environmental analysis, the recommendations of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, and the response to public comments. Part Two addresses the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Code amendments. Part Three addresses the proposed Planned Community District Plan and Design Guidelines. Part Four addresses the Conceptual Site Plan. Part Five addresses the Development Agreement. Part Five address the fiscal impact analysis and the recommendations of the Economic Development Committee. Part One: Environmental Impact Report The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) will consist of four volumes. Volume I contains the environmental impact analysis. Volume II contains technical studies and other support material. Volume III contains the Responses to Comments, the EIR Errata, and the environmental analysis of project revisions. Volume IV contains Planning Commission staff reports and resolutions and the consultant's statements of qualification. Volume V will contain materials relating to the City Council's action, including the FEIR resolution (with Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program), conditions of approval, staff reports, and the Notice of Determination. EIR PROCESS The notice of completion for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was issued on • September 30, 1999. The public review period for the DEIR was from October 1, 1999 to November 15, 1999. Additional environmental analyses for subsequent project revisions were also prepared. These include the Bayside Drive Gate Access Study and the Service Drive/Mobile Home Park Buffer Study. Also, a supplemental analysis was conducted to address noise issues raised by residents of Dover Shores and is contained in the draft response to comments. The City is the lead agency for the project. However, the County of Orange and the California Coastal Commission also have discretionary authority over the proposed project. Therefore, as responsible agencies, the County and the Coastal Commission will use the FEIR in their considerationof the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The environmental analysis contained in the DEIR was prepared for the original 600 -room hotel /time -share project. The DEIR identified potentially significant effects on the environment relating to land use, earth resources, traffic /circulation, air quality, noise, and visual resources. The DEIR also concluded that most of the potentially significant effects on the environment could be mitigated to below a level of significance through the implementation of project design features, • standard conditions, or mitigation measures. However, four specific traffic, air quality, and visual impacts could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Newpon Dunes Reson June 13, 2000 Page 4 An additional environmental analysis was conducted for the project as revised by the Planning Commission's recommendations. This environmental analysis included updated traffic, air quality, and noise analyses, as well as a qualitative analysis of visual impacts and other environmental impact sections identified in the DEIR. This environmental analysis found that the revised project has no new significant environmental impacts that were not already evaluated in the DEIR. Furthermore, none of the significant impacts identified in the DEIR have been increased through the revisions to the project, and no new significant impacts are created as a result of the revisions. In general, the environmental impacts identified in the DEIR were either reduced or remain the same. However, the traffic, air quality, and visual impacts that could not be fully mitigated, while reduced, still remain significant. The key sections of the environmental analysis are discussed below. In each case, the findings of the DEIR on the original 600 -room hotel /time -share project will be discussed, followed by a discussion on the environmental analysis of the revised project. Land Use Specific concerns involve potential conflicts associated with the development of a hotel /time -share complex adjacent to a low density mobile home park (DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park). While the DEIR recognizes that the project would be perceived as a substantial change in the land use setting, there is no evidence that the project will have a substantial physical effect on the mobile home park. Noise and visual intrusion are the most likely potential impacts and these are reduced to insignificant levels through the incorporationof the project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures incorporated into the project. Potential land use conflicts with the mobile home park are further reduced by the revised project. The setback has been increased from a minimum of 60 feet to a minimum of 100 feet and the loading dock has been relocated and reoriented, which will serve to further reduce the potential for noise impacts. Furthermore, the increased setback, the removal of the fifth level, the redesign of the roof design, and the lowering of the pad elevation result in a general reduction in the scale and massing of the hotel. Finally, the reduction in the number of hotel rooms and time -share units, restrictions on the use of the conference facilities, and the redirecting employee and delivery vehicle traffic through the recreational vehicle (RV) park will reduce the number of new vehicle trips on Bayside Drive, as well as associated air quality and vehicle noise impacts. The Coastal Commission staff commented on the project's consistency with the Coastal Act during the DEIR public review period. This issue will be addressed in Part Two (Proposed Amendments) below. Earth Resources The project site has a significant potential for liquefaction due to the soil types, high water table, and proximity to active faults. However, mitigation measures in the form of soil improvement and structural engineering techniques can reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance. Newport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page 5 The revised project design would still be affected by the same geological factors as the project analyzed in the DEIR, and the same seismic design considerations would apply. 0 Water Ouality The project has the potential to increase runoff pollution into Upper Newport Bay. Possible sources include oil, greases, and other motor vehicle fluids on paved areas (roads, parking areas, etc.), fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas, and trash, litter, and other forms of debris. In anticipation of this issue, a water quality management plan was prepared to identify structural and non - structural methods of reducing impacts to the water quality. Structural improvements include a series of water interceptor structures in the storm drain system. These interceptors are designed to separate pollutants from the storm water flows. Non - structural methods include controls on maintenance and landscaping operations, litter control, and employee training. Implementation of these design features and practices will result in no significant impacts on water quality. The revised project has essentially the same amount of impervious surfaces and would generate essentially the same amount of runoff as the project analyzed in the DEIR. Other effects on water resources would also be equivalent to the project analyzed in the DEIR. Therefore, there are no new impacts to water resources. Biological Resources Biological surveys revealed no sensitive, rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species on the project site. However, the project site is adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and Regional Park. There is the potential that the project could provide perching or nesting sites for avian predators (owls, hawks, falcons, ravens, etc.) which could prey on sensitive wildlife in the preserve. There is also the potential for cultivated plants used as landscaping of the project site to reach the preserve and become established. Mitigation measures include limiting the landscape palette to non - invasive plant species and trees that will minimize raptor roosting sites in sensitive areas on the project perimeter. In addition, the landscaping on the perimeter of the project site will incorporate plant species that are native to the coastal sage plant community and indigenous to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Many of these measures are already reflected in the PC District Plan. To address concerns raised by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF &G), Mitigation Measure 5 -3 requires CDF &G review of landscape plans to ensure that no invasive plants are proposed in the plant palette. Also, since domestic animals are potential predators that pose a threat to wildlife in the Reserve, the applicant has agreed to prohibit domestic animals in the hotel/time- share complex. The revised project has essentially the same building footprint and design features as the project analyzed in the DEIR as they relate to biological resources. Therefore, it would not have any new environmental impacts on biological resources not already addressed in the DEIR. Nenpon Dunes Reson June 13,2000 Page 6 Traffic Circulation and Parking Trip Generation The DEIR traffic study analyzed near -term and long -term traffic conditions for the 600 -room hotel/time -share project. The 600 -room hotel /time -share was estimated to add 5,400 average daily trips (ADT) to Bayside Drive. However, only 4,800 ADT would have been added to the citywide circulation system, due to the loss of 150 RV spaces which currently generate 600 ADT onto Back Bay Drive. When the 3,989 ADT currently allotted to the project site for the entitled 275 -room Family Inn, 15,000 square foot freestanding restaurant, 2,500 square feet of freestanding retail, and 2,500 square feet of freestanding office is factored in, the net increase generated by the project would have been 811 ADT. Based on this data, the DEIR traffic study indicated that the project would not cause any intersections to operate at unacceptable levels of service under near-term traffic conditions. However, the DEIR traffic study did indicate that the project would have caused the Coast Highway/Marguerite intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service under long -term traffic conditions. An additional traffic study was prepared for the revised project. The updated traffic study estimates that the revised project would generate approximately 4,200 ADT. When the 600 ADT generated by the existing 150 RV spaces are deducted from this total, the net increase in trip generation from the revised project would be 3,600 ADT. Since 3,989 ADT are already included in the City's traffic model for the entitled Family Inn project (including freestanding restaurant, retail, and office), the revised project would result in a net decrease of 389 ADT. The projected traffic volume on Bayside Drive would be reduced further by a condition requiring all employee and delivery vehicle traffic to access the site via Back Bay Drive. The updated traffic study indicates that employee and delivery vehicles would generate 680 ADT. Therefore, it is estimated that the revised project would add 3,520 ADT to Bayside Drive, which is 469 ADT less than what would be added to Bayside Drive by the entitled Family Inn project. Despite the reduction in trips generated by the revised project, the long -term traffic analysis found that the Coast Highway and Marguerite intersection would still operate at an unacceptable level of service during the a.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.), for which no acceptable mitigation measures exist. Adding more lanes to bring this intersection to an acceptable level of service is considered to be infeasible due to impacts to properties in the Corona del Mar business district. Therefore, the long -range impact to the Coast Highway/Marguerite intersection remains a significant, unmitigated impact. Should the City Council act to approve the project, a statement of overriding considerations would be required. Parking Demand The DEIR traffic study also included a parking demand analysis, which indicated that the 1,220 parking spaces proposed for the hotel /time -share complex and marina exceed the number needed to meet the parking demands of the proposed land uses. The parking analysis estimated that there would have been a parking surplus, even under a "maximum use" scenario where all rooms are occupied and the restaurant, marina, and meeting function areas are occupied by non - guests. The Newport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page 7 revised project reduces the number of hotel rooms and time -share units and provides additional surface parking. The updated parking demand analysis indicates that there would be a surplus of between 297 and 314 spaces under normal conditions and a surplus of 53 spaces under the "maximum use" scenario. Air Ouality The DEIR air quality assessment identifies a significant air quality short -term impact associated with the construction of the proposed project. This includes fugitive dust from grading operations, and emissions from construction equipment. While standard mitigation measures can reduce these short -term impacts, they remain significant. Should the City Council act to approve the project, a statement of overriding considerations would be required. At the request of some Bayside Village residents, the applicant has agreed to wash the exterior of the homes in Bayside Village at the end of the construction period to further reduce the impacts of fugitive dust generated during the construction phase. This measure is included as a condition to the conceptual precise plan. The DEIR air quality assessment indicates no significant long -term impacts to air quality. However, the long -term operation of the project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would cumulatively impact regional air quality, due to the Basin's non- attainment status. An additional air quality assessment was conducted for the proposed Bayside Drive Entry Gate design. The assessment indicates that there would be an increase in carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations. However, these levels would remain well below the Federal and State standards for CO. Therefore, the Bayside Entry Gate design would not have a significant impact on local air quality and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. An updated air quality assessment was conducted for the revised project. The updated assessment concluded that construction impacts from the proposed project would still generate significant short -term air quality impacts that could not be significantly mitigated. The updated assessment also found that the revised project would generate fewer emissions than with the entitled Family Inn project. However, because emissions from the project would cumulatively contribute emissions to the South Coast Air Basin, which is in non - attainment status, cumulative air quality impacts will still be significant. Noise Traffic Noise The DEIR noise assessment identified potential noise impacts from traffic, construction, and hotel operations. However, with mitigation measures, these impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance. The most significant of these mitigation measures include the construction of 6 -foot high sound attenuation walls along both sides of Bayside Drive to bring noise levels in the Bayside Village Mobile Home Park to acceptable levels. A 9 -foot high sound attenuation wall was proposed adjacent to the service road to protect Bayside Village residents from short -term construction noise and long -term noise generated from delivery vehicles at the loading dock. Newport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page 8 Furthermore, a mitigation measure was included requiring all loading and unloading activities at the westerly side of the structure at ground level to be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. A noise assessment conducted for the revised project indicates that despite the reduction of new vehicle trips on Bayside Drive, the 6 -foot high sound attenuation walls along both sides of Bayside Drive are still required in order to bring noise levels in the mobile home park to acceptable levels. However, 9 -foot high sound attenuation wall adjacent to the western property line can be lowered to 6 feet under the revised project. The re- routing of the delivery vehicle traffic through the RV Park will eliminate pass -by noise from large trucks, which was identified as the single greatest potential noise source in this area of the project. Even though it is estimated that large trucks would constitute only a small portion of the delivery vehicle traffic, the noise levels would have been significant enough to require the 9 -foot high sound attenuation wall adjacent to the mobile home park. The increased setback along the western property line and the relocation and reorientation of the loading dock will also further reduce the potential noise impacts. An additional noise impact analysis was conducted for the proposed Bayside Drive Entry Gate design. This analysis indicates slightly higher traffic noise due to vehicles slowing down and stopping at the gate, then accelerating as they leave the gate area. However, this is not considered to be significant relative to overall noise levels. Furthermore, the 6 -foot high sound attenuation walls proposed along Bayside Drive are sufficient to mitigate the additional traffic noise associated with the Entry Gate design. 0 Amplified Music The DEIR noise assessment also identified potential noise impacts from amplified music in the Function Courtyard. However, the amplified music should not be audible at the residences in Bayside Village or Dover Shores due to the orientation of the courtyard area and the distances to these residences. The nearest noise receptor is the Hyatt Newporter, which is approximately 1,500 feet away in a direct line of sight from the Function Courtyard. At this distance, noise levels experienced at the Hyatt Newporter would be at least 22 decibels (dBA) less than at a point 50 feet' from the source of the music. Therefore, even if the music measured 80 dBA at the hotel, it would still not exceed the nighttime commercial district exterior standard of 60 dBA at the Hyatt Newporter. However, to insure that the City's noise standards are not exceeded, the conceptual precise plan is conditioned to prohibit outdoor amplified music between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During the Planning Commission public hearings, the DEIR noise assessment was called into question. Specifically, it was suggested that the noise assessment did not factor in that water surfaces absorb only a marginal amount of sound (as opposed to ground surfaces) nor noise reflection due to the bowl- shaped topography of the area. These concerns are addressed in the response to comments in the FEIR. The noise levels reported in the DEIR noise assessment ' Accurate noise level measurements need to be conducted at a certain distance from the noise source based on the frequency of the sound. A distance of 50 feet is the accepted standard for measuring the high, medium, and low frequencies associated with music. Newport Dunes Resort June 13,2000 Page 9 accounted for sound traveling over water surfaces by using a sound pressure drop -off rate that only attenuates noise levels accounting for transmission of sound through the atmosphere. This means that no sound attenuation was factored into the DEIR results for surface conditions. Thus, the analysis accounted for sound travel over water. As to the "bowl effect," the soil and landscaped hillsides in the project vicinity tend to absorb rather than reflect sound. Furthermore, even if the hillsides could reflect 90 percent of the sound generated in the area, project related noise impacts would be raised less than 3 dB. However, review of the site conditions (vegetated, dirt hillsides) indicates that actual sound reflection would be a fraction of the potential reflection were the bluffs made of material other than soil and vegetation (such as concrete). Any actual influence of sound reflection in the project area would raise noise levels by much less than 1 dB. Because there is very little effect (less than 1 dB, which is undetectable to most people) from this source of reflected noise, the overall contributionto the noise impact reported in the DEIR is not significant. Another noise - related issue raised during the public hearing suggested that noise from the time- share units would impact residences in Dover Shores. Although there is no evidence that time- share units generate more noise than hotel rooms or residences, an additional noise assessment was conducted. The noise consultant calculated the noise level that could be experienced by the Dover Shores resident nearest the time -share units (located along the marina bulkhead) if very loud amplified music was being emitted from an open window or patio. For consistency, a noise level of 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet was utilized as a noise reference. This noise level is very high and would equate to approximately 97 dBA inside a time -share unit, which would make voice communication very difficult. As such, it would be unlikely that music would be played at this level. However, if music were played at this noise level, the noise level at the nearest Dover Shores residence (a distance of approximately 860 feet) would be approximately 53 dBA, which would not exceed the daytime noise ordinance limitations (60 dBA), but would exceed the maximum nighttime noise level limit of 50 dBA. As stated above, noise levels this high are very unlikely. However, it would be the responsibility of the hotel and time -share management to ensure that time -share tenants comply with the City's noise ordinance. Should the management fail to comply, the City will enforce the noise ordinance through administrative citations. Also, under the proposed PC District Plan, the City can establish noise abatement programs upon evidence that City noise control standards are being violated. Noise abatement programs can include limitations, restrictions, or prohibitions on operating hours, location of operations, and types of equipment. Parking Structure Noise The DEIR noise assessment also identified the proposed parking structure as another potential source of noise in the form of slamming doors, car alarms, homs, screeching tires, and engine noise. However, due to the enclosed design, very little noise will emanate from the parking structure. The top level of the parking structure will be open, which could expose Bayside Village residents to these noise sources. However, a low, landscaped wall is proposed along the perimeter of the parking structure. This perimeter wall, along with the setback to Bayside Village Mobile Home Park and the sound wall, will reduce the noise to acceptable levels. 0 Newport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page 10 The revised project has a much greater setback between the parking structure and the residences in the mobile home park than that evaluated in the DEIR. The setback between the parking structure and the mobile home park property line is a minimum of 100 feet and averages 115 feet, which will serve to further reduce the potential for noise from the parking structure. HVAC Noise The DEIR noise assessment also identifies potential noise impacts from heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment and recommends as a mitigation measure that HVAC equipment maintain a 15 -foot setback from the common property line with DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. However, Section 10.26.045 of the Municipal Code contains regulations and procedures to control the noise levels of HVAC equipment adjacent to residential areas. This section is proactive, in that it requires an analysis that the proposed HVAC equipment will not exceed the nighttime exterior noise level standard for residential areas prior to the issuance of the building permit. Therefore, a 15 -foot setback for HVAC equipment is not necessary. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission increased the minimum setback for HVAC equipment to 30 feet as a condition on the conceptual precise plan. Supplemental Noise Controls The Planning Commission is recommending an additional noise control regulation that would take into consideration the type of sound generated. Specially, the additional regulation would reduce the noise level standards by 5 dBA if the sound is a simple tone noise, an impulsive noise, a voice, or music. For example, on residential property, the daytime exterior residential noise standard would be 50 dBA Leq., the nighttime exterior standard would be 45 dBA Leq., the daytime interior standard would be 40 dBA Leq., and the nighttime interior standard would be 35 dBA Leq. This regulation is included in the recommended conditions to the conceptual precise plan. Visual Resources The DEIR includes an analysis of the visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. This analysis includes impacts to public view and impacts created by building shadows and by light and glare. Public Views The DEIR includes an analysis of the visual and aesthetic impacts of the 600 -room hotel /time- share project using 12 visual simulations. The visual analysis indicates that while the 600 -room hotel /time -share would have had considerable height and massing, the impacts to most public views are not significant. This is due mainly to the fact that the project site is located below most of the surrounding properties and a considerable distance from public view areas. The impacts were also reduced by the architecture of the hotel /time- share, which provides relief with varying facades and rooflines, cupolas and towers. However, View K, which represents the view from the beach on the east side of the Swimming Lagoon, was identified as a significant visual impact. The project would partially block the skyline/horizon view of the bluff along the north side of Upper Newport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page I I Newport Bay, which is considered a significant public view. The revisions to the project resulted in a general reduction in the scale and massing of the hotel and time -share buildings. On Level 1, the southeastern corner of the parking structure and the "Back of House" area were pulled back by 20 feet and one of the 5,000 square foot "Junior Ballrooms" was removed along with approximately 4,000 square feet of pre - function floor area. On Level 3, portions of the hip roofs above the function areas were replaced with flat and mansard roofs. On Level 4, a guestroom section at each end of the central north -south "spine" of the hotel were eliminated. The fifth level was removed entirely. Also, one of three West Time -Share Buildings was eliminated (an existing restroom building scheduled for demolition will now remain) and the remaining two buildings were reduced from three- stories to two - stories. The East Time -Share Buildings were significantly redesigned and one building was reduced from three- stories to two - stories. The Main Time -Share Building remains at four- stories. Finally, the proposed pad height was lowered from 12 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 10 feet MSL for the hotel and 9 feet MSL for the time -share buildings. As a result of the reduced scale and massing of the project, no new significant impacts would be generated by the project. However, a revised simulation of View K indicates that the revised project does afford some views of the upper portion of the bluffs and many of the homes in the Castaways neighborhood would be visible above the proposed time -share units. However, the skyline/horizon view of the bluff on the north side of Upper Newport Bay remains almost entirely obscured by the proposed project. As a result, as with the original design of the project, there will still be a significant visual impact at this viewpoint. Should the City act to approve the project, a statement of overriding considerations would be required. Shadow Cast A shadow cast analysis was conducted to determine impacts to the residential structures in the adjacent Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. The shadow cast simulation indicates that shadows from the proposed hotelltime -share structures will not significantly impact these residences. Under a worst case scenario, on the morning of the Winter Solstice, the shadow will fall only on a few rear yards of homes on Mayflower Drive and no residential structures are affected. Also, to determine if shadows from the hotel /time share structures would impact the beach, shadow studies were conducted for the afternoons of the Winter Solstice, and the Spring and Fall Equinoxes. These studies indicate that the shadow of the hotel will not fall upon the beach. Light and Glare Light and glare were analyzed to determine potential impacts to the adjacent residential areas and to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and Regional Park. While the project is expected to result in an increase in light intensities when compared with existing conditions, provisions have been added to the PC District Plan to require that all interior and exterior lighting is designed to confine rays and glare to the project site. The PC District Plan requires before building permits are issued, the lighting plan specifying fixture types, technical specifications, and photometric site information must be prepared and reviewed by an independent lighting consultant selected by the City. The lighting must also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a part of Newpon Dunes Reson June 13, 2000 Page 12 each final precise plan application. The PC District Plan also includes a provision that requires the remediation of excessively illuminated areas based on the illuminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Finally, the Planning Commission is also recommending that a condition requiring that all temporary lighting used during the construction phase shall be designed and located to confine direct rays and glare to the project site. PUBLIC COMMENTS The City has received public comments on the project since the environmental review process began in early 1998. In fact, the decision to prepare an E1R was based on comments received from responsible and trustee agencies and the public. These comments were also used to identify the probable environmental effects of the project that were listed in the notice of preparation. A public notice of availability of the DE1R was published as a display ad in the Daily Pilot on October 1, 1999 and notices were mailed to all organizations and individuals that had previously commented on the project or requested a notice. The public review period for the DE1R was from October 1, 1999 to November 15, 1999. Copies of the DE1R were available for public review at the Planning Department offices, each branch of the public library, as well as the Newport Dunes Resort. Copies of the DE1R were also available for purchase or loan through the Planning Department. The DE1R executive summary was also posted on the City's website and was available free of charge. A total of 75 comment letters were received during the public review period. Comments received from persons who reviewed the DE1R were evaluated and a written response was prepared and is incorporated into Volume 111 of the FE1R. The Planning Department continued to receive public comments during the Planning Commission public hearings. Written responses were prepared for each new issue raised in the comments and were published in the Planning Commission staff reports. It should be noted that the public comments and the response to comments did not reveal any significantnew information relating to new substantial adverse environmental effects of the project or a feasible way of mitigating or avoiding such effects. EQAC COMMENTS The Newport Dunes Resort DE1R is the first environmental impact report reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC). EQAC formed a subcommittee to review the DE1R. The subcommittee prepared comments on the DE1R, which were submitted to the City during the public comment period after being approved by EQAC. EQAC submitted a letter to the Planning Commission stating that many of the questions raised by EQAC in their comments on the DEIR were left unanswered by the response to comments (RTC). The questions raised by EQAC generally related to trip generation and distribution, but also related to noise, lighting, and water quality impacts. In addition, EQAC requested additional analysis on Newport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page 13 alternative sites and additional three- dimensional modeling and visual simulations. EQAC concluded that the DEIR was incomplete and recommended against accepting the DEIR The City's environmental consultant evaluated each of the comments in the EQAC letter and prepared a memorandum clarifying the responses provided in the RTC, which is provided in Volume III of the FEIR. The environmental consultant also determined that while the additional analyses requested by EQAC would provide additional information, they would not substantially alter the conclusions of the DEIR, and are not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission conducted a point by point review of the EQAC memorandum at their April 6, 2000 public hearing. The Planning Commission concluded that EQAC's issues had been adequately addressed in the DEIR and the RTC. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR Adequacy of the EIR Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines provides standards for the adequacy of an EIR. This section states that "an EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." This section further states that "an evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible." The Planning Commission found that the EIR adequately evaluates the environmental impacts that will result from the development of the proposed project. The Planning Commission further found that the EIR informs the City's decision - makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of the project, identifies possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describes reasonable alternatives to the project. Therefore, the Planning Commission found that the EIR was completed in compliance with the CEQA process and recommends its certification by the City Council. Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." Most of the potentially significant effects on the environment can be mitigated to below a level of significance through the implementation of project design features, standard conditions, or mitigation measures identified in the EIR. However, the following significant environmental effects could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance: Nmvpon Dunes Reson June 13, 2000 Page 14 1. The proposed project will cause long -range baseline conditions at the intersection of Coast Highway and Marguerite to operate at an unacceptable level of service during the a.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.). 2. The proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to an unavoidable significant cumulative impact on air quality if the control strategies outlined in the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan are not adequately implemented. 3. The proposed project will result insignificant air quality impacts due to short -term construction emissions from airborne dust and emissions from heavy equipment. 4. The proposed project will result insignificant cumulative impacts to views and area aesthetics and significantly impact the skyline/horizon view of the bluff along the north side of Upper Newport Bay. Should the City Council choose to approve the project, CEQA requires a statement of the specific reasons that support this action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record. Furthermore, CEQA requires that this statement of overriding considerations be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Staff proposes the following as a statement of overriding considerations: 1. Potentially significant adverse impacts related to traffic and circulation, air quality, and visual resources have been mitigated to the extent possible. These significant adverse impacts can be substantially reduced, although not eliminated, by project design features, conditions of approval, and/or mitigation measures contained in the EIR. 2. The proposed location and uses of the proposed project are complementary to the existing visitor serving uses of the Newport Dunes Resort, and the proposed project will serve the growing demand for conference/banquet facilities in the City. The proposed project will achieve several goals and policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan, including the provision of land use diversity and the encouragement or development of suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine related facilities. The project will provide land uses that are consistent with and complementary to the aquatic oriented, visitor serving, and recreational land uses, and the land and water features that are located on the project site and in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed project is a visitor serving use that provides access to the water with hotel, time -share, and recreational vehicle facilities, recreational areas, boat launching facilities, and coastal access trails. Newport Dunes Resort June 13,2000 Page 15 4. The proposed project is located in an established urban area where adequate infrastructure, facilities, and services are available, or will be provided with project implementation. 5. The fiscal analysis indicates that the proposed project will provide a net positive cost/revenue ratio for the City that is superior to all the alternatives analyzed in the EIR. 6. The proposed project will facilitate the generation of secondary economic benefits, such as increased patronage of local area services and commercial establishments, and related fiscal revenues to the City. Part Two Proposed Amendments GENERAL PLAN/LCP The application includes a proposed change of the land use designation of the hotel /time -share site (Planning Unit 1) from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Retail and Service Commercial and an amendment to the Land Use Element text to reflect the proposed increases in the number of rooms and square footage of the hotel. A parallel amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan is also proposed. The proposed revisions to the Land Use Element and LCP Land Use Plan are provided as Exhibits A and B in AttachmentNo. 6. CoastalAct Issues 0 As stated earlier, the Coastal Commission staff commented on the project's consistency with the Coastal Act during the DEIR public review period. The Coastal Commission staff comments raised three main issues: the loss of the interim boat storage area, the proposed development of time - shares on public tidelands, and the loss of 150 RV spaces. The interim dry boat storage area consists of 195 spaces and is used for the storage of boats, trailers, and RV's. However, the loss of this area is not considered to be in conflict with the LCP Land Use Plan for the following reasons. First, the interim nature of this facility has been recognized since a hotel was approved for development in this area in 1980, while it has only been utilized for storage since 1991. Second, the Newport Dunes already provides a permanent, 400 -space dry boat storage area in Planning Unit 4, which is conveniently located adjacent to the boat launch ramps and other support facilities. Third, a DEIR analysis of vacancies at nearby dry boat storage facilities indicates that the lost 195 spaces can be readily absorbed. Finally, the Coastal Commission has already approved the removal of the interim dry boat storage on the project site through the approval of the coastal development permit for the Family Inn Project. As to the issue of the development of time - shares on public tidelands, Attorney General's Opinion 95 -901 allows such a use where a project, when considered in its totality, will "provide for significant use by members of the general public and further trust uses by increasing opportunities for public access to the shoreline and water- oriented recreation." The time -share component is ancillary to the hotel project and the other visitor - serving and recreational facilities provided for in Newport Dunes Reson June 13, 2000 Page 16 the Newport Dunes Resort. Therefore, the time - shares are considered to be an allowed use on public tidelands when developed in conjunction with the other components of the Newport Dunes Resort. The Coastal Commission staff comments on the loss of 150 of the 444 RV spaces focused on the perceived loss of "lower cost overnight facilities." However, a DEIR analysis indicates that there is no significant difference in the affordability of the visitor accommodations existing and proposed for the Newport Dunes Resort. This analysis factored in the costs of owning and operating a RV in addition to the nightly rates at the RV Park. Furthermore, the analysis indicated that there is adequate capacity at other RV parks in the region to absorb the loss of these RV spaces. ZONING CODE The application also includes an amendment to Section 20.65.040 and Section 20.65.050 of the Zoning Code to establish new height restrictions for the property. Section 20.65.40 establishes the City's height limitation zones. The amendment would create anew limitation zone for the Newport Dunes Resort property. The base height limit would be fifty feet with the ability to achieve a maximum height of 65 feet through the adoption of a planned community district. Section 20.65.050 would be revised to reference the additional height regulations contained in the PC District Plan. The proposed revisions to the Chapter 20.65 are provided as Exhibit B in Attachment No. 9. 0 Part Three Planned Community District Plan The proposed project involves the adoption of a set of Planned Community District regulations for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property. The proposed PC District Plan will establish the land use and property development regulations and administrative procedures for all development on the Newport Dunes Resort property. The PC District Plan divides the project site into five (5) planning units. Planning Unit 1 is the site for the proposed hotel and time -share complex and is the only new land use proposed in the PC District Plan. All existing land uses, improvements, and entitlements are accounted for in Planning Units 2 -5. All existing land uses and development are allowed to continue, provided that any substantial enlargement and intensification of an existing use or development would require City approval. Development requests will be reviewed through precise plans. The Planning Commission will review conceptual precise plans in the same manner as use permits and they can be approved, conditionally approved or denied. If the Planning Commission has approved a conceptual precise plan, a more detailed final precise plan will be prepared and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the conceptual precise plan. The PC District Plan not only addresses the proposed hotel /time -share project, but also the existing uses and the ongoing administration of land uses and development on the Newport Dunes Resort property. A number of provisions have been incorporated into the PC District Plan to address various issues that were raised during the review of the proposed project. These issues could have been addressed through conditions on the precise plans. However, by incorporating them into the Newport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page 17 PC District Plan, these issues can be identified at the outset and addressed consistently in any future precise plans. Some of these provisions include the following: 0 ■ A schedule of maximum development entitlements and land use regulations that are more specific and comprehensive than those currently set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. ■ A noise control provision, which allows the City to establish a noise abatement program upon evidence that City noise control standards are being violated. ■ A lighting control provision that authorizes the Planning Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated, based on the illuminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. • Height limit provisions that require that no more than 5 percent of the hotel /time -share building footprint may be built to a maximum height of 65 feet and that the remaining structures of Planning Unit 1 be limited to a maximum height of 50 feet. All other structures in the Newport Dunes Resort will be limited to a maximum height of 35 feet. • A "Daylight Plane" setback based on a shadow analysis at the maximum shadow length on the Winter Solstice. The setback is intended to protect residential areas immediately adjacent to the project site from shade impacts from adjacent structures. ■ A requirement that each final precise plan include a lighting plan specifying fixture types, technical specifications,and photometric site information. ■ A requirement for a parking management program, addressing all proposed parking facilities, parking attendants, shuttles, and shuttle routes, whenever the provision of off - street parking occurs outside of a planning unit. ■ A set of Design Guidelinesto assist staff and the Planning Commission's review of proposed precise plans. The Design Guidelines set forth architectural and site planning principles to insure consistency in the quality and character of the development in the Newport Dunes Resort. The Design Guidelines provide a number of design standards and practices intended to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses and environmental resources, including provisions for the control of architectural style, site design, landscaping, signage, lighting and parking. Newpon Dunes Reson June 13, 2000 Page 18 The City's other PC district plans include little or no design provisions. Therefore, the Newport Dunes PC District Plan will be the first area in which the City will review future development proposals against a comprehensive set of design guidelines. Part Four Conceptual Precise Plan Site and Architectural Design The application includes a conceptual precise plan (Attachment No. 4) for the hotel/time -share site (Planning Unit 1). The proposed hotel /time -share resort consists of 370 hotel rooms and 75 time- share units'. The hotel will contain 421,000 square feet of floor area, including 31,000 square feet of conference rooms, meeting rooms, and banquet facilities, 13,650 square feet for eating and drinking establishments, 8,000 square feet for health club /spa facilities, and 4,600 square feet of retail and services. The time -share buildings will contain 160,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed hotel will contain four distinct levels. However, most of the hotel will be two and three stories high. The highest points are the peaks of the roof of the elevator towers in the four - story section of the hotel, which are 62 feet high. The maximum guestroom roof height will be 52 feet. The time -share buildings will have two stories, with the exception of the Main Time - Share, which will have four stories. The two -story time -share buildings will be 32 -feet high and the Main Time -Share Building will be approximately 52 -feet high. Vehicular access to the site will be provided by Bayside Drive, although employee and delivery vehicle access would be provided by a service road connecting to Back Bay Drive through the RV park. The improvement plan for Bayside Drive would move the project entrance from the terminus of Bayside Drive to a point just beyond the intersection of Bayside Drive and the entrance to Bayside Village. This design includes a traffic turn- around, a guardhouse, and raised medians. The segment of Bayside Drive from the Bayside Village entrance to the project property line would be vacated. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Bayside Drive control gate and turn- around contingent on City Council approval of the vacation of the segment of Bayside Drive from the Bayside Village entrance to the project property line. Street vacations are procedures established by City Council Policy L -9, which requires the City Council to make a finding that the street is unnecessary for present or prospective public use. Also, the actual street vacation must be conducted pursuant to the State of California Streets and Highway Code. Since this is a complex process that will involve parties other than the applicant (i.e., DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park) it should be conducted separately from this application. Furthermore, the project should be conditioned to provide that Bayside Drive be improved as originally proposed (Figures 4.7.2a and 4.7.2b of the DEIR), should the vacation not be pursued by the parties involved or be denied by the City Council. ' 25 of the 75 time -share units will have the capability of being "locked -off' to create two separate rentable rooms, thereby creating up to 100 rentable units. Newpon Dunes Reson June 13, 2000 Page 19 Off - street parking will be provided in the form of a three -level (two enclosed, one open) parking structure and surface parking areas containing a total of 1,254 spaces. Public coastal access would be provided to connect Bayside Drive to the existing public walkways along the marina bayfront and adjacent to the Swimming Lagoon. DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park/Dover Shores The most significant design issue involves the interface of the proposed project with the DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. Unlike other nearby land uses, this single - family residential area is immediately adjacent and at the same elevation as the proposed project. Most of the issues center on the parking structure, "back of house" area, and service road proposed along the western property line, which is shared with the residences of Mayflower Drive. Potential impacts include visual impacts associated with the proximity of a large complex of structures adjacent to single family homes and noise impacts. As discussed earlier in the environmental analysis section, the revised project design reduced these potential impacts to below a level of significance. Nevertheless, the project will result in a substantial change in the land use and visual setting of the mobile home park. Like the mobile home park, Dover Shores is essentially at the same elevation as the project, although it is over 860 feet any from the project site across Upper Newport Bay. As discussed earlier in the environmental analysis section, it is unlikely that noise from the project will significantly impact the residences of Dover Shores. Furthermore, the project reduction in the number of time -share units and limiting them to two stories along the bulkhead will lessen the visual impact. Function Areas The 31,000 square feet of function area includes a 12,000 square foot ballroom, a 9,000 square foot ballroom, a 5,000 square foot j unior ballroom, and six meeting rooms of 800 square feet each. The use of these function areas was one of the major focal points of discussion during the Planning Commission hearings. At issue was whether the function areas would generate traffic beyond that estimated for the hotel and time - shares. Of specific concern was that the occupancy levels permitted under the Uniform Building Code would permit thousands of people to utilize the facilities, thus generating thousands of additional vehicle trips during peak traffic hours. The trip generation rate used in the EIR traffic study is based on studies of similar hotel facilities conducted by the Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITE) and includes all components of the hotel, including restaurants, retail areas, and meeting rooms/ballroom facilities. Furthermore, additional data was provided that showed that hotels with similar or larger function areas had trip generation rates that were lower than the 8.2 trips per room rate (with 100% occupancy assumed) used in the EIR traffic study. Finally, data was provided on peak hour rates for hotels located in different regions of the country that showed that average trip generation rate per occupied room for all of these hotels during peak hours are comparable with those estimated for the proposed project. Staff believes that the data provided to the Planning Commission confirms that the EIR traffic study provides an accurate and complete analysis of potential traffic impacts. Newport Dunes Reson June 13, 2000 Page 20 To further address public concerns regarding traffic impacts associated with the function areas, the Planning Commission is recommending a condition that limits the use and maximum occupancy levels of the function areas during summer weekends and peak weekday traffic hours. This condition is summarized as follows: ■ On weekends (beginning at 5:00 p.m. on Fridays) and holidays catering functions (i.e., those designed to attract primarily non -hotel guests) would be limited to a maximum of 1,500 guests at any one time. Also, functions involving two or more groups totaling more than 750 catering guests must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart and functions involving no more than 375 catering guests may be scheduled to start or end during the P.M. weekend traffic peak hour at the intersection of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. Finally, the minimum time between functions to be held in any single room during two different time periods is one and one -half hours. ■ On Monday through Friday (except holidays), the maximum number of catering guests is 1,500 and can be increased to 2,000 from Thanksgiving Day to New Year's Day, except during the time of the annual Christmas Boat Parade. Furthermore, no catered events can be scheduled to start or end between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and no catered events can be scheduled to start or end between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Finally, functions involving two or more groups totaling more than one -half of the maximum number of guests (750 or 1,000) must be scheduled to start or end at least one- half hour apart. The Planning Commission included provisions that allow the City Manager to approve a limited number of waivers to these conditions. There is also a requirement that the applicant provide information to prove conformance with these conditions semi - annually as well as provide information on scheduled forthcoming events. Finally, there is a provision that allows the applicant to apply to the Planning Commission for a modification of this condition after two years, based on demonstrated traffic generation and parking demand statistics. Part Five DevelopmentAgreement The proposed development agreement vests the right of the Newport Dunes Partnership to proceed with the project approved by the City for the 15 -year term of the agreement. In exchange for this vesting and the right to develop timeshares as part of the project, the applicant agrees to provide the City with special benefits. The special benefits fall into two general areas: transient occupancy tax (TOT) on timeshare units, and Newport Bay water quality and ecology. The City Council appointed the Policies on Resort Taxation (PORT) Committee in early 1999 to review transient occupancy tax (TOT) issues with regard to timeshare developments and extended stay hotels. Among the Committee's conclusions were the proposed terms of a development agreement for the Newport Dunes Resort. The City Attorney has drafted the development agreement pursuant to the Committee's direction. Newport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page 21 While TOT will not be assessed on Newport Dunes timeshare owners or their guests (because they will pay property tax on the timeshare estate), owners in other timeshare developments who stay at Newport Dunes through an exchange program will be assessed an "entitlement fee." This fee will be 10% of the timeshare maintenance fee in effect at the time of the exchange. Timeshare units that are not used by owners or exchangers, and are placed in the nightly rental pool, will be subject to the full TOT, as any hotel room. With regard to Newport Bay, the development agreement provides that the applicant will give the City the right to use a portion of the property to facilitate maintenance of the Bay. This includes the right to make improvements such as bulkheads. The applicant will also contribute $75,000 to be used by City to fund projects or studies that improve the water quality or the environment in Upper and/or Lower Newport Bay. In addition, the applicant agrees to contribute $25,000 for the City to use in constructing or equipping a Marine Educational and Water Quality facility on Shellmaker Island. There is also a provision for the applicant to pay up to $200,000 for the design and construction of a view park at Upper Bayview Landing. The proposed development agreement also contains an indemnification provision, which requires the applicant to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City with respect to all litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and costs, in the event of any legal action instituted by any third party challenging the validity of the agreement and/or any project approval. Finally, the proposed development agreement requires a first class hotel and timeshare resort consistent with the provisions of this Agreement and the design guidelines of the PC Development Plan. Part Six Fiscal Impact City Council Policy F -17 requires that general plan amendments include an economic development component to determine the economic implications of the application. A fiscal impact analysis was conducted for the project that evaluated potential revenues against potential service costs. The analysis estimates that the proposed project will result in $1,416,517 more each year in recurring revenues than it will cause each year in recurring costs. The fiscal impact analysis assumes transient occupancy fees from the time -share units as provided in the draft development agreement The complete revenue and expense estimates are provided as AttachmentNo. 11. It should be noted that the fiscal impact analysis for the project as originally submitted estimated a $1,599,349 net positive impact. The change is due to the reduced sales and transient occupancy tax projections due to the reduction in the number of hotel rooms and time -share units and reduced property tax projections due to the reduction in the square footage of the project. Economic Development Committee Review The Economic Development Committee (EDC) reviewed the fiscal impact report conducted for the project. The EDC commented that the fiscal impact analysis was very conservative in terms of revenues to the City. The EDC also discussed the need for conference space, as documented in a Newport Dunes Reson June13,2000 Page 22 study conducted in 1997 on the feasibility of constructing a conference center. The EDC also • discussed the balance between the number of hotel rooms and the amount of conference space. The EDC concluded that the two cannot simply be reduced by an arbitrary percentage in order to reduce environmental impacts and that there is a need to consider what is needed to insure the viability of the project and the City's need for conference space. The EDC voted unanimously to support the project based on its fiscal benefits and the need for conference space. In addition, in reviewing the five -year general fund projection discussed by the City Council in October 1999, the EDC concluded that, "one major hotel project could add more to the City revenues than all the potential revenue enhancement sources mentioned in this report." Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 II 12 13 Prepared by: PATRICKJ. ALFORD Senior Planner z 41 Applicant's Briefing Materials (copies on file in the Planning Department). Applicant's Community Outreach Report (copies on file in the Planning Department) Final EIR (copies on file in the Planning Department). Conceptual Precise Plan— I I " x 17" (copies on file in the Planning Department). Resolution certifyingEIR 157. Resolution approving GPA 97 -3 (F) and LCP 51. Resolution approving Traffic Study No. 115. Resolution approving conceptual prec ise plan for Planning Unit 1. Ordinance approving Amendment No. 878 and PC -48. Ordinance approving Development Agreement 12. Fiscal impact analysis. Planning Commission meeting minutes. Correspondence. 'Analysis of Potential Means of Enhancement of Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue for the City of Nettport Beach; prepared for the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau by PKF Consulting, Los Angeles, California; February, 1997. Ne%rport Dunes Resort June 13, 2000 Page 23 Attachments Nos. 1 -4 Sent to CC under Separate Cover Applicant's Briefing Materials Applicant's Community Outreach Report Final EIR Conceptual Precise Plan 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFIYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEWPORT DUNES RESORT [ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 157) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach proposes to approve the 370 -room Newport Dunes Resort hotel/timeshare project, which includes the following discretionary actions: 1. General Plan AmendmentNo. 97 -3 (F) 2. Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 3. Zoning Code AmendmentNo. 878 4. Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan (PC48) 5. Development Agreement No. 12 0 6. Traffic Study No. 115 7. A conceptual precise plan for the hotel /time -share complex in Planning Unit 1. WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 157 to identify significant environmental effects of the original 600 -room hotel /time -share project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project; and WHEREAS, in September 1999, the Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was filed and the public review period for the draft EIR was from October 1, 1999 to November 15, 1999; and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public during and after the review period; and 0 WHEREAS, the Final EIR contains written responses to these comments as required by CEQA and responses to concerns raised during the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Newport Beach conducted duly noticed public hearings on January 20, February 3, February 17, March 9, March 23, April 6, April 20, 2000, and June 13, 2000 to receive public testimony with respect to the draft EIR at which all interested persons and organizations were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following findings prior to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with a brief explanation of the rationale supporting each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the final Environmental Impact Report. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Certified Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the City shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has: 1. Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15 09 1, and K NO 2. Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires, when the City Council approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the FEIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the City Council shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires, where an EIR has been prepared for a project 0 for which mitigation measures are adopted, that a mitigation monitoring or reporting program be adopted for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the draft EIR, the comments submitted during the public review period, the response to comments, written and oral testimony presented at the public hearings on the project and the final EIR, including additional environmental analysis on the revisedproject, and that Final EIR No. 157 is complete and adequate in that it addresses all known environmental effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Final EIR No. 157 is comprised of the following elements: 1. Draft EIR No. 157 2. Technical studies and other support material. 0 3. Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR. 3 a] 4. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR. 5. Responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. 6. EIR Errata. 7. Environmental analyses of the revised project. 8. Planning Commission staff reports, resolutions, and recommended conditions of approval. All of the above information is on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows: 1. The final EIR contains reasonable a range of reasonable alternatives to the project and location that could feasibly avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects of the project and feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might be more costly. 2. Although the final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that could result if the proposed project is constructed, all feasible mitigation measures that could eliminate or reduce those adverse effects have been included in the proposed project as described in the final EIR. 3. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its environmental risks, as required by CEQA. Those alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated into the project are rejected as infeasible, based on specific economic, social, and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the final EIR, and the administrative record. The supporting facts listed in H 9v Statement of Findings and Facts support of each Finding with respect to the significant impacts identified in the final EIR are true and are based upon substantial evidence in the record. The unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Findings and Facts, which have not been reduced to a level of insignificance will be substantially reduced by the imposition of conditions and mitigation measures. The City Council further finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the final EIR. The information contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is true and supported by substantial evidence in the record. 4. The mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements of Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines will be met through the design of the project, required compliance with City building, grading, and other codes and ordinances, and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is adopted and incorporated by reference. 5. Final EIRNo. 157, the Statementof Findings and Facts and the Statementof Overriding Considerations represent the independent judgement and analysis of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. 6. The Planning Director is directed to file a notice of determination within five working days after approval of the project, pursuant to Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines. E �q This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on _, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibit A: Statement of Findings and Facts/Statement of Overriding Considerations. Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 0 J 0 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS NEWPORT DUNES RESORT PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECTS, STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE NEWPORT DUNES RESORT PROJECT AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA" at Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that: "(No) public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: . (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." In making the findings required by Section 21081, the public agency must base its findings on substantial evidence in the record. Final EIR No. 157 for the Newport Dunes Resort Project and related discretionary actions identified significant environmental impacts prior to mitigation that may occur as a result of the project. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts these findings as part of its action to certify Final EIR No. 157 and approve the Newport Dunes Resort Project. n, A Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program was developed in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and is contained in a separate document. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL A. PROJECT.• Consistent with the intent of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, Newport Dunes Resort EIR, and of relevant judicial interpretations of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Newport Dunes Resort EIR is defined to include all actions relating to the adoption of a Planned Community (PC) District Plan for the entire 100 acres, Newport Dunes Resort, and the development of a Hotel and Time -Share Resort on a 30 acre portion of Newport Dunes Resort. These activities are under thejurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach as Lead Agency, including issuance of grading permits as well as the review and approval of discretionary planning and permitting actions (General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan) necessary for project implementation. The Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan provides for the preparation of a Conceptual Precise Plan and a Final Precise Plan for each Planning Unit, including the Hotel and Time -Share Resort, and will memorialize the existing improvements on the balance of the Newport Dunes Resort. The related actions required to implement the project, which are also included within the scope of the EIR, are listed in Section 3.8 of the EIR. The Draft EIR also evaluated the physical changes associated with the development of the Hotel and • Time -Share Resort, which included a 400 room hotel totaling approximately 500,000 square feet, and 100 time -share units totaling approximately 200,000 square feet. Each of the time -share units would have the capability of being "locked- off'to create two separate rentable rooms, thereby creating up to 200 rentable rooms. If all the time -share units were locked off, a maximum total of 600 rentable rooms would result. Also included with the Draft EIR was a parking structure connected to the hotel, which when combined with approximately 170 surface parking spaces provided approximately 1,220 parking spaces to serve the Hotel and Time -Share Resort and existing Newport Dunes Marina. Construction of the Hotel and Time -Share Resort would result in the removal of 150 recreational vehicle sites and the interim dry boat storage area from the project site. The project incorporates comments and review from the following: Analysis of the project by the Staff of various City departments; 2. Analysis of the project by the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council; 3. Responses to the Notice of Preparation; 4. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR; and 5. Input from a series of meetings conducted by the project sponsor with area homeowners in the surrounding residential communities and various associations throughout the formulation and public review of the project. • �1� After holding numerous hearings (January 20, 2000, February 3, 2000, February 17, 2000, March 9, 2000, March 23, 2000, April 6, 2000, and April 20, 2000) on the proposed project, including a hearing focusing on the Environmental Impact Report on April 6, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1518 on April 20, 2000, recommending that the City Council certify the Newport Dunes Resort Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 157) as complete and consistent with the requirements of CEQA. On April 20, the Planning Commission reduced the room count and height of the project, and made other changes to the project. The revised project is composed of a 370 room hotel with 421,000 square feet of floor area, which includes 31,000 square feet of conference facilities. The maximum height of the hotel is four stories. Seventy-five two bedroom time -share units totaling 160,000 square feet of floor area are proposed. Twenty-five of the time -share units will have lock -off capability, meaning that up to 100 time -share units could be rented individually. Therefore, the Hotel and Time -Share Resort will be the equivalent of a 470 room hotel with approximately 581,000 square feet of floor area. Specific changes recommended by the Planning Commission are as follows: 1. Reduction in the number of hotel rooms from 400 to 370, and reduction in the conference space to 31,000 square feet, with limitations on the use and maximum occupancy levels of the function areas during summer weekends and peak weekday traffic hours. 2. Reduction in the number of time -share units from 100 to 75, 25 of which can be split into two rentable rooms, for a total of 100 rentable units. 3. Elimination of one of the time -share buildings proposed along the marina bulkhead. 4. Redirection of Hotel and Time -Share Resort employee and service vehicle traffic through the RV Resort to Back Bay Drive, rather than Bayside Drive. 5. Increase in the setback from the mobile home park from approximately 50 feet to a 100 foot minimum, with an average setback of 115 feet. The setback area will include surface parking and landscaping in place of the previously proposed service drive and loading dock. 6. Relocation of loading dock to the southeast portion of the building, adjacent to the RV Resort. 7. Reduction in the maximum height of the hotel from five stories to four, and reduction in the height of the time -share units along the marina bulkhead to two stories. S. Lowering of the proposed pad height from 12 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 10 feet MSL for the hotel and parking structure, and to 9 feet MSL for the time -share buildings. 9. Revision of the Bayside Drive improvement plans to install a guardhouse and vehicular access gates at a location just west of the entrance to the Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. This requires vacating Bayside Drive from the Dunes property to the guardhouse. The above changes are to the Hotel and Time -Share Resort project proposed within the Newport Dunes Resort property, and include changes to Bayside Drive improvements. No substantial changes were made to the remainder of the Newport Dunes Resort, with the exception of providing employees and service vehicle access through the RV Resort to Back Bay Drive. An Environmental Analysis Of Revised Project dated May 12, 2000 ( "Environmental Analysis of Revised Project') was conducted and found the revised project has no new significant environmental impacts not already evaluated in the DEIR. Furthermore, none of the significant impacts identified in the DEIR have been increased through the revisions to the project, and no new significant impacts are created as a result of the revisions. Alternatively, none of the significant impacts identified in the DEIR have been eliminated by the reduction in the project. As the revised project does not alter the conclusions of the DEIR, the findings presented herein focus on the analysis and conclusions of the DEIR. The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project is provided in Volume 111 of the Final EIR. h /1 A Bayside Drive Gate Access Study dated January 28, 2000 (` Bayside Drive Gate Access Study ") was conducted and found that the construction of a gated entry and related modifications on Bayside Drive have no new significant environmental impacts not already evaluated in the DEIR. Furthermore, none of the significant impacts identified in the DEIR have been increased through the construction of a gated entry on Bayside Drive, and no new significant impacts are created as a result of the proposed gated entry. Alternatively, none of the significant impacts are created as a result of the proposed gated entry. As the revised project does not alter the conclusions of the DEIR, the findings presented herein focus on the analysis and conclusions of the DEIR. The Bayside Drive Gate Access Study is provided in Volume III of the Final EIR. For purposes of analyzing potential environmental impacts, the proposed Hotel and Time -Share Resort is the only portion of the proposed project that has the potential to have a significant impact. Other potentially feasible projects which were analyzed as alternatives included: (1) No Project (build out per the Settlement Agreement a.k.a. Family Inn Project), (2) 200 Time Share Units Development, (3) Expansion of RV Resort, and (4) Off -Site Alternatives. Section VI of this document provides findings relative to these Project Alternatives. III. GENERAL The City Council, having independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, the Appendices, and the record of proceedings, finds as follows: A. GENERAL FINDINGS The City Council hereby finds as follows: I. The foregoing and following statements are true and correct; 2. The City Council is the "Lead Agency" for the project evaluated in the FEIR. The Draft EIR and the FEIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and the FEIR for the project, and the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council; 3. An MMRP has been prepared for the changes to the project, which the Council has adopted or made a condition of approval of the project. That MMRP has been incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record of proceedings for the project; 4. The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation; the Planning Commission will serve as the MMRP Coordinator; 5. In determining whether the project has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the Council has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21.082.2; 6. The impacts of the project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the FEIR; The Council has made no decisions related to approval of the project prior to certification of the FEIR, nor has the Council previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the project; 0 8. Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the FEIR are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City Planning Department, custodian of record for such documents or other materials; 9. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA processes; 10. To the degree that any impacts described in the FEIR are perceived to have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment, any significant effect of such impacts has been substantially lessened or avoided by the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR or is outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; 11. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR or are outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; 12. On June 13, 2000, and June 27, 2000, public hearings were held before the Council to consider approval of the project and certification of the FEIR; 13. The Council finds that the FEIR provides objective information to assist the decision - makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft EIR. The FEIR was prepared after the review period and responds to comments made during the public review period; 14. The Council evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the Council prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The FEIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to comments. The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the FEIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR; 15. The Council reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR. The Lead Agency has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the FEIR; 16. The City prepared an "Environmental Analysis of Revised Project" dated May 15, 2000, which analyzed a scaled down version of the project as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Council finds that the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project adequately analyzed the scaled down project and is made a part of the FEIR. The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project finds and demonstrates that the revised project has no new significant environmental impacts not already evaluated in the DEIR. None of the significant impacts in the DEIR have been increased through the revisions to the project and no new significant impacts are created as a result of the revisions. Under CEQA Guideline 15088.5, the Council finds the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, or any other document or information, does not require recirculation of the DEIR; 1. G 17. The mitigation measures other than those measures that can and should be the responsibility of another agency other than the Council are described in the MMRP and the Errata (which will be incorporated into the FEIR). Each of these mitigation measures identified in the MMRP and Errata is incorporated into the project. The Council finds that the impacts of the project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the Mitigation Measures identified in the MMRP and Errata; 18. Textual refinements, miscellaneous analyses, and errata were compiled and presented to the decision- makers for review and consideration of the Council. The City staff has made every effort to notify the decision - makers and the interested public agencies of each textual change in the various documents associated with the review of the project. These textual refinements arose for a variety of reasons. First, it is inevitable that draft documents will contain errors and will require clarifications and corrections. Second, textual clarifications were necessitated in order to describe refinements suggested as part of the public participation process; 19. Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft EIR and the FEIR and in the administrative record, as well as the requirements of the CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local Agency Guidelines regarding recirculation of the Draft EIRs, and having analyzed the changes in the Draft EIR that have occurred since the close of the public review period, the Council finds that there is no new significant information in the FEIR and finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required; 20. The Council finds that the FEIR was presented to the City Planning Commission, and that the City Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to taking action to recommend approval of the project and certification of the FEIR; 21. CEQA requires the Lead Agency approving a project to adopt a MMRP for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance with project implementation. The MMRP included in the FEIR as certified by the Council serves that function. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the project. In accordance with CEQA, the mitigation monitoring and reporting program provides the measures to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable; 22. The Council is certifying a FEIR for, and is approving and adopting findings for, the entirety of the actions described in these Findings. There may be a variety of actions undertaken by other State and local agencies (who might be referred to as "responsible agencies" under CEQA). Because the Council is the Lead Agency for the project, the FEIR is intended to be the basis for compliance with CEQA for each of the possible discretionary actions by other State and local agencies to carry out the project. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In June 1998, the City of Newport Beach released an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") for the proposed project (State Clearinghouse No. 98061 1 13). Based on the comments received during the public review period for the MND, the City decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project. 0 j �o The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was issued on August 17, 1998. It requested that responsible agencies respond as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to that agency's specific responsibilities. The public review period for the Draft EIR began on October 1, 1999, and the Draft EIR and appendices were available for public review on that date. A Notice of Availability of Draft EIR was filed with the County Recorder /County Clerk on October 1, 1999. The 45 -day public review and comment period ended on November 15, 1999. There have been numerous opportunities for public review and comment, including, but not limited to, the opportunities described in the Community Outreach Report (January, 1999 — May, 2000) and the public forums set forth below: • City Planning Commission, January 20, 2000 • City Planning Commission, February 3, 2000 • City Planning Commission, February 17, 2000 • City Planning Commission, March 9, 2000 • City Planning Commission, March 23, 2000 • City Planning Commission, April 6, 2000 • City Planning Commission, April 20, 2000 • City Council, June 13, 2000 • City Council, June 27, 2000 C. RECORD OF °ROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Record of Proceedings for the project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City Clerk, the Council, or other City entity in conjunction with the Project; • The Draft EIR; • The FEIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and all responses to those comments; • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the project at which such testimony was taken; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP'); • The reports, analyses, and information included in Volumes II -V of the FEIR; • The Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the Council in connection with the project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein; • Matters of common knowledge to the Council, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; n Any documents cited in these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Section 21167.6(e) of CEQA. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Council's decision is based are located at the City of Newport Beach. The custodian for these documents is the Planning Department, whose office is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. Copies of all these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been available upon request at the City offices at the above address. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code § 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15091(e). The Council has relied on all the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the project, even if every document was not formally presented to the Council or Council staff, as part of the Council files generated in connection with the project. These documents are either in the project files, reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the project, or influenced the expert advice provided to the Council staff or consultants, who then provided advice to Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the project. D. GENERAL COMMENTS.• In 1983, the City and the Newport Dunes Partnership (NDP) entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) to resolve litigation challenging the validity of the EIR prepared by the County for the proposed redevelopment of Newport Dunes and the County's authority to approve development in the City. The Agreement authorized the redevelopment of the Newport Dunes, including the development of a 275 room "Family Inn" not to exceed 500,000 square feet, with a related 12,500 square feet of restaurant floor area, a "free standing restaurant" of 15,000 square feet, and 5,000 square feet of commercial, office, or retail floor area. The Agreement also authorized the upgrade, maintenance, or expansion of existing facilities such as dry boat storage, launch ramps, boat trailer parking, and beach concessions. Finally, the Agreement established the fees, payments, and improvements that NDP was required to make to satisfy conditions to develop and enhance public access to and around the project area. The Settlement Agreement constitutes an agreement by the City, County, and Newport Dunes, Inc., that development of the Family Inn Project will be permitted on the project site, subject to the required approval of the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission issued such an approval of the Family Inn Project in 1984, through the approval of Permit No. 5 -83 -962 for the redevelopment of the project site, which included the 275 room Family Inn Project. The Family Inn Project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element, which specifically states that the Newport Dunes site "is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space, and development is permitted pursuant to the Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement" (City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, p. 60). NDP, as contemplated in the Agreement, has constructed the primary entitlement in phases. The RV park, boat slips, and offices have been built, and NDP has paid all required fees. NDP has completed the upgrades to the beach, boat storage area, boat launch facility, and boat parking area, as well as improvements designed to enhance public use of the area, such as the interpretive center, bike path, and human powered craft launch facility. The Agreement has undergone minor amendments since 1983, but there has been no significant change to any of the primary entitlement. 0 ,3rK The Agreement specifically states that it is "intended to bind the parties now and in the future." The Agreement also states that it "contains commitments of both City and County sufficientto bind future boards and council, notwithstanding any change in the composition thereof." The parties to the Agreement also acknowledge that they have each "made significant and irrevocable commitments and have each given up certain rights and powers in order to achieve this agreement" The express terms of the Agreement clearly express the intent of the parties that NDP has a vested right to complete what remains of the primary entitlement. The City has, for more than 15 years, treated the Agreement as one that granted vested rights to NDP. The vehicle trips generated by the primary entitlement have been considered "committed" for purposes of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and the City's Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). The City has granted building permits for much of the primary entitlement without further environmental documentation, any discretionary review applicable to similar land uses, and further TPO analysis. NDP has fully complied with their obligations and has paid fees and constructed improvements that benefit the public generally. In some cases, the improvements are unrelated to impacts associated with the primary entitlement (such as the bike path and interpretive center). The parties have substantially performed the Agreement, establishing the property owner's reasonable reliance on permits issued by the City and Coastal Commission, thereby creating a fair argument that the NDP has a vested right to proceed with development of improvements consistent with the Agreement and in compliance with development constraints. As such, the Family Inn Project has been assumed in the City's General Plan, City and regional growth projections and in cumulative projects analyses and is appropriately considered the environmental baseline for purposes of the traffic, air quality, and alternatives analyses of the Final EIR. The TPO is the City's standard for determining thresholds of significance for traffic impacts. The Final EIR used the TPO to assess the proposed Hotel and Time -Share Resort impacts based on future conditions with and without the Family Inn Project. As described in the Final EIR, the Family Inn Project would generate 4,000 vehicle trips per day while the Hotel and Time -Share Resort would generate 4,800 vehicle trips per day, a difference of 800 trips. By defining the trip generation of both scenarios, the Final EIR identifies the increase in traffic volumes associated with development on the site over future background traffic levels. Additionally, existing traffic counts were provided for several intersections within the study area to document current conditions. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT, MITIGABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT CAN BE AVOIDED OR LESSENED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE. The City Council, having independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, the Appendices, and the record of proceedings, finds as follows: A. LAND USE AND RELEVANTPLANNING 1. Impact 1 -1 - Land Use Conflicts The proposed project will result in development of a Hotel and Time -Share Resort next to an existing low density single family mobile home park. The proposed hotel will be perceived by the adjacent mobile home park residents as a substantial change in the land use setting. (DEIR, page 4.1 -27.) Visual differences between the uses, noise associated with the Hotel and Time -Share Resort, and increased activity at the Hotel and Time -Share Resort could result in a potentially significant land use impact to the mobile home park. (DEIR, pp. 4.1 -27 through 4.1 -28.) �n Finding 0 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1 of the EIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to potential land use conflicts to the existing mobile home park identified above can be substantially mitigated or avoided by project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures listed below and in Section III.G (Noise) and Section IILH (Visual) of these Findings. The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project concluded that, although the revised project reduced mass of structures, the implementation of the project still constitutes a substantial change to the environmental setting. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 13.) Therefore, land use impacts of the revised project are reduced below what was analyzed in the DEIR, and no new significant impacts are generated by the revised project that have not been addressed in the DEIR. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 13.) These features and measures will reduce the potential impacts by, for example, regulating building location, massing, and setbacks. In addition, Marina tenants will be provided with adequate parking and parking management. Setbacks for mechanical equipment and restrictions on loading dock hours will also mitigate the impacts. The project design features (PDFs), standard conditions (SCs), and mitigation measures (MMs) are set forth in full below and hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 1 -1 - PC District Plan and Design Guidelines 0 The PC District Plan sets forth regulations and design guidelines and outlines the framework for a Conceptual Precise Plan, which includes building location requirements, building massing requirements, site planning principles, building envelopes, building setbacks, landscaping, and a daylight plain setback from adjacent residential uses. The Planning Director shall review permits for consistency with the PC District Plan regulations and design guidelines prior to issuance of permits, according to the PC District Plan. PDF 1 -2 - PC District Plan Land Use Controls The PC District Plan and Implementing Precise Plan function as the zoning for the property. The PC District Plan and implementing Precise Plans regulate the existing uses allowed on the entire Newport Dunes Resort to existing uses plus the proposed Hotel and Time -Share Resort, but place additional and more definitive development standards and regulations on the Newport Dunes Resort. These proposed planning tools ensure a master planned approach to site development, a City controlled development approval process, and comprehensive design control program that will provide for new development within Newport Dunes Resort that does not allow on -site land use or physical conflicts, and ensures consistency with the City's objectives for new development as articulated in the General Plan. The Planning Director, prior to issuance of permits, reviews such permits for consistency with the PC District Plan according to the procedures outlined in the PC District Plan. PDF 1 -3 - Marina Parking and Access The entire surface parking lot, with approximately 170 parking spaces, will be reserved for marina . tenants, and additional parking will be provided in the parking structure. Access to this parking lot will U Llf d . be controlled by the same card key system currently used for access to the parking, dock, and restrooms in the Marina area. Loading zones and staging areas will be provided immediately adjacent to the Marina Center buildings located midway along the marina bulkhead. Large and small dock carts will be provided to assist marina tenants with loading and unloading their gear and provisions. SC 1 -1 - Compliance with General Plan and PC District Plan Development of all sites shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and applicable PC District Plan regulations and Design Guidelines, included therein. SC 1 -2 - Subsequent Development Approvals Subsequent discretionary approvals, including any Subdivision Maps and /or Site Plans, Grading and Demolition Permits, will be in compliance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15. Mitigation Measure 1 -1 - Mechanical Equipment Setback In order to avoid potentially significant land use impacts on the DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park, the 15 foot setbacks required by the PC District Plan adjacent to the west property line shall be kept free from all mechanical appurtenances such as air conditioners and /or building and parking structure mechanical ventilation equipment. Mitigation Measure 1 -2 - Loading Dock Hours All loading and unloading activities at the westerly side of the structure at ground level shall be restricted . to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features, standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measures described above, which will minimize land use impacts to the De Anza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. B. EARTHRESOURCES 1. Impact 3 -1 - Seismic Ground Shaking and Liquefaction The site's proximity to the Newport- Inglewood Fault and other nearby active faults, combined with the unconsolidated soil types and high water table (10 to 20 feet below the ground surface), create a significant potential for liquefaction to occur in the loose to medium dense sands and silty sands. (DEIR, pp. 4.3 -2 through 4.3 -4.) Also due to the site's proximity to the Upper Newport Bay, there could be lateral spreading of soils towards the water, causing lateral shifting and possible differential lateral movements of the structures supported on the soils, creating a potentially significant environmental effect. (DEIR, p. 4.3 -4.) Finding Changes or alterations to the project have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3 of the FEIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. 0 a Facts in Support of the Finding 0 Potentially significant impacts related to earth resources identified above can be substantially reduced by Mitigation Measure 3- I, listed below, and as contained in the EIR, by combining soil improvement options such as densification and mixing/hardening with structural engineering/foundation engineering techniques, including the use of drilled/driven piles to penetrate through the liquifiable soils. (DEIR, pp. 4.3 -8 through 4.3-11.) The geotechnical investigation will determine the appropriate techniques, which determination shall occur prior to issuance of grading permits. (DEIR, p. 4.3-11.) Page 13 of the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project concluded that the revised project would be subject to the same seismic design considerations but that the revised project would not have any new environmental effects related to earth resources not already anticipated by the DEIR. MM 3 -1 is set forth below, is hereby incorporated by reference, is feasible, and is made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: Mitigation Measure 3 -1 - Seismic Ground Shaking and Liquefaction The potential for impacts from liquefaction or seismic ground shaking shall be mitigated by a combination of acceptable soil improvement and structural engineering/foundation engineering techniques as determined by the project architect and engineer, subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach Building Official. The final method for mitigation of the liquefaction and seismic ground shaking potential shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Building Department during plan review, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. All potentially significant environmental effects to earth resources have been substantially . lessened by virtue of the measure described above, which will minimize the effect of regional seismic groundshaking and localized liquefaction. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. C. WATER RESOURCES 1. Impact 4-1 - Project Design and Operation Construction of the proposed project could have a potentially significant environmental effect by generating stormwater pollution from sources such as, but not limited to, oil, grease, and other motor vehicle fluids on paved areas, litter and trash left in parking areas, and sediments and fine sands blown on site from surrounding areas. (DEIR, pp. 4.4 -15 through 4.4 -16.) All storm runoff, for example, from street, parking, roof, and other impervious areas, could have a potentially significant effect to water quality. (DEIR, p. 4.4 -16.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4 of the FEIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to water resources identified above can be substantially reduced by project design features, standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measures listed below and as . contained in the FEIR. These features and measures will require a setback from the Swimming Lagoon to 12 t1 '� • minimize direct impacts from pollution sources. (DEIR, p. 4.4 -8.) In addition, the potential impacts will be mitigated by a series of water interceptor structures, which will collect pollutants and protect against spills. (DEIR, p. 4.4 -8.) The applicant will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( "SWPPP ") as required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. (DEIR, p.4.4 -1 1.) The potential impacts also will be mitigated through the Structural and Non - Structural Best Management Practices, which include using the water interceptor structures as part of the storm drain system and incorporating non - structural practices into a final water quality management plan. (DEIR, pp. 4.4 -16 through 4.4 -22.) The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project concluded that the revised project would generate essentially the same amount of runoff and other effects on water resources as the project analyzed in the DEIR, and that there would be no increase to impacts or new impacts to water resources. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 13.) See also Response to Comment 1 -2 -2, which also concludes that runoff would not have impacts to salt marsh habitat or sensitive species. The PDF, SC, and MM are set forth in full below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 4 -1 - Setback from Swimming Lagoon Hotel parking, service and activity areas are set back from the Swimming Lagoon to minimize direct impacts from pollution sources. The Best Management Practices are outlined in Mitigation Measure 4 -1. PDF 4 -2 - Prater Interceptor Structures A series of water interceptor structures is planned as an integrated part of the storm drain system. The conceptual storm drain system designed by Adams Streeter Civil Engineers Inc. proposes four independent backbone storm drain systems to replace the existing drainage systems on the Hotel and Time -Share Resort site. The three existing storm drain outlets that pass through the marina bulkhead wall to Upper Newport Bay will be utilized by the new system, and a fourth drain will require a new outlet (refer to Figure 4.4.3). The Stormceptor, manufactured by CSR Hydroconduit, is used as an example of the type of structure that will be installed as part of the storm drain system. The Stormceptor structures are designed to separate oils, greases, sediments, and other suspended solids from the initial stormwater runoff and during regular dry season conditions. A pollution storage chamber is provided in the lower portion of the structure. The structure collects pollutants by trapping floating pollutants such as oil, grease and trash in an upper chamber, while heavy sediments settle at the bottom of the chamber. Because the structures are not designed to treat stormwater during high flow conditions, heavy stormwater flows will pass through the structure without treatment. The water interceptor structures also provide additional protection against spills that may occur on paved surfaces near delivery sites or in the vicinity of trash bins. Such spills would collect in the pollutant storage chamber. Installation of water interceptor structures has become more common in the United States due to heightened awareness of the causes of water pollution and the technological evolution of structural prevention measures. A water interceptor structure is already in place in the boat wash area of the Newport Dunes Resort (see Figure 4.4.2). According to the manufacturer, Stormceptor units have been or will be installed in cities throughout Southern California, including Huntington Beach, Anaheim, Laguna Beach, Fountain Valley, Long Beach, and Malibu. Their use is most common in sensitive locations or where there is a significant risk of the generation of water pollutants. Figure 4.4.4 is a section exhibiting Stormceptor operation during both high and low flow operation. 13 SC 4 -1 - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 0 The applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall include, at a minimum, the following items: A map extending approximately one - quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands), known wells, an outline of off-site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site's stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. Site map(s) showing: a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; C. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; It. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; i. Locations of post - construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, stored, disposed, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; C. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. 0 14 u Li E 5. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site - specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and /or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. SC 4 -2 - Storm Drain Facility Design The design of all required storm drainage facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Storm drain facilities shall be designed to handle a minimum 25 year storm frequency. SC 4 -3 - Kitchen Facilities Building plans shall demonstrate that grease traps shall be installed in all kitchen wastewater lines prior to the issuance of building permits. 15 Mitigation Measure 4 -1 - Structural Best Management Practices 0 Stormwater pollutants from roof drains, street surfaces, parking lot and parking structure areas, and supply delivery areas will be managed through specific structural BMPs. The specific BMPs proposed for these drainage sources are described below. The backbone of the structural BMPs is a series of water interceptor structures planned as in integrated part of the storm drain system. Project Design Feature 4 -2 uses the Stormceptor manufactured by CSR Hydroconduit as an example. The following structural BMPs shall be incorporated into the project construction plans, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Newport Beach Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measure 4 -1 a - Roof Drainage Wherever possible, discharge from roof drains shall be directed through turfed swales or landscaped areas. Inlets to the storm drain system will be provided at the terminus of these swales. Turfed drainage swales or landscaped areas encourage infiltration and tend to remove fine- grained sediments and silts washed from rooftops prior to entering the storm drain systems. In the event that final design of the Hotel and Time -Share Resort open space areas does not permit the use of swales, alternative drainage systems shall be installed to direct roof drainage to alternative water quality improvement systems, including a stormwater interceptor. Mitigation Measure 4-1h - Drainage from Paved Automotive Areas A series of stormwater interceptor structures, such as the Stormceptor System manufactured by CSR Hydroconduit, shall be installed as part of the project's drainage system as described in PDF 4 -2. The stormwater interceptor shall be designed to remove up to 80 percent of Total Suspended Solids (TSSs) and oils and grease. The Stormceptor System is described here as an example. The proposed mitigation is based on receiving water being classified as a "Sensitive Area," requiring a system that removes up to 80 percent of the TSS and the oils and greases in the stormwater. Figure 4.4.4 is a section exhibiting Stormceptor operation during both high and low flow operation. The water interceptor structures shall be maintained by removing accumulated pollutants annually before the rainy season, or as specified in the manufacturer's recommendations (see Mitigation Measure 4 -2e, Water Interceptor and Catch Basin Inspection and Cleaning). Mitigation Measure 4 -Ic - Parking Structure Runoff Control Down drains from all levels of the parking structure shall be connected to the drainage conduits delivering runoff to the stormwater interceptor structures. Mitigation Measure 4 -1 d - Efficient Irrigation Systems Irrigation systems shall be installed and programmed to apply the appropriate volume of water necessary for the plant materials selected and avoid excess runoff. Mitigation Measure 4-le - Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas Hotel restaurants and other food processing concessions shall have internally contained floor drainage areas, dishwashers, and sinks, with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. 0 16 Oh Mitigation Measure 4-If- Trash Container Areas Trash container areas shall be screened, walled, and secured to prevent accidental off -site transport of trash into water bodies. Mitigation Measure 4 -Ig - Self- Contained Areas for Washing /Steam Cleaning /Maintenance /Repair Self - contained areas for washing/steam cleaning and performing maintenance activities to Hotel service vehicles and landscape maintenance equipment shall be provided. These areas shall convey wash water to Stormceptor or similar structures. If such washing and maintenance activities are to be performed at the existing boat wash rack facility near Back Bay Drive, the requirements of this measure will be met. Mitigation Measure 4 -1 h - Outdoor Storage Any outdoor containers for oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, wastes, and other chemicals, shall be protected by secondary containment structures (not double wall containers). These storage areas shall be provided with drains to deliver any storm runoff or spills to the Stormceptor or similar structures. Mitigation Measure 4 -1 i - Catch Basin Stenciling The phrase `NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO BAY" or equivalent language, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, shall be stenciled on catch basins in the parking lots and maintenance areas to alert the public and employees that dumping pollutants into the storm drain system is not permitted. Mitigation Measure 4 -2 - Non - Structural BMPs The following non - structural BMPs shall be implemented during the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facilities. These non - structural BMPs shall be incorporated into the final water quality management plan for the Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of building permits. The management of the Newport Dunes Hotel and Time -Share Resort shall be responsible for integrating these measures into the regular operations of the project. Mitigation Measure 4 -2a - Activity Restrictions No car washing, changing of oil, or other auto repairs shall be permitted within the 30 acre Hotel and Time -Share Resort site. Hotel service vehicles and equipment used for maintenance shall be washed at the existing boat wash rack or other locations off the project site. Vehicles shall be serviced at approved maintenance sites, either on -site or oft -site. Mitigation Measure 4 -2b - Landscape Maintenance Landscaped areas that utilize fertilizers and pesticides shall be managed, in concert with guidelines provided in the Orange County DAMP. The guidelines for the use and management of fertilizers and pesticides are described in Appendix D. Mitigation Measure 4 -2c - Litter Control Regular litter control and emptying of trash receptacles will be scheduled to minimize debris that would be carried to Upper Newport Bay. 17 IIII Mitigation Measure 4 -2d - Employee Training 0 Employee training is a method by which to implement BMPs. The overall objectives and approach for assuring employee training in stormwater pollution prevention are listed below. Employee training should be based on four objectives: I . Promote a clear identification and understanding of water quality concerns, including activities with the potential to pollute stormwater. 2. Identify solutions (BMPs). 3. Promote employee ownership of the problems and the solutions. 4. Integrate employee feedback into training and BMP implementation. The approach includes the following: Integrate training regarding stormwater quality management with existing training programs that may be required for hotel operations by regulations such as: the Illness and Injury Prevention Program (IIPP) (SB 198) (California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 3203), the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard (29 CFR 1910.120), the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (40 CFR 112), and the Hazardous Materials Management Plan (Business Plan) (California Health and Safety Code, Section 6.95). 2. Hotel management may use the information in Appendix D, Reference 11, to develop a training program to reduce the potential to pollute stormwater. Mitigation Measure 4 -2e - Water Interceptor and Catch Basin Inspection and Cleaning Catch basins and stormwater inlets shall be maintained on a regular basis to remove pollutants, reduce high pollutant concentrations during the first flush storms, prevent clogging of the downstream conveyance system, and restore the catch basins' sediment trapping capacity. Regular maintenance of catch basins and inlets is necessary to ensure their proper functioning. Clogged catch basins are not only useless, but may act as a source of sediments and pollutants. In general, the keys to effective catch basins are: At least annual inspections. Maintenance staff should inspect the basins to ensure compliance with the following: Immediate repair of any deterioration threatening structural integrity. Cleaning before the basin sump is 50 percent full. Catch basins should be cleaned as frequently as needed to meet this standard. 2. Clean catch basins in high pollutant load areasjust before the wet season (prior to October 15th) to remove sediments and debris accumulated during the summer. 3. Keep accurate logs of the number of catch basins cleaned. 4. Record the amount of waste collected. 18 o . A water interceptor and catch basin monitoring report shall be prepared by the applicant on an annual basis, specifying methods of compliance to this measure. This monitoring report shall be included in the annual report specified in Mitigation Measure 4 -2g. Mitigation Measure 4 -2f - Sweeping of Streets, Parking Lots, and Parking Structures On -site roadways and parking lots shall be cleaned on a weekly basis to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system from paved surfaces. Mitigation Measure 4 -2g - Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs The applicant shall be responsible for the inspection, implementation, and maintenance of the structural and non - structural BMPs outlined in the final Water Quality Management Plan and SWPPP. The management team will retain all maintenance records for a period of three years. Those records will be available for review by government agencies. An annual monitoring report documenting the schedule of maintenance and repair and the volume of accumulated sediments, floatable debris, and other pollutants captured by catch basins and the stormwater interceptor structures will be prepared following the annual cleaning activity. This annual monitoring report will be made available to all government agencies with enforcement jurisdiction over the property, including the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange. • All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features, standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measures described above, which will reduce or eliminate stormwater pollution from entering Upper Newport Bay. These measures are consistent with those prescribed by the SCAQMD and the City of Newport Beach and will reduce construction related impacts to a less than significant level. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Impact 5 -1 - Noise and Lighting Impacts The long -term use and operation of the proposed project could have a potentially significantly environmental effect to biological resources due to an increase in noise and lighting adjacent to natural habitat areas in Newport Back Bay. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -12.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.5 of the EIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to biological resources can be substantially reduced by the mitigation measures listed below and as contained in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 5 -1 will reduce the impact by prohibiting the use of wide focus lights and by designing lighting to minimize glare, thereby avoiding the effects of light and glare to biological resources. (DEIR, p: 4.1 -12.) Page 14 of the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project concluded that the revised project has essentially the same building footprint and design features of the project proposed in the DEIR and would not have any increase in or new environmental effects not already addressed in the DEIR relating to noise and impact. IL 11"i Mitigation Measures 9 -la and 9 -1b will mitigate noise impacts to biological impacts during the construction phases by requiring construction equipment to be away from sensitive receptors and by requiring a sound wall. (DEIR, pp. 4.9 -7 through 4.9 -9.) Mitigation Measures 9 -2b, 9 -3, 9 -4, and 9 -5 will reduce operational noise impacts to biological resources by enclosing mechanical equipment, enclosing the parking structure, placing restrictions on amplified music, and requiring a six foot high noise barrier. See also Responses to Comments 1 -2 -5 and 2 -1 -15, which also confirm that operation of the project will not create noise or lighting impacts to biological resources. MM 5 -1, 9 -la, 9 -lb, 9 -2b, 9 -3, 9 -4, and 9 -5 are set forth below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: Mitigation Measure 5 -1 - Noise and Lighting Impacts The developer shall prohibit the use of wide focus lights aimed above the horizon. The developer shall install lighting designed to minimize glare on adjacent properties. The proposed lighting shall also be designed consistent with the regulations of the Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan (Appendix B) and the City Highway regulations. Please refer to Section IV.G where Mitigation Measures 9 -la, 9- lb, 9 -2b, 9 -3, 9 -4, and 9 -5 are provided in their entirety. • All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the mitigation measure described above, which will minimize noise, light, and glare on adjacent habitat areas. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. 2. Impact 5 -2 - Uncontrolled Refuse Impacts The proposed project could have a potentially significant environmental effect to biological resources by generating increased refuse in the project area which could potentially attract unwanted wildlife species such as gulls, rodents, skunks, opossums, and other small mammals. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -13.) Some of these unwanted species could adversely affect wildlife species using the adjacent Reserve. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -13.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.5 of the EIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to biological resources identified above can be substantially reduced by mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR, by limiting unwanted wildlife access to refuse and adherence to refuse management techniques. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -13.) The potential impact will be mitigated by reducing the attraction of the unwanted species to the site. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -13.) The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, page 14, concluded that the revised project would not change the analysis of this impact contained in the DEIR. 0 20 %7) MM 5 -2 is set forth below, is hereby incorporated by reference, is feasible, and is made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: Mitigation Measure 5 -2 - Uncontrolled Refuse Impacts The Newport Dunes Resort management shall adhere to refuse management and collection methods that limit wildlife access by using covered trash containers that cannot be easily overturned or accessed by wildlife. The Newport Dunes Resort management shall promptly control refuse generated by visitors using on -site facilities. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measure described above, which will ensure proper refuse management and collection methods to limit wildlife access to project generated refuse. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. 3. impact 5 -3 - Impacts to Biological Species in Ecological Reserve Due to the proximity of the project site to the Reserve, there is a potential for the spread of non - native plant species into the Reserve through flotation, transport by birds, or other introduction of highly invasive species. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -13.) This would create a potentially significant environmental effect because of non-native plant species. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -15.) P Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.5 of the EIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to biological resources identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design feature and mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR, by requiring plant species in the landscape palette to be non - invasive. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -10.) In addition, the project will use native plant species wherever practical. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -15.) Mitigation Measure 5 -3 requires the developer to have a professional biologist prepare a Final Landscape Plan that does not contain potentially invasive plants that could be established in the Reserve. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -15.) The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, page 14, concluded that the revised project would not change the analysis of this impact contained in the DEIR. In response to a comment from California Department of Fish and Game ( "CDFG "), Mitigation Measure 5 -3 was revised to require CDFG review of the landscape plans to ensure that no invasive plants are proposed in the plant palette. (Response to Comment 1 -2 -3.) PDF 5 -1 and MM 5 -3 are set forth below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 5 -1 - Non Invasive Plant Species All plant species in the landscape palette will be non- invasive so as not to proliferate in the natural areas off site. 21 f � Mitigation Measure 5-3 - Impacts to Biological Species in Ecological Reserve The developer shall incorporate plant species native to the coastal sage plant community and indigenous to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve environs along the outside edge of the Newport Dunes Resort, especially along the edges that face the Reserve and lagoon areas. Where native plant species are impractical, non - invasive species that will not compete with the native plant species in the Reserve may be substituted. To minimize the introduction of the non - native biological species to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, the developer shall implement a Final Landscape Plan, which incorporates these criteria and does not create a competitive situation for native plants in the Reserve. The developer shall have a professional biologist ensure that the Final Landscape Plan does not contain any potentially invasive plants that could become established in the Reserve. The developer shall ensure that the Final Landscape Plan does not include the common coastal iceplant (Carpobrotus). The California Department of Fish and Game shall be provided the proposed Final Landscape Plans for a 30 day review and comment period, prior to approval by the City Planning Department. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features and mitigation measure described above, which will control the spread of non- native plant species into the Reserve. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. 4. Impact 5 -4 - Impacts of Avian Predators in the Reserve Landscape trees from the proposed project may potentially be used as nesting sites or perching sites for avian predators of sensitive avian species in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -15.) This could create a potentially significant environmental effect to biological resources because avian predators resting in the Reserve could prey on native species in the Reserve. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -15.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7 of the EIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to biological resources identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design features and mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR, by using only certain landscape trees and maintaining those trees so they do not exceed a certain height and to promptly remove potential perching or nesting sites for predatory birds. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -16.) In addition, the developer shall install landscape or architectural features to discourage roosting and nesting. (DEIR, p. 4.5 -16.) The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, page 14, concluded that the revised project would not change the analysis of this impact contained in the DEIR. PDF 5 -2, PDF 5 -3, and MM 5 -4 are set forth below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: 22 E l� PDF 5 -2 - Tree Species Tree Species Selected Will Minimize Raptor Roosting Sites in Sensitive Areas on the Perimeter of the Resort. PDF 5 -3 - Naturalized Transitional Landscaping Transitional Landscapes Will Be of the Native and Naturalized Palette, Utilizing Materials Found in the Natural Environment Surrounding the Property. Mitigation Measure 5 -4 - Impacts of Avian Predators in the Reserve The developer shall limit landscape trees to those listed in Table 4.5.1) and maintain them to minimize potential use as nesting sites or perching sites for avian predators. The developer shall limit the palm trees in height, not to exceed the height of the proposed adjacent structures. For palms of the genus Phoenix, the developer shall adhere to specific maintenance requirements as a condition of project approval, ensuring prompt removal of potential perching or nesting site for any predatory birds. The developer shall install or construct some landscape or architectural features to discourage roosting and /or nesting locations for avian predators. Such items can include but are not limited to nixolite, structural solutions, and owl or raptor decoys in strategic locations on buildings to prohibit perching by hawks, gulls, pigeons, and starlings. The Newport Dunes Resort shall maintain landscaping consistent with the maintenance program outlined • in the Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan, and shall correct any noted deficiencies within 30 days of notice from the City. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features and mitigation measure described above, which will limit the potential use of landscape trees as nesting sites or perching sites for avian predators. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. E. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Impact 7 -1 - Vehicle Trip Generation Development of the project would produce a potentially significant environmental effect to five intersections within the City, which would operate at unacceptable levels of service with the proposed project if mitigation were not imposed. Implementation of certain features and measures can mitigate four of the intersections to below a level of significance. These intersections are: (1) Coast Highway/Balboa-Superior, (2) Coast Highway/Riverside, (3) Coast HighwayBayside, and (4) JamboreeiEastbluff- -Ford. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -32.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect to the four intersections listed above and identified in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7 of the EIR, and would reduce the impact to the following intersections to below a level of significance: Coast HighwayBalboa- Superior, Coast Highway/Riverside, Coast HighwayBayside, and JamboreeiEastbluff- -Ford. (However, as described in Section V, below, the 23 Wa, impacts to the intersection of Coast Highway/Marguerite would remain significant and immitigable after adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.) Facts in Support of the Finding The DEIR analyzed the net increase in traffic generated by the proposed project in excess of what was already approved for the previously entitled Family Inn project, which is accounted for as a committed project in the City's Traffic Model and General Plan. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -30.) The DEIR and Appendices also provide the data to compare the change from existing condition to build out, including traffic generated by the project without regard to the previously entitled Family Inn. (DEIR, Section 4.7; see also Traffic and Parking General Response to Comment, pp. 5 -13.) The City's traffic engineering consultant for the EIR, WPA Traffic Engineering ( "WPA "), prepared a traffic analysis for the revised project, dated March 2000 ( "Updated Traffic Analysis "), which is attached as Attachment A to the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project. The Updated Traffic Analysis shows that the revised project reduces overall trip generation of the project from 4,800 to 4,200 ADT (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 6.) The Updated Traffic Analysis found, while the projected traffic on Bayside Drive is reduced, improvements to the intersection with Coast Highway are still required. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 6.) Potentially significant impacts related to traffic and circulation for the four intersections described above can be substantially reduced by project design features and mitigation measures listed below and as contained in the EIR. The project design features include improvement of Bayside Drive with bicycle paths, parking bays, left turn lanes, sidewalk, and signage. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -27.) In addition, Mitigation Measure 7 -1 requires improvements to the intersection of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -34.) The applicant shall be required to pay traffic impact fees to fund regional roadway improvements. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -35.) PDF 7 -1, MM 7- I, and MM 7 -2 are set forth below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 7 -1 - Bayside Drive Improvements The following improvements are included in project plans for Bayside Drive, and are subject to City and Caltrans Review and Approval prior to occupancy of the project (refer to Figure 4.7.2, Bayside Drive Improvement Plans). • A 12 foot off - street (Class I) bicycle path on the north side of the street and a five foot wide on- street bicycle lane (Class II) on each side of the street. • An eight foot wide parking bay on the south side of the street east of the trailer park entrance. • Left turn lanes at the entrances to the DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. • Advance pedestrian crossing warning signs and pavement markings for both directions of Bayside Drive. • A five foot (minimum width) sidewalk along the south side of Bayside Drive. • Stop signs on all legs at the "T" intersection of Bayside Drive and the internal site access street to the Newport Dunes Resort. 24 L 5� Mitigation Measure 7 -1 -Coast Highway / Bayside Drive Intersection Improvements The following improvements shall be made to the intersection of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, subject to approval of the City of Newport Beach and Caltrans, prior to occupancy of the project: Restripe the southbound through/right lane on Bayside Drive to a left/through combination lane. Add a separate southbound right turn lane on Bayside Drive. Maintain separate phasing of this three phase signal in the north/south direction. Note: the southbound right turn lane requires additional right -of -way for which the City has an irrevocable offer of dedication. Mitigation Measure 7 -2 - Traffic Impact Fees The applicant shall pay the required traffic impact fees to fund the regional roadway improvements as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. • All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features and mitigation measures described above, which will improve the operation of the intersections identified. After implementation of the measures identified above, no significant impacts to the following intersections will remain: (1) Coast Highway/Balboa- Superior, (2) Coast Highway/Riverside, (3) Coast Highway/Bayside, and (4) JamboreelEastbluff- -Ford. • F. AIR QUALITY 1. Impact 8 -2 - Loop—Term Emissions Operation of the proposed project, primarily vehicle trips, will generate emissions of regional air pollutants. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -22.) Estimated emissions are higher than emissions predicted for the Family Inn project, which was approved and vested under the 1983 Settlement Agreement. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -23.) The increase produced by the project is less than SCAQMD threshold criteria. The Family Inn has already been accounted for in the City's General Plan, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and the Air Quality Management Plan. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -24.) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.9 of the FEIR, and reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding The DEIR analyzed the net increase in traffic generated by the proposed project in excess of what was already approved for the previously entitled Family Inn, which is accounted for in the City's General Plan, the NBTAM Traffic Model, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and the Air Quality Management Plan (Air Quality General Response, pp. 17. -20.) The DEIR and Appendices also provide the data to compare the change from existing condition to build out, including traffic generated by the project without regard to the previously entitled Family Inn (DEIR, Section 4.7, see also Air Quality General Response, pp. 17- 20.) The Air Quality General Response (pp. 19 -20) also confirmed that diesel emissions and parking 25 structure emissions would be reduced or avoided to below a level of significance through project design features and mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts related to air quality associated with long -term emissions identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design features listed below and as contained in the FOR by, for example, providing on -site amenities that will reduce the need for off -site trips, providing shuttle services, encouraging pedestrian and bicycle access, and creating staggered work hours. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -12 through 4.8 -13.) The Updated Air Quality Analysis and Air Quality General Response confirmed that operational emissions and Local Air Quality Impacts generated by the revised project would not be significant after mitigation. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 8.) PDF 8 -3 through PDF 8 -6 are set forth below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 8 -3 — On -Site Amenities Amenities included as part of the proposed project, such as on -site recreation and convenience retail and food outlets, will help to reduce additional trips for convenience items. The project will contain (1) automated teller machines (ARMS), (2) a sundry store, (3) restaurants, (4) a fitness spa, (5) pools, and (6) convenient access to walking and hiking paths, all of which will provide services and hold the attention and occupy guests so that they do not have to leave the project for these services. PDF 8 -4 - Shuttle Services The Hotel and Time -Share Resort will offer shuttle services to John Wayne Airport, as well as local destinations, such as Fashion Island and Balboa Island. The service will be scheduled during busy periods, and will be available on demand during other periods. Shuttles will be available to other Orange County attractions via third party shuttle services. PDF 8 -5 - Bayside Drive Improvements Improvements to Bayside Drive include bicycle lanes and sidewalks, which will encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to off -site uses. PDF 8 -6 - Staggered Employee Work Hours Because the hotel will be open 24 hours per day, employees will have staggered work hours for two of the three shifts, which may reduce peak hour trips generated by the project. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features described above, which will minimize emissions of regional air pollutants. No significant unavoidable impacts related to this issue will remain after implementation of the measures identified. G. NOISE 1. Impact 9 -1 - Short -Term Construction Related Noise Short -term construction related noise generated by construction equipment will impact ambient noise levels at residences adjacent to the project area. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -7.) The most significant effect would result from noise levels experienced by residences abutting the property line caused by tractors and scrapers and other types of equipment used during the grading period. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -7.) 26 Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.9 of the EIR, and that would reduce the potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to noise identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design feature, standard condition of approval, and mitigation measures listed below and as contained in the EIR, by requiring, if necessary, restrictions on construction hours and types of equipment. (DEIR, pp. 4.9 -6 through 4.9 -7.) In addition, the applicant shall adhere to limitations on construction hours. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -7.) In connection with the grading plans, Mitigation Measure 9 -1 a requires the applicant to ensure the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors by maintenance of construction equipment, vehicle staging areas, and placement of stationary equipment. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -9.) The DEIR recommended as Mitigation Measure 9 -1 b that a nine foot high sound wall be constructed as early as possible to minimize construction impacts. However, the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project concludes that a nine foot high wall is no longer required because (i) service vehicle and employee trips will be rerouted through the RV Resort on Bluff Drive, rather than adjacent to the sensitive receptors in the mobile home park; and (ii) the loading dock will be relocated to the southeast corner of the hotel in a location that is well - buffered from the mobile home park. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 9 -10.) Therefore, Mitigation Measure 9 -1 b has been revised, as stated below, and the installation of the perimeter wall planned to replace the nine foot wall will lessen construction noise levels experienced by residents adjacent to the site. The Supplemental Noise Assessment and Addendum to Noise Assessment confirmed that the calculation assumed hard site (e.g., worst case) conditions for sound across water and that all short -term, construction related noise impacts would be mitigated with the identified measures. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, pp. 9 -10.) PDF 9 -4, SC 9 -1, MM 9 -1 a, and MM 9 -1 b are set forth below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 9 -4 - PC District Plan Noise Control Development and land uses shall comply with the community noise control standards of Chapter 10.26, 10.28, and 10.58 of the Municipal Code. Upon evidence that community noise standards are exceeded, the Planning Director may require the applicant to establish a noise abatement program setting forth in detail the approved terms, conditions, and requirements for achieving compliance with noise standards and policies. Said terms, conditions and requirements may include, but not be limited to, limitations, restrictions or prohibitions on operating hours, location of operations, and the types of equipment. SC 9 -1 - Construction Hours Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall incorporate the limitation on construction hours of operation outlined in Chapter 10.28 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 27 �l Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. Mitigation Measure 9-1a - Construction Equipment Noise Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall incorporate the following measures as a note on the grading plan cover sheet to ensure that the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receivers during construction activities has been achieved. This language shall be approved by the Director, Community Development Department. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. 2. Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from off -site receptors. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. 4. Noise levels in the adjacent residential area shall not exceed 110 dBA for more than 30 minutes at a time. Mitigation Measure 9-1b - Sound Wall to Reduce Construction Impacts The perimeter wall proposed adjacent to the bicycle path, between the hotel and mobile home park, shall be installed as early as possible during the construction period as determined by the City Planning Director in order to minimize construction impacts on the adjacent residential uses. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design feature, standard condition of approval, and mitigation measures described above, which will minimize short-term construction related noise in the project area. No significant, unavoidable impacts related to this issue will remain after implementation of the measures identified. 2. Impact 9 -2 - Lone -Term Operational Impacts Long -term operational noise impacts would be generated from delivery trucks and vehicles in the parking structure and mechanical equipment required for project operations. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -9.) The existing DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park located to the west is considered the nearest sensitive receptor and could potentially experience long -term noise impacts. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -9.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.9 of the EIR, and that reduce the potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to noise in the De Anza Bayside Mobile Home Park identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design feature and mitigation measures listed below and 28 >9 as contained in the EIR. The Addendum to Noise Assessment, page 5, confirmed that any influence of sound reflections in the project area would raise noise levels by much less than 1 dB and, therefore, there will be no long -term operational noise impacts to communities such as Dover Shores. Potentially significant effects caused by delivery trucks can be reduced by limiting hours for deliveries. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11.) Under the redesigned project, trucks will enter and exit the project site on Back Bay Drive, via Bluff Drive. (Supplemental Noise Assessment, p. 4.) The rerouting of delivery truck traffic will eliminate the impacts from delivery vehicles upon the adjacent mobile home park. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 10.) Thus, the redesigned project eliminates truck traffic noise, and no mitigation for delivery truck traffic is required. Mitigation Measure 9 -2a was identified in the DEIR to reduce noise levels from trucks in the loading dock and service drive to acceptable levels by requiring construction of a nine foot high sound wall. Thus, Mitigation Measure 9 -2a is no longer required and is deleted because (i) service vehicle and employee trips will be rerouted through the RV Resort on Bluff Drive, rather than adjacent to the sensitive receptors in the mobile home park; and (ii) the loading dock will be relocated to the southeast corner of the hotel in a location that is well - buffered from the mobile home park. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 9 -10.) Mitigation Measure 9 -2b will reduce operational noise impacts by requiring mechanical equipment for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning to be enclosed with a solid wall or behind roof parapets. PDF 9 -3 and MM 9 -2b are set forth in full below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 9 -3 Truck Deliveries Truck deliveries will not be permitted between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Mitigation Measure 9 -2b Mechanical Equipment Mechanical equipment required for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system shall be enclosed with a solid wall or plotted behind roof parapets. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features and mitigation measure described above which will minimize long -term operational noise in the project area. No significant, unavoidable impacts related to long -term operational noise impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. 3. Impact 9 -3 - Parking Structure Noise Activities in parking lots, including slamming doors, car alarms, horns, screeching tires, and vehicle engines, will generate noise that would affect the DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -14.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.9 of the EIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. 29 rx Facts in Support of the Finding 0 Potentially significant impacts related to noise identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design feature and mitigation measure listed below and as contained in the EIR, by creating an enclosed design of the parking structure and requiring walls around the top deck. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -14 and Supplemental Noise Assessment, p. 6.) In addition, the building plans shall be designed to include surfaces to minimize parking structure noise. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -14.) The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project states that the revised project has a much greater setback between the parking structure and the residences in the mobile home park than that evaluated in the DEIR. Because the parking structure will be enclosed, with the exception of the upper deck, which is already proposed to have a perimeter wall, no additional mitigation is necessary. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, pp. 10 -11.) PDF 9 -I and MM 9 -3 are set forth in full below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 9 -1 - Parking Structure Design The enclosed design of the parking structure will minimize noise originating from the interior of the structure. Furthermore, walls around the top deck will reduce noises emanating from this level. Mitigation Measure 9 -3 - Parking Structure Noise Prior to issuance of building permits for the parking structure, the applicant shall demonstrate on the building plans that the floor, wall, and ceiling surfaces are designed to minimize tire screeching, echoing, and other noise associated with the facility. • All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design feature and mitigation measure described above, which will minimize parking structure noise at the adjacent mobile home park. No significant, unavoidable impacts related to this issue will remain after implementation of the measures identified. 4. Impact 9 -4 - Amplified Music As an ongoing part of hotel functions, amplified music may be played in some of the outdoor areas that are planned for the project, resulting in noise impacts to adjacent land uses. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -15.) A potentially significant environmental effect could occur if amplified music is allowed to exceed City Noise Ordinance Standards. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -16; see also, Supplemental Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Project (Downsized) prepared by Mestre Greve Associates, April 19, 2000, Revised May 4, 2000 ( "Supplemental Noise Assessment') attached to the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project as Attachment C, and "Addendum to the Noise Assessment for the Newport Dunes Hotel Project," December 23, 1999, prepared by Mestre Greve Associates ( "Addendum to Noise Assessment'). Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.9 of the EIR, and that reduce the impact to below a level of significance. 30 0 t9Z) Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to noise caused by amplified music identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design features and mitigation measure listed below and as contained in the EIR, by orienting the hotel to concentrate noise on the east side of the hotel project. (DEIR, pp. 4.9 -6 and 4.9 -15.) In addition, amplified music should be limited to an Leq level of 75 dBA measured at a point of 50 feet from the source of music which will reduce the potential effect to below a level of significance. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -15.) In addition, the Noise General Response to Comment (Response to Comments, pp. 14 -16) describes supplemental noise analyses that concluded that (i) the analysis accounted for sound across water, (ii) the potential influence of sound reflection is insignificant, (iii) potential noise impacts to Dover Shores are insignificant, and (iv) truck noise would be mitigated by the required project design features and mitigation measures. The Environmental Analysis of Revised Project confirmed that, with the project design feature and mitigation measure, all potentially significant effects relating to amplified music will be mitigated. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 11.) PDF 9 -2 and MM 9 -4 are set forth in full below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: PDF 9 -2 - Hotel Orientation The orientation of the hotel and its courtyards will concentrate noises from human activities on the east side of the Hotel project, near the active beach area of the Newport Dunes Resort. . Mitigation Measure 9 -4 - Amplified Music Amplified music on site shall be limited to an Leq of 75 dBA when measured at a point 50 feet distant from the noise source. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features and mitigation measure described above, which will minimize off -site noise levels generated by amplified music on site. No significant, unavoidable impacts related to amplified music will remain after implementation of the measures identified. 5. Impact 9 -5 - Off -Site Traffic Noise A potentially significant environmental effect would be created because existing residences along the south side of Bayside Drive (north of PCH) will be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL, the exterior standard for residential uses. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -17.) Without mitigation, the increase in traffic would have a potentially significant noise impact in the DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park residential area immediately adjacent to Bayside Drive. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -17.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.9 of the EIR, and that reduce the potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. 31 Facts in Support of the Finding 0 Potentially significant impacts related to noise identified above can be substantially reduced by the mitigation measure listed below and as contained in the EIR, through the construction of a six foot high noise barrier along Bayside Drive to reduce noise levels. (DEIR, p. 4.9 -20.) The Supplemental Noise Assessment confirmed that a six foot wall along Bayside Drive would reduce traffic noise to the mobile home park to a level that complies with the City of Newport Beach noise standard. (Supplemental Noise Assessment, p. 8; see also, Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 10.) Mitigation Measure 9 -5 - Bayside Drive Noise Barrier A six foot high noise barrier shall be constructed along the north and south sides of Bayside Drive between PCH and the project site to reduce exterior noise levels below 65 CNEL and the interior noise levels below 45 CNEL to comply with the City's noise standard for mobile home parks (see Figure 4.9.5, Proposed Bayside Drive Sound Wall). The final design of the wall shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Director of Planning. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features and mitigation measure described above, which will reduce noise levels along Bayside Drive to within City standards. No significant, unavoidable impacts related to traffic noise impacts to off -site receptors will remain after implementation of the measures identified. K VISUAL RESOURCES 1. Impact 10 -1 - Lighting and Glare Development of the project could create a potentially significant visual effect because artificial light sources will affect adjacent residences in the DeAnza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park, unless properly designed. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -13.) Because of the distance and angle of the views from bluff top communities, the on -site lighting will not be significant to people viewing from those locations. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -13.) Because of the height of the proposed lighting and the intensity of lighting required for outdoor security for this type of public use (one foot candle at ground surface), the light from the project could affect adjacent residences at Bayside Drive, unless properly designed. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -13.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.10 of the EIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant impacts related to lighting and glare identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design feature, standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measure listed below and as contained in the EIR, by requiring all lighting to be designed to direct rays and glare on site. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -9.) A lighting plan shall accompany all final Precise Plans and shall be reviewed by an independent consultant and the Planning Director. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -9; FEIR Errata, p. 8.) The lighting plan shall include light shielding and directional lighting such that lighting does not adversely affect bluff top roadways and land uses, create glare, or detract from recreational and biological resources. (DEIR, p.4.10-15.) Further, the Planning Director may order the dimming of light services upon a finding that • the site is excessively illuminated. (FEIR, p. 8.) A use permit shall be required for lighting fixtures 32 (C'a associated with any swimming pool, tennis court, or other use within or closer than 200 feet to the boundary of a residential district. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -9.) PDF 10 -4 - Lighting Plan All lighting, exterior and interior, shall be designed and located to confine direct rays and glare to the site A Lighting Plan shall accompany all Final Precise Plans and shall be subject to the review by an independent consultant selected by the City and the approval of the Planning Director. Lighting plans shall include lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric site information. Lighting plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met (from PC District Plan, Site Development Standards). The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated, based on the illuminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources (from PC District Plan, Site Development Standards). SC 10 -1 -Use Permit for Recreational Lighting No swimming pool, tennis court, or other use which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission is of a similar nature, and which is located within any residential district or closer than two hundred (200) feet to the boundary of any residential district, shall be lighted externally unless a use permit shall first have been secured for the installation, maintenance, and operation of the lighting fixtures. This provision shall not be construed so as to require a use permit for lighting fixtures that are normally incidental to the use of a residential structure. SC 10 -2 - Lighting Plan Required The project shall be designed to eliminate light spillage and glare onto adjacent properties or uses. A lighting plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. SC 10 -3 - Lighting Specifications Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric site information. This plan will be used to determine the extent of light spillage or glare that can be anticipated by the project. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans prior to issuance of the building permit. Mitigation Measure 10 -1 - Lighting and Glare Prior to Precise Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a detailed lighting plan, consistent with the lighting plan submitted as part of the proposed PC District Plan and analyzed in this EIR, for approval by the Director of Planning. The detailed lighting plan shall include light shielding and directional lighting such that lighting intensity does not adversely affect bluff top roadways (Coast Highway and Jamboree 33 Road) and land uses, directly create glare affecting off -site views, or detract from the recreational resources and biological resources of the Coastal Zone/RV Resort/Swimming Lagoon/Upper Newport Bay environment residential uses. The detailed lighting plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed architect or electrical engineer, with a letter from the architect or electrical engineer demonstrating through calculations and providing a statement that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. Prior to approval by the Director of Planning, this detailed lighting plan shall be reviewed by an independent lighting consultant selected by the City. The majority of significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures described above which will minimize light and glare impacts from on -site artificial lighting sources on the surrounding community. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. 2. Impact 10 -2 - Views and Visual Aesthetics Due to the scale of the development and partial blockage of public views of the bluff, the proposed project will substantially alter the views. The bulk of the project analyzed in the DEIR was scaled down by the Planning Commission by reducing rooms, and reducing the number of stories in various locations. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 12.) The applicant's visual simulation expert prepared revised visual simulations, which are attached as Attachment D to the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project. The scaled down project affords some new views. As with the original design, Views A through J could be impacted by the development of the project if project design features are not adopted. (However, as described in Section V of these Findings, there will still be a significant effect from View K, view of the site from the public beach on the east side of the Swimming Lagoon. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 12.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.10 of the EIR. However, as described in Section V of these Findings, significant unavoidable adverse visual impacts from View K will remain. Facts in Support of Finding W Potentially significant impacts related to views and visual aesthetics identified above can be substantially reduced by project design features as contained in the FEIR. Visual effects of the project, including from Views A through J, can be reduced to below a level of significance by adherence to building massing and location criteria, and restrictions on heights and setbacks. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -15 through 4.10 -33.) In addition, impacts will be mitigated because the PC District Plan and Design Guidelines govern clustering of buildings, provision of open space between structures, linkage of the shoreline promenade surrounding the Swimming Lagoon to the project, and providing view corridors within the project. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -8.) PDF 10 -1, PDF 10 -2, and PDF 10 -3 are set forth below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: 34 0 (n 1I 0 PDF 10 -1 - Building Location and Massing Criteria Project Building Location and Massing Criteria in the PC District Plan provide control of project development to avoid or lessen impacts to adjacent properties and to ensure cohesive and consistent design of the project. These design criteria are enforced by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits, according to the PC District Plan regulations. PDF 10 -2 - Height and Setback Regulations Restrict building heights and building setbacks within the project site to avoid shade, shadow, and physical encroachment on adjacent residential uses. Maximum allowable heights as established by the PC District Plan and Design Guidelines are detailed above, and enforced by the Planning Director prior to issuance of permits, according to the PC District Plan regulations. PDF 10 -3 - Building Envelopes and Step -Backs Building envelopes and step -backs in the PC District Plan and its Design Guidelines shall govern the architectural character, placement and scale of project structures to cluster buildings, provide open space between structures, link the shoreline promenade surrounding the Swimming Lagoon to the project, and provide view corridors within the project. These building design controls in the PC District Plan and its Design Guidelines shall govern the aesthetic character of the proposed project, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach and are enforced by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits, according to the PC District regulations, as approved by the City of Newport Beach. I. PUBLIC HEALTHAND SAFETY 1. Impact 11 -1 - Fire Hazards Due to the scale of the proposed hotel, fire hazards could create life safety impacts without the proper fire control and access requirements in place. (DEIR, p. 4.11-4.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.11 of the EIR, and that reduce the effect to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of the Finding Potentially significant fire hazard impacts related to public health and safety identified above can be substantially reduced by the project design feature and mitigation measures listed below and as contained in the EIR, and by requiring a fire access plan, including a fire access road with fire department access from two entrances. In addition, the parking structure will be designed to allow unobstructed access for fire apparatus. A fire control room will contain fire safety devices and a fire alarm system will cover the entire Resort. (DEIR, p. 4.11-5.) The Hotel will include access elevators, a fire sprinkler system, and emergency lighting system. (DEIR, p. 4.11 -15.) PDF I I - I and MM I I - I through 11-6 are set forth in full below and hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: 35 PDF 11 -1 - Fire Access Plan The following project design features are included in the Fire Access Plan exhibited on page 4 of the conceptual development plans: • A 28 foot wide all weather fire access road designed per Fire Department standards is provided; it runs completely around the main hotel structure. • Fire Department access to the Hotel and the Time -Share Resort is provided from both Back Bay Drive as well as Bayside Drive. • A Fire Control Room is provided in the northwest corner of the hotel, on the ground floor near the health spa. • Fire apparatus staging areas (60 feet in length and 10 feet in width) are provided off the main service drive, adjacent to the loading dock/service yard and adjacent to the fire control room. Mitigation Measure 11 -1 - Parking Structure Design The top level of the parking structure must be engineered to support the full weight of firefighting apparatus: 71,000 lbs. total, 23,000 lbs. front axle, 48,000 lbs. rear tandem axle. The structure must also be designed to support apparatus point loads associated with fire ground truck operations, which are 75 psi over a four square foot area. The top level shall be designed to allow fire apparatus unobstructed access and circulation to all access points for the hotel. Mitigation Measure 11 -2 - Fire Safety System The fire control room shall contain the main fire alarm control panel, emergency generator status and controls, any other fan or exhaust system controls, and any other life safety devices. The room shall be of adequate size to accommodate these devices, and shall include a six foot by four foot table, equipped with two dedicated phones and complete plans for the Hotel and Time -Share Resort site. Mitigation Measure 11 -3 - Access Elevator Elevators with a 3,500 lb. capacity shall be located in the Hotel building in the loading dock area, near the fire control room, and at each of the elevator lobby locations. The Fire Department shall approve any modifications to this requirement. Mitigation Measure 11 -4 - Fire Alarm System An addressable fire alarm system must be provided for the entire Hotel and Time -Share Resort. All guestroom smoke detectors must be part of the main building fire alarm system. Audible devices in the guestrooms must provide a minimum of 70 decibels audibility above normal noise levels. All other devices and components of the fire alarm system must comply with State building and fire requirements. Mitigation Measure 11 -5 - Fire Sprinkler System A fire sprinkler system, in combination with a wet standpipe system, must be installed. Standpipes shall be provided in each stairwell, and hose connections shall be provided on all levels. 36 I (/) Mitigation Measure 11 -6 - Emergency Lighting System A complete emergency lighting system must be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the project design feature and mitigation measures, which provide for adequate fire suppression capabilities within the proposed design. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the measures identified. V. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT WHICH CANNOT BE REDUCED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1. Impact 7 -1- Vehicle Trip Generation Development of the project would produce a potentially significant environmental effect to the intersection of Coast Highway/Marguerite, which would operate at unacceptable levels of service with the proposed project after all feasible mitigation has been imposed (DEIR, p. 4.7 -32). Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project relating to traffic that will avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect to the intersection of Coast Highway/Marguerite, and would reduce the impact to the following intersections to below a level of significance: Coast HighwayBalboa- Superior, Coast Highway/Riverside, Coast HighwayBayside, and JamboreefEastbluff- Ford. Significant unavoidable adverse impacts will remain at the intersection of Coast Highway/Marguerite after implementation of the project design features and mitigation measures identified, in Section IV.E.1, above. There are no other feasible mitigation measures, and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures and/or project alternatives identified in the FE1R. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Facts in Support of the Finding A. All Feasible Mitigation Measures Have Been Adopted: The City's traffic engineering consultant for the EIR, WPA Traffic Engineering ( "WPA "), prepared a traffic analysis for the revised project, dated March 2000 ( "Updated Traffic Analysis "), which is attached as Attachment A to the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project. The Updated Traffic Analysis shows that the revised project reduces overall trip generation of the project from 4,800 to 4,200 ADT (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 6.) The Updated Traffic Analysis found, while the projected traffic on Bayside Drive is reduced, improvements to the intersection with Coast Highway are still required. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 6.) Despite the reduction in trips generated by the scaled down project, the future long -range traffic analysis found that the Coast Highway and Marguerite intersection would still operate at an unacceptable level of service, for which no feasible mitigation measures exist. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 6.) Potentially significant impacts related to traffic and circulation for the four other intersections described above can be substantially reduced by project design features and mitigation measures listed, in Section IV.E.1, above, and as contained in the EIR. The impact will be somewhat lessened by provision of project design features such as improvement of Bayside Drive with bicycle paths, parking bays, left turn lanes, sidewalk, and signage. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -27.) In addition, Mitigation Measure 7 -1 requires improvements to the 37 11 intersection of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -34.) The applicant shall be required to pay traffic impact fees to fund regional roadway improvements. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -35.) PDF 7 -1, MM 7 -1, and MM 7 -2 are set forth above in Section IV.E.1, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP. B. No Other Feasible Mitigation Measures: As described in Section 4.7 of the EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures to alleviate this significant effect. Improving the level of service at the intersection would require adding more lanes, physically disrupting the existing uses on the properties adjacent to this intersection. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -34.) This design solution is considered infeasible by the City, as it would have significant negative impacts on the property and on the character of the Corona del Mar business district. (DEIR, p. 4.7 -34.) This conclusion was confirmed on page 7 of the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project. In addition, Response to Comment 1 -3 -3 states that Traffic System Management and Transportation Demand Management strategies would not be effective with the operational characteristics of hotels. C. No Feasible Alternatives: As described in Section V of these Findings, there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would meet the project objectives and reduce impacts to the intersection of Coast Highway/Marguerite to below a level of significance. D. Overriding Considerations: As described in Section VII, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Council has determined, after balancing all factors, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the impacts to the intersection of Coast Highway/Marguerite. 2. Impact 8 -1 - Short -Term Construction Related Emissions Potentially significant environmental effects to air quality could occur during the project construction activities. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -20.) Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment, and fugitive dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -20.) Emissions of two pollutants (nitrogen oxides and PM10) during construction would exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -22.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8 of the FEIR. There are no feasible mitigation measures other than SC 8 -1 and MM 8 -1 that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance, and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures and /or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. 38 0 Io L Facts in Support olFinding A. All Feasible Mitigation Measures Have Been Adopted Potentially significant impacts related to short-term air quality identified above can be substantially reduced by standard conditions of approval and the mitigation measure listed below and as contained in the EIR, by requiring preparation of a dust control plan and adherence to dust control measures such as daily watering of graded areas, washing of construction vehicle tires, and use of soil binders. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -13.) In addition, the applicant shall require the construction manager to minimize emissions from heavy equipment by proper maintenance, use of cleaner burning equipment or fuels, and management of idling and delays. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -22.) Mestre Greve Associates prepared an updated air quality analysis of the revised project, which is attached to the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project as Attachment B ( "Updated Air Quality Analysis "). The Updated Air Quality Analysis concluded that construction impacts from the revised project would still generate significant short-term air quality impacts that could not be mitigated to below a level of significance. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 8.) SC 8 -1 and MM 8 -1 are set forth below, are hereby incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP, as follows: SC 8 -1 - Fugitive Dust Emissions Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 notification requirements. Submittal of a notification package or detailed dust control plan to SCAQMD outlines steps that will be taken to comply with Rules 402 and 403, which restrict fugitive dust emissions. Potential dust control measures shall include but not be limited to: daily watering of graded areas, washing of equipment tires before leaving the construction site, use of SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers or soil binders, and discontinuance of ground disturbing construction activities during first and second stage smog alerts or when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure 8 -1 - Construction Equipment Emissions Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall implement standard contract specifications requiring instructions to be carried out by the construction manager to minimize emissions by heavy equipment. Measures may include but not be limited to: (1) proper maintenance of equipment engines, (2) use of cleaner burning equipment or equipment using alternative fuels, (3) avoidance of idling equipment for extended periods of time, (4) connecting stationary equipment to electrical facilities, and (5) avoidance of unnecessary delays of traffic resulting from blockage of traffic by heavy equipment. B. There Are No Other Feasible Mitigation Measures: The majority of significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by all feasible measures. The Air Quality General Response concludes that annual washing of homes would not be required. C. There Are No Feasible Alternatives: • As described in Section V of these Findings, there are no other development alternatives to the proposed project that would meet the project objectives and reduce these construction emissions to below a level of significance. 39 Q D. Overriding Considerations: 0 As described in Section VI 1, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Council has determined, after balancing all factors, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable significant short-term air quality impacts. 3. Impact 8 -3 - Cumulative Long-Term Emissions The proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to an unavoidable significant cumulative impact on regional air quality without adequate implementation of the 1997 AQMP. (DEIR, pp. 4.8 -24 through 4.8 -25.) Finding Significant unavoidable adverse cumulative air quality impacts will remain after implementation of all feasible measures. The Council finds there are no other feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance, and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures and /or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding A. All Feasible Mitigation Measures Have Been Adopted: PDF 8 -1 through PDF 8 -6, SC 8 -1 through SC 8 -4, and MM 8 -1 through 8 -2 are discussed and set forth in full in Section 4.8 of the DEIR, are incorporated herein by this reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP. The Updated Air Quality Analysis confirmed, because emissions generated by the revised project, although reduced, would cumulatively contribute emissions to the South Coast Air Basin, which is in non - attainment status, cumulative air quality impacts will still be significant. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 8.) B. There Are No Other Feasible Mitigation Measures: The project is located in a non - attainment area in which any project that contributes emissions to the Basin has a cumulative impact on the air quality of the Basin without adequate implementation of the 1997 AQMP. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -24.) Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to an unavoidable significant cumulative impact on air quality under CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 if the control strategies outlined in the 1997 AQMP are not adequately implemented. (DEIR, pp. 4.8 -24 through 4.8 -25.) C. No Feasible Alternative: As described in Section VI of these Findings, there are no other development alternatives to the proposed project that would meet the project objectives and reduce cumulative air quality impacts to below a level of significance. All alternatives also result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts because the project site is located in a non - attainment area. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -24.) It is not probable that the site will remain vacant if the proposed project were not approved. 40 0 E D. Statement of Overriding Considerations: As described in Section VII, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Council has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable significant cumulative air quality impacts. 4. Impact 10 -2 - Views and Visual Aesthetics Due to the scale of the development and partial blockage of public views of the bluff, the proposed project will substantially alter the quality of the viewshed from the beach on the east side of the Swimming Lagoon. (View K; Figure 4.10.4 -K of DEIR.) The bulk of the project analyzed in the DEIR was scaled down by the Planning Commission by reducing rooms, and reducing the number of stories in various locations. (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 12.) The applicant's visual simulation expert prepared revised visual simulations, which are attached as Attachment D to the Environmental Analysis of Revised Project. The scaled down project affords some new views. However, as with the original design, there will still be a significant effect from View K (view of the site from the public beach on the east side of the Swimming Lagoon). (Environmental Analysis of Revised Project, p. 12.) Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect summarized above and identified in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.10 of the EIR. However, significant unavoidable adverse visual impacts from View K will remain. Significant unavoidable adverse visual impacts at View K will remain after implementation of all feasible measures. There are no other feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance, and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures and/or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. Facts in Support of Finding A. All Feasible Mitigation Measures Have Been Adopted: Potentially significant impacts related to views and visual aesthetics identified above can be substantially reduced by project design features as contained in the FEIR. Visual effects of the project, including from Views A through J, can be reduced to below a level of significance by adherence to building massing and location criteria, and restrictions on heights and setbacks. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -15 through 4.10 -33.) In addition, impacts will be mitigated because the PC District Plan and Design Guidelines govern clustering of buildings, provision of open space between structures, linkage of the shoreline promenade surrounding the Swimming Lagoon to the project, and providing view corridors within the project. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -8.) PDF 10 -1, 10 -2, and PDF 10 -3 are set forth in full in Section IV.H above, are incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP. B. There Are No Other Feasible Mitigation Measures: The majority of significant visual impacts at View K have been substantially lessened by feasible measures, including refinements to the project size and design. No additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified. 41 C. No Feasible Alternatives: 0 As described in Section VI of these Findings, there are no other development alternatives to the proposed project that would meet the project objectives and reduce visual impacts to below a level of significance. D. Overriding Considerations: As described in Section VII, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable effect to visual resources. 5. Impact 10 -3 - Cumulative Visual Impacts Project site development will modify lands along the main channel of the Upper Newport Bay and along the publicly accessed beach areas and recreation areas within the Newport Dunes Resort. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -34.) With the increase in development intensity of the site, and the changes to the aesthetic values of the area with the height and site coverage of the proposed project, cumulative impacts will result when compared with the existing uses, which have limited visual impacts. (DEIR, p. 4.10 -34.) Finding Significant unavoidable adverse cumulative visual impacts will result from the increased density of development on the project site. There are no other feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance, and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures and /or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. Facts in Support of the Findings A. All Feasible Mitigation Measures Have Been Adopted: As described above under Section VA, project design features have been incorporated into the project to minimize its visual effect on surrounding public viewers. These PDFs require adherence to building massing and location criteria on restrictions on heights and setbacks. PDF 10 -1, 10 -2, and PDF 10 -3 are set forth in full in Section IV.H above, are incorporated by reference, are feasible, and are made binding through the project approvals and MMRP. B. There Are No Other Feasible Mitigation Measures: The majority of significant cumulative visual effects have been substantially lessened by feasible measures, including refinements to the project size and design. No additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified. C. No Feasible Alternatives: As described in Section V of these Findings, there are no other development alternatives to the proposed project that would meet the project objectives and reduce cumulative visual impacts to below a level of significance. 42 9) D. Statement of Overriding Considerations: As described in Section VII, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effect to visual resources. VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the "... discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." The proposed project has been compared to several alternative development scenarios. Potentially feasible projects that were analyzed as alternatives included: (1) No Project (build out per settlement agreement, Family Inn Project), (2) 200 Time Share Units Development, and (3) Expansion of RV Resort. Off -site alternatives were not evaluated in detail because they are not considered feasible or realistic alternatives. However, each off -site alternativeand the reason for its infeasibility is explained in Section 5.6 of the EIR. The analysis contained within the EIR concludes that implementation of the proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts: • • Traffic impacts at Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue intersection • Short-term air quality impacts during construction • Cumulative air quality impacts • Visual impact at View K (public beach on the east side of the Lagoon) • Cumulative visual impacts All remaining impacts will not result in long -term significant adverse impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of project design features, standard conditions of approval, or mitigation measures. Where, as in this project, significant environmental effects remain even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, the decision makers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Under these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time, taking economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors into account (CEQA Guideline Section 15364). Factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory I imitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. [CEQA Guideline 15126.6(f)(I ).l All project alternatives considered must be ones that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. (CEQA Guideline 15126.6(c).) The project objectives are set forth in the DEIR on pages 3 -31 and are repeated below for reference: I. Provide recreational and visitor serving land uses and facilities that provide access to the coast for the public. 43 ,n 2. Provide land uses that are consistent with and complementary to the aquatic- oriented, visitor serving, and recreational land uses and the land and water features that are located on the project site and in the surrounding area. Provide land uses that have high revenue generating potential and relatively low municipal service costs. 4. Provide land uses that support adjacent retail and office uses, including those in Newport Center, Fashion Island, and Balboa Island. 5. Provide a waterfront guest facility in the Newport Beach area. 6. Expand the on -site visitor serving uses to include additional overnight lodging opportunities that are compatible with the visitor serving and recreational uses on the project site and in the surrounding area, in order to address a broader visitor serving market and provide financial feasibility to the project. 7. Expand the visitor serving uses in the project area by providing conference, meeting, and event facilities, and associated amenities capable of attracting guests to the project year around and serving the needs of residents and local community groups. 8. Provide for a sufficient "critical mass" of on -site amenities, consistent with a destination resort concept, to encourage visitors to fully utilize the wide range of features offered, thus reducing the number of peak hour, off -site vehicle trips. 9. Create a project that is sensitive to the project's proximity to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological . Reserve and De Anza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. 10. Provide architectural and site designs that minimize the land area used for parking purposes, thereby preserving scarce waterfront land for uses more directly related to access to coastal resources. Based upon these objectives, the City considered and evaluated the alternatives as addressed below and in Chapter 5 of the FEIR. In rejecting the alternatives, the Council has examined the objectives of the project and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet those objectives. The Council believes the project best meets these objectives with the least environmental impact. A. ALTERNATIVE A - NO PROJECT (BUILD OUT PER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: FAMILYINNPROJECT) The 1983 Settlement Agreement allows for the development of the site with a 275 room "family inn" up to 500,000 square feet in size, and a separate, 15,000 square foot restaurant. To serve guests of the Family Inn Project, 12,500 square feet of restaurant space would also be included as part of the family inn. The site plan for the Family Inn Project would retain all of the existing RV sites at the RV Resort. Development of Alternative A would eliminate the interim dry boat storage area, north of the existing RV Resort and the existing dredging disposal basin. The existing Marina buildings and surface parking lot would remain intact. As a result, the Family Inn Project would be built on roughly half of the 30 acre site proposed for development of the Hotel and Time -Share Resort. Figure 3.3.2 of the EIR depicts the site plan for the proposed Family Inn Project. Because Alternative A represents an entitled project (as allowed for by the Settlement Agreement), the City's review of this alternative would be limited to the . few design features specified in the Settlement Agreement. As a result, no PC District Plan with Design 44 n Guidelines and Precise Plans would be adopted by the City to regulate development on the project site. Furthermore, mitigation measures imposed on the Family Inn Project would be limited to those outlined in the Settlement Agreement, in addition to standard conditions commonly applied to development projects. Finding The Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative. Facts in Support of the Findings 1. Summary of Major Environmental Effects Alternative A, analyzed in Section 5.3 of the DEIR, would eliminate one of the five significant impacts identified for the proposed project: long -term traffic impacts to the Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue intersection. All of the other significant effects identified would remain. In addition, noise impacts would be greater with Alternative A since the Settlement Agreement does not provide for construction of noise walls along Bayside Drive and along the property boundary with the mobile home park. Alternative A provides the potential for greater setbacks from the Bayside De Anza Mobile Home Park than the proposed project. All other environmental effects are similar to those identified for the proposed project. 2. Proiect Objectives Alternative A fails to achieve Project Objectives Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Alternative A differs from the proposed project primarily in terms of its scale and customer base. Whereas the project proposes a destination Hotel and Time -Share Resort, Alternative A is a smaller hotel designed to cater to leisure travelers, primarily families. Alternative A contains very limited meeting facilities and is not designed to attract large conferences or events; and the amenities would be typical of those found at family oriented hotels (Objectives Nos. 6, 7, and 8). Given the smaller scale of Alternative A, it would not be designed to be a "destination resort." A parking structure was not proposed for the Family Inn Project as part of the Settlement Agreement, resulting in more coastal area devoted to surface parking (Objective 10). As supported by the Fiscal Impact Analysis conclusions, net revenues to the operator, City, and County would be less than could be expected for a larger destination resort catering to travelers with more disposable income, as well as conferences and special events (Objectives Nos. 3 and 4). (DEIR, pp 5 -7.) 3. Feasibility Implementation of Alternative A is technically feasible; however, construction of a hotel of this size with virtually no meeting space would compete with smaller hotels along the Southern California coast. At 275 rooms, Alternative A would be larger than similar hotel operations within this portion of the hotel market. Alternatively, this type of development would have too limited a scope of facilities and amenities to compete with mid -sized resort operations. (Financial Analysis of Proposed Newport Dunes Hotel, prepared for Newport Dunes Partnership, prepared by Goodwin & Associates Hospitality Sources, Inc., June, 1999.) 4. Comparative Merits Alternative A, the No Project/Family Inn Alternative, is similar to the proposed project in that it includes hotel type lodging for the project site. In addition, the reduced scale and design of the project reduces one 45 n � of the significant impacts of the proposed project. However, Alternative A, due to its reduced scale and design, does not meet numerous project objectives relating to construction of a destination waterfront guest facility with conference, meeting, and event facilities on the site. In addition, Alternative A avoids one of the five significant environmental effects identified for the proposed project. See also Response to Comment 1 -1 -3, 1 -1 -6 and 1 -1 -7. 5. Conclusion - Findings Alternative A would not meet Objectives 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the project proponent and the City of Newport Beach for development of the subject property. While it would provide waterfront lodging and associated revenues to the City, it does not provide a destination resort project with conference, meeting, and event facilities, uses that are highly desirable within the City of Newport Beach. (Analysis of Potential Means of Enhancement of Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue for the City of Newport Beach, prepared for City of Newport Beach and Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau, prepared by PFK Consulting, February, 1997.) Alternative A reduces one (traffic and circulation) of the five significant impacts identified for the proposed project. All of the other significant effects identified would remain. This alternative does not substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts identified for the proposed project. After mitigation, the significant unavoidable effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in preceding Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. ALTERNATIVEB - 200 TIAIE- SHARE UNITS Alternative B, described in Section 5.4 of the DEIR, consists of 200 time -share units on the 30 acre project site. Like the proposed project, the 150 existing RV sites on the Hotel and Time -Share Resort site would be removed to implement Alternative B. The time -share units would be identical to those proposed, except that building height would be limited to two stories (32 feet in height) in an effort to reduce the scale of the project. Like the proposed project, these units would be designed to be "locked - off' to create a total of 400 rentable rooms. Administrative offices, housekeeping and maintenance services, a small sundry store /retail shop, clubhouse with fitness facilities, and a central ballroom /meeting room would also be provided on site in a central building. In addition to the clubhouse, amenities for Alternative B would include pools, tennis courts, and lushly landscaped grounds. In addition, a 15,000 square foot restaurant, open to the public, would also be included in the same location proposed in Alternative A. Building floor area would total approximately 450,000 square feet. A parking structure would not be included with Alternative B due to incrementally less demand than the proposed project; rather, parking would be accommodated in surface parking lots. Approximately 860 parking spaces would be required for Alternative B, which includes 245 spaces for the existing Marina. Finding: The Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible Alternative B- 200 - Time -Share Units. 46 0 I ('� Facts In Support of Finding.- 1. Summary of Mai or Environmental Effects Alternative B would eliminate one of the five significant impacts identified for the proposed project: visual impacts to the east side of the Swimming Lagoon (View K). All the other significant impacts identified would remain. Land use, population and housing, noise, and public services and utilities impacts would be reduced from the proposed project, proportionate to the smaller scale of Alternative B. All other environmental effects are similar to those identified for the proposed project. 2. Project Objectives Alternative B is similar to the proposed project in that it includes the same time -share facilities and many of the same recreational amenities. However, this alternative differs because it does not include a hotel. As a result, there are no large meeting/conference rooms that would cater to conferences or other large groups. Alternative B fails to achieve Project Objectives Nos. I, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Alternative B does provide a waterfront guest facility, but it would not stand out as a destination resort in the City due to its smaller scale and the reduced public status as a time -share resort (Objective No. 8). The time -share resort would provide lodging facilities and recreation amenities similar to the proposed project, but Alternative B would not include more conventional hotel rooms or conference and meeting facilities, which is a critical component of the proposed project (Objectives No. 6 and 7). Consequently, Alternative B would not support adjacent office and retail uses (Objective No. 4). Because the time -share project would be more residential and private in nature than the proposed hotel, there would be less public access to the site (Objective No. 1). No parking structure would be included with this proposal, although additional surface parking spaces would have to be built on the project site to accommodate the proposed use (Objective No. 10). As supported by the findings of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, net municipal revenues from the time -share resort would be less than the proposed project (Objective No. 3). 3. Feasibility While implementation of Alternative B would be technically feasible, development of a time -share community within this coastal resource could be viewed negatively by the Coastal Commission due to the residential /private nature of this type of land use affecting the property owner's and lessee's ability to obtain a Coastal Development permit. (DEIR, pp. 5 -15.) [Cite.] In addition, municipal revenues from the time -share resort would be less than the proposed project. (Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Newport Dunes Resort prepared for Newport Beach City Council, prepared by David Kiff, Deputy City Manager, May 19, 2000.) 4. Comparative Merits Alternative B, the Time -Share Resort Alternative, attains the objective of providing a destination, waterfront resort with guest facilities at the project site; however, Alternative B does not provide conference, meeting, and event facilities and thereby fails to meet significant objectives of the proposed project. 5. Conclusion - Findings • Alternative B would not meet Objectives Nos. I, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10. While it would provide waterfront lodging and associated revenue to the City, it does not provide a destination resort 47 _I project with conference, meeting, and event facilities supportive of retail and office uses in the area. Alternative A reduces one of the five significant impacts identified for the proposed project: visual impacts at View K. All of the other significant effects identified would remain. This alternative does not substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts identified for the proposed project. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable effects of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in preceding Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. ALTERNATIVE C- EXPANSION OFRVRESORT (ENVIRONMENTALLYSUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE) Alternative C, described in Section 5.5 of the DEIR, is the addition of 300 RV sites to the existing Newport Dunes RV Resort in roughly the same area proposed for the Family Inn Project in Alternative A. The existing RV Resort contains 406 RV sites, and the implementation of Alternative C would increase the size to 706 sites. Amenities provided in the existing RV Resort, such as the restroom and showers, laundry facilities, and a multi - purpose room and swimming pool would be constructed to serve this expansion area, the existing convenience store would serve the expanded RV Resort. In addition, a reasonably priced cafe, 12,500 square feet in size, would be included to cater primarily to guests staying in the RV Resort, or spending the day at the Newport Dunes Resort, and would be located adjacent to a 15,000 square foot restaurant. These structures would be located at the northeast corner of the site, where the restaurant is proposed in Alternatives A and B. Approximately 600 parking spaces would be required on the west side of the Swimming Lagoon for this alternative. Finding The Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible Alternative C — Expansion of RV Resort. Facts in Support ofFinding 1. Summary of Environmental Effects Alternative C would avoid all of the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project. The low - scale nature of Alternative C would be sensitive to adjacent uses and would not create any substantial land use conflicts. Land use, traffic, air quality, noise, and visual impacts would all be substantially reduced with the implementation of Alternative C. All other impacts would be similar or less than the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative C is the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. 2. Proiect Obiectives Alternative C does not meet Objectives Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Alternative C does not provide a destination resort; although the project provides overnight accommodations (RV sites), it does not provide a range of accommodations such as the proposed project that attracts a larger percentage of the visitors to the City (Objectives Nos. 6 and 8). Furthermore, no conference meeting or event facilities are proposed with Alternative C (Objective No. 7). Alternative C would therefore not be supportive of retail and office uses in the City as it will not provide substantial demand for these other uses within the City 48 n 1� (Objective No. 4). As approximately 600 parking spaces would be required on the west side of the Swimming Lagoon for Alternative C, construction of a parking structure would not be cost - effective requiring a greater commitment to at -grade parking within this coastal resource (Objective No. 10). Finally, as demonstrated by the results of the fiscal impact analysis, due to the lower rates charged for the RV Resort (compared to those of a destination hotel), Alternative C would result in a net loss of revenue to the City. (DEIR, pp. 5 -19.) 3. Feasibility While the implementation of Alternative C would be feasible, this type of development would not capitalize on the value of this coastal resource for use by the public and would result in a net loss to City revenue. (Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Newport Dunes Resort, prepared for Newport Beach City Council, prepared by David Kiff, Deputy City Manager, May 19, 2000.) 4. Comparative Merits While Alternative C avoids the significant environmental impacts associated with proposed project, it does not attain the primary project objectives, primarily a net loss in revenue to the City. 5. Conclusion - Findings • Alternative C fails to achieve the basic project objectives, particularly Objectives Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10. While it would provide waterfront accommodations, Alternative C does not provide a destination resort project with conference, meeting, and event facilities supportive of retail and office uses in the area nor does it provide net positive revenues to the City. • Alternative C avoids all of the significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in preceding Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. D. OFF -SITE AL T ER NA TI V E S Three alternative locations for the proposed project were analyzed in Section 5.6 of the DEIR, as part of the alternatives analysis. Because the primary objective of the project is to provide a destination waterfront hotel within the City of Newport Beach, very few waterfront sites that could accommodate the proposed project were available, and none are considered feasible alternative locations. The following sites were closely examined to determine whether or not a feasible alternative to the proposed project could be constructed on these sites. Arde!! Yacht Property This property, consisting of 8.24 acres, is located in the 2200 block of West Coast Highway, in the Mariner's Mile business district (see Figure 5.6.3). It includes properties on both site of the highway, which could theoretically be connected by a pedestrian bridge. Currently, Windows restaurant and the Ardell Yacht offices are located on the waterfront side of the site, and also contains a large parking lot. On the north side of the highway, the property is a paved lot, which is used for boat storage, sales, and repair. The north side of the site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Retail and Service Commercial and a zoning designation of RSC (Retail and Service Commercial). South of the highway, 49 it q the property has a General Plan Land Use designation of Recreation and Marine Commercial, and has a similar RMC (Recreation and Marine Commercial) zoning designation. Redevelopment of the site could accommodate up to 220 hotel rooms. Newport Marina Mobile Home Park This 5.8 acre site is located on the harbor side of West Balboa Boulevard, between 15'h and 18'h Streets (see Figure 5.6.4). The site is currently developed with a mobile home park and contains a public beach. The existing mobile home park is allowed to remain until the end of its existing lease, which expired in March 2000. It has not been determined how the property will be used after this date. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Recreational and Environmental Open Space, and has a zoning designation of PC (Planned Community). Development of the site could yield up to 150 hotel rooms. 1. Summary of Environmental Effects Off -site alternatives are not considered feasible. Therefore, environmental effects are excluded from further analysis. 2. Project Obiectives Off -site alternatives fail to attain the basic project objectives due to their limited size. Their smaller size reduces their potential for developing a project that provides the types of land uses envisioned in the proposed project. 3. Feasibility None of the off -site locations constitute feasible alternatives when compared to development of the proposed site. The applicant, the Newport Dunes Resort Partnership, is proposing to develop a destination waterfront Hotel and Time -Share Resort with conference, meeting, and event facilities and amenities typical of destination resorts. The project is the final phase of development of the Newport Dunes Resort, and is already entitled to construct a 275 room Family Inn Project (Alternative A) on the Hotel and Time -Share Resort site without further discretionary approvals. The applicant already has a long -term lease of the project site through its landlord, the County of Orange. As a result, it would be infeasible for the applicant to acquire and develop another property. (DEIR, p.5 -28.) 4. Comparative Merits All of the alternative sites are less than one -third the size of the proposed project site, making it infeasible to develop a destination resort with significant conference, meeting, and event facilities. (DEIR, p.5 -28.) 5. Findings There are not feasible off -site alternatives that can accommodate a development that achieves the project objectives. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in preceding Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 50 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines provide: "(a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits or a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091" The Council, pursuant to State CEQA Guideline 15093, has balanced the benefits of the project against the following significant unavoidable effects: • Traffic Related Impacts To The Intersection Of Coast Highway And Marguerite Avenue, • Short-Term Construction Related Impacts To Air Quality, • Cumulative Air Quality Impacts • Visual Impact At View K, and • Cumulative Visual Impacts. The Council has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these and all other impacts. The City Council also has examined a range of alternatives, none of which both meet the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed project. The City Council, after balancing the specific social, legal, economic, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Hotel and Time -Share Resort project, determines that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations, each of which individually will be sufficient to outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the project: I . The identified potentially significant adverse impacts have been mitigated to the extent possible. These significant adverse impacts can be substantially reduced, although not eliminated, by project design features, conditions of approval, and /or mitigation measures contained in the EIR. 51 2. The proposed location and uses of the proposed project are complementary to the existing visitor . serving uses of the Newport Dunes Resort and will provide additional public services and amenities and a range of overnight accommodations. 3. The proposed project will serve the growing demand for conference/banquet facilities in the City. The Economic Development Committee ( "EDC ") confirmed the City's need for conference space as documented in the "Analysis of Potential Means of Enhancement of Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue for the City of Newport Beach," prepared for the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau by PKF Consulting, Los Angeles, California (February 1997). 4. The proposed project will achieve several goals and policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan, including the provision of land use diversity and the encouragement or development of suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine related facilities. The project will provide land uses that are consistent with and complementary to the aquatic oriented, visitor serving, and recreational land uses, and the land and water features that are located on the project site and in the surrounding area. (Response to Comment 1 -1 -7.) The proposed project is a visitor serving use that promotes Coastal Act policies by providing access to coastal waters with hotel, time - share, and recreational vehicle facilities, recreational areas, boat launching facilities, and coastal access trails. The project not only preserves and provides public access, but also enhances it, by providing walkways, paths, benches, water fountains, and restrooms, thereby increasing opportunities for boating, swimming, shoreline hiking, fishing, and other forms of water - oriented recreation. (Response to Comment 1 -1 -7.) The proposed project is located in an established urban area where adequate infrastructure, facilities, and services are available, or will be provided with project implementation. is 7. The Fiscal Analysis of Proposed Newport Dunes Resort, dated May 19, 2000, prepared by the City in compliance with City Council Policy F -17, indicates that the proposed project will provide substantial and ongoing net positive revenues after costs for services for the City. The Fiscal Analysis estimates the proposed project will result in $1,416,517 more each year in recurring revenues than it will cause each year in recurring costs. The Fiscal Analysis also concluded the net revenues of the proposed project are the greatest among the EIR alternative projects. 8. The proposed project will facilitate the generation of secondary economic benefits by providing an additional customer base such as increased patronage of local area restaurants, services, retail and commercial establishments, and will provide related secondary fiscal revenues to the City. 9. The proposed project will expand the visitor serving uses in the project area by providing conference, meeting, and event facilities and associated amenities capable of attracting guests to the project year -round and of serving the needs of residents and local community groups. 10. The proposed project will create a project that is sensitive to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and De Anza Bayside Village Mobile Home Park and Dover Shores. 11. The proposed project will provide land uses with high revenue generating potential and relatively low municipal service costs. 0 52 0 12. Compared to the other project alternatives, the proposed project will best serve the demand for conferencelbanquet facilities in the City. 13. The proposed project will provide short-term construction related employment opportunities. 14. The proposed project will provide continuing full -time and part-time employment opportunities, particularly youth and seasonal employment. 53 r, NEWPORT DUNES RESORT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM May 23, 2000 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Contact: Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project #CNB834 0 0 rl�1 Newport Dunes Resort EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program . INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and Sections 15091 and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, require that a Mitiga- tion Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be adopted when the Lead Agency, in this case the City of Newport Beach (City), adopts an Environmental Impact Re- port. The purpose of the MMRP is to assign responsibility for the implementation, monitoring, and timing of each mitigation measure that has been identified to reduce an identified environmental impact to a less than significant level. The City is re- quired to ensure compliance with each of the adopted mitigation measures outlined in the MMRP because additional significant environmental impacts could result from the project if the mitigation measures are not implemented. The attached table lists each of the project's environmental impacts identified in the DEIR and includes the corresponding mitigation measures required to reduce or eliminate the project's significant environmental impacts, where possible. The four columns on the right side of the table list the method and timing of verification that the mitigation measure is being implemented, and the department(s) responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The far right column is left blank to allow staff to add the verification date of each mitigation measure. This column should be used as a reference for verifying that each of the mitigation mea- sures is implemented, and that ongoing mitigation measures are regularly checked. Once the project is constructed, a report should be submitted to the Planning Commis- sion reporting on the project's compliance with the mitigation measures. 5 /19 /00 <PACNB834 \MMRP -2. W PDa n 0 4 e 0 v G e 0 e 0 >oo 0 a" y v t O i C O W u ` >O L d A c C d rz cm O CLOD W O v v � '% .. v c, t o E € u �', to F > ,o a` o 0.0. o `O O e � A o ` � U N t_ y N H ` N to zi c V A A Q o 'o O a s o u— am'm� w D fn G a� Y m M > a > c V �'O u 0 u '� n 3° O Q .0 'O E O to O ° N O v O o° E � > y N E oo G v c w c a¢ � 3 n o c G y y p O 0 O n CL 4. c O .. �, .N. LL O y �. ZZ la pOp .u. O 0 . .QM ° ` y yY'A 2 —� N> c .E m o Q A G G. ,� p? v o Co " ,� — % u 'O 'O c m y ❑ m r0 O oo m— co O u O c t to — .E to 0 m a c E �, o` 0 T'_ t v t. m m� t tO p' °n E v v v S c o .o o E °—' o u o tO u" n ,., y cm y o p ?� o o n v o ca ° u o E E D :o to o n y �°c , p != v 0 v C p C o 00 u w m C L d C -� ? 'y G y O •n 'p a0`i O a0i = t A N 3 e. ce f M m U g P 0 1� p U b � U C U A c 0 a d � p L C 0 o CCD 0.�1A U FF � N d c a O_ C � O U t v � > a b C U d� U C 00 U w .N m 1.. CO 5 E C_ v M n.•C a. �'_. '� � A m R cn y y N y 0 •L N t0 U y V m y ' F Y Z. U N y U v g •o m y y L o o to E d ❑- e o s o$ d 3 o m n t3 a em 3 A s m o m y 0 o U t� Z y tl U L A N C •y .� ._. a W W y v 4. aA. �� 0 aU. 0 5 3 � c � L` s °d � ,� ` v pQ'• � v m v � _ � .°�. v � L ri F 2b E m v C � � r` � k. y lV N N •O C C y C� O N C. p Q N rO N� OCO d N °oE:pOGA° oAO.X�o��ydsoya .� a .°-t °o u o o v •O '� v ° `v 3 1O E o, v .°�. o ° E v o> •Q• •m iF N O y` N U U OU .OD W a M V F C 4� 'J' :: y w° E �] 'O N •N CL1 •N y E 0 .� A •� r O. G m T D 3 C�a L C W d U a 0 a C O u u u m >o � N L aci m o y 0t c3 am �=m c 4�'O ww'0 U U O O C CL L O pq € O U P d F> ' w o n n o 0 m C ` O so m 3 W 3= C d r �L• ° C E ` {F, l0 y U p O` Cy ^C0• A E o n `o i A _ 0 O O N � 1 i' d EL N N V s N O y 3U z 3 p d U O 3 2 pq d c y 'O co mE H y a E. °_ rn c c ° 3 ° A 3 v n c v °° —�° �a cm E 0 - cn m 3 o 0 A to Y€ cq d Tt 3 U Li > y c9 m 'E t C H C ° 'NO w 2 ." 00 c ° U U cq t3 0 w c v lzr 0 a 3 v m z U V °o rn u 11 C O V � V m Q O � � G o y c o o a � a z ao z 0 o° o B d d F � d z 3 O C � � O O � R ^y O 2 t . u i :: 4 vi v� a> �'' v m •� �'.' ate. c L m r U � V y m v 4. y A vVi 'H y� V U O. •U O U T on 3 y pbq � � � ` � � � � � •` 3 0 0 •yv .E � � to n y> H E o" E—" v t tO E •° ':°. u E h v, oa .5 vii y m t °' v m v °• � 'o .E .E �Q Qt2 aF °_'.F".v>i a� Wit. =�° ��t E�► O N L @ U F V O C m Oq t a °m•c vud v o� F [n m E N y ao4 d y O C Z 'y o W 0 % d m � m v� N . — Q > A y k7 0. S t rill 0 3 N i i 'v m w z U v O P a 0 4 z 0 v K b b z 0 `c z 0 M C 0 z" v z O g 2 C O R V V V d W Z V C � v 'y E C L O � d G d d E3 C y„ O O � OV V � y F � e o o '+ r != m � O d e 0 tu 1] u 'a 0 F e E c 0 i c n T 0 3 �c cG G O m 00 0] z v a N 0 0 a 0 0 E A U E m N y O O C \ A to p V1 (� OA r d G d to A a •� U y G G \ C t0 ��•. N A N y r C 1S` t`tl y 3 w y € c y E A •� N N L G \ d '� � d y .� .0 4. � 'C d A d „O ip A" 3 N O 3 � �. � 12 L` G G 2 T y t on y •� C N C O m M U C •« U 'C C ` A_ .`o c u` t rya °o 2 y � A c O � ti � To I..1 N •C N �� lle i P- � S U •O N n T 0 3 �c cG G O m 00 0] z v a N 0 0 a 0 0 0 'J N d O is 00 .j V O F ro d E c Q a c Gr] v y 'b an d O 60 « d p �` Op v O 4a E G a0. E a E E «`o' >N ti F-1 N eo a 3 m E N 2 � w o a w t $ F, °° z„ N° •pvp Q �j 4. c p v A .? " c Q d v U Q � pQ •� E O C d A .0 G 65 a v A m F. o iq p ddd d�G.X •� C00O ��a ddQ•ay�� � v� a >� v� m d Q � Q U a •v � `o � � o � m a a i 0 0 a G 0 d e a e 0 e 0 `a C 0 c" h V G Q 0 z" O v� >o sd 'y E o � a W d d 0.' A C O � GU L F > O L L L N A 0 .M U 'c 0 F i 8 c 0 L C W s eu � c � C �p c p, co y a Q v U A N � r G T O � G L 4 U p a o a A 00 3 [V P M m z z v c b g P 0 • A N C N pq d ,? p v N 3 0 a'� N R 'u.d2a °2 c a zz O a Q 15 U zz � n. g o > LCS a L to O .. d O Q 5 O a 0 0 N c p d L % O ° A O 0. d 1% - N> G fi to N C E N C O7 L � C o Y� « A A p �.. c o a d v to z 0 d A�p y w �,d v v A A.S Y 0 E a°i is o v 'v _: DLO y a fi 3" c io A F A y v° y fi `n E o io w fi y t to 00- a o 'y � a °n F z L A A 3° y .� t F w C] 00 3 [V P M m z z v c b g P 0 • � \ $ � { � 2 �■e¥ (/ _- (# iRD 7§ ) o b i\ }0 )/\ _ \\ I j \�k 7� /) \ \\ \ \ to ` § \k \2 - \¥� /\ be '`® bo k §)\ k \kk\ to / ao !( §§ bb !()) a 0 �,._� _ /\ \ /§ k ] {§ \ M ( /f = a G ¥ A = :-12 ii \ \ k � § } \ ;k \ \/ f � \k )2 { %) &} � \ $ � { � 2 �■e¥ (/ _- (# iRD 7§ ) o b i\ }0 )/\ _ \\ I j \�k 7� /) \ \\ \ \ to ` § \k \2 - \¥� /\ be '`® bo k §)\ k \kk\ to / ao !( §§ bb !()) a 0 �,._� _ /\ \ /§ k ] {§ \ M ( /f = a G ¥ A = :-12 ii \ \ k p O o ^' W L •� d d ^R r , O L d 'N E c � o m as d d 0.' A C 4, O OD t�j G 1. •E .� F � e o v L i 0 y d 0 ;] •a 0 F i E e 0 L C LT] ; > ^ d h C d ��... 'C a— co H O ♦ O L 'y w T d v° V- d v° o Uc o >. °° d p A O N E W 0 (n y U h G, y Q N .. 3� 0° 'p •U W .6 �� y y •o. s eu.a " •c ;_' ° .. a °' d E A e ° = " " A n. °_°, `° E •E ;? �° o .: c o= °' ❑ '° c c d y0 UM oLU y A A 0. •� _ � 0 4.. Q 4 � lO L N C C N D wO y C EOaC= . °�3n « «•c ❑c c spHd° A « °A ❑d n id OD � O o p, ¢ N O '� C O 0 6 C? C C A C L O W C E� •p H« d « « U -S, H d A Q U C y> .E N U U E m ton 2 0 3 e m z v 0 0 a 0 u u L N W c 0 W oc .M 'c u 0 F W e E e 0 L e V U G O N W V L r o 4 � O z 0 4 d y b L d yy O L o W as yy o d d ao z 0 c 0 a o� � u W C L � N F � 'Z, z 'C yN G U O V 3 L L � O � O O Y N C ^y •p W O z t. Op E u L u L N W c 0 W oc .M 'c u 0 F W e E e 0 L e V U N O yy yy p H d 'Z, t •y 'C U O V t L L N 0 N Op E T N •N O. � "C G A `^ d V 'C O C A W « A � V L T O H fn W C W T Oq G N H V W C V O Oq �. V y •0 V N O O S E «� � oq V W O `o V y � c c U •a 'v oq •c .. N` u a� d � y o'^U a y C ' V � 4: •N a d G c d� d `a d y °, a F- y � C A •� u° c °' d A c .°�. v w`❑ A v v �� `i oq 3� ° E d � y d W �. fopp^ cli ri v Q .°'. A c 4 O o a H r:. a 3 z i f e m m CI z U a V 0 0 O O i z a d a z z 0 z z 0 c C 0 a h v t a O R N7 C O U_ V Y 1d R r d o � d o � a A d d e O � � U C C E •;�, F � O � t C v i i A c O tu . U a 0 F u E e 0 e w 04 °' 'c A a Q d U A c N � r _ C T — O � C a o a A C d d A E 3 � o W A W ❑ C o N E R c c 2 c t � c «• 3 O UNNFCNNC «�yU�N•�rZ y � �a o E• 'v �,c� � w EU A d � `"Oi 'y A •C 'C A T T'C ` O v 'O 0q 'C w « C � a Y C� •� ` 3 � C C T i� .0 E N 04 �° E U— 3 E '01` °y � � m � 3 '° p '� d � °• d � 3 'E � � 0G y c v d= .a vYUi a`� o aci U o �o a A d c •- A�� c .a U 3. � t a E i N T, 6 3 z i i M m z U c: 0 0 a 9 0 0 m 2 3 N i i m w m U V °o a C O u oo`o ai � > A 4 c i 0 b c y y c E OG E c E O E d d A d o c F� A d o c� aqU Wq am W q U U d z O e `u a c N d N O — C to c y N N to r O C4 y Y cc a Y E to d 3 o a S j o y z T v O C4 -o 'y 4. — O N b .v O 9 � C y C 'n .t.. � 'Q A E ` t0 obi q y .y. y .c C fi O v L v❑ x fi � m v� y 3 ° c E OD C`bG 0, Ck ib� .OL V c v O h 0 tO C ;? c 0 b d t d o tO 5 r 'o c v v ?' a `v '� v .a? E p 3 v c r Y 00 i`o i G O` W T a"i 6 3 N y v� C A 4 _ O T O d C C 7« O' L V O y Q' FV C4 C T 3 `° " �c °- D m vdi V y t°- -o c vi E O 00 zoo t". O` CO Ob v oq O m 2 3 N i i m w m U V °o a n c c N d u L j O c w A A n o c > y m � N N O a � L d L 00 7t r 3 N c' i i v' O U H °o a m 0 Pi 0 L u �A >o = � 3 E to E o L C6 A C c A c CA nA.Q C G p D A A N o O ✓Ni cL= L•�• L r a F> a o n n 0 0 e 0 O 0 Y O A s d v � > R a A L b i0 C 0 cdy�uN c A G 0 0 ENR O _ 40. _O p• C 'O L m ONONm cq O nt N > d y y 0p� O 0 0 O E n. L E Z C n d.o p m 4= C4 d O O A ' m •� m L 0. Cv% „ n E LR, h T V L °' C .� A Oq aL> > m L n N y R A t A 'L n c n c o o r A w z v E a"i °- n Z y n.= -� E U 0 0 0 E W 0 m `� v ?� t v 3 v a' > m' c Eo Y c m � c . � 'p❑ y p�� U� O �- o L'y U 0 O �.� Y .L. O m U d 'C U'p0�] A L A N A R bt y C v0i N y0 .E R> .� d C 0 C EJ N> R .0 d .� C y C vOLi O A= n a C' F W k. cLi u� ��cc l- v c0» A 0 c N dL >` n m 1O d Z E v v U a u a•°i ,� G m T �..� y 0 0 0 A 0 to 0 0 ' LOpY y LOq m p L L 3 d d A c o n m 3 y L A❑ s y N > t; a C C C o o a 4. A d L O E N E d O >. 3 O N N 3 E U O y> A L C N N A N C O O C 'kL-. 0 0 0 a0i d L F W E L G E 0 n d m O L ;Q O m Oq m y LO 0= V m c> L -j: '5 .� O T n E 'o E °° v 'c " m u= E Z E o m O '!`.p °' O o 0 ,` L v0i .N. C M V0� L d R U e L A A d N A m N h y> A O cs1 J, ccl � of c N�d'Z v 3 m�L d o. a�'sv a.5 09 d V v �nX�vcn: cEpV n c c N d u L j O c w A A n o c > y m � N N O a � L d L 00 7t r 3 N c' i i v' O U H °o a m 0 Pi >ro 0 E U 0 c m d Y n n 0 6 ry K i i 'v z U a 0 N o y > A z i U i G 6 d C nppU W t N ao A U O C a aoUw o o U � C C C � O O d z h d z a O e 0 O � C U 2 = v A > 4 N E N y N •�• y L m iy ° T Oq O � Y A _ M y y C 0 N 2 T Em D L n E a to : � � :y E 3-4 W d 'r � O u y O E d n m w E y T C y N A L 4 R 0> E mW i v P?ac'UU "N C UdU T C W �' L N O 0A v d E "' io L A N d 0 V o CL" ? m n° c o .0 o Oq 4Ei n F E 3 L n 3 S 'N E A r c0 ? N U m—° t c o m Ego E E 4 n `° '? o Z 3 0 E_ d D w �? o m c N c o o n 5 U 70 `° y f"' o v io N o a O A E 4? e`u E E N n o d o U ._'• >ro 0 E U 0 c m d Y n n 0 6 ry K i i 'v z U a 0 N I O 3 N �i Q m 9 U c: °o m I* 0 0 y 3� r ' O Y A L d L 1d C4 I Q O Y Y h �E 3 3° aca ao a'o �o U C d U G C 0 O W A N� V W G VNj e u C y d G N p O U U A A C d N N d n U Q Oi L 3 E T (3 d O O U E cd y U .29 d� W� y T T'- G O ❑ G L C N d O O 3 y L v U E d d « d C 2 F U " 3 'c .� °4'v v o o o n .0 o• m '« '�v o- ao v o E' c ai K m o E L c E U $ C A E Q T O O O E N A N G O m A d C d N L" L U E 'O A O W 3 0 '�C L a F W c E `o v E Qu°_�SC�o°c�3no._ C -9 Y E o x a°4i c c '_u « x ANA .6c -°'a NUcp.UmA._ I O 3 N �i Q m 9 U c: °o m I* 0 0 y 3� r ' _7 {ems /\)) \))� ® \■ 2 ;e�wearc� °� too IR[i2fi#k} §— &29 %0 - «) ƒ §)ak,a =ZeefuEfe! rill \ \ \ \ �\ j! / >o {k !i ) ( / }� ) A> ! ;f � }) � k 2 \) /a E t ) / \( \ / }\) \\) $ { = \c 4p \ )) } \ }( §)fk E ®a ©\))F ■ \( 0 k��7§[f)\ - j _7 {ems /\)) \))� ® \■ 2 ;e�wearc� °� too IR[i2fi#k} §— &29 %0 - «) ƒ §)ak,a =ZeefuEfe! rill \ \ \ \ a 0 a 0 d z 0 O z _ O a w 0 yN C 3 Q O R p d� >a V y U U C p C N C C W N > Z w A E Oa t v v E O'S A E 'v T ❑ Lv o. P g E E A eu y° ❑ �... ° y Oq 'p v O v v'E °� O. C � ° p••W e`n � .E A e� E�• >- � '3 U U DLO A w '� v E� •- E .. o w ° �- v E o A c � � a o f •3 �°, o A o �.� yo d :°- E 'N N o o a•°i y �« o.'-y y '3 �.. x — o° o E C7 a o — o a•°i a o c A 'c °' '- c r a ° o f �`°. N ,U ^"q0., cm F°. CJ o 3 y Ol U o L v v p U y d p A 3 o io d v UU to a� n¢ '- a°i 3 F o °- d C n o o f c .� c :°- [. o d •y ' -° t o •° vUi d tA ° A .E = o. = ,C •E ° v .0 — •p .L. v N °C' ' •o t ° io •O e v c°i e°n LO n 3 ry C 'v M m U 0 P 0 0 • 0 d� i > q 0 C � C y L d 'N E e « o a d d c 0 `c O O O :r tai C a F > h v c 3 O e � � O 4 � V y O d d 0 N W 1�d C 0 td vOi fn 6. N 0 0 'n to y c y OO OO 'C d O y« r � � WWS .�, a"i p u a"i •° ¢ a c 3 a 'o �• °- � o d o 'a o v $ .E °' •Q ¢ °�° Y E .y .� .o � o ` � � y � c � � •o � � •E •y y d �, � ,� U � Y ; � 3 at0i °' w e `� ° d v a >. $ `�' a° 3� € d r •v � o o E A� E •°� u t ". r,, � c e ro c y� d o •° � u� o ° vUi � 'en � a� A m .n ' A c a�i c d '`�°, ma c°-' c A c t '° •° _ « '� !« t' v c tan = [�] 2 ai v io V O� � ._ o 'v w m .. in ai 'N ❑ a 3 � --" a .. v fn o, 0 a 3 yN V m m z U 0 rn a C O d 4 z 0 z 0 0 v z a O 0 R C O v m � Q d C L d 'y E G L. O W as v u 0.� A C � O � U E F � e c '« 9 m t � u i u i N W u c 0 w C d N OL A. >_¢ �a icy o O OE L�= u W O C d A .'.T' d d j �. C O N A a 3 N G c� cG G V N1 d U 0 a 0 0 0 0 p I N m u oa y m Z d C L d 'y E c � o m a d d' C y. O O r W C L E • F � c 4. O O � a � o d � L RN C 0 .j 'e. d a v O .0 U a F 0 Z% a y d O o Z •� a a d s 0 .S a U d rO _J d Z Y an fn � C C c � as Aft d U C W y Ofi •� C O � N O «_ a o n C � an N 7 o 0 N 3 U O aU+ euA d° to d d A '° o d .a c o C N O O C •� nL C U C° Ou ° O« U an A A N y 0 o 0 y C '^ u A i 4 2 p C pE T o O 15 d E > C N y '° a O `O ° u y t: C O 4. t y d C .� 4. O � •= 'C too E d M o N a d .o d :m ❑ to v t w no c o °V l' c E '� T C O' 'C « •� 0-3 U °p N O C N m C o m 3 c E E o E •a ° a�i E a to v F b u 0 0 o 3 .E u n.E •y c rT a [V i i e m m U a: O a Y Y U y N t U U U c '? A d a i.:. fi .a y T E A A c �1� a E$ o •« n aai � a> an ffi A A A u E ,'n c a� F' 3' •o d n o n w ;v o •Y c `� '� `� A C u u n E N •C 06 tn o A - y O C C UM y U E C L' C N > O A .$ m A Grp L C d °_ N 4. A ,Q O N O y S O t G m m O L U L N O O" a F.1 Q N U I t (n N L z y E Z a A c C � an N 7 o 0 N 3 U O aU+ euA d° to d d A '° o d .a c o C N O O C •� nL C U C° Ou ° O« U an A A N y 0 o 0 y C '^ u A i 4 2 p C pE T o O 15 d E > C N y '° a O `O ° u y t: C O 4. t y d C .� 4. O � •= 'C too E d M o N a d .o d :m ❑ to v t w no c o °V l' c E '� T C O' 'C « •� 0-3 U °p N O C N m C o m 3 c E E o E •a ° a�i E a to v F b u 0 0 o 3 .E u n.E •y c rT a [V i i e m m U a: O a n e`o 0 C e 0 v C e z 0 z 0 0 v r O O O z" G O u L v v to >q v v E E v v c c E c� c v v 0.'q A v aA A v aA A v aA C F 3 y C C O = O n C C A v p to .� C C to to th c O O U U U R U U U = L U U U v c v to ts to v R m \ U O ° C t y a °u' v 3 72 y p C O= .c .7 p ;D n v .E to - C .Q �°j N ts ts 0 E O O O v` O 3 Y U to y ts ° - Op N 'O -0 ZC cti — 4. :.0 U F p uo d ts F F Cv F t= C ,Z 6 E C L F U to A 0. 'p v O v P d G O to v 'C O O Q v tO L C S E� •v ��„ m t d .O O L C Cl CA L d y w F U Z F 6 to F F C U y c t Z d m to ti ~ m y .v. F v C A U E v v A> �4 4 a Y QC N N i 3 i i 'v M W m U G °o P is 0 M N T1 a 3 N 6 m m U b °o rn m C O V L d o V w m c 4 0 C v y j L aCi � .o c aW � a c 0 C O � � u W � V F > n v c O C O 0 4 � A 0 V 2 = cd L G d L_ y R d C O c� G L oq r Y Too N h 0. Q H O O O L o f 9 •� 3 c' Y.. m E x a� ❑ °o � v 0 O 7 d � L' v u •a .N. o � u u 'y Q 2.`At• E u �Nt � nd•x « u F' � Z A ; E_ v � '� 2 n " � " :o O 3 « •u A •� ,o y m C7 y v b o r L A L a c A o c c„ u V U O O Y� V y� � 'O •O u T V oq =' 3 u< `° d� :: n n r Z' -.uoy d� 'L' �° c E v d am• °_ v A A x y a d o> ' FL Z n: �.o t o O to A a V u 5 m M N T1 a 3 N 6 m m U b °o rn m C O d d to 'N E eu E c S O a A U W A v U c C A C C w c o � O Y O « U o U � r . � > a a a w 0 a p N_ .y 0 N d w i « O E � C a n � N A Q y � 4J o c •v 3 c `c ¢ « c Q u ❑ c U C o r g'E o c F � t E E m y N y O L = v •; v h t « Y m e v « F Lv •O L' E p° H 0. L O o �i O O m O❑ v y T t « �•3 m e°qo aa+ -i"' v m'Z «0.¢lu`'m-• � A aEity) U E O o •v w . •v eu E m> v H �. S oq ° U v a? •o ra .°'. D N n 0 3 ry 5 M 0 U 0 a 9 Ll r O • W U � d R � > A r 0 O y G m O a � •c o m 6 c a 0 0.'O a0 o d — U � 00 U Op G `1 � C O L�,OfJ •O G4� " O y O N h m z a O C o o a w s u � > a L 3 d N > « c « a) � •O• OlJ m 0 Cc :EP y� y._7 O O•` _ Q .E L O Z Q N Q a o aU o EA3° 1. Q4 ° 0 U o o > ° o o a >O—cm o .o o d _� eo •� _x and d = d ,� v o c C N _O y Q> C• AO ¢ t0 G ^ rZ N Y« bn Q Y G Y C y y �-' N CO 0 0 y L p efi is E 0 E c ai •iy � vi 0 d Y O � ° O O « Ey c d U A Lai LP> d U L^ d O A •. d c K' " cOi° •.>—. y d > - 7 d = •o °' v « .°� ,� M> .Y aN � O N .' > U Y"' E a y ° • G � an � y C CL W O Q L Q Q U= N A •y A d W E fn o d° O^ ° > A E N ❑> L L U •� U OfJ ci o U L« '0 o '0 w cm aci c� A 3 a °c o •`' ,� ° e_°o e T A � °�� �� d >> � v 3 o d x y c c •� .. ¢ d°', T •° a Q c°i > o C N N >, G 3 y O � « N G N� U G 'J •� O V A G .Z � T- ^� t0 > t0 U •p •> Q Y n a A :t .°_; v 'y 0.2 d v a� W v a�i •o > s 0� y d N U c d m E o o E o o '^ c m a •a"'i « z •a"i d o o 0 «? > L o o •o ono d c d> U L y U L> L a a s A v, n c y U L N 3 Sa R M W CI b °o a O O a` m e 0 d a z z 0 z 0 m x m 0 a" N _W 0 0 2 O U L U U R >a v � u c c E c o � G d d R d C O fir+ D. A 0 F > a n A R L y'3 y 2 m,o x" E � d d v a� fn '❑ ° c ep R C L p O C m R E R O L U 0 L U R p y ee * c° s c c 3 a o 3 d aRi cz V o a a'E end .� o A 3 1t A a °° ,c w to CQ u d ❑ c .. s a°' o o c z .°' A '° c � � v a"Ri c c v c L w � c •°. N n d� EAR" s o d a o a ...o A R .°. ❑ `° o o c Y n° .o 3 .o R p '° �N o y c� L C .: .. to E CZ U o C C Q vOi c � N to T t�CO to ,>O C W U N �0 y 'O 00 b0 p « LR Cp C. 4 •� T O •O N p E N N O Op V r W v SO N C L N O L- N E O Ccz a O y y> W C C N r ° °• y 'o c s = o° .. '3 p p '« .y A F., .ra ecn « ,co o p. c 'o n'o s 'o .a c .E o ._ •� ° `o « s d .� o o c v .°'. « y L a• n e`n'`° d to w Q 5'E oF= r�°v'= °�`°.. `UC° A ^aRi Y aL«`C7 3 0 sE N F2 0 3 ry cC i i 0 m w m U a V °o a 0 `J 0 u C >q c t 0 t � v c a� 0 � a c C q c 0 `c �o p 0 � m m � � L E � � F � y v c a O e g e u 2 s t_ d U_ U 1.. O d N A d E v c � o � m � E c o o c _N A U c� UU cD. G r+ G O « O U G U ❑ p., d it t:7 nm N a 3 yN C R m m U O a O V � v ea > A c c c v v v v c E d d d d 6 v v v V V v v v U U U G C G C y. C H 04 H Oq y Oq e O U U U a L C G F C H U-2 2 2 C G L W N V p y 0• A W te t3 C'I �? m x r .o A �•' �- — to v E w° y o; Q v io Q v A M d L G v y y 3 Lno�o�wo�� a oGw AOXa� s g�o�o C W L W y 'N W u V p y O� d L ❑ R L V � d° _ N A �� V L� O C .O O `c oc �aZ4 d L C 600 O O v L G O U O O G W L L a� N L a� G A E S v v C 'O . 'O N Cl 6 ayi 0 d V C r ' y a � y c .E o m❑ ��° .o O E A� c c— q$ A N 3 z i i 'v m a m v 0 a 0 0 L N u 0 .M U .Q O F y d E C O L > C w c O C U � N F d � Q � d G d 0 K � C C � d � c � d N d o as C 0 Q C d Q O d Q O � U a E � N F � � h v. d e a O C O `0 0 Z 9 U s . d � L N u 0 .M U .Q O F y d E C O L > C w o, N O 3 N f m 00 Z©Z U G 0 0 a m C C C d d d d Q d Q d Q v. v. U U U A A A y 0p fn 0p N o� 02 fn O L 4.n O L 4.n N L 4.n N U d U d U d V V V m m m C N C o 4 g Q 'O m �«, � co d ct >^ tiA •o U y ;4 m C ti +.+ �� ti T � o c G o d o `C ° d o v `o a a. u c d �0 .c A i •p d v v 'O C d Eo 'O y ❑ L N y y? N .O >> Q .00 4. C A C ,Op 5 0 0 w m � ern m •o E°'. � ¢ y « v � �'' ¢ n o, N O 3 N f m 00 Z©Z U G 0 0 a m RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN [GPA 97 -3 (F)] AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN [LCP 5 1 ] WHEREAS, an application has been filed proposing the redesignation of Planning Unit 1 of the Newport Dunes Resort from Recreation and Environmental Open Space to Retail and Service Commercial and an amendment to the Land Use Element tent to increase in the authorized number of rooms /units from 275 to the proposed 470 and authorized square footage of the hotel from 500,000 square feet to the proposed 581,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (F) and Local Coastal Program ! Amendment No. 51 on January 20, 2000 and continued public hearings on February 3, February 17, March 9, March 23, April 6, and April 20, 2000; and WHERAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (F) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 51; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2000, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (F) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 51; and WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Commission finds that the project is consistent with the with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and 0 the California Coastal Act for the following reasons: I 1. The project provides visitor - serving facilities in the hotel and time - share, recreational, retail, dining, entertainment, meeting facilities, and employment opportunities that are centrally located within the community. 2. The land use intensities of the project will be established by the Land Use Element and further controlled through the Planned Community District Plan and the Development Agreement. 3. The project is a visitor - servinguse that provides public access to the water in the form of hotel, time - share, and recreational vehicle facilities, recreational areas, boat launching facilities, and coastal access trails. These facilities will be open to residents and visitors. 4. The project will maintain the existing marina, boat launching facilities, dry boat storage facilities, and other marine - related facilities to continue the City's historical and maritime atmosphere, and the charm and character such businesses have traditionally provided the City. 5. A fiscal impact analysis was conducted for the project that evaluated potential revenues against potential service costs. The analysis estimates that the project will result in $1,416,517.00 more each year in recurring revenues than it will cause each year in recurring costs. WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 157 has been prepared for the proposed project in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in EIR No. 157 and in the record of proceedings. 7 0 0 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS 9 FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Land Use Element of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan shall be amended to designate Planning Unit 1 of the Newport Dunes Resort to Retail and Service Commercial. SECTION 2: The Land Use Element of the General Plan shall be amended to read as provided in Exhibit "A." SECTION 3: The Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan shall be amended to read as provided for in "Exhibit B." SECTION 4: the Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan amendment shall be implemented in a manner fully in conformity with the Coastal Act. SECTION 5: The Planning Director is hereby directed to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment 51 to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval. SECTION 6: The change of the land use designation of the subject property to Retail and Service Commercial and the amendment to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan text shall only become effective upon the approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment 51 by the California Coastal Commission. 0 M s This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on _, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibit A: Revised to the Land Use Element text. Exhibit B: Revised Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan text. 0i 0 0 EXHIBIT A 3. Newport Dunes. This site is an aquatic park facility on State Tidelands held in trust by the County of Orange on Upper Newport Bay, northwesterly of Jamboree Road and Coast Highway. It is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space and Retail and Service Commercial, and is intended for aquatic - oriented, visitor- serving land uses, including a maximum of 470 hotel rooms and time -share units. Development is permitted pursuant to the Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan and the Newport Dunes Development Agreement as follows: Planning Unit 1 Hotel & Time -share otel/Time -share 470 roomslunits with 31,000 sq. ft. of function areas Planning Unit 2 RV Resort & Village Center 294 spaces with the hotelltime- RV Sites share or 444 spaces without the hotelltime-share IRV Support 22,100 sq. ft. !Manager's Residence l dwelling unit Planning Unit 3 Day Use, Beach & Lagoon 'Su port 24,550 sq. ft. Planning Unit 4 Boat Launch/Dry Boat Storage ,[Boat Lauch Ramps 7 lanes }Marina 17 slips IDry Boat Storage 400 spaces ,Wash Rack 6lanes lEating/Drinking Establishments/Support 7,200 sq. ft. Planning Unit 5 Marina Marina 436 slips Manna Center /Support 12,000 sq. ft. Exhibit A ,%V EXHIBIT B 3 . Newport Dunes. This site is an aquatic park facility on State Tidelands held in trust by the County of Orange on Upper Newport Bay, northwesterly of Jamboree Road and Coast Highway. It is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space and Retail and Service Commercial and is intended for aquatic- oriented, visitor - serving land uses. Development is permitted pursuant to the Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan and the Newport Dunes Development Agreement. Exhibit B 9 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING TRAFFIC STUDY 115 WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has received an application for a 470 room/unit hotel and time -share project on property identified on on Lease Parcels A, B, and C and Irvine Parcel of Newport Dunes Aquatic Park located at 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive; and WHEREAS, a traffic study (Newport Dunes Hotel, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc, March 2000) for the project was prepared in compliance with the Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the traffic study indicated that the project will increase traffic on three (3) primary intersections (Coast Highway/Bayside Drive, Coast Highway /Jamboree Road, and Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue) by one percent (1 %) or more during Peak Hour Periods one year after the 0 completion of the project; and WHERAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that all three of the subject primary intersections would operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both AM and PM peak hours; and WHEREAS, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the City Council finds: 1. Constructionof the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of project approval; and 2. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection. rJ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the project on January 20, 2000 and continued public hearings on February 0 3, February 17, March 9, March 23, April 6, and April 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a duly notice public hearing on the project on June 13, 2000. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve Traffic Study 115. This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on _, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK E r�L 1�\ RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL PRECISE PLAN WHEREAS, the City ofNewport Beach has received an applicationfor a 370 room and 100- unit hotel/time -share project on property identified on Lease Parcels A, B, and C and Irvine Parcel of Newport Dunes Aquatic Park located at 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive; and WHEREAS, the application for a project includes a conceptual precise plan for the development of a hotel /time -share project in Planning Unit I of the Newport Dunes Resort. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the project on January 20, 2000 and continued public hearings on February 3, February 17, March 9, March 23, April 6, and April 20, 2000; and WHERAS, the Planning Commissionof the City of Newport Beach recommended approval of the conceptual precise plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the project on June 13, 2000; and WHEREAS, the conceptual precise plan is in conformance with the Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan and consistent with the Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a draft environmental impact report was prepared and the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the draft environmental impact report and in the record of the proceedings. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve the conceptual precise plan for the development of Planning Unit I of the Newport Dunes Resort as provided for in "Exhibit A" and subject to the conditions contained in "Exhibit B." 0 This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on _, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR 0811036 CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibit A: Conceptual Precise Plan for Planning Unit ] Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval. 0 0 EXHIBIT B 1. Approval of this conceptual precise plan is contingent on the adoption of General Plan Amendment 97 -3, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment 51, Zoning Code Amendment 878, Planned Community District Plan 48, Development Agreement 12 by the City Council and the certification of Environmental Impact Report 157 by the City Council and the adoption of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment 51 by the California Coastal Commission. 2. The final precise plan shall be insubstantial conformance with the approved conceptual precise plan, including site plans, floor plans, elevations, visual simulations, and public improvement plans, except as noted below. 3. All future site improvements and activities shall be in conformance with this approval and shall comply with all the mitigation monitoring measures and mitigation monitoring requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Newport Dunes Resort EIR (State Clearing House No. 98061113). In the event of any conflicts, the conditions of this resolution shall prevail. 4. The final precise plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 5. The final precise plan shall include a landscape plan for all the remaining planning units. 0 6. The final precise plan shall include a construction traffic management plan. • 7. The final precise plan shall include public shoreline access plan. The public shoreline access plan shall provide two public access routes connecting the shoreline promenade to Back Bay Drive. 8. The two -story section at the south end of the hotel shall have a pitched roof. 9. The existing chain link fence along Back Bay Drive shall be removed and replaced with a lower, less visually obtrusive, security fence of a design and construction that is consistent with the Design Guidelines. 10. The segment of the bike path that is adjacent to Bayside Village Mobile Home Park shall be relocated to provide a minimum 5 -foot wide landscaped strip between the path and the mobile home park. Exhibit B 1A 11. Catering functions (i.e., those designed to attract primarily non -hotel guests) in the conference center shall be restricted as follows: 0 a. On Fridays (beginning at 5:00 p.m.), Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays from May V through Labor Day of each year: 1) The maximum number of catering guests occupying the conference center at any one time shall be 1,500. 2) Functions involving two or more engagers /groups totaling more than one -half of the maximum number of catering guests (750) shall be scheduled to start or end at least one - half hour apart. Functions involving a single engager /group may have a single start/end time. 3) Functions involving no more than one - quarter of the maximum number of guests (375) may be scheduled to start or end during the P.M. weekend traffic peak hour at the intersection of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. 4) The minimum time between functions to be held in any single room during two different time periods is one and one -half hours. 5) The City Manager may, at his/her discretion, approve a maximum of four (4) waivers of this condition per calendar year. Waiver requests shall be submitted a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the event and shall be accompanied by a traffic and parking management plan designed to minimize any impacts associated with the waiver. b. On Monday through Friday, except on federal holidays: 1) The maximum number of catering guests occupying the conference center at anyone time shall be 1,500, except from Thanksgiving Day to New Year's Day, but not during the time of the annual Christmas Boat Parade, the maximum number shall be 2,000. 2) No catered events in the conference center shall be scheduled to start or end between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., exclusive. 3) No catered events in the conference center shall be scheduled to start or end between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., exclusive. 4) Functions involving two or more engagers /groups totaling more than one -half of the maximum number of guests (750 or 1,000) shall be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart. Functions involving a single engager /group may have a single start/end time. 5) The City Manager may, at his/her discretion, approve a maximum of twelve (12) . waivers of this condition per calendar year. Waiver requests shall be submitted a Exhibit B I�� minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the event and shall be accompanied by a traffic and parking management plan designed to minimize any impacts associated with the waiver. c. Should the Coast Highway/BaysideDrive intersection peak traffic hours change, based on actual traffic counts conducted by the Public Works Department, by one -half hour or more from the existing peak A.M. hour of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. or the existing peak P.M. hour of 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., then the prohibited time periods shall change accordingly to correspond to the new peak hours. The Public Works Department shall notify the applicant of changes in peak hours. Said changes shall not apply to any events scheduled prior to notice of such a determination. d. The applicant shall be required to provide information to prove conformance with this condition semi - annually. The report shall include retrospective information for the preceding six -month reporting period as well as prospective information on all scheduled events subject to this condition for the forthcoming six -month report period. Reports shall be submitted to the Planning Director on January 31 of each year for the period of July 1 through December 31 of the prior year and on July 31 for the period of January 1 through June 30 of that year. e. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, the applicant may apply to the Planning Commission for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic generation and parking demand statistics. 12. The health club, including fitness and spa facilities, shall not be made available for use by non- guests via sales of memberships or periodic passes. This condition shall not prevent non - guests from use of the spa facilities on an appointment basis. 13. Outdoor amplified music shall not be allowed after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. 14. In determining the project's compliance with the Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code), each of the noise level standards specified Section 10.26.025 and Section 10.26.030 shall be reduced by 5 dBA for a simple tone noise such as a whine, screech, or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noise such as hammering or riveting. 15. The applicant shall take appropriate measures to minimize the idling of vehicles at the main hotel entrance, the function area entrance, and at the time - share /marina lobby entrance to minimize noise and exhaust emissions. 16. All employee and delivery traffic shall access the site via Back Bay Drive utilizing the service /emergency road. 17. All employees shall be required to park on the Newport Dunes Resort property. Exhibit B iii 18. All temporary lighting used during the construction phase shall be designed and located to confine direct rays and glare to the project site. 0 19. At the end of construction, the applicant shall wash exterior of the homes in Bayside Village to further reduce the impacts of fugitive dust generated during the construction phase. 20. All loading and unloading activities at the westerly side of the structure at ground level shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 21. All heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, including building and parking structure mechanical ventilation equipment, shall located as far as feasible from residential areas, but not less than 30 feet from the property line, and shall be sited and attenuated to minimize noise impacts to adjacent residential areas. 22. Trash container areas shall be screened, walled, and secured to prevent accidental off -site transport of trash into water bodies. 23. No car washing, changing of oil, or other auto repairs shall be permitted within the 30 acre Hotel and Time -Share Resort site. Hotel service vehicles and equipment used for maintenance shall be washed at the existing boat wash rack or other locations off the project site. Vehicles shall be serviced at approved maintenance sites, either on -site or off -site. 24. Landscaped areas that utilize fertilizers and pesticides shall be managed in concert with guidelines provided in the Orange County DAMP. 25. Regular litter control and emptying of trash receptacles will be scheduled to minimize debris that would be carried to Upper Newport Bay. The Newport Dunes Resort management shall adhere to refuse management and collection methods that limit wildlife access by using covered trash containers that cannot be easily overturned or accessed by wildlife. The Newport Dunes Resort management shall promptly control refuse generated by visitors using on -site facilities. 26. Employee training on Best Management Practices shall be provided pursuant to the Newport Dunes Resort EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 27. A water interceptor and catch basin monitoring report shall be prepared by the applicant on an annual basis pursuant to the Newport Dunes Resort EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 28. The applicant shall be responsible for the inspection, implementation, and maintenance of the structural and non - structural BMPs outlined in the final Water Quality Management Plan and SWPPP. 29. On -site roadways and parking lots shall be cleaned on a weekly basis to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system from paved surfaces. • Exhibit B iv n 30. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall implement standard contract specifications requiring instructions to be carried out by the construction manager to minimize emissions by heavy equipment. Measures may include but not be limited to: 1) proper maintenance of equipment engines, 2) use of cleaner burning equipment or equipment using alternative fuels, 3) avoidance of idling equipment for extended periods of time, 4) connecting stationary equipment to electrical facilities, and 5) avoidance of unnecessary delays of traffic resulting from blockage of traffic by heavy equipment. 31. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 32. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a grading or building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 33. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The time -share and marina area's surface parking lot shall contain one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls consistent with the Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan Design Guidelines. 34. Intersections of private streets and drives shall be designed to provide sight distance in conformance with City of Newport Beach Sight Distance Standard 110 -L. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. Sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 35. Approval of the Bayside Drive control gate and turn- around is contingent on City Council approval of the vacation of the segment of Bayside Drive from the Bayside Village entrance to the project property line, pursuant to the City Council Policy L -9. Should the vacation not be approved, Bayside Drive shall be improved consistent with the improvements depicted in Figures 4.7.2a and 4.7.2b of the DEIR. 36. The Bayside Drive control gate lanes shall each be a minimum of 14 -feet wide and the turn- around shall have a minimum 38 -foot radius. The final design of the control gate and turn- around shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 37. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department and the final design shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 38. Bayside Drive shall be reconstructed with curbs, gutters, sidewalk, street lights, and pavement as needed, storm drain and bike trail improvements. All work shall be completed under an • encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. Exhibit B I �� 39. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of landscaping in the Bayside Drive right - of -way north of Coast Highway. 40. Intersection improvements shall be constructed at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway, including signal modifications as required by the traffic study. 41. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 42. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map /tract map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 43. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 44. Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 45. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 46. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Bayside Drive right -of -way. 47. All improvements shall be completed as required according to the traffic study for the Newport Dunes development. DEIR Standard Conditions SC 1 -1 - Compliance with General Plan and PC District Plan Development of all sites shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and applicable PC District Plan regulations and Design Guidelines, included therein. Exhibit B A 11 c SC 1 -2 - Subsequent Development Approvals Subsequent discretionary approvals, including any Subdivision Maps and/or Site Plans, Grading and Demolition Permits, will be in compliance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15. SC 4 -1 - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) The applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for the construction site prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) as required by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall include, at a minimum, the following items: A map extending approximately one - quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the construction site showing: the construction site, surface water bodies (including known springs and wetlands), known wells, an outline of off -site drainage areas that discharge into the construction site, general topography, and the anticipated discharge location(s) where the construction site s stormwater discharges to a municipal storm sewer system or other water body. The requirements of this paragraph may be included in the site map required under the following paragraph, if appropriate. 2. A site map(s) showing a. Location of control practices used during construction; b. Areas used to store soils and wastes; C. Areas of cut and fill; d. Drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading activities are completed; e. Areas of soil disturbance; f. Surface water locations; g. Areas of potential soil erosion where control practices will be used during construction; h. Existing and planned paved areas and buildings; i. Locations of post - construction control practices; j. An outline of the drainage areas for each on -site stormwater discharge point; k. Vehicle storage and service areas; and 1. Areas of existing vegetation. 3. A narrative description of the following: a. Toxic materials that are known to have been created, stored, disposed, spilled, or leaked in significant quantities onto the construction site; b. Practices to minimize contact of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles with stormwater; Exhibit B kv I`� C. Construction material loading, unloading, and access areas; d. Preconstruction control practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges; e. Equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas; f. Methods of on -site storage and disposal of construction materials; and g. The nature of fill material and existing data describing the soil on the construction site. 4. A list of pollutants (other than sediment) that are likely to be present in stormwater discharges in significant quantities. Describe the control practices (if different from Item 8 below) appropriate to reduce these pollutants in the stormwater discharges. An estimate of the size of the construction site (in acres or square feet), an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the construction site before and after construction, and an estimate of the percentage of the area of the construction site that is impervious (e.g., pavement, buildings, etc.) before and after construction. 6. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI). 7. A description of soil stabilization practices. These practices shall be designed to preserve existing vegetation where feasible and to revegetate open areas as soon as feasible after grading or construction. In developing these practices, the discharger shall consider: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips, protection of trees, or other soil stabilization practices. At a minimum, the operator must implement these practices on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. 8. A description or illustration of control practices which, to the extent feasible, will prevent a new increase of sediment load in stormwater discharge. In developing control practices, the discharger shall consider a full range of erosion and sediment controls such as detention basins, straw bale dikes, silt fences, earth dikes, brush barriers, velocity dissipation devices, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level spreaders, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet protection, sediment traps, temporary sediment basins, or other controls. At a minimum, sandbag dikes, silt fences, straw bale dikes, or equivalent controls practices are required for all significant sideslope and downslope boundaries of the construction area. The discharger must consider site - specific and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices. 9. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto public or private roads. These public and private roads shall be impacted and cleaned, as necessary. 10. The SWPPP shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce to the extent feasible the discharge of materials other than stormwater to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that no materials are discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than • Exhibit B Viii 1 :/ 1 stormwater that are discharged shall be listed along with the associated quantity of the • discharged material. These requirements shall be enforced by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. SC 4 -2 - Storm Drain Facility Design The design of all required storm drainage facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Storm drain facilities shall be designed to handle a minimum 25 year storm frequency. SC 4 -3 - Kitchen Facilities Building plans shall demonstrate that grease traps shall be installed in all kitchen wastewater lines prior to the issuance of building permits. SC -1 -Paleontologist The project paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading meeting to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to allow sampling, identification, and evaluation of any potentially significant scientific resources uncovered during the course of ground disturbing • construction activities. SC -2 - Archaeologist Any cultural resource work in the project area will be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any cultural resource material is found during ground disturbing activities, those ground disturbing activities will be diverted from the area of the find until a certified archaeologist is able to adequately survey the discovery and the area. Material collected during ground disturbing construction activities will be stored at a professional curation facility. SC -3 - Encountering Human Remains If any human remains are encountered during the course of construction, project related activities in the immediate vicinity of the find will be temporarily diverted. The County Coroner will be contacted within 24 hours. The County Coroner will determine whether the remains are recent. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted immediately to determine the most likely descendent (MLD). The MLD will have the opportunity to become involved with the final disposition of the remains following scientific analysis. SC -4 - Final Cultural Resource Report If any cultural resource material is discovered at the site, a final report detailing the findings and Exhibit B ix .,IG` disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the Orange County Natural History Museum, and a report documenting the findings shall be filed with the museum. SC 8 -1 - Fugitive Dust Emissions Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 notification requirements. Submittal of a notification package or detailed dust control plan to SCAQMD outlines steps that will be taken to comply with Rules 402 and 403, which restrict fugitive dust emissions. Potential dust control measures shall include but not be limited to: daily watering of graded areas, washing of equipment tires before leaving the construction site, use of SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers or soil binders, and discontinuance of ground disturbing construction activities during first and second stage smog alerts or when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. SC 8 -2 - SCAQMD Permitted Equipment/Facilities Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for the proposed Hotel and Time -Share Resort, the applicant shall provide verification to the Director, Community Development Department, that all regulated equipment/activities (i.e., process/heating boilers or charbroilers) have been permitted by the SCAQMD. All regulated equipment/activitiesof emission shall be subject to the requirements of Regulation XII, New Source Review, and other appropriate SCAQMD regulations in effect at the time of issuance of certificates. SC 8 -3 - Employee Vehicle Trip Reduction Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 2202, any hotel (and time - share) use on site employing more than 250 permanent employees will establish a program to encourage reduction in vehicle emissions associated with employee vehicle trips. SC 8 -4 - Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance Prior to approval of the Precise Plan for the Hotel and Time -Share Resort, the applicant shall incorporate the requirements of the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance into the Precise Plan (Chapter 20.64 of the City's Municipal Code). Any or all of these requirements may be deleted or modified if equivalent facilities or measures are provided subject to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. The following requirements are designed primarily to apply to employees of the Hotel and Time -Share Resort, but may also apply to guests of the Hotel and Time -Share Resort, where applicable. These requirements are provided below: A. Carpool Parking - A parking space shall be reserved and designated for each identified carpool. Carpool spaces shall only be used by carpool vehicles and shall be located near the employee entrance or at other preferential locations, as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. A minimum of five percent of the provided parking shall be reserved for carpools. Additional spaces shall be designated for each new carpool which forms. Exhibit B X n B. Bicycle Lockers - Bicycle lockers shall be provided for use by employees or tenants who commute by bicycle. A minimum of two lockers per 100 employees shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as employees or tenants demonstrate demand and may be installed in designated vehicle parking spaces at the ratio of three lockers for each space. Demand shall be deemed to have been demonstrated when an employee or tenant commits to riding an average of two days per week. C. Lockers and Showers - A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. Provisions shall be made for a second shower and additional lockers to the installed at such time as four or more persons within any one hour period indicate a need to shower as a result of bicycling, running, walking, or other commute mode likely to result in such a need. D. Information on Transportation Alternatives - A commuter information area shall be provided in one or more central areas that are accessible to all employees or tenants. Information shall include, but not be limited to, current maps, routes and schedules for public transit; ridesharing match lists; available commuter incentives and ridesharing promotional material supplied by commuter oriented organizations. E. Rideshare Vehicle Loading Area - A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated at a location approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Such areas shall accommodate a minimum of two passenger vehicles for the first 25,000 square feet of development, plus one for each 50,000 square feet of additional development or fraction thereof. F. Vanpool Accessibility - The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. Where applicable, a minimum T -2" vertical clearance shall be provided and the spaces shall be located near the employee entrance or other preferential location, as may be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. A vanpool space shall be reserved and designated for each identified vanpool at the site. SC 9 -1 - Construction Hours Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall incorporate the limitation on construction hours of operation outlined in Chapter 10.28 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code, construction hours shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is also permitted on Sundays and federal holidays, provided the noise does not disturb persons of normal sensitivity. SC 10 -1 - Use Permit for Recreational Lighting No swimming pool, tennis court, or other use which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission is of a similar nature, and which is located within any residential district or closer than two hundred (200) feet to the boundary of any residential district, shall be lighted externally unless a use permit shall first have been secured for the installation, maintenance, and operation of the lighting fixtures. Exhibit B Xi This provision shall not be construed so as to require a use permit for lighting fixtures that are normally incidental to the use of a residential structure. SC 10 -2 - Lighting Plan Required The project shall be designed to eliminate light spillage and glare onto adjacent properties or uses. A lighting plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspectionby the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. SC 10 -3 - Lighting Specifications Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric site information. This plan will be used to determine the extent of light spillage or glare that can be anticipated by the project. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans prior to issuance of the building permit. SC 11 -1 - Compliance with Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the Newport Beach Municipal Code I* The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SC 12 -1 - Fire Protection Requirements The proposed Hotel and Time -Share Resort shall conform to all requirements of the Newport Beach Fire Department and the Orange County Harbor Patrol concerning site access, roof materials, fire hydrants, water flows, sprinkler systems, and project construction. SC 12 -2 - Police Department Review The City of Newport Beach Police Department shall review and approve all detailed construction plans in relation to the following issues: adequate internal circulation, street and walkway lighting, building identification, police surveillance, and alarm systems. SC 12 -3 - Water and Sewer Facilities Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the Hotel and Time -Share Resort site, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Planning Department, that adequate water and sewer facilities will be available for the Hotel and Time -Share Resort. Such demonstration shall include verification from OCSD and the City's Utilities Division. Exhibit B xii SC 12 -4 - Water Hook -Up Fee The project applicant shall pay the City's required water "hook -up "fee prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the proposed Hotel and Time -Share Resort, as determined by the City Public Works Department. SC 12 -5 - Water Efficient Plumbing The Hotel and Time -Share Resort project shall comply with local and State laws requiring water efficient plumbing fixtures in order to minimize water consumption. These laws mandate the use of low volume flush toilets in all buildings; establish efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rates for showerheads, faucets, etc.; prohibit the use of non - conforming or substandard plumbing fixtures; and establish pipe insulation requirements to reduce the amount of water used before hot water reaches the fixture. SC 12 -6 - Review of Public Works Improvements All sewer and reclaimed water lines and any related facilities shall be designed and installed pursuant to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District. Detailed improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Newport Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District for review and approval prior to project construction. 0 SC 12 -7 - Wastewater Fees 0 The project applicant shall be required to pay a fair share cost of any off -site wastewater transmission or treatment facilities, as well as required sewer connection fees to the Orange County Sanitation District. SC 12 -8 - Solid Waste Enclosures Concurrent with approval of site plans, detailed plans shall be submitted delineating the number, location, and general design of solid waste enclosures and storage areas for recycled material. SC 12 -9 - Recycling and Reduction of Construction Materials The project developer shall adhere to all solid waste source reduction programs for the disposal of construction materials and solid waste required by the City of Newport Beach. xiii Exhibit B 0 ORDINANCE 2000 -. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20.65.040 AND SECTION 20.65.050 OF TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE [PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT PLAN NO. 48 AMENDMENT NO. 878] WHEREAS, on March 24, 1997, the Newport Dunes Resort was reclassified to the Planned Community (PC) District; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has received an application fora 470 room/unit hotel and time -share project on property identified on Lease Parcels A, B, and C and Irvine Parcel of Newport Dunes Aquatic Park located at 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive; and WHEREAS, Chapter 20.35 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the adoption of ia Planned Community District development plan prior to new development on the property; and WHEREAS, the proposed Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 20.35 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, an amendment to Section 20.65.040 and Section 20.65.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is required to establish new height restrictions for the property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach initiated the Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 on August 6,1998; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the amendments on January 20, 2000 and continued public hearings on February 3, February 17, March 9, March 23, April 6, and April 20, 2000; and WHERAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended approval of the amendments; and .,n WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the project on June 13, 2000 at which all interested persons and organizations were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a draft environmental impact report was prepared and the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the draft environmental impact report and in the record of the proceedings; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certified the EIR as adequate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Newport Dunes Resort Planned Community District Plan is adopted as provided in attached Exhibit "A." 0 SECTION 2: Section 20.65.040 and Section 20.65.050 of Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code" shall be revised to read as provided in Exhibit "B." SECTION 3: Height Limitation Zone Map of Chapter 20.65 of the Municipal Code shall be revised as provided for in "Exhibit C." SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. 2 This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of • Newport Beach held on _, 2000, and adopted on the th day of , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS 0 ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibit A: Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan. Exhibit B: Revised Section 20.65.040 and Section 20.65.050, NBMC. Exhibit C: Height Limitation Zone Map of Chapter 20.65, NBMC. 3 I � C1 EXHIBIT B 20.65.040 Height Limitation Zones In addition to the development standards established in the various districts, there shall be -5 6 height limitation zones within the City. The designations, locations, and boundaries of these height limitation zones shall be as shown on the "Height Limitation Zones" map, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. In each height limitation zone the maximum permitted height shall be measured in accordance with the definitions contained in this chapter. A. 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 24 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 24 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all R -1, R -1.5, R -2, and OS Districts. B. 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone the maximum height limit shall be 28 feet; provided, however, that structures may exceed 28 feet up to a maximum of 32 feet in an adopted planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all MFR Districts. C. 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit shall be 26 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 26 feet up to a maximum of 35 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts, other than PC -48, R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and OS Districts, within the area known as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone established by Ordinance 92 -3 and shown on the Height Limitation Zones map. D. 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 32 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts other than R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and OS Districts which have boundaries not falling within the area above described as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, or within the High -Rise Height Limitation Zone. i Exhibit B \_J ►_J 11 E. 35/65 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 35/65 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit shall be 35 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 35 feet up to a maximum of 65 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to the Newport Dunes Planned Community District (PC -48). F. High Rise Height Limitation Zone. In the High Rise Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall not exceed 375 feet. 20.65.050 Planned Community Districts In each planned community district established subsequent to the adoption this chapter, the height limits shall be established as part of the planned community development plan; provided, however, that in no event shall the development exceed the height limits permitted in the height limitation zones as set forth under Section 20.65.040 and as designated below: 24/28 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONE. Upper Newport Bay Planned Community as established by Ordinance No. 1537 adopted December 17, 1973 (Amendment No. 409). 35/65 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONE. Newport Dunes Planned Community as established by Ordinance No. adopted _ 2000 (AmendmentNo 878). ii Exhibit 13 t q� _ m O Zj o� s m.2) 2 z w 0 w 0 my N VMS !PP -ilia/ LN n, o CV t q4g LL 4% lo NMM Q' _ g .� g - U� NN N N $ j ��1 ♦� C9 8 8 m a LL 'INN\ DC� i� Z \ N Exhibit C, • ORDINANCE 2000 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND THE NEWPORT DUNES PARTNERSHIP [DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 121 The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City council finds and declares that: a. The State Legislature and the City Council have determined that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to the comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and b. Assurance that an applicant may proceed with a project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development; and C. California government Code Section 65864 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in property for the development of the property; and d. Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal code provides requirements and procedures for the amendment of development agreements; and e. The Development Agreement has been prepared in compliance with state law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and \ r' f. In compliance with state law and city ordinance, a duly noticed public hearing was • held by the Planning Commission to consider the Development Agreement; and g. The Planning Commission found the Development Agreement in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines promulgated thereunder in that EIR No. 157, which analyses all potentially significant environmental affects of the Development Agreement and the project, has been certified as adequate and complete; and h. The Planning Commission found that said Development Agreement is in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan, as proposed by accompanying General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (F); and L The adoption of the and Development Agreement will not preclude the City from conducting future discretionary reviews in connection with the project, nor would it 0 prevent the City from imposing conditions or requirements to mitigate significant impacts identified in such reviews provided that the measures are not inconsistent with the Development Agreement and do not render the project infeasible. SECTION 2. Development AgreementNo. 12 is hereby adopted and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. Copies of said Development Agreement are on file in the offices of the City Clerk and the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Council shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after'the date of its adoption. 0 z This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 0 Newport Beach held on following vote, to wit: 0 ATTEST: CITY CLERK 0 _, 2000, and adopted on the _th day of , 2000, by the AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR 3 Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND NEWPORT DUNES PARTNERSHIP Approved , 200_ Ordinance No. 00 - 0 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is entered into between the City of Newport Beach (the "C"), and Newport Dunes Partnership, a California general partnership (the "Lessee "). 1. RECITALS. 1.1 Property /Ownership Status. The Property (described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B ") consists of tidelands granted by the State of California to the County of Orange (County) in Chapter 526, of Statutes 1919. The County and Lessee entered into a Lease for the Property dated February 16, 1989, as amended (Lease), pursuant to which Lessee has a legal or equitable interest in the Property sufficient to satisfy Government Code §65865. The term of the Lease expires on February 28, 2039. 1.2 Prior Agreement. City and Lessee, as well as the County, are parties to the Amended Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement, dated December 9, 1988 (the "Prior Agreement "). The Prior Agreement grants Lessee a vested right to construct certain improvements ( "Entitlement ") on the Property, including a 275 room "family inn" and a 444 space recreational vehicle park, a free standing restaurant and approximately 200 additional boat slips. The Prior Agreement also established the fees that Lessee is required to pay to comply with the provisions of the Code and to mitigate the impacts of all the Entitlement. Lessee has constructed a substantial portion of the Entitlement, has paid a substantial portion of the fees, and these fees were used by the City to construct improvements that mitigate impacts associated with all of the Entitlement as well as other development in the City. Lessee has also constructed improvements and expended significant funds as required by the Prior Agreement, such as a bike path, an interpretive facility and a human powered boat launch facility. These improvements were unrelated to impacts of the Entitlement and a material part of the consideration to the City under the Prior Agreement. The Parties agree that Lessee has a fully vested right to construct all Entitlement authorized by the Prior Agreement subject only to the payment of fees specified in the Prior Agreement. 1.3 Phased and Complete Development. The Parties acknowledge that the Entitlement authorized in the Prior Agreement was to be constructed overtime and as Lessee, in its sole discretion, determined to proceed. Lessee has undertaken and completed development of the initial phases of the Entitlement authorized by the Prior Agreement. The completed development, including the portion of the Property which has been developed, is identified on Exhibit "C" ( "Phases 1 and 2 "). The development of the remainder of the Property (depicted on Exhibit "D ") as authorized by the Prior Agreement ( "Phase 3 ") has not yet commenced although certain interim uses have been implemented by Lessee with the consent of City and County. 2 , 126 1.4 Modifications to Phase 3. Lessee has filed an application with City seeking approval of modifications and additions to the Entitlement contemplated in Phase 3 of the Prior Agreement. The modifications, if approved, would change and increase the amount and type of hotel development, reduce the number of spaces available to recreational vehicles, and eliminate the amount of independent restaurant space authorized in the Prior Agreement. The modifications to the Entitlement contemplated by Phase 3 and approved in the Prior Agreement are described in the Project Approvals. 1.5 Planning Status. The Newport Beach Planning Commission (Planning Commission) and City Council have conducted all required public hearings on the Project Approvals and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Project that is in full compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. All of these hearings were duly noticed in accordance with applicable provisions of State law and the Code. 1.6 General Findinqs. The Planning Commission and City Council have determined that the Project and all Project Approvals are consistent with all elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program (LUP), the Code, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Project and all Project Approvals are also consistent with all other relevant plans, policies, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the City. The Project is also consistent with the statutory and decisional law relative to the use of tidelands and submerged lands and the legislative acts pursuant to which the Property was granted to the County. 1.7 Affordable Housing. The City and Lessee have determined that the r# Project does not constitute a residential development subject to the terms and conditions of the City's Housing Element or provisions of State law that relate to affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. Accordingly, no present or subsequently enacted affordable housing or housing in lieu fee shall be required of Lessee. 1.8 Modification of Prior Agreement. The Prior Agreement relates to and vests Entitlement in favor of Lessee with respect to the entire Property. City and Lessee agree that the intent of this Agreement is to address in their entirety all issues between the Parties. This Agreement shall supersede the Prior Agreement when the conditions specified in Subsection 8.1(d) are satisfied. 1.9 Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is as follows: a. To provide for the orderly completion of development of the Property consistent with the Prior Agreement and the modifications specified in the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement, b. To establish, in conjunction with the PC Text, the parameters of land use, building height, building density and parking to minimize, to the extent feasible, any adverse impacts of the Project. C. To provide the City and Lessee with certainty, upon and subject to the provisions and conditions of the Prior Agreement and this Agreement, that the Project will be designed, developed and maintained as a first class facility as contemplated by the Project Approvals (specifically the PC Text), Project Conditions and this Agreement. 3 ``1�i d. To provide assurance to Lessee that Lessee may proceed with the Project, subject to compliance with Project Conditions, in accordance with the laws, policies, rules, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the City in effect as of the Approval Date. e. To provide consideration to the City in excess of normal development conditions such as funding improvements to the water quality or ecology of Newport Bay, funding enhancement of views across Upper Bayview Landing, and a commitment to contribute to a marine educational center. 1.10 Authorization. This Agreement is authorized by, and is consistent with, the provisions of §§ 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1.11 Police Power. The City Council has determined that this Agreement: a. Is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the City, its residents and the public; b. Is entered into pursuant to, and is a valid exercise of, the City's police power; and C. Has been approved in accordance with the provisions of State and local law that establish procedures for the approval of development agreements. 1.12 City Ordinance. On 2000, after giving appropriate notice and holding public hearings. the City Council approved this Agreement and conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2000 -_ authorizing the City to enter into this Agreement. The City Council also approved the Project Approvals subject to the Project Conditions. On 2000, after giving appropriate notice and holding public hearings, the City Council completed adoption of the Adopting Ordinances. The Adopting Ordinances shall be considered effective as specified in Section 8.1. 1.13 CEQA Review. The City Council has independently reviewed, approved and certified the EIR for the Project. In so doing, the City Council determined, among other things, that the EIR was prepared in full compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council also adopted all feasible mitigation measures, made appropriate findings with respect to any significant effect that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance and adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The City Council also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. DEFINITIONS. 2.1 "Adopting Ordinances" refers to the following: (a) Ordinance No. 2000 - adopted by the City Council on , 2000, approving the PC Text, approving Zoning Amendment No. 878 and this Agreement Iv' %1a q (b) Resolution No. 2000 -_ adopted by the City Council on , 2000, approving GPA 97 -3(f); (c) Resolution No. 2000 -_ adopted by the City Council on , 2000, approving Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment No. 51; (d) Resolution No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on 2000, approving Traffic study No. 115 and making findings pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Code; (e) Resolution No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on 2000 certifying the EIR as fully compliant with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, adopting all feasible mitigation measures, and containing the statement of overriding considerations. 2.2. "Agreement" refers to this Development Agreement. 2.3. "Annual Review" refers to the review of Lessee's and City's good faith compliance with this Agreement, as set forth in Section 7. 2.4. "Approval Date" means 2000, the date on which the City Council completed adoption of the Adopting Ordinances. 2.5 "Assign" means all forms of use of the verb "assign" and the nouns "assignment" and "Assignee" shall include all contexts of hypothecation, sales, conveyances, transfers, leases, and assignments, but shall not include the rental of sites, spaces, or rooms on a transient basis, the sublease or other similar means of conveyance of a Timeshare Interest, or the sublease of certain aspects of Lessee's operation, all in the ordinary course of Lessee's business. 2.6 "CEQA" and the "CEQA Guidelines" refers to the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Resources of the State of California. 2.7 "City" refers to the City of Newport Beach, California and, unless the context indicates to the contrary, includes the elected officials, appointed members of boards and commissions, officers and employees of the City. The term "City" does not include residents of Newport Beach acting individually or in concert. 2.8 "City Council" refers to the City Council of the City. 2.9 "Code" refers to the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2.10 "County" refers to the County of Orange, California. 2.11 "Cure Period" refers to the period of time during which a Default may be cured pursuant to Section 10. 2.12. "Day" or "days" refers to a calendar day, unless expressly stated to be a business day. 2.13 "Default" refers to any material default, breach, or violation of the provisions of this Agreement. A "City Default" refers to a Default by the City, while a "Lessee Default" refers to a Default by Lessee. 5 2.14 "Develop" means all forms of use of the verb "develop' and the noun "Development ", whether or not capitalized, means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping and parking facilities and improvements. "Develop" or "Development" also includes the maintenance, repair, alteration, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, landscaping or facility after the initial construction and completion so long as consistent with the Project Approvals the Project Conditions and this Agreement. "Develop" or "Development" also includes the use of the Property in a manner consistent with the permitted general, primary, and secondary uses as set forth in the Project Approvals (specifically the PC Text). 2.15 "Effective Date" shall be the date this Agreement becomes effective as specified in Section 8.1. 2.16 "EIR" refers to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project, bearing State Clearinghouse No. 98061113 and certified as fully compliant with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines by the City Council on 2000. 2.17 "Estoppel Certificate" refers to the document certifying the status of this Agreement required by Section 7.3 and attached as Exhibit "F ". 2.18 "Exhibit" refers to an Exhibit to this Agreement. All Exhibits are incorporated as a substantive part of this Agreement. The Exhibits to this Agreement are as follows: Exhibit : Description: A Legal Description of the Property B Map depicting the Property C Phase 1 & 2 Development Activities; Map Depicting Phase 1 &2 D Map Depicting Phase 3 E Project Approvals F Estoppel Certificate G List of Project Conditions 2.19 "Existing General Regulations" means those General Regulations approved by the City on or before the Approval Date (irrespective of their effective date) and not rescinded or superseded by City action taken on or before the Approval Date. 2.20 "Future General Regulations" means those General Regulations adopted or approved by the City in any way, after the Approval Date. 2.21 "General Plan" refers to the City's General Plan in effect on the Approval Date, plus all amendments to the General Plan adopted by the City on or . before the Approval Date as part of the Project Approvals. 2.22 "General Plan Amendment" or "GPA" means General Plan Amendment 97- 3(f)_amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City as approved by the City Council on 2000. 2.23 "General Regulations" means all laws, ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of City governing the development and permitted uses of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property and provisions relating to applicable fees, charges, assessments and levies. The foregoing includes the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance and water and sewer connection fee ordinances. General Regulations do not include any City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy in or governing the following ( "Governmental Exceptions "): (a) The provisions of Titles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (except Chapters 15.38 and 15.40) and 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; (b) Property taxes and assessments; (c) The control and abatement of Nuisances (subject to the provisions of paragraph 3.4); (d) The exercise of the power of eminent domain; (e) The provision of, or charges for, water, sewer, refuse, police, fire and other municipal services that are generally applicable to all owners or lessees of commercial property in the City; and (f) The manner in which property is used that are related to the amount and time of noise from permitted activities, the use of alcohol, and the nature and timing of special events. 2.24 "Governmental Reservations" refers to those actions that City may take that may affect the Project or the operation of the Project, as follows: (a) Enforcement of the specific provisions, limitations and restrictions contained in the Project Approvals and Project Conditions; (b) Enforcement of the provisions and conditions of this Agreement and the Prior Agreement; (c) Enforcement of, or pursuant to, Governmental Exceptions; and (d) Enforcement of Existing General Regulations 2.25 "Hotel Unit(s)" means a space or room rented on a transient basis for the primary purpose of providing accommodations and Hotel means the larger building in which Hotel Units are located. 2.26 "Include" and all contexts and forms of the words "includes" and "including" shall be interpreted to also state "but not limited to." 2.27 "Lessee" refers to Newport Dunes Partnership, a California general partnership. 2.28 "Mortgagee" refers to the holder of a beneficial interest under any mortgage, deed of trust, sale - leaseback agreement, or other transaction under which all or a portion of Lessee's interest in the Property or improvements is used as security. 2.29 "Notice" refers to any written notice or demand between the Parties required or permitted by this Agreement. 2.30 "Occupant of Timeshare Interest" or "Occupant" refers to any person who occupies, or persons who occupy, all or a Defined Portion of a Timeshare Unit on the Property in lieu, and because, of his /her /their ownership of a Timeshare Interest other than one within the Project. By way of example the term occupant includes the owner of a Timeshare Interest in another State who elects to exchange the right of occupancy in the "out -of- State" project for the right to occupy a Timeshare Unit on the Property pursuant to an exchange service such as RCI or H. In the case of the occupancy of a Timeshare Unit by more than one person, the term Occupant shall mean all the persons who are occupying a Defined Portion of the Timeshare Unit as a family or group. 2.31 "Operative Date" means the date on which the Parties are required to comply with their respective obligations as specified in the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement as more fully described in Section 8.1. 2.32 "Owner of Timeshare Interest " or "Owner" means any person(s) who have the right to occupy a Timeshare Unit pursuant to his /her /their ownership of a Timeshare Interest on the Property. 2.33 "Parties" refers to the City and Lessee and a "Party" shall refer to either of the Parties. 2.34 "Prior Agreement" refers to the Amended Settlement Agreement among the City, Lessee and County described in Section 1.2. 2.35 "PC Text" refers to the "Planned Community District Plan" adopted by the City Council on ' and all subsequent modifications of the PC Text which are approved by the City Council and to which Lessee consents. 2.37 "Planning Commission" refers to the Planning Commission of the City. 2.38 "Project" refers to the existing and proposed development of the Property pursuant to, and consistent with the Project Approvals and Project Conditions. The Project includes those improvements existing on the Property as of the Approval Date. 2.39 "Project Approvals" refers to all approvals, amendments, permits, licenses, consents, rights and privileges, and other actions required or authorized to be approved, issued or taken by City in connection with development of the Property, including the following discretionary actions: S1� (a) General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3(f); (b) Planned Community District Plan (PC Text) No. PC-48; (c) Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment No. 51; (d) Conceptual Precise Plan — Planning Unit No. 1; (e) Traffic Study No. 151; (f) Environmental Impact Report for Newport Dunes Resort (State Clearinghouse No. 98061113); (h) Development Agreement No. 12; and (i) Zoning Amendment No. 878 Project Approvals also means any grants of easements, vacations, subdivisions, resubdivisions, lot line adjustments or other actions necessary to the implementation of the Project. Project Approvals also include any and all discretionary or ministerial permits related to construction of the Project including grading permits, building permits, and occupancy permits. 2.40 "Project Conditions" means all conditions to Lessee's right to proceed with Development pursuant to the Project Approvals, including the provisions of this Agreement, the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City Council, conditions to approval of the Traffic Study and conditions to (or inherent in) Project Approvals. Project Conditions include Existing General Regulations, Governmental Exceptions and Governmental Reservations. Project Conditions also include conditions to Lessee's right to proceed with development pursuant to approvals required of any other public agency, including the California Coastal Commission, provided the conditions (a) do not increase the density or intensity of development permitted pursuant to the Project Approvals; (b) do not result in any increase in any environmental impact of the Project; and (c) City has given its written consent to the condition. Project Conditions related to the EIR, Traffic Study No. 151 and other Project Approvals are, for convenience, generally described in Exhibit H 2.41 "Property" refers to the real property described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B ". 2.42 "Subsequent Development Permits" means all Project Approvals granted or issued by the City subsequent to the Approval Date in connection with development of the Property. 2.43 "Supersede Date" means the date on which the Prior Agreement is of no force and effect as specified in Section 8.1. 2.44 "Timeshare Interest" means an ownership interest in a "time -share project" consisting of a "timeshare use" as that term is defined in § 11003.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, and any substantially similar interest in any portion of the Property or the airspace above the Property. • 1, 2.45 "Timeshare Unit" refers to any room or rooms designed for occupancy by one or more persons and which will be owned or leased, in whole or in part, by owners of Timeshare Interests in the Project and will be occupied by the owners and other persons pursuant to the terms of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) governing the Timeshare Units and Timeshare Interests. A "Defined Portion" of a Timeshare Unit means a portion of the Timeshare unit that is designed and constructed to be occupied by one or more persons separate and apart from a person or persons occupying the remainder of the Timeshare Unit. The term "Defined Portion" includes each portion of the Timeshare Unit that has facilities for sleeping and sanitation that can be physically secured (locked off) from another area within the Timeshare Unit that also has facilities for sleeping and sanitation. 2.46 "Vested" or "vests" refers, to the right of Lessee to develop the Property pursuant to this Agreement and the Project Approvals, when effective and subject to Project Conditions, without regard to future changes in General Regulations initiated or adopted by the City Council. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND CONDITIONS TO DEVELOPMENT. 3A Development Program. This Agreement vests Lessee's right to proceed with the development described in the Project Approvals. Lessee acknowledges that its right to proceed with the development described in the Project Approvals is subject to the Project Conditions. Lessee acknowledges that City grants no assurance that Lessee will receive necessary permits or approvals from any other public agency with jurisdiction over the Project or that Project Approvals will not be subject to and affected by legal or other challenges or procedures initiated by third parties. (a) Permitted Uses. The Property shall be used and developed only in the manner provided in the Project Approvals. City acknowledges that, from time to time, Lessee may seek and obtain, in accordance with applicable provisions of State and local law, minor amendments to the Project Approvals. The Planning Director of the City ( "Planning Director ") shall determine, subject to appeal by Lessee to the Planning Commission, whether a proposed amendment is a "minor amendment" for purposes of this Agreement. A minor amendment is one that does not increase trips, noise or other environmental impacts associated with Project Approvals above the levels for the Project that were analyzed in the EIR and that would otherwise result from implementation of the Project. (b) Permitted Density of Development. Lessee shall have the vested right to develop the Property and receive the City's approval of all Project Approvals consistent with the permitted density and level of intensity authorized by the Project Approvals. The City shall not impose any condition on any Subsequent Development Permit that modifies the land uses or reduces the density and /or intensity of land uses when compared to the type and density or intensity of land use permitted by the discretionary Project Approvals. City acknowledges that the boundaries of the parcels shown on the Conceptual Precise Plan and the Project Approvals are approximate and are subject to minor 10 variation prior to recordation of final map(s) for the Project, provided Lessee complies with the applicable procedures for subdivision maps. City may impose standard conditions of approval on any subdivision or resubdivision requested by Lessee so long as the condition(s) do not reduce the permitted density or intensity, substantially increase the cost, or modify the first class design and construction standards of the development permitted by the Project Approvals. (c) Maximum Height and Size of Structures. Lessee shall have the vested right to develop the Property with structures at or below the maximum height and floor area restrictions specified in the Project Approvals. 3.2 Compliance with Project Conditions. Lessee acknowledges that City Council approval of the Project Approvals and this Agreement is subject to compliance with the Project Conditions that are designed to minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts of the Project, protect and enhance the environment, and require a Project of first class design and construction. In certain instances, the Project Conditions may exceed those that might otherwise be appropriate under "nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests recently articulated by the courts. By entering into this Agreement, Lessee acknowledges the City may, pursuant to a development agreement and the special benefits it confers, impose conditions or requirements that exceed those that would otherwise be appropriate under the nexus and rough proportionality tests. Lessee also expressly agrees to be bound by, and waives any protest of, any Project Conditions. Any Project Conditions imposed by the City after the Effective Date shall be consistent with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. 3.3 Compliance with General Regulations. Lessee shall comply with the Existing General Regulations. Lessee shall not be obligated to comply with any Future General Regulations that are in conflict with the Project Approvals or Project Conditions. Any Future General Regulation(s) that are inconsistent with the Project Approvals or the Project Conditions and which do not fall within the definition of Governmental Reservations or Governmental Exceptions shall not be applicable to the development or use of the Property. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Lessee shall pay any fee, cost, or expense pursuant to any Existing General Regulation when due and in the amount equal to that required as of the Approval Date subject only to any automatic increases or decreases mandated by the text of the Existing General Regulation as of the Approval Date. However, Lessee shall comply with any Future General Regulation that does not impair or affect its rights to develop the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals or increase the time or cost of development of the Project. 3.4 Building Codes. This Agreement shall not prevent the City from adopting, Future General Regulations that are based on recommendations of a multi -state professional organization relating to the specifications for the constructions of improvements ( "Building Codes ") and are applicable throughout City. The Building Codes include the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code and Uniform Fire Code). Lessee shall comply with all then current provisions of the Building Codes whenever adopted even if compliance would affect or impair Lessee's rights to develop the Project, cause delays in development or increase Lessee's costs of development. 11 1, 3.5 Public Health and Safety. Lessee shall comply with any conditions, regardless of the impact on the development of the Project, imposed by the City after a determination by the City Council that those conditions are necessary to avoid circumstances that are injurious or detrimental to the public health and safety ( "Nuisance'). In no event shall the City impose any condition pursuant to a determination of Nuisance unless the Lessee has been given notice of, and the right to present evidence at, a public hearing. Any determination of Nuisance, and the rational relationship between the Nuisance and the conditions imposed, must be supported by substantial evidence in the record of the hearing. 4. DEVELOPMENT AND FEE PROVISIONS. 4.1 Right to Develop. During the term of this Agreement, Lessee shall have a vested right to develop, and receive building and occupancy permits for construction on, the Property to the full extent permitted by the Project Approvals subject to the Project Conditions. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, City shall only take action that complies and is consistent with the Project Approvals unless Lessee gives its written consent to the action. Lessee may refuse to grant consent in Lessee's sole and absolute discretion. City shall not impose or increase any condition or requirement (whether in the form of a fee, tax, requirement for dedication or reservation of and, or any other type of exaction) on the Project, except as expressly permitted by this Agreement, Existing General Regulations, Governmental Reservations or Governmental Exceptions. However, City may impose or increase a condition or requirement when such action is required (as opposed to permitted) by State or Federal law but only to the minimum extent and duration necessary to comply with State or Federal law. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, the ordinances, plans, resolutions, and policies governing the permitted use and development of the Property shall be those described in the Project Approvals and the Project Conditions. 4.2 Reservations or Dedications of Land. Lessee shall not be required to grant any dedications or reservations of all or a portion of the Property in conjunction with the application or issuance of any Project Approval authorizing development, construction, use, or operation of the Property except as may be required by the Project Approvals, Project Conditions, or this Agreement. 4.3 Regional Transportation Facilities Fees. Lessee acknowledges that City is bound by provisions of ordinances, agreements, rules and regulations related to the financing, construction and operation of major transportation improvements that benefit large areas of Orange County including the Property. Lessee shall comply with the provisions of all such ordinances, agreements, rules and regulations, including the payment of fees required by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Agreement and /or the Transportation Corridor Agency (collectively, the "TCA "). Lessee acknowledges that it is required to comply with Chapter 15.42 of the Code. Lessee shall have the right to appeal or contest the imposition and /or amount of fees through any procedure adopted or used by the TCA for that purpose. Lessee shall also have the right to commence litigation relative to the amount, method of calculating or timing of any fees or the procedure utilized by the TCA or other agency to resolve disputes 12 �1� relative to fees. Lessee shall defend, indemnify and hold City harmless with respect to any loss, damage, claim or liability arising out of any litigation commenced by Lessee that is related to the TCA impositions described in this Section. Lessee agrees that satisfaction of the provisions of this Section is a condition to the issuance of any discretionary or ministerial Subsequent Development Permit. City shall not be required to issue any discretionary or ministerial Subsequent Development Permit for the Project until all Lessee provides proof that all fees required to be paid to the TCA, whether pursuant to ordinance, settlement or judgment, have been paid. 4.4 Traffic Fees and Conditions. (a) Prior Agreement. The Prior Agreement required Lessee to pay $600,000 in fees "to comply with provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" (TPO) and $235,402 in fees pursuant to the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance (FSTCO). The total amount of traffic- related fees required by the Prior Agreement was $835,402. Lessee's payment of these traffic- related fees was phased to coincide with the execution of the Prior Agreement and the issuance of various permits. Lessee has paid $275,000 in traffic- related fees pursuant to the Prior Agreement as of the Approval Date. City has considered the Entitlement to be a "Committed Project" for purposes of the TPO. The City has, for purposes of evaluating the traffic impacts of other projects in the City of Newport Beach, assumed the Entitlement would generate approximately 3989 average daily trips. (b) Project Fair Share Fees. Lessee agrees to pay Fair Share Fees in the sum of $275,513 (Project Fair Share Fees). The Project Fair Share Fees represent: (i) the sum of $157,000 which is the amount of Fair Share Fees required by the Prior Agreement that are attributable to the undeveloped Entitlement; and (ii) the sum of $121,752 which is the differential between the "per trip" Fair Share Fee in the Prior Agreement ($99.27) and the current "per trip" Fair Share Fee ($133.09) multiplied by the average daily trips generated by the Project (3600). (c) Project TPO Fees. Lessee shall pay the TPO fees in the sum of $403,000 (Project TPO Fees). The amount of the Project TPO Fees represents the fees required by the Prior Agreement ($600,000) less the payment of fees by Lessee that were attributable to TPO compliance pursuant to the Prior Agreement ($197,000). The Project TPO Fees shall be paid on the date specified in Chapter 15.40 of the Code or within one year after the Operative date, whichever is earlier. (d) Project TPO Improvements. Lessee shall make the circulation system improvements identified in Exhibit G and the Final EIR (Project TPO Improvements). The Project TPO Improvements are necessary to mitigate the impact of Project trips on service levels at the intersection of PCH /Bayside. The cost to Lessee of constructing the TPO Project Improvements is in addition to the 13 � flY , Project TPO Fees. The Project TPO Improvements shall be completed as specified in Chapter 15.40 of the Code or within one year after the Operative date, whichever is earlier. (e) No Additional Traffic Related Fees or Conditions. Lessee's satisfaction of the provisions of this Section shall be deemed full compliance with all Existing General Regulations relative to traffic impacts or traffic fees. Except as provided in this Section and Section 4.3, City shall not impose, or increase the amount or cost of, any traffic- related fee, charge, dedication, or improvement as a condition to the development of the Project. 4.5 Water and Sewer Connection. The City shall provide and maintain water and sewer service to the Property through a connection or connections to City water and sewer lines in the same manner as water and sewer service is provided to other similarly situated property owners or lessees. City shall provide water and sewer facilities only to the exterior boundaries of the Property. Lessee shall pay any water and sewer connection fees required by the Existing General Regulations. Lessee shall pay for water and sewer service in accordance with Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations. Lessee shall fully comply with any conditions or restrictions to service in Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations that are applicable to similarly situated property owners. Lessee also agrees that City may require Lessee, at the time of issuance of any ministerial Development Permit related to water service, to modify water service facilities on the Property to accommodate reclaimed water service at Lessee's cost. Lessee's obligation to install reclaimed water facilities shall be limited to those obligations applicable to other owners or lessees of commercial property in the vicinity of the Project. 4.6 Storm Drain. The City shall provide storm drain capacity to the exterior boundaries of the Property to the extent, and subject to the same conditions, that capacity is provided to similarly situated commercial property in the City. Lessee agrees to accept, during the term of this Agreement, all storm drain inflow from City facilities in place as of the Approval Date. 4.7 Park Fees. Lessee and City acknowledge that the Project may generate some incidental demand for, and usage of, park and open space land within the City but that the Project is exempt from the Park Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 19.50 of the Code). The Project is also exempt from any Existing General Regulation relating to the dedication of land for park or open space purposes or the payment of park or open space fees. Accordingly, Lessee shall not be required to make any park dedication or pay any park dedication "in lieu" fee. 4.8 Future Impact Fees, Conditions, and Exactions. City shall not impose, or increase the amount of, any impact fee, condition, mitigation measure, or exaction other than as expressly required by the Project Approvals, Project Conditions or this Agreement provided Lessee is not in default under this Agreement. City shall not, without the written consent of Lessee, apply to the Property, any new governmental entity for the purpose of imposing fees, conditions or exactions with respect to the development of the Property pursuant to Project Approvals that the City could not directly impose because of this Agreement. City may form or cause the formation of an 14 assessment district (or similar financing vehicle) comprised of the Property and other property in the area for the purpose of funding public improvements that provide a special benefit to the Property. However, City may not include the Property in any - assessment district formed for the purpose of requiring Lessee to pay for construction of public improvements that City could not directly require Lessee to fund because of this Agreement. 4.9 Time for Construction and Completion of Project. Subject to the provisions of Section 5.6, Lessee shall have the right to develop the Project in the manner and at the time that Lessee deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment. The Parties acknowledge that Lessee cannot predict the timing of the development of the Project because of numerous factors not within the control of Lessee. These factors include market demand, economic conditions, interest rates and competition. Subject to compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and Project Conditions, Lessee shall, at any time during the term of this Agreement, be entitled to apply for, and receive, Subsequent Development Permits consistent with Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. 4.10 Development Standards. The City Council has determined that rigid consistency with the Existing General Regulations and Future General Regulations is neither necessary nor appropriate in light of the detail and specificity of the Project Approvals and the extensive planning, environmental and design work on the Project. Accordingly, the terms and provisions of the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement shall prevail in the event of any conflict with Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations. 4.11 Tentative Maps. (a) Improvement Security. As a condition of approving a final subdivision map or any future resubdivision for all or a portion of the Property, the City may require the furnishing of appropriate and reasonable improvement agreements and security pursuant to the Code and the Subdivision Map Act. This Agreement shall not modify or eliminate any of Lessee's obligations that are imposed pursuant to the Code or the Subdivision Map Act. The discretionary requirements, exactions or conditions of approval of a subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment shall be consistent with this Agreement but City may impose standard conditions of approval generally applicable to similar projects subject to the provisions Section 3.1(b). (b) Expiration. Any current or future tentative maps for resubdivision of the Property shall expire concurrently with the expiration of this Agreement or after the maximum period for the expiration of tentative maps authorized by Government Code § 66452.6, whichever is later. Should the time periods authorized by Government Code § 66452.6 be lengthened after the execution of this Agreement, Lessee shall be entitled to further extensions of any tentative subdivision map applicable to the Property to the maximum extent authorized by law. (c) Resubdivisions. The Parties acknowledge that resubdivisions, lot line adjustments, or similar Subsequent Development Permits not specifically 15 I described in the Project Approvals may be necessary to develop the Project and are contemplated by this Agreement. These Subsequent Development Permits shall be granted provided they are in substantial conformance with the Project Approvals and Project Conditions. 4.12 Processing and Issuance of Permits. (a) Processing of Permits. As a material term of this Agreement benefiting Lessee, the City shall promptly accept for processingfreview, and expeditiously approve, Subsequent Development Permits that are in substantial conformance with the Project Approvals, Project Conditions Plan, applicable Existing and Future General Regulations, and this Agreement. (b) Issuance of Ministerial Proiect Approvals. City shall issue to Lessee all necessary ministerial use, building, occupancy, and other permits and approvals upon request, provided that applications are submitted in accordance with applicable Existing and Future General Regulations and are in substantial conformance with the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. (c) Vesting of Project Approvals. Any Subsequent Development Permit issued pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested and deemed a Project Approval when granted. 4.13 Future Approvals. The future approval or issuance of any Subsequent Development Permit that is consistent with the Project Approvals and Project Conditions, including any permit, license or authorization to proceed, subdivisions, resubdivisions, lot line adjustments, and vacations shall not require an amendment of this Agreement. 5. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 5.1 Entitlement Fee. As a material part of the consideration to the City for authorizing the construction of Timeshare Units on the Property, each Occupant shall pay a fee to the City for each day or part of a day that the Occupant occupies all or a Defined Portion of any Timeshare Unit (Entitlement Fee). Lessee acknowledges that City has the right, pursuant to a development agreement, to charge a fee for the construction of each Timeshare Unit and to collect that fee prior to construction. Lessee also acknowledges that City has the discretion not to approve the construction of Timeshare Units on the Property and that payment of the Entitlement Fee in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement is a material part of the consideration for City to enter into this Agreement. Lessee agrees that the Entitlement Fee is in lieu of fees or consideration that City would otherwise require Lessee to pay prior to the construction of each Timeshare Unit. Lessee agrees that the Annual Maintenance Fee is the most appropriate benchmark for calculating the Entitlement Fee. Lessee agrees that the Project Approvals only grant Lessee the right to construct a "single —site timeshare project' as that term is defined in Section 11003.5 of the Business and Professions Code. The Entitlement Fee shall be calculated, collected and paid to the City as provided in this Section. The obligation to calculate, collect and pay to City the Entitlement Fee shall continue beyond the expiration of this Agreement and shall 16 Ni.1 terminate only at such time as the Property is no longer improved with any Timeshare Units. (a) Amount of Entitlement Fee. Each Occupant shall pay an Entitlement fee for the right to occupy all or a Defined Portion of any Timeshare Unit on the Property for all or a part of any day. The daily amount of the Entitlement Fee shall be 1.43% of the then current Annual Maintenance Fee as determined in this Section. Lessee acknowledges that the use of the annual maintenance fee charged to the owner of the Timeshare Interest as the basis for calculating the Entitlement Fee is, with the modifications specified in Subsection (b), fair and reasonable. (b) Amount of Annual Maintenance Fee. The Parties acknowledge that the amount of the annual maintenance fee charged during the period of construction will vary and, after construction is complete, the Annual Maintenance Fee is likely to increase over time. During the period from the first approval of a project budget by the Department of Real Estate to the date on which the project budget for the built -out project is approved by the Department of Real Estate (Final Budget), the Annual Maintenance Fee shall be the amount reflected in the most current project budget approved by the Department of Real Estate without reduction by reason of any subsidy provided by Lessee. The Annual Maintenance Fee in the Final Budget, without reduction by subsidy, shall be deemed the Original Maintenance Fee. Lessee shall provide City with a copy of the proposed final budget and written notice of its intent to submit the proposed final budget to the Department of Real Estate. Lessee shall provide City with a copy of the approved Final Budget. For the first five year period after the approval of the Final Budget by the Department of Real Estate, the amount of the Annual Maintenance Fee shall be the greater of the actual annual maintenance fee then charged or the Original Maintenance Fee increased by two percent per year (Modified Maintenance Fee). For each year during each successive five -year period, the Annual Maintenance Fee shall be the greater of the annual maintenance fee then charged or the Modified Maintenance Fee (Original Maintenance Fee increased by two percent per year). Lessee shall, until the date the association of Owners of Timeshare Interests (Association) retains a professional manager other than Lessee to perform the functions related to the calculation, collection and disbursement of the Entitlement Fee (Management Change Date), ensure that the Annual Maintenance Fee represents an accurate and objective reflection of the actual costs incurred in maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, insuring, administering and operating the Timeshare Units (including that portion of the Property and improvements for which the Association is, in whole or in part, responsible) and providing services to the owners of the Timeshare Interests. (c) Collection. The Entitlement Fee shall be collected at the time of first occupancy by the Occupant of all or a Defined Portion of the Timeshare Unit. The Entitlement Fee shall be calculated, collected and paid to the City by Lessee until the Management Change Date. The Entitlement Fee, once collected, shall be paid to the City within thirty (30) days after collection. The failure to pay the 17 full amount of the Entitlement Fee within thirty (30) days after collection shall constitute a material default of this Agreement. The unpaid balance of all delinquent Entitlement Fees shall accrue interest at the maximum legal rate until paid. (d) Covenants. Prior to the construction of any Timeshare Unit, Lessee shall prepare and record, on that portion of the Property (Timeshare Property) containing the Timeshare Unit, covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC &Rs) that require the Owners of Timeshare Interests, the Association and their respective agent(s) or representatives to fully comply with the provisions of this Section. The CC &Rs shall be recorded for the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the City. Lessee shall obtain the written consent of the County to the content, form and recordation of the CC &Rs. The CC &Rs shall confirm that the Entitlement Fee is to be calculated, collected and paid to the City as long as the Property is improved with Timeshare Units. The CC &Rs shall also specify that (i) the Entitlement Fee is a debt owed to the City; (ii) the City shall have a lien on the Timeshare Property that is subject to the CC &Rs as security for the collection and payment of the Entitlement Fee; and (iii) the failure by the Association to collect or pay to the City the Entitlement Fee shall entitle the City to foreclose the lien and take possession of the Timeshare Property. The CC &Rs shall contain reasonable notice and cure provisions to insure that the Association shall have an opportunity to cure any default under this Section. The form and content of CC &Rs shall, prior to recordation, be submitted to, and approved by, the City Attorney. 5.2 Quality of Construction. Lessee shall design, construct, equip, maintain and operate the Hotel and Timeshare Unit component of the Project as a first class hotel and timeshare resort consistent with the provisions of this Agreement and the design guidelines of the PC Text. Lessee shall submit conceptual and final design plans (including detailed specifications of construction materials and a color board) for the Hotel and Timeshare Unit component of the Project at least ninety days prior to submittal of an application for building permit and related plans and specifications. The Planning Director shall review the conceptual and final design plans solely to determine if the design and quality of construction of the Project will be as required by the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. The Planning Director shall, with the concurrence of the City Manager and within forty -five (45) days after submittal, advise Lessee in writing if the conceptual plans of the proposed improvement(s) are approved or disapproved, and if disapproved stating the reasons for disapproval and alternatives that the Planning Director would approve. Lessee and the Planning Director shall meet and confer in good faith regarding any improvement(s) disapproved within thirty days after notice of disapproval. In the event Lessee and the Planning Director are unable to reach agreement on the final conceptual plans and /or the final design plans the City Manager and Lessee shall meet and confer in good faith and reach agreement within sixty (60) days after City's original notice of disapproval. 5.3 LCP Jurisdiction. Lessee shall not oppose any effort by the City to obtain or confirm Local Coastal Plan jurisdiction over the Property for purposes of the Coastal Act of 1976 provided that City assumption of LCP jurisdiction does not adversely impact Lessee's ability to develop the Project consistent with Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. 5.4 Sales Tax. Lessee shall use its best efforts to maximize the sales tax revenue received by the City in conjunction with the development and operation of the Project. Lessee shall designate Newport Beach as the "point of sale" for all purchases of material and equipment used in the construction of the Project and all equipment, food, supplies and material used by Lessee in the operation of the Project to the maximum extent permitted by law. Lessee shall, within sixty days after the Effective Date, prepare, and submit to the Revenue Manager for the City for approval, a plan for compliance with the provisions of this Section (Sales Tax Plan). Lessee shall modify the Sales Tax Plan in accordance with any and all reasonable recommendations of the Revenue Manager that are consistent with the intent of this Section. Lessee shall reasonably comply with, and implement, provisions of the Sales Tax Plan as modified and approved by the Revenue Manager. 5.5 Transient Occupancy. Lessee shall fully comply with the provisions of Chapters 3.16 and 3.28 of the Code with respect to the transient occupancy (as those terms are defined in Chapters 3.16 and /or 3.28) of the Hotel and Timeshare Units. In this regard, Lessee acknowledges that transient occupancy taxes and visitor service fees are required to be collected for the occupancy of any Defined Portion of any Timeshare Unit by any person(s) other than the Owner of the Timeshare Unit, a non- paying guest of the Owner, or an Occupant. Lessee shall also strictly comply with the provisions of Chapter 3.16 and 3.28 with respect to other portions of the Property • improved pursuant to the Prior Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Lessee shall, during the term of this Agreement, strictly comply with the then current version of Chapters 3.16 and 3.28 and Lessee specifically consents to any amendment of either Chapter after the Approval Date. 5.6 Phasing of Construction. Lessee shall be required to construct no less than fifty (50) Hotel Units prior to, or simultaneous with, each twenty five (25) Timeshare Units. The ratio of Hotel Units to Timeshare Units shall always equal or exceed two to one (2:1). For purposes of calculating the ratio of Hotel Units to Timeshare Units is ratio, the total number of each shall include Hotel rooms and Timeshare Units for which Certificates of Occupancy or their equivalent have been issued and those that are under construction pursuant to building permits. Lessee shall, prior to the construction of the first Timeshare Unit on the property, provide the City with a copy of any completion and performance bond covering the construction of the common amenities and facilities required by the California Department of Real Estate. 5.7 Timeshare Interest Structure. The CC &Rs shall establish the Timeshare Project (as that term is defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 11003.5(a)) as a Timeshare Use. The Lessee shall sell Timeshare Interests consisting of memberships in the Association and the Owners of Timeshare Interests shall have no interest in the Timeshare Property except as members of the Association. Lessee and the Association shall enter into a sublease of the Timeshare Property, which sublease shall be subject to the CC &Rs. The CC &Rs shall require the Association, as the sublessee of the Timeshare Property, to perform the obligations to collect and pay the Entitlement Fee and to manage and maintain the Timeshare 19 1�� Property, including the Timeshare Units, in a manner consistent with the terms of this Agreement. The form and content of the sublease shall, prior to recordation, be submitted to, and approved by, the City Attorney for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals and Project Conditions. 6. SPECIFIC CITY BENEFITS 6.1 Newport Bay Water Quality and Ecology. Improvements in the water quality and ecology of Newport Bay are important objectives of the City and Lessee. Water quality in the swimming lagoon on the Property is a top priority of the Parties and is the subject of a recent decision of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Lessee has, prior to the Approval Date, constructed improvements that will improve water quality in the swimming lagoon and implement provisions of the Pathogen TMDL adopted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Lessee shall, within sixty (60) days after the Operative Date, contribute $75,000 to be used by City to fund projects or studies that improve the water quality or the environment in Upper and /or Lower Newport Bay (Permitted Expenditures). Permitted Expenditures include projects or studies that implement decisions of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) establishing water quality standards and efforts to restore or enhance eelgrass or similar species that support biological communities. In addition, Lessee shall install trash traps on all storm drains utilized by the Project and all storm drains that flow into the swimming lagoon on the Property upon a determination by City that installation will not unduly interfere with storm drain capacity and that installation is not economically infeasible. Lessee shall, subsequent to the Effective Date and to same extent that compliance is required of other owners, lessees or occupants of bayfront property, comply with any Existing General Regulation or Future General Regulation adopted by the City to implement or enforce orders or directives of SARWQCB or the orders or judgments of a court of competent jurisdiction that are issued to protect or improve water quality in Upper or Lower Newport Bay. 6.2 View Enhancement. City and Lessee shall cooperate in efforts to plan, design and construct a view park on City -owned property at the northwest corner of Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway that is commonly known as Upper Bayview Landing (View Park). (a) City Obligations. City shall, no later than one hundred and (180) days after the Operative Date of this Agreement, prepare conceptual design and grading plans for the View Park. The plans and specifications for the View Park shall be reviewed by the City's Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission and then forwarded to the City Council for review and approval. City shall also prepare appropriate environmental documentation and obtain required permits from the California Coastal Commission. (b) Lessee Obligations. Lessee shall reimburse City for the cost of preparing the plans, specifications, environmental documents, notices and permit applications for the View Park. Lessee shall also reimburse the City for the cost of constructing the View Park. Lessee's total reimbursement pursuant to this Subsection 20 shall not exceed $200,000. Lessee shall reimburse the City for costs within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written request for reimbursement from City that specifies the amount requested and the nature of the costs to be reimbursed. Lessee's obligation to reimburse City for costs related to the View Park, including costs incurred prior to the Operative Date, shall commence as of the Operative Date. 6.3 Marine Maintenance Area. Lessee shall provide City with the right to use, and rights of ingress and egress to and from, the area on the Property that is described in Exhibit B for purposes of facilitating the maintenance of the marine environment in Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Lessee's obligations are contingent on the County's consent to use of the area and any conditions imposed by the County. City shall have the right to make improvements to this area, such as grading and the construction of bulkheads, subject only to obtaining necessary permits or consent from the County and public agencies with permit issuing authority. Lessee shall provide the City with the rights of use, ingress and egress within sixty days after Lessee receives any required consent from the County or a County determination that no consent is required. 6.4. Marine Educational Center. Lessee has fully complied with obligations in the Prior Agreement to construct an interpretive center. Lessee shall, within ninety (90) days after the Operative Date, contribute $25,000 to the City for the funding of the construction or equipping of a Marine Educational Center on Shellmaker Island. Lessee shall also grant to City a right of ingress and egress over the Property for the purpose of accessing the Marine Educational Center. 0 7. ANNUAL REVIEW. 7.1 City and Lessee Responsibilities. Each Party shall review the other Party's good faith substantial compliance with this Agreement once each year (the "Annual Review "). As part of the Annual Review, Lessee shall submit to City an annual review statement describing its actions with respect to, and compliance with, the Project Approvals and Project Conditions as well as performance pursuant to this Agreement. 7.2 Procedure. In connection with the Annual Review, each Party shall have a reasonable opportunity to advise the other of alleged or potential breaches of this Agreement, the Project Approvals or the Project Conditions, to explain the basis for that Party's position, and to receive from the other Party a statement of its position. A Party may issue a written "Notice of Non - Compliance" specifying the factual basis for the notice if, on the basis of the Annual Review, that Party concludes that the other Party has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement, the Project Approvals or the Project Conditions. The Party receiving a Notice of Non - Compliance shall have thirty (30) days to respond in writing. If a Notice of Non - Compliance is contested, the Parties shall have up to sixty (60) days to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) occasioning the Notice. In the event that the Parties are not able to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) by the end of the sixty (60) day period, the Party alleging the non - compliance may pursue the remedies provided in this Agreement. 21 �9 7.3 Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may at any time deliver written Notice to the other Party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate ") stating: (a) The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties. (b) The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if amended, identifying the amendments. (c) To the best of the signing Party's knowledge, no Default in the performance of the requesting Party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a Default does exist, the nature of the Default. A Party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting Party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The City Manager may sign Estoppel Certificates on behalf of the City. The Estoppel Certificate shall be substantially in the same form as Exhibit "F ". 7.4 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure to conduct an Annual Review shall not constitute or be asserted by the City as a Lessee Default or asserted as a City Default by Lessee. 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS 8.1 Significant Dates. The obligations of the Parties pursuant to this is Agreement and the Prior Agreement should be phased to coincide with the decisions of other public agencies with jurisdiction over the project and actions of third parties that are beyond the control of the Parties. This Section identifies the dates on which certain obligations, duties, rights and /or privileges arise (Significant Dates). (a) Approval Date. Neither the City nor Lessee shall have a unilateral right to modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement as of the Approval Date. Lessee's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold City harmless (Section 12.20) shall arise as of the Approval Date and shall remain in full force and effect during the Term specified in Section 8.2. The City's covenant of cooperation (Section 12.8) shall arise as of the Approval Date. (b) Effective Date. The Effective Date shall be the date on which the Adopting Ordinances become effective. (c) Operative Date. The Operative Date shall be the date on which all public agencies with jurisdiction over the Project have granted all discretionary approvals necessary to the development of the Project. (d) Supersede Date. This Agreement shall supersede the Prior Agreement if and when all of the following events have occurred: (i) The applicable statute of limitations has expired for a legal or electoral challenge to any Project Approval, this Agreement, or any discretionary action by another public agency with jurisdiction over the Project; 22 (ii) In the event of a legal challenge to any Project Approval, this Agreement, or any discretionary action by another public agency with jurisdiction over the project, a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final order validating any challenged Project Approval and /or this Agreement; (iii) In the event of an electoral challenge, the electorate has approved the Adopting Ordinance; and (iv) All public agencies with jurisdiction over the project, including the California Coastal Commission, have granted all discretionary approvals necessary to the development of the Project and those approvals are final. 8.2 Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement ( "Term ") shall begin on the Approval Date and continue for a term of fifteen (15) years unless this Agreement is otherwise terminated or modified.. 8.3 Assignment. (a) Subject to compliance with the provisions of Subsection (b), Lessee has the right to assign its rights and /or delegate its obligations under this Agreement, the Project Approvals and the Project Conditions as part of an assignment of all or a portion of the Property so long as Lessee is not in Default under this Agreement. Any assignment shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. As long as Lessee leases any part of the Property, Lessee may (at its election) assign the benefits of this Agreement without delegating the obligations for the portion of the Property assigned, provided however, in such event the benefits assigned shall remain subject to the performance by Lessee of the corresponding obligations. Upon any assignment of all or a portion of the lease of the Property, Lessee shall be released from all subsequent obligations pursuant to this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred as of the date the assignment is effective, provided the Assignee unconditionally assumes the obligations in writing. Lessee shall promptly deliver a copy of the written assumption to the City. Assumed obligations shall become the obligations of the Assignee and not Lessee. If an Assignee is in Default, then as to Lessee or any Assignees not in Default, the Default shall not: (i) constitute their Default; (ii) give grounds for termination of their rights under this Agreement; or (iii) be a basis for an enforcement action against them. (b) With the exception of the rights of Lessee pursuant to Section 11, Lessee shall not assign or transfer its rights pursuant to this Agreement without the express written consent of City. The City shall not unreasonably withhold its consent. The City's consent to an assignment or transfer shall not be considered unreasonably withheld unless: (i) The proposed assignee, purchaser, transferee, or sublessee has a "minimum net worth" of at least Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000). The "minimum net worth" requirements shall be increased each five (5) 001%3 • years from the Approval Date by the percentage of any increase over such period in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, Los Angeles- Anaheim- Riverside, All Items published by the Department of Labor; and (ii) The proposed purchaser, transferee, assignee or sublessee is a Qualified Operator or, if not a Qualified Operator, has entered into a binding agreement with a Qualified Operator to manage the Project for a period at least equal to the Term of this Agreement. The term Qualified Operator shall mean a recognized and experienced operator of first -class resort hotels of the type, size and quality of the Project with the financial ability to perform Lessee's obligations pursuant to this Agreement and who enjoys a reputation for honesty, integrity and sound business practices; and (iii) If the Project has not been constructed at the time of assignment, the Assignee is able to provide City with reasonable assurance that the assignee will fully comply with the design and construction standards in the Project Approvals and this Agreement. 8.4 Amendment of Agreement. (a) Amendments. Subject to the provisions of Subparagraph 8.4(b), this Agreement may be amended from time to time by the mutual consent of the Parties, or their successors in interest, but only in the manner provided by the Government Code, the Code and this Agreement. After any amendment, the term "Agreement" shall refer to the amended Agreement. (b) Minor Amendments. The Parties acknowledge that Lessee may determine that amendments to the Project Approvals are reasonably appropriate and desirable. In such event, Lessee may apply in writing for an amendment to Project Approvals or the Precise Plan. City shall process and may act on the application. City shall have no obligation to grant any application that amends the permitted land uses, the overall intensity or density of the Project, the quality of design or construction required by this Agreement or the Project Approvals or otherwise is an amendment of the Project Approvals that could have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts. 8.5 Enforcement. This Agreement is enforceable by each of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, the remedies in the event of a Default shall be limited to those specified in Section 10.7. 8.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) Expiration of the term in accordance with Paragraph 8.2; or (b) Entry, after all appeals have been exhausted, of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directing the City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the City's approval of this Agreement or any material part of the Project or Project Approvals; or 24 ,(PA (c) The effective date of a Party's election to terminate the Agreement as provided in Section 8.7 or Section 10.3 of this Agreement. 8.7 Lessee's Right to Terminate Upon Specified Events. Lessee retains the right, prior to any development of the Project pursuant to any Project Approval, to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to City in the event that Lessee reasonably determines that development of the Project consistent with the Project Approvals and Project Conditions has become economically infeasible due to changed market conditions, increased development costs, the City's exercise of the Governmental Reservations in a way deemed by Lessee to be inconsistent with the Project Approvals, or similar factors. 9. CONFLICTS OF LAW. 9.1 Conflict with State and Federal Laws and Regulations. Where state or federal law or regulation prevents compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, those provisions shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to comply with the State or Federal laws or regulations, and the modified Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: (a) The City shall not request modification of this Agreement pursuant to this provision unless and until the City Council makes a finding, based on substantial evidence in the record of a public hearing where Lessee has notice and an opportunity to present evidence, that such modification is required (as opposed to permitted) by State and Federal law or regulation; (b) The modifications must be limited to those required (as opposed to permitted) by the State or Federal law or regulation; (c) The modified Agreement must be consistent with the State or Federal law or regulation requiring the modification; (d) The intended material benefits of this Agreement must still be received by each of the Parties after modification; and (e) The modification and any applicable local, State, or Federal law or regulation does not render the modified Agreement impractical to enforce; and 9.2 Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 10. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION. 10.1 General Provisions. In the event of a Default, the Party alleging a Default shall give the other Party a written Notice of Default. The Notice of Default shall specify the nature of the alleged Default, and a reasonable manner and sufficient period of time (not less than thirty (30) days) in which the Default must be cured (the "Cure Period "). During the Cure Period, the Party charged shall not be considered in default for the purposes of termination of the Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. If the alleged Default is cured within the Cure Period then a Default shall be deemed not 25 to exist. Neither Party shall initiate nor pursue legal proceedings if the Default in question is not susceptible of cure within the applicable Cure Period, and the Defaulting Party commences its cure within the Cure Period and diligently pursues the cure to completion. 10.2 Option to Institute Legal Proceedings or to Terminate. The noticing Party must give the Defaulting Party a Notice of intent to terminate this Agreement if the noticing Party intends to terminate the Agreement and the alleged Default is not cured within the Cure Period. The City Council shall, no later than forty -five (45) days after a Notice of intent is served on either Party, hold a public hearing in the manner specified in the Government Code and /or the Code to consider and review the alleged Default. 10.3 Notice of Termination. If the City Council makes the findings described in this Section after the public hearing described in Section 10.2, the Party alleging the Default, at its option, may give written Notice of termination of the Agreement to the other Party within thirty (30) days of the determination. This Agreement shall be terminated immediately upon giving the Notice. A termination shall be valid only if good cause exists and a preponderance of the evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing establishes the continued existence of a Default after the Cure Period. The findings of the City Council as to the existence of a Default shall have no weight in any legal proceeding brought to determine the existence of a Default. The validity of any termination may be challenged pursuant to Section 12.17, in which case the court shall render an independent judgment as to the existence of a Default and good cause for termination. Termination may result only from a Default with respect to a material provision of this Agreement. 10.4. Waiver. Failure or delay in giving Notice of Default shall not waive a Party's right to give future Notice of the same or any other Default. 10.5 Default by Lessee. Subject to and after termination of this Agreement in compliance with Sections 10.1 through 10.3, if Lessee Defaults, the City shall have no obligation to perform any of City's obligations under this Agreement (as opposed to the City's obligations under the Project Approvals and the General Regulations), unless otherwise ordered by a court of law. The City's election not to perform as permitted by this provision shall not constitute a Default. 10.6 Default by the City. Subject to and after termination of this Agreement in compliance with Sections 10.1 through 10.3, if the City Defaults, Lessee shall have no obligation to perform any of Lessee's obligations under this Agreement, unless otherwise ordered by a court of law. However, Lessee shall not be entitled to receive Project Approvals or take any other action inconsistent with provisions of the Project Approvals, the Newport Beach General Plan, the LCP, and the Project Conditions unless otherwise permitted by law. Lessee's election not to perform as permitted by this provision shall not constitute a Default. 10.7 Specific Performance. (a) The Parties agree that, except as provided in Subsection 10.7(b), the loss by either of them of their respective rights under this Agreement would not be compensable through monetary damages. Therefore, the 26 remedy for a Default for each Party shall be limited to specific performance and /or injunctive relief. (b) The provisions of Subsection (a) shall not apply to the following: (i) Lessee shall be entitled to recover all fees or charges imposed on the development of the Project by City that are not authorized by this Agreement, the Project Approvals or Project Conditions plus interest at the maximum allowable rate from the date the fee or charge was paid to City to the date of repayment. (ii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event any development fees or taxes are imposed on development of the Property other than those authorized, 10.8 Effect of Termination on Owners of Timeshare Estates. The termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights, duties and obligations of the Owners of Timeshare Interests or the Association under the terms of the CC &Rs governing the Timeshare Interests or the interests of each of the Owners pursuant to the membership agreements conveying the Timeshare Interests so long as the Owners and Association perform their respective duties pursuant to the CC &Rs or membership agreements, including the obligations specified in Sections 5.1 and 5.5. So long as the Owners and the Association perform their respective obligations pursuant to this Agreement (as amended if applicable), City shall not disturb the possession, use and enjoyment of any Owner or the Association. City may enforce all Existing and Future General Regulations with respect to the Owners and the Association to the extent permitted by this Agreement. 11. ENCUMBRANCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY. 11.1 Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Lessee, its assignees or successors in interest, from encumbering, in any manner and at Lessee's sole discretion, all or any portion of the Property, the Timeshare Interests or any improvement by any mortgage, deed of trust, security interest or other financing device in favor of a lender or lenders as security for payment of any indebtedness of Lessee incurred in connection with the design, approval, construction, furnishing, renovation, remodeling, equipping and completion of the Project as contemplated in the Project Approvals and the Project Conditions. Lessee's rights pursuant to this Section are contingent on the encumbrance being in favor of an institutional lender such as a bank, savings and loan or thrift institution, pension fund, real estate investment fund, publicly traded limited partnership, or an insurance company. 11.2 Entitlement to Written Notice of Default. A Mortgagee shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive from City written notification of any Default by Lessee of the performance of Lessee's obligations under this Agreement which has not been cured within thirty (30) days following the date of the Notice of such Default. (a) Notwithstanding Lessee's Default, this Agreement shall not be terminated by City as to any Mortgagee to whom Notice is to be given and to which either of the following is true: 27 (i) The Mortgagee cures any default by Lessee involving the payment of money within sixty (60) days after receipt of the Notice of Default. (ii) As to Defaults not involving the payment of money to the City: (A) the Mortgagee agrees in writing, within sixty (60) days after receipt from City of the written Notice of default, to perform the proportionate share of Lessee's obligations under this Agreement allocable to that part of Property in which the Mortgagee has an interest conditioned upon the Mortgagee's acquisition of the required portion of the Property by foreclosure (including a trustee sale) or by a deed in lieu of foreclosure; (B) the Mortgagee commences foreclosure proceedings to reacquire title to the Property or applicable portion thereof within the sixty (60) days and thereafter diligently pursues foreclosure to completion; and (C) the Mortgagee promptly and diligently cures the default after obtaining title or possession. Subject to the foregoing, in the event any Mortgagee records a Notice of default as to its mortgage or deed of trust, City shall consent to the assignment of all of Lessee's rights and obligations under this Agreement to the Mortgagee or to any purchaser of Lessee's interest at a foreclosure or trustee sale and Lessee shall remain liable for such obligations unless released by City or unless the applicable portion of Lessee's Property is transferred. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection 11.2(a) of this Agreement, if any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings including by any process of injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings involving Lessee, the times specified in Subsection 11.2.a. of this Agreement for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be tolled during the period of the prohibition. (c) Lessee's execution or breach of this Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any existing or future mortgage or deed of trust on Lessee's Property made in good faith and for value. 11.3. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Except as provided in this Agreement, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the obligations of Lessee or other affirmative covenants of Lessee or to guarantee such performance. No Mortgagee shall be liable for any Default or monetary obligations of Lessee arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by the Mortgagee or their respective successors or assigns. However, to the extent any covenant to be performed by Lessee is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance. In the R-1 event a Mortgagee elects to develop the Property in accordance with the Project • Approvals, the Mortgagee shall be subject to the Project Conditions and shall be required to assume and perform the obligations or other affirmative covenants of Lessee under this Agreement. 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 12.1 Notices. All Notices shall be written and delivered by personal delivery (including Federal Express and other commercial express delivery services providing acknowledgments or receipt), registered, certified, or express mail, or telegram to the addresses set forth below. Receipt shall be deemed complete as follows: (a) For personal delivery, upon actual receipt; and, (b) For registered, certified, or express mail, upon the delivery date or attempted delivery date as shown on the return receipt. Notices shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: City Manager Attention: City Attorney To Lessee: Newport Dunes Partnership 998 W. Mission Bay Drive San Diego, CA 92109 Attention: Robert H. Gleason With a copy to: Brian T. Seltzer, Esq. Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon 750 B Street, Suite 2100 San Diego, CA 92101 The addresses to which Notices shall be sent may be changed by giving Notice of a new address. 12.2 Enforcement Delay; Extension of Time of Performance. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in Default where delays or non - performance are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, oil spills, casualties, acts of nature, unavailability of materials, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than City, suspension of rights in accordance with the existence of unforeseen circumstances, governmental moratorium other than a moratorium enacted by City, litigation, or similar bases for excused performance. An extension of time for performance shall be deemed granted for the period of the delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon, but in no case shall the extension of time for performance exceed six (6) months. The provisions of this Section shall not operate to delay the time when any payments, fees, charges, improvements, dedications or g j1� exactions required by this Agreement, Project Approvals or Project Conditions are paid or made by Lessee. 12.3 Severability.lf any material part of the Agreement is found by a court to be invalid, void, or illegal, the Parties shall modify the Agreement to implement the prior intent of the Parties. These steps may include the waiver by either of the Parties of their right under the unenforceable provision. If, however, the Agreement objectively cannot be modified to implement the prior intent of the Parties and the Party substantially benefited by the material provision does not waive its rights under the unenforceable provisions, the entire Agreement shall become void. For purposes of this Section, and without excluding the possible materiality of other provisions of this Agreement, all provisions of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 are deemed "material ". 12.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the Parties regarding the subject matter. This Agreement supersedes all negotiations and previous offers and understandings between the Parties regarding the subject matter. 12.5 Waivers. A waiver of any provision of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver. 12.6 Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals in Section 1 are part of this Agreement. 12.7 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Neither Party shall do anything that has the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other Party to receive the benefits of this Agreement, except to the extent this Agreement entitles it to do so 12.8 Covenant of Cooperation. The City shall cooperate with Lessee to obtain any permits from other public agencies that may be required for development of the Project or as a result of any modifications, suspensions, or alternate courses of action allowed by this Agreement. Lessee may challenge any ordinance, measure, moratorium, or other limitation in a court of law if litigation is necessary to protect the development rights vested in the Property pursuant to this Agreement. 12.9 Justifiable Reliance. City acknowledges that Lessee will reasonably be relying on City's performance of its covenants in this Agreement when Lessee invests money and effort in construction of the Project. Lessee acknowledges that the duties and obligations of City are subject to legal or electoral challenges that may have a bearing on Lessee's ability to develop the Project in accordance with Project Approvals. 12.10 Further Actions and Instruments. Upon the request of either Party, the other Party shall promptly execute documents, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and take any other action reasonably necessary to implement the terms and conditions of this Agreement or permit development of the Project in accordance with the Precise Plan. 12.11 Successors and Assigns. Subject to Section 8.3 above, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Agreement inure to, all successors -in- interest and assigns of the Parties. 30 -� h 12.12 Construction of Agreement. All language in all parts of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole and given its fair meaning. The captions of the Sections and Subsections are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of construction. This Agreement does not, and is not intended to, impermissibly contract away the police power, legislative authority or governmental functions of the City in general or with respect to the Property. 12.13 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Lessee warrants and represents that he /she has the authority to do so and the authority to bind Lessee to the performance of Lessee's obligations under this Agreement. 12.14 Consent. Any consent required by the Parties in carrying out the terms of this Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld or unreasonably delayed. 12.15 Effect on Title. This Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated. 12.16 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be executed by the City and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County no later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date. The recordation of this Agreement 6 is a ministerial act and the failure of the City to record the Agreement as required by this Section and Government Code § 65868.5 does not make the Agreement void or ineffective. 12.17 Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any Default, to enforce any provision of this Agreement, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of this Agreement, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Legal actions shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California. 12.18 Attorneys' Fees. In any arbitration, quasi - judicial, administrative, or judicial proceeding between the Parties initiated with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs, expenses, and disbursements in connection with such action. 12.19 Relationship of the Parties. The contractual relationship between City and Lessee arising out of the Agreement is one of independent contractor and not agency. This Agreement does not create any third party beneficiary rights. 12.20 Indemnification. Lessee and City agree to cooperate in the defense of any legal action filed and prosecuted by any person or entity other than the Parties that challenges the validity or manner of approval of this Agreement, the Project Approvals or the Project Conditions (Third Party Lawsuit). City will promptly notify Lessee of any Third Party Lawsuit upon service. City may retain counsel to defend the Third Party Lawsuit and, in such event, Lessee shall pay all attorneys fees and costs incurred by the City in the defense of the Third Party Lawsuit. Lessee shall also indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers and employees with respect to any costs, expenses, judgment, damages or award, including an award of attorney fees and /or costs to any third party, arising out of any Third Party Lawsuit. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that City has fully complied with all applicable statutes, ordinances, including the 31 provisions of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Act, and Existing General Regulations in the initiation, processing, evaluation and approval of all Project Approvals. Lessee's obligations pursuant to this Section shall commence as of the Approval Date and continue for the period specified in Section 8.2 or until this Agreement terminates, whichever occurs first. The obligation of Lessee to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless shall not apply to the fraud or willful misconduct of the City or its officers or employees that occurred on or before the Approval Date. The obligation of Lessee to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless shall not apply to the fraud, willful misconduct or violation of law bythe City or its officers and employees that occurs after the Approval Date. Dated: 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M Mayor Dated: 2000 NEWPORT DUNES PARTNERSHIP, a California general partnership By: Its: F:\ users\ cat\ shared\ Burnham \NewportDunes \050300pcfinal GO EXHIBIT F 11 0 E TO: Newport Beach City Council FROM: Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager DATE: May 19, 2000 RE: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Newport Dunes Resort Summary Revenue PROPERTY (POSSESSORY INTEREST) TAXES Proposed project will add $157,021 in property taxes annually. ■ Proposed project will generate the 2nd highest property taxes of any alternative (all timeshare resort adds more property taxes). SALES TAXES Proposed project will add $80,445 in sales taxes annually. (� Proposed project will generate the 2nd highest sales tax revenue of any alternative �J (all- timeshare resort adds more sales tax). HOTEL BED TAXES Proposed project will add $1,391,940 in Hotel Bed Taxes annually. y Proposed project will generate the 2nd highest hotel bed taxes of any alternative (500 room Hotel Alternative (w /out timeshares) generates more hotel bed taxes). Expenses — NET ADDED COSTS Proposed project will add approximately 564 "residents" to the City. This analysis suggests that the City's net added costs associated with these residents will be $212,890 per year. Net Fiscal Impact REVENUE less EXPENSES Proposed project will add $1,416,517 more each year in recurring revenues than it will cause each year in recurring costs. Net fiscal impact of the proposed project ranks 2nd among the alternatives: — Net Fiscal Impact Rankings — 500 Room Hotel Proposed Project 275 Room Hotel 200 Timeshare Intervals 300 RV Spaces + Restaurant Current Use (no change) $1,589,567 /year $1,416,517 /year $ 875,882 /year $ 519,059 /year $ (2,880) /year $ 0 /year rl hfaY 19,2000 Page 2 FA Newport Dunes Hotel and Timeshare Resort Fiscal Impact Analysis I. INTRODUCTION The Newport Beach City Council's Policy F -17 (Economic Development) requires city staff to complete a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) of each major planning decision. Policy F -17 reads, in part: ... "All major planning, development, zoning, regulatory, and permitting decisions made by the City shall include a review of the economic implications of such action. Toward that end, the follawing shall be accomplished: • All major zoning, subdivision and development permits considered by the City Council of Planning Commission shall be accompanied by an economic analysis describing the cost and revenues to the City associated with the actions. Land use conversions shall be accompanied by a before and after cosVrevenue analysis... II. PROJECT The Developer /Owners of the Newport Dunes Hotel and Timeshare Resort LOCATION and propose to construct the Project in Newport Beach, California. Newport CURRENT USES Beach's 22 square miles are home to about 70,000 permanent residents with a Summer population of 100,000. Newport Beach's current hotel statistics include: Total Hotel Rooms/Meeting Space 2,600 hotel rooms 130,000+ square feet of meeting rooms . Major Hotels/Conference Facilities Hotel Name No. Rooms Meeting Space Balboa Bay Club 121 rooms 13,500 sf Four Seasons 285 rooms 21,000 sf Hyatt Newporter 410 rooms 33,700 sf Marriott Hotel 570 rooms 22,400 sf Marriott Suites 250 rooms 2,300 sf Sheraton 335 rooms 22,100 sf Sutton Place 435 rooms 17,700 sf Current Zoning Property Information and Current Zoning. The proposed project would be located on land owned by the State of California and held in trust by the County of Orange. The County has leased the property to Evans Hotels, Inc. of San Diego. The property leased by Evans consists of 100 acres of land and includes a 10 -acre public swimming beach and lagoon, a 450 -slip marina, a restaurant, meeting space, and a 406 -space recreational vehicle (RV) park, Current zoning in the project area is Planned Community (PC). Current Use Current Use. The site of the proposed project is currently used for RV rentals. The Project proposes to displace 150 of the 406 available RV spaces at the Resort, a factor included within this Analysis. 0 I9, 7A0a Page 3 May (� III. DESCRIPTION of The Project would add a 421,000 sf hotel complex plus timeshare units to PROPOSED PROJECT the Newport Dunes, including: Accommodations • 370 guestrooms (15' by 30'), with 20% being suites of two or more rooms. • 75 timeshare units (with 25 being "lockoff " rooms that can be split into one single room and one "suite" room with a kitchenette); Food & Beverage • 13,650 square feet of eating and drinking area. Retail • 4,600 square feet for "retail and services." Spa and Recreation • 8,000 square feet for health club /spa facilities. Banquet/Conference Facilities *One 12,000 sf ballroom *One 9,000 sf ballroom *One 5,000 sf junior ballroom • Six 800 sf meeting rooms IV. FISCAL IMPACT The Project will generate property taxes, sales and use taxes, and hotel bed Revenues taxes. Some revenue is also anticipated from franchise fees, property transfer taxes, and charges for current services. Properly/ Tuxes Property Taxes. Newport Beach receives 17.10% of the 1% "basic levy" charged on the assessed value (AV) of any parcel within the City's primary tax rate area. The remainder of the basic levy goes towards schools, the County, and other agencies. The City expects to receive $25.8 MN in property taxes in FY 2000 -2001. Improvements which are placed on property leased from a fee simple owner pay a possessory interest tax instead of a direct property tax. In the case of the Dunes project, the Orange County Assessor will likely value the Project "virtually as an ownership," which will make the Project's hotel and timeshares subject to tax liability identical to the taxes paid by a traditional property where the owner holds the title to the land. The Assessor typically discounts a timeshare's value by 30 -35% prior to placing it on the tax rolls (deducting 30 -35% for marketing costs). — Property Tax — The City assumes a $100 per square foot valuation of the 421,000 sf hotel complex ($42.1 million valuation). We have also assumed 75 timeshare units with 51 "intervals" (a tens meaning that the interval owner owns the property for a week each year) each valued by the Orange County Assessor at $13,000 per interval. Therefore, the estimated AV of each unit is $1,020,000 and the estimated AV of the timeshare component of the resort is $49.725 million. Hotel Complex = $ 71,991 Timeshare Units = 85.030 Total Property Tax = 3 757.021 FRI MaY 19, p 3 Page 3 111. DESCRIPTION of The Project would add a 421,000 sf hotel complex plus timeshare units to PROPOSED PROJECT the Newport Dunes, including: Accommodations • 370 guestrooms (15' by 30'), with 20% being suites of two or more rooms. • 75 timeshare units (with 25 being "lockoff" rooms that can be split into one single room and one "suite" room with a kitchenette); Food & Beverage • 13,650 square feet of eating and drinking area. Retail • 4,600 square feet for "retail and services." Spa and Recreation • 8,000 square feet for health club /spa facilities. Banquet/Conference Facilities -One 12,000 sf ballroom -One 9,000 sf ballroom *One 5,000 sf junior ballroom • Six 800 sf meeting rooms 1V. FISCAL IMPACT The Project will generate property taxes, sales and use taxes, and hotel bed Revenues taxes. Some revenue is also anticipated from franchise fees, property transfer taxes, and charges for current services. Properly/ Taxes Property Taxes. Newport Beach receives 17.10% of the 1 % "basic levy" charged on the assessed value (AV) of any parcel within the City's primary tax rate area. The remainder of the basic levy goes towards schools, the is County, and other agencies. The City expects to receive $25.8 MN in property taxes in FY 2000 -2001. Improvements which are placed on property leased from a fee simple owner pay a possessory interest tax instead of a direct property tax. In the case of the Dunes project, the Orange County Assessor will likely value the Project "virtually as an ownership," which will make the Project's hotel and timeshares subject to tax liability identical to the taxes paid by a traditional property where the owner holds the title to the land. The Assessor typically discounts a timeshare's value by 30 -35% prior to placing it on the tax rolls (deducting 30 -35% for marketing costs). — Property Tax — The City assumes a $100 per square foot valuation of the 421,000 sf hotel complex ($42.1 million valuation). We have also assumed 75 timeshare units with 51 "intervals" (a term meaning that the interval owner owns the property for a week ® each year) each valued by the Orange County Assessor at $13,000 per interval. Therefore, the estimated AV of each unit is $1,020,000 and the estimated AV of the timeshare component of the resort is $49.725 million. Hotel Complex = $ 71,991 Timeshare Units = 85,030 Total Property Tax = S 157&21 • 04) May 19, zxttt Page 4 4 F& IV. FISCAL IMPACT Sales Tax. When someone buys a taxable product in the City limits, the Revenues City receives one cent of each dollar of taxable sales. The City expects to collect $18.65 million Citywide in sales and use taxes in FY 2000 -2001. Sales Taxes — Sales Tax — We have assumed that 50% of hotel and timeshare patrons' taxable sales will occur within Newport Beach. Further, the American Resort Development Association (ARDA) tells us that timeshare owners spend approximately $283 /day during their stay, while hotel patrons spend about $93 /day. This analysis assumes that 50% of these expenditures are taxable. We've also considered the effect of visitors to the hotel's restaurants who do not stay at the resort and a "cannibalization' effect (25 %) whereby the visitors' use of the Dunes restaurant reduces sales taxes at existing restaurants. Finally, we've deducted "lost RV taxes" and assumed a reduction in sales taxes from expenditures that RV patrons displaced by the Dunes Resort would have spent had they remained. Total Sales Tax = 844 Transient Occupancy Hotel Bed Tax or "TOT." The City levies a Uniform Transient Taxes Occupancy Tax ( "UTOT ") equal to 9% of the nightly rental rate per night on any room rented for 30 days or less within the City limits. The City also levies a 1% UTOT on behalf of the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (NBCVB) to promote tourism in Newport Beach. The City expects to receive $7.67 million in UTOT in FY 2000 -2001. — Transient Occupancy Taxes — • Hotel Rooms - This analysis assumes an average room rate of $160 per night, an average occupancy of 66% annually, and a 9% TOT. In other words, 248 of }- the 370 hotel rooms (on average) will be rented every night. • Nightly Rentals of Timeshare Rooms by Non - Owners - This analysis makes the following assumptions about the rental of the 75 timeshare units (25 of which have "lockoff" capabilities): • 13 of the net 100 units will be available for nightly rentals. • The 13 units will be split into 6.5 2BD suites 3 1B suites, and 3 1B rooms. • 25% of the owners will place the 1BD portion of their 2BD suites in the rental pool. • 30% of the units will be used by persons ( "exchangers') who own timeshares in otherareas, but use their interval at the Dunes Resort. • 50% of the exchangers will place the 1BD portion of their suites in the rental pool. • Of the rooms available for nightly rental, 66% will be occupied. • Rental rates = $200 for 2BD Suite, $160 for 1 BD Suite, $130 for 1 BD non - suite. • The City applies a full 9% TOT on nightly rental uses and a maintenance fee -based Development Agreement Fee on exchanged uses. Hotel TOT = $1,283,515 Timeshare TOT = 131,170 Less "lost "RV TOT = 79( ,100)1 Total Resort TOT = $ 113 • Note that "lost" RV TOT refers to the fazes that the displaced RV space renters would have paid had they been able to rent the 150 spaces removed by the proposed project. Iv2 IV. FISCAL IMPACT Expenses Net Fiscal Imnnct May 19, 2000 Pages Resort - related expenses will include police and fire protection and some anticipated use of the City's community services2 by the resident /owners of the timeshare intervals and the hotel. These expenses include: • Police Costs. After factoring in industry standard vacancy rates, the Project will add about 564 "residents" to the City. For the purposes of the expense calculations, this amount is considered to be an addition to the permanent population of the City (estimated to be 70,000). Given that the City's police protection costs per capita are approximately $158, the addition of 564 residents translates into $84,600 in additional police protection expenses per year. • Fire Costs. The City estimates its fire protection costs to be about $173 per capita. Adding 564 residents to the population base translates into $97,572 in additional fire protection expenses per year. • Library and Recreational Services. This Analysis assumes that hotel and timeshare residents will access the City's library and recreational programs. The City estimates these costs at about $47 per capita. Adding 564 residents to the population base translates into $26508 in additional community services expenses per year. Total resort- related expenses = $212,890 per year. Assuming the above revenues and expenses, this Analysis estimates that the Project will generate $1,416,517 more in revenue than it will generate in expenses. V. ALTERNATIVES O Current Use (No Project). This alternative assumes that the Dunes Resort is not TO THE PROPOSED constructed and that the current use - including the nightly reservation of spaces PROJECT for up to 406 recreational vehicles - will be continued indefinitely. Fiscal Impact — No Project - New Revenues: None New Expenses: None Net Impact., None 0 • 2 Please note that the City does not expect to "add' services - whether they be additional staffing at the Fire / Marine Department or the Police • Department or books at the Library - to account for anticipated services usage by the Project's patrons. The costs identified above are for the sole purpose of noting that any land use change will lead to incremental service costs to the City - to assure a "conservative" end product, this analysis uses the most "extreme" example of how these costs may be calculated. May 1 Page 6 Page 6 V. ALTERNATIVES ® Large All Hotel Project (500 Rooms). This alternative assumes that the to the PROPOSED proposed mix of hotel and timeshare units (400 to 100) be changed to an PROJECT (cont'd) all hotel complex with 500 hotel rooms and the same amount of meeting space and amenities. Alternative Two Fiscal Impact — 500 Room Hotel New Revenues: $1.822,415 New Expenses: 232.848 Net Impact: 1 589 587 Alternative Three ® Mid -Sized All Hotel Project (275 Rooms). This alternative assumes that the proposed project be scaled back to the size of the project originally planned for the area - a 275 -room hotel only complex. Accordingly, the RV rental spaces displaced by the project are slightly less than the proposed hotel/ timeshare project. Fiscal Impact — 275 Room Hotel New Revenues: $ 992,306 New Expenses: 116,424 Net Impact: 875,88 Alternative Four 0 Reduced All Timeshare Project (200 ownerships). This alternative assumes that the proposed mix of hotel and timeshare units (370 to 75) be changed to an all timeshare complex with 200 timeshare units (each a 2 bedroom unit with "lockoff" capability). Fiscal Impact — 200 Timeshares New Revenues: $ 685,379 New Expenses: 166.32p Net Impact: 519,05 Alternative Five 0 No Hotel - Add 300 RV spaces and 27,500 sf of Restaurant Space. This alternative assumes that the space proposed for a hotel/ timeshare resort use be used instead for an additional 300 RV spaces and 27,500 square feet of restaurant space. Fiscal Impact — 300 RV + Rest. New Revenues: $ 196,704 New Expenses: 199.584 Not Impact: S (2,88 • 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 Between the hours of Between the hours of 10. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised w1tfihq4 months from the date of approval as specked in Section 20.80.090A of the port Beach Municipal Code. 11. Deliveries to the restaurant shall be prohibited between the hours W' 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily in order to avoid peWp rking demand for the Via Lido Plaza shopping center. SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive • General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 F • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 • Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 • Conceptual Precise Plan A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and swimming pools and landscaped garden areas. Ms. Temple noted that Deputy City Manager, Dave Kiff would be available to review the fiscal impact analysis. Chairperson Selich asked for an explanation on how all the traffic trips are 27 INDEX Item No. 5 Newport Dunes GPA 97 -3F LCP No. 51 A No. 878 PC -48 DA No. 12 TS No. 115 EIR No. 157 Conceptual Precise Plan Recommended for approval 1 interior exterior interior x i r Resident* *D operty: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA Residentiol grope toted within 100 feet of o comme ' 1 property: dBA 60 dBA 45 dBA 50 dBA Mixed Use property: 45 dBA 60 dBA 45 dBA 50 dBA commerciol Drooerty: N/A 6 BA N/A 60 dBA 10. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised w1tfihq4 months from the date of approval as specked in Section 20.80.090A of the port Beach Municipal Code. 11. Deliveries to the restaurant shall be prohibited between the hours W' 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily in order to avoid peWp rking demand for the Via Lido Plaza shopping center. SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive • General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 F • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 • Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 • Conceptual Precise Plan A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and swimming pools and landscaped garden areas. Ms. Temple noted that Deputy City Manager, Dave Kiff would be available to review the fiscal impact analysis. Chairperson Selich asked for an explanation on how all the traffic trips are 27 INDEX Item No. 5 Newport Dunes GPA 97 -3F LCP No. 51 A No. 878 PC -48 DA No. 12 TS No. 115 EIR No. 157 Conceptual Precise Plan Recommended for approval 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX accounted for in all existing development as noted by Susan Caustin in her letter dated April 13th. Mr. Edmonston answered that a number of land uses cited in that letter are already covered as part of another land use, i.e., the Marina Center is part of the Marina and is included in the trip rate per slip in the Marina. There are other uses, i.e., laundry facility and public restrooms that are not uses that the public will pay $5.00 to the Dunes to park and use. These uses are included in the RV park and the other amenities that are there. That is the largest area we disagree with in terms of the exact breakdown. There are some other areas, such as the accuracy of the number of RV spaces, where documentation indicates that at the time of the Settlement Agreement there were more than 444 spaces; there were 495 spaces. However, that is not what is documented in the Settlement Agreement, so there is disagreement as to what the baseline was. The more important thing for the Commission to understand is that when the traffic study was done, any traffic from a use that is on the ground today, was counted as it went in and out of the intersections to the Dunes. What was added on to that count was the proposed project, which is the 470 -room hotel project minus the 15,000 square foot restaurant and minus a commercial building that was identified. So, for the TPO purposes, we have provided that full accounting and more so because my database of committed projects for the Dunes assumed that nothing had been built since the Settlement Agreement. We had traffic from the existing Dunes on the ground from anything that was built since then, like the additional marina slips that is probably the largest portion of development since the Agreement in 1988. Anybody going in and out of that marina was counted: additionally we have carried an extra 200 slips in the committed project list so in essence some of those trips were double counted for the purpose of this study. The numbers used accurately reflect the existing traffic plus the traffic that would come from the proposed project. At Commission inquiry, he added: a. The TPO requires that the City have updated counts. Intersections are counted on a two -year cycle. The current data shows the amount of traffic from uses at the Dunes and throughout the City. The traffic count at the comer of Coast Highway and Bayside reflects traffic that would go in and out of Bayside to access the slips at the Marina as well as the mobile home park or other facilities that are on that Bayside access. b. The TPO requires that the actual count on the ground prevail if there is a conflict between the ITE manual and the counts. Typically, as a portion of the project is constructed, that portion is subtracted from this committed project list because it is included in our counts. c. All projections were based on maximum occupancy, utilization, and access to and from for RV uses to and from the Marina parking and not based on annual averages. The numbers would be lower reflecting actual Pia 0 191 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 occupancy rate and typically that would be about 70 %. Public comment was opened. Robert Gleason, 101 North Bayside Drive, Newport Dunes noted the following: a. Conference Center operating conditions - Monday through Friday shall be limited on summer weekends from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. as well as 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. As peak hours change, either a.m. or p.m., we can then shift these hours to accommodate that change. The cap of people during the holiday season would revert to the 1,500 cap during the boat parade season and the 2,000 cap would then apply to the balance of the holiday season. b. Traffic discussion - having been involved in the discussion of 1988, that trip number of 5213 in the Settlement Agreement related to more of a negotiation as to the Fair Share fee and how that would apply than it did to the actual traffic study. c. Bayside Drive re- construction and entrance and monument signage - will be in keeping with the quality level of the resort as portrayed in an exhibit on the wall. Along Bayside Drive there will be a thorough landscape treatment. The treatments on the corners are proposed to be an entry statement with turf area relatively low in height with a three -foot sign. d. Planned Community District Plan - this document is key to the project as it includes the entitlements, design guidelines and quality assurances. We are in agreement with staff's suggested changes on the conditions in Exhibit G limiting outdoor music, etc. e. From a fiscal impact standpoint that given a much higher property tax assessment on those timeshare units and the agreement to the entitlement fee that functions like a TOT on those units, the City on a per unit basis actually receives more revenue from timeshare than hotel. For the operating benefit, that section of the project will run fuller than other portions of the hotel with less seasonal fluctuations with visitors who tend to spend 30% to 40% more during their stay. Additionally, timeshare is more a fact of a contemporary business model for quality resort projects from a financing and viability standpoint. Lenders require 40% to 50% of equity up front in a project, this is a way to raise that equity without either decreasing the quality of the project or the quality of the construction, or decreasing the amenities that are provided. f. Development Agreement - contains a number of amended provisions from when it was originally negotiated with the City Council sub - committee, Policy on Resort Taxation (PORT). I received and reviewed the draft and have a number of drafting and technical comments but they do not relate to the economics or the spirit or substance of the agreement. I suggest that we be allowed to work those out with the City Attorney. The rest of the changes are: 1. Fees related to the view park - $200,000 contribution for the park at the corner of PCH and Jamboree. Revision talks about that becoming an immediate obligation that would be stayed in the event of legal or 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX electoral challenges to the project or the Development Agreement specifically. We would expect that fee and the other related fees to come into play after the approval of the Coastal Development Permit of the project. 2. Timeshare issues - the concerns about enforcement relate to the entitlement fee collection (TOT) from the timeshare owners association, which would be a distinct entity from Newport Dunes as the applicant, developer or operator. Also enforcement of the quality and maintenance provisions on an on -going basis. First proposed addition would be to add a phasing requirement so that this would obviate the ability to build just the timeshare component of the project, which is not our intent. At the same time we are constructing timeshare units we would build hotel public spaces and amenities in an equal or greater number of hotel rooms to ensure that there is an adequate mix of product. The second proposed addition would be to implement the timeshare project as a right to use project. The distinction would be that the association of those owners owns the improvements, owns the sub- lease and controls the project. The interest that is purchased is like a membership type interest, so that you have people that don't own anything particular in terms of real estate, but own a membership interest similar to a co -op. What this means to the City is that the City deals with one entity that owns and operates that project. It allows us to include in the Development Agreement that the contractual agreement between the Newport Dunes and timeshare owners association sub -lease agreement and covenants and allows the City to have a lien right on the association's property in the event that the entitlement fee is neither collected nor remitted. This is a stronger remedy then allowed under the current TOT collection code. Secondly, it would include the covenants consistent with the project's zoning, the Planned Community text, the Precise Plans and all the conditions of the project so that it allows us to enforce all the quality concerns. 3. New indemnification provision requires Newport Dunes to indemnify the City for third party actions. I ask for a carve out for negligence or misconduct on the part of the City. 4. Biggest issue is the term of the agreement. When this agreement was negotiated with PORT, we were looking at a term of twenty -five years. That basically covers the development period and also a period of time when the City maintains its authority under the Development Agreement with us to enforce provisions of the Agreement. This was modified in this draft to fifteen years. While that is a substantial decrease, we understand the reason behind it and find it acceptable. We have a problem with the additional provision that the agreement terminates if construction does not start on the project in seven years. While that is our obvious intent, on a project of this type, size and location there are a number of factors that are outside our control. For example, the prior approval of Newport Dunes we received County approval and a certified EIR in 1980, we were in litigation through 1983; 30 E 0 ) �-9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 Coastal Commission through 1984: and the County through 1987 -88. construction drawings. plan checks at the City up to the start of construction in 1989. In that particular case. we happened to not hit the economic cycle right. Our concern here with electoral changes. Coastal approval and drawings and plan checks. we may be out potentially 4 -7 years without the risk of hitting the economic cycle wrong. During the 1990's there were virtually no quality resorts built in Southern California. We would request that the term of the Agreement be fifteen years. 5. Agree to include in the Development Agreement. a reference to the conference center conditions spoken about at the beginning. Those particular traffic related conditions are a material condition of the City's agreement to enter into this Development Agreement for this project. He concluded by stating that this is a very complicated project. The review has been thorough and exhaustive. During this process the Planning Commission listened to everybody. which has been a model of public input and participation. This will be a project that all can be proud of. At Commission inquiry. Mr. Gleason answered: • The architectural firm that has been hired has a high integrity and will produce a project of high quality. • The design guidelines are extensive in the PC document and include mandatory requirements for everything. i.e. roofing material. exterior finishes. interior finishes. landscape and signage requirements. These will assure that the quality will be high. • An average of furniture and equipment being spent on a per room basis is about $20.000. • Phasing of hotel - the entire hotel structure including the parking structure and everything associated with the hotel will be constructed at the same time as the first phase of the timeshare units. The timeshare unit construction will be in increments of roughly 25 units. • TOT equivalency - that duty is written in the Development Agreement such that. so long as Newport Dunes is the manager on behalf of the association of the timeshare portion of the project. that responsibility falls to Newport Dunes. If. at such time that Newport Dunes is not the manager of the association. that obligation would fall to the association. • The fee is levied only in the event that the project is used by an exchanger. The fee does not apply to use by timeshare owners or people holding through them. If it is in the rental pool. it is collected at the front desk as a regular TOT and in this case Newport Dunes is responsible. The exchangers are the anomaly of the deal because the fee is being collected as contractual type of fee and not as a tax levy. That would be collected at the desk up front as part of the check -in procedure. • Carving out negligence - The focus would be on active misconduct or unlawful acts. 31 INDEX en City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 rkr*7 In response to a question about right -ot -way maintenance responsibility, Ms. Clauson stated that could be addressed as part of these approvals. The Municipal Code requires the property owner to be responsible for the parkways, in this case, DeAnza. Ms. Wood noted that the review procedure for the final Development Agreement would give the City the ability to approve the final landscaping plan, including plant materials. Commissioner Kiser asked about the entrance at Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. Where are you on the two corners in discussion with DeAnza and the other owner? Mr. Gleason answered that the discussions are preliminary. We will need to have an agreement with DeAnza due to the gatehouse that will be constructed, there needs to be a vacation by the property owner. The discussions regarding the other corner are pending. Ayres Boyd, 2541 Crestview Drive presented a position paper issued by the joint grouping of seven homeowners associations (Special Committee of Associations (SCA). (copies were distributed) He stated that this paper had been presented to the applicant. He asked that the Planning Commission continue this matter to a future meeting until after all have had the opportunity to hear the Evans Company reply. The developer has substantial risks to the project's success that could be reduced if only the City and the developer would consider this proposal. The SCA would like to support this project; however, the SCA is not in favor of the current plan. Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star spoke on behalf of the Dover Shores Association. He noted the size of the project as almost three times larger than the original proposal. The original proposal prohibited multi -story garages on the property. He noted that in 1998, Mr. Burnham wrote a legal opinion that basically agrees with ours as presented by counsel, Barbara Lichman. The 1998 Coastal letter has also been re- affirmed. We would like your consideration on the proposal of our association. Ramona Harris, 396 21s' Street thanked the Commission and staff for all their hours on this project. She noted that during the course of her work, she has received positive comments on this project. The citizens of Newport Beach have the right to have the best resort hotel in our community that will benefit the City by adding to the tax basis. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive asked how the timeshare membership contributes to the City? Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower noted her concern about all the heating, venting, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), including building and 32 0 I ) 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 porking structure mechonicol ventilotion equipment. sholl be mointoined o minimum setbock of 15 feet from the western property line. The western property line is my bock fence. which puts those mechonicol devices in the middle of the green belt and before the nine -foot woll thot hos been promised os o mitigotion meosure. I osk you to check this over to see if this is whot is reolly meont os I think the minimum needs to be behind the nine -foot woll. The right of woy in Boyside Drive will not hove ony construction storoge or delivery of moteriols. I om for this os it is right behind my house. The construction vehicles will need to be routed down Bock Boy Drive and through the RV pork and stroight out the bock of Moyflower. This will creote on impoct thot we will live with for 18 months during the construction. The doily trip number does not reflect the chonge of the oddition of the hotel rooms. Mr. Edmonston onswered thot the revised troffic study doted Morch 2000 wos bosed on the 470 -room project. Thot number wos reduced and then restored bock to 470. therefore. the numbers in the Morch study prevoil. The number of trips coming from the hotel would be 4.200 (470 rooms). with the reduction of the lost RV spoces os well os the other uses on site the net chonges would be 3.600 on Boyside Drive and 600 on Bock Boy Drive. Truck troffic being diverted off Bock Boy is not under discussion of this point. Construction troffic will be limited to one entronce or the other. Stoff noted tho; the condition for the HVAC reflects o mitigotion meosure in the EIR and is o minimum requirement in order to ossure complionce with the Noise Ordinonce. Additionolly. the existing City code requires thot oll HVAC equipment be roted prior to the issuonce of o building permit on sound levels and thot it be ploced occordingly to comply with the Noise Ordinonce. Pouline Beorden. 212 Tremont stoted thot the Dunes hotel is one of the best things thot hos hoppened to the pork. and privote rights. We ore going to continue to live here to see it hoppen. I believe in the free enterprise system hove progress. I hope to be oble to Mr. Gleoson noted thot the timeshore tox is o possessory interest tox and is token under o leosehold interest. The possessory interest tox is colculoted on the volue of the interest thot is bought. The membership interest sholl be volued on the purchose price. the some woy thot o divided sub -leose interest would be ossessed. Those volues. from o purchose price stondpoint ore enrolled identicolly on the ossessor role of two- thirds the purchose price. On the HVAC setbock concern. it would moke sense thot it be o minimum of 30 feet from the sound woll on the Dunes side. The construction mitigotion meosures folks obout the woll os being built in the eorliest stoge of the construction. The new trip number is 3.520 trips on Boyside Drive and 80 new trips on Bock Boy Drive for o totol of 3.600 trips. In terms of meeting with representotives of the SCA. we did meet yesterdoy ofternoon os well os hoving hod o number of conversotions with the surrounding communities. We spoke with Mr. Boyd in the full and hove hod continuol concoct with oll seven of those 33 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX homeowners associations. We have received input from them and have incorporated a number of those suggested changes. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Gleason stated that he has no plans to do anything with the HVAC equipment. That is the sort of thing that is very far down the line. The condition contained in Section 10.26.05 in the Municipal Code that talks about sound attenuation is sufficient protection in that regard. There is also a requirement that be done in connection with the final precise plan. This is just the conceptual precise plan for this part of the project application. Public comment was closed. Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager, referencing a slide presentation noted the difference between the timeshare contribution versus hotel room contribution. The American Resort Development Association (ARDA) tells us that timeshares users will spend about $163 per day. The hotel user spends a little less. The hotel tax or the use fee proposed in the Development Agreement would allow the timeshare to come up to a significant amount. The possessory interest tax is actually where the timeshare brings in more money than a hotel unit. The hotel is valued on the assessment role at construction costs. Typically the timeshare is valued at or near its purchase price with some adjustment made which produces a higher net. A second exhibit showed an average night of the timeshare (75 2- bedroom suites) by owners, exchangers and nightly rental and unoccupied use. The average night usage shows owner use as 50 %, exchangers use of 30 %, nightly renters use of 20% and 33% of that 23% (left from the lock -off feature) is unoccupied. This information is based on industry standards. Ms. Temple added that all of the 75 units are 2 bedroom suites, the only difference is that some have the ability to be locked off in order to create more than the 75 increments either through the exchange program or regular hotel use. The actual selling of the timeshares will be in the 2 bedroom unit increments. Regardless of whether a unit is occupied as a regular two - bedroom timeshare unit with the non - ability to be locked off, it still has the opportunity to be occupied in any one of the three categories of occupancy. Mr. Kiff concluded by saying that this proposal by the Dunes would have a net Positive stream of about 1.4 million. Ms. Clauson stated that the reference to a memo by the City Attorney, it is believed that there is not a conflict between the information in that memorandum and the subsequent information that the City Attorney has given on the vested rights and the baseline analysis for purposes of determining the threshold of significance of the impact. That context of the quote from the memorandum to staff was in actual consideration of doing an environmental impact report. That was done and the information has been disclosed on what the impact of the existing counts are today and how the proposed generation 34 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 of traffic will be increased over that amount. For purposes of determining the baseline for the traffic impacts with regard to the City's TPO and the threshold of significance of that impact, we believe that it is correct under the CEQA to provide for vested entitlements. There are two reasons, the entitlements are vested and there is case law that supports using those numbers. The numbers have been used in the TPO and in all other projects in the City that have been approved or evaluated have been evaluated with those numbers as if the traffic exists. Commissioner Kranzley stated his concern with the Monday through Friday condition on the conference center staggering. If party one starts or ends at 6:00 p.m., party two could not start or end until 6:30 p.m. I would revise that to starts or ends at 6:30, party two could not start until 7:00 p.m. The other issue I had concerns the boat parade and the impact of the increased number of catered guests between the Thanksgiving and New Year's period of time. The applicant has addressed this in excluding the days of the Christmas boat parade and I understand that this is a period of time that has lower occupancy in the hotel. I am inclined to go along with this condition as presented by the applicant. Chairperson Selich clarified that these suggestions would be initiated as changes to condition # 1. Staff clarified that those particular statements in 3a (applicant's handout) on the summer weekend condition were placed into the wording as by way of example only. You are now actually setting specific start and stop times. This is summer weekend and does not address peak hour. The examples were not carried over in the actual drafted conditions. The examples are there for demonstration only. Ms. Temple added that to the extent that there is a prohibition particularly on the weekday peak hour for actual events starting or releasing from their activities, those were not part of the example basis. By way of example, it does not matter what number you choose, so long as they are half an hour apart because the intention is that when having two events, the start times have to be staggered in order to minimize the one time arrival. Commissioner Kranzley clarified with staff that the intent in Exhibit G -1 is consistent noting that the examples would be part of the public record in case there was a need of clarification. Chairperson Selich asked staff to work on these changes to be discussed later. Commissioner Kiser suggested that in the draft of condition #2, section 3 of the applicant's handout, to insert based on actual counts as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. This would make it clear that we are not talking about the applicant or operators own traffic counts. All Commissioners agreed. 35 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX 11 Ms. Temple stated that in Exhibit G -1, staff took all the active components of the prior two conditions and put them into more useable format for staff to administer without making any substantive changes. We can do the same things for the revisions suggested tonight by the applicant and will do so. In terms of being able to present you something written, with some of these subsequent conditions based on the applicant's proposal this evening, we are not going to be able to hand you a piece of paper that shows what the motion is all about. I suggest that you go ahead and proceed with the straw votes and perhaps the final vote and then staff will go back and actually prepare all of the revised documents. We will transmit them to you for your review and then if any questions by the Commission are raised as to the substance of the changes, we could then bring the whole package back at the next meeting. Chairperson Selich stated that a plan has been presented on Bayside Drive design. There are recommendations in the staff report that are not necessarily concurrent with what the applicant is proposing. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern with cueing; the applicant has assured us that they will have plans in place to prevent a cueing problem impacting Coast Highway. He asked to hear more information on this by the applicant. Mr, Gleason stated: • Gatehouse operation will be operated similar to existing ones on Back Bay Drive. • There will be three entrance lanes, some will be automated and some manually operated depending on whether it is a Bayside Village resident, marina tenant or guest of the hotel. • There is room for approximately 26 cars between the gatehouse and Pacific Coast Highway. • Our current operation opens the gates to let people through when there are planned large events. There are secondary controls farther up on the property. • The gatehouse is an agreement that was made with the residents of Bayside Village and their concerns with ingress and egress for cars and pedestrians as well as security. Chairperson Selich noted his support of the plan presented this evening. He stated this plan presents a much stronger landscape statement for the entry to the hotel as well as allowing for the gatehouse concept. It presents a problem with regard to past City practices in a number of ways, one of which is eliminating on- street bike lanes, but we would have a two -way off - street bike trail. We are limited in the right of way: I would rather have the off - street bike trail and the additional landscaping. The other area that is a potential problem is the turn around, the City standards require 42 feet, but this is 38 feet. I would 36 r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 ask staff to respond to that. INDEX Mr. Edmonston answered that the standard drawings are approved by City Council and in the case of the turn around area it is controlled by the Fire Department's requirements for getting their large apparatus turned around. Whether they have any particular issues at this location, I do not know. I have made them aware of this design but have not heard back one way or the other. The Fire Code specifies a 20 feet width minimum, but the Fire Marshall has in the past with gated access been agreeable to reducing that to 14 feet. The main concern is not to slow the fire trucks by threading their way through a narrow access. Mr. Gleason added that he tried to get as much radius as he could. We are actually bulging out the roadway and crimping down the size of the bike trail in one area. One of the round -about has a 50 foot outside radius and a 15 foot inside radius based on the current landscape plan in that area. The only way the large trucks could not turn around is if someone at the gate did not let them through so they could use the inside area for the larger turn around. The lanes are 20 feet wide. The only non - conforming lanes in that area are right of the intersection and these two lanes are 12 feet wide. Commissioner Ashley noted that the revised plan is an improvement. Parking for Bayside Village visitors has been re- installed on Bayside Drive. Movement going in and pedestrian access design shows creativity and sensitivity. Chairperson Selich then talked about the landscaping at the entry. He asked the applicant what type of condition would be agreeable regarding the implementation of the design concept. Mr. Gleason noted that this would depend on the negotiations with the adjacent landowner. Conceptually, we all feel the same, there needs to be something significant and monumental on that corner in keeping with the character of the resort. I feel reasonably assured that the east side is doable and can accept a condition in that regard. The west side will be our best effort. Chairperson Selich suggested to the Commission that they accept the exhibit as part of the conceptual precise plan to be approved and that it be conditioned upon that the final design is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Review of the Development Agreement. Commissioner Tucker stated that he and Commission Kiser offered suggested comments to the City Attorney who re- drafted the agreement. The major issues that we brought up were that: • the City be indemnified from a suit • reduction of the term from 25 years to 15 years 37 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX • strengthen the provisions that call for first class design and construction; • have some type of limitation on assignments of the agreement • and, that the revenue stream be accounted for after the agreement expires. Ms. Clauson added that there are minor changes and clarifications to the Development Agreement. The City Council will approve the Development Agreement, so any recommendations for the content that have been received so tar have been dratted in. Any recommendations that the Planning Commission may want tonight, they can be dratted in as the Development Agreement is sent to the City Council. Commissioner Tucker noted that he would like to see included in the CCR's document that secures the entitlement tees to the City that the City explicitly be made a third party beneficiary. The assignment provision contemplates an acceptable assignee, purchaser, transferee, or sublessee would have a net worth of at least 4 million dollars, which strikes me as low. I think that it should be considerably higher, certainly before construction starts. The qualities of the assignee prior to the construction versus after the project is constructed and the term of the agreement should be discussed. The duty to commence construction within a seven -year time frame should be discussed. Fifteen years term seems adequate given the scope of this project. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the verbiage that the vested entitlement would generate approximately 4000 average daily trips, the project will general approximately eight hundred (800) average daily trips more than the vested entitlement. Mr. Edmonston answered that would be the correct number based on a 600 - room hotel and was not revised to show the reduced project. New numbers will be included in the revised Development Agreement. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the annual review process. Would this preclude the condition on the conference center or are they two different processes. Staff answered that it would not preclude the condition on the precise plan. Commissioner Gittord noted her concerns of re- drafting this document to reflect the new form of ownership rather than the timeshares and the tie -in and in effect, this sublease between the Development Agreement and the sublease. It will also provide for Section 10.3 that says the termination can only result from a detault with respect to a material provision of this agreement that specifies the conditions with respect to the scheduling. The underlying concern of the traffic flow with regard to the conference center would be specifically provided as a material provision. If this agreement is terminated in seven years, that doesn't seem to matter too much. There are pros and cons for the City and the applicant for a shorter or longer term. I agree that we need a much ION 0 0 n City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 greater number in terms of a potential assignee. INDEX Chairperson Selich asked about the fees specified in the Development Agreement, the first fee of $600,000 for traffic improvements and the second, fair share fee of $235,402. He was answered that there was a TPO analysis done for the original approvals in 1983, but there is no direct link. That TPO analysis identified 8 intersections that would need to be mitigated and there was no direct cost link between those improvements and the $600,000. It is a negotiated amount that came out of the Settlement Agreement for general traffic improvements. The fair share fee, if calculated today for a 470 -room hotel, with a credit for the trips removed from the 150 RV spaces that would be lost, would be $479.124. Continuing, Chairperson Selich stated that he was the one who suggested the start date in the draft Development Agreement (DA) to be seven years. I felt there should be some incentive to move the project ahead expeditiously, since the existing project sat there for seventeen years since the initial approval of the Settlement Agreement. Also, I was concerned that by having such a long term on the DA, fifteen years plus the initial seventeen years, we would be locking these fees in for an equivalent of thirty -two years. Development Agreements for more complex projects than this, the maximum term is fifteen to twenty years. I would not be opposed to dropping out that section if we did have something on the Fair Share fee that would raise the baseline from $235,000 to what a current fee would be and then lock that fee in for the term of the Development Agreement, which would be fifteen years. In terms of the $600,000, since that was a negotiated fee and not tied into any fee schedule. I think should be left alone. The Fair Share fee should be brought current and locked in for the term of the Development Agreement. With that kind of provision, I would not be opposed to removing the seven -year start date on it. Commissioner Ashley noted his concern of the fees. He stated that the money should be paid after Coastal Commission approval of the plans, not before. The recordation should only occur after the Coastal Commission has approved the plans that have been submitted for their review. Continuing, he noted that the fees contributed for the Marine Educational Center should be collected after Coastal Commission, not before. I agree with Commissioner Tucker that we should not limit the applicant to seven years, it should be changed to fifteen years. The recording of this agreement should take effect after the Coastal Commission approval. To enforce all of this prior to Coastal approval is injurious to the applicant. Staff noted that the date that the document is recorded, should be the same as the effective date throughout. It says the date the adopting ordinance adopted by the City Council becomes effective. • Chairperson Selich stated that the document should be recorded after the effective date of the ordinance. Why would we wait until the Coastal 39 . , F, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 I:f741� Commission approves it? Commissioner Tucker noted his agreement with the Chairman's comments, as this is part of the administerial procedures, it is not prejudice to the applicant, as he can't move forward until he gets all approvals up line. Ms. Wood stated that payments of special City benefit should have language that talks about them being due after Coastal approval, or if there was legal challenge or referendum. Ms. Clauson added that she woul look at having changes made to effective date for purposes of fee payments and the recording of the document. Commissioner Kiser noted that he had reviewed this document and as far as the previous discussions, agrees with all that has been said. The fifteen -year term in the Agreement makes a lot of sense. I need to take a closer look at the Agreement, as the suggested changes will require new language to fit the concept of what is being offered to the public. The only thing that I see that was not incorporated and needs to be included is the force majeure exception that makes it clear that this provision doesn't apply to monetary defaults of the agreement. Meaning that earthquakes, walk -outs, riots, etc are not going to extend the time up to the six month for payment of any amounts that would be due to the City that are the obligation of the applicant(s). The Development Agreement seems to be in reasonable shape. Commissioner Tucker agreed that the Fair Share fee should be updated and as a trade off the fifteen years is then fixed. The quality of construction issues should come back to the Planning Commission. We should not have the Development Agreement state a protocol that is inconsistent with the conditions. The two need to be brought into conformity. I would not want the City to be in the position to argue whether negligence was gross negligence or not. The carve out in the indemnity should not include negligence or gross negligence. Ms. Clauson stated that negligence is a tort term and the concept here is indemnification or defense with any claims against the processing of this project. It is not much of a helpful carve out. Chairperson Selich noted that the straw vote on the Development Agreement be that we are approving the Development Agreement with the comments made to the City Attorney to pass on the City Council. We will rely on the City Attorney to incorporate that wording appropriately. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Gleason suggested that the net worth requirement pre - development of the hotel for the assignee could be ten million dollars and the financial ability to carry out the project. 40 0 ,7 •City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX Chairperson Selich noted that with all these suggestions took a straw vote to which all of the Commissioners were in favor of the Development Agreement. Review of the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Tucker handed out copies of portions of the guidelines that deal with the building elements, character, style, materials and color. He noted his suggestions to strengthen the assurances as to the quality of the project that will be delivered. I am willing to have a bigger project if it is demonstrably a better project. One additional item that should be added is the hotel building itself as opposed to the timeshare units. The hotel building ought to be constructed out of block and should be added as one of the materials. The applicant has seen this and the only difference we had was minor and that is the ability to have gazebos with block support columns. I wanted to see wood or stucco, but they pointed out that it would match the existing structures. Continuing, the roof plane for the part of the project closest to the highway where the conference area will be is shown as a two -story flat roof. I have concerns about people looking down onto a flat roof. That would not be a good idea. Is it possible in that particular element that it be turned into a pitched roof? My concern is having mechanical equipment up there as well. Flat roofs should be discouraged. So, if we could add that as a re- design that would hopefully eliminate any unsightliness. Mr. Gleason noted his acceptance of these changes. Looking at the roof planes, that area has been reduced to a relatively small area. We can make it work as there are only two and three stories in that area. Mr. Alford commented that changes to the project are more appropriately addressed through the conditions on the conceptual precise plan. He offered suggested language dealing with the issue of flat roofs in the general design guidelines that might apply to any future modifications or new buildings on site. In Commissioner Tucker's handout, the section that deals with roofs could say the .. "Flat roofs should be discouraged in general, but may be used in small areas to accent the roof plan. When flat roofs are used, they should receive a gravel topping that should be colored to match the adjacent roof tile" Chairperson Selich asked if there were any concerns on the suggestions made by Commissioner Tucker. All Commissioners agreed that these be incorporated in the design guidelines. Commissioner Kranzley asked if the changes made during this process would be reflective in a new PC text. He was answered that Exhibit E -1 contains all the updates to the PC Development Plan, which includes the design guidelines. Continuing, he noted that there has been a lot of discussion regarding the visual simulations. I am wondering where they should go, in this or in the conditions as an example. The simulations are a matter of public record. 41 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX Mr. Alford answered that the visual simulations are based on the conceptual precise plan, so it seems logical that you condition that. Ms. Temple noted that there has been discussion in the past that the building as constructed would be reflective of those visual simulations. It what is actually constructed is of great variance to those, than the Commission could require turther design changes. It you wish to include that concept as a condition that would be appropriate as a condition on the precise plan. You would refer to the visual simulations prepared for the precise plan as approved. Chairperson Selich proposed further Planning Commission review through conditions as well as the PC text and Design Guideline modifications. The Planning Commission gets to review the details of this project before they get to the final precise plan, which is basically construction documents. Along with that on page 11 of the Design Guideline section 9, there is a reference to on- site trails that says,.. the final design of on -site pedestrian bicycle trails shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. I would also want to insert that the Planning Commission review and approve. Page 12, section 14 on -site street - I don't know it Bayside Drive is going to be considered an on -site street or not. Statt answered that Bayside Drive is not an on -site street but is a public street. Page 23, alternative development standards - in our revisions, is the height specified in conformance with the revised proposal? Statt answered yes, the height limit section and the daylight plane section were revised. Page 30, section K Coastal Access - says provision shall be made to provide adequate coastal access to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the California Coastal Commission, I would put in there that it also be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The same suggestion for the ott -site circulation element to be included. Referring to page 29 of the Design Guidelines, and the exhibit that shows the public water front access, one of the concerns I have is that it be more friendly for pedestrians who come from the outside and want to get access to the walkway system around the lagoon. There should be another pedestrian access provided. Commissioner Ashley noted his concurrence with the various recommendations made to assure the quality of the type of resort and suggested review of all plans by the Planning Commission. Chairperson Selich asked Commission that with the modifications suggested. are they in favor of the PC text and the Design Guidelines. All Commissioners agreed. Exhibit G -1 conditions: Chairperson Selich stated that one of the most important aspects of approving 42 0 ') 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX this is to make it is one of the best projects and to get a guarantee that it will be the best project. It will take a higher level of review than the Planning Commission normally does on projects. In concert with changes made in the design guidelines. I would like to suggest that we do the following: • Add to Condition I - Prior to the submittal of the final precise plan for Planning Unit One and any other new construction or remodel of any structure in any planning unit. the applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval for conformance to the design and quality provisions of the development agreement and the design guidelines the following: Final Site Plan. Final Floor Plan. Final Elevations including material boards and colors: Final Landscape Plan. Final Parking Area Plan including a parking management plan: Final Lighting Plan and Final Signage Plan including Coastal access signing and other background and supporting information and studies that the Planning Director. Planning Commission or applicant deems necessary for a clear representation of the project. Also. a final landscaping plan for the remaining planned units shall be submitted for the same review and approval in conjunction with the submittal of the above plans for Planning Unit One. I don't believe that there has been a set of landscape plans submitted to the City for the rest of the project. Since . we are approving a Planned Community District for the entire property that is already built. it is appropriate for us to review a set of landscaping plans for the rest of the project. The Planning Commission will have a review process where we can be assured that all of the objectives we have tried to achieve through nine meetings on this project will in fact. be accomplished. • Condition 22 (renumbered to 33) - insert that the Planning Commission should review and approve. • Condition 27 (renumbered to 38) - incorporate the exhibit on Bayside Drive that was presented this evening by reference as the conceptual approval and that the final design and approval shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Continuing. Chairman Selich noted his concern about the low chain link fence on Back Bay Drive. It seems unnecessary as the vehicular access is controlled through gate access. It presents a feeling that the public is not welcome as pedestrians into the project. I would suggest that we have a condition that the chain link fence along Back Bay Drive be removed. The only fencing in that area that is left is that necessary to provide security for boat storage parking. Mr. Gleason answered that the low chain fence was installed after the loss of the second boat and trailer from the boat launch parking area. What was happening was that overnight people would go in and hitch up to a boat and drive it over the curb and landscaping on Back Bay Drive. Boats are being left out overnight outside the boat storage area. The boat launch parking is also outside that fenced area. 43 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX Chairperson Selich rescinded that additional condition and suggested another condition that would be that the public walkway system shown on page 29 of the design guidelines shall be connected to Back Bay Drive at two points and that the final plan for the walkway system shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval for conformance to public access requirements and design standards and guidelines of the PC text. Mr. Gleason agreed to this condition. Continuing, Chairperson Selich stated that the last suggested additional condition would be in reference to the bike trail along Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. There appears to be room to place some landscaping between the bike trail and the mobile homes, rather than have all the landscaping on the hotel side. Mr. Gleason agreed to re- construct the bike trail away from the mobile homes to allow landscaping between the two. Mrs. Wood asked if the proposed wording to condition 1 might be more effective if it were instead written into the PC text? You are asking for Planning Commission review of any construction on the entire property, not just Unit 1. The conceptual precise plan deals only with Unit 1, whereas the PC is for the entire property. Mr. Gleason noted the chart on page 8 of the PC text was meant to sketch the approval scenario. The Planning Commission has to see any conceptual precise plan that comes forward. You also have to see any final precise plan that didn't previously have a conceptual precise plan. The only thing lacking is the case such as this, the hotel where the final precise plan wouldn't be brought back to the Planning Commission. Perhaps we should incorporate that the final precise plan in all cases would need to come back to the Planning Commission. This would provide for some substantial review by the Planning Director. The final precise plan is the last round of planning type review. It would be in advance of preparing construction drawings. Chairperson Selich stated that he thought the final precise plan was the final construction documents with working drawings. In the PC text it says that the final precise plan shall include the final engineering necessary to pull building permits. Following discussion, he stated that he had no problems with this conditioned as part of the PC text, if staff feels that is the best way to handle it. His only concern is for review by the Planning Commission. It was agreed to place this in the PC text. Mr. Alford, referencing the handout about richer natural materials, suggested an example be added, '..For example ceramic file may be used for door and window surrounds, wall fountains and stair risers: It is a design element that is fairly common with this architectural style and goes to some of the talk 44 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 regarding detail ornamentation. Additionally, insert in the railing section that, 'the use of ornamental, metal railings should be limited to the smaller decorative balconies: Mr. Gleason stated that we are not sure what we will be doing with the balcony treatments yet. Chairperson Selich asked if there were any objections to incorporating into the previously approved guidelines, the suggestions made by Mr. Alford and my previously suggested Condition 1 to be incorporated into the PC text by the staff? All Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Tucker noted on Exhibit G -1 that: • Condition 10 (renumbered to 21) on the HVAC units should say, shall be located as far as reasonable from the western property line, but not less than 30 feet. If we could incorporate some language so that it will be as far away as possible. • 1 would like to suggest a condition that there be no outdoor amplified music from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. • An additional condition concerning the applicant having the duty to maintain the Bayside parkway. I want this to look nice; I want to make sure that the matericls planted will be taken care of. A condition referencing the revised precise plan submittal March 7, 2000 sheet 9A, the most southerly portion above the conference space where it refers to two -story flat roof will instead become a pitched roof. Commissioner Kranzley noted that: • A condition regarding employee entrance from Back Bay Drive - all employee and delivery traffic shall access the site via Back Bay Drive utilizing the service /emergency road. This would also include any type of set up deliveries. • Include the boat parade exclusion in Condition 4 (renumbred to 11), except from Thanksgiving Day to New Year's Day, but not during the time of the annual Christmas boat parade the maximum number of guests shall be 2,000. • Eliminate any spa membership - primary use of the spa is for hotel guests. • Visual simulations to be included in Condition 2. Commissioner Ashley asked if it was intended that all construction trucks be banned from Bayside Drive. Staff answered that there was no specific direction along those lines. Commissioner Tucker asked if it would be feasible to get construction equipment over to build the timeshare units that will be built in phases after the hotel is done? Mr. Gleason agreed that it would be difficult for the balance of the timeshare 45 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX phasing after hotel construction. It would have to come in off Bayside Drive. I have concerns with the volume coming through the RV park; it is probably more than the normal employee and delivery traffic in that regard. Chairperson Selich stated he is not in favor of requiring all construction come through the RV park, as it is not an appropriate access. They will have to use the public street and come down Bayside Drive. Ms. Temple added that one option would be to suggest that within their final precise plan sufficient information be included on the construction phasing and planning, construction traffic planning. Mr. Gleason noted his agreement with staff suggestion. This will take a little more consideration and we agree to work to minimize the impacts on Bayside Drive. We will come up with a comprehensive plan. Commissioner Kiser added: • Condition 25 (renumbered to 36) - minimum radius should be 38. • Condition 11 (renumbered to 21) regarding HVAC - add a minimum setback of 30 feet and shall be otherwise placed and designed to minimize noise emanating to adjacent properties. I would not like to see a major air conditioning unit close to the homeowners there. • Condition on amplified music - the hours prohibiting the music should be from 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. People should have the right to sleep in. Mr. Gleason clarified that the only time music after 7:00 a.m. was allowed has been during a race. I would agree to the 9:00 a.m. hour condition. Commissioner Ashley noted that music for diners during breakfast hours could be limited by the Noise Ordinance. The hotel will have to keep in mind their own guests. Commissioner Kiser agreed that the suggested hour should remain at 7:00 a.m., as the Noise Ordinance will be in effect. Commissioner Tucker stated that the people who would be disturbed the most are the guests of the hotel. What I did with 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. was to pick up a condition that was set forth in the noise study. We ought to let the operators worry about that themselves, as they will be disturbing more their own guests than people insulated from the noise by the hotel structure. Commissioner Kiser added that for an additional condition on the chain link to be replaced with lower and less visual obtrusive means of providing security for the boat storage and launch area. For example, low posts, etc. but would disappear into the landscape. Mr. Gleason stated that he would have to look at this operationally. 46 • L City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 Mr. Alford stated that part 2 of the design guidelines contains guidelines for walls, fences and screens. This condition could be added to be consistent. Commissioner Kiser stated that this condition regarding chain link fence is to be reinserted to read that the chain link fence shall be replaced along Back Bay Drive with a lower and less visually obtrusive means of providing security for the boat storage area subject to the Planning Commission approval as part of the final precise plan. Mr. Gleason concurred. Staff included by reference condition amendments on 4c (enumbered to 11 c), and 8 (renumbered to 18). Straw vote taken on proposed conditions by Planning Commission and staff in Exhibit G -1. All Commissioners agreed. Prior to taking a vote on the EIR, Chairperson Selich asked counsel if the Planning Commission had met all the CEQA EIR requirements. Ms. Clauson answered that the Planning Commission is reviewing and recommending for consideration to the City Council the draft EIR. The final EIR will be presented to City Council. Commissioner Gifford stated that she was not present at the last two meetings that the Dunes was discussed, however, she has listened to all of the tapes of those meetings. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt Resolution 1518 recommending approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 157 with the findings and recommendations. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt Resolution 1519 recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3F; Local Plan Amendment No. 51, Zoning Code Amendment No. 878, Planned Community District Plan (PC -48), Development Agreement No. 12; and Conceptual Precise Plan for unit one with the findings and conditions listed. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt Resolution 1520 47 INDEX 'I R(- City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 recommending approval of Traffic Study No. 115 INDEX Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Chairperson Selich suggested that a short adjourned meeting be held to discuss all the revisions to conditions that have been voted on tonight prior to City Council. Staff added that the revisions could be transmitted to each of the Commissioners. We can then schedule a meeting for review if anyone of the Commissioners suggested that something was not consistent with their recollection. If all of the commissioners felt they had no questions and that it accurately reflected their understanding of the changes, we would not actually bring it back to a meeting. All Commissioners agreed. EXHIBIT G -1 (attached to Resolution 1519) Approval of this conceptual precise plan is contingent on the adoption of General Plan Amendment 97 -3, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment 51, Zoning Code Amendment 878, Planned Community District Plan 48, Development Agreement 12 by the City Council and the certification of Environmental Impact Report 157 by the City Council and the adoption of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment 51 by the California Coastal Commission. 2. The final precise plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual precise plan, including site plans, floor plans, elevations, visual simulations, and public improvement plans, except as noted below. 3. All future site improvements and activities shall be in conformance with this approval and shall comply with all the mitigation monitoring measures and mitigation monitoring requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Newport Dunes Resort EIR (State Clearing House No. 98061113). In the event of any conflicts, the conditions of this resolution shall prevail. 4. The final precise plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 5. The final precise plan shall include a landscape plan for all the remaining planning units. MR U City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX 6. The final precise plan shall include a construction traffic management plan. 7. The final precise plan shall include public shoreline access plan. The public shoreline access plan shall provide two public access routes connecting the shoreline promenade to Back Bay Drive. 8. The two-story section at the south end of the hotel shall have a pitched roof. The existing chain link fence along Back Bay Drive shall be removed and replaced with a lower, less visually obtrusive, security fence of a design and construction that is consistent with the Design Guidelines. 10. The segment of the bike path that is adjacent to Bayside Village Mobile Home Park shall be relocated to provide a minimum 5 -foot wide landscaped strip between the path and the mobile home park. 11. Catering functions (i.e., those designed to attract primarily non -hotel guests) in the conference center shall be restricted as follows: 0 a. On Fridays (beginning at 5:00 p.m.), Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays from May l,' through Labor Day of each year: 1) The maximum number of catering guests occupying the conference center at any one time shall be 1,500. 2) Functions involving two or more engagers /groups totaling more than one -half of the maximum number of catering guests (750) shall be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart. Functions involving a single engager /group may have a single start /end time. 3) Functions involving no more than one - quarter of the maximum number of guests (375) may be scheduled to start or end during the P.M. weekend traffic peak hour at the intersection of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. 4) The minimum time between functions to be held in any single room during two different time periods is one and one -half hours. 5) The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of four (4) waivers of this condition per calendar year. Waiver requests shall be submitted a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the event and shall be accompanied by a traffic and parking management plan designed to minimize any impacts associated . with the waiver. 49 i / City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX b. On Monday through Friday, except on federal holidays: 1) The maximum number of catering guests occupying the conference center at any one time shall be 1,500, except from Thanksgiving Day to New Year's Day, but not during the time of the annual Christmas Boat Parade, the maximum number shall be 2,000. 2) No catered events in the conference center shall be scheduled to start or end between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., exclusive. 3) No catered events in the conference center shall be scheduled to start or end between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., exclusive. 4) Functions involving two or more engagers /groups totaling more than one -halt of the maximum number of guests (750 or 1,000) shall be scheduled to start or end at least one -halt hour apart. Functions involving a single engager /group may have a single start /end time. 5) The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of twelve (12) waivers of this condition per calendar year. Waiver requests shall be submitted a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the event and shall be accompanied by a traffic and parking management plan designed to minimize any impacts associated with the waiver. c. Should the Coast Highway /Bayside Drive intersection peak traffic hours change, based on actual traffic counts conducted by the Public Works Department, by one -halt hour or more from the existing peak A.M. hour of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. or the existing peak P.M. hour of 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., then the prohibited time periods shall change accordingly to correspond to the new peak hours. The Public Works Department shall notify the applicant of changes in peak hours. Said changes shall not apply to any events scheduled prior to notice of such a determination. d. The applicant shall be required to provide information to prove conformance with this condition semi - annually. The report shall include retrospective information for the preceding six -month reporting period as well as prospective information on all scheduled events subject to this condition for the forthcoming six -month report period. Reports shall be submitted to the Planning Director on RE 0 I� • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX January 31 of each year for the period of July 1 through December 31 of the prior year and on July 31 for the period of January 1 through June 30 of that year. e. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, the applicant may apply to the Planning Commission for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic generation and parking demand statistics. 12. The health club, including fitness and spa facilities, shall not be made available for use by non - guests via sales of memberships or periodic passes. This condition shall not prevent non - guests from use of the spa facilities on an appointment basis. 13. Outdoor amplified music shall not be allowed after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. 14. In determining the project's compliance with the Community Noise Control . Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code), each of the noise level standards specified Section 10.26.025 and Section 10.26.030 shall be reduced by 5 dBA for a simple tone noise such as a whine, screech, or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noise such as hammering or riveting. 15. The applicant shall take appropriate measures to minimize the idling of vehicles at the main hotel entrance, the function area entrance, and at the time - share /marina lobby entrance to minimize noise and exhaust emissions. 16. All employee and delivery traffic shall access the site via Back Bay Drive utilizing the service /emergency road. 17. All employees shall be required to park on the Newport Dunes Resort property. 18. All temporary lighting used during the construction phase shall be designed and located to confine direct rays and glare to the project site. • 19. At the end of construction, the applicant shall wash exterior of the homes in Bayside Village to further reduce the impacts of fugitive dust generated 51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 INDEX during the construction phase. 20. All loading and unloading activities at the westerly side of the structure at ground level shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 21. All heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, including building and parking structure mechanical ventilation equipment, shall be located as far as feasible from residential areas, but not less than 30 feet from the property line, and shall be sited and attenuated to minimize noise impacts to adjacent residential areas. 22. Trash container areas shall be screened, walled, and secured to prevent accidental off -site transport of trash into water bodies. 23. No car washing, changing of oil, or other auto repairs shall be permitted Within the 30 acre Hotel and Time -Share Resort site. Hotel service vehicles and equipment used for maintenance shall be washed at the existing boat wash rack or other locations off the project site. Vehicles shall be serviced at approved maintenance sites, either on -site or off -site. 24. Landscaped areas that utilize fertilizers and pesticides shall be managed in concert with guidelines provided in the Orange County DAMP. 25. Regular litter control and emptying of trash receptacles will be scheduled to minimize debris that would be carried to Upper Newport Bay. The Newport Dunes Resort management shall adhere to refuse management and collection methods that limit wildlife occess by using covered trash containers that cannot be easily overturned or accessed by wildlife. The Newport Dunes Resort management shall promptly control refuse generated by visitors using on -site facilities. 26. Employee training on Best Management Practices shall be provided pursuant to the Newport Dunes Resort EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 27. A water interceptor and catch basin monitoring report shall be prepared by the applicant on an annual basis pursuant to the Newport Dunes Resort EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 28. The applicant shall be responsible for the inspection, implementation, and maintenance of the structural and non - structural BMPs outlined in the final Water Quality Management Plan and SWPPP. 29. On -site roadways and parking lots shall be cleaned on a weekly basis to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system from paved • 52 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 surfaces. 30. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall implement standard contract specifications requiring instructions to be carried out by the construction manager to minimize emissions by heavy equipment. Measures may include but not be limited to: 1) proper maintenance of equipment engines, 2) use of cleaner burning equipment or equipment using alternative fuels, 3) avoidance of idling equipment for extended periods of time, 4) connecting stationary equipment to electrical facilities, and 5) avoidance of unnecessary delays of traffic resulting from blockage of traffic by heavy equipment. 31. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 32. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a grading or building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. . 33. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The time -share and marina area's surface parking lot shall contain one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls consistent with the Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan Design Guidelines. 34. Intersections of private streets and drives shall be designed to provide sight distance in conformance with City of Newport Beach Sight Distance Standard 110 -L. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. Sight distance requirement may be modified at non- crifical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 35. Approval of the Bayside Drive control gate and turn- around is contingent on City Council approval of the vacation of the segment of Bayside Drive from the Bayside Village entrance to the project property line, pursuant to the City Council Policy L -9. 36. The Bayside Drive control gate lanes shall each be a minimum of 14 -feet wide and the turn- around shall have a minimum 38 -foot radius. The final design of the control gate and turn- around shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. • 37. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be 53 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 II:t7i:1 approved by the Public Works Department and the final design shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 38. Bayside Drive shall be reconstructed with curbs, gutters, sidewalk, street lights, and pavement as needed, storm drain and bike trail improvements. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 39. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of landscaping in the Bayside Drive right -ot -way north of Coast Highway. 40. Intersection improvements shall be constructed at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway, including signal modifications as required by the traffic study. 41. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 42. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map /tract map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 43. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 44. Public Works Department plan check and inspection tee shall be paid. 45. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 46. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Bayside Drive right -ot -way. 47. All improvements shall be completed as required according to the traffic study for the Newport Dunes development. 54 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 EXHIBIT E -1 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan - recommended changes to text are Incorporated herein by reference and attached. a.) `ty Council Follow -up - none. b.) Oral re rt from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Develoom tCommittee - none C.) Matters that a PI ing Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - ommissioner Ashley asked for an analysis of the one way streets in Coron el Mar. Also asked for a study to reduce the median strip and provide U -t s at acceptable intersections along PCH, Dove, and Arches to allow for e ination of curb parking. Chairperson Selich asked to amend the MFR distn to require some type of site plan review. d.) Requests for excused absences - none. Y F 5 ADJOURNMENT: 11:55 p.m. LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 55 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 office. Motion was mode missioner Tucker to continue the Boy Knolls item to April 13, 2000 and table the t Coost /Ridge portion as requested by staff. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Tuc Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Boyside Drive and 1131 Bock Boy Drive • General Pion Amendment No. 97 -3 F • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Punned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 • Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 • Conceptual Precise Plan • Final Precise Plan A General Pion Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Pion Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan for the 100 -ocre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet facilities, restaurants, a health club and spo, retail and services areas, and swimming pools and landscaped garden areas. Chairperson Selich stated procedures for this item. Public comment was opened. Robert Gleason, Newport Dunes, 101 North Boyside Drive noted the following: • Letter from Brent Chose (firm that did the computer models and visual simulations) submitted to Planning Commission addressing the accuracy and methodology. • Removed the 511, floor of the hotel as shown by Exhibit on wall. • Maximum guestroom root height is 52 feet; elevator shafts ore at 62 feet. • 17% of the project is now at a tour -story level. • Removal at the third floor at the timeshare units by the bulkhead. High point at those buildings is now 32 feet. • Replaced units removed from the third floor along the bulkhead in the main timeshare building that is set bock opposite the morino center and away from the bulkhead. • We request that the 18 guestroom modules removed from the fifth level be relocated to on area where the health spa was previously located. It does 20 INDEX Item No. 4 Continued to 04/06/2000 0 9 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX not increase the building footprint area and the height of the building with those units is 37 feet. • Spa was relocated towards the back of that building. • We request that the conference space be allowed at 31,000 feet. That allows for one large conference room of 12,000 feet; maintain three separate ballroom facilities in a way that works operationally and maintain adequate breakout space. By relocating some of the uses we are able to reduce the building footprint by about 15,000 square feet. • Overall square footage is 581,000 square feet (17,000 square feet reduction from the prior proposal) which is about 10% more than what was allowed in the Settlement Agreement. • Traffic generation - potential peak hour traffic conflicts related to the conference center and conflicts created by catered businesses. He then proposed the following conditions on the conference center: Summer Weekends: May 1 through Labor Day - Fridays starting at 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. Sundays and holidays. The maximum number of catering guests occupying the Conference Center at any one time shall be 1,500. Functions totaling more than on -half of the maximum number of guests (750) must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart. However, individual events may have a single start /end time. Functions totaling no more than one - quarter of the maximum number of guests (375) may be scheduled to start or end during the P.M. weekend traffic peak hour on Pacific Coast Highway from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The minimum time between functions to be held in any single room during two different time periods is one and one -half hours. Applicant will be required to provide information to prove conformance with this condition as part of the Annual Report due under the Development Agreement. • Enforcement shall be through the Use Permit procedures in the Municipal Code. The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of four waivers of this condition per year; provided, however, that any request for such a waiver must be accompanied by a traffic and parking management plan designed to minimize the impacts associated with the waiver. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, applicant may apply for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic generation and parking demand statistics. Monday through Friday except holidays all year • The maximum number of catering guests occupying the Conference Center at any one time shall be 1,500, provided, however, that from Thanksgiving Day to New Year's day, the maximum shall be 2,000. • No catering events in the conference center will be scheduled to start or end between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (exclusive). 21 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX Functions totaling more than one -half of the maximum number of guests (750) must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart. However, individual events may have a single start/end time. Applicant will be required to provide information to prove conformance with this condition as part of the Annual Report due under the Development Agreement. Enforcement shall be through the Use Permit procedures in the Municipal Code. The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of twelve waivers of this condition per year; provided, however, that any request for such a waiver must be accompanied by a traffic and parking management plan designed to minimize the impacts associated with the waiver. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, applicant may apply for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic generation and parking demand statistics. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the building heights. The third floor of the building with reducing the plate height, could fall under the 38 1/2 -foot limit other than elevator shafts and architectural features? We have asked that the plates be raised for the quality of the rooms. Mr. Gleason answered yes, in theory. However, in areas where the third floor rooms are double loaded with a wider span with a different roof treatment, it could be lower. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted that there are two requests made by the applicant. One is for increased conference space and restoration of 18 rooms. Starting with the conference space, lets start the discussion Commissioner Tucker - adding back the conference space, especially when you look at the size of the hotel versus what was approved under the Settlement Agreement does not make that much difference. It is still a pretty significant decrease from where the applicant started. I am in favor or putting back that conference space. Commissioner Kranzley - stated he would like to defer his comments until after public hearing on this. We are asking the public to comment on the proposed changes that the applicant has presented and I would like to hear that testimony before 1 make my comments. Chairperson Selich noted you don't want to take the straw vote now? He was answered no; he wanted to hear public testimony first. Hearing no objection from the Commission, he deferred straw vote on this issue until public testimony 22 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 was heard. INDEX Chairperson Selich then brought up the Environmental Impact Report for discussion. He noted that the EIR is not meant to be a document to determine an action of approval or denial of the project. It is an information document used by decision - makers in the consideration of a project. To the extent that we make any design changes or decisions, those are interactive with the EIR. We have to comply with all CEQA guidelines. The basic purposes of CEQA and doing an EIR are the following: 1. Inform governmental decision - makers and the public about the potential significant environmental affects of proposed development. 2. Identify the ways any environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. 3. Prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. 4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a government agency approved the project and the manner the agency chose if significant environment affects are involved. 5. When an EIR shows that a project would cause substantial adverse changes in the environment, the government agency must respond to the information by one or more of the following methods: changing the proposed project, imposing conditions on the approval of the project (mitigation measures), adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of projects to avoid the adverse changes, choosing an alternative way of meeting the same need, disapproving the project, finding the changing or altering the project is not feasible, or finding that the unavoidable significant environment damage is acceptable as provided in other areas in the CEQA guidelines. b. CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure. 7. Courts do not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions. but only determine if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. 8. CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced and must not be subverted to an instrument to the oppression and delay of social, economic or recreational development and advancement. Continuing, Chairperson Selich noted that the final EIR that will result from this, will include the revision of the draft EIR; comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, and any other information added by the lead agency. This is a brief overview of what the environmental review process is about and maybe it will help. Looking at the review of the EIR we have seven areas that 23 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX we will look at as highlighted by the Environmental Quality Attairs Committee: => Visual Resources (view impacts) => Noise Lighting (light pollution) Water Quality Air Quality Trattic Parking Visual Resources Commissioner Tucker - noted what he has heard in terms of testimony concerning the visual impacts of the project: • Structures are too massive • Structures will block views from Dover Shores to the south to the Bluffs, Coast Highway and Promontory Point; and portions of the swimming lagoon • Project looms over Dover Shores and Bayside Village • Project sets a bad precedent on the sanctity of views in Newport Beach • Computer simulations that have been generated are misleading and the public may not appreciate the full impact of the project He asked that the Assistant City Attorney talk about how view protections and our ordinances all tit together as well as additional concerns noted by other Commissioners. Ms. Clauson stated that the City does not have any ordinances that deal with private views. The City does try to protect public views, which are also considered in the EIR. Views from residences from Dover Shores are not protected by City Ordinances. It there was a public view as to a park or street, then that would be what the City would typically consider. Commissioner Tucker noted he is trying to make a record of the issues that are identified by public testimony and then for the Commission to come back and deal with those issues. For the integrity of the environmental review that we are doing this is what I am suggesting, that we list issues and then have a discussion of the results of those comments. Commissioner Kranzley noted this was a comprehensive list. Commissioner Ashley stated that there has been nothing presented on how this project, it developed, would so seriously impair current views. This is a separate parcel of ground and not upsetting public views except in particular instances along Coast Highway. When driving along the coast it is hard to see Back Bay so consequently, I don't think public views or private views are something that we need to concern ourselves with anymore. Commissioner Kiser, agreeing with previous comments, added that the key 24 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX element was the reduction of height of the hotel structure and significantly reducing timeshare heights closest to the water. It is a large project, and will be a very significant part of the viewscape in the back bay, but as revised at this point, public views from Coast Highway and down through back bay will be acceptable. The project will change the landscape and hopefully will be pleasant to look at as well in the way of a hotel. He added that the balloon project, regardless of the amount of wind at that period of time, was successful. It gave the project a good indication of where it was and was a great supplement to the modeling that had been done. Chairperson Selich, agreeing with comments made by Commissioner Tucker noted that he had carefully reviewed all the visual simulations that were prepared as part of the initial EIR and all subsequent work. He finds them to be adequate and representative portrayals of the project. Commissioner Tucker noted that with the changes made, the project would not be massive. The views from Dover Shores are not going to be downgraded much; they will be of the hotel instead of Promontory Point, Coast Highway and the Bluffs. As far as looming over Dover Shores and Bayside Village, we have carved back the project to try to stop that from happening. The people from • Bayside Village, no matter how this project is designed are going to be at the 'back of the house'. The applicant, over a series of changes has kept moving the structures away from Bayside Village. That is about as good as it is going to get. The computer simulations, even if I believed Mr. Ohlig's representations, assuming for the minute they were 100% accurate, I would still have the same conclusions concerning the visual impacts. Commissioner Kranzley added that when we started looking at this project, we had a Settlement Agreement that allowed for approximately 530,000 square feet of hotel, restaurant and commercial area. The applicant was proposing a total of 700,000 square feet. The project as proposed by the applicant this evening is now down to 581,000 square feet, which is 9.6% increase over the original Settlement Agreement. I think for those who continue to use the words huge project, massive project, then we would have to say that the original project was massive as well. Talking about the 275 massive project on this site, then lets be fair about it. I think we have the project down, even if we accept the counter proposal by the applicant, we have the project down to within a chip shot of where the Settlement Agreement allowed. I think that the visual impacts are greatly improved by the use of architectural features and the quality of the architects who have worked on this project. We have come a long way. Land Use Commissioner Tucker: Added that land use, which fits in with the visual resources, is one of the CEQA 25 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX items. Comments he heard in public testimony on this were: • Conflicts with existing residential uses • Too close to the Back Bay Ecological Reserve • Too big for the location - already discussed In terms of the conflicts, it really does not conflict anymore than the project under the Settlement Agreement. Noise The next issue is noise. The comments I heard in public testimony were: • Sound travels across water at a louder level than across land. • Parking garages and squeaking tires are going to be a problem, especially for people along Mayflower. • Music will be heard throughout the Back Bay area. • Noise generated by 24 -hour traffic to the hotel. • Timeshare users are party people and they will have bigger units and will make more noise. • Bowl effect with the location of the project that encourages an amplification of sound. • Convention, banquets /conference rooms will be served by heavy trucking and late night traffic with people working on displays. • Marina clubhouse will have unsupervised events and it is already noisy. • The day for baseline noise should have been a less noisy day rather than a crowded summer weekend. • There will be noise generated by jet skis and party crafts. • Technical issues with respect to some of the reports such as which receptors measure the most noise at the worst case, where are they and how should they be measured. Commissioner Kranzley agreed with the listing. Ms. Clauson commented with regards to the noises that relates to studies or any issues in the EIR, that the consultant who dratted the EIR and worked with the noise studies is here for comments or clarification on any of those issues. Additionally, Lieutenant Hennessy from the Police Department is here to answer any questions regarding recent or current noise complaints at the property. Commissioner Kranzley added that what he heard was the noise from the fireworks, but I don't think that will change one way or the other. Commissioner Ashley asked the consultant to speak as he had questions regarding the noise study that was done in the draft EIR. Commissioner Ashley noted that there has been considerable comment that no noise studies were performed that would indicate the actual impact that would occur on Dover Shores, Promontory Point and Castaways residences. It 26 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX seems that most of the noise studies were conducted in the vicinity of the Hyatt Newporter Inn and then some extrapolations were made as to what the impacts would be elsewhere. Could you tell us what actually was done? Steven Ross, LSA, 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine answered as the consultant on the EIR. Mestre Greve Associates prepared the noise analysis for this report; they also did the air quality analysis. The noise analysis was based on what the proposed project is. To gather existing ambient noise information, the noise consultant did a noise meter readings at a couple of locations on the project site adjacent to the areas where the service drive was originally proposed for this project. It was near the current bike lane between Bayside Village development and the proposed project site. That established what the existing noise levels were at those locations. That was not necessary for figuring out what the proposed project was creating because it just established what the noise levels were at those particular locations. The noise analysis is based on modeling, using mathematical calculations about how far sound travels and how much that sound level drops off over a given distance. For those purposes, the analysis assumed that there was no drop off based on textures, vegetation or building that was in the way of that distance. For instance, the comment about noise traveling across the water, there is not much absorption by buildings or vegetation. The study took into account that there would be no absorption by that, it is just the distance from the noise source to the receptor that was used in these calculations. Noise traveling across water might be the worst case scenario but noise levels that might be received by other locations, behind the hotel, would be dampened further by the design of the hotel, topography, etc. As far as noise levels at the Hyatt Newporter, that was used as one example of noise generated by the proposed hotel project going across the swimming lagoon and off in the distance. There were concerns that entertainment or other activities occurring in the court yards of the hotel would generate noise and that noise would be directed through the design of the hotel across the swimming lagoon and towards the Hyatt Newporter. The report says that sound drops as it goes further out. That is why the Hyatt Newporter was mentioned because it is in the direct line of sight. Because there are building walls between those courtyards and the Dover Shores area, those would mitigate noise levels considerably before they read the Dover Shores area. Commissioner Ashley asked if the impact of noise in areas that were not measured if they could be included in the final environmental impact. There is a difference of opinion of how much noise will travel across the bay. It would be well to resolve this issue. Mr. Ross noted that Mestre Greve Associates relative to the Dover Shores concerns did a subsequent analysis. Noise generated by the hotel, timeshare units, and the maximum noise levels and how it travels across the water and . received at Dover Shores. Looking at the worst case scenario, the impact at Dover Shores fell below what the City regulations are. That study is in the 27 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 response to comments reloted to noise. INDEX Commissioner Ashley noted thot the noise ordinonce odopted by the City is strong. Anytime thot there is some obvious and excessive sounds thot would emonote from this project, it could be chonged to Poll within the limits of our ordinonce. The opplicont hos done o good job to buffer the noise thot would offect Boyside Villoge with oll of the improvements proposed there. Choirperson Selich osked for comments on the omphitheoter offect. We hove hod comments thot the noise con be omplified. Stoff onswered thot the bluffs and other feotures octuolly oct os sound obsorption os opposed to o reflector. Mr. Ross onswered thot is onother section thot wos oddressed in response to comments document thot you hove. The noise onolysis looked of noise troveling ocross on obstructed oreo. To hove noise bounce off the bowl shoped cliff oreo os noise trovels, the sound level is reduced and os it bounces off things there is odditionol noise levels reductions. The hills ore mode up of moteriols thot help to absorb sound os it trovels and bounces off the bowl and comes bock, the noise levels will be reduced less thon if it was sound that travel directly to o receptor. Commissioner Kiser stoted thot the scoff report discusses mitigotion meosure 9 -4. Referencing poge 3 he reod, '...in order to insure thot City noise stondords ore not exceeded, Mitigotion Meosure 9 -4 requires thot omplified music be limited to o Leq of 75 dBA when meosured 50 feet distont from the noise source. Thus, it should not be seen os o weokening of City noise stondords, but rother on odditionol meosure designed to insure thot noise stondords ore not exceeded.' I wonder if someone could comment on how the mitigotion meosure interploys with the stondord City's noise ordinonces? Senior Plonner Potrick Alford onswered thot noise meosurements ore token from the offected property, not necessorily of the noise source or o certoin distonce from the noise source. The Hyott being the closest property in the direct line of sight wos used in this cose. It wos determined thot if you hod noise ploying in the functionory courtyord of 75 dBA, by the time it reoched the Hyott Newporter it would come down to the noise stondord for thot oreo. But, os on extro insuronce, they wonted to moke sure thot the noise wos not ployed ony louder thon 75 dBA, thot is why the mitigotion meosure is ploced on the proposed project. This cop does not supplont the noise ordinonce, but refers to noise generoted of the source versus of the odjocent property. Commissioner Kronzley osked scoff if they hod reviewed ony other city ordinonces regording this peok 75 dBA? Mr. Alford onswered thot the 75 dBA is o common stondord. Other communities in the region hove different series of levels in which they could exceed. For exomple, Dono Point hos o time intervol of o holf -hour and then Q] 0 9 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX they have smaller increments within that half -hour. As stated in the staff report, ours is fifteen minutes, and we have the maximum cap. In response to levying a condition that would super impose the Settlement Agreement condition about music as far as sound, he answered that there was no Noise Ordinance in place at that time. Typically what you would see is conditions like that dealing with specific noise sources under certain situations. You could impose conditions regarding the method of measurement tied to the noise ordinance. One of the problems with these earlier conditions is that they do not set forth any methodology. It is uncertain how you would measure that 55 dBA. Ms. Clauson noted that there is a suggestion for a condition that would require the measurement to be reduced by an additional SdBA when the noise source is music or voices. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the concern is the peak at 75 dBA. It appears in the Settlement Agreement that in no event shall amplified music provided by corporation, its lessees exceed 55 dBA when measured at a point 50 feet distance from exterior wall. Commissioner Tucker added that in the noise study itself, there is a noise mitigation measure recommendation that outdoor amplified music should not be allowed after 10:00 p.m. nor before 7:00 a.m. Assuming we adopt that mitigation measure, what we are talking about are those incidents of noise that will happen before 10:00 p.m. Hopefully that would address some of the issues. Captain Paul Hennessy, Patrol Division Commander of the Newport Police Department reported that during the past two years there have been 13 calls to respond to disturbances of the peace. In most of those circumstances, they have all been related to music or noise. Of those 13 calls, we identified two had occurred on the Hyatt premises due to some special event. Two other calls, one was cancelled prior to arrival on the scene and the other one was unfounded. Of the remaining, 8 were permitted events that were occurring at the Dunes and had to do with amplified music or a PA system. In those circumstances when we respond to those calls, because they are permitted. the have City permission to be conducting the activity they are doing. However, at the same time we try to be sensitive of the needs of the community and in an effort to get the offending parties to limit their noise to quieting down, we attempt to do so in a manner in which we ask for their cooperation. Most cases, we get that cooperation. Typically it is a party that is going on and somebody has paid a significant amount of money to have this take place, so we do try to work in consultation and cooperation with those people who are hosting that particular party. In most cases we do get cooperation. Obviously, there are circumstances where if it goes beyond that we do not get the cooperation of the parties and we might take a more high profile approach in terms of dealing with it. None of the cases that I reported on did it resort to that type of enforcement activity to get cooperation. In response to Commission inquiry, Captain Hennessey noted that it appears that 29 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX half of the noises were coming from special events on the Dunes property itself. As you are aware, they have the tent facility that is set up to accommodate events. In terms of the actual complaints, the vast majority did come from the Dover Shores area across the bay from the Dunes area. Chairperson Selich stated that he has reviewed the noise study and he has done this for many years as part of his career. i found this noise study to be within the standards of all the noise studies in terms of methodology and the way it was approached. Two issues that came up during the hearing were the amphitheater affect and the sound traveling across the water. Those issues have been addressed correctly in the analysis. Commissioner Tucker noted that there was going to be noise from the project that could have been built under the Settlement Agreement. As we have heard from the City Attorney's office testify, under the Settlement Agreement, we did not have control on how the project would be designed at all. The steps that have been taken, the requirements that have been laid out strengthen and address the issues of noise as best as it can be addressed. The issues about sound traveling across water, the parking garage and the amphitheater affect and that timeshare users are noisier, I don't see any information there that really has not been addressed in the response to comments. The one question I have is the likelihood of trucking and set ups of the conference rooms. Before we get to that, I think the EQAC letter or questions had some comments about the 9 -foot wall blocking sun and light and cutting off airflow. Since the wall has been moved 30 feet that has been answered. The noise pollution from watercraft rentals could go on today. The only question is how the conference space trucking situation works, what are the types of uses in those rooms? Mr. Gleason answered that the EIR contains a mitigation measure concerning delivery times as from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Our normal operation for deliveries would be morning and mid - afternoon. For the conference center loading in and out, we would expect more tabletop displays as compared to what you would see if you went to a car show. Those are typically not in semi trucks, but rather in 20 -foot trucks, which is typical of our deliveries in general. We could comply with the time restrictions placed. Evening type deliveries, loading in and out would be minimal. The only other real issue there is entertainment. Those tend to come in a van and have their equipment and come and out and will be done at the loading dock and would comply with those times as well. Commissioner Kiser asked about personal watercraft rentals. He was answered that there is currently no intention of providing this. There is a restriction already that there are no motorized craft allowed in the lagoon. Mr. Alford added that this issue was addressed in an earlier staff report. In the PC development plan there are only two areas where equipment rentals are 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April b, 2000 U1110 identified, they are the day use area and the hotel site. There is no motorized vehicles allowed in the lagoon, the only other potential launching sources would be the boat launch area or the marina. Continuing, Mr. Alford noted that the noise assessment identified passed by noise from large trucks as being the main reason for the 9 -foot wall. Since the deliveries are now going through Back Bay Drive and the loading dock has been moved further away and re- oriented, it is possible to not even have that pass by traffic. It is possible that wall could be lowered, but at this point we do not know. Light Pollution Commissioner Tucker noted that he had not made a listing for this subject because the Commission has not heard much about this since the first meeting, which was the comment, no more Fletcher Jones. I just viewed our ordinances in the nature of this project and where the residential area is and I personally did not hear anything that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the issues regarding lighting were adequately covered in the EIR and mitigated in the EIR. There is opportunity for concerned citizens to make sure that the lights are not intrusive. He added that this hotel would have more stringent noise standards than anyplace else in the City. We have added a condition that actually reduces the noise levels that are allowed at this site and I hope that the Noise Ordinance goes in that direction citywide. Commissioner Ashley noted that the provisions added to the PC District plan to ensure that all light and glare would be confined, makes this a non - issue. The City is requiring a lighting plan to be submitted for approval prior to the project itself. Commissioner Kiser added that the hotel is somewhat lower than when the EIR was prepared and to the extent there is any lighting splashing off the building, it will be mitigated. The lighting plan will have the attention it needs. Chairman Selich noted that EQAC brought it up in their letter. They asked for additional studies on the effects of the lighting on surrounding communities of Dover Shores and Bayside Village. That should all be addressed in the lighting plan that is developed. Water Quality Commissioner Tucker noted the following issues: • More impervious materials in parking lots. • Concentrating drainage at the marina bulkhead into the bay. 31 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX Larger rains will not be retained but will overflow into the bay. Addition of fertilizers and pesticides. Commissioner Kranzley agreed with the listing. Commissioner Ashley stated that a Water Quality Management Plan had been prepared for this project. It contains a series of water interceptors structures to make sure that no pollutants enter the bay. Also, a maintenance plan has been created for this project that will include instruction of employees with respect to the maintenance to the landscaping operations, litter control, etc. will prevent any of these items from being a pollutant on site. I am pleased with respect to these plans to ensure that the quality of the water will be such that it would not create a toxic problem in the bay. Commissioner Kiser agreed with previous comments. Chairperson Selich noted that EQAC recommended additional studies on the water quality and the response from the consultant was that the studies were sufficient for the project, and I would agree with that. I would point out that if you look in the Executive Summary, take a look at the mitigation measures, the water quality is probably the most exhaustive treatments given. It certainly has the most in terms of mitigation measures on it. I think it is pretty well covered. Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood added that the Development Agreement has a provision for the applicants to contribute $75,000 to the City to be used for studies or projects to improve water quality or the environment in the upper and lower bay. Commissioner Tucker added that the report and information is adequate and complete on the water quality issues. There is an annual maintenance requirement and under the CEQA requirements there is a report that has to be filed with the City that is an ongoing report. If the City is doing its job, it will make sure that the applicant has to do his job. Air Quality Commissioner Tucker listed the following issues the public raised: • Many more cars and trucks than today. • Idling of cars during crowded conditions will contribute to air pollution. • So called hot spots will be created when a great deal of congestion is in small confined areas. • Buses and vans will contribute to air pollution by bringing in conventioneers and conference attendees. • The air quality degradation based on the existing undeveloped site compared to the built out project will be significant. • The Settlement Agreement should not be used a s a base line. • The construction air quality will be a problem as well. 32 0 ilk City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 Commissioner Kranzley agreed. I?t7:Y1 Commissioner Ashley noted that the assessment of air quality affects that would result from this project, show that there is not going to be any real long -term consequences. There will be short-term problems resulting during the phases of construction as well as from grading operations. Those are going to be mitigated and we could assume that there is going to be some air pollution that results from the creation of the Bayside Drive entry gate where vehicles could queue. I think the issue of air quality has been addressed and mitigated by what has been proposed. Commissioner Kiser agreed with the previous comments. He noted the biggest concern would be during the construction period. The mitigation measures that are required will suffice to take care of those problems to the extent that they can. Chairperson Selich noted that there would be a significant and unavoidable impact as stated in the EIR. There is the cumulative contribution to regional adverse air quality conditions because the project is in a non - attainment area. It is impossible to do any EIR in our area without making that finding. Traffic Commissioner Kiser asked about the March 2000 update of the traffic report. Specifically he asked about the analysis of the Dunes project having to do with the TPO analysis versus the long -range analysis. The critical area of the hotel siting and having access almost entirely off Bayside Drive. The TPO ground counts that form the basis for the analysis do take into consideration not only the existing projects but also all approved projects and the traffic expected to be generated by those. Mr. Edmonton affirmed this, adding that also factored in is regional growth between the date of the count and the time of the analysis, which in this case was 2005. Continuing, Commissioner Kiser asked about the traffic (number of cars) going from the project and onto Coast Highway upon leaving the hotel site versus the cars that are going to be turning left or right onto Coast Highway. The memorandum dated March 15 +h indicates that in TPO analysis versus the long - range analysis, all of those trips were put onto Coast Highway. None of them were put onto Bayside drive. There seemed to be two possible reasons: in the TPO analysis, any amount of traffic less than 5% would be essentially allocated somewhere else. Could you clarify the reasons for the trips being put 100% on the Coast Highway in the TPO analysis? ! Mr. Edmonston answered that the TPO calls for distribution of traffic in 33 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX increments of 576. the purpose for that is so that there isn't a rapid bleed off of traffic of 1 or 2% at every intersection that traffic might come to. It makes it a conservative analysis because it tends to keep a greater percentage of the traffic on the main arterial streets. In this case, that was the primary reason that the traffic was distributed solely to Coast Highway. It is to keep it on the main street and then that traffic is deemed to go through more intersections that get analyzed and therefore there is not the concern that the analysis bleeds off too much traffic before it gets to other potentially critical intersections. Commissioner Kiser noted that he has concerns that the intersection at Bayside Drive and Jamboree being as close as it is to the project could potentially become what is considered to be a critical intersection. It doesn't make the list of critical intersections at this point. Is there any kind of safeguard that is built into the TPO analysis versus the long -range analysis to keep it from becoming a critical intersection if an error has been made? Mr. Edmonston answered that when an intersection is identified such as Jamboree and Bayside that has a very good level of service (A, B, or C) we only count those intersections about every five years because of the unlikelihood that a project would make its level of service approach D. We do count those periodically and they are monitored. In the case of the Bayside and Jamboree intersection, there is not a lot of other development expected in close proximity to that intersection that would cause it to go up. Of the roughly 105 intersections in the City that are signalized, we only keep close tabs on about 55 of those, the others have much lower volume than the main ones and are not likely to need to be analyzed under a TPO study. If a project was to occur in the immediate vicinity of one of those, then we would do an updated count and we would include that in the analysis. This intersection is not that close and with the small amount of traffic that might go across and continue down Bayside it would not be enough to bring that intersection up to a level of concern. Commissioner Kiser then asked about the same areas in regards to the long - range analysis. Referring to the memorandum, it shows that in the case of Bayside Drive south of Coast Highway, the model projects that the Newport Dunes project through traffic would increase by 40 vehicles in the a.m. peak hours and 60 in the p.m. peak hours. The projected volumes on this segment without the project are approximately 750 in the a.m. peak and 1500 in the p.m. peak hours. It concludes the increase from the Dunes project would be less than 5 %. From the perspective of a resident exiting their driveway or a side street, the average number of cars per minute passing by would increase from 13 to 14 in the a.m. peak and from 25 to 26 in the p.m. peak hour. Could you give a sense of how this will be acceptable? Mr. Edmonston answered that those cars are distributed across the four lanes with a certain percentage going eastbound and westbound. The key is one more car in a minute, which by itself, is not a lot of traffic. The numbers are both directions. There is a signal at both Coast Highway and Jamboree, which 34 0 E • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX will create some, breaks in traffic. I am not aware of the City getting complaints from those properties on that segment of Bayside. The current level is about 25 cars per minute in both directions in the p.m. peak hours. The long - range analysis assumes the completion of the City's street system and the full development of every parcel in the City as permitted under the current General Plan. Commissioner Ashley asked about the amount of traffic that could be accommodated by Bayside Drive north of Coast Highway. As a two -lane road, during the a.m. summer hours would be 488 total movements. Over a two hour period of time 488 movements would only be 244 movements per hour. That appears to be a small amount of traffic to be carried by one lane per hour at 25 miles per hour. Mr. Edmonston answered that from a road capacity standpoint that is correct. The City, in terms of the TPO analysis calculations, uses 1600 vehicles per hour per lane as the capacity. Service level D is 90% of that (1400) still substantially greater than what we are talking about here. Also, the daily capacity of a two -lane road is 10,000 to 15,000 trips. • Commissioner Ashley noted that on Bayside Drive above PCH there would be about 4200 vehicles that would be moving south bound in the summer time per day and as many as 3085 moving north bound. That is well below the capacity of Bayside Drive on a daily basis. Mr. Edmonston noted that the numbers included in Table A of the March 15th attachment would indicate that the project as proposed now, would add 3520 trips to what is currently there. When this is added to what the consultant counted on the busiest Saturday from Bayside Village Mobile Home Park and the marina, you are in the 7500 car per day range. Commissioner Ashley stated that the evening peak hour traffic is about 737 vehicles between the hours of 4 and 6 p.m. on southbound trip and northbound would be about 407 vehicles within that peak hour period. I have been most critical of bringing traffic into the project through Bayside Drive, because to allow outsiders to commute to a commercial project through a residential community has bothered me all along. When I found that Back Bay Drive did not work as an access point for this project, and looking at the numbers that are coming in to the resort, I can honestly say that the way in which the applicant has come up with designs to buffer the adverse effects of that traffic is workable. The real problems will be sufficiently mitigated to satisfy me. Chairperson Selich noted that in the EQAC letter of November 15th, they question the 800 trips per day difference on the Chart 5A. Since this letter was written, we have debated this endlessly and I think we've answered that question on the 800 trips as much as it is going to be answered. Some people 35 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX 0 may not like the answer, but it has been adequately explained how it was arrived at and what it means. In looking at the March 23 letter, they question the trip generation rates. Again. I think there has been a lot of discussion over the last six meetings that we have adequately covered that subject and how the trip generation rates and methodology used to arrive at those numbers. Another point that EQAC made was on the alternative sites in the Dunes. Although the EIR was correct in the way it did analyze alternatives, this Commission did elect to look at alternative sites within the Dunes project as more of a planning issue as opposed to an environmental issue. We reached the conclusion that the hotel where it is presently sited is the best place to be situated. They raised the issue of large truck traffic, which has been addressed in the meetings and the testimony we have had. Mr. Edmonston added that there is a table in the study that shows the long - range cumulative effect of the impact on the intersections in the City if this project would be approved along with the Koll. Conexant and others. In the short range, the cumulative effect is included and addressed because we add the traffic of the projects that have been approved, a factor for regional growth, and projects outside the City that are expected to happen. Chairman Selich noted another item brought up by EQAC and that was the • small difference in the trip generation rates between Family Inn and the proposed 600 -room hotel. I think that has been answered, particularly in the letter that Mr. Edmonston wrote on march 15th. Mr. Ross (LSA) added that the response to the EQAC letter regarding fire response across Coast Highway is that there is adequate capacity along PCH for traffic to move through those intersections. At peak hours, some of these intersections do show in the long range, some impacts. However, emergency access across PCH will not be significantly impacted. The Fire Department did not raise any significant concerns about this proposed project. Chairman Selich continued with another concern raised in the EQAC letter, and that was they could not understand how in certain situations traffic could be reduced as a result of the project or certain re- designs of the project. I know that we discussed this in previous meetings, but could you answer that Mr. Edmonston? Mr. Edmonston answered that the model distributes traffic throughout the area that it looks at. It looks at in greater detail the area within the City of Newport Beach and partiality into surrounding cities. It is also tied into the countywide model that the Orange County Transportation Authority runs. When you add a use like a hotel the total number of trips on the street system does not change because the hotel by itself competes for business with similar uses, which are considered retail. So it competes with restaurants, spas, other hotels. Those hotels could be nearby or distant, therefore, the total number of trips is the same but the trips that might be going to Huntington Beach or down on the 36 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX peninsulo would be re- directed to this hotel in the model's ossumptions. It could compete with hotels in porticulorly the Irvine /Costo Meso oreo, the closer they ore physicolly the more the competition the model would ossign them. Commissioner Tucker noted thot one of the issues we need to get into is trip generotion rotes and whot is oppropriote, but reolly getting to the bunching of trips of one time during peok hours. We hove o couple of technicoi motters to go through and decide upon. In o letter doted Jonuory 20th, Defend the boy roised the issue of the number of trips ollocoted in the originol Settlement Agreement and the number of uses thot hove come olong since thot hove token some of those trips. The question is how mony of those trips ore left? The other issue roised by o couple of letters is the proper boseline for troffic. Do we stort from scrotch since there is no project there, or do we stort with the trips in the Settlement Agreement. The lost issue, is Coost Highwoy and Morguerite in the long term still performing of greoter thon .90 or .92? Is it the cose thot if holf of the trips to the hotel were off Bock Boy insteod of the mojority off Boyside thot this intersection would be of .90 or less in the troffic model? Mr. Edmonston onswered thot the project would increose the ICU in the morning of Morguerite and Coost Highwoy from .89 without the project to .92. The onolysis thot wos done resulted in thot conclusion. However, offer the model run we did when the hotel wos reduced to the 470 room proposol, it showed it olso going to .90, but I would wont to do odditionol onolysis before I could onswer thot question. Commissioner Tucker noted thot it wos interesting in the lost go oround it wos thought thot the trips coming in the morning from the south would not moke o difference whether Bock Boy or Boyside wos the entry point. It just goes to illustrote how difficult o job it is and how unusuol troffic models work when you stort projecting out twenty yeors. Wes Pringle, 23421 Southpointe Drive, Suite 190, Loguno Hills stoted his resume. He stoted he hos o degree in civil engineering and hos been doing troffic engineering for forty yeors. He hos worked in city government and os o consultont, most of the time os o consultont. He is registered os o civil os well os o troffic engineer in the Stote of Colifornio and hove done numerous troffic impoct studies. Specificolly in Newport Beoch I hove done them prior to the first TPO. I hove hod my own firm since 1976 until I sold it in Jonuory 2000. 1 hove been octive in the professionol societies os on officer of the locol os well os the internotionol level. I hove served on numerous committees in those orgonizotions. Commissioner Kronzley, referring to Toble I of the EIR, the trip generotion comporison, when you see hotels and you see this comes from on ITE study, whot is the ITE? Where do those numbers come from? 37 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX Mr. Pringle answered that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is a professional society of transportation engineers. Currently they are approaching 20,000 members worldwide in about 90 countries. The majority is in the United States. Part of the organization does generate studies, collects data and publishes various documents that can be used as references by the profession. There are handbooks on traffic engineering, transportation planning and one of the more important things over the years has been a book called Trig Generation. It consists of three volumes and covers a myriad of land uses. It is made up of data that is collected by both consultants and government agencies throughout the United States and other parts of the world by land use categories. Those data are compiled, analyzed statistically and in some cases just an average rate is given. If there is enough statistical data, there are equations provided that best fit a curve that is a plot of the data. It is a resource and there are references as to what the basis for each one of the trip generation rates are. I tried to research the hotel rates specifically; some of the data is relatively old. One of the best sources was a recent one that was one that covered 15 hotels throughout the country and in relatively large suburban activity centers. It was done by the Transportation Research Board, part of the National Academy of Sciences, and that study included data on not only the trip generation in room relationship but it also included the meeting rooms /restaurants /lounges and other such uses. You have seen some of the data from San Diego, which was included in the original EIR, which was one of the sources. One of the other sources was from the Transportation Research Board, there are other minor ones around, but those are the main sources that I have found. Commissioner Kranzley, as an estimate on this ITE 8.92 for hotel, how many hotels would have been included in that to make that average? Mr. Edmonston, referencing the Trip -Generation, answered that the 8.92 was based on four hotels. Some of the information the Mr. Pringle is referring to was added as appendix G to the March traffic study. While the daily rate was based on a fairly small number, the peak hour rates are based on 17 studies in the a.m. and 19 studies that were available in the afternoon. This greater number is because traffic engineers are interested in the peak hour generation, so they can analyze the impact on the street traffic. Mr. Pringle noted that there was only one study done in the early'70's in Hawaii on a resort hotel but the applicability to Newport Dunes was questionable, so we did not use that. The data provided for the 15 hotels was relatively comparable. This is based on what hotels they are, where they are located and what is around them. Commissioner Kiser, referencing Table 1, asked if there were resort hotel rates available? Why is it shown as n/a in that column? Mr. Pringle answered that it is not available for the daily. Traffic engineers are ER-1 0 L_ J L City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX mostly concerned with peak hours and many times do not have data on daily trip generation for various uses because it is not important enough to us to study. In this case, the resort hotel in Hawaii, they did not collect data on the daily rates, the data was collected on the peak hours. The note at the bottom refers to the fact that the peak hour rates are higher, not the daily. Commissioner Kiser, referencing Table I, then asked about the recreational homes at 3.16 as a daily rate. How is the timeshare units used? Is this appropriate for the timeshares that can be locked off for hotel use? We still have a proposed project as 25 of the 75 that could be locked off and could be used as 50 hotel rooms. Mr. Pringle answered that the table illustrates the recreational home trip generation rates if used for the timeshare units. It was rounded and that is why 3.16 times 100 was put in at 300 in the daily. Because of the general lack of concern from a traffic impact standpoint, if you look at the next numbers 100 times .11 is carried all the way across. Those rates were utilized for the timeshares. In the actual study, the hotel rate was used for all of the rooms. However, in the actual analysis the higher rate was used assuming the timeshare units were hotel rooms. Commissioner Kranzley talked about the conference center and how it is going to work. The applicant has proposed two new conditions. The first condition addresses summer weekends. 1. Application: Conference Center at the Newport Dunes. Summer Weekends: May 1 through Labor Day - Fridays starting at 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Catering functions (i.e., those designed to attract primarily off -site guests not staying at the hotel). 2. Restriction on maximum number of guests: The maximum number of caterin guests occupying the Conference Center at any one time shall be 1,500. 3. Restrictions on arrival and departure times: a. Functions totaling more than on -half of the maximum number of guests (750) must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart. [Example: party one has 500 people and Part two has 300 people; together they total 800 guests; this is greater than 750 (one half the maximum); therefore, if party one starts or ends at 6:00 p.m., party two could not start or end until 6:30 p.m.] However, individual events may have a single start /end time. b. Functions totaling no more than one - quarter of the maximum number of guests (375) may be scheduled to start or end during the P.M. weekend traffic peak hour on Pacific Coast Highway from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. [Example: party one has 200 guests and party two has 250 guests; together they total 450 guests; this is greater than 375 therefore, if party one starts or ends during the peak hour, part two must start or end before 3:00 p.m. or at 4:00 p.m. or later]. 4. Restriction on minimum room turn time: The minimum time between functions to be held in any single room during two different time periods is 39 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX one and one -half hours. 5. Enforcement mechanisms: a. Applicant will be required to provide information to prove conformance with this condition as part of the Annual Report due under the Development Agreement. b. Enforcement shall be through the Use Permit procedures in the Municipa Code. 6. Future administration: a. The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of four waivers of this condition per year; provided, however, that any request for such a waiver must be accompanied by a traffic and parking management plan designed to minimize the impacts associated with the waiver. b. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, applicant may apply for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic generation and parking demand statistics. Chairperson Selich asked Mr. Gleason why he needed a different standard under 3b than 3a. Mr. Gleason answered that the idea was that there would be a further restriction during the peak hours specifically, which is what I heard from the testimony and the Commissioners' concerns. This condition was specifically meant to address just the summer weekend issue that had come up about off - site catering traffic potentially conflicting with the recreational weekend peaks. This only addresses weekend peak and catering business and that potential conflict. The second condition that we propose tonight was meant to address weekday peaks in the normal commute time peak hours. 3a would apply at any time of day during this period, so it would apply equally at 6 a.m. at noon at 6:00 p.m. or any other time. 3b is meant specifically to apply only during the peak hour between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Condition two that has been proposed addresses p.m. peak hour periods on Coast highway. 1. Monday through Friday except holidays all year 2. Restriction on maximum number of guests: The maximum number of catering guests occupying the Conference Center at any one time shall be 1,500, provided, however, that from Thanksgiving Day to New Year's day, the maximum shall be 2,000. 3. Restrictions on arrival and departure times: a. No catering events in the conference center will be scheduled to start or end between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (exclusive). b. Functions totaling more than one -half of the maximum number of guests (750) must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart. [Example; party one has 500 people and party two has 300 people; together they total 800 guests; this is greater than 750; therefore, if party one starts or ends at 6:00 p.m., party two could not start or end until 6:30 p.m. 40 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX However, individual events may have a single start /end time. 1. Enforcement mechanisms: a. Applicant will be required to provide information to prove conformance with this condition as part of the Annual Report due under the Development Agreement. b. Enforcement shall be through the Use Permit procedures in the Municipal Code. 2. Future Administration: a. The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of twelve waivers of this condition per year; provided, however, that any request for such a waiver must be accompanied by a traffic and parking management plan designed to minimize the impacts associated with the waiver. b. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, applicant may apply for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic generation and parking demand statistics. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the increase in the maximum from Thanksgiving Day to New Year's Day. I am concerned about boat parade traffic. I understand this is a slow time for the hotel and this is a way to make up revenues during this time period. Mr. Gleason answered that there are two reasons. From an overall traffic generation standpoint, the amount of guestroom business and the associated businesses that goes with that is relatively small and is certainly less than 50 %. That is the time of highest demand for catered events and the idea being to trying to meet the local demand for catered events that it would be appropriate to have a higher maximum number since the mix would be predominately off -site catered events. There would be really no conflict on site for traffic or parking generation from the guestrooms. Commissioner Kiser asked if these mitigation measures were intended to go for parking as well as traffic generation on the City streets. Mr. Gleason clarified that these would be for conditions of approval and not mitigation. The parking would be handled as they conform to the worst case parking analysis that was done under the traffic study in terms of the numbers. They would bear out and enforce those maximum use scenarios. Chairperson Selich asked Mr. Edmonston about the reference to the peak hour as being between 4:30 and 6:00 p.m. If we would adopt a condition such as this would it be better to set a time such as this? Or, in we are looking at the long -term operation of this facility, would it be more appropriate to have it conditioned that the City Traffic Engineer determine the peak hour? Mr. Edmonston answered that a fixed hour would be easier to deal with. If the intent is to ensure that these types of restrictions on the number of attendees 41 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX 9 beginning or ending during peak hour, then an open provision that would require some communication between the City and the project is best. We would typically count that intersection every other year. The count can vary. The count that we did prior to this last count, showed the peak hours 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. and then our most recent count showed that the peak hours moved 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. It does vary a little and each year when we look at intersections, we picked that actual busiest hour. There is no pre- determined peak hour. Chairperson Selich stated that the reason he brought this up was that the City of Santa Barbara approved a similar project at the Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel. They put a condition on their conference facilities that dealt with similar issues. It said, 'that hotel and conference activities shall be scheduled for arrival and departure times at off peak hours. Activities shall be scheduled so that the arrival and departure times do not coincide with arrival and departure times of other activities. The peak hours shall be specified by the Director of Public Works.' Do you think the peak hour would shift dramatically over time? Mr. Edmonston answered that it would not shift significantly. There has not been a recent dramatic shift; it might shift fifteen minutes one way or the other. Commissioner Kranzley asked for specific language that would allow us to go to the operator of the hotel if there was a change in the peak hour and we could adjust this condition. Ms. wood suggested rather than writing the condition for specific hours, just say during the peak hour as found in the City's latest traffic counts. That way it can fluctuate without having to go back and amend the condition or negotiate with the applicant. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston explained that a peak hour is based on a traffic count of fifteen increments. A peak hour is four consecutive fifteen minutes that has the most traffic going through the intersection. Commissioner Kranzley added that we have a condition that encompasses one and one half -hour and was a hard fought deal. I am not willing to give up that half -hour at this point in time. Can we make it a peak hour and a half? Mr. Edmonston answered that the applicant originally had a one -hour period. I suggested that it be stretched a little because of the fact that we had variation in the last count. Commissioner Tucker noted that if the time is going to change, there needs to be some process by which the applicant is advised of the different hours. Something would need to be placed in the mechanism to give fair notice. Chairperson Selich noted that this is something that staff will look at and we will 42 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX be bringing this back when we look at the conference center. Commissioner Tucker stated that this is the proper approach. From all the traffic studies he has read, there really is not a traffic problem other than the issues that come about by the conference center. Reading from a memo from Barry Eaton to Earl McDaniel, EQAC members, said, 1 should state that almost all planners and traffic engineers agree that in general hotels are not the major traffic problems that office buildings and some retail uses are because they spread much of the traffic throughout the daytime and evening hours rather than concentrating it at peak hours when the roadway system is most likely to be at full capacity.' I believe that to be the case and I also believe that the conference facility use is going to cause issues with traffic for this particular use. Attempting to come up with conditions that regulate that really addresses the traffic issue. That is the issue that is out there. Commissioner Kiser asked who Goodwin and Associates were and who chose them as they are referenced in Table 3 in the March report. Mr. Alford answered that initially most of the data came from staff. The Goodwin study was one that dealt with how this project would actually compete in the market and had a lot of information regarding room sizes and number of rooms. We took some of that data as well as data from other sources and compiled it to develop this ranking hotels in the terms of ratio between the number of rooms and the amount of ballrooms and meeting rooms space. We took information from the Goodwin Study and used it as a source of information. Commissioner Kiser noted the differences on Table 1 in the March report and asked how they were put together. Mr. Alford answered that what he was looking for when looking at projects was the ones that were in comparable situations. Ones that were in Southern California and in coastal communities or actually on the waterfront. The information that I contributed to this table had those parameters. Mr. Wes Pringle added that for Table 3, the hotel information was basically what we had available in our office. They information was from studies we had done ourselves or had access to. Commissioner Kiser asked if this ends up being a representative sample similar to what is in the ITE studies? I would like to see something that tells us about how this group of twelve hotels does end up being representative. Particular since six of them show meeting space per hotel room considerably higher than the proposed hotel and the other six all of which were in different studies, actually show it quite a bit lower at the 60.52 level. . Mr. Alford stated that because we did not have a comparison of this 43 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX information tied to trip rates, we went back in our March 9th report and included an attachment which showed similar information with actual trip generation rates and provided a nexus between this data and actual traffic rates. Public comment was opened. Patrick Bartolic, EQAC representatives stated that the issues you have gone through tonight were our concerns and you have addressed many of them. We still have a concern about traffic and did not include several projects that had been approved or in the study process by City Council currently. Because these projects impact Coast Highway traffic, studies need to be made that show the cumulative effects of adding Banning Ranch, Newport Center Expansion, Koll Center Expansion, Conexant and future build out of the coast. It was alluded to by the consultant that those were studied, but in the response to comments their answer to us was, 'The General Plan build out is assumed for background traffic increases with the exception of the Newport Coast development the projects listed in the comment seek to exceed what is currently accounted for in the general plan. As such these projects were not included in the City's traffic analysis. Tonight they said they were. Which is it? You have addressed our concerns of parking, noise, light pollution, and water and air quality. You have scaled back the project and most of our commentary relates to the original proposal. Mr. Alford answered that Newport Coast has already been provided for in the General Plan, so it is not considered a new project. At the time we started the Notice or Preparation, most of the projects mentioned in the EQAC letter were not on file. Recognizing those projects have progressed during this process, we have provided for an additional long- range, cumulative impact analysis in the latest traffic studies. That can be used by the decision - makers. As far as the CEQA process, we held to the projects that were approved or in the works at the time of the notice of preparation, as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. Mrs. Wood added that on the cumulative project analysis for reasonably expected projects, those numbers are overstated because they included the Newport Center project, which has since been withdrawn. They also do not include any traffic mitigation measures that would likely be required of those other projects. So those are the gross traffic numbers from the other projects. The Banning Ranch proposal is less than what is in the General Plan. Mr. Edmonston added that Table 7 in the traffic study lists the projects that were considered committed projects and were included in the traffic phasing ordinance portion of the analysis. Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star stated that he would welcome a final EIR that our consultants can look at. We hope this would have the correct baseline data as noted in our letter. The police can not and do not enforce 44 0 � J 40 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX the noise ordinance. They do go out and enforce disturbing the peace. When we have called them on excessive noise from the Dunes and /or the Hyatt, they go out and try to mitigate the problem. They do not go out, nor should they go out, with any meters to decide if there is any violation of the noise ordinance. When I hear the mitigation measure is that we have a noise ordinance that will be enforced, I have to ask the question, who? We haven't seen that person in our time living on Morning Star. When we have noise inside our rooms of 57dBA, even with double glazed windows at 10:30 at night and the ordinance says 40dBA, who do we go to? We are in a quandary. With regards to the conference space. I believe it is an excessive amount of space compared to other Newport Center hotels. It would be nice if they could be 50% bigger than everybody else, but I don't think we need that or the traffic. Commissioner Kranzley asked when we were having issues with Joe's Crab Shack and Windows, there was some discussion we were going to be hiring additional code enforcement people that would be available in the evening hours to help on nighttime issues. What is the status? Ms. Temple answered that the Planning Department has two full time Code Enforcement personnel that cover the whole City. Clearly not a seven day a week, twenty -four hour a day capability. Both of those persons have the ability to monitor sound with a meter, but we often plan our evening code enforcement hours after we have received a complaint. That way we can hopefully re- create or catch a situation that might be similar. If we do document a violation, we go through the code enforcement procedure, notice of violation and an administration citation. Also, we work with the property owner to make sure they understand the provisions of the noise ordinance. We did request in our supplemental budget for this upcoming year an additional half time person, but to date that has not been on the approved list. Commissioner Kranzley stated that Mr. Folkedal should let the Code Enforcement people know there has been a violation of the noise ordinance. That would alert them to come out and monitor the issues to the extent that they could. Mr. Alford added that the PC text states that if there is evidence that the noise ordinance is being violated, the Planning Director can establish a noise abatement program to address issues of very specific detail. That is currently part of the project as proposed. Mrs. Wood added that we did increase the amount of code enforcement staff from the time you were talking about. We had previously had one full time and one part time person, so we increased the second person to full time. Ms. Temple is referring to a request to add even more staff to keep up with it. I • think that the Dunes as it has been operated is a more difficult activity to do noise ordinance enforcement on then places like Joe's Crab Shack or Windows 45 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 on the Bay had been. That is because there has been no regular activity at the Dunes, it is mostly associated with special events permits. So a complaint of noise one night, that same activity is not going on the following night. INDEX 0 At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple stated that we ask for applications for special events 30 days in advance. A lot of groups do not come in that early and if we can get through the process, we will issue special events permits in as little as two days. These events often go past 10:00 p.m. Mrs. Wood added that in the cases of some restaurants, the Commission has added conditions limiting the number of special event permits that can be issued for a site and even limiting the hours for special events. I believe that when we have a regular activity going on it is much easier to follow up on complaints and take the noise measurements and get the information we need to make enforcement action. I am anticipating that it the hotel were to be approved with regular functions in the ballrooms, those would not be subject to special event permits. They would all be governed by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval that the Commission and the Council would apply. Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower Street stated that her major concern was what would happen in the case that the impacts on Mayflower were unbearable, and you just answered my question. We as individuals would have to call first the police and then the Planning Department. She asked it there was a need for a queuing study for the entrance ramp because of the bunching that was brought up tonight for events with 500 or 600 guests coming to the center. I would like a little more information on the circulation of traffic on the fire access road. There is an exit from the three level parking structure on that road that affects Mayflower as well as all the employees and construction traffic coming in. Pat Greenbaum, Bayside Village noted that she had reviewed the packet that had been provided by the applicant. Referring to page 3, she noted, 'the size of this project and conference center will allow us to compete effectively with other resorts in the Southern California market: Does this mean that I must suffer in my living room because this company wants to compete effectively with other resorts? I am appalled, what a good neighbor! Susan Caustin stated that this is public land and the benefit to the public needs to be greater than the detriment to the public. This conference center is going to be the largest center in Newport Beach, looking at a comparison of other hotels in Newport Beach. The original rational for the conference center at all was to insure that the hotel had economic viability, not necessarily the most profitability it could be. To me, when you talk about 30,000 square feet in excess of any other hotel in the City, you are talking about an applicant that is looking to increase his profits and will be aggressively marketing that conference space to outside groups. We heard him talk about 1500 to 2000 • 46 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX people coming in at a time, that is a tremendous amount of traffic through that area. The public benefit versus the detriment, to me it is not an equitable balance. I sent a letter earlier that talked about the fact that there is no new traffic trips being added from this hotel. When I hear that. I have to ask, where is the benefit from this hotel? If there are no new traffic trips coming in, there is no new revenue coming in either, it is one or the other. Where is the public benefit from the hotel? This is likely to go to a referendum and the public will probably get an opportunity to answer. Take this hotel back down to 275 rooms, which is where I think it belongs. Ayres Boyd, 2541 Crestview Drive spoke on behalf of a special committee of associations otherwise known SCA. They are comprised of eleven homeowner associations, around 2000 houses that surround the Dunes project. It includes: Sea Island, Bayshores, Linda Isle, Castaways, Beacon Bay, Promontory Bay, Cliffhaven, Villa Point, Dover Shores, Little and Big Balboa Islands, Harbor View with more joining weekly. in response to what has been proposed and revised, we felt compelled to organize the associations to study the project on its merits and create and issue a joint position paper. We formed SCA to reach an amiable compromise between homeowners, developer and the City's interests. SCA feels we can support a project given a compromise among those three interests outlined in our position paper. SCA has met weekly to discuss and complete this paper. We will present this paper to you and the developer after all of the associations have an opportunity to pass it by their boards. The SCA is offering their support of the project in return for being including in the planning and design of the project. We would appreciate the Commission and the developer receiving the alternatives put forth by SCA and work with us before approval. Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane asked about the EIR. He expressed his concerns about the data provided the public. He asked what activity would be taken to give those people an accurate impression of the project. The process has been subverted and I request a remedy. When you start talking about thousands of people and their activities that is substantial. Enforcement is a big issue to me. I have documentation of all of my attempts to document the problems and the remedies requested; I have talked to the Police Department. I have numerous emails describing repeatedly the Jazz Series and Dunes events. No action has been taken. The impact is being understated and I am concerned with that. The process is not progressing as it should, we are not really being fair to the public and I am looking for the remedies in that regard. Commissioner Kranzley asked Mr. Ohlig if had an opportunity to meet with the view simulation people. Mr. Ohlig answered that he did, and that their capabilities at this time are • impressive. He feels confident they have the capability to accurately model the height and mass of the project. They also indicated that was the case 47 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 INDEX since February. There are still some aspects about where you chose to view the project from. They have picked views that are obscured by berms, etc. when there are public sites much closer that has a great deal more traffic. I believe that the technology is adequate, it could be employed in a more effective manner to help the public judge the impact of the project. I have a new view for the Greenlight Initiative people to use. Commissioner Tucker stated that Mr. Ohlig has been here week after week. Tonight we went through a list of issues, things that we heard and then we have people get up and make blanket statements about misrepresentations. This testimony is not helpful at all, we have a series of issues and you need to tell us if you think there is anything that we may have missed that we should be covering. Just to get up and criticize everybody accomplishes nothing. The whole purpose of the testimony and what the Chairmen indicated was to get specific. To get up and generally talk, you have already said that you are not going to be in favor of the project no matter what happens. It is still your right to get up and raise specific issues, and we will consider specific issues. We are trying to go through and address those things and we need you get specific about issues. I know you have the capability to get specific because on the issue of views you have been, but I have no idea what else you are talking about. We went through all the visual impacts that we heard people make comments about and we dealt with those issues. That is what the process is all about. You may not agree with our conclusions, but it is incumbent upon us and you to raise the issue specifically. That is what this hearing process is all about. Mr. Ohlig answered that the fact that this is your process does not necessarily provide comfort. This will impact a lot of people. I am concerned about the magnitude of the project and the way it differs from the original Settlement Agreement. I will provide better documentation in terms of the other views and as far as the potential misinformation the public has received, that is not an interest of yours to pursue. But, I will give you proper documentation on my concerns about views, traffic and noise. Commissioner Kranzley noted that we got some numbers tonight that make the proposed hotel less than 10% bigger than the Settlement Agreement square footage of 1988. When we talk about a huge project, then we also now need to talk about the Settlement Agreement as being a huge project. Mr. Ohlig stated that in terms of percentage of height increase and in terms of noise generation, clearly the square footage. But the square footage was out of character of a 275 -room hotel as well. The square footage does not bother me as long as it is not high and noisy and does not generate traffic. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker stated that we have not gotten into the design M7 1] 0 L� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April b, 2000 INDEX guidelines, P C text or the Development Agreement. So the quality of the project is not something that we have been discussing tonight in terms of its construction quality. That is far from an item that has been forgotten. We must have a whole series of things we need to get through and some of those are the CEQA issues. Ms. Clauson added that the Commission is reviewing the draft EIR with the appendices and response to comments that we have received. The project may have changed in the process of the public review period, but it hasn't changed for purposes of CEQA. The environmental document that you have has a project description of a 600 room hotel with the accompanying conference space and that is what has been analyzed and that is what all the appendices and technical reports have analyzed. That is what you are analyzing as far as a disclosure document. Whether the information in it discloses the environmental effects of that project, and it is not going to change as far as the environmental document goes. When the final document goes to the City Council that is what they will consider. If the environmental document is deemed to be adequate, it does not mean that the project has to be approved. A lesser project can be approved after the environmental document has been reviewed and deemed adequate. + Chairperson Selich stated that the last issue was parking. Commissioner Kranzley stated he heard issues regarding the adequacy of parking and that the draft EIR has addressed those issues. Subsequent staff reports have addressed those issues as well. Chairperson Selich stated that the EQAC was concerned about the parking ratios and the way the parking was accounted for in the EIR. The response to comments was not completely understood by EQAC. The response did indicate that as a matter of course parking demand studies are done and deal with shared parking and synergistic uses, and how the parking operates is taken into consideration for this project. Commissioner Kiser noted an item on Table 15 of the March 2000 traffic study, which calculated the number of non - guests using the meeting area would be 628 having to do with parking requirements. Then indicating attachment 2 of the April 6th letter prepared by the Dunes indicates 548 guests instead of the 628. The amount of meeting space in last meeting's proposal and this meeting is 36,000 versus 31,000 square feet and that is about 86% of the prior amount. The number of parking demand 548 and 628 is the same ratio. The numbers do work and I don't find fault with them at this point, Chairperson Selich noted this takes care of the EQAC list. There are some other topics: . Land use • Population and housing 49 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 • Earth resources • Public health and safety • Public services and utilities INDEX Continuing, he referenced Table 13C in the EIR, which is the summary of project impacts and mitigation measures, does anyone have anything to add? Commissioner Tucker asked if all the mitigation measures are listed. Mr. Alford added that there was one not included in the final draft EIR and that dealt with the ceasing of the music after 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Tucker requested that be included. We have heard a little testimony about the effects of the project on the ecological preserve. In going through and doing the alternative analysis we came to the conclusion that it would be more of an impact if we actually moved the hotel to the west side of the lagoon. I am not sure we heard much more about it. We heard a little bit about it in terms of the lighting and that will be handled as part of the process of developing the lighting plan. Chairperson Selich asked if there were any comments on biological researches and cultural scientific resources. Commissioner Tucker asked for responses on traffic (Defend the Bay letter of January 28th), starting point for traffic and baseline (November 15th letter from Barbara Lichman) issues that were brought up in letters we have received. Ms. Clauson stated that in our estimation that letter did not recognize the fact the Settlement Agreement, in the City's estimation, gives vested right for development of the project as outlined in the Settlement Agreement. For purposes of baseline, it is our interpretation of the CEQA law that you can utilize vested entitled projects when making a baseline evaluation. Furthermore, for purposes of disclosure, the environmental document does disclose the current conditions and the increase in traffic over the current conditions. In addition, the TPO is the ordinance that the City uses and has always used for establishment of a threshold of significance under CEQA for determining traffic impacts. The TPO also includes the traffic that is being generated per the entitled project. We disagree with the representations made in that letter for all those reasons. As a disclosure document, the EIR does what it is supposed to do. For determining thresholds of significance, we are permitted to use the existing numbers as the baseline as well as our TPO for determining the level for significant impact. Mr. Edmonston added that the letter quoted a number of trips out of the 1988 Settlement Agreement and then deducted trips from that for other uses that are in existence on the Dunes. They concluded that there were not enough trips left to accommodate the hotel. What may have been left out is that in the Settlement Agreement it says 'new traffic' so it was above and beyond 50 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April b, 2000 INDEX what was on the ground in 19SS. Ihat may have not been tactored into that letter, as I recall it, but I do not have the letter in front of me to verify that. Commissioner Tucker asked for a discussion whether we believe that the EIR is adequate the way it is or, if a re- circulation would be appropriate. Chairperson Selich told the Commission that a straw vote be done on this with the understanding that there will be a formal vote at the time we vote on the entire project when we have all the required findings. Ms. Clauson stated the CEQA requirements for re- circulation. Draft EIR's do not need to be re- circulated unless there are substantial changes to the project or substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that will generate new environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of already identified impacts. It is not enough that the impacts are different, but does the incremental effect of the new action or project change result in impacts that rise to a level of significance. The issue would be if any the project changes that have been described upon evaluation would result in an increased environmental impact. Commissioner Tucker stated that we have received input on this and the response to comments. I believe that we haven't seen any changes or new information from a CEQA standpoint significant that would require a re- circulation. We have been talking about a project that is destined to get smaller than the one in the draft EIR and I think all of the issues raised are nuances to those issues as opposed to the new issues. I would not support a re- circulation of the EIR. I believe there is substantial evidence that it does not merit re- circulation. Commissioners Kranzley, Kiser and Selich agreed with the comments. Chairperson Selich then brought back for discussion the additional conference space that the applicant is requesting to be added along with the suggested conditions that he has put forth. Commissioner Tucker noted that he is in support of the additional conference space. Tonight's discussion clarifies that the real traffic issue has to deal with the proper conditioning how that conference space is used. I am not in a position that the exact language of that condition is okay, but 1 am sure we will end up with language that will address our concerns. Commissioner Kranzley stated that with the understanding we are still working on the conditioning of the conference center, the additional square footage does not bother me as long as the operation does not negatively impact peak hour traffic anymore than the Settlement Agreement. I have to review the proposed conditions, but we are very close. 51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2000 Commissioner Kiser stated that the proposed conditions go a long way in solving a lot of the potential problems with peak hour traffic to the extent that I have had a chance to look at them this evening. The Commission has to be careful with the peak hour traffic. 1 have struggled with the 25,000 versus the 31,000 square foot conference center. I have come to the conclusion that I would not support going to the 31,000 square feet. I have looked at all the numbers on the hotels but the ones that are in our city operate very nicely with the conference space they have. The other consideration is that I have heard from many sources that we really need a larger ballroom to accommodate larger groups. I understand that a 12,000 square foot ballroom would fit that need. It seems there are ways that this can happen. Again, I can not support going from 25,000 to 31,000 square feet because this relates so directly to the peak hour demands. I think the hotel could operate very well with just what the Commission indicated would be acceptable at our last meeting. Chairperson Selich stated that he was the one who suggested the reduction in the hotel space to that specific level at the last meeting. I did it because I was concerned about the peak hour impacts of the off -site catering events. At the time I made the remarks, I really came up with the number to insure that we would have control over that situation. With the conditions that the applicant has proposed to put on the project it has removed my concern. 1 am in support of adding the 6,000 square feet and the conditions that were submitted. My only question on them was whether we allow the peak hour to be determined by the City Transportation Services Manager or whether we set the peak hour in the condition itself. Chairperson Selich then brought back the issue of the 18 rooms. Commissioner Tucker stated that he is in favor of adding the 18 rooms back in. Commissioner Kranzley stated that as they are within 10% of the Settlement Agreement, he is in favor of adding the 18 rooms back in. Commissioner Kiser stated that he is not in favor, as a 452 -room hotel in this particular site can be operated as such. I vote no. Chairperson Selich recapped the 18 rooms are back in and the conference space is acceptable provided that the condition is acceptable to the Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to April 20, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Ashley 52 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 SUBJECT. Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive • General Plan Amendmet No. 97 -3 F • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 • Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 • Conceptual Precise Plan • Final Precise Plan A Generol Pion Amendment, Locol Coostol Progrom Lond Use Pion Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Plonned Community District Pion for the 100 -ocre Newport Dunes property and o conceptuol precise pion for o hotel and time -shore complex with conference, meeting, and bonquet focififies, restouronts, o heolth club and spo, recoil and services oreos, and swimming pools and londscoped gorden oreos. Choirperson Selich noted thot this is the fifth heoring on this project. We will receive odditionol informotion from the scoff, questions from the Commission to the scoff, then the heoring will be opened for the opplicont to present odditionol informotion, and the heoring will be closed for Commission discussion on the project. The Commission's discussion will center on the reviewing the proposed project design and chonges mode by the opplicont and deciding if the Commission wonts to moke ony odditionol chonges beyond those thot hove been proposed. We will then move on the environmentol impoct issues. We will be using the response to comments thot ore in the EIR from the citizens and Environmentol Quolity Affoirs Committee os the bose line of review. We will then re -open the public heoring to ollow comments by the EQAC on the EIR. This is the first time thot we hove hod on EIR formolly reviewed by this committee. We will then review the EQAC comments and responses. We will review the revised troffic study to the extent it is not covered in the environmentol issues. We will finish up with discussion of remoining issues of concern to the Commission or the public roised in previous testimony. The issues of concern ore the convention spoce and operotion, and the Boyside Drive design. Public heoring will be opened and then the Commission will go bock to discussion until 11:00 p.m. Senior Plonner Alford noted o correction to the scoff report on poge 2, under the conference focilities trode show question, the number of squore feet should be 46,000, not 36,000. Mr. Edmonston, Tronsportotion Monoger stoted thot the lotest troffic study shows the long -ronge impoct of the project of the intersection of Coost Highwoy and Morguerite in the morning would increose the ICU from .89 to 19 INDEX Item No. 4 Continued to 04/06/2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 .90. A member of EQAC had identified this os o question. The consultant (Austin -Faust Associates, Inc.) has suggested that o better way to analyze small changes is to take the speeds that are in the model and lack those in. The model will not then be able to adjust those figures. With those speeds lacked in and re- running the model, the impact of the 470 roam project would increase that a.m. ICU from .89 to .92. There would still be on impact os there was with the original project. Chairperson Selich referencing page 3 of the staff report on the discussion of height limits and the interpretations os it refers to the Settlement Agreement, does the City Attorney's office concur with this interpretation? Ms. Clausan answered that she had not checked with staff on haw they did the analysis, but when she was asked about that language, she indicated that the analysis should be done with the City's Zoning Ordinance os it is today and os it was of the time. The concept was that if the applicant would came in and get o permit, they would submit plans that would be reviewed by staff per the agreement. The analysis was done os if the applicant had submitted the plans. Chairperson Selich stated that after all the analysis and calculations were done the conclusion is that the Settlement Agreement permits the peak of the sloped roofs to be 38.5 feet. Ms. Clausan answered that is correct. Public comment was opened. Robert Gleason, 101 North Bayside Drive noted the fallowing: Traffic study - done to comply with updated TPO analysis and downsized project. • Revised proposal of trips is now 3,611, which represents o 25% decrease. • Height - balloons were in place over the weekend. • 83% of the project is within the three story height parameters with 16% of the project of four stories or above. • Planned Community District Plan is the foundation document of everything that is happening and all other approvals. It contains development standards, restriction, conditions, entitlements and procedures for submittals of the precise plans under that document. Those precise plans function like use permits and can be conditioned and called up for review under the provisions of the Municipal Cade. • Additional environmental analysis will be done os part of the final EIR that will be submitted for certification to the City Council. • We have revised our plans in response to the public and Commission's response in o responsible manner. He then recapped all the past responses made to traffic, parking, bulk and scale, view, height, Bayside Village concerns, Dover Shares concerns, etc. through revised visual simulations. He concluded that there has been o lot of 20 INDEX 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 II.T7�1 honest debote over on extended period of time. We ore eoger to porticipote and ore most eoger to move forword. Commissioner Kronzley noted thot in the Settlement Agreement, there is on increose in size on the freestonding restouront, you olso hove the obility to build 12,500 squore feet of restouront oreo within the fomily inn. How does thot compore to the omount of squore footoge thot you ore going to hove in restouront oreo in this use? Mr. Gleoson onswered thot the 12,500 squore feet is ony kind of food or beveroge estoblishment. In this current proposol there is 13,500± squore feet, so it is roughly equivolent to whot wos entitled under the fomily inn scenorio. Choirperson Selich then osked obout the three -story time -shore on the morino front, how mony units ore in the third story? He wos onswered thot in the building olong the bulkheod, there ore 8 units, but it is o double looded corridor, so 4 foce the morino and 4 thot foce bock towords the logoon. Choirperson Selich then stoted thot the next step is to look of the size of the project. There hove been four public heorings and two study sessions with well in excess of 100+ people who hove testified plus scores of foxes, letters and emoils hove been received. We hove onolyzed oil the informotion and ony new informotion is getting slimmer. As o Commission, we hove concurred thot: • Something other thon o 275 room fomily inn is worth pursuing if it con be properly mitigoted • the present locution is the best locution on the site to hove o hotel • occess off Boyside Drive is the most feasible olternotive We hove not reoched o consensus, however, on height, bulk, and size of building. We hove osked the opplicont to moke chonges and they hove done thot. Bolloons hove been put up to focilitote the ossessment of height and still hove not reoched o conclusion on this issue. We con not move forword on this unless we settle on whot the size of the hotel should be. We con not oddress the environmentol issues, the impocts on adjocent properties, and the mitigotion meosures until we decide whot it is we ore trying to mitigote. In my opinion, it is time for use to settle on the size of the project. I put forth this proposol for the Commission's considerotion: I om in support of o lorger hotel thon thot which is opproved in the Settlement Agreement, but only if it is for superior to thot which is permitted under the Settlement Agreement, is of significontly greoter benefit to the entire City thon the presently opproved project and if the impocts of this project upon odlocent and neorby properties con be odequotely mitigoted. If oil thot con not be occomplished, then I con't support the project. Of oil the testimony received, I wos most moved by Mrs. Skinner's testimony of the lost meeting where she soid thot the Settlement Agreement is o controct 21 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX between city government and the citizenry. After the meeting. I re -read the Agreement and I tend to agree with her on that to a point. That Agreement is seventeen years old, its is the result of a settlement that came out of litigation and as anyone knows, settlements that come out of that are not the best. I was not part of the negotiations and do not know what compromises were made, I can only speculate. However. I don't feel that every detail of that agreement is sacred. From my perspective. I tried to evaluate what the spirit of the agreement provides, and I think that is what is important here. Our community is different, economically and socially, than it was seventeen years ago. I believe if the City was in the same spot today as it was then, that the Settlement Agreement would provide for a very different concept than the 275 room family inn. However, to me the spirit is clear. The agreement does not consider this an open space parcel, it is a hotel site, and it says so. That was clearly negotiated. If we were starting from scratch, I would prefer to be some type of aquatic park or some type of natural open space area, but that is not what is on the table here. The agreement says in its spirit, to keep the height and visual intrusion as minimal as possible. The City's history since the early 70's is one of keeping the height limits down adjacent to the bay. Recently we approved the expansion of the Bay Club and kept the tower element of that project to a height of 57 feet, which works out to be 68.5 feet above mean sea level. Furthermore, to me the spirit of the agreement says to keep the traffic under 4,000 cars a day. The Settlement Agreement gave the site rights to that amount of traffic and that has been carried in the City's General Plan and Traffic Model ever since. The spirit of that Agreement tells me to provide maximum access to the bay, lagoon and the beach. This is public trust land and the public has the right to have maximum access to it and the water. To me, these principles in addition to those that exist in our General Plan should be the guidelines that this Commission follows in reviewing this proposal. We need to settle on the size of this project so that we can move on so that we can start to make some decisions on mitigation and conditions, and evaluate the impacts. I propose the following: • Restore the plate heights to the previous level that was initially proposed. That original plate height is needed to keep this a quality structure. • Remove the fifth floor from the hotel structure. This would eliminate 18 rooms. • Reduce the conference space to 30,000 square feet maximum, 25,000 square feet for function and 5,000 for pre- function. • Reduce the maximum number of conference space attendees that was suggested by Mr. Gleason at the last meeting by a proportional amount to the reduction of conference square footage. If the Commission accepts these proposals, or something close to it, I would point out to everyone that it would still be subject to further modifications if we find it necessary to mitigate an impact. However, it would certainly set forth the directions for the rest of the proceedings that this Commission would undertake. How does this proposal meet the criteria I set forth earlier? From the broad public perspective, it keeps the buildings low. The absolute heights 22 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX of the bluffs on the west side of the bay have been stated to be important. However, I look at it from a much broader perspective. From the height of Newport Center to the intersection of Jamboree and Coast Highway down to and across the bay to the bluffs is a grand view of the broad horizon. That is my perspective. Where the portions of this building rise to the height of the bluffs or above it is not important in and of itself. What is important is how this building fits in that grand panorama. It must be low enough that it does not rise up to and unduly block or intrude into the vista. It must also have enough articulation, architectural interest and pleasing proportions in the building profile to enhance that panorama and present itself as a landmark. Since the last meeting I have vacillated between removing the fourth and fifth floors to removing the fifth floor only. I have reviewed all of that and after careful consideration, I can't see removing the fourth floor as it violates the criteria I set forth earlier for architectural interest and proportion. I can go either way on the fifth floor, but since there is so much concern over it, I have included deleting it in my proposal, as I don't think its removal will be fatal to the building design. I also mentioned earlier placing the first level of the parking structure underground. I know it is feasible and I know it is expensive. My final conclusion on that was that it would not significantly improve the aesthetics of the building, and I would rather see the money invested in sinking that level of parking underground go into making the portions of the structure that is visible of the highest quality. If my calculations are right, this would leave the building at 53 feet at the peak of the highest fourth floor element. I did a map and a table on this structure where I identified 87 different points and had the absolute elevation calculated in term of elevation above mean sea level, above the pad elevation as the applicant has proposed and as above the existing in the natural grade. I have made this available to my fellow Commissioners to review as part of their analysis. For their reference, point 54 is what I am referring to as being 53 feet as the highest element in the fourth floor. At the eave points it is 42 feet and it would be 60 feet at the peak of the elevator tower, assuming the elevator tower is reduced proportionally in height when you go from five to four stories. All of these heights I mentioned. are against the finished grade that the applicant has proposed, which is 10 feet above mean sea level. To compare this proposal I am making to the bluffs, consider the following: • Castaways bluffs range from 75 feet to 82.5 feet above mean sea level at the park area and 77.5 to 85.9 feet at the Taylor Woodrow Housing Development. • Coast Highway and Jamboree Road intersection is 82.215 feet. • The hotel would now be 70 feet above mean sea level at its highest point. • This is within 18 inches of the tower that was approved on the Bay Club proje ct. • An imaginary line drawn across the bay from Coast Highway and Jamboree Road intersection to an average elevation of 82 feet on the other side of the bay, the highest point of my proposal would still fall 12 feet short of penetrating that line. • Removing the third story of the time share building adjacent to the marina 23 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 II.GT" will reduce oll of the buildings on the woter frontoge from three story buildings in height to the some two story height thot is permitted in Dover Shores in their homes on the woter. Thus the Dover Shores residents will be looking of two story structures similor in heights to their own. • The three and four story portions of the hotel will be owoy from the woter and recede more into the bockground. Hoving two story structures on the woter mokes o better tronsition from the morino front to the lorger portions of the hotel. • The reduction of the conference spoce brings thot spoce close the typicol conference spoce in similor sized hotels. The conference spoce is necessory for the hotel to sell rooms in the off seoson by hosting conferences. It is olso necessory for locol events. We need odditionol spoce for events for our community. In reviewing hotels in our troffic studies and invesfigoting other hotels, 350 rooms and 30,000 squore feet of conference spoce seems to be obout the overoge number needed for o focility of this noture to operote successfully. • If the opplicont wonts to reploce the lost rooms in the oreo where the conference spoce wos deleted. I do not hove o problem with thot. However. I don't think the building should be increosed to provide these room, os one of the benefits of this building Ioyout is the lorge omount of Iondscope grounds thot it will be providing. Any ottempt to lower the building and spreod the footprint out impinges upon thot ospect of the project. • These reductions bring the hotel to o size thot is lorge enough to be o quolity resort and conference center thot benefits the city overoll and provides for the common good. Yet, it is smoll enough thot the visuol impocts upon odjocent and neorby properties is minimol. Above oll it sits low enough and does not hove o significont impoct obove and beyond thot opproved in the Settlement Agreement on the ponoromo ocross the Bock Boy. I will not support this concept unless we con mitigote the impocts on neorby and odjocent properties. 1 won't support it unless we ore ossured thot the end result is o top quolity hotel thot benefits the City os o whole. If the Commission endorses this concept, or something close to it, I will be looking toword the Development Agreement to ensure thot quolity. Commissioners Tucker and Kiser ore serving on the sub - committee to review the DA and 1 will be looking through it to provide detoil criterio for beyond thot which is in there now. I will be looking for criterio thot will ensure the focility will be o top of the line quolity hotel and looking to provide stricter conditions and monogement plons. All of this is to ensure thot we get the highest quolity, leost impoct project possible for our community if this is opproved. Commissioner Tucker stoted thot the fifth floor element is relotively smoll and is more on orchitecturol projection os opposed to building moss. I prefer to see the fifth floor remoin. 1 concur thot the timeshore buildings olong the bulkheod should be reduced to two stories. I concur with the reduction of 24 11 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 conference space. I would speaty that the 12,000 square toot ballroom stay and therefore the other 12,000 square foot ballroom be reduced to 8,000 square feet. I too have o very strong feeling about this project being one that I can support only if it is better than what is allowed under the Settlement Agreement. If it is not, then there is no need to grant more entitlement. I too will be looking at the quality assurance of the project. We need to have something that is o terrific structure because it is going to be there o long time. For those people who have come and testified week after week and spent their time and energy on expressing their opinions, we have heard what was said. There are some ports of testimony that we get that we have to weight and evaluate and come to o conclusion as to whether it is meritorious. With the reductions along the bulkhead, the legitimate concerns of Mr. Ohlig have been addressed. With the fourth and fifth floors only constituting 16% of the project and with the screening, his issues should be token core of. The residences along Mayflower, unfortunately under every plan that I envision, will be the at the "bock of the house" The question is, is what is being done to that area better than what would be available under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement allows no ability to affect the site plan at all. There is no telling how it would be designed. With the significant increase in the setbacks, it is as good as it is going to get for the people in that particular area. The re- design is well thought out from o noise standpoint and no material change is necessary to address that issue. That is not to soy that there ore not noise issues, only that the location of the structure should not hove to be re- oriented due to noise. We will be looking at operating conditions and restrictions to protect against undue noise and lighting. Massing has been my biggest concern and I think that with o little more change in the timeshare section and o little bit of reduction in ballroom space, that should be adequately addressed. I agree that if the purpose of the ballroom space is to sell rooms, I think 30,000 square feet of ballroom space ought to be able to sell the rooms in this hotel. I am not sure that the purpose of this hotel is to provide ballroom space for other hotels in the area. I concur with the conclusion on the plate heights. I look forward to moving into discussion of the CEQA issues. I am supportive of the Chairman's comments other than the fifth floor issue. Commissioner Kronzley stated that he agrees with the Chairman's comments and agrees that the fifth floor element should be removed. The applicant has hired high quality architects that hove done hotels throughout the country and the world, and I believe that they con make on architecturally stimulating project with four stories. From the beginning, I believed that we could create o project that would be better for the community with the conference center as long as we could determine how the conference center would work. I will not approve the project until we feel comfortable that the trips generated from this hotel will be at least equal to or less than the trips that were established in the Settlement Agreement. I also believe we hove on opportunity to look at the conference center prospectively rather than retrospectively. Very few conferences that I hove been to were planned o 25 II:t7* 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 Irk f7W1 week or two before the conference. Most conferences are planned months or years in advance of the date. I think this will give an opportunity to the City to look at dates in the future where this conference center is operating at areas that approach concern levels and help mitigate those issues prior to the event. Noise has been a concern and it is important that we added a condition for a 5- decibel reduction on certain types of noise to protect the citizens in the surrounding areas from noise that negatively impacts their quality of life. Commissioner Ashley stated that he concurs with the remarks made by the Chairman. He asked if it is the intention, that if the third level was removed from the timeshare project will there be a redistribution of these third floor units? I am still opposed to all of the traffic that this resort project will generate on Bayside Drive. I recognize there is no reasonable alternative to that. Bayside Drive is going to be the major entryway. I would like to see all the timeshare units out of the project. The reason for this is that the timeshares do not make the same contribution to the revenues and income stream to the City as the hotel. A room tax is not applied to timeshare units that are occupied by the owners or by people who are exchanging and staying at a timeshare from another resort project where they own. For that reason, rather than to see a greater reduction in hotel rooms, and leaving the timeshare units as proposed in tact, I would prefer to see the timeshare units go. I think that if we kept the entire project somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 overall units, the hotel would not lose nor become a foreclosure. I don't want to see it so large as to create an inconvenience to traffic and to risk that would cause problems that we could never undo. How important are these timeshares units to the City of Newport Beach in terms of what this project can mean to us? I like the project; it is a quality project. Chairperson Selich explained that his intent was strictly on the height of that structure. If there was room otherwise to re- design within the building bulk and do the 8 units, that would be fine with me. The same goes for the 18 rooms on the fifth floor too. Commissioner Kiser stated that he concurs with almost everything that was said by the Chairman. He noted his concern that the peak hour traffic generated by the conference space usage could cause serious problems. I appreciate traffic studies and intersection studies, but the reality of the development that has occurred in Newport, the traffic on Coast Highway is significantly greater than it was in the past. We have to look very closely at any additional traffic, particularly anywhere near the peak hours going onto Coast Highway. I can support the project with everything that I have seen with the traffic studies as of tonight with the revisions made based on the smaller scale of the project with that amount of conference space. I would propose that the 18 rooms on the fifth floor not be recovered anywhere else in the hotel to reduce it by 18 rooms. We have to remember here, we started with a monstrous hotel in that location. Starting with a 600 -room hotel we 26 0 0 0 -.r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX have come down to a 470 equivalent rooms. I would propose that the 18 rooms be deducted leaving 452 as well as the timeshare units reduced by 25 units leaving 50 timeshare units. it the 25 rooms removed were the ones proposed to be the lock off units, that would effectively remove 50 room count from the hotel as well ending up with a hotel proposal of about 402 rooms. This would get the hotel down towards the size that is closer to the Settlement Agreement amount that was agreed to a number of years ago. The fact that a lot of the boat owners will be using the parking lots behind the proposed timeshare units, would not be a very welcoming or public friendly facade between the parking lot and the slips. The boat owners would have to travel between the timeshare buildings to get out to their boats in the marina. If the 25 units were removed and the buildings separated along that area it would allow more view of the boat slips and easier access to them. By making the buildings somewhat smaller and separated more, it could provide for a more architecturally interesting project. Otherwise, it is an excellent project and I expect that a lot more things will need to be done, but I support this project. We can condition things like motorized watercraft rentals, etc. so that we can take care of some of the potential noise issues and /or eliminate some other concerns. Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood stated that there has not been much discussion on the Development Agreement or the fiscal impact analysis. As they are relevant to some of the comments made by Commissioner Ashley, I would point out a couple of items. The draft of the Development Agreement, to which the applicant has tentatively agreed, was in the February 3Td packet as attachment 2. Beginning on page 15 there is a description of an entitlement fee that would be paid by the timeshare owners. That is to compensate the City for the transient occupancy tax that would not be paid by people who are in the exchange program for timeshares. In addition the TOT would be paid whenever one of those units goes into the nightly rental pool and is treated as a hotel room. The other distinction between hotel and timeshare is that the City would receive higher property tax per unit for timeshare than for a hotel room because the intervals are sold to so many people for a week or two at a time per year. Each one of those has property tax assessed on it. Using our fiscal impact analysis, looking at property tax and TOT per hotel room it would be about $3600 a year and per timeshare unit, it would be a little over $4,000 per year. Chairperson Selich then conducted straw votes: • Restore previous plate heights - all yes • Remove fifth floor from the hotel structure - 4 yes, 1 no • Not be allowed to replace those rooms in other portions of hotel - 3 yes, 2 no • Remove the third floor from the timeshare building that is closest to the marina - all ayes • Reduction of conference space to 30,000 square feet (reduction of conference space 8,000 and 12,000 with 5,000 square feet proportionally 27 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 from pre- function) - not voted on Public comment was opened. INDEX At Commission inquiry, Mr. Gleason stated that the reduction to 25,000 would probably be similar to what we have proposed. He clarified that the proposal as revised included the two 12,000 square feet ballrooms and one 5,000 square foot ballroom and then break out conference space to make up the difference of the square footage. There was also an associated 36,000 square feet of pure meeting space and 10,000 square feet of pre- function. A proportional reduction would be 25,000 and 8,000 to 7,000 square feet on the pre- function space, but that relates more to the layout then anything else. Our preference would be to review what is feasible. Commissioner Tucker noted that we need one larger scale venue that will accommodate larger scale events in our City that seem to find their way to the Hyatt in Irvine. Chairperson Selich agreed and suggested that maybe the way to do it would be 25,000 square feet of functional area with at least one 12,000 square foot room with a proportional reduction in pre- function space. My proposal is based on looking at similar size facilities and how much conference space they need to operate. The purpose of the conference facility is not to make it a convention center but the intent is to have enough conference space to serve community needs and to also provide the ability to sell conference rooms and facilities in the off season. 30,000 square feet seems to be the most common amount for hotels of this size and really translates to 25,000 square feet of function and then if the pre- function fluctuates to 7,000 instead of 5,000 to be proportional that does not particularly bother me. Commissioner Kranzley noted that taking a look at the applicant's proposal for the maximum of people in the conference center which was 1750 divide that into 46,000 square feet it works out to 1 person for every 26 square feet. In the Settlement Agreement, they were allowed to have meeting areas for 400 people. Applying the same proportion, that is about a 10,500 square foot meeting /conference room. They were also allowed to have 5,000 square feet of commercial and a 15,000 square foot restaurant. It seems like we are back within the general confines of what they were allowed in the Settlement Agreement with a 30,000 square foot conference area. Chairperson Selich restated that proposal and continued taking straw votes: Reduce the conference space to approximately 30,000 square feet with a 25,000 square feet of function space with a minimum of a 12,000 square foot ballroom. The remaining space to be allocated by the applicant with the pre- function space to be provided proportional to the overall reduction in meeting space - 4 yes, 1 no O 0 fL_.I 0 � �7 i City of Newport Beach ! Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 Reduce the maximum number of conference space attendees suggested by Mr. Gleason at the last meeting proportional to the amount of the reduction we just voted on for conference space - all yes Remove all of the timeshares Commissioner Tucker expressed his concerns that if we insist that the applicant make this a very high quality project. it costs money and is tantamount to us saying we are going to spend some of their money. When you start removing too much of what the project is. you start to run the risk that the applicant is not going to be able to make the thing pencil properly in order spend the money to make it as nice as possible. I think that with the reduction in the hotel rooms on the fifth floor and the reduction of the room in the timeshares. I don't think we ought to require that all the timeshares be removed. Commissioner Ashley noted that the removal of the timeshares (100 units) was to address the concerns of the citizens who have expressed their concerns of the amount of traffic resulting from this project. This is in a very confined area that is fragile and we need to look at the issue of how much is enough? We have to address the number of timeshare units in the project. Commissioner Tucker commented that the project is subject to the CEQA review. which includes a traffic study. To the extent that we find out that the project. from a traffic standpoint. won't perform. then the inevitable would be the removal of additional units. My comments were design type features: we still have to go through in detail all the traffic issues. I would rather see timeshares gone than hotel rooms gone if I had to make a choice. Commissioner Kiser added he would like to see the timeshares gone completely. He did not intend to make that proposal. nor is he now. I know there is some construction finance ability issues having to do with timeshares inclusion in development projects for hotels. With the reduction of the timeshare buildings to two stories. I think that is taking care of a lot of the concerns. From purely legal issues. whether it is the salability of these realizing they are on the lease land. then I suppose it is really a sub - lease. There is a Master Lease and there would be a timeshare of a sublease position. Ms. Clauson answered that the County of Orange holds the lease. This would be the negotiation with the County. As far as the legal issues of whether the County can lease the property for timeshares. I do not know if we have done that evaluation. that is something the County would do. Chairperson Selich noted he is not in favor of removing timeshares at this time. This concept could be modified if we find that there are environmental impacts or things we could not mitigate. traffic certainly being one of them. To delete them at this point purely on a traffic issue. I can not agree with. • Remove the timeshares totally - 3 no. 2 yes • Remove 25 timeshare units. those being the lock -off units that can be 29 ",I *W.1 I-, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX rented out - 3 no, 2 yes Replace timeshares elsewhere as long as they stay within the building heights - 3 yes, 2 no Chairperson Selich recapped the straw votes: Restore previous plate heights. Remove the fifth floor 18 rooms from the fifth floor can not be relocated elsewhere. • Remove third floor from the timeshare building on the marina front. 8 units removed can be replaced elsewhere as long as they stay within the height limits • Reduce conference space to maximum 25,000 square feet for the functional areas with a 12,000 square foot ballroom and a proportional reduction in the pre- function space. • Maximum number of conference space attendees is reduced by a proportional amount to the reduction in conference space above. Straw vote - all ayes Chairperson Selich stated that the City Council has designated the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee as the body responsible for reviewing environmental impact reports and making recommendations on the adequacies of those documents to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Patrick Bartolic, 620 Iris spoke as a past member of the sub - committee that reviewed the EIR. He is no longer on EQAC. He thanked staff and Commission for their time and effort on the project. He then presented a handout that listed the comments on the EIR, the answers from Responses to comments dated January 28, 2000 and EQAC comments on the responses given. He stated that they looked at the entire environment from the top end of the bay down to the parcel that this project is being built on. It was looked at from the perspective of views, bulk, size, water quality of the bay and noise. We reviewed the California Environmental Act, requirements of mitigation, negative and /or adverse impacts, and adverse impacts of air quality, visual resource, view planes and traffic. EQAC identified all of the above issues in the draft EIR. virtually none of the questions identified were answered or had the underlying impact mitigated in the Response to Comments dated January 28, 2000, and therefore the Response did not make an adequate response to EQAC comments, questions, and requests for information. Therefore, EQAC finds the EIR and Project Impact Mitigation lacking and recommends against accepting the EIR for the Dunes Resort project. Commissioner Tucker asked if, during our detail review of the EIR if we address the issues that you represent in your finding letter, at that point would that be acceptable to EQAC? Under the CEQA guidelines, some of the questions may not have been able to be answered and some may have been. 30 0 CJ 1] City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX Mr. Bortolic answered that the EQAC sub - committee looked at the EIR with the assistance of city staff and we felt these were issues were left unanswered for whatever reason. The EIR is a huge document, however, there is one page that identifies the twelve initial areas that were analyzed. Three of those twelve ore identified as adverse negative impact that could be mitigated, another five areas mentioned significant impact that may or may not be mitigated. Our goal is to soy that we looked at the EIR, we asked for responses, we did not get responses that we hod hoped would allow us to either soy that the EIR should be accepted intact or not. Based on that, the EIR committee felt they could not recommend that the Planning Commission go forward with the project based on the existing EIR, as it is not complete, nor satisfactory. The consultant did not attend any of the meetings. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 East Ocean Boulevard a member of the EQAC committee stated that there is new technology for water quality. One of our concerns is the runoff going into the boy. At the Marblehead project in Son Clemente, (she distributed a copy of a news article), the developers ore putting in underground storage for all runoff. This is relatively new technology and could be applied to this project, which would mean that there would be no runoff going directly into the boy from this project. I would hope that you look at • and discuss this with the developer to see if it could be added to improve the water quality of the boy. Public comment was opened. Jon Artenion, 11 Ocean vista, stated that she was representing the Community Associations of Dover Shores, Sea Island, Harbor Cove, Boyshores, Linda Island, Beacon Boy, Promontory Boy, Balboa Island, Little Bolboo Island, Castaways and Cliff Haven coalition. She stated their support of the hotel project on the leased land. However, based on the size and magnitude of the proposed project, these associations hove come together to form a coalition and draft a position paper that will address the concerns about the impact on the quality of life. We look forward to working with the developers and city staff so that the development will be the greatest development and least negative impact on the associations, which surround it and ultimately on the city as a whole. We respectfully request that you delay approval, until as a coolition, we con be heard. Romano Harris, 300 East Coast Highway #222 thanked the Commission for their time and work on this deliberation. She noted that the decrease in the conference and ballrooms might defeat what we need in the city. We do not wont to be a suburb of Irvine. She stated she sow the balloon displays and compared them to be less than the towers on 171h Street. Barbara Lichmon, 1320 Mariners, attorney for the Dover Shores Community • Association noted it is difficult to give original comments on a project we hove not hod the opportunity to review. In order to approve any project there is 31 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX certoin criterio: • CEQA complionce • Project is consistent with Locol Coostol Pion • The project does not result in conditions or circumstonces thot ore controry to the public heolth, sofety and generol welfore. Despite the downsizing of the property, which is significont, we ore still going to be foced with the some conditions thot gove rise to the noise, some troffic, oir quolity and woter quolity impocts. Nothing done tonight hos oddressed the issue of the noise thot will be creoted by this project with the possible exception of the downsizing of the fimeshores. But they hove not been redesigned to reduce the noise. We will be of the next meeting with specific comments on those issues and we osk you to turn your ottention to CEQA, Coostol Act and the public heolth, sofety and welfore impoct of the project. At Commissioner inquiry, she odded thot the revised noise impoct onolysis in the droft EIR stoted thot the noise wos predicoted on the supposition thot the music from the hotel would not be too loud and it would end of 10:00 p.m. Forties of hotels do not end of 10:00 p.m. and the supposition wos creoted entirely for the purpose of escoping the 10 dBA weighing thot occurs with noise offer 10:00 p.m. This weighing creotes o higher noise impoct offer 10:00 p.m. thon if the some noise occurred during the cloy. If the model stops the noise of 10:00 p.m. it ovoids thot weighing. You con not ossume thot the music will not be too loud. Right now, we hove residents thot ore disturbed by events occurring of the Dunes. Those ossumptions ore not correct. We commented on thot on our comment letter on the droft EIR. Brod Soloto, 98 Lindo Isle noted his support of the project. Mr. Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Stor Lone thonked the Commission for their work. He possed out exhibits and referencing them noted the discreponcies he found in the moteriol. He stoted thot he hos provided some benefit to this discussion. From the lost meeting he noted thot he hod expected some plons to orrive for him so thot he could onolyze them. The simulotions hove not been mode ovoiloble to the public and we ore osked to moke comments on something thot will affect our lives. The bolloons hove helped and the lost poge on my exhibit shows thot they ore higher thon Promontory Point for us. I om groteful for the chonges thot hove been proposed tonight. I om more thon willing to exploin my methodology. At Commission inquiry, he exploined thot the bolloons represent the three -story structure. These photogrophs were token from my bock yord. The Commission thonked him for his work. Choirperson Selich clorified thot oil of the images thot ore ovoiloble to the Plonning Commission, oil of the reports we get hove not been ovoiloble to the public. Is thot whot you ore soying. Mr. Ohlig onswered thot it hos not been possible for him to get down to the Plonning office during the cloy. It hos been 32 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 difficult. INDEX Chairperson Selich then asked the applicant to make available to Mr. Ohlig a copy of all of the diagrams that have been distributed to the Planning Commission. He was answered that could be done, and also that all of the information is and has been on their web site. The consultant will be made available to Mr. Ohlig. Tom Hyans, 217 19th Street talked about visualization of the project. He noted his support of the Dunes and the Settlement Agreement. It was an agreement between the people that was concluded about twelve years ago. The new project hit the table about ten years after it was concluded, about 1998. I went to look at the balloons three times. The first time was from the Castaways; I saw balloons leaning in all directions at the same time. The computer graphics are absolutely impossible to understand. The simplest way to approach the problem is to do an architectural model. He presented a picture of a model done for the Sage Hill School. This seems to be a simple thing for the applicant to do. It would address the concerns of height, scale, location, etc. The picture you saw is on the Green Light web site. This picture was taken from made from a lower location on Coast Highway than what was mentioned in the sight plane noted by the Chairman. Alan Beek, 2007 Highland complimented the way the meeting has been organized. He stated that the EIR has ignored one of the more important alternatives that ought to be considered. The sound could be taken away, the visual impact could be ameliorated and the traffic could be moved over to Back Bay Drive instead of on Bayside Drive by simply moving this project over so that it nestles up against the cliff on the other side of the lagoon. That alternative was brought up and not addressed in the EIR. You may object that there is not room to put the hotel on the side, well that whole lagoon is sand which has been moved around repeatedly by the Shellmaker dredges and a dredge is a cheap way to move sand from one place to another. That alternative should be given major consideration. I point out that this whole thing is a county park. The county has adopted the philosophy that a park is not for the people to enjoy, but a place to make money. The city fought them over what they were doing to our community and we got a negotiated agreement. Your idea of having conventions being brought into town. I don't see how having those in town is going to improve my quality of life at all. Having less traffic is a clear criteria and better if you make it less peak hour traffic. Don't bring in those conventions, that is not an improvement, that is a decrease in our quality of life. Make it better than the Settlement Agreement. At commission inquiry, Mr. Beek stated that the Green Light Initiative speaks to traffic, floor area and to dwelling units. Those are objective criteria. If you make less peak hour traffic, that would be great! 0 Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower stated that she has been at most of the 33 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX meetings. She studied the EIR since 1995 when the Negative Declaration was initiated. The applicant has not shown any pictures from Mayflower. In the Settlement Agreement, none of the RV's were removed, and they do protect the residences on Mayflower by providing a buffer between whatever they want to build and our back doors. f saw the balloons and presented pictures taken from her home and the house next door. They were taken from the level of the bike trail. The balloons were colored to represent the two -story elevation. The parking structure is to be three levels, so the level marked is the top of the second level where the valet parking will be. There will be 308 cars parked for the restaurants. They are very close. She also gave copies of page 26 and 1.7 -17 from the EIR and asked the Commission to address the questions. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Lawhorn stated that the RV area is the standard section of the Dunes Resort. These are the people who come and stay one month at a time usually. They are normally very quiet neighbors. The RV area is approximately 15 feet from her back yard. Chairperson Selich asked under the Settlement Agreement, would they not be able to move the RV spaces around on their area any place they want without discretionary review by the City? Ms. Clauson answered, yes. They are not conditioned as part of the Settlement Agreement to a specific location. If the applicant wants to move them anyplace else, they can do so. Robert Bolen, 265 Mayflower Street stated that almost all of the residents on Mayflower Street have signed petitions opposing this project. Those petitions are in Mr. Alford's office, and I hope you are aware of that. The main concern is our quality of life. To me personally, if that garage were one story with a sound wall that will block the noise, there would not be so much of a problem. I don't think there is anyway to mitigate it as a two -story structure. Tree screens planted to obscure the concrete wall would help. Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star Lane reminded the Commission there were no timeshares in the original Settlement Agreement, He and his neighbors relied on the City's General Plan, the zoning, height ordinance and the Settlement Agreement and when you talk about changing those after the fact, we can not go back and change our investments. For most of us, this is the final investment. I came here to talk about noise. (he distributed a handout) There has been some discussion on our ability to rely on the noise ordinance. Calling the police when there are noise problems at the Dunes, if the police find they have a Special Use Permit, that is all they need to see. The Use Permit specifically says comply with the City Ordinance. The police are not armed with dBA meters, nor am I proposing they should be, It has historically been unsatisfactory. Amplified music outside at any time will not comply with the City Ordinance. 34 0 0 5 i o • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX At Commission inquiry staff stated that they would respond to the 75 dBA and the 55 dBA questions. Susan Caustin asked why the City does not consider a commitment as a commitment? That is why Green Light is in existence now as we do not fell we can trust what has been said in the past to be promulgated through the future. A Use Permit is only as good as the commitment behind it. Once a project is built, there is a tendency to slide into not quite doing things right. if you do put a use permit, I ask that you put one in that will restrict the use of the conference space to only people staying within the hotel. We hear that the conference space has to be in there to maintain the economic viability of the hotel. Yet, we know that a lot of people want to use this space for their own events or projects. This is the most traffic sensitive intersection in the City. So one of the things I ask is a restriction that it can't be used for anything but selling your hotel rooms. (passed out medical conference information). It has been very difficult to get information in a timely fashion. Two meetings ago, I asked for a copy of the actual traffic count that was on the screen. We have asked for copies of the power point presentation, but I am still waiting. 1 never did get the actual outline of the project when I came to pick up information this past Wednesday. That information has been very difficult to obtain. A commitment by the City needs to be carried through, and I ask that you honor the commitment from 1988. Pat Greenbaum, 300 East Coast Highway stated that she had addressed the traffic potential of the conference center and those questions have been answered tonight. I thank you for that. I walk regularly on the new emergency and service road that is the entrance to the lower Back Bay entrance that comes of Jamboree. It is now going to be the entrance for the commercial and employee vehicles. That road is considered an emergency and service road. It passes through the RV stalls on that road and I can not imagine staying in an RV on that road for any length of time. I see that as a white elephant eventually with commercial and 500 some employees coming past those RV's on a daily basis. If that residential affordable housing project goes in at that location, which is the four acres that The Irvine Company owns will be at that entrance, that will be unacceptable to residential housing planned by the Irvine Company. My point is vehicle noise and air quality to those two resident living sites. Melanie Fitch, 108 30th Street stated that the applicant will not let the water quality be bad, the noise level be high or the grounds be less than pleasing because their guests would never return. The Dunes project people are going to be working there, so they will want to have a quality environment to work in. As far as the view, it is difficult if someone can not visualize p balloon that same spatial reasoning person can not visualize a model either. To advocate an expense because it might be clearer, it won't be clear to enough people who can not grasp the balloon idea. People going down Coast Highway should not be looking at vistas and views, they don't drive well on highway 35 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 INDEX already! You should put up all the walls you can! For people to advocate they can see across Dover Shores is not good. The Dunes project will enhance people's property values. The term timeshare is a negative term. It is difficult to distinguish a person that was sitting on the sand who is a timeshare guest from a person sitting on the sand who is a hotel guest. The conference rooms are used as an expansive room. It is not because it is stuffed with people, but it is because you can see things better and you keep it roomy. Usually the guest speakers are at lunch times and wedding reception attendees do not all leave at the same time. During conferences, they break into small groups and dissipate at different times. It is important to watch this unique development and an opportunity to have the large ballrooms. Jennifer Frutig, 1715 Marlin Way asked about the revised traffic study. The 1988 Settlement states that it allows for 308 trips in p.m. peak hours. There is a Table 5 regarding catered events provided by the Evans Hotel chain that showed, based on a 17,500 square foot conference area, that 610 - 619 peak number of attendees for a specific period on Saturday evening in August. Based on this table, a 30,000 square foot conference area would result in approximately 1,000 peak number of attendees. How do you reconcile this data with the Settlement and is this factored into the number of peak hour trips that would significantly impact the intersection of Bayside and PCH? I admit, I have trouble understanding some of these tables, even with a PHD. How do they apply to the original Settlement? Dan Purcell, 600 Acacia Avenue commended the statements made by the Chairperson. He noted his concern about limiting the audience participation stating it is bad public relations if people can not get up and speak their minds. If you limit, it should be done in advance. Commissioner Kranzley stated for the record, that there will be additional public hearings and the public will be given the opportunity to speak. I was never going to shut off public testimony; I was merely trying to organize a little bit of tonight's presentation. Ed Fitch, 602 Kings Road stated that his house overlooks the Dunes and Coast Highway and has no problem with the project with its original heights. I support this project. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich invited the visual consultant for the Dunes and asked him to explain the methodology used to develop the visual simulations. Particularly to the issue of viewpoint used, how high or close? Brent Chase, President of Headrick Chase and Associates, San Juan Capistrano explained the following: • Completely analyzed this project due to the redesign and Mr. Ohlig's input. 36 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 • That entailed complete 3D remodeling of the structure in the computer of the revised design in Alternative 1. • We went out with a GPS unit that allows us to stand in a spot and within 20 seconds will give us real coordinates in the world to about a third of a meter accuracy. • We went back to the original photographic sites and got those coordinates for the view at the same viewers height. • All the modeling done was by the same viewer from the Castaways, the private residences, and the lagoon beach. • The height above ground was approximately 5 foot 6 inches. • The original photo locations were verified as well as palm trees, the existing buildings, roadways, gatehouses, curb edges, the GPS was used to gather all that information to get stationary points to lock the computer model to. • That is the way the balloons were analyzed. They were placed in the computer model at the points specified as ridges and eave lines, etc. and we joined the balloon locations with the GPA information, we put balloons into the photography two days before they were out on site. I went out on Saturday morning after they were first put up and had a photograph that showed the balloons installed and our computer files that showed where the balloons should be. They compared to almost 100% accuracy. • • It was a great opportunity for the applicant to show the accuracy of what we were doing, because the model forecasted where the balloons would be. • This is a differential GPS unit that takes coordinates from eight satellites. Three satellites give the on the ground location, four satellites give the up and down, and with the full complement of eight, it is able to continue to verify and give that much more information to you to triangulate your position. • It does not give it to you right away, you have to take it back to the office, download information from another resource and the computer processes that information and puts it down into an X, Y and Z, which is the height. Because there are 10 to 15 view points or palms in that view, when the model dropped onto the photograph and a palm that is on the left, and a palm on the right side and a building that is way on the back that may by up on the road, if all those things from the computer model tie in, all those things triangulate the computer model into the space. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the applicant is going to agree to a condition of his Use Permit that states that an image like this will replicate the building they are going to build. If Mr. Ohlig's pictures are dramatically different than your pictures and his are correct, somebody is going to have to get a saw and start cutting. Mr. Chase stated that the representative Alternative 1 design and the location of the balloons in the model when those balloons are in a picture out on site • from actually being flown and we have another image that represents the balloons where the computer model says they are and they lay on top of 37 INDEX ?c�r� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 each other without fail, that is as accurate as we can get. It is proof positive. I think Mr. Ohlig found a few errors in the original model that was done. However, with this new technology, we have nailed it down. I have invited him down to our office to explain our methodology and explain how it works, but he did not take me up on the offer. Commissioner Ashley asked if it makes a difference on the size lens that was used? Some of the pictures appear as though a wide -angle lens was used. Mr. Chase answered that he has used a panoramic lens across the board. There may have been some detail shots taken out of those. We utilize one camera with a fixed lens. It is real important, as the computer model needs to have that information. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked staff if it was feasible to retain a third party to do an independent evaluation of their model visual simulations. He was answered yes. Commissioner Tucker stated that he has no problem visualizing what a 50/65 - foot high building will look like in terms of height. The bigger issue is the feel for the mass of the structure. It seems like we have spent too much time on this issue. Commissioners Ashley and Kiser concurred with comments made by Commissioner Tucker. Chairperson Selich noted that he would not ask this to be done. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to April 6, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford Ms Tem fated that the request for a continuance for the Rothschild's matter asked f651 aring on April 20th. Motion for reconsideration was m2rde`y Commissioner Kranzley. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tu Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford 0 INDEX 1] • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX 9. The'Plarining Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Petmit.or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or., is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 10. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within.24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. OBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership Item No. 3 101 North Bayside Drive and Discussion Item Only 1131 Back Bay Drive Continued to • General Plan Amendmet No. 97 -3 F 02/03/2000 • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 Conceptual Precise Plan • Final Precise Plan A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and swimming pools and landscaped garden areas. Chairperson Selich noted that this is the fourth hearing on this project. He explained that there will be additional information from staff, Planning Commission inquiries, and then public hearing will be opened to allow the applicant to present additional information then the hearing will be closed for Commission discussion. The project review design changes, effectiveness of balloon experiment, revised traffic study based on design changes. Then there will be discussion of items of concern to commissioners and public testimony. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he received the traffic study Tuesday evening of this week. Neither he nor anyone in the public had the opportunity to review the document and suggested that it would not be constructive to begin discussion or to have public comment on the revised traffic study until . the public and Commissioners have had the time to review it. 1_ r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Commissioner Kiser suggested that for those Commissioners who had the time to review it should talk about some of the issues of concern to allow time for revision or addendum. Commissioner Tucker agreeing with previous comments, noted that there are a lot of issues and questions on the topic of traffic and is highest priority. Commissioner Fuller agreed with comments made by Commissioner Kranzley. Commissioner Gifford noted that she spent the majority of her time on the traffic study as she thought that would be the topic of tonight's discussion. Commissioner Ashley noted that we should give the opportunity for Commissioner Kranzley and the public to review and comment at the next meeting. Chairperson Selich noted that he would like to start the discussion, as it would be beneficial for the consultant to give an overview of the subject and to make as much progress as possible. It will be a continuing item of discussion. Commissioner Ashley asked staff to explain the raised intersection at Bayside Drive and Bayside village entrance that will slow traffic and increase pedestrian safety. Mr. Alford noted that the raised intersection is essentially a speed bump across the entire intersection. The idea is to create more visibility for pedestrians crossing the road and has the effect of slowing traffic as it comes across it. This could be enhanced by providing additional paving treatments, which have been shown to slow down traffic to a certain extent. Also some concrete or similar constructed bollards along each corner of the intersection could provide additional pedestrian safety. The main goal is to provide increased safety for the pedestrian and to slow down traffic at that intersection. The raised intersection is a good alternative, as it does not have the stacking problems that could occur with the proposed gate -house with the associated impacts on air quality and noise. Commissioner Ashley then noted that in the Traffic Study it is proposed by the consultant to have a 4 way stop sign there. Would this be eliminated with the speed bumps at the intersection? Mr. Rich Edmonston answered that was the original recommendation for that intersection and if has stayed in the report even in light of the proposed gated entrance. The advantage of the raised intersection is that with a stop sign it would require traffic to stop and start causing additional noise and air pollution. The speed bump would require a gentler flowing and hopefully acceleration away from it. If the raised intersection proved to be inadequate. INDEX • 0 is A /. CI • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX it would be relatively easy to add stop signs to it at a later date. The design with the bollards can create a more confined feeling and make it more obvious to the motorists that there is an intersection. If you come along Bayside Drive, prior to the intersection it would ramp up and the whole intersection will be raised and the crosswalks will be on that raised portion. The concept is to include at least one cross walk on Bayside at that location. The ramping up will be severe enough that drivers will want to slow down and it highlights the point where the intersection is. Pedestrian crossing warning signs can also be provided at that location. There is a pedestrian tunnel that goes under the road at that some location for people who might not want to use the crosswalk. The crossing distance is also narrowed. The closest example of this type of crossing is in the Boyshores Community. It is not an entire intersection, but it ramps up, levels and then ramps down. Chairperson Selich asked for and received clarification from staff about the Settlement Agreement: • Is it true that under the Settlement Agreement a set of plans for 275 -room project as outlined met all the criteria in that Settlement Agreement, would they be able to file plans with the Building Department and not have to go through any discretionary approval? - True, Ms. Clauson answered. The City has always considered the Settlement Agreement to be all the authorization that is needed. • In the Settlement Agreement, there is an illustrated site plan as an exhibit. It is my understanding that is just an illustrative site plan. As long as they meet all the criteria in terms of the number of rooms and the square footage, etc. from where the existing recreational vehicle area ends all the way to the Marina bulkhead, that they can come in and create any type of design they want. As long as it meets the Uniform Building and Safety Codes and other City ordinances, the applicant can file that plan with the City for approval without any type of review. Ms. Clauson answered that the agreement does have some limiting language to it, the placement points on the exhibit are illustrative only and are not limiting. • If they had no need for discretionary approval from the City to do any project at all, there is no additional environmental review required? Ms. Clauson answered, you are correct. • If there was no environmental review, we would have no ability to condition the project for noise impact, lighting and traffic impacts? Ms. Clauson answered yes, that is true. Commissioner Gifford asked if this was a real possibility? Her understanding has been that because of the change in economic conditions, that type of project would no longer be financially feasible. Chairperson Selich answered that he was affirming the baseline that the project is being compared to. The review that Commissioner Tucker went . through with Ms. Clauson on the Settlement Agreement I wanted to make sure that it met with the provisions of the Zoning Code, which says that if a project 09 ? -'n City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 of this nature was done, you would still have to get a Use Permit. I was under the impression that in meeting the criteria of the Settlement Agreement, they would have to get a Use Permit, which would allow the Planning Commission to put conditions on i1. Since the last meeting, I found out that my understanding on that was incorrect. The financial feasibility relates to the applicant rather than to the project. Commissioner Tucker stated that his understanding is when you go through litigation, you negotiate a settlement. You do not allow the party on the other side with whom you have settled to then have the ability to deny what was agreed to when you went though the effort to come up with the settlement. We have more control over the design of this project because changes to the Settlement Agreement are being requested. A project built under The Settlement Agreement could be almost anything. Public comment was opened. Robert Gleason, Newport Dunes, 101 North Bayside Drive addressed the Commission noting the accuracy of the visual simulations. We have gone through these results and the credibility of the firm that has produced these visual images; methodology and technology have never been challenged or proven incorrect. Issues that we have had with the visual simulations have had to do with plans, which is why we have gone through very carefully over the last three weeks. We have remodeled the project, and re- positioned all the points to assure the accuracy. The overall result of that is that the photo simulations are accurate and in fact they are slightly lower than the ones you have seen before because the pad was a little bit too high. He then proceeded to present slides on the updated simulations of the new model from the points at which they have been taken for the EIR. Mr. Gleason then presented a comparison of hotel room counts. The number being used for the Marriott Suites at the Back Bay is 250 rooms as opposed to the Marriott in Newport Center, at 570 rooms. He then presented a slide detailing the square footage reductions which ranged: • Hotel - original square footage 500,000, revised square footage is 438,000 • Timeshare - original square footage 200,000, revised square footage is 160,000 • Total original square footage of 700,000 is now proposed to be 598,000. The presentation proceeded to show site plan alternatives versus the original plan. Height marker plan (balloons): • Tool - to use with the visual simulations to get a better idea on the height and scale of the project and verification of accuracy. • 23 marker points were set out which marked each of the building extremities as well as every single level of each building wing. INDEX 0 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 • Those points were then charted and located by a licensed civil engineer and a dimension was given that would represent the finished height of the structure. • A new set of visual simulations was then created from those same points showing the exact balloon locations and colors with the project model ghosted on top. Red represents 2 story elements, green represents the 3 story elements, yellow represents the 4 story elements and blue represents 5 story elements. • Conducted on -site media briefing, press release and coverage in the Register and the Daily Pilot, KNX Radio and OCN as well as in the LITE. Additionally, this information has been available on the web site. Since Friday night, there have been about 225 to 250 hits in that area. • Balloons themselves are great advertising. They are larger and more colorful and we have received numerous calls both pro and con. • Field report and photographs verify the accuracy and overall scale of the project. • Balloons will continue to fly through Sunday, March 121h. • We are willing to certify that the project, upon completion, will match the visual simulations that have been presented as part of the precise plan. Conference facility uses: • Functions during the year as a way to sell guest rooms. • Most of the use is by hotel guests. • Catering refers to anything generated from off site business; weddings, seminars and /or day meetings. • When guestrooms and the conference center are occupied by different groups then there is a potential for conflicts particularly during the summer time. • Resources are managed carefully to serve all segments of the business. • We have updated these numbers for the 1999 summer period because of the concern that there was not recent enough information and the Commission has asked for peak day use. • Referencing the charts, he noted Saturdays with a 600 -620 person range from May 1 through Labor Day 1999. • There are two main ballrooms and a junior ballroom. The main ballroom for a plated dinner /dance nets 575 people. The junior ballroom for a plated dinner /dance nets 290 people, which works out to about 1 person for every 20 square feet. Conference impacts: • Traffic - functions take place principally between two times, 12 noon to 5 p.m. or from 6:30 p.m. on. The time in between is used to set up for a different function if two are happening in a room on the same day. • PCH peak hour traffic on the weekends basically occurs between about 3 . and 4 p.m. using actual city counts on Saturdays and Sundays in August. Bayside Drive both north and south are impacted and PCH towards Dover 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX and Jamboree. • Arrival times for group functions are not generally occurring during these peak times. (referencing slide presentation) • Parking - Traffic Study was revised to incorporate the new numbers that are larger than the numbers shown previously. The project still has ample parking even if the worst case should happen due to an increase of spaces that occurred during the downsizing of the overall project. • We are proposing the following condition on the conference center space: Catering business May 1 through Labor Day, Friday evening through Sunday, maximum number of guests would be 1,750. (less than 1 person for every 20 square feet) • An additional condition to smooth out the arrival and departure traffic would be that no more than one half of the maximum number of guests may arrive within half an hour of each other; and, no more than a quarter of the maximum number of guests may arrive /depart during peak hour (3- 4 p.m.). • The minimum turn time in any room is one and one half- hours. • Enforcement of these proposed conditions could be required as part of the annual report under the Development Agreement and the Use Permit provisions of the Municipal Code. • Administration - City Manager waiver (maximum 6 times per year) and the ability to petition for modification based on operating history and actual statistics. Commissioner Fuller asked about: Conference Center use for catering functions will be lower for the summer months than other periods of the year - Mr. Gleason answered that the idea is that the overall occupancy of the conference center during the summer periods is less thon during the other nine months of the year. During those periods, that use is largely if not entirely group related business, i.e., staying at the hotel or other hotels and being bussed to the property. Although the actual number of occupancy may be higher in the winter time, it is the conflict that is created by off -site catering business coming to the project and leisure business not associated with that catering business that requires the lower use of conference facilities in the summer. The off -site catering business during the summer is substantially more. Commissioner Ashley noted that the first level will be 10 feet high and that the succeeding levels 2 -5 will be 9 feet 6 inches high. Levels 2 -5 represents 38 1/2 feet height, he then asked about the Settlement Agreement that permits a building not to exceed 38 1/2 feet high. Is that from present grade which is at 12 feet or is that at sea level which is 12 feet below? Exclusive of the towers, you are asking for about 10 feet more height than the Settlement Agreement entitles. Mr. Gleason answered that it is not specifically set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The 38 1/2 feet is from grade, but grade is not defined as either 13 0 0 0 J7 � • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX existing grade or an artificial grade. The Municipal Code allows the establishment of that grade but that was not done in this case. The presumption would be from the center of the plot of ground on which we would be building upon. That center point is somewhere between 12 and 15 feet high which would make it 50 feet high from mean sea level. Depending on how the roofs over that are, which could make it 6, 8 or 10 feet. Commissioner Tucker talked about the floor plates. He stated that the four feet being gained was not worth reducing the grandeur of the structure. Is the Dunes set on this 10 foot, 9 1/2 or are the 12, 10 foot floor plates still a possibility? I think that you don't want to have a structure that is not competitive and does not have the same feel as other facilities in other locations. Mr. Gleason answered that when we re- evaluated everything associated with height in the project it was with the idea that what we would propose would be something that works for us in addition to reducing the height. We like to ask for 10 feet as 9 feet does not work for us but 9 1/2 does work. As far as 10 feet on the first floor then 9 1/2, the public areas of the hotel are each two levels in height. The loss in those areas is not significant enough from an . architectural stand point. We have presented the revised plans and height markers based on these calculations and compressed floor plates. Chairperson Selich asked for a recap on the square footage of the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Gleason answered that the Settlement Agreement allows as the overall project: • 500,000 square feet family inn portion • 15,000 square feet freestanding restaurant (net public area) with a load factor for back of house may be as much as 20,000 to 25,000 gross square feet. • 5,000 square feet of office and commercial space • Total for all those uses would be about 530,000 square feet beyond the existing uses. • 598,000 square feet is proposed now. • At the time this Agreement was negotiated it was done without a hard plan. When the City challenged the EIR and they got into discussions, it was more of a general bubble diagram land use planning discussion. The plan that everyone has seen that was in the EIR was the plan that was eventually approved under the Coastal Development Permit by the Coastal Commission in 1984. This was done subsequent to the Settlement Agreement negotiations and executions. That plan encompassed approximately 300,000 square feet. • Conference Center operational conditions: • Maximum occupancy of 1750 applies specifically to offsite catering. 14 L �'r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX • 1750 maximum guests would represent use of all the rooms which represents 1 person for every 20 square feet. Commissioner Kiser asked about the square footage reductions. The net 598,000 total proposed square footage includes all of the retail, restaurant and health club. Mr. Gleason confirmed that includes everything and could be used to compare to the 500,000 square foot family inn portion only. Public comment was closed. Discussion by the Planning Commission on the proposed design changes: Commissioner Tucker - The applicant has attempted to address a lot of the concerns. My biggest concern with this project was it fitting on the site and is still a significant facility. As compared to what the Settlement Agreement allows for and the complete lack of control on the quality of anything that would be built under the Settlement Agreement, overall the design features look good. We need to move on and talk about specific issues that people have raised to see it if stands up to the scrutiny that is required of us under the CEQA guidelines. Commissioner Kranzley - had visited the site three times and has yet to see the balloons in their full glory. Before I make any comments I would like to see them and hope that the applicant takes into consideration keeping the balloons if we continue to have inclement weather. The Planning Commission needs to spend time on the height and bulk issues of the buildings. Commissioner Gifford - Important to preserve the good look and architectural feel of what goes in there. I also need more time to look at the balloons, as I have not seen them in good weather. Commissioner Ashley - The design and impact concerns of the hotel in this fragile environment have been largely addressed by the applicant with the reduction of height. The building was probably a little more imposing than I originally thought it would be after looking at the balloons. If we proposed that they eliminate the fifth level which contains only 18 rooms to reduce the height of the building by 9 1/2 feet it would not make a big visual impact. Without this fifth level, the building would be flat and look monolithic. Commissioner Kiser - Congratulated the applicant on his handling of the Commission's concerns. He noted that he had seen the balloons when there was no wind and was able to view them from several viewpoints. The view to the Back Bay should remain the dominant feature of that area. The project as proposed is pretty close to allow those general views to remain dominant, but expressed concerns with the very highest parts of the structures. The balloon representation still needs work, and I would like to explore the possibility of removing the very top features down to allow the view of the Castaways Bluff 15 • 0 • ��5 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9. 2000 INDEX from Coast Highway and Jamboree and view towards Morning Star area out into the Back Bay to remain the dominant features. Commissioner Fuller stated that his concerns of view impairment have been satisfied in the depictions that have been made. This is a big project and progress has been made. Parking is sufficient with a shuttle system if it is needed. I am concerned with the light and noise issues but the applicant has made a satisfactory effort in that area. The access for the service, employees and trucks from Back Bay Drive is a plus that the applicant has provided. I am still concerned with the intersection of Bayside Drive and Coast Highway; I support the changes that have been made so far. Chairperson Selich noted that there has been real progress on the design. Particularly likes the fact that the timeshares were reduced along the Marina bulkhead area as that allows for more graceful height transition from the water line up to the hotel. The removal of the area in the center of the 5th story element and then to each side of the element the way the height was excised through the reduction of the rooms as well as changing the roof planes made a big difference. I am still concerned with the parking structure, as I feel it should be reduced in height so that one story could be completely • below grade thereby reducing the amount above grade. I realize there would be a transition problem where you would enter into the hotel, but it could be dealt with in some manner. A lot of progress has been made. The absolute heights in the fifth story elements do not bother me because it is such a small percentage of the project. I think we need some vertical relief since it is such a large project and is spread out. 1 agree with comments on the floor plate heights. On something of the quality we expect of a facility of this type, that to reduce the height by three or four feet by short changing each floor plate height is a mistake in the long run. Commissioner Tucker noted the roof plan of the timeshares on page 9A. They are not all two stories, some are three stories. The effectiveness of the balloons Commissioner Gifford asked to defer any decisions on the balloons since the conditions have not been favorable. Commissioner Kranzley asked to defer his comments on the effectiveness of the balloons until more reasonable weather conditions occur. Revised Traffic Studv Mr. Rich Edmonston stated that the revised study is an updated version based on the changes the applicant indicated at the last meeting on the hotel and • timeshares. It includes the revised access for employees and deliveries and correctly depicts the reduction of traffic associated with the RV park space in ,_ _ %h City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX reduction as being on Back Bay not on Bayside Drive. Table 5 is now Table 6 and is substantially revised in an attempt to make it clearer which trips are associated with the proposed hotel and which trips are deducted from either the removal of the RV spaces and /or the removal of the other uses permitted under the Settlement Agreement. The results are that in the short range TPO analysis, all intersections satisfy the TPO operating at a Level of Service (LOS) D or better. In the long range, there are identified two intersections that were made worse by the project and did not meet the City's criteria, that was Bayside at Coast Highway and Jamboree at Ford. The recently completed free right turn lane from East Bluff onto Jamboree mitigates that intersection so that even with the project, it operates at LOS D in both the morning and afternoon peak periods. At the intersection of Jamboree and Bayside, the applicant has proposed improvements to Bayside and those mitigate the impact at that location. The parking section analyzed two scenarios depending on whether it was parked based on a 470 -room hotel or a 370 -room hotel plus 100 timeshare units. Both those cases on a typical day based on occupancy show approximately 300 spaces total on site that would be above and beyond the required uses. The maximum use scenario with all hotel rooms full, the Marina in business and all ballroom and meeting room spaces occupied by non - visitors to the hotel, the surplus dropped to about 50 spaces. There have been a number of changes made to the study in order to make it clearer to read and user friendly. Chairperson Selich asked for a re -cap on the whole project traffic generated by area by use. Mr. Edmonton answered that in the Settlement Agreement dated 1988, the remaining uses that were entitled were the 275 room family inn, a 15,000 square foot net public area restaurant and a 5,000 square foot building that was marine - related commercial. Those are tabulated in the new Table 6. The applicant has indicated they will not be building the free standing restaurant, not building the marina commercial 5,000 square feet and he would be building what has been analyzed as a 470 room hotel in place of the 275 room family inn. Table 6 indicates on that basis, the total trip generation will be a net reduction on a daily basis of 390 trips from what was approved under the Settlement Agreement. The Table shows that in the morning peak hours there would be 60 more trips generated by the proposed project and in the afternoon there would be an actual net decrease in trips of 18. The Settlement Agreement dealt with new uses after 1988. The factor for trip generated by uses in the whole project is in the traffic model by zone. It is a little difficult to separate; for example, on the east side of the lagoon the some traffic zone includes the Hyatt, and on the other side includes the mobile home park. There is a variety of other things in it, but we have rates for the hotel, rates for resort commercial, rates for 17 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX the Newport Dunes which is the beach area based on an acreage basis; and rates for the general office as well. Rates on the west side are for the marine and restaurant and those types of uses. They are all included in the model. • Those rates were based on ITE standards or they were rates discussed in some traffic studies done at the time of the Settlement Agreement that looked at some of the uses such as the marine expansion discussed in earlier versions of the Settlement Agreement between 1983 and 1988. • The development was permitted through a series of agreements. There was a 1983 version that allowed for some additional slips in the marina and had rates associated with it in 1983. But by 1988 those had been developed and were therefor no longer part of that Agreement because at that point they were existing. For traffic counting purposes we would have used the trip rates that had been reviewed and approved in the past for those uses. Chairperson Selich stated that he is trying to ascertain if a constant in the traffic model was used throughout the years, or whether it has been floating up and down when we did the traffic models for the rest of the property either based on changing the trip generations used with different trip rates or using actual counts versus trip rates. Ms. Temple answered that we can take out the non -Dunes related uses in the two traffic model zones involved and perhaps go back as far as the 1988 model used for the General Plan update and give you what the various iterations have been. Mr. Edmonston agreed that could be done. There will be a 1988 model, 1992 model and then the 1996 model that is presently being used for this project. Chairperson Selich noted that he still has problems with Table 6. The numbers for the previously approved uses to be deleted and the numbers in the Settlement Agreement. It doesn't make sense that a 275 -room hotel with a 15,000 square feet of restaurant is going to generate close to the same amount of trips as this size project that we are considering. I would like comments on how realistic these numbers are, do you really believe that if they were to build a 275 room hotel add another 5,000 square feet of commercial and do 15,000 square feet of net public area restaurant that it would generate the same amount of trips as this proposed project? Mr. Edmonston answered that the one item that is certainly questionable is in the traffic study done in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement that assumed a trip rate for the family inn as 8.7 trips per day per room. That was an extremely conservative rate and was the rate that was in the ITE at the time for a regular hotel. There probably wasn't any reason to challenge it then because it would represent a worst case condition upon which the Dunes would pay traffic fees. I don't think that anybody else would have challenged Ir City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX if as being an overly conservative rate. In looking at the information we have, the current rate of 8.92 per room is appropriate for a facility of this type. The difference would probably be greater between this and what is in the Settlement Agreement, primarily the Settlement Agreement in my opinion would overstate the amount of traffic that would actually occur from a family inn. Commissioner Kiser asked about Table 1. • The trip rate per hotel of 8.92 that has been used, is if consistent in the traffic analysis? Mr. Edmonston answered yes. • The daily trip rate resort hotel per room is not available. 1 was confused by the note that says the hotel rates were utilized in this study due to the fact that these rates were higher than those shown for 'resort hotel'. Is there a resort hotel rate? Mr. Edmonsfon answered that to the right of the table there are trip generation rates for both the hotel and resort hotel for a.m. and p.m. peak hours. That is the data that is most often collected when traffic studies are being made because that data is most critical in analyzing the impacts of the hotels. There is some data available on the peak hour basis and later in the report there is a table footnoted when talking about total traffic. There is no documented daily number for the resort hotel category. • On that same table it shows the timeshare units at 100 dwelling units. Is that from the ITE standards? Mr. Pringle answered that the trip generation rates for the timeshares refers back up to the recreational homes and yes, it is from ITE. In the analysis, we used that actual hotel rate, which is higher, for the timeshares as well. We have used a conservative approach to this. We felt it would be a better approach to use the hotel rates for the timeshares, as the timeshares are more like a hotel. Commissioner Ashley asked: • Table 1 referring to the timeshare units, the daily trip generation for the dwelling units is shown as 300 which means that each dwelling unit would be 3 trips per day. Mr. Pringle answered yes and applied hotel rates for the timeshare units and estimated the traffic on that basis for the study. This table is in here for information and background for what we were analyzing for this particular study. We used the worst case analysis. Chairperson Selich asked why no traffic was being distributed on Bayside Drive at the intersection of Coast Highway. Basically the answer was that the traffic was not broken down less than 5% distribution increments in the traffic modeling. Coast Highway was considered a parallel route. Would you address this again, why no traffic was distributed going from Bayside Drive down to Jamboree Road from the project? If, you did not address if, how can you now identify that there is an impact at Bayside and Jamboree when the traffic model in the report does not show traffic being distributed? What are the mitigation measures at that intersection? go -� -� q City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Mr. Edmonston answered that there are two distinct traffic analysis in the report. The TPO is a short -term analysis that follows the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The historical application is to keep as much traffic from a project on the major highways in the City as possible to represent a worst case analysis. Since traffic going straight across Coast Highway on Bayside would then no longer be on a major arterial, we did not distribute that. If you then look at the long range analysis which is done with the model and look at the sheets in the Appendix, the model does send traffic across there because the model has the entire locations of streets and land uses in it. In the long range, the study does show traffic on Bayside Drive. In terms of mitigation, the two intersections are Bayside and Coast Highway, which is where the applicant is going to widen and provide an additional lane on Bayside coming from the project. This would mitigate the ICU at that intersection in the long range; there is no impact at Bayside and Jamboree from the project. Chairperson Selich commented that what you are saying is that in the TPO analysis we overstate the traffic on Coast Highway but we understate it on Bayside Drive because we are throwing all the traffic on Coast Highway. In the long -range model, we make a more realistic distribution of what is going on Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. Mr. Edmonston answered yes. Chairperson Selich then asked with the reduction of the size of the hotel facility and the fact that you are now counting the RV trips going on Bayside Drive and the employee and delivery traffic is now coming off Back Bay Drive, what is the net effect of traffic on Bayside Drive in this version of the traffic report versus the previous version? Mr. Edmonston answered that the long -range analysis shows that in the a.m. peak period there are 60 additional cars coming out of the Dunes project in the morning. In the short -range ICU analysis it shows an increase of 55 vehicles coming out in the morning and in the afternoon it is an increase of only 17 vehicles coming out, going in there are 32 vehicles in the morning and 20 in the afternoon. Again, these factor in the approved project of 275 -room hotel and the restaurant and retail building. These numbers are net over the baseline. Looking at the model data between the two studies, there is a reduction in the morning coming out of 20 trips, coming out in the afternoon there is a reduction of 20 trips from the impact of the project. At the completion of the Dunes Project, taking into consideration the trips generated by the project, employee and delivery, and the reduction for the RV spaces being removed, there will be an increase of 3,520 daily trips on Bayside Drive and an increase of 80 daily trips on Back Bay Drive. Commissioner Tucker asked for computations rates. Referencing Table 2 he noted that with the total trip generation is 4,230. That is the constant for each one of the occupancies. assuming different occupancy 9 trips per room with 470 rooms numerator that needs to stay I am trying to compare the 20 INDEX 9 S rj City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX difference between the approach we take that assumes 100% occupancy as compared to what the trips per room would be as per occupied room. Numerically with 95% occupancy, that would mean 447 rooms were occupied divided into 4,230 is 9.46 trips per room. With 90% occupancy it would be the same as having 423 rooms occupied with 4,230 trips and is 10 trips per room. I am attempting to have a table that reflects what the trip generation rate would be had we done it on the same basis as many other jurisdictions. We are going to do it on the assumption that 100% of the rooms are occupied. Wes Pringle, traffic engineer clarified that all the studies are done for occupied rooms. All studies are done on the maximum number of rooms. If a hotel that had 500 rooms and only 200 rooms were occupied you would assume that was applicable to all 500 room hotels and would not work. The trip generation for an office building is done the same way, assuming 100% occupancy. The same methodology is used at worst case with 100% occupancy here. Commissioner Tucker continued that there should be some type of accounting as to what has happened between the Settlement Agreement and now in terms of trips that have been used. The Defend the Bay letter of January 28th is one that we need to go through and understand the contentions in that letter as either on or off base. Recess was taken. Public comment was opened. Dan Purcell, 600 Acacia Avenue stated he observed the balloons after reading the article in the Daily Pilot. He felt he was able to get a good feel about the expanse of the project but he was concerned with the representation in the Daily Pilot. He stated that it was not a fair representation of the project. Barbara Lichman, 2603 Main Street - as an attorney representing the Dover Shores Community Association stated that it is difficult to comment on documents that the public has not been provided. There is a revised plan on the height and bulk of the plan, but the public does not have it in writing. There is a revised traffic study that may have new information that ought to be circulated under CEQA but the public does not have it and we are asked to make comments on it tonight. I understand we will have future opportunities but we have been here for three hours. There is no certified EIR for this project all we have is a draft EIR. We have a Settlement Agreement but we do not have a vested right for the 275 -unit inn under that Settlement Agreement. Section VII page 20 of the original Settlement Agreement states, "All parties understand that this Agreement is intended to establish limits on development and not guarantee construction or development ". Vested right is a guarantee of development right. This Settlement Agreement specifically abrogated the vesting of rights under it. Therefore, if the 275 -unit project were built, this a 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9. 2000 Commission would have the right to make changes. Normal vesting rights accrue where there is permit, environmental documentation and when there is ground broken. I don't think this process is proceeding in a way that gives the public adequate opportunity to comment on these issues. We are looking forward to another opportunity on the traffic study, height and bulk and vesting. Commissioner Tucker commented that the language could be interpreted as that the developer did not guarantee they would build the project, not that the City did not guarantee that the project could be built. William F. Smith, 405 Morning Star Lane - expressed his concern with sound. Whenever there is a loud party across the way, he is saved by the curfew of 10:00 p.m. I am concerned about the noise levels and hope that testing will be done. We hear it now, and it will be increased with the timeshares in place. Jay Simon, 1417 Newporter Way questions the overall heights. He asked what the total height of the project would be with the roof structure? Regarding the balloons, is the length of the balloon to the top of the roof structure? Ms. Temple answered that the balloons depicted the total overall roof height of the project as modified by the applicant at the last meeting. Bob Bartholomew, 31 Cape Andover spoke of the beautiful area and views. I believe the area needs to be improved and the Planning Commission makes decisions as to what is economic for the City. A project of this type and size concerns me with regard to height, lighting, noise from outdoor parties and traffic. Is this project going to be economically viable and what would be an alternative use to the facility if it doesn't work out? Vahe Meghrouni, 61 Cape Andover agreed with the previous speakers with regard to noise and light adding he was dismayed at the length of the project. You are supposed to protect our rights. If we happen to be uninformed or cannot be informed because we are not given the data, you are supposed to protect our rights. Pat Greenbaum, Bayside Village asked the following: • Can the delivery access road accommodate all sizes and weights of the commercial vehicles? • Should the access road to the truck dock be limited to weight and size of commercial vehicles such as diesel type? • Would this facility accommodate trade shows, which bring in set up and tear down equipment and supplies? . Perhaps the answers to these questions could be included in the revised traffic study and traffic potential of the conference facilities, namely delivery trips. 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX Bill Kenney, 824 Harbor Island Drive representing the Promontory Bay Homeowners Association stated that in an effort to work with the developer they met with them as well as a coalition of communities south of Coast Highway. Representatives of Bay Shores, Linda Island, Beacon Bay, Balboa Island, Little Balboa Island and Promontory Bay attended the meeting. Our main concern is traffic generated by the hotel and convention facility and where the traffic would be channeled. During the meeting we came up with two alternatives: • Relocate the project entrance to Pacific Coast Highway at the signalized entrance to Promontory Point. It is physically possible and will provide a significant entrance statement. • Relocate the project entrance to Back Bay Drive and create a vehicular bridge over the lagoon in a location where the pedestrian bridge is currently located. This would save all of the RV spaces. To date, the project developer has not given due consideration but we hope they will. We ask you this evening to think about how the relocation of the project entrance either to Coast Highway or Back Bay Drive might address many of the concerns of the citizens about this project. We hope you will direct the applicant to relocate the entrance. With direction from you and participation and diligence on behalf of the applicant and these communities than our concerns can be overcome and we will then be in a position to be in favor of this project at a future hearing. Larry Dill, 300 East Coast Highway, #260 spoke in favor of this project. He said the facility is safe, clean and crime free. The new project will enhance the area. Ramona Harris, 300 East Coast Highway, #222 gave a personal history of the immediate area and the City in general. Max Hampton, 721 Bayside Drive noted his appreciation of the work done on the traffic studies and models used to forecast what will happen. He stated that those intersections are problematic now and that if makes no sense that you can put 470 rooms and 1,750 people in a convention facility and have no impact. There has been no discussion as to what happens about the parties on beaches or parties outside in addition to the 1750 people who can be in the convention facility. The developer took this property under the limitation of 275 rooms with no convention facility. Anything that goes beyond that is a gift from you to them. We need to do something to keep the traffic off Bayside. Please, either cut out the convention facility or at least drastically reduce if and do something to limit functions outdoors and on beaches and keep traffic off Bayside Drive. Bob Balen, 265 Mayflower Street stated that the balloons were a great help. The parking garage is behind my place and looks to be 33 feet high. If 23 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 eliminates our views of Fashion Island and Saddleback Mountain. Joyce Lawhorn, 300 East Coast Highway #265 stated that the impact of the garage structure is behind her. With the 80 -foot setback, the three levels of the parking structure will house 308 vehicles. There will be a bike trail and landscape area and a 9 -foot wall with 101 parking spaces behind us. The loading docks have been turned to face the remaining RV park. Steven Briggs, 1016 Westwind Way stated that the 1988 agreement points out that the Dunes has contractual vested rights to construct this 275 unit project. They have those vested rights because the other parties to the agreement gave up or were given something. They were given the opportunity to rely for a decade and a half on the expectation that project would be built. Those expectations that the City and County preserved for its citizens and residents are not being preserved at the point this project is approved in its increased size. I viewed the balloons and certainly demonstrate to a small degree the height issues. They don't demonstrate at all volume or bulk. I would suggest that you need to view the balloons from various locations completely around the project. There are 32 houses on the Castaways effected directly by this. There is three times that many just in Dover Shores on the west side of the project alone. This project is much bigger than depicted and the balloons are an inadequate way to demonstrate the volume and density of the project. Bob Rimmer, Bayside Village, #282 expressed his concern about the health of the residents of Bayside Village if this project goes through. The location of the hotel and entrance of the hotel are of primary concern. He noted gas fumes, noise and traffic problems with this project. Our way of life will be drastically changed with the added traffic on Coast Highway. Dan Converse, 509 Morning Star Lane noted his concern of noise and size of project noting similar reasons previously stated. James Sachtschale, 1953 Vista Caudal speaking for Mr. Ohlig stating that his method is correct on the graphics that he presented. Mr. Sachfschale stated that his technical education was from the University of Illinois where he studied gas dynamics. He affirmed Mr. Ohlig's methodology. Debbie Hartunian, 911 Spring Tide Drive stated that she purchased a premium lot and was told that the project as approved was going to be two to three stories high. If this project is going to be five stories, the light and glare will be shining into my bedroom. I get noise from the Dunes and the Hyatt now that I never thought I would get. I have had to call the police on several occasions. I notice from the drawings, that the ballrooms face the water. I know the Dunes has tried very hard to accommodate the Planning Commission, but I think if is because they are asking for more than what was granted. I look at if as a citizen of Newport Beach and what I have to lose which is the quality of life for the City and the Back Bay. 24 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane - expressed his seriousness of the issues of the views. He noted that the revised views are wrong: • A distance point on one side is taller. • Vanishing point is going into the center of the image even though the shape would not prompt that. • The four story image has been crunched to three stories Items on both sides of the image are not equal and distant The balloons are supposed to be 77.5 and at the angle should be pretty close to level. There was not enough advance notice as to when the balloons were going to be put in place. This project is 1.7 times the height, and rooms, and 20 decibels different from the last numbers I saw. This is way above the original agreement. Bill Hamilton, 3620 5th Avenue spoke in favor of the project stating that it will be good for the City of Newport Beach. Traffic is my biggest concern, but not that bad. By trimming back the project size, the applicant has attempted to mitigate the bulk problem. The Evans people are good people and will do a marvelous job with this project. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive stated that the Dunes site is public property, on Coastal land in an environmentally sensitive area surrounded by residences. It is being leased to a concessionaire. The Settlement Agreement was hard fought and the homeowners depended upon the guarantees. It is important that the City consider commitment to the residents in that area. The Settlement Agreement is a commitment to the residents in this community. Sections from the various Settlement Agreements stated that no structure shall exceed the basic 35 -foot height limit established by Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, no structure or any portion of the structure shall exceed a height of 38.5 feet. Mechanical equipment may be permitted in excess of the basic 35 -foot height limit providing that the equipment does not exceed a height of 38.5 feet and is fully screened from public view. It goes on to say that no structure shall exceed 3 stories and the family inn shall be constructed with a pitched roof. There are descriptions in the agreement and it allows exceptions for chimneys. It is the height limitation that should be adhered to as well as the noise limitation. I have no fear that the Evans family would do a wonderful job with a 275 -room hotel. Kathy Leek, 623 Baywood Drive as a supporter of the tourism in Newport Beach stated that there is a need for the hotel and a need for conference space. She stated that she recognizes that counting cars is important, but from her perspective of calling on the various hotels throughout the area and bringing people into the community shows a different point of view. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 East Ocean Boulevard asked about the looks of the parking structure by the main entrance to the hotel. She then mentioned the 25 is E "r< City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 glare from the parked cars reflecting up onto the Castaways. On the traffic study figure used between the 275 -room hotel and the proposal, the difference figure is what 1 am concerned about. That figure is used and I don't think it is right. Even with the reduction, the number still comes out far greater than 800. That will throw off all the numbers in the study. The responses to the EIR were totally inadequate. For example, the intersection at PCH and Superior /Balboa, we questioned how that could be lowered with the project. The answer was that some traffic that formerly went to other hotels would switch to the new hotel, which then in turn leads to reduction in traffic on certain roadways. That is not an answer to that question. Dr. Jennifer Frutig, 1715 Marlin Way stated she would like to see an accurate representation of the revised project. I object to the distortions and the pictures that were shown in terms of the view from the east lagoon and also from the Castaways. I have no idea what the revised project from either one of those locations is. I wish they would please give us an accurate representation. Richard Luehrs, CEO of the Newport Chamber of Commerce commented that the Chamber continues to review this project. They have done a fine job in reducing the size and bulk, they have met the traffic constraints and mitigation measures by reducing the number of rooms. This project adds more than a million dollars each year to the coffers of the City of Newport Beach that could go toward future traffic mitigation. This project continues to raise twenty -five million dollars to the small business of Newport Beach. Projects like this go towards ensuring the health and welfare of our financial picture now and well into the future. I ask that you give favorable attention to this project. Commissioner Kranzley thanked Mr. Ohlig for his efforts and asked him if the Planning Commission conditioned this project that it has to comply and look exactly like the views that are presented how would he feel about that? Or, are you more concerned about the fact that they are misrepresenting or would you be okay with the hotel they are representing in their pictures. Mr. Ohlig answered that he is operating in two ways. From a personal interest as a homeowner adjacent to the property that measures 50% of view is dominated by this project. I am acting as a citizen that just loves the bay, which is why I am making views from other vantage points. I still believe that this is a massive structure. It looks nice with the plants, etc the way it has been done, but I am not comfortable with what I am seeing. I know there are certain angles that it looks reasonable at, but I still believe it is massive and dangerous the way it is being done. When I look at the balloons, they are not where I imagine them to be based on the topographical maps I have studied. Commissioner Kranzley confirmed with Mr. Ohlig that his answer was no, he would not accept the project conditioned to comply to look exactly like the views presented this evening. 26 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich told the audience that they were welcome to submit to staff in writing anything they felt they did not say tonight. We will review it prior to the next meeting. He suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission review the Development Agreement and report back. He suggested Commissioners Tucker and Kiser. There were no objections. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to March 23, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Ell C.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the meeting of February 22nd Council reviewed the study that was done for potential changes to the Mixmaster intersection. The alternative recommended and approved was to provide some left turn opportunities and mostly to add signage for pedestrian safety and to help people find their way through the intersection. Staff was authorized to proceed with plans and specifications and the engineer's estimate for that project. We'had the Balboa Village Pedestrian and Streetscape improvement plan as well as the redesign of the pier parking lot. A more detailed presentation on cost estimates of design and contingencies as well as a plan for funding it.. The final costs estimate turned out to be seven and a half million dollars. The City Council still supported if. I was encouraged by comments made by both the Council and members of the public. Part of this plan is that the property owners are expected to form an assessment district to do undergrounding of utilities. She then notified the Planning Commission that the,Study Session on Wednesday the only item on the agenda is to talk about.General Plan update and possibilities for surveys and visioning. The City Manager has arranged for a consultant to be there to make a presentation. Oral report from Planning Commission's representativeto the Economic Development Committee- none. Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting -Ms. Temple noted that she is scheduling a meeting for April 131' that will address five reports. Discussion then followed on how the Dunes is going to progress. 27 INDEX Additional Business n U is 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive • General Plan Amendmet No. 97 -3 F • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 • Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 • Conceptual Precise Plan • Final Precise Plan A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and swimming pools and landscaped garden areas. Chairperson Selich noted that this is the third hearing conducted on this property. In the previous hearings, a lot of time was listening to arguments of the project proponents as well as approximately 90 people. I would like to compliment everyone who has participated for the quality of the decorum as well as the quality of the testimony. It has been an assistance to the Commissioners to get this kind of input in what we are doing. At our last meeting we directed the applicant and staff to come back with answers, ideas and thoughts on issues that were brought up. These were primarily the location of the hotel on the other side of the lagoon, the access to the hotel off Back Bay Drive versus Bayside Drive and also, to evaluate the scaling back of the size, bulk and height of the project. Tonight, the order of business will be to hear from staff, then the project proponent and the Commission will continue with deliberation. After our deliberation, we will open the public hearing to you. Hopefully the responses we get will be commenting on modifications that the applicant may be proposing, or how they responded to the suggestions made by the Commission, or the discussion that takes place between the Commission members, staff and applicant. Ms. Temple noted that in the staff report the requested information and analysis is provided regarding the new access road connecting with Back Bay Drive and some analysis of the opportunities and constraints related to alternative sites. There are no additional comments, unless the Commission has questions. Mr. Edmonston, the City's traffic engineer is prepared with a presentation or response to questions to provide detailed information on the traffic study. Chairperson Selich suggested holding off any detailed presentation or 16 INDEX Item No. 5 Discussion Item Only Continued to 02/03/2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 questioning on traffic until we hear from the project applicant since that may affect the questions asked. Commissioner Fuller stated that he was not at the lost meeting, but that he hod read the reports and minutes. There was conversation with respect to moving the site to the east. It was my understanding, based on the prior meeting, that the Settlement Agreement precluded that. Was that addressed? Commissioner Gifford stated that her purpose in asking that was, if the Development Agreement was being re- opened it could be re- opened to whatever extent we wonted to. Understanding what the perimeters were and that the Development Agreement was being re- opened by one of the parties, it could be re- opened entirely. Ms. Clouson added that we ore committed to the west side as the agreement does identify the 275 -room family room to be located on the west side. That is what the agreement outhorizes and the City is obligated to that. Public comment was opened. Mr. Robert Gleason, Newport Dunes, 1131 Bock Boy Drive addressed the Commission noting that they hod listened carefully at the Commission's request to address components of the project that were of o concern. I think that there ore o number of people who support this project, and we hove come bock with a number of changes to shore. At the some time, the questions that hove been raised and the insights provided by members of the public and Commission ore constructive in this process. You asked that we look at specific issues of: • Location of the project on the east side. • Hotel entrance on Bock Boy Drive. • Possibility of reducing the size of the project. • Installation of some type of height morkers - either story poles or balloons. Presenting o slide presentation on the revised plans based on the input from the previous meetings: • Revised plans showing substantial changes in the timeshare area, hotel area related to height and unit count. • Conference center space reduction. • Changes along the service and access rood adjacent to Boyside Village. • Revised project will hove fewer than 4,000 trips. • Removal of 30 hotel guest rooms • Removal of 25 time shore units • Removal of one of the proposed ballrooms. Unit count reduction in time - shore: 17 INDEX is 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Proposal will be to eliminate 25 of the two bedroom units. • The number of lock off units will be reduced (25). • 30 guestrooms removed from the 4th and 5th floors of the hotel. Trip Rates: • Relocation of employee trips (250) per day onto Back Bay Drive plus an additional 40 delivery trips per day. • Result in an approximate 25% reduction of originally proposed trips. (Referencing the slide exhibit, he explained the entitled traffic count reductions) Bulk and Scale Reduction: • Alternative one timeshare design - units west of marina center will be removed and reduction of other two buildings to two stories. Units on eastern point will also be reduced to two stories. Units on water facing Dover shores reduced from 42 to 27. (referencing slides, pointed out reductions) • Alternative two timeshare design - No units west of Marina Center (area closest to Dover Shores) and will allow retention of Marina recreational facilities. Units east of Marina Center will be re- oriented towards the ecological reserve towards Shellmaker Island. Parking will be reconfigured. The timeshares will be two, three and four stories. • Hotel plan changes - rooms removed from 4th and 51h stories in an effort to provide additional articulation to building fagade and pull down the ends of the buildings. (referencing slides, pointed out reductions) • Height reductions - floor to floor was 12' plate on first floor with 10' floor plate on every floor above has been reduced to 10' on the first floor and 9 1 /2' on every subsequent floor for a four -foot reduction. • Maximum height of the project is 68 feet from the pad height. • There are approximately 6 elements that are above 3 stories. • Two story roofs represent 58% of building footprint; 3 stories represents 25%; all above that is 12% at 4th floor and 4% at 5 story elevations. Visual simulations were shown taken from Pacific Coast Highway, Castaways, and Dover Shores (Morning Star) depicting the new heights of the project. Conference Center changes: • Remove one of the junior ballrooms (5,000 square feet) plus associated pre- function space (4,000) equals 16% reduction. • Larger ballrooms remain to address community need and maintain flexibility. • Loading dock reoriented south towards PCH, not west towards Bayside Village. 18 INDEX ,x City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 INDEX • Buildings pushed farther back to increase setback from 60' to a minimum of 80' with an average of 100' in that area. • Service road moved 20' farther from Bayside Village adding about 100 at grade parking spaces for employees who will be entering from Back Bay Drive. • The proposal includes a five -foot wall on top level of the parking structure for noise reasons. • Service access changes impact on parking equals parking spaces per room (470 rooms) at 2.17. Hotel Location Alternative: • Hotel proposed on east side in 1980, but moved to present location during EIR process based on input from City, Coastal Commission, and community. • Problems: environmental sensitivity of area; physical constraints 2/3 as much space, only 175 -200' wide and visual impacts • Result would be urban hotel with seven stories plus parking structure and reduced amenities. • Impacts of relocated uses - cost of relocation and RV and boat launch on west side (Bayside Drive access ?) Access alternatives: • Bayside Drive - now no off - street bike trail and no sidewalk. • Bayside Drive - Gatehouse entry to Bayside Village with landscaping on sides. • Bridge access from Promontory or new entrance off Coast Highway - both deemed not feasible based on engineering concerns of height plus reticence of CalTrans to provide additional access points on Coast Highway. • Entrance over the mouth of the lagoon - not feasible based on environmental issues of noise over water; possible pollution issues and volume of traffic so close to the ecological reserve. • Entrance off Back Bay Drive from either the existing circulation system or a new one. Commissioner Kranzley asked about story pole alternatives and was answered that the most viable solution would be for balloons. Mr. Gleason replied that we have talked to a number of people who do them for car dealerships and in essence, you will end up with a two -foot round and a number of balloons below that. They would be put up once a day at a number of sites. Referencing the exhibit, he noted the highest points of the project plus extremities (about a dozen). Commissioner Gifford thanked the applicant for addressing the Commission's concerns in such an effective and efficient manner. i0 0 • \J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Chairperson Selich asked about the exhibit showing Back Bay entrance access. He noted that perhaps the number of RV spaces to be removed was overstated. He was answered that the road that provides entrance back into the sites has perpendicular spaces 25 to 45 feet in length. The road is about 25 feet wide. To get a 30 -foot road through there that would provide buffer on either side uses a lot of space. The extra row on the other side that is lost because you can not get access to it from this side. (referenced the exhibits). There is too much lost space, but there is no other way from an engineering standpoint to get access to the remainder of those RV sites. Chairperson Selich asked for detailed plans on the revised alternative with dimensions and cross sections to elaborate on distances on the last row of RV's remaining to the bike trail. I am not convinced that you would lose 90, my count came up to 50. Commissioner Ashley asked about the entrance to the Dunes project from Back Bay Drive, and its related traffic conflicts. Mr. Gleason answered that there are potential traffic conflicts and some operational inefficiency. There would be a separate hotel entry, separate RV entry and a separate day use and boat launch entry. From a confusion standpoint, this could be dealt with through signage and people becoming accustomed to the new traffic patterns. Our concern is more with staffing three gates. All of these uses are similar in type with recreational peaks as opposed to normal commute time peaks. You might start creating traffic conflicts in this area just based on those volumes all being at the same time. Now there are separate gates, one for boat launch /storage and the Back Bay Cafe that is opened at peak periods. Chairperson Selich asked for clarification on how the traffic going out to Bayside Drive was calculated. How does the RV traffic impact? Mr. Gleason answered that it figures only in the overall discussion of the impact to the City's circulation system as a whole. The project has been analyzed as 5400 trips attributable to the hotel and time - share, a 600 -trip reduction attributable to the removal of RV spaces at 4 trips per site per day for a net increase of 4800 trips. The 800 trip increment for the City's circulation system as a whole, but yet a 1400 increment for trips on Bayside Drive. There is a total of 3900 trips onto Bayside Drive under the new proposal plus 290 for employee trips. Chairperson Selich then noted that the correspondence received from the Coastal Commission is in opposition to the removal of the 150 RV spaces. If a plan similar to the one proposed tonight is approved, then you get to the 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 INDEX Coastal Commission and they don't approve the 150 spaces, what happens then? Mr. Gleason answered that we will need to address that at that time. He recognizes that the Coastal Commission staff is concerned about the removal of the RV spaces because there is a perceived low- income access to the water issue, which isn't really the case. Instead of providing for more than one form of overnight accommodation, we are really providing three (hotel, timeshare and RV). We will have detailed discussions on that topic, but we will need to address that at that time. We have no contingency plans to date. Whatever eventually is approved by the City, we will go forward for a Coastal Development Permit and the LCP amendment. We would then come back for review and concurrence by the City. Ms. Temple noted that this involves an LCP Amendment as well as the project approval and approval of the zoning. To the extent that modifications were made to the project, where the project was made inconsistent with any of those approvals, it would have to come back through a full set of both Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Additionally, an evaluation would be made as to whether any changes would need to be required with regards to the traffic study or the environmental impact report. Commissioner Fuller asked if staff had reviewed the new proposed project? Mr. Gleason answered that staff has seen nothing of these revised plans. Commissioner Ashley asked if the applicant had contacted the Irvine Company to lease undeveloped land for beach parking at intersection of Jamboree and Back Bay Drive and expansion of the lost RV spaces to take in the area that is now used by beach parking? Mr. Gleason answered that there have been discussions concerning the lower Bayview landing site. We have had preliminary and informal discussions regarding that site. Currently it is designated as affordable senior housing. We have looked at a study of the area with the hillside and upper site. If this were to be developed for RV it would gain about 65 to 70 sites. The project would end up with an approximate revised total of 270 sites, about 20 more than we have today. We had not addressed this specifically because we do not own the land, and it's entitled for another use. Commissioner Kranzley asked for clarification of and was answered: • Spa - memberships are not to be sold; 8000 square feet with half for a fitness center (used by time share and hotel guests) and the other balance dedicated to treatment rooms for massages, facials, wraps, etc. to be available to members of the public. It is not a health club. Commissioner Kranzley asked if this project could be conditioned that no memberships would be sold? Staff answered that the conceptual site plan 21 0 E 0 n� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 INDEX acts like a use permit, so it would be appropriate to condition that. Commissioner Kranzley then asked the applicant about public access and conference center traffic and was answered. • Access will be enhanced - the existing circulation system in the project has a pedestrian bridge along the promenade that rings the lagoon. There is another promenade up to the overlook and along the bulkhead and is connected to streets by a crosswalk and an access point. If fails to hook up to Bayside Drive. We will connect the promenade to Bayside Drive, which would now have a sidewalk out to Pacific Coast Highway. Recreational biking off street trail goes up Back Bay that is picked up on the backside of the property and dumps out onto the street. • Conference center - significant component but not a disproportionate amount. Trip generation numbers while average, do take into account conference center use just as the internal food and beverage outlets, employee parking and all other associated trips with the project. From an operational standpoint, the point of having conference spaces is to sell hotel rooms. If provides space for lectures with lunch in other rooms. The summer weekend evenings related to off -site guests, that is when the hotel is more likely to be full. There is an allocation of resource issue associated with parking, the number of employees and kitchen space that you just can't rent all those rooms for private parties that are serving dinner. If you are going to talk about some sort of condition to the project, this is the area to focus on. Commissioner Kiser noted his main concern is the trip generation of the meeting room space, particularly in the peak periods. If May, June, July is the time of the heaviest use, that may also be the same time for heavy use at the beach off Coast Highway. The impact of traffic generated during that three - month period can be very significant in the overall traffic movement on Coast Highway. If there are some studies available, or a way to reduce a number in peak periods, that would be very helpful. Commissioner Tucker stated that the thought of having two 12,000 square foot ballrooms going on the same time in the month of July on a Friday night needs to be analyzed. Where the average versus the peak needs to be addressed, as to whether that is possible to happen and /or should if be possible? As I understand the room count, if is that 30 hotel rooms are now proposed to be eliminated, 25 time shares eliminated, which we have counted as, because of a lock -off provision, 50 units. There are another 50 units of timeshares that we count as 100 rooms now that will lose their lock -off capability, so there are really only 50 units. So 50, plus 50, plus 30 equals the 130 units. If is admirable that you have made an effort to lower the profile of the building, knocked out some rooms in critical places and what you are doing with the time share units is terrific. However, I am concerned about the thought of taking the floor dimensions and lowering them. I like the idea of lowering the pad elevation and eliminating a lot of the height of the structure, but I would like to see you 22 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 INDEX go back to the floor heights that were originally proposed. They are appropriate for a facility of this scale and we are talking about a four -foot difference. I don't think that will make that much of a difference. The roof height with the more articulated mansards should be in place. Having only 16% of the facility 4 and 5 stories really addresses most of the concerns. You are not going to please everybody. We need to keep in mind in reviewing the new proposal, that we are still comparing it against the original settlement agreement project. The new proposal is far superior to the original settlement agreement. Chairperson Selich then made some suggestions to the Commission. Looking at all the issues in the staff report and on the board, he noted that they fall into four areas: • Moving project to other side of the lagoon • Access issues • Design changes • Traffic Commissioner Gifford has suggested that we take a short break and after the break open the public testimony. The testimony will be limited to changes that the applicant has proposed this evening and then the Commission can • go through the process and eliminate some of the issues and then get into the traffic. If we don't get to the traffic tonight, there will be time at the next meeting. We need to get into some response to the changes proposed by the applicant this evening. Commission discussion followed on the feasibility of having the public comment on the newly proposed projects tonight without sufficient time for review. Commissioner Tucker noted that the issues of relocation and access road are not impacted by the proposed changes. Certainly, we can talk about them; I have a pretty good feel as to what the changes will look like. The public can come back for further comment and I would like to have them as a sounding board on these issues. We will have another hearing three weeks from now, and any issues that the people have missed because they have not had an opportunity to study if, they will be welcomed to talk about if at that point. Commissioner Kranzley stated he wanted time to give staff direction on issues to be answered by the next meeting, especially in light of the new proposal. I don't know how you will allocate the time, but I would ask for time for that. Commissioner Ashley stated that we are not in a position to act on this proposal tonight. We do not have confirmation of any of the numbers that have been generated, so our staff will have to come back with their analysis of what has been proposed. I don't mind following what Commissioner Gifford has proposed as a way to organize what is going to transpire. Nothing will be 23 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 decided tonight, we are here only to gain information. Chairperson Selich then recessed for ten minutes. Public Comment was opened. Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star Lane, Vice President of Dover Shores Homeowners' Association commented on the change in timeshares had been reviewed with the board prior to this meeting. He reminded the Commissioner that there were no timeshares in the entitlements. Mary Dugan, 298 Bayside Village noted that she is encouraged to know that sites other than Back Bay Drive will be looked at and perhaps used to change the site of the proposed hotel. Jack Daulstrom, 300 East Coast Highway, Sp. 210, retired attorney and former Vice President of Sun Rise Company stated that the presentation by the applicant tonight was a very thorough one. However, he would be unable to comment on if tonight and is grateful for the opportunity to come back at the next meeting to make his comments. Ron Winship, 2606 Vista del Oro expressed his concerns about the access. As a staunch green light supporter, he noted that this project is in an event known as the "dead zone ". The water is so polluted in the bay. He noted that this is a great opportunity to connect Bayside Drive to Jamboree Road on a four -lane highway. Newport Beach is supposed to be elegant, this particular area is terrible. I suggest get rid of the RV's completely. If is time to assess this area and if is time to get the water cleaned up. Melanie Fitch, 108 301h Street expressed her opinion that some of the older residents of Bayside Village consider Bayside Drive an entrance to the Dunes. They have no problem with Bayside Drive being an additional for the hotel. The other thing is that as a volunteer with local charities, I look forward to having events at the hotel in the large ballrooms. Lisa Miller, 875 B West 151h Street, President of the Shellmaker Incorporated that did the mooring work at the Dunes. They installed the pilings, demolished the old marina, maintenance dredging in the area and marine facility related repair work. The presentation made tonight was great. I am excited about what is going to happen. One of the issues, moving the hotel to the other side would mean losing the marine facilities including the launch ramps. The ramp right now, is in a perfect area. It is protected and easy to use, people don't have to worry about winds or storms coming in and washing boats away. I do a lot of charity work in Newport Beach and we do have a hard time finding space that is big enough to handle events and have had to go outside. I think if would be nice to keep if in Newport Beach. 24 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Jack Callahan, member of Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, EQAC and a member of the Balboa Island Improvement Association. Speaking for EQAC he noted that they were charged to read the draft EIR's. The group was responsible to be fair, factual and honest. WE tried to keep the emotions out. The committees have worked very hard on the Dunes. The purpose of the EIR was to provide the decision makers with information that enables them to make decisions that are intellectually and takes into account the environmental consequences. EQAC committee feels that the Dunes EIR does not meet the requirements of an accurate report. Our sub - committee report in October 1999 and our report of February, 2000 on response to comments clearly points out the failure of the EIR. It does not answer major environmental issues that are in the report. There were twelve issues: land use. air quality, water quality, traffic, access, noise levels, height issues, parking, lighting and other visual issues. The committee feels the responses to the EIR do not address the current environmental and economic climate in Newport Beach. The EIR is flawed in many areas and it would be very difficult to make a meaningful and intelligent decision on this project. We feel the amount of significant impact to Newport Beach is very high and the EIR was very confusing and misleading and other times, wrong. Susan Caustin stated that the traffic will have a different impact with the design change. We are ending up saying that the new hotel generates less traffic than the previous hotel did. I would like to talk about re- orienting the RV Spots. Instead of having them horizontal to PCH, why not re- orient them so they are vertical? That may take care of the problem of access for the other spots. I have not heard a new economic assessment, we have heard before that a 275 room hotel is not economical viable. The Four Seasons is a 285 - room hotel, the Marriott Suites is 250 -room hotel and the proposed on the peninsula is a 154 -room hotel. They are all economically viable. The noise issue has not been addressed. Pat Greenbaum, 300 East Coast Highway, #25 Bayside Village thanked the Commission for their patience and humor. She discussed the lower back view landing. The re- designed hotel is not compatible to the existing residential communities that surround the proposed project, or, future residential sites on the lower back view landing. Designated in July of 1998 by the Irvine Company and the Ford Road project, 120 senior affordable housing apartments to satisfy their housing credits. It is my understanding that those plans have not been submitted. My speculation is, if the Dunes project is approved, that site will not be compatible to residential housing. However, the existing residential sites would be forced to live with this massive commercial development and sacrifice their quality of life and property values. Bob Balen, 265 Mayflower Street spoke regarding the traffic pattern. We all know there will be a tremendous problem off Bayside Drive. Stacking at Jamboree and Back Bay Drive as planned now, there is no stacking notation 25 INDEX 0 i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 at PCH and Bayside Drive. The air qualify problem noted in the staff report has no mitigation measures to take care of it. Visual impacts are not addressed relative to the parking structure that is incompatible with the residents of Mayflower Street. Larry Porter, 2712 Cliff Drive noted his opposition to the proposed project. Reason given was that if is not permitted by the General Plan and the Coastal Commission Local Coastal Plan. If if does not fit, you should not permit. He asked the Planning Commission to wait until the Green Light passes in November and then let the people decide. Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane presented a booklet on his company to the Commission. He stated that the views presented tonight were not pertinent and not accurate. He has outlined his process for his work on the visuals, which he presented to the Commission. The images presented were inaccurate, as they are high and bad vantage points. He recommended some vantage points that would be more pertinent. Accurate data needs to be presented to the public. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff if the visual representation was different than the actual building that was built, what are our options? If we rely on these computer images and they are inaccurate, can we call up this permit? Ms. Temple answered that to the extent that the foundation of the approval were on the basis of the exhibits provided, and Commissioner would not have otherwise approved the project, bringing the project back for further modifications to the project in the construction phase would be possible. Commissioner Fuller asked if economic viability is an issue that is before the Commission on this project. Ms. Temple answered that economic viability is not an environmental issue and is not a planning issue that is in the general realm of the Planning Commission. The project's economic viability is really in the purview of the applicant. Chairperson Selich added that the City Council has adopted an economic development policy that requires all major planning decisions considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council that fiscal impacts be taken into account. Mrs. Wood noted that the fiscal impact has been studied and that information has been provided to the Commission. There is a difference between fiscal impact and economic viability for the applicant. If is not the Planning Commission or City Council's job to make more money for the applicant. However, the Planning Commission will want to be comfortable with the project you are approving will be economically viable. That way we won't have something that doesn't work and essentially end up with a white elephant. 26 INDEX C', City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 INDEX 0 Jennifer Frutig, 1715 Marlin Way stated that the revised plan estimates approximately 4000 trips on Bayside Drive which constitutes the Dunes current entitlement. However, this does not include any trips generated for the conference facilities, which could easily create an additional 500 to 1000 car trips for a major event. This would place the proposed hotel over the current entitlement. The estimated increase, as noted in the staff report, in overall number of car trips would significantly impact traffic. I question whether the mitigated factors would reduce this significant impact. Brian Stewart, 208 44th Street noted his support of this quality hotel. He noted the willingness of the applicant in trying to meet the concerns of the public as well as the Commission. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive asked for clarification of story poles or balloons. She noted that the applicant could make a beautiful hotel. Chairperson Selich answered that this item has not been addressed as yet, but will be. Ramona Harris, Space 222 DeAnza Mobile Park noted her support of the project. Caroline Lombardi, 248 Bayside Village noted her opposition to the expansion, as where she lives, she will have constant traffic. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich thanked the audience for their deliberation in the manner that was specified. He then asked the Commission: Do any Commissioners see any value in relocating the project to the other side of the lagoon? Commissioner Fuller answered - looking at reasons given why it should not move; he is inclined to leave it where it is. Commissioner Kiser - current proposal could be worked with to arrive at something that can be an acceptable project in the proposed location. Commissioner Ashley - leave where it is Commissioner Gifford - feels satisfied that the option has been explored to the extent that it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that it is not practical to continue with further exploration. Commissioners Kranzley and Tucker agreed. Do any Commissioners wish to explore the access off Back Bay Drive any further? 27 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 INDEX Commissioner Tucker - no Commissioner Kranzley - employees and deliveries off Back Bay Drive, but not the main entrance. Commissioner Gifford - not worth further exploration Commissioner Ashley - no, all construction, delivery and employee traffic comes in by way of Back Bay Drive and not Bayside Drive. Commissioner Kiser - as long as delivery and employees from Back Bay Drive, no. Commissioners Fuller and Selich - agreed, employee and delivery traffic off Back Bay Drive The issue of the story pole: Commissioner Fuller - in favor of story poles, something stationery, locations at major corners and where presented on exhibit Commissioner Kiser - yes, either poles or balloons, locations noted are adequate Commissioner Ashley - yes, balloons okay on a hard wire Commissioner Gifford - yes, balloons or story poles. Perhaps the applicant should work with staff regarding the use of balloons or story poles. Commissioner Kranzley - yes Commissioner Tucker - no, no physical representations would show the whole picture Chairperson Selich - yes, the balloons as it is a cost - effective way to do it but I am not sure the points the applicant has presented would be adequate. I suggest that the applicant work with staff how to deploy. Perhaps pictures could be taken with the high points and corners represented by balloons. Public comment was opened. Mr. Gleason stated that whatever he does is not going to satisfy everyone. There will be a series of four balloons, five balloons high. The points will be surveyed in and they will be put up on a daily basis. Visually the balloons will give a better idea, as they are larger. They would be faster to put in place and be more effective. They can be put in place a few days prior to the meeting, whatever the Commission wishes. The story poles could not be put up within that same time frame. We would need additional time to address engineering concerns and it is a substantial undertaking. Public comment was closed. Balloons versus story poles straw vote: Commissioner tucker - none Commissioner Kranzley - balloons Commissioner Gifford - balloons Commissioner Ashley - balloons up on Saturday and Sunday t4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Commissioner Kiser - balloons Commissioner Fuller - story poles Chairperson Selich - balloons INDEX Mr. Gleason was deposed to work with staff and have the balloons in place one week prior to the meeting of March 9th by Chairperson Selich. Balloons will be replaced on a daily basis at times defined and agreed by staff. Ms. Temple noted that staff would consult with the Fire and Marine Department to get advice on the times of day that would have less wind that would distort the picture, then get the information out to the public. Chairperson Selich then asked the Commission for their thoughts on the design changes proposed by the applicant: Commissioner Tucker - asked for further details for review. Generally speaking the design changes have been very responsive to a lot of the testimony that has taken place. Few rooms, time share units being lowered is a big plus, the setbacks for the DeAnza residents is terrific, the loading area now facing a different direction is also a great feature. The setbacks and loading areas were not features that were focused upon, but they will have a dramatic positive impact. The fifth floor element turning into more architectural features and less monolithic is good as well. Overall, the design appears to be a great improvement. Commissioner Kranzley - I am hoping to see the employee access off Back Bay. I wonder if staff could come up with additional comparisons meeting space per square foot of hotel rooms and daily trips for hotels. Is there a possibility to find more information on the traffic study in the appendix. Table 2? 1 am trying to understand the impact of having a conference center hotel and its impact on trips. Ms. Temple answered that the only way we could do that is to contact the hotels on Table 3 that are not included on Table 2 because Table 3 was a study that would have to be re- created to add more hotels to the list. I think that you will find that all these hotels have some amount of meeting space and can be represented on a new Table 2. Commissioner Gifford noted that the design changes are pointing in the right direction. We need to see more detail in order to reflect. Commissioner Ashley concurred with the previous statements. He added that the Traffic Engineer should make more information available on what the impacts on the size reduction of the hotel will be. I would like an exact estimate of traffic coming through Bayside. The intent of the Settlement Agreement was for 4000 and that number has been alluded to. We need more analysis on the 8.92 trip multiplied by the number of rooms and assume 29 • 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 INDEX that covers all hotel visitor traffic, restaurant visitation, and meeting /conference rooms. That same number is utilized in the ITC handbook for all business hotel, whether they have a conference facility or not. I want to make sure that the conference business side has been included in that 8.92 trips per room. Chairperson Selich asked it it would be feasible to have another run at the Traffic Study on the applicant's proposal as presented tonight by the next meeting? Do you have through the ITE manual the breakdown of how they came up with the 8.92 trips, is there an analysis? What kind of back up studies do they have to come up to these conclusions, we need to have this information. Mr. Edmonton answered yes; a study can be done. Additionally, the ITE manual describes the kind of conventional hotels, which have a trip rate of 8.92 trips per room used in this study. The trip generation manual states, "hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, and other retail and service shops:' The 8.92 comes from counting all the traffic in and out of the driveways, which includes employees, hotel patrons, outside people coming to participate in either the shops, conference facilities, or spas. We can check as to what kind of breakdown the ITE documentation can provide. Commissioner Tucker stated that the trip per room rate is that the ITE is based on an occupied room basis, and yet our studies are based upon the gross number of rooms. Our studies tend to overstate if you will, ITE traffic impacts. At some point we need to get to a level playing field. Commissioner Kiser noted his support about the floor plates. On the traffic numbers presented tonight for the new proposal, I question if they were done in the same manner as the way the traffic study was compiled, the methodology. That needs to be confirmed. I am concerned about trip generation at peak hours, particularly with the conference facilities. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there were any studies done for weekend traffic? He was answered that the ITE manual typically does include some Saturday and Sunday trip generation numbers. We can look at that and include it. Commissioner Fuller stated he would like to see the visual simulations from the different points of view. I would like to have those before the balloons are put up so that we can have them when we go out there. Chairperson Selich requested copies of what was presented in the Power Point presentation tonight. We need that to help us evaluate the project. He generally concurred with the comments made on the design on the building 01 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 and stated that the project floor plate height should not be lowered. In the traffic study, there is a table that talks about the summary of highest attended summer catered events. During August on a Saturday evening, it has 1644 attendees, is that per day or the whole month? He was answered that it was per event and that the Evans Hotel people provided this data. Public comment was opened. Mr. Gleason answered that the information provided was for the entire month in order to average for the weekends. That table is comprised of numbers for those periods stated, either afternoon or evening for whichever day of the week. This information was compiled on a cumulative basis. Ms. Temple asked that the traffic study would be revisited again and presented at the next meeting. During the comments, Commissioner Tucker questioned the use of full occupancy versus an occupancy rate since the ITE rate is based on occupied rooms. We request direction as to how to do this traffic study, either as usually prepared assuming full occupancy or whether you wish to include a reduction based on a vacancy factor. If so, is there any preference as to what vacancy factor is to be used, county wide or citywide? The Visitors and Conference Bureau keeps some kinds of records. Chairperson Selich answered that it has to be consistent with what has already been done, as it is a comparative analysis. Commissioner Tucker stated he would like to see the study done on the same methodology as we have done. I would like to see an 85% or 95% occupancy and figure out if we'd done it on the same basis as the ITE, what our trip number per room would be per occupied room. It is a one simple division. I would like to see what the room rate would be assuming an 85% occupancy and a 95% occupancy. Chairperson Selich thanked Commissioner Fuller for remaining on the Commission until the first of April. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to March 9, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None 31 INDEX 0 E • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Udvare Residence (Joseph B. Udvare, applicant) 2716 and 2718 Shell Sheet • Variance No. 1234 • Modification No. 5040 Request to permit4 the construction of a new single family dwelling which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal includes a modification to the Zoning Code for the following encroachments: • Four (4) feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback with the dwelling, and • A bay window that will encroach 5 feet 6 inches into the required 10 foot rear yard setback and, ,l foot 6 inches into the required 4 foot side yard setback on the first End second stories. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of two weeks. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue -this item to the next meeting of February 17, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive • General Plan Amendmet No. 97 -3 F • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 • Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 • Conceptual Precise Plan • Final Precise Plan A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and swimming pools and landscaped garden areas. Commissioner Selich noted that this is the second public hearing that the 9 INgIQ Item No. 3 Continued to 02/17/2000 Item No. 4 Discussion Item Only Continued to 02/03/2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX Commission has held on this issue. At the last public hearing we received comments from about 48 people on the project. We thank those of you who participated. We ask that if you did testify at the last meeting, you not repeat your testimony as it is already on the record. We are looking for new information this evening, primarily on the environmental document and the response to comments. Senior Planner Patrick Alford stated this is the second report on the project. The first report addressed the General Plan, the Local Coastal Plan and Zoning Code amendments as well as the PC District Plan and the Conceptual Precise Plan. This report focuses on the Development Agreement, EIR and responses to questions raised at the January 20th meeting. We had hoped to have the revised TPO traffic report, however, it is still under preparation by our traffic consultant. He noted the following: The Development Agreement - • Vests the right of the applicant to proceed with the project approved by the City for the 25 -year term of the agreement. • Owners of timeshare developments who stay at Newport Dunes through an exchange program will be assessed an entitlement fee of 10% of the timeshare maintenance fee in effect at the time of the exchange. • The City will have the right to use a portion of the property to facilitate maintenance of the Bay. • The applicant will contribute $75,000 to be used by the City to fund projects or studies that improve the water quality or the environment in Upper and /or Lower Newport Bay. • The applicant will contribute $25,000 for the City to use in constructing or equipping a Marine Educational and Water Quality facility on Shellmaker Island. • The applicant will pay up to $200,000 for the design and construction of a view park at Upper Bayview Landing. The EIR - • Responses to the comments received from individuals and agencies during the public review period, which ran from October IIt to November 15, 1999. • An addendum to the EIR was prepared for the alternative (Entry Gate) design for Bayside Drive. • In addition, supplemental noise studies were conducted to noise issues raised by residents of Dover Shores. • Still outstanding is an addendum for the relocation of the service road and sound wall on the western property line. However, preliminary analysis reveals no new significant impacts. • Finally, staff has prepared written responses to the questions raised at the January 20th hearing as well as any other questions that were mailed, [Us r� LJ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 faxed or e- mailed to us before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 3151. He concluded noting that the applicant would provide additional information. Public comment was opened. Ann Evans, Chairman of Evans Hotel, owner and operator of Newport Dunes, made a brief presentation focusing on specific issues including additional computer generated animations on the 3D model; heights and key points of the Development Agreement. The quality we envision for the Newport Hotel will be of a quality level represented in the photographs presented in the exhibit. Mrs. Evans then turned the presentation over to Mr. Gleason after explaining the difference between four star and five star designations. Mr. Robert Gleason noted the following as he presented an overview of the resort location. The slide presentation featured: • Surrounding residential and commercial developments. • Total of 100 acres on parcel. • Visual aspects of the project include land use, traffic, architectural details; landscaping, parking structure, vistas and enhanced paving features. • The finished grade of the public areas next to the Castaways is approximately 1 10 feet with the top elevation. • The architectural detail includes water features and reflecting pools. • Buildings are to be from 1 story to 5 story. • Brent Chase prepared the visual simulations. Past experience amounts to over ten years in this field. • The east end of the time -share units is at a three -story level. There was a project change from four -story to three -story; however, the change was not reflected in the architectural plans discussed at the previous meeting. The change was however incorporated in and analyzed in the EIR and was accounted for in the visual simulations. The architectural plans will be amended. • Building heights: ➢ 1 story - 12 feet (conference rooms and public areas) ➢ 2 story - 10 feet plus roof is 28 to 32 feet depending on how wide the roof needs to be ➢ 3 story - 10 feet plus roof plus elevation is 50 feet with elevator turrets ➢ 4 story - 40 feet plus roof elevation is 50 feet with elevator roofs at 60 feet (at main time share building) ➢ 5 story - 60 feet plus elevator area is 75 feet maximum (about 10% of the building floor area not including the parking structures) • Project benefits include conference space; improved public access; additional revenue to city and local economy as well as the Development Agreement conditions. Brent Chase, of Hedrick, Chase and Associates, 27123 Calle Royal, San Juan Capistrano at Commission inquiry described the methodology used for the INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX interactive video and the pictures in the EIR that had the projected building within the existing landscapes. He explained that: • Starts with a 3 Dimensional model that is modeled in real world dimension. • It is combined with site features in the computer model, shore line, streets, etc. • Visit the site and with input by the City and the applicant, take a number of photographs from around the site. • Those photographic positions are then surveyed which gives the coordinates. • The coordinates are fed into the computer, which in turn presents that perspective to us that matches the photographs. • The photographs are then combined in the computer with the model in an overlay method. As long as those site features that were put in the computer model align with the photograph, i.e., edges of streets, boxes for trailers, water edge, we know the computer model is locked into that photograph. • We have been doing this for the past ten years and have set the industry standard in Southern California. It is the most accurate way to work. • A panoramic camera with a fixed lens is used. It exposes the negative that is the same proportion as the images you see, about 2 1/2 frames wide and 1 frame high. It provides a panoramic view of the project without the distortion you get from wide -angle lenses. • Per our analysis of how to use these images, the best of all worlds is to present it billboard size and stand in front of it as you would at the project. However, in order to have the proper viewing distance, you should be the same distance to the display as the width of the display. It will fill your peripheral vision as it would on site. Commissioner Tucker asked about the difference of the feature on the time- share. Did you take elevations that were outdated and plug them into the initial analysis? Mr. Chase answered that the original analysis was done about two years ago. A year later, we were provided with a different concept study that showed the time -share units at a three -story height. That computer model was then inserted into our system and became the standard that we worked with. That model was then the one that was utilized for the latest Dover Shores illustrations, etc. It does not match the architectural drawings; it was a model that was developed to assess a different design option with a lower time -share building. Commissioner Gifford asked if the photographs and visual representations presented tonight represent the full picture? We had talked before about what might be done as an alternative to story poles and I want to make sure that we know when you have reached your total development ideas. Mr. Gleason answered that when we started on the process, we said we MA 0 1] 1] City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX would continue to develop that computer model until if represents the full architectural and landscape plans and provided views all around the project from an animated movie view as well as interactive nodes. Some of the landscape and all of the architectural plans are in the model. We can show the 3D model from each of the public viewing spots that were in the EIR, i.e., the Castaways from the public walk. We will show an insertion of the model into the real video in the foreground and in the background showing Castaways and Dover Shores, which is the most complicated part of the process and is not ready yet. Commissioner Kiser asked about the height of a maximum of 75 feet, representing 2000 square feet of elevator towers. Mr. Gleason confirmed that would be the maximum amount of square footage at that particular height. Referencing the exhibit, he pointed out the elevator towers in the project as well as the architectural details. Commissioner Kiser then asked for additional information to be presented at the next meeting showing the square footages on all the elevator towers, to which Mr. Gleason agreed. Chairperson Selich then reminded the people in the audience, that in the anteroom, there is a list of questions that were answered and who asked what questions. Commissioner Tucker stated that the Commission has a two- volume version of the environmental impact report with subsequent comments and responses. At some point the Commission is going to have to reach a conclusion on the adequacy of that report and its completeness. What would be helpful, to the extent of those who have read the reports, is to specify where you think mistakes or inadequacies are in the report. It is not helpful to have someone stand up and say that traffic is awful, what is helpful is to say that the report does not adequately describe what traffic will be like because, then get as specific as possible. Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood added that the Environmental Qualify Affairs Committee (EQAC) has been reviewing the draft EIR and has provided comments and intends to review the final EIR. That have set a special meeting for this coming Monday, the 7th to complete their review and will have a representative at the next Commission meeting to present their comments. Public comment was opened. Esther Fine, 1830 Santiago Drive, as a member of the Orange Coast Association of Realtors corrected a statement made at the last Planning Commission meeting of January 20th. Diane Coltrane stated that she was 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 lf.f-§W�t representing the Newport Beach Association of Realtors and that the Association was in favor of the Dunes project. A mistake was made, as there is no Newport Beach Association of Realtors, we are known as the Orange Coast Association of Realtors and our Association has not endorsed this project. Diane was speaking on behalf of herself and not on behalf of the Association. The Dover Shores Homeowners Association is not In favor of the Dunes project, as it is proposed, however, we have no objection to what was agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement of 1988. We challenge the comments made by a Mr. Louis Masadi who stated that property values near a five star or luxury hotel appreciates. We know that property values appreciate as market values go up, however, as a realtor, property values near commercial real estate is much less in value than those in residential communities. Betty Padden, 213 E. Bay Front asked about the traffic at the entrance. It was inquired if there was to be another entrance, but they were told it was impossible because the blue prints had already been made. When you look at how much traffic will be coming in off Coast Highway, including all the commercial and building trucking as well as the parking of the employees who will be traveling in and out. The width of Bayside is not that big considering the size of the construction trucks that have to travel. We have to think of everybody. I ask that you put another road in to help people get in and out. Otherwise, it could be a potential fire hazard. Pat Greenbaum, 300 East Coast Highway, #25 stated that the Planning Commission needs to stay focused on the issue. The issue is not the quality of the resort and hotel and interior design. It is not the Evans Family legacy, nor is it increased property value. The issue is not city revenue, I believe the issue is location. A project of this magnitude does not belong in the center of several residential planned communities and the rim of an ecological reserve that is protected by the Coastal Act, Section 30240. The entire project site lies within the Coastal Zone and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. Reading from a Coastal Commission letter dated August 1998 to the Planning Department quoted, "the Coastal Commission staff believes that the proposed Newport Dunes project with the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inconsistent with the applicable Coastal Act policies as well as past Commission actions for the project in the surrounding site. That is the issue, and the last word I believe comes from the Coastal Commission. Ralph Rodheim, 311 Onyx stated his support for the project noting the quality of the project. It will be good for our community. This project needs to be of the right size and traffic should not impact the residents. Dave Brownell. 300 East Coast Highway, #67 stated that this project must be held to accountability. He recounted a survey of the Bayside Village Association advisory vote as 69% favoring a gatehouse and security gate and [[I . 1] 1_J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX 88% favoring a relocation of the sound wall. I called 100 of my neighbors and got the following responses - 3 declined to state opinion, 8 were undecided, 21 opposed the Dunes project and 68 favored the project. I believe this truly represents the current sentiment in Bayside Village after all of the discussions of the past several months and after the proposed mitigation measures. Darwin Britvich, 300 East Coast Highway #31 spoke in support of this project because the Evans people have shown a tremendous amount of concern for the issues of the people who live in my community. Some of these are legitimate concerns, and they have tried to mitigate them in a very reasonable way and they are continuing to do so. A lot of people who live in Bayside approve this project, however, we do want to see some things taken care of that show concern for us. Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower Street noted her concerns for the community. She stated that her street is 3 feet from the west boundary of the project and that no one will feel the impact as much as the residents on Mayflower Street. If this was a business complex, it would at least be closed at 6 p.m. and closed on the weekends. But, this is a resort hotel that is open 7 days a week, 24 hours a day with most of its use occurring at night or on the weekends. This hotel will loom 75 feet above us. We ask you to reject this proposal as planned; we are not against a plan. The impact that this project will have on our lives, on the privacy and even our health puts us in jeopardy. Additionally seven sections of the California Coastal Act state that this proposed development does not conform to its guidelines for boating, public access, low cost housing and recreational activities, just to name a few. Robert Balen, 265 Mayflower Street commented that this project does not belong in Upper Newport Bay. Specifically, we on Mayflower Street have a problem with the location. The proposed nine -foot wall will not stop noise from the vehicles and trucks on the service road. We would like you to hire a sound engineer to prove this point. Hotel guests with their vehicles at the top of the parking structure after 10:00 p.m. are going to cause a lot of noise, commotion and disturbance. It happens in every hotel. At the top of the garage is a main entry to the hotel with people coming and going at all hours of the day and night. We are concerned about after 10:00 p.m. The air conditioners will also produce a lot of noise along with blowers. All this noise will be right above us only thirty feet away. The proposed project will create intolerable noise over the City's 50- decibel limit at all hours of the day and night. There will be air pollution. These will all affect our quality of life and will impact our property values. Mrs. Long, 214 Tremont, stated that she does not oppose the project. However, she opposes the use of Bayside Drive as the main thoroughfare because of air pollution. We live under jet fuel fall out, plus dirt, grime, dust • plus emissions from the cars will add to the pollution. Is there anyway that the main entrance can be Jamboree to Back Bay Drive? Please think about it, we W City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 do need help, as we will be greatly impacted by the air pollution. Collin Berger, 601 Bayside Drive spoke as a designated representative of the Promontory Bay Homeowners Association. We are concerned with the height density and traffic that this project will create. We doubt the credibility of the traffic survey where it states that not one car would travel south on Bayside Drive. We are not opposed to any development of the Newport Dunes property and are willing to work with the project applicant and other homeowner associations that are opposing the development in an effort to forge a development plan that is acceptable to all. We would ask that you postpone any action on this project to give us time to meet with interested parties to come up with a development plan that we can all embrace. To approve the project as proposed will only lead to greater delays for the project, possible environmental litigation and a great dissent in the City. We will work with great diligence and good faith to come to a common ground on this project. Larry Porter, 2712 Cliff Drive added his opposition to this project for similar reasons previously stated. Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane stated that he has put a lot of time and effort in studying the exhibits presented in this application and that they are too high and too close. He then distributed exhibits to the Commission. He voiced his concern with the presentations made by the applicants. He stated that his past exhibits he presented are not in the response to general comments and asked that they be included, along with his presentation tonight. Mr. Alford noted that the materials received after the hearings are included in the staff report. In every case, Mr. Ohlig submitted his exhibits at the hearing, so you have them before you. The ones received after the report went out have been submitted before you tonight. Susan Caustin, 471 Old Newport Boulevard, asked for story poles as that is the only way to get the accurate information. She distributed a plot plan where she recommended that they be erected. She asked the Planning Commission to pay close attention to the quality of the hotel that is coming in and if necessary, to make sure there are quality assurances within the project. She questioned the traffic report that removes 600 trips from the RV spots that are going to be removed and considers that they do not need to be counted. Those RV traffic trips would come out onto Jamboree and not onto Bayside Drive. Those traffic trips need to be added into the impact at Bayside, they may be within the number of trips allowable, but I think they need to be calculated into the ICU numbers of the Bayside /PCH intersection because if 600 cars come on to Jamboree, what happens if 300 go one way and 300 go the other way. You only end up with 10 or 15 of those cars of the 600 at PCH and Bayside going out the other way. They will all end up in the Bayside 16 INDEX is City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3. 2000 INDEX intersection. I question whether the noise from the garage has been looked at closely enough for its impact on Bayside Village. I am not sure that it has been looked at closely enough. Bob Caustin. 471 Old Newport Boulevard #203 representing Defend the Bay stated that the visuals are flawed. Therefore. the only right thing to do is re- circulate the EIR and let people know they have to look at it again. As to the bay quality. the applicant is proposing to have run -off go out into the main channel going away from the lagoon away because the system they have chosen is going to eliminate only 80% of the pollutants. However. they happen to be the least dirty of the pollutants. Still going into the bay will by the silts and the clay which carry the pesticides. phosphorous. nitrates and things you don't want to come in contact with. He presented a transcript of people who experience the displeasure of putting up with an Evans Hotel. )He then discussed his experience during his stay at the Bahia Hotel as well as his experience at the Catamaran Hotel). Ramona Harris. 300 East Coast Highway stated her support of the project noting it will be safe. She then discussed similar hotels in the area comparing traffic and length of time it takes to sell all the time - shares. George Sanders. 300 East Coast Highway stated his support of the project after the creative work done by the applicants to improve problems on Bayside Drive guard gate. There is a problem on Mayflower and that is why the wall has been moved back and raised and is a definite improvement that will help everybody. We are interested in seeing this hotel go forward. Peggy Fort. 614 Via Lido Nord, as a business owner stated her support for the project as it will bring in revenue to local businesses as well as the revenues through the TOT. As a resident. I look forward to referring my out of state family and friends when they come to visit me here in Newport Beach. Rush Hill. 1211 Cliff Drive spoke in support of this project as an architect. planner and First Chairman of the Economic Development Committee. He stated that we must compete with our surrounding communities for a sustainable revenue source and. where appropriate. mitigation opportunities and mitigation revenues. I believe out of the sites that are available in the overall community. this site is the appropriate place for this project. Those of us. who live in this town. demand a high quality of life. The police. fire. marine. the water quality. the harbor quality. parks. road. even the free trash service we demand must be funded on an ever - growing basis and we must compete with other communities for that opportunity. The City of Costa Mesa enacted a doubling of its TOT and a doubling of its marketing campaign because they recognize that a project like this is the kindest kind of project to serve visitors. to serve the community and generate substantial revenue such as sales tax, TOT, and property tax. Huntington Beach is bringing on line 500 new rooms and 55.000 square feet on our border in one project. We continually lose business 17 City of Newport Beach Pianning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX on a weekly basis to the City of Irvine. Our income from Newport Beach residents funds Irvine City Hall in part because we can not hold meetings, conferences and banquets in our community the size of Irvine. It is important for this project to be able to have that ability to compete. The other sites that have been identified over the past six years, for a property of this type and community, Marina Park, Mariner's Mile, South Coast Ship Yard, Lido, those four sites would only hold a "boutique" property, if any at all. The Dunes is the only site we have where we can build the type of competition base that we need to have to compete with other communities. We can not put our heads in the sand. If we do nothing, we are going to have these properties all around our borders. We will have the traffic as they arrive at John Wayne Airport; they drive through Newport Beach to get to Huntington Beach. We will not have the mitigation opportunities, we will not have the revenue opportunities and we will be as we were six years ago, looking to reduce the quality of life in this town, reduce the police and fire protection, marine and all the rest because we did not plan properly. I urge you to support this project, as it is carefully planned, carefully thought out and look forward to having it in this community. Stephen Sutherland, 2101 151h Street spoke in support of this project representing the Economic Development Committee. He stated that the EDC was presented and asked to make comments on the fiscal impact analysis that was prepared by Dave Kiff of City staff. This analysis deals with the revenues that the proposed Newport Dunes Resort project would generate for the City. It looks at bottom line net revenues. The income streams were presented in three different categories. The first category was property tax, the second category was sales tax revenues and the third category was the hotel occupancy tax or TOT. The property tax shares resulting from the improvements on the tidelands property and held in trust by the County pay a possessory interest tax instead of a direct property tax. The Dunes project would likely value the property as an ownership, which will make the project's hotel and timeshare subject to tax liability identical to the taxes paid by a traditional property. The structure of the hotel ($100 per square foot valuation) at 485,000 square foot complex or $48.5 million. The 100 timeshares units would have 51 intervals and at some point in the future all of those intervals would sell out. Assuming that the cost for a one -week interval would average $20,000. Barbara Kenady, I Patagonia Aisle, Irvine stated her support of this project on behalf of non - profit organizations that have benefited from the Dunes generosity. The generosity from the Evans Family is greatly valued in the community. The Evans Family has integrity, experience in hotel management and they are extremely conscientious. The Newport Dunes expansion could only add to their giving back to the community. Pauline Bearden, 212 Tremont stated her support of this project. She stated that the Dunes is a lovely place and is a great asset to the community. IK 0 I] City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 Lee Rutter Runels, Y41 Via Lido Soud voiced her support for the Dunes project. She has witnessed the transformation of the Dunes from a run down eye sore to an attractive multi - purpose resort. The proposed hotel will exceed expectations and create another wonderful place for residents and visitors to enjoy. The additional meeting space will be great for local residents. Those of us who live in Newport have seen a great deal of change, some good, some bad. I believe that this project is one of the good ones. The owners and management of the Dunes have been great neighbors for the last fifteen years. It will create jobs as well as create revenue for Newport, tax dollars that will be used to hopefully maintain and improve our community. Larry Root, 1210 Polaris Drive as a member of the Dover Shores Homeowners Association stated that when he bought his home, he relied on the subsequent General Plan and height limitations, especially the Settlement Agreement. Many members of the association feel the same. We are concerned about the beautiful area of the Back Bay that is not the place to put a large convention hotel. However, the Dunes Settlement Agreement provided for 270 rooms and public facility for people of moderate income so they would have access to bayfront locations. Removing 40% of the RV spaces is not in the public interest, especially when the proposal calls for a massive four star convention hotel with 100 time - shares and actually are bayfront condos for sale on a weekly basis. The Coastal Commission has pointed out that this is a degradation of the public use. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Root noted that his community association was poled and that 86% are against this proposed project. Jennifer Frutig, 1715 Marlin Way questioned the credibility of the draft Environmental Impact Report on the issue of the number of peak hour car trips at Jamboree and Dover Drive. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive spoke about the word commitment in regards to the Settlement Agreement. The Agreement of the 1980's was a commitment to the Dunes to allow them to do 275 rooms and commits them to a height limitation of 38.5 feet maximum (higher than our City's height limitation). It was also a commitment to the citizens of Newport Beach and it is that commitment that I am asking you to consider tonight. It is extremely important to recognize that our City's representatives at that time felt that the negotiations were the right ones. Just because the Dunes has not built it, does that take away the commitment that was made to the residents at that time? The height is a concern, as well as traffic. We are having a hard time with the visuals and I ask again for story poles. You might consider that the height of the time - shares facing Dover Shores will be approximately the same height as the Balboa Bay Club apartments on the Coast Highway. The highest point of the Dunes hotel, not counting the elevator shafts makes it almost equal to a point at the Castaways cliffs. It is much too massive for that location. 19 rkrsw�t City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX Richard Luehrs, Newport Harbor Area Chambers presented a copy of a resolution that unanimously passed by the Chamber's Board of Directors in support of this project. He commented that the Evans family has been a great corporate neighbor and supported our community over the last twenty years. We are fortunate to have a family owned and operated facility in our community willing to invest the kind of money as a betterment for all of our visitors and residents in Newport Beach. This is the right project, the right time and in the right location and we hope you agree. Jim deBoom, 2082 S. E. Bristol, #201 as Executive Vice President of the Orange County Coast Association that deal with coastal issues such as development, water quality and traffic. In September, two developments were discussed, one in Dana Point and this one in Newport Beach. He then introduced a resolution that was adopted in support of the Dunes expansion. We have heard reports from several coastal city mayors that they would like to have a development of this quality in their city. We encourage the City of Newport Beach to enable the Newport Dunes development. The applicant was given an opportunity to rebut: Mr. Robert Gleason noted the following: • Issue of Coastal Commission approval - project is in the original jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and requires a Coastal Development Permit following the process in the City. • Parking Structure noise - the parking structure is almost entirely enclosed, with the exception of the top deck and is surrounded by a perimeter wall. Mestre Greve is doing a supplemental noise analysis as part of the analysis of the relocation of the sound wall along the service road. The report will be part of the next staff report. • Meeting with homeowner associations - we have a meeting scheduled with Promontory Bay Association, Dover Shores Association and Linda Isle Associations. We have tried unsuccessfully to meet with Harbor Island and Beacon Bay Associations. • Time -share heights - all three stories at a 40 -foot roof element. Commissioner Kiser asked about the parking garage across from the service road. Mr. Gleason answered that the entry to the parking structure will be from the upper level and then ramp down into the structure. The only area where the lower two levels open is an entrance located approximately half way along the length of the parking structure along the first level. The upper deck is open, but the balance of the two decks is entirely enclosed except for that exit. He then referenced the video showing the elevation of the hotel building looking towards the east. The first two levels of the parking structure have walls visible in some areas along the slope and berm with landscaping. The rest of the whole area is enclosed. From the property side with Bayside Village, 20 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX there is the existing bike trail for 15 feet, a 15 foot landscape buffer then the 9 foot sound wall, then the service road with additional landscaping and then the parking structure. He then explained several exhibits depicting views including conference rooms, 3 level parking structure and landscape berm. Commissioner Kranzley asked about story poles, what if we created an almost 2 dimensional story pole outline of the profile of the building as opposed to the width of the building? I am not quite getting the full picture from the computer visual simulation that has been presented so far. I am not sure how expensive it would be to just do the profiles as opposed to doing the whole outline. What are your thoughts? Mr. Gleason answered that the story pole was not so much the actual dollar cost as it was the efficacy of that effort, To the extent the you reduce the number of roof points, it gets easier. The other issue we could not quite figure out was the physical construction issue. The story poles done on Treasure Island got to heights of about 45 -50 feet. In this case, some 75 foot elements with 60 feet elements would need to be researched as to how to construct. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there was some sense of value in the story poles to answer questions brought up in public testimony. I wonder if there might be some real value into settling some of these bulking issues, once and for all not only for the public, but the Planning Commission as well. Taking into consideration that we want to make sure this is not a prohibitive project in fact almost like building a little housing area. Mr. Gleason answered that the difficulty with that is we looked at the computer model to provide a better sense of being at the site to give a sense of context. It is not quite there yet, but with real video, will get there. As far as the story poles go, we need to look at this in more depth, as the difficulty is really one of time. Commissioner Tucker asked for and received clarification of the parking structure. He noted that the parking structure is really a two level parking structure with parking on the roof of the structure that equates to three parking levels. The parking on the top level is really an open level? Mr. Gleason answered yes. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich that this is the time we will be going through the deliberation that includes the many texts, reports and testimony from the public meetings. It is our duty to make a recommendation of the disposition of this project, to approve, deny or modify. We will narrow the issues down and get into specifics. I ask each Commissioner to list out their concerns. We will keep a running list on the chart so that the members of the audience can keep record as well. There will be time for additional public testimony at the 21 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX next hearing if there is supplemental information presented by staff. There will be no decision tonight; hopefully, we will narrow things down tonight so that we con get more specific testimony from the public. We may give direction to the applicant on things to investigate. Commissioner Tucker focused on the traffic as reading through the letters and listening to the testimony hod brought out several issues: • Trip rotes selected - 8.92 per room and the ITE calls for 8.92 per occupied room • Bock Boy access - traffic model information shows that at Marguerite and Coast Highway, in the long term, goes to o Level of Service E but if 50% of the traffic was diverted to Bock Boy then PCH and Marguerite would not go into LOS E. How does our traffic model actually look at things? • Capacity of the ballrooms has become on issue - floor plans show there is pre- function space located between the two 12,000 foot ballrooms and I am curios as to whether the two ballrooms could be combined and what would it mean for the single event type as for as traffic is concerned? • How often will the ballrooms be moxed out at one time? If they ore, how many people con be accommodated? Look at peak situations as well as the overage and how our traffic study addresses those issues. • Types of convention business - trucking and displays? • Ratio of meeting space to hotel rooms? • Settlement Agreement traffic trips allocated; many of those trips hove been allocated so there ore not many to be used, as we hove been assuming, in out traffic study. • Questions raised on the distribution of traffic south on Boyside to Balboa Island. • Update of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, which we do not hove yet. • The intersection of Riverside at Pacific Coast Highway, what will the TPO analysis show? • Proper base line for traffic as discussed in the letter from the attorney for Dover Shores. • Confirm that the traffic study shows 5400 trips will be added onto PCH and Boyside and that 600 trips deducted some place else at Bock Boy and Jamboree. Commissioner Kronzley added: • Impacts of employee using other entrance off Jamboree. • Meeting rooms /convention center will work. • Bulk - story poles that run the outline of the profile of the building should be considered. • Noise - for the peace and tranquility of city residents might odd conditions that apply to the proposed project. Commissioner Gifford added her concerns: • The appropriateness of Pacific Coast Highway as the point of entry. I am 22 C 0 Ll City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX not satisfied that we have had enough of a look at an entrance off Jamboree. • Location of hotel - I would like to explore the concept of re- location to the other side of the lagoon. When the Development Agreement was negotiated it was binding on the City and the Dunes. If there is now a question of re- opening the agreement, it does not need to be re- opened in a compartmentalized fashion. You deal with all the pieces. The original concept of the Agreement was cohesive, family oriented, low key development. If we start to look at changing that, we do not have to stick with all of the original concepts such as the location of the hotel. • Major development as compared to a number of hotels /resorts that are luxury business. I have not seen anything represented to us comparable as a luxury development that is near an RV park or near a mobile home park as part of the window to the property or the surrounding area. There is a tension that the original development agreement and some of the things focused on by the Coastal Commission as an accessible, affordable, family oriented kind of development. What is being proposed is more of a luxury end. For Coastal Commission purposes if ever these two things can be resolved and for the sake that this third piece really fits in. The City will live with this for a very long time if this project is approved. If it turns out not to be viable because of some economic miscalculation in terms of the fit and its surroundings, etc., we would certainly be stuck with something that was not a small project to try to rehabilitate. • Scale is massive - We had a discussion about the idea of story poles. Based on what I have seen to date, I have a sense of a very high wall at the end of the bay. That gives me great concern. Commissioner Ashley added: • This project is a good one for the City. • The environment that is being proposed for the development of the project is fragile. • Object to the plan design and oppose Bayside Drive as the ingress and egress to this hotel project. There should be no access to the project from this street and there should be an emergency breakaway fence placed at its terminus. • The quality of life for the people in Bayside Village will be disturbed by the project traffic. • Back Bay Drive off Jamboree Road should be the only access to this project. • Bayside Drive is a local street designed to provide circulation for a low - density residential neighborhood and was not intended to become a commercial avenue to a resort project. • If Bayside Drive remains the only way in and out for this project, then construction vehicles, buses, service vans should not permitted to go in or out on Bayside Drive. They should be confined to using Back Bay Drive. • Story poles should be used to profile the building. 23 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 Commissioner Kiser added his concerns: • Appendix B to the EIR regarding trip generation of meeting /catering information needs substantiation from a non - interested party. • Peak hours need to be studied. • Bayside Drive traffic trips need to re- evaluated. • 1 am for the use of story poles on the major points of the hotel, corners and such in some form whether story poles or helium filled balloons. • View simulations did very well with the approaches to the project and the interior creating a sense of what could be built, but the views across the bay need a lot more work as well as from Dover Shores community of the time share section. • There needs to be minimization of noise from the parking structure to the Bayside Village location. • Ratio of hotel to meeting space along with the trip rates. • Bulk of the project is in a sensitive area. Chairperson Selich stated that one thing that needs to be discussed first, prior to anything else, is whether we want to consider this project at all? There is an approval already through a Settlement Agreement for a 275 -room hotel. The first thing we need to do is to discuss if it is appropriate to expand this 275 -room hotel and why before we get into expansion discussion. My concerns on the project have been stated by the other Commissioners: • Hotel of this magnitude does it fit within the context of this community? • Location of the hotel is it appropriate to be dealt with? • Trip generation rates - we need to understand how these are developed. The back up that ITE uses takes into account all of the convention space and the ancillary commercial uses. etc. that go into the hotel /convention space. There seems to be a tendency to focus on different types of uses that are contained within that 8.92 generation rate. • Access off Bayside Drive - should look at developing an alternate access off Back Bay Drive in some form or another. • Traffic model - Bayside distribution. • Bulk and height issues - we need to look at this in the context of the community, it's massive and perhaps we can look at reducing the impact. • It sits 12 feet above sea level and perhaps sinking the parking structure down a level or so, perhaps other portions of the buildings could be brought down in some fashion so that it does not have such a massive appearance. Commissioner Ashley added: • That a pedestrian bridge that now goes from the east side of the property to the west side of the property serving people parked on the east lagoon, should be changed to a vehicular bridge with two lanes of vehicular traffic. Chairperson Selich asked for deliberation on whether the project has merit or stick with the 275 -room approval that we presently have? 24 INDEX �1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX Commissioner Tucker answered that this is quite a change. We are talking about a change from a 500,000 square foot structure to a 700,000 square foot structure plus another 50,000- 70,000 square feet of ancillary uses. The problem have with the existing entitlement is that I don't think it will benefit the community. The issue as to where you come off, either Jamboree or Bayside, the question is still the same. My sense is I am concerned about the scale of the project. I don't think the project will fit on the east side. On the issue of the story poles, I feel comfortable with what it will be like. The project will be noticeable, but not as much if it was on the highway. We need to refine and change some things, but I would be in favor of trying to come up with something that works as this is a for superior project to what the Settlement Agreement calls for. Commission Kranzley stated that we need more information. There is a potential to create a project that traffic wise could look a lot like the entitled resort through the Settlement Agreement. It included a 15,000 square foot freestanding restaurant, etc. which creates a lot more peak hour trips than the hotel rooms. Convention rooms on site have the potential of creating captive residents. I don't' have enough information and I would like to continue researching this. A straw vote on the story pole issue comes out to at least 4 Commissioners asking for some type of story poles. We need to see some type of physical representation. Commissioner Gifford stated that it is possible for the Commission to look at possible alternative of a better project. If is a worthwhile effort to work with the applicant's idea to see if there is something more beneficial and no more detrimental. Commissioner Ashley stated that the 275 Family Inn that was proposed in the 1980 Settlement Agreement would be obsolete today. If would not be feasible. The proposed plan is vastly superior to the Family Inn of the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Kiser agreed with all of the previous statements. He added that the architectural design and hard work done on the concept of the hotel if if could be translated into something economically viable on a smaller scale, makes a lot of sense for the area and the City. Chairperson Selich noted his concurrence with moving this project on. The 275 -room project was conceived 20 years ago and the economic fabric of the City and County has change. If would not be a feasible project today. I tried to evaluate if by leaving a 275 room facility there and maybe do a super luxury five star facility with a much more limited scope, not dissimilar to what is being proposed out on Balboa Peninsula. In doing that analysis I came to the conclusion that it would not work on that site. The economics of if working would be very slim and if would probably be difficult to find an operator that 25 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 12 -11W would consider doing that on that particular site. This proposed project has merit and the impact on the community is what needs to be looked at. We need to craft this project so that it has minimal impacts in all those areas and still be a benefit to the community, which it most likely would be. We need to minimize the impact on the surrounding community. Chairperson Tucker stated that we should focus in on what makes sense, not the size of the project, as it will change some of the important features such as traffic. It might be better to figure out the type of facility that the Commission thinks would fit here. It would also be beneficial to look at the number of rooms, story poles, and public space. Commissioner Gifford stated that there is not enough information regarding moving the project to another site as well as having an entrance off Back Bay Drive. The location of the hotel might be secondary to that and whether or not it is feasible. The applicant and staff might come back with a type of feasibility analysis to moving the hotel to the other side of the hotel. Commissioner Ashley noted this would result in a total re- design of the project. They would have to start all over again and we would be in the position of having to review another EIR and I don't thinks this is necessary. They're other ways to handle it. Commissioner Tucker concurred with previous comments adding that the bigger issues are traffic, pollution and noise. It would be nice if there was more land on the other side because it would fit better. It is better to leave the facility where it is and look at alternatives in terms of access. Commissioner Gifford asked if there is a feasible project that would fit there? Chairperson Kranzley stated that this is an important project and in an environmentally sensitive area. I want us to do the right thing and looking at the feasibility is the right thing to do. Commissioner Kiser noted that if the proponent was interested in reducing the scale of the present proposal, and could be done in an economically viable way, at the same location very possibly it would take care of most of the issues that have been raised. I am in favor of having the feasibility be analyzed. Chairperson Selich summed it up by saying that we are asking staff and the applicant to come back with some type of analysis that we can consider at the next meeting: • Move access - peak hours are between 8 and 11 in the morning and around 4 P.m. as it will not congest Jamboree Road. • Get traffic off Bayside Drive. Commissioner Tucker noted that this would wipe out the RV spaces if it stays at 26 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 the current site. I.I0�:1 Chairperson Selich answered that there would be a need to eliminate or re- locate additional RV spaces. The applicant would have to make other arrangements; we are not talking about making drastic changes at the hotel site. Commissioner Kiser asked if we are assuming there are only two accesses for this project, either off Back Bay Drive or Bayside Drive? And if so, is there any possibility of another curb cut off Coast Highway, somewhere east of Bayside Drive that would lead to a road through some of the RV spaces? Chairperson Selich answered that there was analysis in the EIR, but because of the grade differential, no one has seriously pursued that alternative. The next issue is story poles; he asked how it would be done. Commissioner Gifford stated that the Commission should give the applicant some directions, such as outlining, profiling significant points, or balloons. We can not ask the applicant to story pole every version that we look at. I have the feeling that the Commission has the sense that story poles are needed for the public. Commissioner Kranzley opined that the Commission would not have to pole bigger than what is being proposed. We have potentially the worst case scenario. I don't think the applicant would have to change every story pole, because it would not be bigger than it is now. Public comment was opened. Mr. Gleason answered that if you scale it back to so few, it is difficult to get a visual sense of what is proposed. We need some input as to where those might be. The balloon idea may end up being the thing that works the best. We would be interested in the balance of the discussion about what we are really looking at as a building envelope and as a project. It is important that what we do in going forward, is in synch with that. We need some sense of bulk and scale issues on the project that will have an impact on the story poles. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Ashley commented that this notion of erecting the story poles to get a visual outline of the building will certainly effect the judgement we have on the size of the hotel in terms of the number of rooms. If we don't find that the height of the building is objectionable as designed, we would not necessarily be talking about reducing the number of rooms or even the meeting room space that has been proposed. 27 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 INDEX Chairperson Selich asked the Commission if they need the story poles before giving the applicant direction? The applicant needs to have direction other than the access feasibility report. Commissioner Gifford answered that she has enough sense from the visual simulations. If we were to scale it down, the usefulness of the story poles would only demonstrate to me some differences. Based on what I have been able to see, my direction would be to scale it down. Commissioner Kranzley added that he wants to see the story poles, sooner than later. If we scale if down, if will be better than what the story poles tell us now. Commissioner Kiser agreed with Commissioner Gifford's comments adding that looking at scaling if down is the better way. I don't want to put the applicant through too much expense, irritation and /or delay. Commissioner Selich noted that he was not concerned with the number of rooms. He is concerned with the impact. A lot of concerns that the people have raised, i.e., number of people in the convention facilities and peak hour impacts can be handled through conditions on operations that we put on the hotel. I am concerned with the visual mass of the hotel and I feel that if should come down about a story. I like the articulation because if adds a lot to the building. I would like to see the applicant work more with the grade of the property, since the mass on the back side is really dictated by the mound of earth going up juxtapositioned right up against the building. The parking structure could probably be sunk one level. Just doing that would do a great deal to take away from the mass of the structure. Other elements of the building would be grading of the property to bring the massiveness down. Commissioner Ashley added that the story poles need to go up so that the community will see what will be built up. Commissioner Tucker stated that scaling back the project could be done by removing a floor off the time -share units. If would then have a more gradual transition from the marina back to the hotel proper itself. I would look at the fifth floor as not being solid but be more a design feature. Commissioner Gifford noted her concurrence as the height is an issue and perhaps breaking up the horizontal mass would have some appeal. The applicant knows of our concerns about the bulk and mass and should take their own approach to what they think would be best. Chairperson Selich told the applicant that the Commission is asking for them to come back with ideas to lower the height of the project. He added that the ballroom use should be talked about at a later date. If was decided not to start on a list of the findings and conditions for this project just yet. Rte. 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2000 Mrs. Wood added that there were three issues to be studied: • Possible relocation to the other side of the lagoon. • Different access point. • Some ideas to lower the height and bulk of the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to February 17, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that on January 25th, the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Council staff was directed by Council to report back with approaches for beginning a comprehensive General Plan update; Council approved on 2nd reading, the Extended Stay America Hotel and the amendment to the Code regarding calculation of floor area; and approved the residential project on Bolsa Avenue as well as first reading of setbacks for Alvarado Place. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee- none. C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - Mrs. Wood reported that the Irvine Company has withdrawn their request of that area, as well as the State Teacher's group. We are meeting with the remaining property owners, Pacific Life and O'Hill Properties and going over with them some time schedules and cost estimates for proceeding if they choose to proceed. Staff will want to have some conversation with the committee on the General Plan update or with the full Commission if we should continue to proceed with the zoning consolidation. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kranzley asked about giving some types of credit to people who are doing things that are in the best interest of the community. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. 29 .IVf 7�1 Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 least 4 feet from the property line, per City Standard 805 -L and L -B. STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS: A. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, `unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. B. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. C. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. D. The final design of all on -site parking;. vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. E. Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. F. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this, use permit upon a determination that this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. G. This use permit and lot line adjustment shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 (A) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ♦s* SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive • General Plan Amendmet No. 97 -3 F • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 • Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 • Conceptual Precise Plan • Final Precise Plan Commissioner Selich noted that anyone who wanted to speak on this item is to fill out a blue speakers card. The order of business is a report from staff, a presentation by the applicant and then Commission comments with the public hearing following. When the public hearing is opened, two people will INDEX Item No. 2 Discussion Item Only Continued to 02/03/2000 0 CJ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 be called at the beginning. The first person to get called is to come to the podium and the second one is to sit in the reserved seat in back of the podium. Everyone will have a chance to speak this evening in an orderly fashion. Senior Planner Patrick Alford stated that to this point, most of the attention concerning the project has been on the draft environmental report, which is appropriate as CEQA emphasis early public consultation and comment. However, there are other aspects of the project that need to be addressed. The site already contains a substantial entitlement for the development of a 275 room "family inn" with up to 500,000 square feet of floor area, 27,500 square feet of floor area for restaurants, and 5,000 square feet of floor area for retail and office space. This application presents an opportunity to address these land uses and any additional proposed land uses in much greater detail than is currently allowed for in the planning documents. This project deals with all levels of the planning process. On the broad policy level it involves a General Plan Amendment dealing with a change in land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Retail and Service Commercial. Also, included is a text amendment dealing with the increased number of rooms proposed by the hotel. This needs to be reviewed as a long -range planning issue, as it deals with long -term city form and character of the community. There is a Planned Community District Plan, which serves as a small zone code within the Zoning Code for the site and deals with land use and property development regulations, administrative procedures, and design guidelines for the Newport Dunes Resort. This will not only address the proposed application, but any future land use and development issues occurring on the project site. The Conceptual Precise Plan is a site plan, floor plan and elevations for the proposed hotel. This serves as the functional equivalent of a use permit and, like a use permit, can be called up for review and additional conditions can be placed on if if necessary. This is at the site - specific level addressing issues that can not be adequately addressed in the PC District plan. Chairperson Selich then asked Commissioner Tucker to speak on the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Tucker stated that this property was subject to litigation in the early 80's. A Settlement Agreement came about as a result of that litigation involving the project owner, the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. So that everybody understands what we are talking about tonight and throughout this hearing process I will ascertain with the Assistant City Attorney the project contemplated and approved in the Settlement INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX Agreement versus the proposal that has been made by the Dunes today. Commissioner Tucker and Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson, for the record, determined the following aspects of the Settlement Agreement: Commissioner Tucker: The original titled Settlement Agreement was agreed to and signed in 1983. In 1988 an Amended Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement was signed and is an amendment and re- statement of the original agreement and is the one that is in use today. Ms. Clauson - there was a subsequent smaller amendment that occurred in 1990 that added space in one area, but the 1988 agreement is the operating Settlement Agreement. There is no deadline or expiration date of this agreement. Commissioner Tucker: The property is ground lease from the County by the applicant with approximately 40 years left per the applicant. Only the project in what we refer to now as Planning Unit 1 in the Planned Community District Plan appears not to have been built out. Everything else appears to have been built out in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Ms. Clauson - yes, that is correct. They built out per the authorization in the Settlement Agreement and paid the appropriate or accompanying fees required with each development as they occurred, including the portions of the fees required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Tucker: (referencing page 5 of the 1988 Settlement Agreement) the 275 room family inn shall not exceed 500,000 square feet of gross floor area. The construction of a new restaurant on the site previously occupied by Anthony's Pier II, and the construction of restaurant and food service areas within, or adjacent to, the family inn. I understand that the 'Within or adjacent to restaurant" is in addition to the 500,000 square feet, so if is 512,500 that could be within the hotel building and than an additional 15,000 square feet for Anthony's Pier II space. Ms. Clauson - that is correct, but in order to meet the further conditions on the 12,500 square feet of restaurant that is identified to be within or adjacent to the structure, if they were to put any portion of the restaurant inside the structure if would be within that 500,000 square feet. There is no limit in the agreement for putting the whole 12,500 as an additional part adjacent to the family inn, but there are further practical restrictions in the agreement that if probably would not happen. For instance, the amount that is outside is supposed to serve guests of the inn such as at the pool and cabana area. The 15,000 square feet is separate and in addition to the 500,000 square feet Commissioner Tucker: The 5,000 feet of retail is also allowed and is additional. E 9 0 -, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 Ms. Clauson - confirmed that has not been built out yet and is additional. Commissioner Tucker: So, looking at Planning Unit 1, we have hotel and time share, and what is being requested is effectively 600 rooms at 700,000 square feet maximum versus the Settlement Agreement 275 rooms at 500,000 square feet resulting in a 325 room, 200,000 square foot difference. The retail service area approved was 5,000 square feet in the Settlement Agreement and is 4,600 square feet in Planning Unit 1 now being proposed. There were no function areas, banquet facilities separately allocated and now we have a proposal for 54,000 square feet function areas. For eating and drinking, what is being proposed now is 13,650 versus 27,500 square feet in the Settlement Agreement. There is a health club at 8,000 square feet proposed and under the Settlement Agreement if was not a permitted development. There is language in the agreement that states that the parties (developer, county and city) understand that this agreement is similar to a joint powers agreement and as such contains commitments of both city and county sufficient to bind future boards and councils not withstanding any change in the composition thereof. So are we operating under the assumption that the Settlement Agreement is a valid, binding agreement and we are bound into that Agreement? Ms. Clauson - yes, the City has always operated and done its land use planning as if this was a vested, entitled project. The provisions of this agreement talk about enforcement through summary judgement so the concept is that the City has an obligation to perform and to allow the project proponent to develop in accordance with this agreement. Commissioner Tucker: Once we are through, assuming some project is approved, it would also go onto the Coastal Commission? Ms. Clauson - yes, the Coastal Commission has already approved the existing, vested development and they not only have entitlement with the City, and they have Coastal permits for the project as envisioned by the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Tucker: The traffic allocated in our road system to this project, the agreement states that the company shall pay Fair Share fees in the sum of $235,402. This fee is based upon "new traffic" of 5, 213 average daily trips. Of the 5, 213 trips approximately how many of those were related to what we refer to now as Planning Unit 1? Mr. Edmonston said that the number is referred to in the Traffic report as +3,900. Commissioner Fuller, quoting from the Settlement Agreement of December 7, 1988, page 4, A, " The construction of a family inn, not to exceed 275 rooms, to be located on the west side of the swimming lagoon...." This mandates the I .ILI7t � -) U City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 location to be built? INDEX Ms. Clausan answered that when the Settlement Agreement was reached, the City agreed to and autharized the inn to be built in that location. With the new project, a development agreement would be put in place of the Settlement Agreement and would contain whatever terms might be approved. Chairperson Selich then asked the applicant to make a presentation. Anne Evans, Chairman of Evans Hotels and owner, operator and developer of Newport Dunes presented a slide demonstration explaining the financial background and real estate holdings in Mission Bay, (Bahia Hotel and Catamaran Hotel) as well as the Lodge at Torrey Pines in La Jolla. She noted that there are plans to remodel the lodge and take it to a five star status. In the 30 years involvement with the Dunes project, almost 40 million dollars have been invested. She then introduced Robert Gleason, Chief Financial Officer who proceeded to make a presentation. Mr. Gleason addressed issues and questions that had been raised in the prior Planning Commission presentation starting with a brief overview of the location of the resort. The slide presentation showed the fallowing: • Resort located an a 100 acre parcel tidelands, which is subject to a long- term ground lease from the County of Orange. • Lease had been extended far another 50 years in 1989. 1989 re- develapment included Village Center, day use beach parking, boat launch and boat storage as well as a 406 site luxury RV park with beach and aquatic uses. • 2 ^d development phase included marina uses with entry off Bayside Drive accessing from Pacific Coast Highway and included 450 concrete slips • 3rd phase is to be the resort hotel, which will include a 400 -raam hotel, restaurants, bar space, health club, pool and recreation area, a parking area providing along with surface parking areas 1,220 spaces. Also, proposed are 100, 2 bedroom time -share units along the marina and a 55,000 square faat conference center, which has 41,000 square feet of actual, meeting facilities. • Architectural style is mediterranean and the architects (Wimberly, Allison, Tang and Gaa) are locally based and have done bath the Ritz Carlton and the Four Seasons, as well as international projects. (A camputer- generated simulation presentation was made indicating placement of structures with the main entry of the hotel at the third level) Mr. Gleason proceeded to discuss the potential impacts noting that they have been working with planning staff since 1997 an this project and in the meantime have had many community outreach sessions. He noted that the Bayside Village Association members are concerned with the access, noise 10 c: 0 1] City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 and traffic issues related to the entrance to the hotel on Bayside Drive. Resulting from those meetings, a gatehouse to be placed along Bayside Drive prior to the entrance to Bayside Village is proposed, as well as a sound wall along the service entrance. In addition, the project will include re- constructing Bayside Drive,. This will result in an appropriate entrance into the resort as well as intersection improvements at PCH with a new, dedicated right turn lane. Some public access improvements are proposed such as a bike trail and sidewalk to be added as well. The EIR talked about the necessity of having a nine -foot sound wall and the best place for that was along the service road. We met with the neighbors to discuss that and are now proposing to move that sound wall thirty feet closer to the resort with an added landscape buffer. Some of the building corners will be trimmed and pulled back as well. The existing wall on the property will remain, then the 15 foot bike trail, then a new 15 foot landscape buffer which has the sound wall 30 feet from the property line with the service /emergency access road. With the additional landscaping the building is now set back from the property line from five to fifteen feet further than under the original proposal. The projections contained in the Traffic Study and the EIR are from our point of view, the worst conceivable case. Referencing a chart from the Traffic Study he verified the room count, the additional uses, seating for restaurants, credit for removal of RV sites and marina uses. He commented that about 85% of the trips generated are off peak based on check out and check in times. The improvements at PCH / Bayside intersection will improve the operation of the intersection. Shuttle service to the airport, shopping and local destinations will be provided to the guests. The trip generation rates include the conference, on -site bar and amenities as well as employees. The conference center operations space is designed to sell rooms. There are catered functions in those rooms as needed for "double setting" rooms. For example, when you attend a conference at a hotel, you go through several different rooms during the course of the day. A vast majority of the time, that is how our space will be used. The time - shares were assumed to be locked out, with each room rented separately for a total of 200 rooms. (referencing slides, he presented numbers of actual lock out features of nearby timeshare uses). For the time -share component at the Dunes, we are providing 1.63 parking spaces per each two- bedroom unit. Both conference use and time- share use greatly effect the parking analysis. He continued by elaborating on comparisons illustrated in the slides on parking requirements. Water quality is a very important issue for the Dunes. The Back Bay Drive storm drain diverts non - resort property's run -off into the lagoon. The Water Quality Management Plan has been done and will be installing settlement basins and clarifiers on all the storm drain outlets in the project and will not be draining any of that water into the swimming lagoon. Additionally, this resort project was designed to have less paved surface area than the prior project, INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX which was all surface parking as opposed to structure parking. Trash traps will also be installed at the end of the storm drains to keep the debris out of the bay. Visual simulations - The EIR found that views from the bluff top around the project would not be significantly impacted based on the fact that the hotel sits down in a depression. (Slides were utilized to show the panorama from several points around the project as well as from residential properties and immediate neighbors). Noise impacts - The EIR found that the only significant impacts of noise was vehicular and were mitigable through the installation of a sound wall along the service and access roads and along Bayside Drive. The physical design of the project places the courtyards facing the lagoons. There are a number of controls for noise from music and /or parties such as through code enforcement and conditions in our own Planned Community text. The most impacted will be our own guests and we have very strict rules for that. Lighting impacts - The physical design of the resort with a more pedestrian look, all parking lighting will be shielded from view, a lighting plan is to be produced with the City having approval authority. The EIR has strict regulations on lighting as well. We will have evening inspection prior to our opening and the Planning Director has the authority to order dimming of our light sources within the project at any time. Mr. Gleason continued noting project benefits: • Acknowledged need for conference and catering venues in the City. • Enhanced bike and pedestrian access. • Project provides significant new revenues to the City and the local economy. • Property values - hotel should enhance community reputation and property value • Development Agreement will include a payment of $650,000 in traffic related fees; a first class hotel for the city; $75,000 contribution for city programs that will improve water quality; permanent diversion of storm drain; $200,000 contribution to the view park at the upper Bayview property dedicated to the city and an occupancy based fee to be imposed on exchangers in the time -share program. Concluding, Mr. Gleason noted that they have worked very hard to reduce any impacts of the project and thanked the Commission for their time. Senior Planner Alford noted that in the staff report, an analysis on the proposed alternative design for Bayside Drive is provided. There are some areas where the design does not meet the City's standard and a potential problem with queuing or stacking of vehicles at the intersection. We have proposed a possible alternative that could be considered one that uses 12 0 0 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX traffic calming techniques around the intersection. This could provide some of the features desired by the community as well as slow traffic down and make a more attractive entrance to the project. Commissioner Kranzley asked if a pedestrian activated crossing light had been considered? Traffic Engineer, Rich Edmonston answered that staff has met with engineers from the project and have discussed this issue. Additionally, some safeguards could be included as well as new technology that would be conducive to a raised intersection. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Selich noted for the public that the Commissioners are concerned about this project just as members of the audience. He stated that none of the Commissioners have made up their minds on project, and that we want to hear what everyone has to say about the project. He stated that the Commission's role is to take all the information presented by the applicant, technical consultants and in public testimony, and weigh that against City policy and goals and community values. The following speakers appeared in opposition to the project: Bill Shaw, 314 Apolena noted his concerns of this project as it will impact Balboa Island: • Traffic - employees, limousines, taxis, conference. Pedestrian. • Large hotel located on the corner of Bayside and Coast Highway. • Consider this project without the time share units. • What percentage of the traffic will be increased at Bayside? Byron Romig, 1060 Santiago Drive - as President of the Dover Shores Community Association stated that a vote was taken and the members asked for a denial of this project 83% to 12 %, with 5% abstaining. Why can't we live with the Agreement that was agreed to years ago? We are concerned with noise from parties, height limitations and ask if the infrastructure will support this new project citing current problems with utilities. Bill Kenney, 824 Harbor Island Drive - spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Promontory Bay Homeowners Association. Having reviewed the plans and draft EIR he noted concerns of height and scale of the project, citing precedence and traffic problems. Traffic study is flawed in its analysis of the proposed project and he disagreed with its conclusions. Robert Balen, 265 Mayflower - opposes • downgrade real estate value, • not enough area for cars to enter at the same time, 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX • • noise • a major hotel should not have an entrance that bisects a residential neighborhood. Caroline Lombardi, 300 East Coast Highway, #248 - poor air quality Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower - • delivery and docking hours are listed as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. • mechanical equipment in the back of the hotel (building is 75 feet high) • valet parking is in an open area on top of the hotel • conference area of 55,000 is in back of the hotel Mary Jane Dugan, Bayside Village - air pollution, asked for information on the percentage increase in air pollution. Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star Lane - agreed with the points made by Mr. Kenney. He added that when he bought his home, he understood that there was a general plan that included the hotel with height limitations and a settlement agreement. We relied on that, understanding that it gave the leaseholder some entitlement. We also believe that the residents were given . information on how big the building could be. However, what has been proposed has been doubled in height, density and room count. Therefore, we are opposed to this project, as is the Dover Shores Association. Our attorney has made a 19 -page written response to the EIR as well as summary documents. I object to 100 time - shares being built right on the bulkheads opposite our homes. Carl Spitzer, 300 East Coast Highway #298 - pollution, traffic, less affordable housing and requested certified story poles Susan Caustin, 292 E. 16th Street - noise carries over water, traffic (trip generation used in the studies are averages) and view. She concluded stating that this hotel will be 75 feet tall on a 12 foot pad which if you are on the bluffs at the Castaways you will be at line of sight. Bob Caustin, 471 Old Newport Boulevard #200 - speaking for Defend the Bay stated that the hotel rooms are going to be very compact which will drive people out and increase traffic; restaurant, removal of public parking, shadowing of beach in the afternoon due to the high buildings; no space for motorhomes to be relocated to; EIR incomplete as it is minus exhibits; and the elevations in the EIR are incorrect. Karen Casey, 300 East Coast Highway, # 113 asked about public access to public beaches; inaccurate residential population calculations for Bayside Village Mobile Home park adjacent to the project area is currently being . restructured from a senior park to a family park status; and employee housing. 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX There will be a need created in Orange County for these employees who will earn less than 10 dollars per hour and will create a new category of housing need. Steven Briggs, 1016 Westwind Way - opposes due to the possible impacts on Back Bay and noted that the City has to decide the tradeoffs for environmental and fiscal impacts. The following speakers appeared in support of the project: Jack Lindquist, 95 Linda Isle, involved in tourism for 45 years both with Disney and serving on the State Tourism Commission. We must recognize and remember that historically Newport beach has always had a very strong tourism, recreation image. This is a desirable area and a great industry. Newport Beach needs and deserves to get a share of tourism dollars. He continued noting: • Newport Beach is not over built with hotels and conference facilities. • Tourism is a good, clean industry. They don't live her, don't go to our schools, don't go on welfare, and are here for a few days, leave money and then go on. • Any community in America would welcome this project. • There will be some inconvenience but will be minor with the mitigation measures built into this project. • This project will not destroy PCH, nor create gridlock. PCH will get worst with or without this project. • The quality of the operators is impeccable. Mrs. Evans is a recognized tourism professional and is respected in the industry. Their properties are respected and she has done a great job on the Dunes so far and is planning on doing more. This project is important to Newport Beach. Bud Haley, 539 Westminster Avenue - presentation was phenomenal with the planned beautification of the Dunes and improves the area. Sharon Esterley, 2845 Alfa Vista Drive - as a local professional event planner is looking forward to using the conference facilities on the project. The facility will also serve local citizens for activities. I have great respect for the Evans team. Pauline Beardeu, 212 Tremont, DeAnza Bayside - The Dunes is the best thing that has happened noting financial opportunities. Diane Coltrane, 233 Poppy Avenue - representing the Newport Beach Board of Realtor expressed support for this project Pat McCalla, 2107 Windward Lane supports this project for similarly stated reasons. 15 '. `i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX Dandy O'Shea, 2107 Windward Lane supports this project and looks forward to its completion. Lula Halfacre, 1907 Tahuna Terrace - representing the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce expressed support for this project Karen Zobell, 401 B Street, Ste. 2100 Ramona Harris, 300 East Coast Highway #222 - good for the City's economy Michael Gelfand, 2727 DeAnza Road SD42, San Diego, representing Deanza Village, LLC owner of the mobile home park. He spoke of the responsiveness of the Evans Hotel administration. He addressed his concern of a left turn lane on Bayside Drive into the marina parking lot. He asked that this be included in the plans. Don Stewart, 1338 Santiago Drive - impressed by quality of the project and with the revenues coming into the City Rosalind Williams, 1209 Santiago Drive, President of the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau spoke as their representative and the hospitality community in Newport Beach in general. She stated that it is a rare and unusual opportunity to make a difference in a community such as the stature of Newport Beach. Tonight, marks the beginning of that process, which if successful, will go a long way toward achieving the much needed revenue generation called for in this City's five -year financial forecast. Long - range economic planning is key to meeting the future revenue needs of the City. The Newport Dunes is approved to build a 275 room limited service hotel. The current application calls for a project of 400 guestrooms, 100 time- share units, 3 restaurants and 41,000 square feet of meeting space. The first scenario is a fait a compli and consideration of the second or any variation thereof, is the purpose of this session. In terms of positioning Newport Beach we are considered as a community to be an upscale resort offering an excellent quality of life to residents as well as a variety of amenities to those on holiday. Should the Dunes build the 275 room limited property, the market segment which it would appeal to would be a Ramada Inn or perhaps a Holiday Inn Sun Sprit Hotel. That market consists of families on vacation usually arriving by car and lower rated coach motor tour business. There will be some government business and there might also be some social and fraternal reunions. This is volume business that many hotels find lucrative. However, it is primarily a drive market and one that we do not currently pursue in Newport Beach. It is not compatible with the balance of the hospitality community in Newport Beach. On the other hand, the proposed resort will attract a much more upscale clientele, one that is compatible with the markets within which we are already acquainted. Meeting planners involved in corporations such as ATT, or associations such as the American Dental Association will find a four star resort property with adequate meeting 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX space in the high end destination of Newport Beach to be a very attractive consideration. Additionally, the weekend traveler will not mind paying the increased rate for all of the amenities being offered, namely a four star product and a four -star service level. This is evident by the success of the campaign the Bureau launched last summer on conjunction with American Express wherein we appeal to their gold card holders to spend time with us in Newport Beach. The following appeared voicing concerns only: Dennis Garbis, 300 East Coast Highway, Bayside Village #4 - stated he has no objection to the project as if is very attractive, but is concerned with the traffic. Why is the entrance not off Jamboree which is essentially a commercial road and more directly accessible from the freeways where probably most of the visitors will come? Phil Niesen, 300 East Coast Highway #136 - no objection to the hotel, but is very concerned with construction traffic, noise, dust pollution, and the proposed gatehouse at the entrance to the park. The street width along with the RV storage and Pierson's Point turn are problematic. There is an oncoming steady stream of traffic and if one makes a turn, then everyone will have to stop. A gatehouse at that location does not make sense. Visitors coming in will have to wait for the guard to raise the gate. I am concerned with the elderly people crossing the street so if a stop sign was put in what happens to the cars that are coming in? Judy Kane, 300 East Coast Highway #40 asked what the meeting room capacities were? The percentage of attendees coming to those meetings will be from either other hotels in town or local businesses via roadways. A lot of traffic will be added to Bayside Drive and parking availability. Jo Smallwood speaking for the Bayside Village Homeowners' Association stated that Mr. Quinn had made a presentation. He presented two mitigation measures resulting in a vote taken by the members present. The result of the vote was in favor of a gatehouse prior to the entrance to the park as well as moving the 9 -ft retaining wall to give more of a buffer zone. The association does not endorse the project due to the complexity of the association membership. The Dunes people have made an admirable effort to mitigate their concerns. Pat Greenbaum, 300 East Coast Highway #25 noted that all the streets in Bayside Village are designated fire lanes per code and signage, subject to towing. The Community rules and regulations require all guests to park on Bayside Drive as well as residents with more than two vehicles /campers /and commercial vehicles. The Dunes development will eliminate 50% of the parking on Bayside Drive. How does the Bayside dedication document of 1957 apply to parking? Will the Dunes project destroy that right of permit and 17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX 9 dedication? Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane presented and explained view exhibits showing the existing two -story marina clubhouse. He added that the events that are being held now are not supervised. The police department has been called to alleviate the problem. Commissioner Kranzley asked that staff supply copies of current police reports regarding noise problems. Cort Ensign, 1428 Newporter Way - the hotel if approved would be the largest hotel in South County except Anaheim. A resort hotel is not viable by itself; you have to have convention services. That means bussing people in from other hotels. Heavy equipment will be coming in via heavy trucks non -stop 7 days a week to meet the deadlines. This is the wrong use for a pristine place like the Back Bay. I would like to see a hotel like this at Orange County Airport but in Back Bay, will prove to be a huge detriment to traffic flows to the surrounding areas, and will impact negatively on the neighborhood. Rachele Rimmer, 223 Lexington Circle - while working as a telephone operator at the Ritz Carlton Hotel she stated that she used to receive many calls of complaints about noise. She added that hotel rooms were used as conference rooms if there was an overflow problem. Jack Keating, 2607 Alta Vista Drive - as a member of the Upper Newport Bay Naturalist stated that the Dunes has been a very good neighbor and we anxious to retain the Dunes as such. Bob Rimmer, 282 Bayside Village - this proposed hotel is too big for the relocation and should be moved by Jamboree Road with ingress and egress; should not be bisecting the village; pollution and traffic flow. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive - concerned with traffic and height of buildings and asked for story poles to show what the heights will be. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich thanked the audience for their comments and time. He stated that staff would prepare a report for the February 3rd meeting that will include answers to the questions that were asked tonight. He asked for any additional questions or comments to be submitted to staff by Monday afternoon, the 24th. Assistant City Manager noted that the staff reports are posted and can be accessed on the City's web page. (The department fax number and email addresses were then distributed to the audience). 18 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to February 3, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None \ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) •. City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that on January l Ith, the Pacific Club expansion was approved on its second reading; the Code Amendment regarding Calculation of Floor Area Limits, and the Extended Stay America project were bot approved on the firs. reading. She added that the Green Light Initiative was set for election in November 2000. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. 0 C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - Mrs. Wood reported we are on schedule and distributed a review schedule of anticipated dates for both study sessions and public hearings on major projects that are under consideration at this time. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissionerwould like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f.) Requests for excused absences - none. •rt• ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 19 INDEX Additlonal Business Adjournment City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report Follow -up on information requested by the Planning Commission during previous study sessions on the Newport Dunes Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Commissioner Ashley requested further explanation from Mr. Edmonston, particularly regarding the entryway to the project on Bayside Drive at the entry point to Bayside Village. Mr. Edmonston reported that the applicant developed an alternative plan which includes a gated entry point on the Dunes property in an attempt to respond to concerns raised. One the key items reviewed with the applicant's engineer was how rapidly arriving guests could be processed through that point and what resultant backup might be expected. The queuing analysis that was done concluded that 95% of the time during a typical peak morning entry, the queue would be 13 cars or less. This represents a significant backup which does not take into consideration special events such as weddings. Commissioner Ashley asked about the additional analysis done based on dual entry/exit points at Bayside Drive and Back Bay Drive. Mr. Edmonston noted that the ICU increased in several locations and at Bayside, Coast Highway, and ai Marguerite the ICU decreased. There is no way to regulate which access points vehicles arrive and depart. Because one side of the Dunes is in one traffic zone and the hotel is in another zone (zones 55 and 56), they forced the model to put half the irips on the Back Bay access and then analyzed the resultant impacts. The only significant change occurs on Bayside Drive and Coast Highway. Commissioner Tucker asked if the Commission would be receiving additional documentation or revisions to the draft environmental impact report prior to the public hearing. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner replied that the consultant will prepare additional analyses on the revised Bayside Drive plan and the echo effect caused by the Upper Bay. These will be incorporated into the response to comments which will be presented as part of the final EIR. Mrs. Wood noted that the final EIR with responses to comments will be available for the second public hearing on February 31d. Commissioner Kranzley asked Mr. Edmonston for further clarification regarding the description for hotels versus resort hotels and relationship of this project to other hotels, which he provided. Chairman Selich asked for clarification regarding design criteria not being met on the bicycle access point and turn - around radius. Mr. Edmonston responded the City's design criteria is not being met with the alternate design because if does not have on- street bike lanes and a continuous 12 foot wide off -road shared facility, and therefore does not comply the City's bicycle 34 INDEX Item No. 5 Newport Dunes Resort DEIR Discussion Item only E City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 master plan which is a part of the General Plan. Detailed information regarding design criteria can be found in both Cal Trans guidelines for bicycle facilities mandated by the State and the City's bicycle master plan. Mr. Edmonston will provide the Commission with the Cal Trans guidelines. At Chairman Selich's and Commissioner Kranzley's request, Mr. Edmonston and Mr. Alford provided further clarification regarding trip generation and traffic study information contained in Table 5 and other portions of the traffic study. Mr. Edmonston further indicated that the trip credits in table 5 are the rates identified in a traffic study that was a part of the supplemental settlement agreement, and if was the opinion of the City Attorney the Dunes had the right to that number of trip credits. Chairman Selich requested that Mr. Edmonston provide the Commission with information regarding the settlement agreement and supplemental traffic study documentation. Commissioner Ashley asked if the traffic analysis regarding trip generation was based only on peak hours, or different odd hours in terms of noise and traffic impacts to the Bayside Village residents. Mr. Alford replied the study focused on the noise produced on the volumes of traffic, and mitigation measures are incorporated into the EIR. 0 Public comment was opened and then closed. \' SUBJECT: Status Report on Twin Palms Restaurant Use Permit Review Mrs. Wood reported she just learned that the Twin Palms Restaurant has closed. Their reason for closing is they could not continue as the type of operation they are known for and be compatible with the Four Seasons Hotel. She was informed by the Twin Palms' representative that they have sold their lease back to The Irvihe,Company. She stated that staff is concerned that as long as the use permit is'still valid or could be reactivated, the City has the potential for this problem reoccurring. Therefore, amendments should be made to the use permit to allow only compatible uses. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager'Sharon Wood reported that at the last City Council Study Session two items, of interest were discussed. Direction was provided for the update to the Housing Element which is to be submitted to the State by June. Secondly, a plan was presented for improvements to the streetscape in -Balboa Village. At the City Council Meeting the Council approved a budget amendment funding revisions to the Subdivision Code, and the Pacific 35 INDEX Twin Palms Restaurant Use Permit Review Discussion Item only Additional Business D) A City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 and ➢ property line walls ranging from 6 feet up to 12 feet in height in the front and side setback areas where the Code limits the height of walls and fences to 3 feet in the front setback and 6 feet in the side and rear setbacks. Ms Temple stdted that staff has requested that this item be continued to allow corrected hearing notice indicating exceptions to the Subdivision Code, to November 18, 1999 Motion was made to continue this item to November 18, 1999. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None \ Absent: Ashley \ Abstain: None SUBJECT: Calculation of residential maximum floor area limits A resolution of intent to amend Section 20:10.030 (Property Development Regulation M) of the Zoning Code to partially,gxempt elevator shafts and similar vertical shafts from the calculation of residential floor areas. Public comment was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to adopt resolution of intent to revise Section 20.10.030 (Property Development Regulation }y) of the Zoning Code. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Ashley Abstain: None SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort Planning Commission discussion of the proposed Newport Dunes Resort development, including preliminary review of the draft environmental impact report. Chairperson Selich noted that the discussion will not include the merits of the project, but rather look at the Environmental Report and the accuracy of the information presented in that document. We will begin this evening with 1.1 INDEX Item No. 3 Recommended for Initiation Item No. 4 Newport Dunes Resort Discussion Only 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Commissioner Fuller's comments and questions. Commissioner Fuller noted the following concerns: ➢ The story pole issue - I understand the reluctance to incur the cost of the story poles, but this is such a significant development in this area. With the possibility of view obstructions, it is necessary to do the story poles in this case to measure the bulk of this project. I am in favor of having this done. ➢ The traffic study and effects on Coast Highway and Marguerite - I am concerned about the traffic study and the insufficient data and a 25% error and the different estimates for the same use. I defer to staff regarding the validity of the report, but I am concerned about the accuracy of the study that we have. ➢ The parking - I am concerned about the shuttle service back and forth. It was my understanding that there was not going to be any transportation, but it looks like there will be. ➢ Noise and light spillage - I am concerned how these will affect the surrounding neighbors. I understand their concerns that they are going to be faced with noise that will possibly emanate from this project either over the wall or across the water. ➢ The possibility of access from Back Bay - I realize that this will disrupt the operation, but I am concerned about the amount of traffic that will go through the mobile home park onto Coast Highway. ➢ The use restrictions placed by the Settlement Agreement. I understand that those would not apply or would have to be re- negotiated. I would like clarification of that. Chairperson Selich stated that the EIR makes an evaluation of this project as a 600 -room hotel. I would like to understand how and why that determination was made. To me, this does not seem realistic, even as a worst case scenario. I can not imagine where there would be an instance when this hotel would be 100% occupied and each and every one of the time- share units would be rented out as a single hotel room unit. This is a theoretical worst case scenario, but in the real world, I can not imagine that this would occur. There could be some factor used, that maximum capacity, "V percentage of the time -share units would be rented out as hotel rooms and the rest would be used as time - shares. I looked in the report but did not find any documentation as to how that assumption was arrived at. Some simple surveys of projects that are similar to this would give us the information on maximum conditions at any point in time. Commissioner Gifford stated that the hotel the Planning Commission looked at in the Birch /Dove area that provided for a similar situation where rooms could be locked off. In that case, we were looking at how we would apply the parking. I would like to understand how we have treated projects where the rooms can be divided internally, such as that hotel, with respect to parking, so that we can make an analogy. 9 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX PJ Ms. Temple answered that the historic way of dealing with trip generation and parking is to assume that each individual nodule that can be locked off is considered a hotel room. Commissioner Kranzley asked why we couldn't include traffic studies from actual cases. There are a couple of hotels in the city similar to the Dunes project, why can't we do traffic counts there? Would this be appropriate for inclusion in an EIR? Mr. Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager, answered that it could be done, it is a matter of trade off. What we use are established average rates and recognizing that within those averages there are properties that would generate higher and some that might generate lower rates. Even within Newport, one property might be more successful marketing itself than another might. Those kinds of studies have been done in certain situations, i.e., The Four Seasons Hotel actually paid for the consultant to visit several of their sites, including some in other states and document the actual trip rate in order to justify using a lower rate than the average we would have otherwise used. Any applicant would have this opportunity, but we do not typically do that. Commissioner Fuller asked staff about the Marriott project that is in Newport Coast is it time -share and part time hotel use? Ms. Temple answered she believes that it is all time - share. Commissioner Fuller then asked if any studies had been done regarding locking off units similar to what is being proposed here? Ms. Temple answered that she has not reviewed the building plans for the resort in Newport Coast. Chairperson Selich stated that if there were 400 hotel rooms and they were fully occupied, it may be logical that 25% of the time shares would be occupied as single rooms and the other 75% would be occupied by time shares, that would give you a hotel analysis of 520 rooms instead of 600 rooms which is a 14% difference. Translating that difference in some of the studies done in this EIR, that makes a significant difference. It is a pretty important basic assumption that was made in this EIR that I think should be analyzed. If the 600 rooms is valid, at least provide us some sort of documentation that it is valid or come up with something that is. Ms. Temple asking for clarification, noted that there are suites in the hotel as well which have been counted in a similar fashion, each nodule that could be broken down separately, has been treated as a separate room. We could supplement some of the information by looking at some hotels, be they time shares or not, and see what percentage of the suites get broken down and maybe provide some estimates as to what the differentials are? Would that be sufficient, or would you want something else? 10 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Chairperson Selich answered that the difference is when you have time share units with the hotel, a certain number of people will be using their time shares and will not be renting them out as hotel rooms. When they are rented out as two rooms, they are being counted as two units. Ms. Temple noted that the time -share units would stay as a suite and would also be relevant to the suites within the main hotel that are not time -share units, which can also be locked off and rented separately. Perhaps some surveying on both time - shares and conventional hotels as to how many times the two room suites get broken down and the percentage of business it represents would be useful to quantify for the Commission what the percentage differences might be. Chairperson Selich answered that we should look at the projects like Desert Springs in Palm Desert where you have a hotel operating in conjunction with time - shares and see what their worst case situation is. There are similar businesses that could be looked at to find out what the maximum occupancy is. Commissioner Tucker stated that we had the same discussion last week. For . CEQA purposes, we want to have something studied in the worst case scenario, but I am curious to see what the realistic prospects are. It might make a difference on Coast Highway and Marguerite with just a small reduction. I would like to ask, if we get that information, how would it be integrated with the EIR document? Chairperson Selich answered that worst case is right here as a value judgment with no facts to support it. CEQA does not require that you come up with the theoretical worst case, otherwise you would be analyzing water and fire distribution systems with everyone's faucet open all the time. It should be a realistic worst case situation and the fact is there are similar facilities operating throughout the country that I think would be very easy to go and find out what is their worst case situation, what is their maximum occupancy. That is a more realistic worst case than just saying that all the rooms are going to be occupied at the same time. Commissioner Tucker noted that the interesting thing about the traffic study in this particular case, the long range base -line conditions project with improvements even for Bayside Drive, which has got to be the most impacted location, the traffic study indicates that the actual volume of traffic ratio decreases with the project with the improvements versus without the project over the long haul. From the standpoint of someone who is interested in preparing the EIR not to be attacked, they are better off having the 600 rooms. I would like to see it from a more realistic view, but I can certainly understand where they are coming from on this issue. 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX Chairperson Selich stated that there is no documentation for this as the worst case situation and there should be documentation that either it is or there is another one that is the worst case situation. Continuing, Chairperson Selich asked how the conclusion was reached in Alternative C of the Executive Summary, that the expansion of the RV resort is the environmentally superior alternative that eliminates the unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the proposed project? I could not follow the logic on how that was arrived at. Mr. Steven Ross of LSA answered that the various alternatives to the project were compared related to how each alternative impacted all the various environmental issues that were analyzed in this document. Through the compilation of all those environmental issues, especially the significant environmental impacts of the project, it was the RV resort which had no significant visual impacts because it did not have the significant height of the proposed project and it was smaller than the existing or the entitled family inn resort. Also trip generation from the RV resort was smaller as well. There are a number of reasons why that expansion of the RV resort would be less of an impact than the proposed project. Referencing Table 1.3.13 - Comparison of Impacts, Chairperson Selich asked if the number of L's was counted and the one that had the least was the one that was environmentally superior? Mr. Ross answered that it is actually those impacts that are significant impacts that are the most critical impacts to look at. The purpose of an EIR is to evaluate what impacts are the most significant of the project, those that can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. If You look at the asterisk under A: Family Inn that asterisk represents eliminates significant unavoidable adverse impacts o the proposed project. Under C: RV Resort, there are two asterisks, one by Circulation and one by Noise, so that project eliminates the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project in terms of noise and traffic. That is why that was concluded. Commissioner Kranzley referencing the traffic study on Coast Highway and Marguerite noted his concern that in the I% traffic volume analysis it says east bound project peak 2 %2 hour volume. Am I correct in understanding that the number of cars that would be going east bound is 8 in a two and one half hour time period and then going west bound is 7 cars. Mr. Edmonston answered yes. Mr. Kranzley ten expressed his surprise that so small a number of cars makes it to the Executive Summary. This raises a lot of concern over an issue that is inconsequential, yet it made its way into the Executive Summary. Is that because we are required to? Mr. Edmonston answered that the table you referred to is part of the TPO analysis, which is the short range. Because of those relatively small numbers, an ICU wasn't required to be calculated. Where it shows up as a problem is in 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 the long range study which is where we use the model and, after the comments of the Planning Commission at the last meeting, I went back and spoke with Terry Austin of Austin Foust Associates who does our modeling and asked him for a different way to explain this difference of what happens with and without the project. He said that in his experience over the years, it is probably the single most difficult thing for people to grasp. What you are really looking at are two scenarios, 20 years from now. It may seem like it is just a matter of adding the project and getting the difference, when you add the project it can cause a considerable re- distribution of trips throughout the model between various land uses. That is why, when you look in the appendix, the change which really is the most significant in the long run, shows that in the AM peak hour, with the addition of the project east bound through traffic goes up by 40. Yet, that is a much larger number than identified on the 2' /z hour time and because it is not specifically linked to the project because of the re- distribution in the model and they round to the nearest 10. That can also exaggerate the impact as well. The model is as good a tool as we are likely to be able to develop to project what happens 20 years down the road. It has so many assumptions in terms of all the traffic, all the zones in the City are going to be developed to their full potential, people are going to travel the same way in 20 years as they do now, it is somewhat of a coarse tool. It is like a skill saw versus a scalpel. The scalpel is like the TPO we use for the short range, because we can predict that time frame better. There is no long -range scalpel for us to avail ourselves of, unfortunately. Commissioner Gifford stated that is what we were told the last time we looked at this. However, I thought that the interest of the Commission was in finding out if we could peel back layers of the model to see specifically what projects take it over the top. The Commission is looking for something more. Mr. Edmonston answered that he had not picked that up as direction from the last meeting. The one direction he did have, was to look at what the impacts would be if half the traffic from the hotel accessed the site from Back Bay Drive instead of Bayside Drive. The results of that can be made available. There is a method in the model where we can take a link on Coast Highway near Marguerite and ask to show where that traffic comes from within the area but, if you can not correlate it back to a particular development or future development. Ms. Temple clarified what Mr. Edmonston alluded to last time, was a select link analysis, and those can be done. However, they do not show what projects are creating the synergy, it just looks at where the growth in the community might be interacting in generating more traffic. We can tell you generally what part of town some of the additional traffic might be coming from, but certainly could not identify specific development projects. Commissioner Gifford stated that would be helpful as a 'first cut', to see what 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX parts of town may be or are problematic. Mr. Edmonston stated he would follow up on this for the Commission. Chairperson Selich asked if the same model was used for both the short term and long term analysis. Mr. Edmonsfon answered that the short -term analysis is done on a manual basis where existing counts are added to traffic from regional growth in the time period between now and one year after project occupancy. We also add traffic that has been approved by the City. but are not either constructed or fully occupied which forms the background traffic. The project traffic is added on. then a comparison is made. For the long range. because we do not have those kinds of count. we are basically forced to rely on a tool like the traffic model. The short range is based on actual ground counts added to regional growth. committed projects and then generated project traffic based on the standard generation rates. If is a layered approach. We start out with estimating an area of impact for any given project and give the key intersections in that area to the consultant. When they do this 1 -% test. we look at that to get a feel for whether we anticipated a large enough area in the list given. If if looks like at the borders of that area there is still considerable traffic. we may expand that area. My office initially generates the list and the consultant works on if and based on the initial results of that. we may expand the area or not. Commissioner Tucker asked if we are looking at the short range traffic impact and talking about ground counts plus committed projects and assuming the worst case as opposed to a realistic case. don't we have the prospects for reflecting a little more traffic than what would realistically come up? If someone. for instance. was interested in making sure their CEQA document on traffic was bullet proofed and they estimated through on everything that could possibly happen. is that the number that then gets factored in for committed projects? Mr. Edmonsfon answered that the committed traffic project comes from previous traffic studies that have been approved by the City or in the case of projects in the City of Irvine. that data is collected from and worked out with them. If anticipates that this project if approved as if is now. we would then be adding the numbers out of the traffic study into that database. Once the hotel is occupied. then if is no longer a committed project. because we are actually counting its traffic when we do the periodic ground count. There is a window of time in there where if might be over - stated. Continuing. Commissioner Tucker noted that what draws Coast Highway and Marguerite over the line. is the westbound thru traffic in the AM that takes if from 1860 trips versus 1820 trips on the long range General Plan Baseline. There is also an increase in the eastbound left turn by 10 trips. but the rest of them appear to be the same. Mr. Edmonsfon noted that the east bound left. with the change of 10 could actually have been as little as 1 or 2 trips that may have caused the rounding difference. Because of the overall accuracy 14 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 of the model, the consultant produces these numbers rounded to the nearest 10. That is why I looked primarily at the west bound through which is at least 30 trips and could be as many as 40 trips. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Edmonton about the study done on the Back Bay Drive. Mr. Edmonton stated he did not notice great differences. Again, typically it takes a fairly big change for the model even to be able to track it. When we plot volumes on roadways, they are rounded to the nearest thousand cars per day. So the shift of the overall project with some 5400 trips, actually the net increase is less than that, taking just half of that it may disappear in the rounding. I can send follow -up information on this study. Chairperson Selich, referencing Appendix G, Trip Generation Rates, noted the use of 8.92 in the traffic study and asked how this number was realized as the proper generation trip rate. Mr. Edmonton answered that on Table 3, 8.92 is the rate from the ITE. What this table does is to compare it to actual rates measured at other sites as was suggested earlier what might be done. How comparable those sites are to this hotel, it was felt that they were of a similar nature and you would see the comparisons: Hotel - 8.92; San Diego Hilton - 11.2; Vacation Village - 7.8; the Del Coronado and some others averaged over three or four sites at 6.0. There is a range that validated using the 8.92 and it fell in the middle of that range. There are some greater differences in the other columns under AM and PM peak hour trips. Chairperson Selich stated that you used the ITE rate for a regular hotel and not a resort hotel. Is that correct? Mr. Edmonston concurred noting that in the ITE, there is a resort hotel category but it was based on a single site in Hawaii and was taken many years ago. Referencing the table, Mr. Edmonston noted that footnote 3 refers to a "Resort Hotel Traffic Study" done by Austin Foust Associates of the Del Coronado, the La Costa, Hilton Head and the Newport Marriott. The reason that I didn't feel that was the most appropriate use is that at least some of those other sites are located in areas where you would tend to stay on the hotel property a greater percentage of time than you would a site in Newport. Even with a lot of the amenities, it is surrounded by so many other opportunities, i.e., Fashion Island, etc., people would go to. Making sure that we had at least a somewhat worst case document, we felt using the regular hotel average rate was appropriate. There are studies that looked into the amount of conference space and the ratio of the conference space to hotel rooms, they all led to support the use of the hotel rate. Chairperson Selich asked when the long -range traffic model is run now, are you using the same land use trip rate generators used when the model was originally adopted? Mr. Edmonston answered that the City has periodically updated that. In fact, it is currently being updated to a 1999 -year model for use in the Newport Center efforts and subsequent efforts. The model used now and for this report was updated in 1996. It is on the order of every three 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX or four years that the model is updated. We go back into the ITE document to see if they have changed rates. Between 1996 and 1999 there are changed rates in a number of categories. Chairperson Selich asked what factor is being used for resort hotels now? I went back and looked at the one used originally and we used a trip generation factor of 6 trips for resort hotels. In fact, we had something like 1900 resort hotel rooms in the long -range traffic model, has this been changed do a different factor? Mr. Edmonston answered that he did not recall. Chairperson Selich commented that it would be important to find out if these other resort hotels that are in our traffic model are being treated the same as we are treating this particular analysis. If they are still at 6 trips and we are projecting this at 8.92 trips, it seems we have an inequality as to how we are analyzing these things. In my opinion, we are overstating the traffic generation by using the business hotel and not using the resort hotel. As I look at the list of hotels that are presented on Table 3, The Vacation Village Resort in San Diego is probably the most comparable to what we are building here. I checked on the meeting space, the amenities, and the location, all which are similar to what we have here and seems the most logical one to compare to. Comparing the ITE rate for business hotels, we are creating an inequality in doing this analysis. Commissioner Tucker, agreeing with the previous testimony, noted that the biggest part of the problem is that ITE, other than one study done a long time ago, does not really have anything else. But, this clearly is not going to be the type of location; it is not going to be a business hotel. I am not sure what the rate should be, but it seems that it should be less than the 8.92. Where we come up with something that makes sense, I am not sure how to do it. Evaluating the other sources is about as good as we can do, and then be somewhat conservative on that. So the Vacation Village looks like it would make sense. Commissioner Gifford noted that this should not be subjective, either by the Planning Commissioners or anybody else as to what seems comparable. I might think that La Costa was like Vacation Village, for instance. It does seem appropriate, that whatever the comparisons are that are selected, everybody who reads this report has the ability to understand what each unit of comparison stands for, how many hotel rooms, how much business meeting space, and provide some data on the sources that are used for the comparisons. When people want to make a determination of how comparable it is, they have something concrete to look at and it is not just based on a subjective opinion. Chairperson Selich noted that, in looking at the 1988 traffic model, the 6 trips per room for a resort hotel was based on a study done for the City by Austin 110 Ll 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX Faust. So they actually did a study of resort hotels and came up with the factor that is used in the City's traffic model. If we are still using that, it seems something like that would be more appropriate here, or, if we have changed it, then there should be some criteria that we based that decision to change upon. We do not know if that factor has been changed or not, but it is something we should find out. Chairperson Selich, referencing page 7 of the traffic study, noted if states that Table 4 summarizes the data for "Catered" events, how is that factored into the traffic analysis? Mr. Pringle, of WPA, answered that this was put in to indicate the comparison of what happens as far as the activity in the meeting rooms. The question came up in the process of the study as to whether the meeting rooms would be generating more traffic. It was not put into the trip generation calculation, but was considered in the parking analysis. The higher number of attendees for catered events seems to coincide with the trip generation rates in Table 3. There is a relationship with the weekend data that shows higher trip generation rates than weekdays and is reflected by the catered events. Referencing Table 5, Chairperson Selich asked about the Trip Ends: Peak Hour block in Hotel, if has 2,392 trips. Is that supposed to be 275 rooms times 8.92 trips? Mr. Pringle answered that as if is footnoted, the number may be from the 1983 Settlement Agreement. Mr. Edmonston confirmed that these numbers were provided to the consultant, and based on what was actually agreed to by the City in the Settlement Agreement. There were some differences in trip rates at that time because the original agreement was back in 1983. There were different rates for several of the land uses than what we would use today. However, we gave the trip credit information based on what was in the settlement agreement because that is what they were entitled to. The Settlement Agreement did not say how many trips, but that you were allowed 7' number of rooms and then whatever factor was used at that point in time to come up with this number. Mr. Edmonston noted that there was an independent calculation done of those trips covered under the Settlement Agreement. We can provide copies of the original agreement and the amendment in 1988. We did not take a number of rooms times a rate, that was done back in the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Tucker noted that the 8.92 times 600 rooms is not 5400, did you round up? Mr. Pringle answered that the numbers are rounded to the nearest 100. The reason the odd numbers come out is that the Settlement Agreement did carry if out to the nearest trip. When we do things now, we round up to the nearest 100 if in the 1000's, or nearest 5 if under 100. 17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX Commissioner Tucker then referred to Table 4, Hotel Catered Events. The source is the Evans Hotel the applicant; do we have any other independent information? Mr. Pringle answered no. Commissioner Gifford noted that for more information about the data from that source, if refers you to Source: Appendix B. I was interested in finding out additional information such as time periods, years and square footage in the ballroom, but could not find Appendix B, where is if? Mr. Pringle answered that the table was actually provided by the Evans Hotel. These numbers indicate the number of people utilizing the meeting /catering space by day of the week and time of day. Mr. Edmonston clarified that Appendix B is in the traffic study, not in the EIR document. Chairperson Selich continued by referencing Table 5, Trip Generation in the box marked Trip Ends: Peak Hour. In subtracting the RV spaces out, the footnote indicates that the daily volumes were estimated. There was a reference to doing some other calculations in regards to RV spaces, was the same factor used for all? Mr. Pringle answered that the difference is, the ITE does not have a daily value, only peak hours. Traffic engineers do not deal with daily volume, and if is not a number we use. If is in here for information purposes, but is not part of the analysis. Continuing, Chairperson Selich asked if there were RV space numbers in the Settlement Agreement? Mr. Edmonsfon said he would refer to the agreement to see if any of those numbers were included. Referring to page 11, Traffic Impact Analysis, he asked if this is what is called our TPO analysis? He was answered that the first paragraph refers to the Congestion Management Program, but the rest of it then is the study that complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Chairperson Selich noted that people get confused between the short -term model and long term model. He suggested that this be clearly defined as the analysis of the City's TPO. People can then more readily differentiate between the TPO analysis from the long -range analysis. Chairperson Selich, referring to Figure 3 trip generation, noted the traffic report indicated that the City provides this to WPA. He asked for an explanation of how this was arrived at. Mr. Edmonsfon answered that Figure 3 illustrates the resulting distribution percentages, which have been previously approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. We would have gone back and referred to earlier traffic studies and provided that information, looked at and reviewed if as well as asking Mr. Pringle to do the same. This is the genesis of that drawing, both staff and the consultant would have looked at this to determine if this was a reasonable distribution percentage. Mr. Pringle added that several years ago, they did interviews at the Hyatt Hotel on Jamboree. That information gave us some distribution I❑m E 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX data that has been utilized and over the years modified slightly as things changed in the region. Chairman Selich noted that on this figure, there is no distribution going towards Balboa Island. Mr. Edmonston answered that when the City first adopted the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) if had layers of conservativeness built into it. We had been directed to carry trips with small amounts of distribution to intervening roadways. Looking at the approach used by other agencies, almost every intersection you come to 1 or 2% may bleed off and that may or may not reflect the accurate usage. The recently adopted TPO, in an attempt to clarify if even more, includes a provision that those percentages would be rounded to the nearest 5% as they are in this exhibit. The concept has been to keep if on the major arterials and therefore, if ends up being a worst case assessment. Once the project is actually occupied and the counts are made, if if was worst case, then if is corrected at that time because now they are existing counts. Referencing Figure 3, discussion continued on the percentages of directional distributions. Commissioner Gifford clarified that Figure 3 reflects an assumption that 70% of the traffic coming out of the project goes eastbound, only 5% of if is going into Newport Center and none goes in from Jamboree? Mr. Edmonsfon answered yes. Mr. Edmonsfon noted that this study was done under the old TPO and there will be a supplemental report prepared under the new TPO, as there are slight differences. The 5% was neither in the ordinance nor the administrative procedures, but if was what historically had been done. We had a couple of projects where discussions involved that and it was felt if would be good to put into the ordinance. Chairperson Selich noted that this maybe something to re- visit, as the analogy of Eastbluff is comparable to Balboa Island which is a major destination point. Chairperson Selich then referenced the Executive Summary, Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. He asked for an explanation of the water run -off impact of this project into the bay and the storm drain system. What if any plans are there to improve the quality of water run off, is if feasible to connect other drainage structures into the system that goes out into the bulkhead into the main part of the bay and not into the lagoon? Steve Ross, LSA answered that if is re- directing the flows from the lagoon into the bay through the bulkheads. As far as the overall quality of the water, the study did not address that issue. The project site is about 10 acres undeveloped at this time so currently water percolates through on the site. The rest of the site is the existing marina area which is paved and there is no change in that condition. As far as overall improvement, I don't think the • project improves the water quality, but the study did not get into that other than where if is being directed and what was being done to minimize any 19 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX pollutants going into the bay from the project site. The analysis did not state that there are any off site improvements that are being proposed to improve water quality, it did talk about the possible re- direction of storm flows that currently come in to the lagoon from Sea Island drainage area. There is concern by the Orange County Health Agency as to the coliform coming from Sea Island and is one of their top priorities. What they would like to do is redirect that into the sewer lines around the Newport Dunes project and out. The applicant has stated he would like to participate in this endeavor, but it is not committed in this document. Chairperson Selich asked if it was not feasible to tie it into the new storm drain system going through the bulkhead? Mr. Ross answered he could get back with an answer. Continuing, Chairperson Selich referring to the Visual Impact Section, on page 4.10 -33, Significant Unavoidable Impact asked about View K (Figure 4.10.5 -K photograph). It states it is creating an unavoidable visual impact. In the analysis. I could not follow how you came to this conclusion, how did you determine a view impact and how was it determined by the listing of Impact Significance Criteria on page 4.10 -7? Mr. Ross answered that it comes down to exhibits 10 -A as well as 10 -D and 10 -E. What the analysis basically says is that from the view at the public beach, views of the cliffs near the Castaways are blocked by the project. The cliffs are considered a prominent important view from the public space with coastal access. In most other views analyzed in this document, the project is viewed from above, Coast Highway and bluffs on the other side of the bay. There are no significant impacts to significant resources like the bluffs. A subjective analysis is used in each of these images. Mr. Patrick Alford added that this particular view is on the project site but that it is a public area and that is why it was analyzed in terms of a public view impact. The major impact is to the coastal bluffs below the Castaways project from the east side of the lagoon. Discussion followed on the exhibits used. Commissioner Tucker asked what the time -share units that face the existing marina will look like, particularly the patio features? It looks like there are small patios off the sides, but it is hard to tell. Mr. Ross, referring to Page 13 of the plans, answered that the floor plan shows balconies that are part of the time share design. The balconies off some of the guestrooms, not on corners, look to be about 6 feet deep and 15 feet wide. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker asked about the height of the structure. He was answered by Mr. Ross that all but the central portion of the project above the main central entrance point with the 5'h story, is 50 feet or less. There are some portions of the project that do exceed 50 feet, some elements of the time share units go up to a maximum of 60 feet, but the 20 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX overall 75 feet represents 25% of the building area. Chairperson Selich referring to Figure 4.9.1 noted his concern of the noise emanating out into the mobile homes from the area of the parking structure. What is the design of the parking structure going to be like in that area? Is if open parking from the service drive or is if closed. Mr. Ross answered that if is only open in a couple of areas. Referencing the plans on page 10, he explained the entry elevation, noting the secondary entrance to the parking structure and explained the materials used and how the structure sits on the project site. Commissioner Kranzley asked why there were no noise measurements locations placed on the other side of the resort. He was answered that the measurement sites were chosen because of the concern of the residents so close to the proposed project. The analysis does address the distances involved and the land use being the commercial at the Hyatt and the noise being allowed for commercial land use. Commissioner Kranzley asked for noise measurements going from the other directions as the Hyatt might be impacted by noise over water, if there was a band playing at the Dunes. Mr. Alford noted that most of the noise measurements were done for the stationary or mobile vehicle sources. So we are looking at mechanical equipment and cars /trucks, but not party noise, as that is covered by the Noise Ordinance. Discussion continued on the enforcement by the Police Department under the Municipal Code. Ms. Clauson noted that the provisions of the ordinance are the loud and unreasonable noise in Chapter 10.2. There are factors to be determined when the standard is invoked. Commissioner Fuller, referencing Figure 3.4.2, and Figure 4.10.3 photo G asked if they were taken from the same point? He was answered that Photo G is actually taken within Bayside Village Mobile Home Park north of Bayside Drive. The closest view is depicted in View F that shows the berm. Mr. Gleason pointed out that Simulation G is from within Bayside Village Mobile Home Park and looking above those garages you can see a little white wall which is the parking structure. Commissioner Fuller asked if there was a parking structure shown somewhere in View E? Mr. Ross answered that if is in there somewhere, however, the applicant is trying to screen the parking structure as much as possible as depicted in the simulation. Chairperson Selich asked why the street section on Bayside Drive has an off site bike trail and two on street bike lanes in two directions. Mr. Edmonston answered that the City has tried to provide a dual system that serves both the family that may be on a casual bicycle outing with their kids and are not 21 City of Newport Beach Punning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 comfortable riding in the street with traffic, as well as the more experienced cyclists who would not ride on the sidewalk if they had to. We have similar situations all over town where we have 12 -foot wide sidewalks to accommodate bikes and pedestrians as well as either bike lanes in the street or wide enough curb lanes to accommodate both bicycle and vehicular traffic. The City has a Master Plan of Bike Facilities; this sidewalk portion ties in. You can ride along Back Bay Drive around the Dunes and now down Bayside and on the bridge to Coast Highway, up Dover, and do a complete loop around the bay on this type of facility. Chairperson Selich noted that he would like to see an alternative street section developed for Bayside Drive for consideration. It is important that on a major hotel entrance such as this, that there should be some nice landscaping on the street section. We have not allowed that to happen with these plans. A design could include landscape median going up that street and then evaluating whether the on- street bike lanes or the off - street bike trails be sacrificed to allow the landscaped median. Commissioner Gifford clarified where it is called an off - street bike trail, is that like the 10 -foot wide that goes along Irvine Avenue up along the bay where it is divided by the Interpretive Center and it is actually pedestrian and bikes? She was answered yes. It was determined that the pedestrians and bikes could be compatible, however, I notice that it is marked all bike path. If we are talking about sacrificing something, and it would be the bike trail, we are also sacrificing the pedestrian trail. Mr. Edmonston answered that the current plans for the cross section have a narrow sidewalk on one side of the street and the wider sidewalk on the other that would be the joint sidewalk that both bikes and pedestrians could use. If you narrow that down to a typical 5 or 6 -foot wide walk, you would gain the difference between that and the 12 -foot joint -use trail. They would parallel each other. Public comment was opened. Mr. Robert Gleason, with Newport Dunes answered questions and concerns raised in the Commission's deliberation: • Noise - there is one area of the hotel called the function courtyard. which is adjacent to the conference facilities. It is our intent to have occasional receptions in those areas, but it is not principally what those areas are for. As we are a residential use also, we are sensitive to the noise problems. The functions will not be of a loud band variety or a luau type variety but rather be receptions held before people would go into dinner. Any occasion that had amplified music would be done with a Special Events Permit consistent with what is being done at the Dunes now. • Time -share use - the industry average is about 20% public use over the course of the year. 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 INDEX ➢ Information supplied by us for catered events - we were asked to supply that information from the standpoint of an abundance of caution in the traffic study. We approached this by looking at another hotel we operate to give the peak times and uses on Fridays and Saturdays during the months of July and August in the most recent years. ➢ Water quality and storm drain systems - there are currently five storm drains that drain into the swimming lagoon for the existing portions of the project. One of those drains the whole of Sea Island, Villa Point and the golf course. That has been recently diverted to the sanitary system as the pilot project for all of Orange County. The other four drain just the areas of the project. One of those in the existing RV park that would be removed as part of this project will be diverted and put through the clarifier, so that particular area would be improved. It would be infeasible topographically to divert the other drains north and into the back bay. Mr. Quinn, also with Newport Dunes, added that of the five storm drains that the project has, four of them are not a problem because they do not have any dry weather flows. Unless it rains, there is no flow going through them. The one that has been the problem is the one that drains the golf course, the Hyatt Newporter and Sea Island, which is the one being temporarily diverted. We are working on a permanent diversion for that one as it has flows all year around. Mr. Gleason continued: ➢ Heights - the PC document talks about a maximum 75 feet, but only 25% of the project can be higher than 50 feet as measured per the Municipal Code. That would be the overall guidance. The project as proposed here, about 10% of the building structures actually exceed the 50 feet and to the maximum 75 feet. ➢ Views - View G, north of Bayside Drive, Bayside Village is actually elevated about 4 or 5 feet above the Newport Dunes property unlike the area south of Bayside Drive where it is at the same height or a little lower. ➢ Bayside Drive alternatives - we share the concerns as to the number of bike trails and the landscaping that is left in the right -of -way and have worked on alternative proposals for that street. They will be commented on in the EIR and will include additional landscaping, the removal of the on- street bike trails as well as additional control at the entrance of Bayside Village. ➢ Off - street bike trails - the one that runs along the back of the property now, is a Class 1 off - street bike trail and is divided and stripped with two - way bike traffic. The pedestrian access is via the sidewalk on the southerly side of that street. ➢ Story pole issue - I have called architects and developers to get an idea how to approach story poles for a project of this size. We are concerned with view issues, which is why we had the thirteen view simulations prepared. We have no idea how to do the story poles for this project for a couple of reasons: the physical challenge of the site with 288 building 23 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 0 INDEX corners, 199 roof ridge high points and 316 roof planes. The story pole plan that was done at Treasure Island in Laguna Beach had 113 stakes, the highest of which was at 45 feet. The story pole procedure has most commonly been done in the context of single family residences. I am not sure that it is the most efficient solution on this project. There is obviously a cost issue but more importantly, I do not think it ends up providing the amount of detail you are looking for and might serve to confuse and mislead as to the size and layout of the buildings. We propose the visual simulations be provided from more private view areas of concern such as Dover Shores, Castaways, Sea Island and Villa Point. I am in the process of looking at preparing a model for the project; I am not far along in that analysis, as we want to do the model in relation to its surroundings in the basin that the Dunes sits in. Commissioner Gifford stated that story pole plan sounds rather formidable and the idea of a model would be very helpful. Commissioner Fuller stated he wants the story poles. Recognizing that this is a significant task, it may not be necessary to document every ridge -line and corner, so maybe we can simplify that with staff's help and direction. I am in support of the story poles, but we do not have to go to such detail. Commissioner Tucker stated that he is not sure how much value would be in the story poles. Under the Settlement Agreement, 38.5 feet is allowed today. Most of the project is below 50 feet and I am not sure as to how much difference that will really make in terms of somebody's views. We are really talking about is having a 500,000 to 700,000 square foot structure in that location that sits down and may not block anybody's views. It will be imposing and if it was along the coast and might actually affect someone's view looking down at the water, then I probably would feel differently. The 38.5 foot structure is going to block whatever views of the water that a 50 foot structure will block. Commissioner Kranzley asked if we could take the areas that are higher than 38 feet and just story pole that assuming they could already build something at 38 feet, to see what the differential is. Mr. Quinn added that the predominance of the structure is 3 stories, which is higher than 38 '/2 feet to get the roof elevations. Commissioner Kranzley withdrew his suggestion. Chairperson Selich noted his concurrence that what we would get out of it is not worth the effort of the story poles. The more you cut it back, the less it will tell you. It may not present an accurate portrayal of what is happening if the whole project is story pole. It is a large and complex structure, and I would rather see other methods to portray the project and how it relates to its surroundings. I am dubious about the use of story poles in other than a direct view blockage, not something like this. 24 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Commissioner Kranzley agreed with the determination of the story poles in this instance, and concurred with the use of a comprehensive computer modeling from all the various areas, private, public, etc., so I would hope that it would be not only comprehensive, but something that could be for the record. Commissioner Fuller reiterated his request for story poles to show the view obstructions as they are the best way to show the average person what is going to go in there. I would not support anything but that. Commissioner Gifford noted her commitment to the idea of how to allow people to get a real sense of what this would be. Given that we are looking at these kinds of numbers, it is a lot of story poles. It seems to me that a varitable forest of poles will not be helpful. I would like to retain the objective to give people the best opportunity to see what this is going to look like by the use of a model plus creative alternatives. For example, is there a form of photography that can simulate the view from different points of the model? I would like to ask the applicant and staff to continue exploring alternatives that might provide additional ways for people to get a real sense of the project. Ms. Temple noted that in her experience, one thing that could be done in the process of a computerized model effort enhancement is to have larger scale exhibits prepared. The smaller ones are hard to decipher, having very large panorama type exhibits were quite effective in the past. I suggest that this is something that the applicant looks into. Commissioner Tucker noted that the elevations /heights of the various corners need to be called out clearer so that people can look at the plans and get an idea as to what the height is. Mr. Ohlig - distributing exhibits to the Planning Commission noted the following: ➢ The noise is 20 decibels higher than in the Settlement Agreement, which relates to approximately 100 times the energy. ➢ There are no time restrictions. ➢ Size of the time - shares is 1500 square feet with dividable patios, which comes out to 200 patios. ➢ Traffic - this will be mainly recreational but there is potential for other traffic from Bayside and Coast Highway. ➢ Views - tall trees are more attractive than small trees. Referencing the exhibit, he noted that the marina clubhouse is shown. He then discussed his representations compared to the representations in the EIR. Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower - referencing map #5 from the EIR noted that this is what the residents of the mobile home will be looking at. She noted the following concerns: 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 .IVOWA 0 ➢ Boundary line at the back fence. ➢ Bike trail is a 15 -foot easement for the hotel. ➢ Service road will be next to the bike trail. ➢ Service road will take all the service trucks. ➢ Loading docks are in the back; the times for deliver are in the EIR. ➢ All the mechanical equipment is back there. We are really impacted and I suggest that you come to my house and look at my view. She concluded noting that not enough is being done for the residents on Mayflower. Carl Spitzer, resident of the park noted the following: ➢ Whatever modeling is done should be certified as you would certify story poles. ➢ The modeling should include the surrounding areas i.e. the mobile park. ➢ Story poles is a visual aid. All need to do is approximately 64+ to outline the edges. Mary Jane Duggan expressed her concern about the increased smog level, which would impact all the homes on Linda Isle, apartments on Promontory Point and Castaways as well as the mobile home park. She asked if there was any way to predict the increase of emissions that will occur? Ms. Temple noted that a hot spot analysis may have been done on that intersection but if not, then it will be done and included in the response to comments. Chairperson Selich asked if there was going to be a report on the questions that were raised during the Commission deliberations. There may be some assumptions compounded by other assumptions and they have created an overstated case here. It merits going back to take a look at and validate the materials. Ms. Temple answered that staff can go back and evaluate, even ask Mr. Edmonston and the consulting engineer to evaluate the assumptions based on the comments of the Commission to see whether any of those comments would lead them to believe any adjustments need to be made. If so, we could accomplish some changes to the traffic study. However, one of the things that gives the City the greatest amount of protection as well as the applicant, is that the City follows a very consistent format in evaluating projects for all different reasons, but particularly traffic. CEQA tends a great deal of weight to locally adopted standards, which are rigorously adhered to in terms of defending the adequacy of the analysis. I don't think I want to get to a place where we actually significantly change from our normal operations. If it would meet the needs of the Commission should some modified analysis be presented, I would like to present it as supplement information that the Commission could use in terms of the determination of 26 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 significant effects or as appropriate to override and identify significant effects. I do agree that we are conservative at every turn. The tradeoff is far more defensability in the EIR should someone decide to litigate it a later point in the process. Chairperson Selich commented that what he had pointed out were not changes in the methodology, rather exception or an aberration that needs to be dealt with. If has nothing to do with standard methodology. I would like to have these addressed as to whether they are valid points or not. If they are not valid then adjustments need to be made to the EIR. Commissioner Gifford noted her concurrence adding that we need this additional information. Then we can decide how to use if. Commissioner Fuller reiterated his opinion that the story poles need to be done even in some limited manner. He noted that it would be a mistake not to do it. Commissioner Tucker commented on the information that was presented by Mr. Ohlig. He noted that this type of exhibit has not been terribly precise, engineered, or certified in any fashion. If these exhibits are to be compared to the applicants and taken seriously, then you need to get them certified. What we have found in the past is some pretty distorted representations. Chairperson Selich asked that outside of getting information back on the traffic, does the Commission feel that this should be scheduled for any additional study sessions? If was agreed that this does not need to be on any further agenda until the public hearing outside of the traffic issues. Ms. Temple answered that if the Commission wishes staff to bring back traffic issues, one option is since so many of the traffic questions would be of the nature of an EIR comment, which we would respond to in the response to comments format or prepare a supplemental report that would be included in the response to comments. Would you like to respond to a supplemental report prior to the public hearing on this item? Chairperson Selich answered that it would be dependent on what you come back with. Ms. Temple answered that staff will bring if back before we close the response to comments. We will figure out the time - frame, as the normal turn around response time is four weeks. However, if if is determined to totally re- craft the traffic study that could take substantially longer. 0 VJFA INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort Planning Commission discussion of the proposed Newport Dunes Resort development, including preliminary review of the draft environmental impact report. Chairman Selich stated the project sponsors would be making an informal presentation to the Planing Commission to assist with their first review of the project. The Commission will not take any action, as the presentation is purely informational, and will provide comments to staff on the draft environmental impact report ( "DEIR "). Senior Planner Patrick Alford reported that we are currently in the public review stage of DEIR process, which runs from October 1 through November 15. In addition to the Notice of Preparation, Notices of Availability were sent to all Homeowners' Associations surrounding the site and individuals requesting the notice. A display ad was published in the local paper. Copies of the DEIR are available for public review in the Planning Department office and at each branch of the Newport Beach public library. In addition, the executive summary has been posted on the City's web site. The City is receiving public comments, both pro and con. We are looking forward to receiving comments from government agencies, civic groups and members of the public on the DEIR. At the end of the review period, responses to comments will be prepared and incorporated in the final EIR, which will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council when public hearings for the project commence. Mr. Tim Quinn, the project representative and resident of Newport Beach, has been responsible for the Newport Dunes Resort for the past 10 years. Also in attendance is Mr. Robert Gleason, personally involved in the redevelopment of the Dunes since the late 1980's. Mr. Quinn's family has owned and operated the Dunes for the past 30 years. They are primarily hotel operators with 3 properties in San Diego - the Bahia Hotel, the Catamaran Hotel on Mission Bay and the Lodge at Torrey Pines on the Torrey Pines Golf Course. This is the 3,d and final phase of the Dunes development. For the past year and '/2 they have worked city staff and environmental consultants to assist with the preparation of the EIR. The document addresses all potential impacts and relevant concerns in a comprehensive and responsible manner. In addition, Mr. Quinn noted he has met with and will continue to meet with interested citizens and community groups. As a result of the EIR process and community input, the plan incorporates many design features, mitigation measures and conditions not contained in the already entitled 275 room hotel and freestanding restaurants planned, making this a far better plan the one already approved. 2 INDEX Item No. 3 Newport Dunes Resort Discussion Only • 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 Mr. Robert Gleason stated the previously approved plans are for a 275 room hotel with very little meeting space, approximately 30,000 square feet of restaurant space, and 5,000 square feet of freestanding retail space, with very few amenities throughout. What is proposed now is a waterfront destination resort. The components include a 400 room hotel, and 100 2- bedroom timeshare units. The units can be locked off from one another; therefore, the EIR analysis describes the project with a total of 600 rentable rooms. In addition, the amenities include swimming pools and whirlpools, 3 restaurant and bar areas totaling approximately 13,500 square feet of floor area, ranging from poolside casual dining to fine dining. Also proposed are an 8,000 square foot full service spa and health club, water sport rentals, a 55,000 square foot conference center with pre- function space for registration and circulation, conference and catering facilities, 2 large ballrooms, 2 smaller ballrooms and a number of breakout rooms and board rooms. The project was designed by the local architect firm of Wimberly, Allison, Tong & Goo. Local facilities designed by this firm include the Four Seasons and Ritz Carleton in Laguna Niguel, as well as several other local projects. The architectural style of the Dunes project is Spanish Mediterranean, keeping the theme with the first and second phases of redevelopment along the east and south side of the swimming lagoon. The style will be reminiscent of Santa Barbara in the 1920's, with stucco exteriors, red file roofs, interplay with solid and void, arches, colonnades and a rich amount of detailing. The roof lines will be highly articulated and the landscaping will be quite dense and lush. The buildings will range 3 to 5 stories in height: the timeshare units will be 3- stories in height, the hotel building designed around 3 courtyards with 3 wings built out towards the bay are also 3 stories in height and the north /south spine of the hotel building is 4 stories. The central portion marking the main entrance point is 5 stories in height with the maximum height being 75 feet Access to the project is via Bayside Drive. Vehicles will enter off Coast Highway and head up a ramp to the main entry point, which is at level three of the main building, providing an overview of the bay and Newport Center. There is a separate entrance for the conference facilities. Parking is provided in a surface lot and in a parking structure, providing a total of 1,200 parking spaces. The parking structure is against the building and largely enclosed with a landscape berm to shield it from the adjoining residences. The plan also includes improvements to Bayside Drive, as well as an off - street bike trail and sidewalk, neither of which currently exist. The bike trail will connect with the Class One trail along the back side of the Dunes and with the Back Bay trail, completing the county's back bay bike trail circulation. The sidewalk will connect with the promenade and pedestrian bridge and promenade around the lagoon. The plan also includes a planned community district plan. This document will INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 INDEX set forth the allowed uses and entitlements and incorporates land use regulations, site development standards and design standards for building envelopes, massing, height, setbacks, daylight plane setbacks, as well as landscaping, access and circulation signage and lighting controls. Chairman Selich then turned to She Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Ashley asked if the 170 parking spaces designated in the EIR for the marina are truly reserved for the marina. Mr. Gleason indicated parking spaces closest to the marina will be reserved for marina customers and the parking structure closest to the hotel will provide parking for overflow marina parking as well as hotel and timeshare guests. He also stated the parking counts done for the project cover all uses and the 1200 total parking spaces are sufficient for the project, including the marina customers. Commissioner Fuller confirmed that the project is on a ground lease and the site is considered tidelands. He asked if the residential uses represented by the timeshares are consistent with the non - residential intent of the tidelands. Ms. Temple stated that issue of what is known as "vacation - residential' is a determination that will be made by the state lands commission prior to the execution of a new lease with the County of Orange. Mr. Gleason stated they looked in the matter quite extensively and years ago there was a prohibition on timeshare uses in tidelands per the State Attorney General. In 1996 there was an opinion allowing the use providing certain conditions were met, recognizing that timeshare use has become more like a hotel use. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Gleason if they are in negotiations with the county to renew the lease. Mr. Gleason replied yes, they are in negotiations, and without the extension on the lease the project would not be built. Commissioner Fuller then asked if consideration was given for Back Bay Drive to be used as another access point in the traffic plan. Mr. Gleason informed him that consideration was given to this as well as other entrance alternatives, including Back Bay Drive off of Coast Highway, and the possibility of coming through the existing RV park or ocross the pedestrian bridge. However, when they looked at access from Back Bay drive, the volume off Jamboree could cause additional impacts in that area. Additionally, the project now calls for the removal of 150 RV sites and routng the traffic through the park could require the removal of an additional 100 spaces. Commissioner Fuller asked if there would be access between the proposed project and the existing RV park. Mr. Gleason stated the only physicol access will be for an emergency vehicle access with a locked gate. Commissioner Fuller indicoted he is concerned about the height of the project, and requested if the applicont would be willing to erect story poles to provide o better visual simulation for the residents in the mobile home park 0 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 and across the bay on Morning Star. Mr. Gleason stated they would to do so and would meet with staff to research the matter. Commissioner Ashley asked of the location for the 9 foot wall which is planned to be erected to inhibit noise and light spillage into the DeAnza Bayside Village. Mr. Gleason stated a 9 foot sound wall is proposed along the property line between the hotel and Bayside Village. Additionally, two 6 foot sound walls are proposed along the length of Bayside Drive from Pacific Coast Highway to the main entrance. When asked if there would be a wall that extends westward from Bayside Drive along the route to the marina, Mr. Gleason stated there currently exists a 6 foot block wall in the area and the noise study did not indicate a new wall was necessary. Commissioner Kranzley asked how many employees on average would be on site. Mr. Quinn indicated there are currently approximately 125 employees and he estimates adding about 350 to 400, for an estimated total headcount of 525 employees. With 3 shifts a day, the average total number of employees at any one time could be up to 250 employees per shift for the whole resort. Commissioner Kranzley asked what the difference would be in the number of employees with a 275 unit hotel versus a 600 unit hotel. Senior Planner Patrick Alford stated the EIR indicates a total of 200 employees at any time for the 275 room family inn. Chairman Selich referred to Commissioner Ashley's comments on the marina parking issues, wanting to know if the open parking would be exclusively for the marina. Mr. Gleason stated if would be. He noted all time -share guests would use the parking structure. Chairman Selich asked what percentage of the time will the open parking satisfy the parking demand for the marina. Mr. Quinn estimated that the 170 open parking spaces for the marina would meet the demand most of the time, with the exception of Summer weekends. Chairman Selich asked if there would be some kind of staging area for temporary loading and unloading for the marina customers. Mr. Quinn stated yes, at the timeshare porte cochere area there is a marina drop -off area with numerous dock carts for the marina tenants' use. Chairman Selich asked if the entrance to the convention facilities was on the same level as the main entrance to the hotel. Mr. Gleason stated yes, when driving up the ramp to the hotel one has the option of going to either entrance. Chairman Selich's final question to Mr. Gleason was how he would characterize the quality level of the proposed resort. Mr. Gleason stated the Ritz Carleton would be the most equivalent example as far as the overall style; however, if may be a bit rich interior -wise in terms of some the finishes. However, the project is proposed to be a 4 star destination resort. Other examples would be the Surf & Sand in Laguna Beach, the Marriott or Loews on the water in San Diego. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 Commissioner Tucker commented on the image of the project, and the importance of the quality of the construction, as well as landscaping, to soften the overall effect of the buildings. Mr. Gleason referred to the rendering of the proposed project stating that it is typical of the project. There will be assurance as to the quality and style of work as part of the development agreement. In addition, the design guidelines are contained in the planned community district plan and the approved final plan. Commissioner Kranzley referred to a sidewalk shown in a rendering contained in the EIR and wanted to know if the sidewalks are accessible to the public. Mr. Gleason stated the whole project, including the sidewalks and bike trails, Will be open to public pedestrians and bicyclists. Commissioner Fuller expressed his concerns regarding the lighting and spillage as well as noise as it relates to the residents of DeAnza Bayside Village, Sea Island and the residents who live across the bay. He also expressed his concerns about the height and bulk of the building and the need for commitment by the applicant as to a time when the story poles will be put up. Commissioner Tucker noted the Commission recently adopted a story pole procedure, but the matter does need to come back to the Commission for an ultimate decision. He stated the procedure is designed as an engineered construction where there is a plan that is certified stating what is simulated is consistent with the actual height of the proposed project. Commissioner Gifford agreed with Commissioner Fuller and expressed her interest in seeing the story poles at the earliest possible time. Chairman Selich stated the specific requirements for story poles at this project should include each corner of each building as well as the peaks of each roof line. He requested that Mr. Quinn be prepared to come back to the next Planning Commission meeting with a proposal as to how they will be handling the story poles, as well as the timing of when the story poles will be erected for review by the public and Commission. He suggested they meet with staff to determine how best to handle the situation. For the benefit of the public audience, Chairman Selich requested staff explain the procedure. Mr. Alford stated the procedures recently adopted called for the erection of 2x4's or similar materials placed at each corner of the project and the crest of the roof line to visualize the boundaries of the project and the approximate height. Commissioner Kranzley expressed his concerns about the water quality in the bay and referred to the problems currently facing Huntington Beach. He asked if the water interceptor structures proposed for the resort would be 10 INDEX • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 adequate to protect the bay and catch pollutants during storm runoffs or were there any better interceptors than the one referred to in the EIR. Mr. Gleason stated that they wanted to take a proactive stance on the issue of water quality and retained the services of John Tettemer & Associates to obtain the best available expertise dealing with urban runoff to provide a proven solution. The mitigation plan includes storm interceptors, which will catch and clarify dry weather flow and runoff from the beginning of storms. Commissioner Kranzley stated he also shares Commissioner Fuller's concern regarding lighting and noise. He suggested that there could be improvements to the City Noise Ordinance and perhaps special conditions should be included in the sound measurement standards of peak noise levels. Commissioner Ashley asked if the construction of approximately 700,000 square feet of building area will be built in one phase or more. Mr. Gleason stated the 500,000 square feet of the hotel will be built in one phase and the timeshare units will be built in phases, starting with 20 -40 units. Chairman Selich then solicited discussion from the Planning Commission on the draft environmental impact report. Commissioner Kranzley stated he was taken back by the Coast Highway /Marguerite Avenue issue, and requested clarification of information contained in the appendices. Mr. Steve Ross of LSA Associates stated they did their best to put the traffic study analysis of trip generation and parking use in laymen's terms, but admitted the information is complicated. He introduced Mr. Wes Pringle of WPA Traffic Engineering, who conducted the traffic impact analysis for the proposed project. Mr. Pringle explained the impact of the Coast Highway /Marguerite intersection comes into play in the build -out scenario as being a problem, and increases with the project in the build -out. He stated this is due basically to the way the traffic model works. The conditions are results of the city's traffic model, and when new land uses are included, the model redistributes all the traffic so you will sometimes come up with a decrease in traffic and other time with an increase. In this case at Marguerite and Coast Highway, there is an increase in traffic in the morning peak hour. He explained that while there is an increase, it is not due solely to the project but to the redistribution of traffic that occurs when you put the project in the model. Mr. Pringle stated that traffic models are not entirely accurate. Ms. Temple provided a perspective regarding the tools used for traffic analysis, stating they become more speculative the further into time we try to estimate traffic. Therefore, we tend to have more accurate and reliable results for near term analyses than with long range analyses. As Mr. Pringle noted, when relying on a computerized traffic model which uses a fairly 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 INDEX sophisticated mathematical methodology to distribute traffic, you don't always get the results that reach a common sense conclusion. However, Ms. Temple stated that for purposes of most projects, they are quite valuable when comparing one scenario against anather. They are less accurate when predicting absolute levels of service or intersectian functions. Additionally, long -range analysis to the intersection level is really only as good as the distribution and assumptions that are put into the model. Therefore, the information provided should be used for comparative purposes rather absolute predictions for the future. Commissioner Kranzley noted that based on the information and explanation Mr. Pringle provided, the report is still confusing because it states "the project will contribute traffic to the intersection of Coast Highway and Marguerite in Corona del Mar, which is projected to operate at an unacceptable level" Providing further clarification, Mr. Pringle stated the analysis and model results indicate that the intersection at build -out conditions would have a less than acceptable level of service. The proposed project contributes somewhat to the impact, but it is not the major contributing factor to the impact. Commissioner Gifford asked to what extent other elements can be identified that have gone into the model that do create the traffic impacts at that intersection. Mr. Pringle stated that the model is based upon the General Plan Land Use build -out and the inputs to the model are basically that information. The model generates traffic from the General Plan, and through a mathematical procedure, distributes that traffic to the various parts of the road system. When any input the model is changed in any way, it goes back, starts over and redistributes everything; it is an approximation and cannot be looked at too precisely. Commissioner Gifford asked if there is a way to incrementally phase into the model certain elements of the General Plan build -out, and then identify what it is making the major contribution at a given intersection. Mr. Pringle stated it is possible to run a select link model which shows where all the traffic is coming from and going along Coast Highway at Marguerite. Mr. Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager, verified that Mr. Pringle was correct, such a model could be done. He reiterated Ms. Temple's statement that there is a fair amount of art mixed in with the science of traffic modeling. He noted that a traffic model is an iterative process and the model reassigns traffic on each iteration, and are based on travel speed. Mr. Edmonston stated they had asked the modeling consultant, a sub - consultant of Mr. Pringle, for some additional explanation of this phenomenon, but have not yet received all that they requested. He hopes to have a better explanation before any future meetings. He noted perhaps running select link analyses on some of the intersections that don't appear to provide what might be the obvious result would be helpful in understanding the analysis. IN 0 9 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 INDEX Commissioner Ashley asked about the number of trips generated per room at the resort on a daily basis. He noted the model indicates there will be 8.92 trips. If that were applied to the 600 room hotel, the total trips would be in excess of 5,500 trips. Added to that are the number of trips to the marina, which comes to an average of 4,000 daily trips to and from the resort. There is an indication in the analysis that Bayside Drive north of Coast Hwy already has 3,600 daily trips. He asked for an explanation of how the trip count numbers were obtained. Mr. Pringle stated the 3,600 trips on Bayside Drive were an actual count over a weekend period. Mr. Steven Ross clarified the difference between the 5,400 trips generated by a 600 room hotel and the 4,800 trips generated by the project site as a whole. He noted that 150 RV spaces are being removed as a result of the project and that those trips generated by the RV traffic count for 600 daily trips. So if the 600 trips were deducted that exist today from the 5,400 trips generated by a 600 -room hotel project, you come up with 4,800 trips. Mr. Edmonston informed the Commission that the counts indicated on the first page of Appendix A of the Traffic Study were taken based on travel in the south or north bound direction. He noted the consultant has highlighted the peak counts. Mr. Pringle provided an explanation on the Jamboree /Ford situation raised by Commissioner Ashley. The difference in this situation is the ICU values do not change with the project; there is no project impact here because there is no increase to the ICU due to the project. Whereas, the Coast Highway and Marguerite intersection was not analyzed in the near term in the TPO. If was identified in the long -range as an impact, so if had to be identified in the report. Mr. Edmonsfon provided further explanation, stating the ICU short range analysis is very different with the project. This is because the already approved project is considered a committed project for the TPO analysis because if is vested through the settlement agreement. So for the purposes of the TPO, the net increase to the overall street system is only 800 daily trips, versus in the long range analysis where you are looking at 4,800 daily trips. In this analysis, you are comparing differences in the General Plan. Commissioner Tucker noted one matter an EIR is supposed to accomplish is a look at all available alternatives. He asked why an entry to the project off Jamboree wasn't at least studied. Mr. Ross stated WPA did not analyze the alternative access points because they were not part of the traffic analysis and parking analysis. However, alternative access points are included in the EIR under figures 4.7.3 on page 4.7 -11, where it provides discussion for several isaccess alternatives. Alternatives "b" and "c" looked at access via Jamboree 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 INDEX u through Back Bay Drive to the resort through the RV park. However, that would result in eliminating approximately 100 more spaces from the RV park. Commissioner Tucker suggested that perhaps the EIR should include additional studies on alternative access points prior to the document being certified to ensure that all bases are covered. Ms. Temple informed the Commission that as set forth in CEQA, alternatives are required to be looked at in an EIR. The CEQA guidelines specify that the level of analyses for alternatives does not need to be to the level that the principal project would be analyzed. She stated if there are any particular aspects of alternative analyses the Planning Commission needs more detail in order to make an informed decision, staff would like to know in order to conduct supplemental analyses. Commissioner Kranzley noted that additional access points off Back Bay Drive may not be viable for the resort, but may be a viable as an alternative for service and employee vehicles. Commissioner Tucker continued noting the comments in the EIR regarding the impact at the intersection of Coast Highway and Marguerite, which stated that no feasible mitigation measures exists that could improve this intersection. He asked if that wasn't something that the Planning Commission would decide under the TPO and then refer to Council. How is this decision made? Mr. Edmonston addressed the question, stating that the indication at Marguerite and Coast Highway is not under the TPO portion of the traffic study. but is part of the long range study which uses the inputs from the City's General Plan. You may recall in the past the City had required a developer to mitigate a traffic phasing level impact by adding a 31d east bound lane on Coast Highway. However, it was not a very effective mitigation and created a tremendous amount of animosity from the business community, and therefore it was removed. Chairman Selich asked why TPO terminology would be included in the long range projection as it contributes to the confusion. Mr. Edmonston stated he was not sure, but perhaps a different set of words could be used in the TPO, such as "infeasible improvement." Commissioner Tucker noted the type of hotel this is proposed to be seems as if it will generate less traffic than a typical hotel such as a Four Seasons, and the same methodology is being used for that type of hotel versus the proposed hotel. He noted his concern that the report is prepared in an unrealistically conservative manner. Mr. Pringle agreed the traffic study did take a very conservative approach to estimating traffic. The analysis assumed trip generation rates for a "regular' 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 INDEX hotel and not a resort hotel for two reasons. The available data on trip generations for resort hotels is very limited. The current ITE rate is based on a study from 1972 on one hotel in Hawaii which may not be representative of the proposed project. He does agree a resort hotel would have less traffic than a Four Seasons -type hotel, but by using that type of hotel the analysis provided a worse -case condition. They also compared difference in trip generation between a 400 room hotel with 100 vacation or timeshare units versus a 600 room hotel. The 600 room hotel approach gave the higher traffic count and has been used through all the analyses. The impacts are probably over - estimated, but that procedure is what is typically used in traffic studies and has been used in Newport Beach for the last 30 years. Ms. Temple added the conservative approach is a result of numerous litigation over time within the State of California, and the directive the courts have given as to what constitutes a defensible EIR. She noted if is safer to overestimate and if is important understand the project is likely to have less impacts than those identified. Commissioner Tucker observed the numbers on Table 9 of the Traffic Study do not change much under various different conditions at each intersection. Mr. Pringle stated that these numbers represent the difference of what is in the settlement agreement and what the new project would generate. Commissioner Tucker noted the ADT for this project and that what counts under our ordinance is the impact of those trips on the levels of service. Mr. Edmonston stated the short range analysis focuses exclusively on intersection performance and that the intersection is what controls the level of service on the entire network. In the long range analysis one would look at both intersection as well as volumes on the links. Mr. Pringle added that daily traffic count is a very rough way of looking at an impact; technically if doesn't have a lot meaning because you have to breakdown to what is happening in a given hour to analyze if. Commissioner Fuller requested additional information regarding the shuttle service from the east side of the site along the emergency access road to the resort when the parking lot is full. He noted the comment was inconsistent with a statement that there would not be access between the two areas. Mr. Quinn stated that under such conditions when the parking structure and parking lot for the resort is full, hotel and time -share guests would be provided parking on the other side of the property and then be shuttled through the RV park to the hotel. Mr. Quinn further clarified the statement that the shuttle route would be either along the emergency access road by removing any vehicular impairment or down the promenade which would be wide enough to accommodate a van -type shuttle or electric cart shuttle. Commissioner Fuller requested a clarification regarding a comment made by Ms. Temple relative to an analysis for a proposed access point on Back Bay 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 INDEX Drive instead of Bayside Drive. Ms Temple remarked she had said that if the Commission requested additional traffic analysis focusing on the access on Back Bay Drive, we would undertake a more detailed analysis. Commissioner Fuller indicated he would be interested knowing what the impact would be if both Back Bay Drive and Bayside Drive were available for access. Mr. Edmonston stated technically there may be a limit as to how the model can do such an analysis, because one side of the resort is in one traffic zone where trips are produced and loaded onto the network and the other half where this project is located in a different zone. The model would get very complicated and it would be a much more extensive effort to create one extra large zone that could load on to all the different roadways. Another possibility might occur if an analysis was done based on the assumption that half of the trips entered from the alternative entrance, or focused on an employee group. Chairman Selich closed the Commission's discussion to allow the public to make their comments. He stated the public review period for the EIR ends on November 15, and the agenda for the November 4th Commission meeting is light. Therefore, the Commission will continue its discussion at that time. He opened the meeting to public comments. Fred Baton, 300 East Coast Highway. Mr. Baton commented that he felt the project would be a class act and gave his blessing to the applicant. He noted Mr. Fuller's comments regarding noise across the water, and requested consideration regarding that matter. He noted a 6 foot wall along Bayside Drive wouldn't be much of a deterrent; whereas a 9 foot wall would. He expressed his hope that the existing landscaping will remain. He noted there is no parking in Bayside Village and wondered how will a bike trail and sidewalk will be included along with parking on the street. There is currently a shortage of parking and when a visitor comes the residents move their car onto the street. Would the resort parking facilities be available to the Bayside Village residents? The conservative estimates of traffic count on Bayside Drive indicated in the Traffic Study (August 22) are overblown and he requested a more average count be done. He noted that in the 10 years he has resided in Bayside Village he has seen and heard numerous accidents and hopes that adequate turn lanes will be improved. Mr. Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star Lane, located directly across from the proposed project. Mr. Folkedal commented he is Vice President on the Board of Dover Shores Community Association. Speaking on behalf of the association, they are strongly opposed to the project. Has met a number of times with Mr. Tim Quinn and they are still agreeing to disagree. They believe that the size and elevation of the project are inconsistent with the upper Bay and residential use 200 feet across the water. The 100 timeshares look like 200 one - bedroom apartments immediately across from their homes that he and his neighbors have spent millions of dollars to own with reliance on the 6121 r� LJ 11 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 INDEX General Plan, the height limit and the settlement agreement. He believes the settlement agreement should be enforceable on all parties. He has met with representatives from Sea Island and Linda Isle and the other associations, who to have independently written to Patrick Alford objecting to any change in the settlement agreement and the size of the project. On behalf of his association, he has engaged experts to comment on the EIR. Commissioner Tucker asked Mr. Folkedal if the objection is to the size of the proposed project. Mr. Folkedal stated that the elevation starts at 12 feet above sea level. He noted a 75 foot structure added to that would blot out any view from the water to the horizon in front of you, creating a Marina del Rey -like structure. In addition to the height, he opposes the inherent noise impact. The potential exists to have 5,000 new neighbors across the water on vacation with their windows and doors open. He noted both the Newport Dunes and Hyatt Newporter do not presently comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. At the end of the Jazz Series, Mrs. Folkedal used the decibel meter to measure the music at 10:30 p.m. and got a reading of 68 dB. Commissioner Tucker commented on the amount of technical information presented and expressed his appreciation to Mr. Folkedal's approach to • represent his interest. Mr. Folkedal noted he is in the aviation industry and a local businessman, also the treasurer of the Airport Working Group, and he is very much aware of the importance of addressing facts. Commissioner Gifford asked if Mr. Folkedal if he has any opinion as to whether or not his association has standing to enforce the settlement agreement. Mr. Folkedal stated they had asked that of their counsel this afternoon and had not yet received an opinion, although they believe they do. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff about the letters submitted by the Homeowners' Associations. Mr. Alford stated some correspondence may have been received in response to the earlier mitigated negative declaration, but we have since received correspondence specifically regarding the DEIR over the course of several months. He stated they are attempting to relay the letters as they are received and will include all of the letters from the Homeowners' Associations when we present our staff report at a later time. Bert Oblig, 305 Morning Star Lane, also directly across from the proposed project. He noted they currently have a number of sources of noise from parties at the Dunes with live bands. DJ's, etc., the Hyatt Newporter, the Back Bay Caf6 and occasionally the rowing base. Mr. Oblig expressed his concern for the lack of care shown for the neighbors. He noted that while Boyside Village has been addressed, there is no indication in the EIR of noise mitigation for the residents in the Dover Shores neighborhood. He noted that • the Back Bay is a beautiful nature area, and some of the views will be obscured by the proposed project. The intended use for the project is for 17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 INDEX conventions and timeshare vacation units, with the potential of 5,000 people on site partying and vacationing. He also expressed his concern of the magnitude and nature of the project; uses which are not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Ashley provided a clarification regarding the assumption of 5,000 transients at the site across from Mr. Oblig's residence. The 100 timeshare units built at an average of 1,000 square feet and made into 2 lockable rooms could sleep 4 people at most. Consequently, the most any one time in the timeshares would be 800 people. Commissioner Gifford further clarified the concept Mr. Folkedal and Mr. Oblig were trying make with respect to 5,000 people at the site. She noted they were attempting to distinguish between two different groups of people in the 200 possible units for occupancy; those who would live there year round versus rotating groups of people staying for 5 days trying to get the maximum amount of enjoyment in that short time. Commissioner Kranzley informed Mr. Folkedal and Mr. Oblig that the city does have a party ordinance, which would apply to this property. Mr. Alford further elaborated that the noise ordinance affects all properties, both now and in the future. In addition, he noted there are special events permits that are used to regulate the outdoor activities. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that this ordinance would not apply to the people staying in the timeshare units. If they disturbed the peace and the police were called out, they would fall under the party ordinance which would cost the landlord (in this case the hotel) $500 after the first offense. Therefore, there does exist a means to protect the residents in the area. Mr. Alford pointed out that the proposed Planned Community Development Plan contains a provision for a noise management program should any problems arise that have not been anticipated. These provisions give the Planning Director the ability to enforce additional noise regulations. Commissioner Kranzley noted the Planning Commission could call the permit up and place additional restrictions on the use. Mr. Alford noted the PC Development Plan text also provides precise plans that function as a use permit, so they can be conditioned and called up for review if necessary. Chairman Selich asked if staff was satisfied with the accurate representation of the visual simulation contained in the eir regarding what the project is proposed to look like. Mr. Alford stated yes, we are comfortable that they accurately depict the project as it will appear on the site. He also pointed out we are doing some additional visual analysis from other perspectives. Barbara Cohen, 1007 Dolphin Terrace in Irvine Terrace, 2 doors down from Pacific Coast Highway at Jamboree. Over the 28 years she has lived on Dolphin Terrace, Pacific Coast Highway has changed from 4 lanes to 14 lanes iu 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 at that intersection and Jamboree from 2 to 5 lanes at that intersection. Recently she was made aware that the level of that intersection was raised in height approximately 5 feet. Now there are plans for another hotel which will bring 4,800 additional trips a day to what was once quiet beach community. At the speed this area has been developed, there has been a neglect to do things to protect long time residents. She would like to know what is planned to control the noise, the light, and air pollution that has impacted all the local residents from this speedy development. She noted the standard of living has been decreasing, and would like to know what is planned to compensate long time residents of the increasing impacts. She found no facts that a new hotel is needed, and with the proposed development will come more traffic in the way of airplanes, buses, automobiles. Thus creating a wealth for the property owners and city, with no regard for the repercussion this resort development will make on long time residents in the area. She was particularly interested in part 2 of the EIR, page 12 figure 3 regarding ICU analysis for the intersection of Jamboree and Coast Highway. She thanked the Commission and provided staff with her written concerns. Joyce Lawhom, 265 Mayflower Street in Bayside Village. She stated she doesn't feel the DEIR sufficiently takes into consideration the concerns of the residents on her street. Their homes back up to the project. The parking structure is proposed to be in 3 levels will look over her back door. She is also concerned about the lighting from the top level of the hotel with all the guests entering and exiting and the light spillage. The only mitigation planned for sound is a 9 foot wall along her fence. The unloading of everything for the full service hotel is to take place behind her home between hours 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. The construction times will be from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. five days a week, from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on Saturday and on Sundays whenever they feel there will not be any noise impact. She believes they will be impacted and the matter should be looked at. There is not enough setback, a green belt should be placed between her neighborhood and the 9 foot wall. Chairman Selich thanked the public for their comments and reminded them this is the beginning of the process and is not a public hearing. In the interim, if the public has any comments on the EIR or project itself. they should place them in writing and send them to staff for forwarding to the Planning Commission. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple stated there was no City Council 0 meeting on October 11. 19 INDEX Additional Business i Sharon A. Esterley 2845 Alta Vista Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 Phone: (949) 759 -9056 Fax: (949) 759 -8288 esterlev@aol.com Chairman Ed Selich Newport Beach Planning Commission C/o Patrick Alford Planning Department PAlford @city.newport - beach.ca.us May 24, 2000 Dear Chairman Selich: I want to thank you and all the Planning Commissioners for your thoughtful and thorough review of the Newport Dunes Hotel project. I very much want to see the project become reality, but not at the cost of any environmental damage to our city or Newport Bay. The fact that you took the time to explore all the issues that were raised, and some that weren't, was exactly what I had hoped and expected you to do. The thorough work of the commission makes me feel comfortable and excited about this wonderful hotel, which the city needs very badly. We will enjoy the hotel as a great place for our community, and put to good use the income it will bring to help the city balance our budgets in the future. Thank you for your commitment and dedication. Sincerely, Sharon A. Esterley 2845 Alta Vista Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 May 23 20 04:44p ... p.l • http: / /wu v- boarcliartcr.cum YA4C-'I-I-F htrp:lkvuRv.rondula.com 3101 Wea Coast I lighway, Suite 209 Newport Beach, CA 92663 � (949) 650 -2412 r (800) BAY- -2412 n Fax (949) 548 -8556 lv��' C "V "�.� 1. ✓ %� �'1/(if/1/.��L -✓IYi� �`-'' llII � r �(, ��� L' LrYi,- C.�/i/YL(', G� �`� l C:C.�(.�i.LJ • U Lxc! _lsive Yachts Award- Winning Service r -pp �� -✓� v' rte; 0 • 10: Patrick City of Nepwort Beach From: Jim de Boom 949 660 -8667 05/23/00 15:10:50 Page 1 of 1 went by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware i Jim & Barbara de Boom IS15 Sheri iLton Place V209 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Home Plione: 949 64-S-7390 May 23, 2000 YO: lid 6clich, Choir Newpoil Reach Planning Commission PROM. tin do Boom VTA FAX 1 have to say 1 ann impressed with the process of Kivu and lake between the eunumtunily, the Planning Commission and the Newport lltuics Resort llolcl in developing a plan which is acceptable to neadv all involved. There was no rush to judgcnu:nl - just, good, healthy discussion and xillinnKncss compromise to make the proljccl Work for the conummity, the City and the Dunes. This hotel and the much needed conference space vMl bring in additional revenue that will benefit all the residents ofNevq)ort Reach for years to conic. It should reduce the ntuubcr of events that have to go out of the City due to a lack of conference and meeting space in the City. The Duncs has been a responsible citizen of this conumtmily and has helped to make Nevvryxnt Reach the great city that it is. We will all benefit lion lhu addition of this urcal hotel! Joyce Lawhorn /Bob Balen V 949 675 2779 W5123/0 9:53 AM 0111 May 22, 2000 To: The Planning Commissioners, Patrick Alford, Senior Planner and The City Council From: Joyce Lawhorn, 300 E Coast Hwy, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: The approval of the Dunes Project by the Planning Commission I want to thank the Planning Commissioners and the Planning Department for their diligent study of the Dunes Project and the careful writing of EXHIBIT G -1 stating 47 additional conditions to building the Dunes Project. This has been my first encounter with these entities in Newport Beach. I have been treated with respect and my concerns for the Mayflower residents have been heard and I thank you all very much. The project is a better project than first presented to the Planning Department. Hopefully, more refinement will be done in the City Council. My major concerns for the Mayflower residents, even though many improvement were made, are still many: A. The noise and air contamination from: 1. The open 3 level parking structure with its valet parking on the third level. ( This approximately 130,000 square feet of building was not included in the total of 581,000 square feet of hotel.) 2. The employee parking lot at the 9 foot wall, open 24 hours 3. The deliveries to the loading docks between 7 am and 10 pm. 4. The mechanical equipment and the use of buses and trucks at the "back of the house ". B. The noise and lighting from: 1. The third level entrance (open 24 hours) 2. The open third level Function Porte Cochere 3. The 30,000 net square feet of meeting rooms. C. The Mayflower residents will also endure the traffic, as will all of Bayside Village, when leaving and returning to their homes. l) May 6, 2000 Patrick Alford RECEIVED BY Newport Beach Planning Department PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Blvd. CITY Newport Beach, CA 92659 Ah9 MAY 11 2000 PM Dear Sir: 418191i01i111 ?111813141516 My wife and I object to the potential removal of 150 RV spaces at Newport Dunes in an effort to accommodate an expanded Hotel /Time Share project. We are not in opposition to the original Hotel plan which was to have been on the current sand "mesa" along the western portion of the bay. We Would like to remind the Department that the land is County land and as such should be available to as much of the "public" as possible. There is a dearth of camping facilities in the greater Los Angeles area and Meven fewer adajacent to salt water. You have Leo Carrillo, basically, to the North, the beach area at the end of the runways at LAY: and Doheny to the South with a (very) few spots in and around Long Beach and Huntington Beach. And what about the beach camping areas for the youth groups - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.? Undoubtedly those areas will also become the pro: +ence of the Hotel /Tirne Share facilities. What a shame that the historical "Jamboree" connection will be lost. We Hope that consideration will be given to those of us in the greater Los Angeles area that enjoy carnping near the ocean (and invariably shopping and dining out in the Newport Beach area). I would venture to say that the campers in Newport Dunes on average spend more in the local economy per person than will any of the hotel guests or even the time share owners. Yo truly/ J Otis and Pat Hutchins 5013 Castle Road La Canada, CA 9101 1 4 x'414 XU-/I - ����i •� � ,cam- �c�.�.eee_ May 8, 2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Att: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner and the Planning Commissioners Re: Air Quality-Dunes Project Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of my mother, Mary Jane Dugan. ( the lady in the wheelchair with whom I attended every meeting ) My mother had a stroke the day of the last planning meeting, April 20, 2000 and was not in attendance. She succumbed Saturday, May 6th with respiratory complications. Her last wishes were that I reiterate the need for an air quality study for the Bayside Village residents. She was concerned about the pollutants from the flight pattern of John Wayne Airport directly overhead, the pollutants from the vehicles on PCH and the estimated added pollutants that will be created by the proposed Dunes 3,600 increased daily trips sharing the entrance to Bayside Village. She was sure that construction for 2 years would have a devastating impact especially for the south community where she resided. . She felt the planning department never addressed letters which dealt with increased air pollution. She was also concerned that the EIR did not adequately address the following, all related to air quality: 1. The dissecting of her village by Bayside Drive with a guard gate and grid locked traffic. 2. The 3 level parking garage with open valet parking on the third level and the added 100 parking spaces along the fire access road with its added traffic. 3 The construction and truck traffic down the fire access road west of the project or down Bayside Drive. 4. The redirection of traffic and parking of all employees down the access road. 5. The unknown parking and idling of trucks and buses and other vehicles necessary for a 4 star 470 room hotel. She was convinced that the Planning Commission completely ignored her requests for an air quality study now and in the event the hotel was built. 0Sincerely, 05 r Spitzer,son, living at 300 E Coast Hwy #298, Newport Beach CA 92660 (writing as requested by my mother, Mary Jane Dugan,dece d. W. —A parker May 8, 2000 Mayor John Noyes City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92660 RE: Dunes Project Dear Mayor Noyes: 7 2"aa 54 '00 PLAY i�Jj3ea '' & . . 92660 5d-?f. 714 -678 -0255 ' iLcfO" 714- 675 -4048 Cli'( ci''!:?T9EACI', Please fmd copy of Linda Isle Community Association letter sent to you over a year ago. Since then several hundred new residents have moved into the million dollar neighborhoods surrounding the Dunes who are also NOT interested in an additional tourist attraction. The area is primarily residential and should remain so. A major commercial development of this magnitude will definitely have a detrimental effect on property value and resale of homes in the area. The Evans family who lease the public land, have been handsomely rewarded over the years with their existing facilities. (The expansion of the use was settled in 1989.) They should be entitled to a permit for a 270 unit hotel as agreed upon. This will cause enough problems for residents and traffic control, BUT any additional concessions to an unwanted project will cause MAJOR logistical problems as well as MAJOR political problems for those officials who give so freely as to violate their public trust. Let the county become a Silicon Valley if need be, but lets leave our city out of the mad rush to gridlock! I might suggest that if any councilman is in doubt of how their constituents feel, they might ask them; I. How do they feel about 4,000 more visitor cars a day along Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive? 2. How do they feel about building the city's largest hotel on public land? In short, by approving one more room than previously agreed upon, will cause overwhelming support for the NO Growth measure now being circulated. I'm afraid the people will see their well meaning elected officials as reluctant to' just NO" d th f bl to distin ish betw ' o life an the lure of say , an ere ore una a gu more tax income. Date �vt C�op/ies Sent To: H. Parker �yor cc: City Council Members of Newport Beach 0 11 J- tinincil Member 'Manager /❑ Attorney , 0 lit March 30, 1999 Council Member John Noyes City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Newport Dunes Expansion Dear Council Member Noyes: Our board has reviewed the proposed Newport Dunes Expansion Proposal and our 107 member association was apprised of the project. We received overwhelmingly negative response to the project with our objections stated as follows: 1. Traffic at Bayside and Pacific Coast Highway. a. Presently reaches gridlock during rush hours. b. The proposed hotel will add 4800 additional daily vehicle trips which will completely block the intersection during rush hours. Additionally, c. Block Linda Isle entrance that is quickly reaching unacceptable levels with the normal increase ofBayside traffic. Furthermore, d. Raise smog and pollution levels due to idle traffic to greatly exceed air pollution standards. (Please note that LA is dangerously above acceptable levels now due to weak enforcement procedures.) e. Overall, this expansion will adversely effect our quality of living and turn our quality residential neighborhood into an even more commercial and tourist area, which we feel is maximized now! 1 .Find& 9A Cw�� A6oclatlon. • Nu4y o &acA-• Ca*zak, 9.2660 F' Council Member John Noyes Page 2. 2. The master plan should not be changed to accommodate any more density whatsoever. The present plan allows for a 270 room hotel. We feel that if even this is approved, an entrance other than Bayside should be required to relieve traffic congestion at the intersection and bridge. Quality of life in our community is much more important to our citizens and your constituents than unnecessary growth in an already highly dense area. Your cooperation in settling this matter before it reaches litigation will be greatly appreciated. rely y�ours� Wil . Parker President 7 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 673 -0255 - Fax 675 -4043 cc: Mayor Dennis D. O'Neil City Council Members Planning Commissioners 0 Alford, Patrick rom: BRambo1432 @aol.com o nt: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 11:00 PM PALford @city. newport- beach. ca. us Subject: Newport Dunes hotel project Dear Mr. Alford: My we enter our'vote no' on the proposed resort hotel that the Evans family wants to erect. Our view may be somewhat of a selfish one since it relates to our desire for a continued "snowbird" stay at the Dunes RV park. We have spent the last four winters here, driving down from Washington state. Each year we face quite a substantial rate increase, well beyond any inflation percentage. As we arrived in November of 1998 the site rate was $525.00 plus electrical and telephone access. In November of 1999 we check in with the rate increased to $633.00. With the diminished number of sites should the hotel be built, the sky would be the limit, with many retirees (such as ourselves) unable to afford the tariff. Perhaps it matters little to the city, but we do (speaking for the RV community in the Dunes) patronize the shops and restaurants and spend our money there. Unfortunately the Dunes is the only show in town and management here doesn't hesitate to take advantage of it. Come the hotel, it would certainly be worse. It is our understanding the city wants some percentage of visitor accomodations dedicated to RV space, and it seems to us that, come the hotel, the ratio of hotel rooms in wport Beach to RV spaces uld be overwhelming in favor of the many hotels. We have read in the papers the many negative aspects of this project (along with some positive ones), but on balance feel that the Evans project is really not something that this community should have to experience. Respectfully, Susan & Bill Rambo Newport Duunes space 5204 Nome: 14510 NW Treetop Lane Seabeck, WA 98380 E Alford, Patrick From: sales @Oactivation.com Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:32 PM T To: alford(gcity.new ort- beach.ca.us Subject: cc: Patrick Alford I rent boat dock space (D6) at the Newport Dunes and am concerned that the new proposed time shares to be built at the Dunes that will cause extreme parking problems for current paying boat owners. I will not agree to the proposed Timeshares if Newport Dunes Members (who pay High Dock Fees) do not have CLOSE parking and access to our boats. I carry alot of items(scuba gear etc) to my boat that are heavy and I propose that dock members have access to the closest parking available to the docks. Is the current parking lot to be replaces with one that is not so close? Please respond and give me update on the latest word on the Timeshare Proposal. Thank You! Eric D. Pruessing D -6 (Newport Dunes) edp @home.com 0 X �o 0 0 April 24, 2000 Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Patrick Alford Dear Mr. Alford: RECENED 6Y PLANNING ppP aR P-EA 0 CITY (1P N,c An 2 6 2GG0 PM AM 7181911011111 24 111213141516 V. I am a full -time guest of Newport Dunes RV Resort and I reside on one of the 150 RV spaces which the park is presently in the process of requesting permission to remove in order to build a 470 -room hotel /timeshare /conference center on the west siJ= of,Oh, !ay Orn. , This "standard" section at the rear of the park would be demolished, and in its place would be a wing of the proposed four -story hotel, towering over what was left of the facility. The truck delivery dock for the new complex would be adjacent to the remaining RV sites, and truck deliveries would be routed through the RV park itself. Employees would not be allowed to park in the parking garage of the hotel, but would be asked to either drive through the park to the small employee parking lot at the back of the hotel, or park in the day use parking lot on the east side of the lagoon and make their way through the RV park to get to work. All of this would be disruptive to the RV guests. Further, the hotel plans call for outdoor amplified music to be allowed in the hotel courtyards, which will face the lagoon. When concerned Newport residents raised the issue of intolerable noise at the RV park, they were told that because the RV park was part of the same land parcel as the hotel, noise limits would not apply for RV park users. This is not right either. The original master plan for the resort called for the future construction of a moderate size motel facility to complement the RV park. This approach is far more reasonable than the gargantuan behemoth that is currently being proposed. The traffic problems resulting from such a facility would have a devastating impact upon the adjacent mobile home parks as well as the Dunes RV park. This immediate area already has an impressive and very large first class hotel complex (the Hyatt Newporter Inn Resort just across Back Bay Drive from the rear of the Dunes day use parking lot on the east side of the lagoon). A second facility of this size and scope would not only be redundant, it would also have the very real potential of becoming a "white elephant" while still destroying the well established semi -rural ambience that Newport Dunes has long provided for its visitors. I know what kind of place this has been as I visited and enjoyed the original facilites way back in 1960, and have observed all of its changes over the years. Working within the parameters of the previous motel plans is a far more sensible method of improving the resort and the size of the resulting facility will not severely impact the surounding community, nor change the relaxed atmosphere that is presently enjoyed by everyone who visits or lives within the immediate vicinity of this area of Newport Beach. The California Coastal Act requires protection of "low cost recreation and visitor serving facilities" (i.e. RV parks). Beware of the Dunes submitted estimate that the total cost per night of an RV vacation at their present facilites is $284.00 (more than a night stay at the -1- •� i proposed hotel according to them) as part of it's justification for destroying 150 RV spaces. I reside on one of those spaces and my daily rate for the site itself is $22.40, but the Dunes $284.00 calculation includes the cost of the RV, and food costs as well. I sincerely hope that the Planning Department will not ignore imput like mine on this subject. This project need not be scraped in order to allay residents' concerns about its impact upon their lives, but reducing its present size and the way it would operate must be considered well. It is also not sensible to disregard the RVing public who frequent the existing facility. With much concern I remain, Sincerely yours, Mr. Terry L. Kiser P. O. Box 2021 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1021 1- 714- 624 -2943 -2- P c� 0 • �lI Wo, APR 26 ,A 8 35 �Qo OF' ICE ;1F :iC. " CLERr IT 1CF r;-Yt ^ORT BEACH a J n k �V-Pm1 `� GC,oril L Date "I` "" pie Sent To: Mayor cat Member Manager ❑ Attorney - Fl 11 _ j IRVIN Co CHAPT 1AN 2962 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 • (714) 540 -1588 April 18, 2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gentlemen, The media has been including many items for and against the proposed development at the Dunes. The type of development would add to the hotel and convention facilities in Newport Beach — Irvine almost has a monopoly on these facilities in the general area — and our city should add these. However, with the current traffic on the Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree, the size of this development should be very carefully studied. As a resident in Bayshores, I am very concerned about its size. ICC/bl Sincerelv. IRVIN C. CHAPMAN RECEIVED BY PLANNING Dr�PARVAIENT CITY 0= AM AK 2.. 2060 PM 7181911011111ti;1;2131�161r 0 RECEIVED BY PLANNING D_PARTh1ENT CITY P NIF.v2pnp- i.;EA;,FI Q APR 2 1 260 . PM 7181911011 1112111213141516 99l Dear Mayor Noyes and Newport BeacyfVOity Council, I urge you to approve Newport Dunes' p@4F�s for eFc&stinaR resort hotel. As an interested citizen, I believert4,ewport Dunes HdJ worked with the community to develop a project that is gdid for tiiq- ity of Newport Beach. It will bring many bendfit� to the sommuh5, including much - needed meeting space and tax dOars. Th Newport:Dunes Resort Hotel will be a beautiful addition t -The cites pZ n CO T Name / 40AAS G. A7_ZK. ♦ J Address '�' 3(a I CAMpuS I)e *99 %R, wee G'A 926 12- 9 0 t'1 � Dunes Presentation To The City Council June 13, 2000 Honorable Mayor and City Council. It is a pleasure to appear before you as Chairman of your Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is your primary advisory body on Land Use, Planning and Zoning matters. It is unusual for the Panning Commission to personally appear before you. Our recommendations are usually submitted to you through city staff. However, due to the time the Planning Commission has spent reviewing the Dunes project and the number of meetings it held the Mayor and City Council requested that I come before you to explain the process the Commission went through, the conclusions we reached, and how we reached them The Planning Commission conducted 2 initial study sessions, open to the public, where we reviewed the project and the early environmental documentation. These occurred in the fall of 1999. The purpose was to give the Commission an early orientation to the proposed project so we could become familiar with the project and the issues associated with it. In addition, we had the project as a discussion item on a later regular meeting agenda. In January of this year we started the public hearing process which eventually totaled 7 hearings over 5 months. From the outset we determined that public participation was extremely important. We made all possible attempts to publicize our meetings though the legal notification process as well as using the local press. We knew from the outset that there was a lot of interest in this project so we were rather strict in adhering to a 3 minute time limit on public testimony. At the beginning of each meeting we advised the public of our strict adherence to this time limit and encouraged everyone to present their points in outline form, give us new information to assist us in our deliberations, and to follow up with written supplementary information to support their oral testimony. As a result we had well over 100 speakers. It is interesting to note that although we were not conducting a plebiscite those speaking in favor of and those in opposition to the project were remarkably even in their numbers. We also received hundreds of pages of letters, faxes and a -mails as well as telephone calls on the project. We also tried to follow a logical path in our deliberations so that the public could follow our progress and participate in the deliberations with us. We started from the broad perspective of whether or not the project was worth considering and sequentially narrowed the deliberations down to project design factors and impact mitigation. At the end of each meeting we carefully explained what we had done that evening. At the beginning of each subsequent meeting we recapped where we were and what we were going to try to accomplish that evening. During each session of public testimony we carefully kept track of all questions raised and then answered everyone of them in the staff report for the following meeting. The Commission feels that with all this extra effort those citizens that wanted to participate in our deliberations had ample opportunity to do so and have their testimony, oral and written, carefully considered by the Commission. In addition to the public hearings the Commission worked many hours, both in Commission meetings and on our own, going through hundreds of pages of documents and studies as well as all the written information submitted to us by the public. I personally read every word that was submitted and believe that each other Commissioner did so also. In addition to all this we each spent a lot of time visiting the site as well as those public and private properties that had the potential to be impacted by this project. Needless to say the time we spent on this project was in the hundreds of hours. I can say that in my 20 some years as a professional planner and developer I have never seen a project so thoroughly analyzed by a Planning Commission, public participation so actively sought, and so much time spent to insure that a proper decision and recommendation to the legislative body was rendered. The recommendations presented to you tonight by the Commission were approved unanimously by the Commission. Although individual members may have preferred something slightly different here or there, in the end, we recommended a project that on balance we all could support. The Planning Commission deliberations began with the basic question of whether the project had enough merit to pursue or whether it was so out of character and scale with our community that it should not move ahead. In doing so we had to determine the baseline for consideration of the project. The City Attorney advised us that the baseline is the 198$ Settlement Agreement as amended. This agreement provides for the development of a 275 room 500,000 plus square foot hotel and ancillary uses. Although there is a proposal for a 165,000 sq. ft 275 room facility which was previously done, the Commission determined that the baseline is that which is permitted under the settlement agreement which is much broader than that proposal. Much of the public testimony centered on not changing the settlement agreement. The commission concurred that the spirit of that settlement agreement should be honored but that no agreement is perfect and if a better project can result and be within the spirit of that agreement then we would be remiss in our duty to the city to not pursue the improved project. Thus, the Commission concluded early on that the proposal had sufficient merit to warrant serious consideration but only if it could be demonstrated that it was a significantly better project than that which is permitted under the settlement agreement, is of benefit to the greater community and that all the impacts upon nearby and adjacent properties could adequately be mitigated. Once we decided that the proposal had merit we then proceeded to evaluate two key criteria: location and access. First we evaluated the siting of the hotel on the Dunes property. We had both the applicant and staff evaluate alternative locations for the hotel. We had them look at moving it to the other side of the lagoon. The commission determined that this was not feasible primarily due to the narrow configuration of land area between Backbay Drive and the lagoon which would have made for a long narrow structure. Other secondary reasons for this determination were the relationship of a relocated hotel to the RV area, to the day use parking and boat launching facilities. In addition, it was felt that it would be difficult to relocate these uses to get a site plan that functioned properly. The Commission determined that the proposed location of the hotel was the most appropriate considering the existing uses and the size and configuration of the Dunes property. Next, we evaluated alternative access to the hotel. Due to public concerns over the access from Bayside Drive we again had both the applicant and the staff evaluate access to the hotel coming from Backbay Drive. We had them look at two alternatives: all access coming from Backbay Drive and employee and service traffic only using that access. The analysis concluded that in order to provide access from Backbay Drive there would be a significant loss of RV spaces and that a parking structure would be required to make up the lost day use spaces that would have to be converted to RV use to maintain a minimum number of RV spaces. In the end the Commission determined that the loss of the RV spaces, the cost to provide day use parking, and the inefficient site layout that would be a result was not worth the advantages gained by primary access being taken off Backbay Drive. However, the Commission did determine that the employee and delivery traffic could come through the RV Park and take some of the traffic off Bayside Drive. Thus, the Commission determined that primary access should come from Bayside Drive with employee and service traffic coming of Backbay Drive. With location and access preliminarily determined the Commission next tackled the issues of size, height and bulk. Much of our public testimony dealt with these issues. The commission was concerned that the proposed hotel fit on the site and not appear to be too massive or inappropriately scaled to its surroundings. We were concerned with view blockages from both public and private perspectives. We were also concerned on how the hotel structure would appear from various public and private viewpoints. We had a lot of discussion on story poles. Just prior to the Dunes hearings the Commission had adopted a policy on story poles and discussed using it on this project. After much discussion the Commission decide not to require story poles as it would be unfeasible to story pole a structure of this size. Instead, we elected to encourage the applicant to make maximum use contemporary computer modeling techniques to provide visuals of what the completed project would look like. In addition we decided to experiment with erecting balloons at key high points of the structure to supplement the computer analysis. We tried to publicize the 10 day period the balloons would fly as much as possible in order for the public to be able to see them for themselves. The balloon experiment was met with mixed results with some members of the public feeling they were adequate and others feeling the opposite. In the end the Commission felt that with the computer modeling and the balloons we had a good feel for how the project would appear when constructed. Once the balloon experiment was concluded the Commission dealt with the size height and bulk issues. First, we felt that the three story time share units on the water adjacent to the marina and across from Dover Shores were too high. We had testimony from residents there that they felt the structure would have a great impact upon them. We felt that a more gradual transition from the water to the highest points of the hotel was more desirable. Thus we lowered these to two story structures; generally the same height as we have on two story single family homes on the bay. Next we evaluated the overall height of the structure. We felt that limiting it to the 38.5' in the settlement agreement would create a monotonous box devoid of architectural character. We felt that tower elements and variable roof lines all add interest and character to a building particularly one the size of this one. However, we did feel that the overall height was a little too tall for the site and removed the fifth story element with a commensurate reduction in the height of the elevator towers and other architectural features. We discussed lowering the first level of the parking structure underground but felt it was not worth the cost to so. The applicant worked out a revision to the grading that allowed the site to be reduced 2 to 3 additional feet to further reduce the height of the structure in relationship to its surroundings. We had received considerable testimony from residents of Bayside Village who felt the hotel structure was too close to them and would have noise and view impacts upon them. With the reduction of height, square footage and the number of rooms it was possible for the parking structure to be moved an additional 40' from Bayside Village and the loading dock reoriented away from Bayside Village. This resulted in a reduction of 30 rooms and 25 time share units. We also limited lock -off units to 25 time -share units to be used as 50 hotel rooms. Using the room count methodology this is 370 hotel rooms and 75 time share units counted as a total of 470 hotel rooms. With these reductions we felt we scaled the structure to fit within its surroundings, increased the setback from Bayside Village and reduced the visual impact of the timeshares on the waterfront to that which would be generally comparable to two story single family homes The resultant structure then became a four story maximum building with 12% of the foot print at four story height and an additional 4% over 38.5' for a total of 16% of the footprint exceeding the height permitted in the settlement agreement. 4 With the location, access, and size height and bulk issues preliminarily resolved we then reviewed the conference facilities. There was substantial public testimony on the size and operation of the conference facilities. The Commission wanted to be sure that we would have a hotel with conference facilities and not a convention center that happened to be part of a hotel. We wanted to have the facility sized to meet community needs and be of sufficient size to allow the hotel to operate at optimum levels on a year round basis. We received testimony on the need for additional conference space for local community events. This was supplemented by a conference space study conducted for the city a couple of years ago. We studied other similar sized hotels and the amount of conference space they contained. We did this to try and arrive at the optimum conference space we should have. We did an initial cut on the conference space, and then, with additional information from the applicant, we partially restored it to a level that we felt would provide us with the needed meeting space and allow the hotel to perform at optimum levels. We were concerned about peak hour impacts of the conference facility and spent considerable time researching how other similar cities have handled this and created a modified version of a mitigation program used by Santa Barbara for a similar sized hotel and conference facility. These mitigation measures insure that the operation of the conference facility will not have peak hour impacts upon our circulation system. With the site design preliminarily resolved the Commission then examined the major impacts of the project and how to mitigate them. First and foremost there was traffic. Hotels by their very nature generate less peak hour traffic than other uses. The reduced size of the hotel brought the project to a size that made it traffic neutral in comparison to the provisions of the settlement agreement. These traffic numbers have been carried in the city's General Plan and traffic studies for nearly 20 years. There was much public testimony over the adequacy of the traffic study, the veracity of the numbers used and the reasonableness of the assumptions. The Commission spent much time studying the initial traffic study and supplemental reports. No traffic study is perfect or precise and can always be questioned. However, we came to the conclusion that although reasonable people can disagree on methodology and assumptions, the traffic study was consistent with the city's methodology and historical assumptions and that it was a reasonable projection of the projects impacts upon the circulation system. Both the TPO and long range analysis did not indicate any traffic problems that could not be mitigated, other than the Coast Highway and Marguerite intersection which has a long range problem with or without the project. There were concerns expressed by the public that the Bayside Drive and Coast Highway intersection, the bridge across the bay, and Bayside Drive would be severely impacted. The Commission felt that the conclusions of the traffic studies did not support those concerns. We did, however, approve a gated entry concept to be shared by Bayside Village and the hotel as way to insure that Bayside Village would have less impact from the hotel. Once we moved beyond traffic we were able to focus on more detailed project impact mitigation. Parking was a major concern both by the Commission and the public that testified.. The parking demand analysis concluded there was sufficient parking if the entire Dunes property was considered. The Commission was sufficiently concerned about this to condition that a Parking Management Plan be developed and brought back to the Commission for review and approval. We were able to add conditions on noise control more restrictive than our noise ordinance to respond to public concerns over noise impact generated by the project. We were able to add conditions on having detailed lighting plans to respond to concerns that the project would have a detrimental effect on nearby residential properties and the natural environment of the upper bay. The mitigation measures contained in the EIR place a host of water quality conditions on the project to insure that the water quality of the bay is maintained. In the development agreement and PC zoning text we were able to place quality and design controls which will insure that the project is constructed to the highest standards and be subject to further review by the Planning Commission for detailed architectural design, including color and materials, detailed landscaping, parking and parking management, and onsite circulation and access. Finally, through the PC Text and Design Guidelines we were able to get an improved public walkway system around the lagoon which will be more inviting and pedestrian friendly to the public than that which presently exists. At the very outset of our deliberations we asked the following question "If the proposed project was demonstrably better that that which is permitted under the settlement agreement, is of benefit to the greater community and all the impacts upon adjacent and nearby properties could be mitigate why would we not approve it ?" Very early in the process I compiled a comparison of what I thought were the 13 most important aspects of this project and how they compared under the settlement agreement and the proposed project. I kept this comparison throughout the deliberation process and modified it as the project progressed. The following is a summary of that comparison: Issue Settlement Agreement Recommended Project 1. Traffic Approx.4000 trip /day Approx. 4000 trip/day Traffic neutral with permitted project 2. Height 3 story; 38.5 ft maximum 4 story, 16% above 3 story. 62' (72'msl) at elevator tower. 52.5' (62.5'ms1) at 0 story. Within 4' of Bay Club lower, 10' below avg. bluff ht 3. Floor Area 530,000 sq. It 581,000 sq. ft, 100/6 increase 4. Rooms 275 rooms 470 — 150 RV's = 320— 275 = 45 net increase 5. Conference 400 people; no max on sq ft 31,000 sq. ft; peak hour control, max 4 in summer 6. Location No control Control location through UP 7. Building Design No control Control design features & quality w UP, DA 8. Site Design No control Control site design through UP 9. Noise No control above noise ordinance Control through UP 10. Lighting No control above ordinance Control trough UP 11. Water Quality No additional benefits Upgraded drainage devices; imp water quality 11 Environmental Review None required Full environmental review required 13. Improved public access No ability to get Improve public access through PC regulations, DA. I compared the final project and mitigation measures that were before the commission for a final vote to the settlement agreement. It was my judgement that the project, as revised by the Planning Commission, did meet the test of overall being significantly improved, of being of value to the greater community, and containing improved impact mitigation measures and therefore was worthy of recommendation for approval to the City Council. The Commission concurred with this judgement and the project was unanimously recommended for your approval. Perhaps you have noticed that in my presentation I did not mention the financial or fiscal impacts of the project to the city. While these cannot be ignored they were not a significant portion of our discussions. We had a presentation the fiscal impacts but it did not play a major role in our discussions. If it had presented a negative impact upon the city's fiscal balance it would have undoubtedly played a larger role. But as it did not have a negative impact we focused on other factors in evaluating this project. This presentation was a very superficial overview of what the Planning Commission did on this project and by no means adequately reflects the hard work put into it by my fellow commissioners who dedicated untold hours in the review and crafting of the recommendations presented to you on this project. We believe we have forwarded a set of recommendations to you that will allow for a greatly improved development of this property when compared to what we would experience if development were to move forward in accordance with the existing settlement agreement. The project is slightly larger, but it is also greatly improved. We have done the best job we can as your primary planning advisors to tailor it to the site and our community. The final decision now rests with you. 7 "RECEIVED AFrER AGENDA tINmv a � V1 h tz z �; x rill� R4 E 'C w, i p'd '00 JUN 13 P 4 :27 OFFICE OF TI.;F CITY CLEM CITY OF 11C.NPORT BEACH A"- H III-) IJ ------- --- ----- ---- -- ----- _- ....__ - -------------- .-- - ---- -- - - - - I- -- --- -_.. -. dIZ IS �_ �1!;) (alon 01 p3Jajs13aJ ojy no, se) ssaJppV �r `o > ^ (pzu!'") 3Jnleu4jS (3)OA o) paJals!9aJ aJe no,C se) DweN llnrl X ���os -?CPYP pilaleipawwi aweu,iw anowai osealdLaxgtiliui 1g2iluaajq aq1 Ieadw pue angtilwl Suisegd aweJs aql lJoddns pinom gggm uollilad t fg!ltnb Jo asJopua of pasn i?ulaq si aJnituBis Jo aweu Aw JI wagl Joj lolleq 0ql uo p dui)lnd ,(q vadolanap Ieilumijui lJoddns lou op `)olleq 0ql Joj Cjiltnb o) saJnleugis ggnoua l3apo3 0l slit; aniltiliul Swsegd agjUll 3q)3I AptaJlt oWril ganw ool AIRM aneg aM •13lu33 u0i)uanu03 / 1310H sauna pasodoJd 0ql anoldde ION pQ `astald :paunoD f4i3 pue sa,CoN JoAuw `ssalJlJel I auuonel 1-1313,'40 01 dIZ is X1!.7 (3)OA of aJalsl'SaJ aJe JOX se) ssaJ V �'` <T 3JIh aJlljeUiil ' Caton of paJa1s193J an noS se) 11114 7: t j,(laleipowwt aweu Cw ilxowaJ aseald `Q.Aquil!m joquooi[) oql leadaJ put ani)tiliu[ durstgd agJBII 0g1)Joddns r -- plt%m gig4 uoili)ad e fjiltnb Jo asJopua of pasn 4ulaq si oinitu$is Jo aweu Xtu jI `'way) Joj )olleq aq) uo )i guillnd Aq sJadolanap ltpuanip y►oddns lou op `)olltq aql Joj fjgtnb of s3imtais onouo )301103 0) s1ieJ anileipul 3wstgd 3!JJeJj, agljl ♦ ApeaJp: 3gjeJl ganw ool ARM antq aM -10)u03 uoi)uanuo3 / 1010H sauna pasodoJd ag) anoJdde ION O4 `astald pounoo ,Clip put sa,CoN 10AI M `SS311- el{ auuonerl IJa1J Cliff 01 U C O U U 'O C ca H z O ca N 0 x C U H a 3 s U 3` r C U ° 0 U N O x- a, lit > T a0w a� l0 � S� U ° a .. C-'. 0 w O � N 0 3 C �s .N U 7 O r. O co rz .. c U Q w C > s •� a U_ O Q V s � N R s _ 3 � PP FI':E a ."cam 7 C' O o a, O > co N U Cd O H � ate.. U e r E a° � H IVIZ 3 P3: 2 U � Y Cl rR, ca V r '~'_ !�1 X14 a > > o > D E 3 No A P3:4� N 3 0 .. U � n v lit, r a B: "fdr E sF Tk. OY CLER a: 3C•y. .., , - tq� BEACH .. � ° N U C ° 0 o E c 41 > h u a" v -Z v a i r U m ca r '~'_ !�1 X14 a N > a> D E 3 No A P3:4� 3 0 .. U � n lit, r a B: "fdr E sF Tk. OY CLER a: 3C•y. .., , - tq� BEACH .. � ° U C ° 0 o U > an ° a" v v r U m a o C7 11 0 x c Z Cgn. H O sp a > y •gib e > o � � �n 72, 0 Co V O U a .: ' y co 4) R ° 'o .E U 0 E a o o b a >' 8 tO z cr T ai 12 _ -, U C O U U .b H A z N x ° c O ° U U 3 s 3 rz c U C O c C U Y x 0 O 0 G. s aCd E^ c° oO� O� � 3 ° a .r f O Rf c O b E �s 850§ JUN 13 w 3 ° w 06 t cd C . C � u c ° 0 0 c � aCdi X � a ° .b O 03 .> M ° t. 7 7 67 C 3 a Q3 air �L°0 v . E ro " o T i� 3 .42 o a - d Cd s T iJUN 13 P 3 :42 ` U V) i 3 `v � a d- .._ E.! I >- Cd J.Sp i J C 00 0 ^� C 7 Q Is N 0 = O " Q Z 3 O O co d � •'� � U O. 'cE � > G CC N C � 'o s > v u= It i cp r-1 R. Op Cy CO., M a ~ y a 0 T \_ cz Cd L cz cz F- c 0 r E a C v a 8 �'o° z 0 I 0 3 i C U U O _O U > U c U 0 O o x Z O co Q y O N i1. X � � a x ° v Y C y 0. N Q U z U F a D c� U U E g r.. r O w E O" L O O w a° R O y � O O aci on .. c U 0. O � w o ° CN a t c a� U O r.� c 4� r n 0 .JUN 1; 3 y O OF F71,:. rz c O ~O YV ° O N N y .> .0. 00 .4.r- 0 t T C U � aoi � E E t3 O c 'C E E a c T y E U A 0. 32 :310\" i > ° o yy ° .0 . r O f U c au O O k >1 C r7 u V N -f N E `O T M. P2 Tr Q a U� 0 0 �an R 7 O E R Z 3 \l U i 0 r C LL r L U C O U U �5 T ° z U U L 3 C U H 3 w 0 a a� y > T a� a� A � E a� a 8 o � � 0 E 7 U E L � O' L C cYC C ` y Y a Lcn � c W h o .o cCo w ° .r S W.0 ' e -o L op 1. d �N! 01 o c r E T ro � O•' 9 > 4e+ l �3 s 1Y v c T U U U IV C w 3 ate+ C U o > 0 'L" C <0 3 ° 0 O •^ •C „S Vi 4+ hll O ° Y °a a o a > o � o E a c Q V m 0 z � �• w_ N U � 0 T A h 3 a V Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; M E To: From: Subject: Date: R 949 650 !181; O R A .:un -9 -00 12:30P>,1; Page 2 COUNCIL AGENDA NO.'12 X00 '00 ,IuD! -, F ".2 :49 City Council, City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Corrlmi' ttee Newport Dunes Resort Project (the "Project "); Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report ( "PFEIR "); State Clearinghouse No. 98061113 June 9. 2000 Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on the Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report ( "PFEIR ") for the Newport Dunes Resort Project (the "Project"), lit addition to our comments below, we incorporate our earlier comments to the Notice of Preparation ( "NO11 ") as well as our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the 111- FIR on the Project before the Planning Commission. The Planting Commission has addressed and has obtained mitigation for many of the impacts and other concerns which we have identified. We applaud the Planning Commission's efforts on this Project including the redesign and downsizing of the Project and truck traffic access. However, we have several remaining concerns. These include the fallowing. I. PFEIR Section 3.0 "Project Description" A. Balloons or a Model (PFEIR Comment and Response No 2 -1 -2) Throughout the process, we have urged the Project Proponent to develop "a three- dimensional simulation/modeling" which we believe is critical in order to determine the Rill extent of the Project related impacts including the important aesthetic impacts. Although Planning Commission appreciated this concert and took steps to address it, die "trial balloon(s)" did not work at all. Instead of these halfway measures, we recommend that the City Council require the Project Proponent either to develop a three dimensional model or other modeling so that City residents, the Committee and the City Council may determine the full scope of the Project. Further, although the Planning Commission has worked to decrease the size of the Project, nonetheless, under the PFEIR, the Project consumes a substantial amount of frontage along the Back Bay. Given this expanse, again, more detailed modeling and depiction is indispensable in order to determine the Project's full impact of this valuable area. Sep, By IaWKics Law Offices; City Council. City orNewport Beach Page 2 June 9. 2000 949 650 1181; .,er-9 -0O 12:31PM; Fage : ;l5 11. PFEIR Section 4.0 "Existing Setting. Impacts and Mitigation Measures" A Section 4.1 "Land Use" (Recreation) (PFEIR Comment and Response No. 2 -1 -17) We remain convinced that the discussion regarding food costs is irrelevant. Obviously, a guard at the entrance will deter public access. As indicated above, the Back Bay is a precious resource which deserves protection as well as the ability for public enjoyment. The City should require a firm commitment on behalf of the Project Proponent that the Project will promote and enhance public enjoyment of the Back Bay. Perhaps the Project should include operational guidelines or restrictions encouraging such use, e.g. signage to day use areas, or the establishment of separate and distinct day use areas and special day use parking which are not subject to guard gate control. B. PFF,1R Section 4.2 "Traffic and Circulation° 1. Trip Generation (PFEIR Comment and Response Nos 2 -1 -1 and 2 -1 -81 We acknowledge and appreciate that the PFEIR and the subsequent clarification provided some justification for the trip generation figures. However, this justification does not explain the underlying bizarre result: as discussed in Rich Edmundson's March 15, 2000 Memorandum, the Project which is significantly larger than the Family Iru: will generate less traffic than the Family Inn. One possible explanation is that the trip generation for the Family Inn should have included all the project related elements, including the office /retail and restaurant, in the trip generation rate for the Family Inn, as was done for the Project. For the traffic analysis, we recommend that a better comparison for the Project is to consider all of the project elements for the entire Family Inn development including the restaurant and office /retail space. Such a comparison would prove equivalent and allow for better analysis of the Project's impacts. Perhaps this bizarre result stems from some quirk or inadequacy in the current traffic modeling tools. If so, then we should review these tools and consider ways to improve them. At the very least, the PFEIR should attempt to explain these anomalies in order that the PFEIR serve its explanatory and informational put-poses. 0 E e.r. 6y: hawKlns Law Offices; 949 650 1161; City Council, City of Newport Reach Pave 3 June 9, 2000 Jur -9 -00 12:32PVi Page 4/5 Traffic Flow ( PFEIR Comments and Re ponses Nos 2- 1-4 and -5) The responses to Comment Nos. 2 -1 -4 and -5 misunderstood the thrust and nature of our concerns regarding stacking on Pacific Coast Highway ( "PCH ") at Bayside Drive. Our concern is simply that delays at that intersection especially during large outside events will cause vehicles turning left from Pacific Coast Highway (East or South) to stack into traffic along PCII, thereby causing delays along PCH. The PFEIR fails to appreciate or address this important concern. In addition, our comments, as well as those of others, raised a related but different issue: stacking along all access points during special events. As we understand it, the traffic analysis considered only normal peak hour traffic conditions. Although such conditions may be adequate for the Family Itm, the Project will include substantial and additional meeting space and will likely ]lost large community oriented special events. The Project Proponent has provided no traffic analysis which depicts such conditions. In order to assess the full impacts of the Project, the City should require such an analysis in order to determine the full extent of the Project's impacts including stacking on PC] I discussed above. Further, the Planning Commission has restricted timing of special events. However, we remain convinced that additional operational restrictions for such special events are necessary in order to mitigate the traffic impacts that will likely be generated from such events. Parking (PFEIR Comments and Re nonsc Nos 2 -1 -10 and -11 We remain concerned about the Project's parking capacity. The PFEIR appears to it such concerns and instead deters consideration of the implementation, triggering and operation of substitute /remote parking during special or large events. These are important parking issues which may likely cause significant impacts. The PFEIR cannot defer addressing the parking issues until some future parking studies. The Project warrants conducting such studies now. 'By deferring environmental assessment to a future date; the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Fort-nation Qom (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in government planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine flexibility remains "). Further, the Project encompasses various uses, e.g. time share uses, hotel uses, and boat launch uses. The Project proposes a specialized parking regime. However, the parking regime Sent cy: .;aWKVrS ua-,%� 3";.Z:eS; 949 65-C .'E;; ,,:,r -9 -3C 12:32Pi; City Council. City of Newport Beach pave 4 .lune 9, 2000 may affect parking for other uses. For instance, time share users must use hotel parking, and boat launchers must park in front of the time shares. This bizarre plan must be addressed and berter implemented. Page 5i5 In addition, the ovcrflow parking is located at the edge of the Project. This will require additional transportation to the Project which additional transportation will likely generate other impacts. Practically, the Project Proponent should develop a parking plan including overflow parking that will work and will meet the parking needs of the Project. C. PFEIR Section 4.4 "Water Resources" (PFEIR Comment and Response No. 2 -1 -16) Response No. 2 -1 -16 recognizes that the hydrology study used a twenty -five (25) year storm which is "used for stump conditions." We remain concerned that "sump conditions" do not reflect the conditions at the head of the Back Bay. We continue to believe that this beautifu'. challenge that is the Back Bay is a wonderful resource which must be protected through all storms including perhaps a hundred (100) year storm. in order to assess the full extent of the Project's impacts, we recommend that the City require additional storm modeling in order to preserve and protect the Back Bay. Further, we recommend that the City conduct an investigation of the possibility and feasibility of diverting all of the runoff from the Project into a separate holding system or alternatively to the sewer system. D. PFEIR Section 4.10 "Visual Resources" [Lighting Impacts, (PFEIR Comment and Response No. 2-1-14 As noted throughout our comments, the Back Bay is a precious resource, and various residents live in and around the Project. Safety of the Project and Project users will require substantial lighting on the Project grounds full lime. As has occurred in other Projects within the City, e.g. the Fletcher Jones motor car site, such lighting impacts in this sensitive area require substantial mitigation or use restrictions to alleviate the impacts. The PFEIR proposes to defer these issues to a later study. As indicated above under the parking analysis, deferring such analysis is counter to the requirements of CEQA. We recommend that the PFEIR not defer such analysis; it should include this analysis which fully addresses these lighting impacts and provides assurances that such impacts are fully mitigated. 0 0 Bobbi Hope 300 East Coast Highway 9262 00 JL'iJ -9 �,;� jp Newporrt Beach, CA 92660 June 6, 2000 To: The City Council, c; 1. FJiNi fiE: \CH Please remember when looking into the Dunes Hotel Project that we at De Anza Bayside Village, the seniors of this community, need to be considered. What will be the quality of life in the AUTUMN of our time? Especially for those of us living on Mayflower St. where most of the insult from the back of the Hotel will assault us day and night. Many of us still have excellent hearing (to bear the noise), but damaged lungs from years of pollution (not able to handle more). Somewhere all this "progress" for the revenue must take a HAULT. Think about your children. What will it be like for them. Will there still be Girl Scout/ Boy Scout camp outs? Will residents know that the Lagoon is a public beach? Will there still be relaxing walks around the lagoon? I'm hoping that you put yourself in our place when looking at this MASSIVE PLAN. <::zC L- 0 The following postcards regarding Pacific Drive were received on Friday, June 9, 2000. r] 0 Ll 0 : � § / z « 7 a) 0 ) `* / \k « ƒ\, ` -§®[( 0 2 \ ®f \a£f« 2 \2\� # k2® k�f+ \» @• 2 Diet#« 0 k)\z�§ ■ 3ecLE ! 2)6 f§& 2 Z.0.0 f7, to �EE -z / \ `§§ƒ Ik) ( «,Re= ` 3 :00 2 2 -= E= z 0 : � § / z « K / a k ( \ z m 2 G � \ k ( \ z � 0 //. k j _c a) -k\k( ,ono a) 5 *f (Q f (f0 / } \� // 3 »2 =20 z _0 a) % (k ~f§® z=))®] / / ] 7 \ E -o §§±$2 { <4)V, ){(f2 -=§zrcc \\ \�\ kj \k} � ` CD f( =f §/ \.0 /0 \\ 2£yzz] =EE@ |s §/> Z.0 'D.0 ]\)Z /0 -o `M0(D 0 co (#f)@� ( /Q\#\ -= 7z E \ z < | \ z ■ I--- 1� 0 9 0 \ \/ , _ ( \§k )j§ tr y m ° k { § f kzE= 0 § \_ _ q to CL k�0{ (D °f§z ® 2 p0 \ ] ` = ) a) z ) \ /0'D m ® °EQ3k« k {7 /o / =(\a 2 /27z£J I--- 1� 0 9 0 r � � � � ; ¥ > / � } � ¥ c- 2 § k z « ` \ \o 0. 45 \ /� \. \� . -0000) E s \ 0a) VW0- 0CL o s r =a�f )If=a0 t 2 \i&] \a /) i \>0\ , m 5 a) 0 2 2]7- .0 'D £2*f {] i )cam \ / z \ {/: | ` ƒ §§Ik6 { «a\r= /{#&0 2272£ƒ � .. .. . . . r � � � � ; ¥ > / � } � ¥ c- 2 § k z « k ■ to \ # \ 0 / 2 k « f ( 3 \ z 2 2 =0 - §)k( on 0 8 { {f \2 cu z ca) 32yz= =fcLE ()�f§ )'D cL /7 0c /� \ �!§Ik7 {«a) \!_ /f(t0 )27zrJ \ \ /�L )0 \k \� ` ƒZwg 2222@/ / } /. \/ 3 -/ ®�] =2E| |e (: = > z=)f2] \m f72 \ / 0 -a FE e;M 0 '0 (# ;0'F )2 w )27zrJ § <z < Z � � % \ � ■ k z ■ k ` \ \o \� E s ) 0a) VW0- 0 { § f a z :K; « 2 tiOnm .0 'D i G#» | z ( { §f§® m Z =f )»2 0- IA k `E§±f« ) § 2 \#,\!V R /{(47 )27zrJ k ■ to \ # \ 0 / 2 k « f ( 3 \ z 2 2 =0 - §)k( on 0 8 { {f \2 cu z ca) 32yz= =fcLE ()�f§ )'D cL /7 0c /� \ �!§Ik7 {«a) \!_ /f(t0 )27zrJ \ \ /�L )0 \k \� ` ƒZwg 2222@/ / } /. \/ 3 -/ ®�] =2E| |e (: = > z=)f2] \m f72 \ / 0 -a FE e;M 0 '0 (# ;0'F )2 w )27zrJ § <z < Z � � % \ � ■ k z ■ k C 7 O U U v a) m 0 3 0 z V C a7 m O z 0 T d D C 0 O U U V am t c. m Z V C al d 0 z O of d 0 o, c 2 r� — O Y O N co R y p 0 N�oE� 0 p o 0 Z O ,L H U O. ti .. C a) a) mz:F; -`a O > 0 C 'O C y N 0 N x 0 al _ O .0 cu �n o.T"� p — mCc)a r �— O a) o E 0 O. N a) N 3 >._ CL to Z.0 .0.0 0a O a) 0 0— C a) OE-EcLi�3 Oco0a1) O N U m r N 2 0 a) • .L... a t 0 jo =aa)) aa)) —L 3z Ecc m c Ow s o? a) M 00> C N U « p =0 co a) Y�o N c o E a)� O p o 0 Z t6 = OI O O L F U O y CL 3 O � a) 0 m . �z :E A o F a >vc-0c wa) a)x2 / 0 _ o a m -, Da aT'"' U 0— m 'co C 01. as Z'D -00 o w a) Ode_ =d�'� c E = E'3 o�0a) 7 y O m a) O ? Q a) C = I a) _ at O l o tN —' .= z E a�'[ 4 y d z 3 U u, A-z v �l w E d M z u, 0 aNi z \i 0 o, c 0 ,O d 0 Zz !n d Y y O >. C J ro r r o = J y c 3 E d p p o 0 Z U ..�o04) —0 d ti V 1 V r:_ Nc_0mw Z.- � O o•'ID — m c vxo c 0 -...L. O d l0 N ct T 'D 06 'O 3 c c Q. E co N O. N y O) 0 •O a) .0 0 ` O. t6 C Z'0 L a) m a) O _ O >+ c of of w O 0 z 0 c 0 = =Eu.0 o ° ro o CO a 3 � a) o a_ ,a a) Soto m E'dL_ 3 v o .,3zEQ �l w E d M z u, 0 aNi z \i 0 c ,O d 0 Zz !n d Y y O >. C J J N L LO a O yc =Ed p o p O 0 U 0 10r �OL.T.. o O Yr•V CL y w p� L Z 0 N h �!= � p 4) a> O C'00 c 0 m %nyd0xo 0 O L d T~ V 0 p— of C c ro 3 c m N 0 0 O. N N M U= z O 3: > `o= a) U a) y 0 co C Z.0 L O > m w 0 3 « � �p \"Ih O Z D 0z �EUE•3 v 0 ca E N w O CO a) _ O a)Q =0 r o)a) L 3 0 io n E¢ z �l w E d M z u, 0 aNi z \i 0 r4 § ) z « E / z < � � / b » k 3 ¢ E 2 k ? / � � � cn \�� \\ /\ /E\ /�\ _ kk /k§ 0 \j00(D ) \V0a) # 2 0- a) 0 a) 2 ( = ca a z:F; ° CL22kfE 2 §£E__ o -\��f 3 0 \ ) o a) | >f�® z () ` z2i />) 2 z =*)e± } /}(; ) \ //o ° -o `\ 0m0±§) £ { # (D . o DO{#4) 2 227)£2 r4 § ) z « E / z < � � / b » k 3 ¢ E 2 k ? / � � � cn \�� \\ \\ /�\ $ kk /k§ . *§0 ) \V0a) 0 2 (- {(/ # 0CL0 o w a) W 2 #)f = -2 k)MmQ§ § \. _ -co cc 0 0 ®e tag£ % z)�®{ z ()7f§) 2 z =*)e± z ° ± {| o o ° -o ƒ m E ` ;e�4, =- R o = (#Q \§f i{24\ 2 }»7)rI r4 § ) z « E / z < � � / b » k 3 ¢ E 2 k ? / � � � z z ■ § \�� \\ \ \/�0 $ kk /k§ . k *§0 \ o [0 0 2 (- {(/ # #zf= - a § Q2 =2 @f 2 / a &k7« k)MmQ§ I )ig]7k 0 0 (D | CL C. 2 z)�®{ z 2 � | f ` z �0) z \ \ /- o o ® `§Rama« ƒ ( « moo ` wo R ) )27 «£2 z z ■ § \ \/�0 . k +@\[! '000 / # S,frg e Q2 =2 @f /If==o ƒ )ig]7k >�§ 0 R£y 0 | d) 0 a) z ({ > cu ` z �0) _ °§ / /� \ 0C ° - °0M a) \# ;tm= 2 /{y47 2272|» z z ■ § k # k / z z \ 0 � # � k z z { � k IM \ \ \/0 -§ /§( '000 M -D \ ƒ£&« {2,0 \ } L o�2>f= =aE■;� X00 "CL z =2_»2 `ƒ }) ] \E °E§( % ± k $ « @M tW a) U 7- R -=z /k / \k #]$23 -§)k( {322{ 0 tM F- {2f2 @(D \}0M 3�mc =aE ■;s /k ~f�® z2))+] /_ ' E \ \5 -o 2§§] §7 (<m£r* /{(4) )2 7z R) ■ k z < z § � � �T: � ( k nmlOo ( k z < % � 0 11 0 tM 0 0 \� / \0 \\- _ -2)[( ) j0 (D *�e« `/ 3 e Q#\ \•`p =pzo a ) = 0'oM f §] +k #( . 0 =2 E 3£2> » 0 0 (D (f«f§® z ()> CL c ` Z'D )7_ )/ /u z u -a ° -o I `a§I§A (■�0 % 2) = Cl. 0 a a) 00 R /7\z£cc � � �T: � ( k nmlOo ( k z < % � 0 11 0 \� / \0 _ -2)[( ) \304) 00.w § 2 (_sip #z /#a2 a ) = 0'oM . 0 ° -m��� ! \a »rat z (f«f§® z� ;� -\ $ \� z u -a ° - �kla$ I () /o % 2) = Cl. 0 a _ =7)rJ � � �T: � ( k nmlOo ( k z < % � 0 11 0 �t ssauppy GWEN *f4!0 ayl of uo!1!PPe Inl!lneaq a aq ll!m 1810H Uosaa sauna podmaN ayl •siellop xel pue aoeds 6u!leaw papaau -yonw jipn!ow 'f1!unwwoo ayl of sl!lauaq Auew 6uuq ll!m 11 'yoeag podmaN }o tl!a ayl iol poo6 si leyl loefad a dolanap of q!unwwoo ayl yl!m pa3pom sey sauna liodmaN ana!laq I 'uaz!l!o palsajalui ue sy 'laloy liosai uo!leu!lsep a jol sueld ,sauna liodm8N OAOJilde of nog( a6in I 'llounoo 410 43098 4iodm9N pue s9A0N aoRe1N aeea - 7 sscuppv I o ? _ q �i GWEN AP aq) of uo!l!ppe Inl!lneaq a aq II!m 1010H Posaa sauna podmaN ayl - sJ8II0P xel pue aoeds 6u!leaw papaau -yonw n!ou! ' 4!unwwoo ayl of sl!louaq Auew 6uuq lllm lI 'yoeae lrodmaN to 40 ayl iol p006 sl leyl loalad a dolanap of Al!unwwoo ayl yl!m )Njom sey sauna liodmaN ana!Iaq I 'uazipo palsaialul ue sy •Ialoy iosai uo!leu!lsep a jol sueld ,sauna lrodm8N BACU00 of noA a6m 1 P'llounoo 40 40098 ljodm9N pue SOAON joAey!I I � � I � i 'Apo ayl of uo!pppe Inl!lneaq a aq ll!m sauna lJodmaN ayl 'sJepop xel pue aoeds 6u!laaw p 6u!pnlou! 'Al!unwwoo ayl of splauaq Auew 6uuq ll!m 11 •yoi to Apo ayl jol poo6 si leyl loalad a dolanap of Apunw paNiom sey sauna liodmaN an8!1aq I 'uez!lp palsaialui liosai uo!leu!lsap a jol sueld ,sauna >Jodm8N anted -e %ounoo 40 43098 yodm9N pue WON ssaipl OWE '43 ayl of uo!1!ppe Inl!lneagYoq ll!m lal sauna uodm8N ayl -sAe11op xel pue aoeds 6u!leaw pap 6ulpnlou! Xl!unwwoo ayl of sl!lauaq Auew 6uuq III* 11 '40031 to 40 ayl col p006 sl leyl loaf ad a dolanap of A1!unwwc paNiom sey sauna liodmaN anagaq I 'uez!1!o Palsajalul ue >Josaj uo!leu!lsap a jol sued ,sauna >JodmaN GAOAOOg of 'I!ounoo 43 408013 podm9N pue SOAON, .V 3 O V V V m m O 3 m z 9 a 0 z m l�0 O rn c 0 e O a °l v 045 c dp�'c� c3U °yc =a c m Ey0E y m e— E O 0 jj .000 v o Z '000 0 m 1 V m r 0 r t _ �= H ` O. O U N 3 w p U c y CU y L..: t _mz _ o IO Z =� ° N 4> U D C Q N V N C a) m C jy a N y x 0 aw a) d a) X o a _ oa m= r a) on m =.Q a> v ca a� -v o o— m m c m v� J � —mmmm a 3 m — occ Em75 rep.E = d aNZC0? Cl. N 6 OI U �� z 3 => m Op� 3::e >_ m m 0 U (D f a) y C d o a a y y Z O O- .D Z 'O V —_ o— C m V > y 3 c m 2 0� ° E �= °°i'_� 0 c �t E= y EcLi -o w z `o m ._ ady E -o m Ey0 d d ocE 2 =gO U = $ T Q Q O = a) p C >,< L 0 C r a) _ a t w rn a) L >L U 0 p °-6- M a D a) = 's 3Z E [C a3 'L 3z Ecr Ol C_ n m 0 N i E k z « ■ / z < o -2 \� \ (jam /{ e ) -k \(( B )328a). # "tr g o �5 §f % (r\ pz /=a0 t §)&] /a 2 ti = 0 k) /��k ( cL E cu ! 3a »eee z {)kGcu 7 y]7f§® >/ 7 )2*) to }7, cCE /�\ z °§8 J(« 2 0 — ; 6 i { <,o ` /{£) 2ƒ 2 ■k c 2 §/{ 2#) 2 2272RI E k z « ■ / z < 3J27� \� \ \ \ \ =\ e ) o= a0 ) 0 a) # "tr g o u ( \ /)f % /\ {mot{ (D #zf=£o f §)&] /a 2 m o CL f / CU ( cL E cu Z ta#K °f z {)kGcu 7 Z -0 -D 7 {2 co �`/ \ E -o E Z °§8 J(« a) —= J (#�_@_ ` /{£) 2ƒ 2 ■k c 2 2 E k z « ■ / z < E ) I & Q | k z J 3J27� \� \ \C \/0 _ -§ #[( 0 a) /(. # &\\ o a) (D #zf=£o a cu 2 \$&k §t 0 k)\®kk ( co / a) ta#K °f z >f§® 2)«f§® +] 7 ) =ff co o / }2 f�Z0 E Z cu E -o ° `aklk$ J (#�_@_ ` /0 c 2 /{(47 f£72;= 2 2t72£J E ) I & Q | k z J 3J27� \ \ \/0 }))jqZ, )) ${f A (aa \`� zf; f )i[k7§ ( co / ) 0 a) = 2 >f§® (] n 7 Z2.0- co o / }2 2{ \�\ E z 2§§272 © J ( «Q =2¥ ` /0 /{( 2 2t72£J E ) I & Q | k z J ro 4 c 7 U U m m °a 0 Z 'O c m U) 0 Z O A m m O Cc O U U U d m °a N Z c as m 0 Z `o A O C O a) _ J C E n a) » o z V 0 O U a) CU 0 a) r- O L H U 0:; - CIN N �\ Zr- y -10o > C a) a) x. O Y ) .0 a 0 m c _ o - an >^, -0 c m m- O al N C) U j > C CO z U L �y'O ✓ a)O3m o ) ) �E�E'3 a) o c m a)- E y 0 m � = Z r d - � 0 O_t=o 0 N L 9 U a) 't 3 Ecc z rn C 0 Yi O U N C c 3U �Q L L j O E n i .0� °64) \,E ) \j \k \w # �t\f(g w a) E § kz /=a2 3 iJ \k \) ! k)cuzz\ CL 0 (D 0 a) z () °f§k 2 z=k)®] of7m z E - °»0.O C 2 {#a£@_ /{#t7 2 227)@2 �– - E k z k � � N � \\ (D �Cl. e 0 )j _ 0 / §)� ® 0 « ) \ / ° fa @/ ° cuzE =o coz:E o 2 \k(]§) 0 ])wc 0 CU , SEEeee | 0 4) ■ ()fat � ` z =ifi] to 2 2 f� §\ z / \ \\ z E o o e% §m*! ƒ \ }(#\ � 0 k /{§{§ 2272@£ /27zEJ E k z k � � N � \�/ \0 -§$[( )328{ to 0 C {# =a @/ ca)" 3£yz7] =aE ■E7 3\ °f ®s z2)ff/ f72 \] \ \ //\ §Emam �/■($77 ){[k0 4272|) ■ k z ■ kX X21 � • i -� z \ 24 , \r- \ \C Ll _ 0 -2a[? \228{ ~ * f r- 0 g { ° f0 coz:E o fx 2 )\oMw 0 a »M 0 (D | 0 4) Z #)> a =*)E± 0}7_ z E o o e% §m*! ƒ (#,0 /{(47 ! /27zEJ \�/ \0 -§$[( )328{ to 0 C {# =a @/ ca)" 3£yz7] =aE ■E7 3\ °f ®s z2)ff/ f72 \] \ \ //\ §Emam �/■($77 ){[k0 4272|) ■ k z ■ kX X21 � • i -� z \ 24 , w d d z y d d z 1p\� ll�C- a) p Jo f y dc L.tp.. .—J� °o. U c E 3 N c E a) p -000 0 a) V d O OL�.0 U O L H U d O U w 3 O N t a1Z O N a a) U O o C a1 m y y 4 N X O a) _ .0 a1 != i' Mn aT -0 v O p -MCMC a) 3 '= a oEa)= Z Oa)O O mU'. N y •O al V () C a1 c Z•p ,0- M O� a) O = C a) y o'a� �3u� > Z (D C d = O E��3 0 pQ co°a) Z ? a J N O 0 m a)r m L 0 t c d r 3 U w 3z � —'r ECG w d d z y d d z 1p\� rn c O Y_ O 2 y N O >,c c 00 >;o L.tp.. N O Q. p O 00 'o o o V d O OL�.0 U O CL n V c a) m w = t a1Z O U ad a) O d y a) d X p m a) '� O m .- Oa O CL T~ o C o- m m c as 3 '= a oEa)= Z oaa) CL Z .� 3 =- � c w a) U a) " CL y C Z a) a) d 0 - C O W O a) �_ a a) o . O Z N c N = c E 5 -o O m Em o a) m o 0 O>, Q api r a) Q)_ OCL .' c 46 3: z a) w d d z y d d z 1p\� a) aN z a) E )a Z w v Z4 <e 0 u io CD 0 alwD m o y o �• c c c NCJ �m N L O =O O_ p O 00 a) Co 0 O t F U O CL m U a3) .0 a) 2 �E = p U d al N O d m > C h a) N a) O al _ d a) a1 _O Oa O- )am c )a 3 a) a) O E a) O a) Y Q N N U Z > 3 = >.c�� a) U a) y y C Z -O - M N $ Y ro \ aNi > 0 d �= a)n a1 a) 0- p1� Z m E D 3 O o c E m a)- t6 O O ? O m a) U a) C = 0 a) _ d= O o O 3z E¢ a) aN z a) E )a Z w v Z4 <e 0 u io rn c O a) 3 c O c N 0 ;o f6 L «L J 0 a G U co 0 N o y L~ o V w 3 - O u ) m t c a) N a)Z4; = p a1 CL > ) C 'O C d M y a) N O x 0 a) _ O t6 t .0 � � CL - o G- a) w c )a 3 c a — E m N o o N d N N N U> Z 3"' >�mro •p a'v��w"() Z a1 a) 0- p1� O E- ? ° c E w o d M p m N O p U N O � t O rndt30�n E¢ 3z a) aN z a) E )a Z w v Z4 <e 0 u io m § \ z « o � §k / \j / .0 § �C) o- ®`ft . \ E a\s \ / \): Z 2- 8 y {3CLw _ 0°) � I k az /=£2 t )$ &k§¢ ( \_ _ - \ ± 0 /z�k , 370 a) ■ 2N® .0 ()Z +] 8 z�)f m 7 � / / z \ \ / to O -o 2 `2k2t7 ƒ { «�\r= / R /{24) 2272;ƒ » c m § \ z « ( z z \ k o §k / \j .0 § �C) 5 . \ \k\( /y \ / \): Z 2ELM 0 _ .E � I k \� ¥ )$ &k§¢ 0 \a)= - \ ° to §■25 ! a 0 CL *0 .0 o 8 2( / 222 = -0 ! to a >0 2 # ;_ - )r) / \ k0\ /\\ » c £ .0 _ %7° ■ 57Eeee vi h ■ #] >f §t {\ & ®/ \ ome22m 2 k =k) e�$f »#ro IA [ | -6 a) /= a) k � R zrJ / {\ k 3�§mm6 m e = (\ a) p ■ $«{ 40 [ o _ »7}£» ( z z \ k o .0 § �C) 5 . \ \k\( /y Z 2ELM 0 0 .E \)f§0 to )$ &k§¢ 0 0)\®�2 - \ ° to §■25 ! z ()7-ca m c Z .0 .0 }7cu / a -m m E -o 0 `aklk2 2 # ;_ - )r) 24 ){o /{ ■ 27£;» ( z z \ k § �C) _ �\� coo _ - -E / MV }{ k - \ ° .z szf\ / a -m # 0afK`Q ■ 2] §f§® -0 c £ .0 _ %7° 0 vi ) / \ {\ Z ome22m g e�$f »#ro , -6 a) /= R zrJ ( z z \ k C O U U a) m O Z 9 C al N O 2 0 W m 0 U C O U U m°7 O 3 d Z s C a7 d 0 2 0 �ry O O _ C C 3 U C oma) r .� LL-. j O Nc -E o_ E4) '00 O U a) O r C) () O Vl 3 VJ � ) a> U '00 C n a) m x o O 0 m o J O. >` " O — m m C m r � 0. E m O N O m CL N > 75 U NU N ` CL m Z .0 -0 w a) da)o3tmm > m O N N m N C a) — c E E'3 o m o d'a d 0 0 0 m a) 2 r O T N C at0 D1 a) L >i U N 'L 3z E¢ °��'a c y U > •� CO .LO.. 'C r a c E Nam) 0Ea) 0 O O U Z r 0 a) t «T U .L-• F 'U 0 O y O N _N L VJ N Z L-. _ o a> U C V C ,o :3,0 a >,- m m DID m cLE O N O 0 a) C a) U a) O m nyd a) a) o _ cm m O a) « 3 y ) m (D — O�E0.o3 m a) a o c E a) — OJ W U CO N O >,< a) r C = a) CL O Q) L 3 U w 't 3z Eaa'[ Vl a) a) E '0 z Q h E z Q LN] V �' \^) v, E Z Q E 0 0 v ` c 3U `0 O C J � L o N O j d '0 o a) .O �p D oZ u m 0 Im 1. mr U 5 U tom a)Lr of D > U C Op C m m CO Z5 N O O_rr V �a))mN O �L m — U a mZ �._!a p 2 L (/J a7 � > (,) c V y O m %n y d m x 0 m _ O .0 m V J1 J E E'3 0 acvv q JO m U m N O O pJ'o mmmm C a) afroo N 3 d 0 O U $ p 9 N N 'U d y co N to a N O_ u c d oaa) 3� ) 0 a) — J V E E V -p 3 y 0 ° c E w 0-6 m0 '0... E v r J; m Z v Q >. Q a) r a) 2 O .L..• a L m o 0 a) L 3: U y 'r 3z E¢ LN] V �' \^) v, E Z Q E 0 rn v ` o Y O ? y O C J c>'U > o y C L 0 O. '0 o a) p 0 o U m 0 Im Op N U C a) m o of D > U C Op C m m na)a yx0 a) _ O jo m O O_rr p'o a) O c C m m — N O N a) � U 2 L 3 > .5 m J a) U a) y y '0 C m Z O 0) y n 0 J E E'3 0 S E 5 O c E y —y q JO m U m N O TQ a) r C = C a) afroo N O L U 0 't 3Z E¢ LN] V �' \^) v, E Z Q E 0 � � ■ k ( 4) \ \ M � \. �� E) cu \�fy 0 Zea {(f {(f §zf = -« /( ©�)� o)tcm M �a §F25 (k*f$® z=*) +] ) \ \/�2 5 -a 2a|] §§ o a) )f CL }.r E a: � ( k z < w E / z < a � e � » \ \ # \ z M � 2 k CL # 2 ( z \ z � R Ail- /� / \k \ \o . '00o0 \ \/\ *co0,y ~` 5ƒf&« ƒfeg §( ° =a @Z Dui ap /=moo k . > c-0 q ca a) a,,o \��MCco 32/z7] EE;aS ■ 7> /e0 C) (: k` ff Z_ � �\ cc ` f }[2 3 *§ )\\//\ \ {� {j\ __§m2a ■ ( #a \ @f M p M %{(#t ¥ }_ )27z■) zrƒ � ( k z < w E / z < a � e � » \ \ # \ z M � 2 k CL # 2 ( z \ z � R Ail- o \� \ \, '0000} \\\\\ \ \/�\ =dcLE {)��Cl __ *)/ )\); /5 -a `G§]k) { #mot &{ $/ { 2ta _ zEcr § Q ! ) z ■ /� / \k \ \/\ *co0,y 5ƒf&« 0 ` Dui CU wz= cu a) a,,o 32/z7] /e0 C) k` ff z =30 f }[2 )\\//\ , `§ka$$ cu { «2 =4) = p {(43 ¥ }_ . zrƒ o \� \ \, '0000} \\\\\ \ \/�\ =dcLE {)��Cl __ *)/ )\); /5 -a `G§]k) { #mot &{ $/ { 2ta _ zEcr § Q ! ) z ■ E k E tM \� / \� _ CL _ -a)o ) )o0 `&frg A \ /32 M @) /p f= « M o 2 )=uoco f 0-mmCM i f[M 0 \) Eras | = z 3: 2 )=*)2/ )Em )\ #]7f a) z �� \� \ Z E ƒ *§ a) M ƒ ( #a) )! ƒ 4� \ a 0% ƒ{ 7( _£z£» E k E tM \m / \0 _ -§0 ) 0 )o` }` ƒ( F- -F, ( A = {%Z M ¥f / = =o )32aa» )pf=a0 ƒ \. _ f c [3 f[M 0 s {0 s}>= ) to 0..r 0 § Z. zG )\ #]7f a) z �� \� \ ° 2 E -0 `ERa$2 ƒ \#;\ @_ ° ,{ #4o ƒ nM0 (#;£a)_ 2 )#7)Rƒ E k E s §\ §i E ) ■ / z 7 0 E I* tM \� \C0 \� -§)(( }` /R20{. `ƒf /f ` K { a) / W )32aa» )pf=a0 ƒ ƒZ f ))" [3 a / /�7§ 0 2 (kf(f 0(00 ) a= / >f�» § ( \) +/ zG )\ #]7f 2o/2& \ ) \E /0\ 3)y> (D7 ° 0.6 ƒ nM0 (#;£a)_ /A% \ k {k \j} s §\ §i E ) ■ / z 7 0 E I* tM \� / \� ` K -a)0E )32aa» ƒ ƒZ /g [3 § 2 (kf(f wza_ - o § J )\ #]7f =§ E 3)y> (D7 ■ to »m ■ /A% (f\ ` z=*ft] kFcu s z E 5 -o 0 2`E�*, 2 77/0'F ) 0 R /= zEcr s §\ §i E ) ■ / z 7 0 E I* r.k k » M M ■ \ z � R ) » / k � V z K � a \� / \\ _ §)[!� 8322 { y 5 *£(a 23-27/ az OCL f=3o a) x k)coM =aEEa) (]\f�\ a) a) ) \ /};m U-o °m|]) {#a\@_ '5 r_ /77zEI \_ \ /E\ E } ° \ ° \ ®) 0 cm { 3C:L `) /f¥o \ \ /e -D mc� =eEE|) 3: cm 22)22] ), k /U -o ®§]§f (#�)!� /{##2 )£\p£ir � 2 E k z < E E / z < t7-6 §k\ \j d � _ _r } / ) -) k \A` *f ,> (a # w»G - -n— c ° �(m {%Z 0 )200CD C& /rg s 0 /)[ /f) 0. ! t�Era) A c /22 @f z ()7-27 ®± mz /#© V z =2f p t . )m /72 2 i} %]x \ /u -o k k) \>C E_ E « i a) 0 t � &IE ` / = ■®2 I | z 3: m 2 Z'o—D 2fF z ��5/\ m k ` §8 216 m < § { <;_�= J f / am) � _2 ° 9zrJ r.k k » M M ■ \ z � R ) » / k � V z K � a \� / \\ _ §)[!� 8322 { y 5 *£(a 23-27/ az OCL f=3o a) x k)coM =aEEa) (]\f�\ a) a) ) \ /};m U-o °m|]) {#a\@_ '5 r_ /77zEI \_ \ /E\ E } ° \ ° \ ®) 0 cm { 3C:L `) /f¥o \ \ /e -D mc� =eEE|) 3: cm 22)22] ), k /U -o ®§]§f (#�)!� /{##2 )£\p£ir � 2 E k z < E E / z < §k\ \j d _ _r f -) k \A` *f ,> (a # w»G ° �(m {%Z 0 w) = s 0 /)[ /f) 0. ! t�Era) a z ()7-27 ®± V z =2f p . )m /72 z \ /u -o k m E_ E « _ ■ a) 0 ` / = ■®2 I }2§zRI r.k k » M M ■ \ z � R ) » / k � V z K � a \� / \\ _ §)[!� 8322 { y 5 *£(a 23-27/ az OCL f=3o a) x k)coM =aEEa) (]\f�\ a) a) ) \ /};m U-o °m|]) {#a\@_ '5 r_ /77zEI \_ \ /E\ E } ° \ ° \ ®) 0 cm { 3C:L `) /f¥o \ \ /e -D mc� =eEE|) 3: cm 22)22] ), k /U -o ®§]§f (#�)!� /{##2 )£\p£ir � 2 E k z < E E / z < � f 0 � � w : ( \ z < f # � £72%@ \ \ \�L \ \ \E\ _ "o } k k E 7 §f F- 0- s \ ° kj00 Z5 0 #zf=k2 ) ca) c 2 )=0MM 0 tom \eE|a5 Z. =a) � � z / z =3: — i . zG))+] #zf=;aa \ - \ \ SE z cu E -o 2 �} \k\) � 7 % ,i) ® LM 4) � k /w k 7 | G ' z (772[6 Q r w z;*) ] o ° /r2 \ cu E , k ° `ER±k« ƒ ( < a) p ■ ¥ {( \0 R )£ 7z |= f 0 � � w : ( \ z < 3347! £72%@ \ \ \�L \ \ \E\ _ )S -ooz } k ® # §f F- 0- s \ ° =26/ 0 #zf=k2 ) ca) c 2 )=0MM 0 k) \>gf \eE|a5 ■ £a+eee z 3 :N (7 .0/2& z [f > cu c ` zG))+] 2f /2© \ - \ \ SE z cu E -o J aco0a) > 2 (# ;£!« % ,i) ® LM 4) � \)k\)} k f 0 � � w : ( \ z < ( k z < § k z < .� � I* 3347! £72%@ \ \ /�\ \ \ \E\ . )j00 } k /5*- e �(- °wZ § ;\wawa 0 a) -0 ) ca) c >C 0 3£y \eE|a5 ! : z 3 :N (7 .0/2& c 0 «.0.0 c [f ZG*)+] \ - \ z SE z �§§Ma) J (D rTv ® 0 % mZ{(\7 a _£9zrrr ( k z < § k z < .� � I* £72%@ \ \ \E\ e k \� \\ \a # ;\wawa 0 2(�f §/ o / )-0MM 3)y�2§ E ■ 5E &F®= 2 > § t c [f ZG*)+] /7` d2 /u z \ -o ® °mklk+ ƒ > a) d) \)k\)} k ( k z < § k z < .� � I* � k � � k 06 j z � � 0 a) Sƒ�f= -2 \kƒ a) So co t *£&a \(f{co \} \� // 3£yzzk =a±@ 2s (k °f a® z =))+) ) /_ ) \ o E -o 0§0Ik« k <a)tc /Q(#=o ).r E cr c ■ k z J k # \ k z � � � q a /k / \j f«« -k)k( '0378( k� /��� �( ={ §) o ca) ` � 0 4) / °� ° c ® zG \f®) ƒ a) ) \E 0 cu 0.§M4) >,`f£@= &2 i\2 }r zR2 \ \ /�. . o ) oV0(D } /)0 a 0cl.0 a 0 2 == a @f = apf=Ja ° EL (D a) CO \ ` 3 -w o a Cw # 3a»eee ■ 0 0 2 (] > ca CL 10 2 Z.0 2 ° m } {| } )/� /� \ -caED �`f ° ' #qtr ƒ ( «,@_ ` ){(#) I` )27zrcc: c ■ k z J k # \ k z � � � q a /k / \j f«« -k)k( '0378( k� /��� �( ={ §) o ca) ` � 0 4) / °� ° c ® zG \f®) ƒ a) ) \E 0 cu 0.§M4) >,`f£@= &2 i\2 }r zR2 ■ / z ■ \ \��L = } /)0 p 0CL0 0 o Q »= aaf )z 0 3 )=0.0x ; k) /z{\ # 0 0 2 d) a) (]7fa] 2 z'0 - .0 / {0 } $ ƒ ] /}u -a ° §§M0 ƒ ( «,@_ ` £ i2 H0 2 -= z c ■ / z ■ -c 0 10 o 0a) » A \ a mn U w o j cu 0 t= = k q 0 /) } //% ■ o o 0 2 a),5CD w 2 z =.0.0 z 2, )72 � /o ) ` CU '0 C { ( «a) _�= p 7 ){(40 kzir k =E J Jc . o cl. ) 0v0 ` 0)= A \( ={qf a /pf= =0 2 /I)�fo ca) E §2&222 ■ 0a) 0``2 z is > co 2 z = *)E± cn 0.- 9 kC -a] ƒ / \)� � \ g ge§Ita ■. k■ftrf % LM/ 2 (4) a _£azrcc Z ƒ / d �9 � ( k z < Ilk ME 372 §a U . /m / \o - -§)[! 0 k0o0a) [ 0 F- 0 2 a) '6 k z:E; 2 ) 10.0 0 k)\zzk # 5e #rat 2 f)!fco } =f)y2 )2m Z. / \ / \/} ` 0 EmOZ ■ 0 LD > ° _a) « z < J {■;\r= ) {(43 k )£7z£ƒ 2) \72 §o� /§ / k() 32) )0 LC0( - : E z / =o 2 ±i(k�) ! /) \ » {u # ka#mma ■ () § /as � �2 ƒ =®] ] \}�ƒ� ƒk , -o t `&a;)_ « I {I\ §{!4y0 k 2#72|3 z < 0 0 0 o � J Jc . o cl. ) 0v0 ` 0)= A \( ={qf a /pf= =0 2 /I)�fo ca) E §2&222 ■ 0a) 0``2 z is > co 2 z = *)E± cn 0.- 9 kC -a] ƒ / \)� � \ g ge§Ita ■. k■ftrf % LM/ 2 (4) a _£azrcc Z ƒ / d �9 � ( k z < Ilk ME 372 §a U . /m / \o - -§)[! 0 k0o0a) [ 0 F- 0 2 a) '6 k z:E; 2 ) 10.0 0 k)\zzk # 5e #rat 2 f)!fco } =f)y2 )2m Z. / \ / \/} ` 0 EmOZ ■ 0 LD > ° _a) « z < J {■;\r= ) {(43 k )£7z£ƒ 2) \72 §o� /§ / k() 32) )0 LC0( - : E z / =o 2 ±i(k�) ! /) \ » {u # ka#mma ■ () § /as � �2 ƒ =®] ] \}�ƒ� ƒk , -o t `&a;)_ « I {I\ §{!4y0 k 2#72|3 z < 0 0 0 Z ƒ / d �9 � ( k z < Ilk ME 372 §a U . /m / \o - -§)[! 0 k0o0a) [ 0 F- 0 2 a) '6 k z:E; 2 ) 10.0 0 k)\zzk # 5e #rat 2 f)!fco } =f)y2 )2m Z. / \ / \/} ` 0 EmOZ ■ 0 LD > ° _a) « z < J {■;\r= ) {(43 k )£7z£ƒ 2) \72 §o� /§ / k() 32) )0 LC0( - : E z / =o 2 ±i(k�) ! /) \ » {u # ka#mma ■ () § /as � �2 ƒ =®] ] \}�ƒ� ƒk , -o t `&a;)_ « I {I\ §{!4y0 k 2#72|3 z < 0 0 0 2) \72 §o� /§ / k() 32) )0 LC0( - : E z / =o 2 ±i(k�) ! /) \ » {u # ka#mma ■ () § /as � �2 ƒ =®] ] \}�ƒ� ƒk , -o t `&a;)_ « I {I\ §{!4y0 k 2#72|3 z < 0 0 0 z < 0 0 0 O � k 2 0-6 0 �)2�2 C4 � k \ \j \ \\ \ E k \\ )}k\{ � - -)\§( 0 2 3. -00 z /) / =30 o ` = CO . - § -!a[m \k /) ° 3:lz 9 5 fcLE ozf4££ k is 20 zo ()$E®R� c m a) & ] \ \ �) ; Om I /t /% ® P44 g } / 0 ■ Au 21 2{r\2 2 #) ;f «_`]. o Q {� {/f )_ fE cu #zf = -2 z }0\ 4 t; )§� §ET`s E co �< c1= 41 )gA ##a � , (k = : ]�2 >�] g tc »m §2 0 ■ ()�7m® 2 z =.0 / /`2 / Z / \) \ m k E 2§&�2z _,- E = 2 2 ( #% ■ \!f ){#\2 )27) |J 46 O � k 2 0-6 0 � k \ \j \ \\ \ E k )}k\{ � - -)\§( 0 2 3. -00 z /) / =30 o ` = CO � ƒf e k \k /) ° 3:lz # 5 fcLE ozf4££ z ()$E®R� c m a) & ] \ \ �) ; a- Mc I /t /% ® S M 8 (D g £2f■m- . ■ Au 21 2{r\2 2 #) ;f «_`]. 2 )_ fE cu E , /_m \ \ z }0\ , §ET`s E co �< c1= ##a , (k = a _£7pr£ O � k 2 § k z « 0-6 0 \ \\ \ E k )}k\{ � \ [5 ƒaeg 0 2 3. _ /) / =30 @ % a) :0 CO §* \k /) 0 3)_>/=� # 5 fcLE z ()$E®R� c Z22§0� )�E -`2 I /t /% ® S M 8 (D ƒ (#,£@¥ ` 21 2{r\2 2 }#7)RI § k z « § z < § k z < � � � \ �\ 4 tM 0 )o °ƒ/ !q CS \ \o -k0E 0 f0oud) 0 \c » o0- e �(- °�Z M= §zZ4J0 2 a ;a2 ¥� t D k ca 0 CL =) />Qf 0420 wa ■ k 42 o a) Z ()\- c � zID .0 c Z.0 /2& IA /9 /\ % E \( -p cu 000»$7 k ` §§�kk 2 (< 4) 0 j \� � ){i£2 k } rcc £7z § z < § k z < � � � \ �\ 4 tM 0 0 \w CS \ \o }\ /E\ - -§0 '00o0 0 \c . ®`�£eg . \(u M= ° = w o ;ea » c ca )a&]#¥ 0 k /\ >Q\ ■ k 42 o a) I _ ■ ()> c Z.0 cu ■ms 3 /2e / \ z E z -p cu 000»$7 Z-0 7 } a) IF 0 j \� R }27z |I § z < § k z < � � � \ �\ 4 3 4 / 0 11 9 tM 0 0 §0\ \j CS }\ /E\ / \c . kj /( §. . 0 M= ° 0 [0 § w( \2@f . /za2£g I _ 0) u 0 0 k)(/2% \� ��� alf 3 ■ms 3 E \E± z ()) CLw « r M Z-0 7 } ƒ2 0 j \� a} Z ) \}O -a a) k 0 �§§ak« w '0 p ■ ƒ ( <mV (D = > M �0�a) M M ¥ {{\2 }27zE= z =2_+± Im ] 3 4 / 0 11 9 §0\ \j / \c . -E / 0 /320 . 2 00.0 o ) $ \� ��� alf 3 = =_2 N $ 0 / \k } w P 0 j \� # 5£»eee > M �0�a) k 2 z =2_+± Im ] «`}9 Z SEuo k o , e = §§I§± p ■ { («$_!T- 0 3 R 2 3 4 / 0 11 9 0 ƒ � ( 06 \ z � � o Z .9 EE 000} \y \ \ \ j \/ /)/ _'O 3£y> == v£E;me 3: =_ > m )o 2 ) ] §/�� 0 \ E -a `G0)kk > < a) ){(\0 }f Jz|J z k � N. � � » � � E / z ■ CD O.F \ \ \ / §o / \k . 0 k { § : & p /� # 3: A Z5 _ 0 - \(/ § ) _ § )(0.0m i 0 —m / $ n >2%� z U 2 Z-0 ( ° x \ \/0 z @no azf= —a \ �\ c 0 0 2 R ax ro- °� { L ` \ ■ \ ) 0 k m �/ / z oEoe|e {\ ® c (]7f¥) I )= zE z k � N. � � » � � E / z ■ z \ CD O.F \ \ \ / §o / \k . 0 k )k \o \y : & p /� # 3: A Z5 _ §2£332 m s ;a ') ¥= a -)0 )(0.0m i 0 —m , t (D o a) / >2%� z 2t CL 2 Z-0 fm_ ° \ \/0 z @no azf= —a \ °b0M 2 {2 =0rT 2 R =2#2 /= zEcc z \ \ w % §o / \k v _ -)0 a � )328Zw t / \ 0 CL,0 0 g I ° = @no azf= —a \ \ 2 /)" q_ L \ §) /[k§ \ g z oEoe|e `f ® c (]7f¥) ` Z-0 / }2 f 22 / //\ z m k a `akmk« z 2 I ( <4)V, ■ a ƒ2(42 _*§z£J \ w % 0 » f k � } \ j 0 U # / k rl ca IA \ co R 0 0 }\\ 0 '000\ \> _ &a e. f(f {.f C(D 32t »�; 0EE ;2s (\ifQ\ Z-D O -0 o}fm §Q 2` II) \f} ` ®§�kƒ >,< (D / /(4) }2\zr� \ \\ 0 )0oQa) ca =& /eg f (f { @/ C(D aft >, `= =aiE2s (\ °f¥® Z.0 )\/fo /u -o aa§It± ( #;r,f )f {k\ )£7zr= / C z k z \ � e k Z. / d ( } z / R ) # f k � 2 / ( \� o \ \on E\ /� \2± { \f0 \ } \�\ 3�t>2 t- CL ƒ)> Z.0 -0 D �(D }E)�z -M§��, ,=2« (#f0 )Q24a )£7)r/ z \ : m - � •■ � 1 • � L 1 7-j I: } \ \�L )0o0(D Ca ` Ch { a) Co ca) ,.a co ` a) 0 a) {\> M z2*)+] f�m ( \j / \\ `mk±k« (# /a!� ®(m) $ / z;= z \ : m - � •■ � 1 • � L 1 7-j I: LJ t; c �V 6 c O i {,yOY y V O C C � U � CO mL•�r 0 co4 M a E y � o E y t�� r a) 2 -0 0 O o 0 0 0 $ m a) a)L.T. m r 0 , M O1 m ' `CCO� 0 - L m Z $ N _O O_ j FS C -00 C a) m a0 d d y x 0 N= O o m Y l,7 A� C N m N O: rto1E`aw 3 - a <Z N ml V (1 'Cl aa) 'm 1i w Z'0 'O —�.0 V z .0 to a)O -mm 'Oa) 3d oar =0.0 > Z�EcLiE3 E3 Z EEcL i L o m E y 0 m D L o c E am) d T m > y V m y 0 0 Q a) c= 3z o (D _ L-. QL O 'L E¢ O 3z LJ d E m Z 4 4 m d v V r vva l{ L 1 n VVV V m E m Z w w v Q 3 j m c O ` 0— y y 0 Y C C c U > m o m =r 0 L L j d v y � o E y -0 0 O o (� a) a)L.T. m r 0 , U p L F- O a w a) V O a) N U _m zLm m O. a) a) 00 C w N a) N a) x O c m O a m m CI. T C 0 m— m m c m 3 0 0 w Z aa) aa)i a N O l O Z 3 > > 9 W -0nv) V z .0 m a)O -mm 'Oa) 3d y 'ac Eva 3 T E3 Z EEcL i L o m E y 0 m D 0, N O m N 2 Q d 0 L (F a) _ ... aL O m d L 3= w 3z o _ D 'L E¢ d E m Z 4 4 m d v V r vva l{ L 1 n VVV V m E m Z w w v Q 3 j �I w W m v Z Q a� d z Q c y iY O N W 0Z'C_c L 0 ] a E S c ° E ate' 0 O O U m O rnL 0 0 NL.. C N U m y O O FS m al j C'O C n 0 N 0 x 0 U OQ ca Z 0 p m c C m m m 0 0Ea) 3 o Z mom° _ a;_a >c 0 4) V V d y C Z v Z O. N y M 0• j d oa�-dn 0 a� c E = Z 'ac Eva 3 T E 0 d 0mC)M4) O > Q d = c 2 L N_ a= 0 D 0 d L 3 o n m =3z E¢ �I w W m v Z Q a� d z Q m � c h O V a) a) O_TC C h •C .� = = 0 D 0 CL N ° E d Z '000 0 V U m r m d L O L F- Z, 0 a� U .0 ca Z 0 0 m a U C O m j •O C N O N L � '0°'cOv 0 rco- E`a� Z O. N y M 0• j .0 y •V N 'v p, m = Z�-Od y� m d d o m 3aa T 0— a) `a)c O m= Z cEo.03 `o O c E N V a) m 'w8m-o6 TQ a) L C = d = m 0 m a) L 3 V W 's 3Z E¢ �I w W m v Z Q a� d z Q o, c n C O V U 0 m 0 3 Z C m N r 0 Z 0 ai O .O V w V N0 y S J p Q c 15 EN O U O W l� O L H U V C O a h V N N N O 0 v v L N Z E- O` m a N U C pp c > 0 a) d _ OV\ m X C a) O a) a m t: J n a C .0 'O V 0 °— m m ` m o CL y oyoE m a) CL N > O1 U « Z NUS =am o m Z N O �a > in 2 m J E v E v -p 3 d d O c E m— E -o la p N ca U m N 2 z Q TQ d a 0 IF o m 0 L 3 U w 0 't 3Z EEC rn c o_ ,p O Y O y h 45 O 6 N C hU>;C] c Coo `0 O m a)= C c L - j 0 a 'y�°Eaa)i mL:E5O p Z o E Nc�EN NO G O U (D of a a) L N L (� V O r F-U C, R J N _ o _0 o d a a) � � N w 0.0— O X.0 mQ A a>Fia'-00� —mm � � a) M y y N a) X 0 C= o o m= ^ ih lY �' J L a C V Jl C O c a E ro 5 al d N O O1 U Z 3 � > .0 cu a CL CU n c Z .0 -0 .0 w i v Z Q >,< C a) 0 r U p 0 L_ 3 L E a) 't 3z Ecc Z ° y �rE— E E 0-o 3 d d O c E co m— m E v cu 0, Q d= 2 Q O a) —� oat m 0 a) L_ 3 U N O �t 3z E¢ m c r o" 0 N Q1 O T C C c w O >;o m L r J 0 a O h c o E d -op UZ O O U m0prn a)t� U CL =� _ _ 0 S L N ZL...N —' la O m a> U C pp C c m a) X 0 0.0 m r �.0 aT"� �• — a �— 0 � 0 cu al CL O 0)U�- Z��— tm U m a a o— c ro a) 0d�3a)� Z Of �EcLiEp3 '>a 2 CO 8 (D m y '0 �p 0 m cpi m a� O v 2 Z Q TQ a) C N — L O oL 3z E¢ n C O V U 0 m 0 3 Z C m N r 0 Z 0 ai O .O V w V N0 y S J p Q c 15 EN O U O W l� O L H U V C O a h V N N N O 0 v v L N Z E- O` m a N U C pp c > 0 a) d _ OV\ m X C a) O a) a m t: J n a C .0 'O V 0 °— m m ` m o CL y oyoE m a) CL N > O1 U « Z NUS =am o m Z N O �a > in 2 m J E v E v -p 3 d d O c E m— E -o la p N ca U m N 2 z Q TQ d a 0 IF o m 0 L 3 U w 0 't 3Z EEC rn c ,p O Y O y 0Z�C C C hU>;C] O m a)= C c L - j 0 a 'y�°Eaa)i Lu Z '00 o U NO roc,M(D a O N y 3 ° E2 --r- a) m A _ o mZ :�;` 0 a a> V '0- 0 CQ w 0.0— O X.0 mQ J.0 CL >, o —mm � � c �— o E o aci a N U a) C J 3 = >.cmC� Z 'D'o .0�� d 0= cm >Oa-3d� d c d J L E = v E 0 p 3 O�E��d d d m JO N U M d 2 a7 L v Z Q >,< C a) 0 r U p 0 L_ 3 't 3z Ecc l I* v, a) d Z Q m m d E�O Z Q Q m c O Y O = N o c c c>'U p 0 m d c � - j O ` CL v C f E d c o p a) O 0 U m � d r t U O O a y U 0 L N zt-.."N_" N O m a> 0 C '00 C' d m y a) 2 y X.0 . O .0 CO t: cD � a CL O p — m m c m CL m -- o m o Z a N N V Z C m m Z'o �ar c — m a) 0- 0)m 3c of >y z E ? E v 3 0 Q m E N 00 d >1 m J y V m a) o T Q C = o a) a) L m _ - aL O N N = .L_. N N '= 3Z ECC 4 —J v, a) d Z Q m m d E�O Z Q Q m c 0 0 m O Y O — y c y U ap ,3U o m d.- mL =0 a vCOEa�i c ° E a) G O p V U 0 M rmdL� U O L H U 0 a0 U N3 0�a) m t c d mZ:E-`—°o 0 ad a) o d w N N a) O .On = On m My �n a>,�'0 O CL m c m J n a > '00 al aN O mU ; Z > c m J a) V N a y m 0 C o p —_ H mn ) > N o 3 r m of d 0 Z= Z m c E E'; ? y o o CO Eo ami� —y m m O p 0 O o a) a t o L m ands a) 0 O -3ZECC m o —J v, a) d Z Q m m d E�O Z Q Q U) U w � 0 f°o M ? N a S m0 co 0 C Er a w4 W z w ti d d 2 Q nL 11 I d d z Q p t i m o Y = O y N LO Z�C c p ,3U o m d.- o a c ° E a) 0 '000 V U O mrCOMa)LZ� U a0tm U 0�� m Z o m U 'O C a> C O d m h 0 N a x O d —.on m a a >..O o O CL p — m m c m J n a > '00 Z a N O 0 m 3 > c m J d w a) o 0.0 •p al a) cd of d a)` - da ��'�tE= m y 0- d m ? y o o c E'o a) m O 0m a)2 r Q= o N Oa= C m tma)t3Oc D J '=3zEi U) U w � 0 f°o M ? N a S m0 co 0 C Er a w4 W z w ti d d 2 Q nL 11 I d d z Q p t i m c d O Tr r- c w >� c c y a (D E — a3 _ O '000 0 a) U a0tm O O = F 'v h a v 10Z� =m° m a U C •00 C m > G N O.0 O J n a > '00 0 p — m m c m v c a E m S Z am o m0 r •p > a>'i '� d a) C Z 'a O n( 'a m y 0- d m IA o d c a) Z = =_Euo o ° m E ami o d J y m a) O U L 0 a) 0 r. a)_.L... at o m o 2) a) L 3 0 m _J=3zE¢ U) U w � 0 f°o M ? N a S m0 co 0 C Er a w4 W z w ti d d 2 Q nL 11 I d d z Q p t i U C O U U L m d m O 0 al 2 v c m N 0 ° 2 d 0 V c 0 U L V N m O 3 Z C m N a 2 `0 cm G m m 0 m o o ? y d3Z'c� c Lm a) j O E ° N C - E N '00 O U a) O O 0 O_ y a. 0�� N z = N o ° > U C D C a O a N O c a) O_ T~ O— m co c m r c aE f6 5 a N N m V j rya= >._ m Z O a.0 w 4) co > a) 0 3 m O C () — cE�E'3 0 c E V V m 0 O >.Q a) o C = d_= CL 0 O �a)s3Uw t 3z Ecc m C O .Ym O 2 y O $ j L L j O a N c 0 E d V O O U Z l3\ mrcnw O :E F 'U CL w >i .o o mz� =5o o> 0 C a c aN 4.0 o ro 0 .0 a c v a — m m C m E 0 r C 0 _ CL N 7@ m U C 3" >. am ml Z > V5 o 3 m m dam -0.0 cE�E'3 o co E y a ° m 0 o > Q m 0 C = y r °o rp mNL_ >i U aJ 3z E ¢ a, d z m a ° IJ c - o ] a C w 0 C _ m C 0 E 0 0 O O U O m 0 N L 1' U r O L.. f- U O a� 0 cu L m Z -E - O U O. N N O d > C n y N y x 0 O Q m r » a >, m 0 0. a— m m c r -0-E M- 0 O.N_° m V ... 3 � > .1c to a z� -0.0 w� z m a 0 0— tmm 3. d" o dam- dn 2 m E0 v -o L O C O 0 ar —y m E m 0..Q N= 2 Q i a_L«°ato ami ma �oa��a� O .L 3z ECC rn C N Y O U wo 1zi 1� ^� �V a O C t ° io a a N c E 0 \ 0 '00 o V 0 U m r 0 N t O L F U 0 °. w U' 3 0 L {—Ca z LN_0 0 V 0 ad o o O m > C N m m m. O d— o n m r Oa �a a> 'a 0— m N c m n� °.� "`kkk r c nE y O a) O a) O N N m U Z 'O >�'>ccu CU a) U V w 0 m N 0 O= m m >O m a > 0 c N E'3 m Z c E' ocm0yy —y E E v 0 U m ° m O N Z Q 0 m —= 0 o m m m L v N 'g'3z E¢ � k » M k ■ d z 0 ■ � k ■ b § � k 0 0 2 2 572/m \ \ /�. )j\§ \w ` 0) {if0 \ \ \� \\ R » /> =] =E » @|e ( {>-M p=*f®] _ //| )\ / / \\ `7&±$« 0 < a) /{(40 }27z£» tJ0 \ \ /M\ )j /} }y 0M z {a16— ca) afyc�] 0 a) 0 4) /k»{ ®5 z=*_f] 7\ f 2a) E 5-o - ©§±2A >,< a) a) 3: }= zEJ � § k z « M k z ■ E | / z ■ 5727; \\ /E\ . \�j> 0 .0 } }a k © &a e� A \ /«o A kzf=�2 #zf= «2 I k) /k)k 2 » /[k q\ E 2)W>g2, { o a)o a) ! to » @22 ! ()> if ®] Z (: =— > 2 z2*f®\ )7e \ -\ z \ \ /\o M M a) -6 a 2 `b§Itt (# a) t R /{(4\ -=7z;J 2 %{2#: \»7§ /cc E | / z ■ \\0E e \�j> ) \j ` &� ƒf k(� A °wZ kzf=�2 ) k) /k)k E 22y��§ o a)o a) ! Z ()> if ®] 2 z = fpm \ -\ Z� M M a) -6 a 2 >,< (D T t R /{(4\ -=7z;J E | / z ■ JU A k � d z � 9 j 0 k ( k z ca � k 0 Oz4) \ \ /�L -@ [! \� \(D 0 yes f(fatZ r- a) 3£y = =2 =£E ■§f /)7f§® Z'D 2\ of 2 /u -o 2§§ƒ §» { f _£7zR2 t70a; \ \ \�C� k0 \k§/ 00r {(«aaZ / \0.0 §�}�kM oma) (2> IM 0 p = /)+] § \}} a) u -o �ak)k$ �#a) _@_ �k\}} E k ■ / z ■ x 2 E \ . 270 (D i . {G / \] _k -E p � CL k /�8 g Z. bt�f(g b Q(f0 'a a) -a } ))Ikk0 K 0 3£m =�= | 0 0 a) z ()7f�\ ec 2 Z'D (D },� z ) / / //} ^\ 7 »§I$« g { (#a) _ @_ 2 W \}k \j) 0 77070) a _ CL ) a=04) ` 0) = �— /�0- o § mzf= - R ) k) /kkk M 0 | E -m r_ o 0 o a) z i)> >] 2 z =)f frm z Eo -o ° °E§I§« J {#mot @= o \ \j} }k 2 E \ . 270 (D i . {G / \] _k -E p � CL k /�8 g Z. bt�f(g b Q(f0 'a a) -a } ))Ikk0 K 0 3£m =�= | 0 0 a) z ()7f�\ ec 2 Z'D (D },� z ) / / //} ^\ 7 »§I$« g { (#a) _ @_ 2 W \}k \j) 0 m c m c r 40, 45 — N o s o a) o = o a y .- r a C E c ° E 4) c raU 4L) CO 0 L , O Lh 0 U ; C6 L N 2L.. m a a) 5 4,) -0 c 4) m 0 y d X 0 4) Oa m20 o d a) N O Vx C c �GJ m- 0 aN O] (0j «• .m a) U a) N m C L Zva— m 04) m 4) 0 -= m 0 > N r 3 .o a) �q E a Z �EcLir3 N EO N d >1 m ul U m a) O a) :U a) L m a) >.Q a) C = � d _ a= o m rn d L 3 0 w ]o! N d 1' .L 3z E¢ m c 10 Is Ni a 0 0�y O Y O c 45 — N 0 �Ld 0 y O m U iOLt- j p a c raU h c 2 E a) N�2E(D � Q o O 0 U U O m 0 a)L_«a. r mL� o O y L v c t; TwEa) �f1 d a) N O Vx L u app o $2 �GJ �n a> -0 a �j CO r 0, a) t m y 2-0 C {i. o p, w 0 a >, v 3:_ >• 0 0 0.0 y o U � �E �q mdo•3ro L 2016 la Z.L. N O Z5 N aN O O)U = �! y y O C U C c a) :U a) L m a) (V � > N y N p X m m \� Vim, H>v�m03Ym 1' Sn aT ;v ` PI d = a) a o U- m c a��oE= y n r aE °S 4) d Z p w O m y= Z Q ':e >Q a)r d -�0(F 'O a) U a) N a) v n O m a) d o= c a . 3 > N .- Nd z �ELE '3 m E C, a r 0cECOda) N m O Z Q � m ate) >,Qa)r�_ a) -4- d= p m m5L30 0 D 't 3z Ea[ 10 Is Ni a 0 0�y O Y O c 45 — N O y O c ' CU a o iOLt- j p a o h c 2 E a) N�2E(D � Q o O 0 U U O m 0 a)L_«a. r co o O y L \ \�+ m 2 L.... O v 3- o `Y d a) N O Vx L u mZ o a> c o . r �n a> -0 a 0 X O o - `amcm m y 2-0 C z r 0 a >, v 3:_ >• 0 0 0.0 y o 0 CO 0_�� =� �q mdo•3ro .ccaE°75 J N aN O O)U = �! .a a) :U a) L m a) O c Z.0 -0 — rnL \� Vim, H>v�m03Ym a. at PI d = a) a a) _ a= r 01 a��oE= y G4) m Ep -3 4) d to p w O m y= Z Q >Q a)r d -�0(F N j o t a) 7 4) O -t 3z Ecc 10 Is Ni A rn a) E v 2 Q a) a) z Q m c O y O c ' CU a o mL O a r N�2E(D 0 U O O (D a r 0) 4) L co o L m 2 L.... O O d a) N O Vx 4) m y > a) = a) O d N Y r �n a> -0 a 0 o - `amcm z a N N C 4 j •o 3:_ >• 0 0 0.0 y o c Z a ° 0)n �q mdo•3ro 4) > N.T. ._... N a) E Z E v 3 ` 0 c Eo CO a) d 7 y m O m O T Q a) r C= a) _ a= r 01 m 212 L3_ 3: O 4 ' G4) _L z E¢ A rn a) E v 2 Q a) a) z Q k » � d � § ca z cu cu a k � b k z z z / co 060 \ \ \�. '0 0 0 cu `*fwQ f(f {%Z /\ \ � /\ 22y> =2 =£cLE ()> «_ *)»± /72 cu E O -o `EkIk-6 ( #Q)m= \{( \w }f7z£) 27072 \\\E\ 'Ono a) 0 Q { (g :2 co w WD x0 cu MC ` 4)0 () >fas p= i .0w 7°f {2 0CE a)Z -; 2122« >,< a)= /2it2 )27zEI 0 § ) z « � 2 � a » f t CL 0 q \ } cu A k # f k CL d cu z % $ 9 3)222 \ \ /�\ 0 =&ae« m Z cu \/� / 3£wz C cu ` a) 0 (D (]7fa) Z 'o .0 /pm cm E 0 -a `m0MD ( <4)o /){(#t 27z£cc C0 E )j{) }. 5*aef f(fa @Z ca zf= «0 Q. > C C k)cu =aE ■/e ?; > m Z -0 cl. CU m`/ ƒ2 / \� /k\ _;§It, (< (D ) {(#k )£7zRƒ z < E k z < 0 0 0 / \o -§)[( )000x) ` §a &� § (= 2 @f \ fX / \� // o >= £y7 `E(/*m7 > Ck o z ) )/ �a) \ E -o ©§Slkq { < ;)!� ){(42 22\zrir � L-A ■ k z 7 E k z < CD 0 0 a) \0 _ 7 DCL . )j\§ ƒ \- § ` ` cn ° k(w °@f ° mz /==o a /zf=ao 2 0 -mc 2 \I(k \) 0 k) / »�§ ( §efag / ER ■ ta»@®> ��f 2e ■ () f2® 2 z =))+] )per `�§Ma) z \�\ �� ° °:§ƒ)« k (D 0 c ¥ i ƒ /z k k2 (47 )27zE» ■ k z 7 E k z < k ) \ CD 0 0 a) }\ /�L _ 7 '000u -0 0a) ƒ 00 -0 § 2 4) Co ° pzf=�0 § mz /==o a ti&k§a 2 0 -mc i ■ 2 \a*r10' ( §efag / ER c z =f ��f 2e « .0 \Z ] z }\ /0 -o `�§Ma) z (#,t@= °)/{}gto IG §« � ){(\) k }27zE» ¥ i ƒ /z k ) \ \ \ \E/ _ - -0 0a) k k0 : &f / g ° o { )CU mz /==o 2 D 0.0 10-wc 5 )0 ! 4) §§ () ;f « .0 \Z ] a \ \ \ \§E z °)/{}gto IG §« £ { { #�tm#o ¥ i ƒ /z 27ER k ) \ k # � k � \ \ � ] 0. 0- \ \ \E\ )ko0 co 3 Cl) f (f0 ca) 3£2z =] =z» @|e i => Z.0 .0 )\/77 /0 -o ° &a$) ( §a < ){(\0 }= z£J V\ @ $ 0 % $ � 7 k z < CD \o # -2)[( f k§)[( 0 f0004) # *frg G /5 0. a s 20 f ) flag I / ) )/ J(Df \(] I >mm { )\ ■ 2 z o o ,# 5 ( {>z ` Z.0 = )+] ) Cl) z � \�} z�� °mkk±m /= -6 \# k \r R ¥r(\2 }29zr= V\ @ $ 0 % $ � 7 k z < ) # � CL ■ \ z K � a £22 \� co - , co _§)[i. D 322f ca � t ƒa &g f pa) ) / =£ /M a k.00 k) 2 cu ` a) 0 a) ( * /®CU Z-0 (D 2 © } }7 )0CE _\ ! ± =2 <£!f B a l = z;2 § k z < ■ ) z ■ 0 0 � \� \ \� # -2)[( ) oƒ # b //« G Qr0 ( =aC6f mzf=aa I \k( /\) kf /M I M 0 4) 0 | a) >f�s z 0 ) z)�D IA 2 a [\ / /) I z // 7 §ƒ §§I/ >,< (D ` ){#4� k )f7«E) ) # � CL ■ \ z K � a £22 \� co - , co _§)[i. D 322f ca � t ƒa &g f pa) ) / =£ /M a k.00 k) 2 cu ` a) 0 a) ( * /®CU Z-0 (D 2 © } }7 )0CE _\ ! ± =2 <£!f B a l = z;2 § k z < ■ ) z ■ 0 0 � � _ � OL § 1. 6A R » ZO \ ) / \ .� � � � W � 0 ( CL k z � § A a » \ ( 3 \ � � k CD 3272 ) \� / \o _ == a /(/ _§)[( { 220 ` *f&t § 5ƒE&s \( =a Z -§/� #f4 a OL «ai»c 2 2 - 5 �. ) / )f [ca Q cFOe25 3 $ - Co x / k Za� � /klfN) /+= , ) { a) }rm ] cc$ E 5 a) a;§�p, Co m 2 a) ( # /)@_ {#tea@= 0Q (4) )taz£ƒ a§ §I$, /{#4\ » ZO \ ) / \ .� � � � W � 0 ( CL k z � § A a » \ ( 3 \ � � k CD 3272 ) }k / \k _ == a /(/ _k kRoUa) / @a[! \2222 ` *f&t K {(f {% /� CU Z 0 OL «ai»c 2 /}`��d xM �. \ k CU c ■2a Q =\k 5 ®0Ea) /a> x M k» z=)] ) /klfN) /+= a) }rm ] ]\0)/2� \E `a0Jk« ) {#tea@= m a§ §I$, /{#4\ 2 f£7)■I » ZO \ ) / \ .� � � � W � 0 ( CL k z � § A a » \ ( 3 \ � � k CD 3272 ) \ \ \�L - @a[! \2222 V 0 {(k2 §Z cld) 0 2 /}`��d xM �. ))[Mc ®0Ea) /klfN) /+= z =* ]\0)/2� /u -o m a§ §I$, (< a) a) 2 #a) 0 ƒ )£7z;ƒ cn }\ / \ 00o0(D t*ae« {(f0 \ } /�\\ 3=£m CM E 4)ƒE» k*f�% ) z =§+] \ ) ƒ2�� u - `Rk]§$ >,< m 1: ) {( \\ }2\z£) § ■ k z < ) a / M 0 \ z � § 0 / Zt k M CL 9 q / s � 0 5722 ƒ« / \) -k \k/ 00o0a) £0 Z /Q f#fa§(D } / � X '� }Ck§e�» o, 3: > CU Z -0,0 . )D ca \ -SE -o a§ §I§± ( «� \ @f /{(0 )27zrir ) 0: 0wa)= -) \§ƒ )322§ co 3ƒa&2 {( =a§) \ } \�U f�[(2— cu a,E ©s 3: > C Z �ƒ }) §�E o -o ; ®|If« ( #f£@= 21 /2i00 )27z2J � Q � 0 v ( k z « ■ / z ■ & w k \� ( k z < ■ ) p 2 « \ E 0 � \\ 0 co o . o c - 0 - (D o k '00o0a) ` = 0 of 0 w g )cao M az-==o ° ^ «`� - § 2 )_.0g= 0 k)yz=$ i k \ \�k\ i 3a #r�2 ■ Z y) §f§k ` z= ozC z ) \ / \o Z E 5 -a ° ` ƒ §§Ik« ( «;\@_ M 4) 2 ){#\7 2 }= ZEX k \� ( k z < ■ ) p 2 « \ E 0 � \\ L _ ��) �}k k \�` @Z M co Z 0 s a) .0 r a t20nM i k \ \�k\ ■ ta)»�22 ■ (]> * § +] � ` z= } 2- z ) \ / \o E °ak±i« I >, 1@ 4) 2 / =\ /2 #z2I k \� ( k z < ■ ) p 2 « \ E 0 � 11 k Z% b k i \ z m R El � « � ) � \ � § a 330 {�4§ - �oR -k \(( 000u \ / \�j/ #za=aa {. kf k)y> =k `a)o 04 () >0`® Z` \0 0 )\of {, /u.0 `,Oma) { «a) \r= $0 CL —= _27zR@ ))%72 \\ \�0 �v0 } \y v # = { @f a) / =�2 \2\ / \/ k) /z| z] § V£g25 () cw >cf z = /72 )\E 'D 8a) > #< (D 2 / ( 4, }27 z £) E Oxi ( (v ■ k z 7 � ■ � ] § | ) p ■ cm 0150 Ck \kk -7775 / -c E a) e -0328§ 00.0 0CL0 8 c OE /g £ co z % 52 ;a)c 2 ) + 'f c m �72 o£2f\E2a g E 27 z ()72■ c ` z =a )+± 0 }q ) \j z //\ ° 0cE -Ghat) \ °m§m§$ 2 \ #�£!_ ` +{(4o % §/{ (4) a _= EI � ■ � ] § | ) p ■ 0150 /§ o -k \§/ ) \a0 0CL0 Q »_0 £ k)f =a2 2 ai(] \) m /)m >�§ E 5a)i�§= z ({zcw® -0.0 2 z = }r` /a ° 0cE -Ghat) ƒ ( ■,_!� ` +{(4o R 2272@ƒ � ■ � ] § | ) p ■ U c O U U mm m m t a z Z 9 c m N T O Z mm W m O m a c y�o2(WD U1 O c 3 U Q N N L L j O N��E(D V Q O U z CO C 01 N L 0 L U CL N 3 N ` L C Q1 m N _m Z L = N O CL > U C 0 '0 c C=�oa�° c m r m- 0acioEm�y-J 0« m M 0 S 3 : > m m Z D.CL 9 N 0- m oN N N= m m cc m= cEcLio 0 c E m J N U m m 0 N a (D 0 C S r a) L 3 J a) �L 3z Ec[ J n �l J N N m z a N E Z Q m 9 O J N 0 w O O 4. c wU Q py c o my. - r ca)oE3 .9L�Q,�o n U 3 o E y o 0 0 0 U V y m r 0 U «T. . m O L H U U N ro N L t C N z L = O m _N n> U C 'O C m ID Q% 0 ID _ o a m t j .0 Q > 0 Q- m m c m r a E ro 5 N O N O N n U N O 'O c N 0 U) ti d Z _0 � m rn ya 0.3 cm N > in O m c m Jr E= Z m 0 m c E ami d a� 0 0 m o .. m J >.a O m nL O rn m O 't 3z E¢ U c O U U mm m m t a z Z 9 c m N T O Z mm W m O m a c y�o2(WD U1 O c 3 U Q N N L L j O N��E(D V Q O U z CO C 01 N L 0 L U CL N 3 N ` L C Q1 m N _m Z L = N O CL > U C 0 '0 c C=�oa�° c m r m- 0acioEm�y-J 0« m M 0 S 3 : > m m Z D.CL 9 N 0- m oN N N= m m cc m= cEcLio 0 c E m J N U m m 0 N a (D 0 C S r a) L 3 J a) �L 3z Ec[ J n �l J N N m z a N E Z Q n J 1 7 LL a w (A Q r - 4 v h N? Z N (D (D z Q o, cc a) o Tc c oU �Q J (-a z no n 3 U j D Z C 0 v Q O U O V m r O U cy� - m 0;a- t _m Z $ O U m > U C'O C m N N N N x C N `O L tY 'O V 0 n T Q -mm��° 1 CL 3: v c aE `o75 om0 a._ Z 3 = > c m L N U N N m 4 c z.0-O_ rn D m a o' c Co N > N N 3 m O = N N C m -_ Z c E v 3 aD i O c E a m a E O m 0 v m cm o,Q a) m (D Z y m C L 0 m 2) d L 3 0 D ' 3zEcC 5 N N d J s � �3 r Ara i J V a 7 J Lv �e 3 0 0 0 c N O m O O 4. c wU Q py c o my. - r ca)oE3 ti c E aD p 9 Q o �0 U) NL.�'. i O L H U O 0 N co y . m mZL.. �'- O m a>; c-00 c N m N U d O x 0 C.- 2-0 mE- J 2] 0- C 'O O Q- ro m m c ' N Z O N O U n «N N C 3>. mm c S ° E Z m c E o -a 3-* O c E y m m N O m O N 2 TQ N o C N- L L o .. m O) N L_ >i U N O zEcc n J 1 7 LL a w (A Q r - 4 v h N? Z N (D (D z Q o, cc a) o Tc c oU �Q J (-a z no n 3 U j D Z C 0 v Q O U O V m r O U cy� - m 0;a- t _m Z $ O U m > U C'O C m N N N N x C N `O L tY 'O V 0 n T Q -mm��° 1 CL 3: v c aE `o75 om0 a._ Z 3 = > c m L N U N N m 4 c z.0-O_ rn D m a o' c Co N > N N 3 m O = N N C m -_ Z c E v 3 aD i O c E a m a E O m 0 v m cm o,Q a) m (D Z y m C L 0 m 2) d L 3 0 D ' 3zEcC 5 N N d J s � �3 r Ara i J V a 7 J Lv �e 3 0 0 0 i mot/ r i '/413 841 of uo!1!ppe In ;!lneaq a aq ll!m I810H liosaa sauna liodm8N 8y1 •siellop xel pue aoeds 6wleaw papaau -yonw nlou! 'q!unwwoo a41 of sl! ;euaq tuew 6u!jq ll!m 11 -yoeag liodmaN ;o q!o ayl jo; poo6 sl 1e41 loefad a dolanaP of Al!unwwoo aql 4)!m a>Ijom sey sauna uodmaN 8n8ll9q ! 'uezil!o palsajalul ue sy Ialoq iosai uo!leutlsop a io; sueld ,saunp liodmaN anOiadB of not e6jn 1 y!ounoo k10 yoeag 4jodm8N pue WON joAeW jeea Lz'� _rIT ( ') a y ssaippv C aweN • fl!o aq) of uog!ppe ln;!lneaq a aq ll!m I810H liosaa mnp Uodm8N 8ql •siellop xel pue aoeds 6u!leaw papaau -yonw ipw %4!unwwoo aql of sl!;auaq tuew 6uuq ll!m 11 •yoeag vodmaN o Ai!o a41 jo; poo6 si le4l loafad a dolanap of Al!unwwoo ayl yl!m Tom sey sauna Uodm8N ena!laq ! 'uez!l!o palsaialw ue sy -laloy osaj uo!leu!lsop a jol sueld ,saunp uodm8N an o1 noA a6in ! 'llounoo f4!o yoeag podmeN pue saRoN -iofeyy aeap Q 'J')-clj 117.Irr` -�)c, "o (V L o lbVr gyp- e e n21 Qe aw -Al!o aql at uo!lippe In ;!lneaq a aq p!m !e sauna liodm8N 841 'sJe11op xel pue aoeds 6u!leaw pe 6u!pnlow 'd1!unwwoo ayl of slyauaq fuew 6wjq ll!m 11 '4om 10 Ain aq) jol poo6 si le111 loafad a dolanap of 4)!unwu pa�jom sey sauna uodma'N ana!laq I 'uozil!o palsajalui u uosaj uo!leu!lsap a jo; sueld ,sounp uodm8N AOJOd a 11!ounoo q!0 yoeag liodmaN pue saAoN J ssaipr / V 7 I awe -A1!o ayl of uo!1!Ppe !n ;!lneaq a aq ll!m lay sauna uodmaN 841 'sJulloP xel pue aoeds 6u!leaw pap 6u!pnlow 'fl!unwwoo ayl of slyauaq Auew 6uuq ll!m 11 '40eaf ;o 40 ayl Jo; poo6 s! 1ey11oefad a dolanap 01 d1!unwwo paWm sey saunp liodmaN anallaq ! 'uez!l!o polsajalul ue liosai uollewlsap a jo; sueld ,saunp liodm8N T l&k o1 i '!!ounoo 413 400013 >vodmeN pue sGAON, k a � ( ( k z } I k a � ( ( \ z � R \� \/� -§)[( ) 3 `* 223¥ �& « {ƒf0 / \ \� \/ 0 -mc ` (D 0 §) ~c ca a) a) o a }{± / \� /� \ __&I§2 { #Q£c¥ /{(47 )27z;I /� / \o '0000 \w `�feg { a) \ \ /� \\ R£y >7U `a)»m,» / 0`225 -0 Z .0 }/m 0 0 E -a °0'0ƒ'0-6 ( <; \!_ /{#t2 )27)££ ■ ) z ■ § ) z « a i § \ z « I* � Ll } \ /E\ _ 0 )j \�) 0 C'. u 2 ( -`�f m 0 2 t.[])0 k k # co \�0E(D ( )$f�7 +± 7 z =*) ) \ z /)rte uma ® ° m '- D6 f : {#f� t ) \k2( I Im -=z rJ § § \ z « I* � Ll C O U U U al LO O a N Z 'O C �o IA 0 z O rn c v N � U- aNi a) 3Z�c C w V O a) d• t� o �vvl � CL a vp-o $Z M O m L O 0) ... O CL V N r 3 ° a) mz-E; - 0DO a> U O V y y d N X C] - afOcro C r a) aE `) O N O 0)0— CXNZ Z•0,0.0 V ) do3o,a o d am = a) ) (�l .. y �EcLi�3 a ocEaOiod O y U m a) 2 r a)a�oF= Q N Y N N 'r 3z E¢� m 0Y O O m c c c h C) L L j O o. E U y C- E (D Z O '000 Umr oa)L a a U o d L n7Z� = @o R S al m in y N y x 0 () _ O ll a1 L' G a) a T.. p O CL �� as c a E m- 3 o y o a)�g O• O) U Z .p .N.. N N N •U a) = u°) Z .0,O a —ma) a) IA d O '§ _ a '� la ;a d o d) E� z SEcL,-o3 U OCEa)a)a CU 0 m a7 N U O a) 2 C @ �. as 0 o _4)iia ZL..'N --' t6 O rndL 3 U w m '-3zE cc C O U U U al LO O a N Z 'O C �o IA 0 z O rn c v N � U- aNi a) 3Z�c C w V O a) d• t� o �vvl � CL a vp-o $Z M O m L O 0) ... O CL V N r 3 ° a) mz-E; - 0DO a> U O V y y d N X C] - afOcro C r a) aE `) O N O 0)0— CXNZ Z•0,0.0 V ) do3o,a o d am = a) ) (�l .. y �EcLi�3 a ocEaOiod O y U m a) 2 r a)a�oF= Q N Y N N 'r 3z E¢� c v a) '0 O s O m c d r 4) m � O a) g m d r co L Y j O V O C c 4) CL N c o E a) z '00 p V o m y - r ca r O C. 41 �F•U U C g N L o mz :E; 0 R S _ O N cp E 4) L' » C. T p '0 CL C]_ ro c m U"a) o o E a)- y Z a) a N a) m U= V mr o a)t� O w a) — la > d o— m c m 0 cx - C f d = d= E E v D U 3 `o 0aEya)a) ns @ �. L _4)iia ZL..'N --' t6 O a)_ - o C C3: m 2) O L U N a> V C'o C d m y y ?� y X o a) _ O m 3 G �- m m= m I- caEf65 N a N Z O) U .j Q Z .0 ;: . >Gmro N a) 3 = Z m -d(D O C L a) E= w Z C - E U v 3 o °my�E .O o m z V Q =; N U m ( _ O r >l< N = rn d s 3 U h OM O 't 3z E¢ C O U U U al LO O a N Z 'O C �o IA 0 z O rn c v N � U- aNi a) 3Z�c C w V O a) d• t� o �vvl � CL a vp-o $Z M O m L O 0) ... O CL V N r 3 ° a) mz-E; - 0DO a> U O V y y d N X C] - afOcro C r a) aE `) O N O 0)0— CXNZ Z•0,0.0 V ) do3o,a o d am = a) ) (�l .. y �EcLi�3 a ocEaOiod O y U m a) 2 r a)a�oF= Q N Y N N 'r 3z E¢� u, d d z Q w Ea z ¢° c v a) '0 O s O d c>'Uc0 ti g m d r co L Y j O C CL N c o E a) z '00 p V o u 1o=0a)a) r O C. 41 �F•U U C g N L L mz :E; 0 R a) t5 d m > C O C N a) N O X O 0.0 M L' » C. T p '0 CL C]_ ro c m o o E a)- y Z a) a N a) m U= N'U N C. a) Z a a) O w a) — la > d o— m c m o Z d = d= E E v D 3 `o 0aEya)a) ns @ �. p W U m a) 6 >,< a) = a a)_ - o C C3: m 2) O L U N �L 3z ECC u, d d z Q w Ea z ¢° 0 s >, sseippy aweN 'Al!o ayl of uo!1!ppe In)!lneaq a aq ll!m I9101-1 Uosaa una v eN 0141 -sie!!op xel pue coeds 6ugaaw papaau -y°nw q 'Al!unwwoo 0141 0l sl!)eueq Auew 6uuq ll!m 11 '14oeeg ljodm9N 41!0 ay1 jo) poo6 si leyl loefad a do!anap of Al!unwwoo ayl yl!m om sey sauna liodm9N ana!Iaq I 'uez!1!o pelsoielui ue sy 'Ialoy ej uo!lewlsep a jol sued ,sauna liodmaN 8ACUMB of noA e6in I y10unOO AMO 4oe08 yiodmON pue seAON JOABW reap ssqjppv rill SWEN '4110 014101 uo!1!Ppe Immneeq a aq ll!m lel°H Uosea 3 Uodm8N eqi -siell °P x91 Pue coeds 6ug98w papaau -gonw Xl!unwwoo 814101 sl!)auaq Auew 6uuq II!m 11 'Peag liodmeN 041 Jo) p006 s! 1ey110alold a do!anap 01 Al!unwwoo 041 yl!m sey sauna uodm8N enagaq I 'uez!1!o pelsajalw ue sb' •!cloy uo!leu!lsap a Jo) sue!d ,sauna liodm8N AO of noA e6in I '11ounoa 4110 4oea8 POdMON Pue sOAON joAeW jeaa sselpl ewE '4110 ayl 01 uo!1!ppe In)!lneeq a eq ll!m Ial sauna lrodm9N ayl 'sie!!op xel pue aoeds 6u!leew pap 6wpn!ou! 'Al!unwwoo eql of sU.)auaq Auew 6uuq ll!m 11 'yoeel )° APO 0141 col p006 st leyl loefoid a do!anaP of 41!unwwc P9Xjom sey sauna lrodm8N ana!Iaq I 'uez!go palsajalul ue uosEU uo!lewlsep a jo) sue!d ,sauna 1,odm9N an of i '11ounoo A1A 40908110dMON pue sOAON COI r • � a 41!0 eql of uo!1!pPe In)!lneaq a eq ll!m 1810H sauna vodmaN ayl •sjepop xel pue a0eds 6u!18aw papaw gpn!ou! 'Al!unwwoo 014101 sl!)eueq Auew 6uuq II !m ll '4 °eag Y )° 40 014) J°) poo6 s! 19141 loa. d a do!anap of Apunwwoo e paNJom sey sauna >JOdm9N ana!Iaq ! 'uez!1!3 PelseJa)ul ue sy WSW uo.1eu!lsep a col sued ,sauna lrodmeN n ' of nog! 'Qounoo Alit) 40908 l.iodmON pue SeAON joAeyi � k # / k CL lz q z / ! .0 � a � M � d � � 2 \M //L kj0u 0 0) ca)M ca) -.0 022C�] o a) 0 4) (] > caw )2J)2] oft_ W. °§03.0-6 \ <Q\@T ){(47 ff7zR» \\ /�L )j /( \w co t[feg \(u \\ /� \\ 0-wcoc =EE @22 ()> z =*f f± }�2 )\ / \/} D M a)-6 ƒ <Ga!T ){( \7 -= z|J z � % � � z ZO \ o E k z < e k � � ■ / z ■ < u 2 \ \/�0 \\ \ \L 0 -2)k( )228( ® 0) r ) g k/M © gzf=c2 0 2# =a @) 2 D 0MM 0 CL >, f as 0a)o | >f§# z () c c z2i)»] 2 }2& 0 ISE0.0 M z ao /2j ° 0m02§« ƒ ( # ;£ @z a `®§ƒk7 ! 0 a) ) )£7zE= o E k z < e k � � ■ / z ■ < u 2 \\ \ \L ) o=0 a) oCLw- 0 2# =a @) M M Z=a0 s ;al0 f C 0.0 E o) /[7§ ■ 5 4) 0 a) 2 () * /mk 0 z2* _ea M ao /2j �E 5 -0 a `®§ƒk7 2 (#,\!{ «{242 2 -rzEcr o E k z < e k � � ■ / z ■ < u 2 ( k z < ■ k z ■ � # / k 0 \ \ m cu a ƒ . � k CL q to \ } co ) ® �:, L 7 -� 3)272 / \{ 0 co / \ (D �- E\ e 0 )j\() } T . 03X0- 8 Q($a§f e sz�A 0 s� ±$� f f D -'D \ 3£yz =cu 0 ®s ■ £EE■ --d 2 ( /\{§) ®] j(a%/ \£ Z\ §_ o CL co z)0- ) ƒ a) \ Z a 2 0cE _§'D ƒ { <m\ @¥ 2/ ± {2 k 242 }r z9E zEcc ( k z < ■ k z ■ � # / k 0 \ \ m cu a ƒ . � k CL q to \ } co ) ® �:, L 7 -� ( / \{ 0 co \�//0 �- CL M (D kc2o}�� T . - § - E c 3000 = /0�j \ \ 0CL u 2(�0 t - 0 --d ) \_ _ j(a%/ \£ o CL =)2m�f z)0- 0a)0a) Z ( /`f,5 2 zGf /E] ��QE 2/ ± {2 /�\ z9E 2722 §2 J ( «;£ :f c +fy4f 2 )= zEcc ( k z < ■ k z ■ � # / k 0 \ \ m cu a ƒ . � k CL q to \ } co ) ® �:, L . � Ll � 7 -� ( / \{ 0 co �- CL M (D kc2o}�� T 5 ƒfws \# ={a /, /0�j \ \ } \� // , . /r° f 0 d)- j(a%/ \£ (\7f ;] CL zf= -2 z)0- _ _ a) \ ��QE _ �}u.0 / m 2 (=>c(a 2 .� . wa)0 )E_ 2 4) .5 k mE U-a ` -;RI$$ ` 2 ID ( <4 a) = ■ (#0 /f )£7z£) . � Ll � 7 -� ( / \{ ] co CL kc2o}�� 5 ƒfws \# ={a /, \ } \� // , 2 »2=02 0 d)- 0 (\7f ;] CL z)0- a) \ )(D _ �}u.0 §[It! >,< a) m 2 if 2 ƒ2 /0 :� . .� . . � Ll � ■ k « ■ � 93 ■ k z 7 0 / \ / \j \\ 0 $ -§)E # -k \(ƒ 0 )328x) *Zra # m\ b 2 a) o /zf= -2 a kzf = -e § = _ 7 7 \_ _ # ofy(2k ■ 3`0 Z a)= J (772Nk a a Z.0 a 2 f2, IA )� /u z )� 0 -o z ° `s§I{) J a) R o � /{i#a 2 }27z£ƒ ■ k « ■ � 93 ■ k z 7 0 /� / \C \\ 0 $ -§)E . \ a ° \\j) y # 0) C, o t ¥ kzf = -e a - I -ma 7 \_ _ # co 0(D0 0 =)2zz§ Z 0 a) ! 0 (D z () ;f§® +] 2 z=*) to f7_ z )� 0 -o z `ca0a) cu 11 ° \c§±]§ R ) =(U )t>z£) a) CL = n R )f ƒ6� rn ) a = Ecc ■ k « ■ � 93 ■ k z 7 0 E / z J & u z k R 1 /� / \C CL $ -§)E 2 )000x) *£rte ° :\ f a) cu = aZ ¥ s 4) (D f - I -ma 2 2et� = # co 0(D0 d) Z i{ «f§\ 2 Z-OD.0 z ca 2 zGkf to /f5 z )� 0 -o z `ca0a) cu o ® (D p= R ) =(U )t>z£) 4 E / z J & u z k R 1 cu 0 « -§$[/ )\m\ofy ` = k (U K 1222 az cu CL 0 0 2 ±$tf 2 # k)\r0§ i taE@2s z (fMfm® ®2 2 zGkf to IA fE'. / z } / \\\ ® °a §3$! J (#/0 4 § f / =(7 a _rz£J E / z J & u z k R 1 a § k z < 9 \ \ \/0 \= \/L /� / \� k '0 0 0 } Z « UV0a) ° ` *fra -2ak( 0 ~ k )0o0a) \ + 0 10 r tom (D :3.0 CL = E o0.0- 0 . a 0 2 :F; z ] 2 azZ�_2 z 2 ``��k k 2 \ E I /- - ® °U84) ƒ k } } / {% _\ \ L _= z 2 /27zr= 0 a)0 a) | z (= >C-w 0 m �\ \u / \ \ \ k 0cE0w _2§±t, = ( «;V,f m « 2 ` 4 ){() )-zER r § k z < 9 \� / \\ \= \/L /� / \� k '0 0 0 } -2)[( « UV0a) ° ` *fra 0CL 0 2( - °// 7 )zf=_0 \ ) )i = :3.0 CL = E 3)y0 ®3 ■ £a»■ ! a® z () >c if E] 2 z z 2 ``��k 2 \ E I -a ® °U84) ƒ ( < / =m= % 2 f)ƒ /£CC o _= z § k z < 9 k ( k z < `t 2 ( k z < � Ll 0 \� / \\ /� / \� k '0 0 0 _ -2)[( « )30 ° ` *fra mZ= / {(fa @Z 7 \2f§a� \ f k)+k#d :3.0 CL = E / z £ag;s ! a® z ( {¥f 2 z=*§w z fr\ , a E \z )S /\ I \ a&k« I -I 1: \ < = \) � \{( 2 /27zr= k ( k z < `t 2 ( k z < � Ll 0 \� / \\ k '0 0 0 : &f r « g /f2 ° { §f mZ= 7 ))" -.0 E 32Cz2= � | a) o (D z (]IrCL 2 z =*)®± >1' f a� z a E 0[ 4) MoCg I k =[ta f77 cc z; k ( k z < `t 2 ( k z < � Ll 0 0je0 � | / / \) -k 0 3: ) )328a. /t*Z&f o t(�`(D M )zf= 2 a} &]\A I k)\zzk ■ S SD 0 4) ■ ({> 2 z 'D � of�_ 2a) - \ _0c 0}\ ° 2§±;# ƒ.( <,0 /{(47 2 )£7zEI & z < 0 0 W, -a a) \0)0E o _ / ) \j04) k F-' # �0 b t (.0 = mzZ=a0 ° a 2 ti #k \f ! k)\>0k ■ 0 (D 0 4) ■ > ■ (f> 7 Z.O,o A }2 , 2 / � c \/u 2 E °E§±k2 2 to 2, a§Em / J =23 a f 222oIF (ƒ® (�® o _°7z|I & z < ■ z < 0 0 W, -a a) 37«22 o A \ } / ) / . . -0j\ \� k c =o w g {/W A = s« / =J2 ° a a4) �oE\ /328m. ` cn 3a»eee ■ > ` 7 Z.0 A 0Mw C 2 / � c E -o a )_ E °E§±k2 2 t / /Q (42 )£7zrcc f ))(k\) o # /}»2§ °7 7 ■ os0K (]7GW to 2 Z.0 Ma >g© Z \E ) k o Sm0 E _ ƒ (#,_�= z 2 { w / (: k - = z £cc ■ z < \ § z OD ■ \ z < ƒ � 0 0 W, -a a) 0 o . / -0j\ \� k ® &f w g {/W A = s« / =J2 ° s ;ai.0 a4) a) g 3a»eee ■ > cu () CL a 7 Z.0 2 / � z E -o E °E§±k2 2 {72o R /Q (42 )£7zrcc \ § z OD ■ \ z < ƒ � � : � : ) # � k ( k z � ! 2}272 {}� /§ o - c - E '0328(. ca 5 *f&{ {ifar) §zf= «o /t\k§) k)y>�§ �zE|2e / ` ®® zG \)»] <m / / \ //@7 /\ \ °1§3 { ;�1= 3 ){#40 }27«Eƒ § § k z < I � � � �! 745 A k 570 0 0z oC) e 2 0 �\y -2fE3� )) \ v \,aa� _ -m\ \� } =(+aZ \zfƒ90 0 co , . /Z&f a # ;t / § Q ( -2 '- - 0 0 (D= §��c >fa# k () 2 a ;k( 0 k)\ =�\ Z CL z cu -o ® fx ƒ _ $ \ \7c co a) # /{(#§ 2 «=pf�]� Q a } ;2 . w u'D d) a ` Ek (D *� m I. ;_�z (# 0c ■ {(2 #7\£-=z= a ) # � k ( k z � ! 2}272 {}� /§ o - c - E '0328(. ca 5 *f&{ {ifar) §zf= «o /t\k§) k)y>�§ �zE|2e / ` ®® zG \)»] <m / / \ //@7 /\ \ °1§3 { ;�1= 3 ){#40 }27«Eƒ § § k z < I � � � E k z < E k z < El � I* 745 570 ( /� /§ e E �\y } )) \ v \,aa� 2 00.0 - o =(+aZ \zfƒ90 ) . > C'a a )J 00 / 0 k�co>Q§ # 0 0 (D= ■ >fa# ■ () 2 'D f p 2 ) ƒ/ {2 Z z cu -o ® °§EJt7 ƒ 0 ` a) # /{(#§ }77z A R= E k z < E k z < El � I* 745 ( /� /§ « -c E a) / ) a) v \,aa� e Q222 @) §Z.G k . > C'a a )aE)X0 / i ({f ■ 0 4) 0 a) ■ ( / \f ms 2 zG*) ® ] f p 2 » z E0 {r§mk# ( ■ i#m£m{ ` i{200 2 ) Ecr r- E k z < E k z < El � I* 0 m O Y 0— al c d 3 � O Y O � y O oma)Cr L L a) O c G N U c Q = d Ea)0Ea�i v = L a) 7 8 O n o La) U v E U O n co E a3 '00 0 Z NZ N 0 r 0 d m in a) 4? a) x O c a) o a R a OQN.L...H•V a n v m U a'aa)imoLaL � n u� E l0 0 Z L. o (D L O co •"N- -" n a) N O 0 m > c y y d� o c)d ydo'3m O c o nTov O— c z _ m c c w 0 o4)0Ea)= d O) OS Y Z « U N a) .0 >'a L O C r C Z.0 — d p to U) (D o >a 3�a) a) 2 a) «>'. = a) o d d� E= L n Z a)EEco a) a) cu N O N U m N 2 Z Q `u TQ LO -. O C r _..E)N L 3 0 w 'L 3z E¢ rn c v N O T C y U D c « .r C: 0 M = n O c- E d O N r Q V O y g U osr a)L� O H V N c) N 3 - O ` Y o co CL (D a) O > C a) m N O N O O a) a n c v v 0 CL co °cm r c n E `- �J dN Z y C)U cu C N O a) Z d W � v Q� > N o 3 c ro H 0 O a) -• y `�EcLiE3 (D Ey 'Dd E E v CU owvm aa))2 Z to Q >Qa)rc to °)dL 3�ron D 't 3z E¢ 0 b :q r u, a) E z a 3 c O Y 0— al d 3 � U oma)Cr L L = d Ea)0Ea�i v N c - E Op O a o Z 7 8 ci o La) U ° n!? o U ` L CU L NZ N _�= n> O c O C d m in a) 4? a) x O c a) o a R a o a n v m Oa 0- w ° c CL n u� E 3 o (D .0 m U L N 0 ' 2 m c)d ydo'3m ode -gin ` 'c z _ Z m E �•o 3 a) 0 o c a) d CU m O > y V a) >'a L O C r ` CL r- O m a) L d j p a) �L'3Z E¢ b :q r u, a) E z a 3 m c v N iY 0-0 N O O T c 7 gosd =r C6 L L j d c a co E (D O D Q 8 a) V m r g d L a O —0 U U N3not� m L c a) N Z L.. _ l0 O Up n > U C ' C m m N 43.4) a) x 2 57.0 Co o a m m c CL ca Z o Cni` nN 0 .0 a) 'U m N a) O L Z'D m _ �a a o •3 c to z �E0-p a° O c E y a) d N 8m o os 0 (D c= d_ =nto ca O L d G O a) 'r 3z E¢ b :q r u, a) E z a 3 \�ILI/ :T2 o \/\ �4)0 .0322 §y 0 cm f ff2@/ \}\n \/ 3a /z72 ` ® 0 4) () °fae z'D M.0 ± ƒ7 A \ / \o kQE T ,, &#}0 #i2 (40 £):z Rƒ z < ( / z « � § k z < 0 E U 0 0 . \r \ \0 /r\ . CL 0 - (D o | ) 0) r U a� oz:s o § m s k/«0 0 $ § ME §zf�)g ■ >2R® a) -0 2 a #2&] §a , 0 fg_ Z )) /zk$ | # ® `:§Ik$ ■ o�o�°= 2 kk ({ >E-w )Q(\) 2 z2ff®] a - r/ ka f �� \// k ° `Gkƒ§« ` 'D J {#;v@_ 2 /{ƒ47 R )t7z2I ( / z « � § k z < 0 E U 0 0 . \\ /r\ . 10 C. 0 \ [ a mn § 2 a) oz:s o « azf=aa m )i#]qa 0 ) \ [2 ;f p±mCc , t ) 0 (D5 ■ >2R® ■ #) co 2 )2,0.00 2 Z-0 fg_ Z ) \ / \/: iE z ® `:§Ik$ ƒ {#ao 2 kk )Q(\) R }2 7z£» ( / z « � § k z < 0 E U . / \L \� k \k ( \}a :011£� {(ee@f azf=aa « § ) \ [2 ;f 0 2amC ■ 0a)0 a) ■ ({7fa] 2 Z-0 } m_ z I \ /\ \\ 0 `a§Mo 2 kk /o'F $/ A$a _£iz£I a - ( / z « � § k z < 0 E U M y a) aa) z Q w (D a) z a m 0 �O Y O U � h c (J ap 4 a)"r .0 =cu a oc w c ° E a>'i C '00 O U mr0,a)t2� U Z% O L H U o a n U L N N L z = O ai _w a > U C 'O C al m h 4) d) a) x 0 .m 0 a' 0n ov o p- m M c m w 3 r e a. E Za N N CDO-5 .O C 3 >. -ro to U � w c z '00 M y a) O = CD a) 2 (D lu >1 Z d c d 7 t . z SEu -o 0 $ m E yD Z O A 7 y V m a) ? Q m r C = a)_= atr O a) o) N L_ 9 U N O =3z E¢ M y a) aa) z Q w (D a) z a m c v O N y Y V a) 3Z'cc c mV Z,p L C O a .0 E a) a incwE) p ID p O U U a) )or0(D T = H U O O a y U L N N L c y a) ZL.. = �o O O M m N O — > C a (D N (D O r �a Q. oa Oa p —MCMCM 3 r m- co E Za a)w N N 0) N 'O a) 'U a) h a) d c .0 0) M a, a) o C ca > N N a o damy >1 Z d c d 7 t . z o a o@Em�� M 7 y m q) a) O o " nt o d aa) 7 p= N J a) o -t 3z Ecr M y a) aa) z Q w (D a) z a Qq J v V C � U, I� w a) (D z Q cl) y d E z a On M v m C V o 45 O U N C c U p 4ma) r 16 CO a .0 E a) a incwE) G 100 O V N U )or 00) dL>1 T O r H U o p i 0 O F 'U CL L N O al ) 0 a U C '00 C N a) x 0 r a a >, v CL p- asmroaf 0 p- m c m Np, O O D, U '�--• z 3 > c )o 7 ca O z .0-o.0 h� - Ol M y a) O c a3 N > m 3 `o —a) o c z EcLiE3 a O c m d - 0 0 m N M 7 6 °.Qa)rc= a) -� atr O E¢ 't 3z Qq J v V C � U, I� w a) (D z Q cl) y d E z a On M v m c 0 Y O a) a) O > C c 7 cyCJ>p C to L .L... O a c _ a)°Eaa) p 100 o U U as r 0 o 0 O F 'U CL U � 3i m y yL L a) Z � = O O m N O a) mr C ca)oa 7a a>."'0 Oc 0 p- m c m 3 r c )a o E Z O a) � 3 N� C 0— N U N a) C Z'0'0- Z v v— m n M a) o- c m z d �t E= c E U r 3 0 .2 cE9a)y 0 0 a) 7 p U m O > Q a) r C = a) - �atr j O L N U d o N -t 3z Ecc Qq J v V C � U, I� w a) (D z Q cl) y d E z a On M v c O U U L N m m O 3 Z V c m N T p Z 0 N N D CD c m O0 0 c w 0 c d y p >,c c c y U > 0 .0 w O L-. ? O a N c ° E v 0 o 0 Z m r Q d t a O = H U o m N y 3 0 ` Y 'co z :E @ o CL > U N '00 c y d X.0 d o n m - �n a>% -0v 0— m m c m m— O y O V Y Z N vam N �Q h > U nLm C 3 «m c- _ m 3 ) p) o — Ol > O N y N c d m EEi)o m o m Z 0 N O >y p (D c= O CL= p mmL 3 U h _'r 3z E¢ R P1 u l � E z Q 0 w E v 2 Q MI c 0 O (L) 3 LL... j O E O '0 0 O V Z O F U N U 3 o ca�my U y3No`L ca�my t mz� =�°o m °�i�Cvc m dd.pa'xo a m =- r Mn CL "D 0 CL ca 0 E o 2 ; ^ > ° 'm =C wa .Z 3 N a>t C lU0 > O N U (D an d Z V m N 0— C m >od ayi =_3ua Gr c m= Z E cLi.0 3 r O c m d m E m (j N U N O T Q O D C= r O N _ O.L O O L_ 3 U w 2 o 'r 3z Ea: c O U U L N m m O 3 Z V c m N T p Z 0 N N D CD c m O0 0 c w 0 c d y p >,c c c y U > 0 .0 w O L-. ? O a N c ° E v 0 o 0 Z m r Q d t a O = H U o m N y 3 0 ` Y 'co z :E @ o CL > U N '00 c y d X.0 d o n m - �n a>% -0v 0— m m c m m— O y O V Y Z N vam N �Q h > U nLm C 3 «m c- _ m 3 ) p) o — Ol > O N y N c d m EEi)o m o m Z 0 N O >y p (D c= O CL= p mmL 3 U h _'r 3z E¢ R P1 u l � E z Q 0 w E v 2 Q MI N q k 1] u CD Nis =� O C 7 c 3U y•?S OD N aL.L O 0 O U O o a� mr QLL O F U N U 3 o ca�my t mZ� -`—° o m d o c m > cv C d on m z n acv c 0 3 m 0 E o 2 ; ^ > ° 'm =C wa zv -o M > o 3 c m H v O d �_ = d - a z c m— c E E 3 r o c E N O y V m O >. Q = (j 4) c al _ = a t r O O 't 3zEi N q k 1] u m c y•?S OD N y O � c c z Q N q k 1] u m c y•?S OD N y O � c c c w U Y 0 O m .r J 0 E o M wn•ooz Z (j m =0a) 0)L_ m = L c m N2L..� N O Z6 m a>iicvc �h v y d oa y x o V p o p.0 a> p° C CL m m c m E J Q d o y o ami= d N O M Q I.. ;� ^ a l N N 'ZO yco• = \ m m -5m U) > d 3�m z E° OW p E o-o 3 omoami0a� a E •o N p m m 2 •o Q p h a) >Q uDr c (D = _ .L-. dt N p m O 2) d L 3 U y E c z If] a) a) z Q � W V rn C c o�o�c . C f6 LL. O E .O O a Ky _ E C L 7 0 U Y m L a ` e d . o 0 o Eo O t0 O O v d v c o , r 7d CL o .0 'D U mr Sm a)L d r a E m — N o ° NL r o d ` L c m — Oo•3�)m U c m w m k� L a Z � = @ O T o�LE= co O t O O C > C y N �F U m m y y x m O d_ O L •O C N p a) co . -p C , o p —m @cm Z O�� CIL 7 •O m C C N N n N Z v ° a C m 'Dz y w O y= d 0 a 0 o O c O u Z 3 c 0 o 2 E m E A m 7 N U d O TQ C C = Z Q d O L CL . L 3 ) E a) If] a) a) z Q � W V rn C a O Y0-5 (D 0 c N U Y f6 LL. O E .O O a c _ E C c 0) 0) 0 O U O m V" O c F U p N U e d L ca L,.. !- O O t0 O O v d v c o in a>i a� aci x o o a m r 7d CL o .0 'D oa C>, 0— m m c m d r a E m — N o N O 01 a) •.�- -• c m — Oo•3�)m V C N U N L N m m Z.0-0— L m C y >NO.3 «o odd =a)a T o�LE= m omEaoia� �F U m m 7 y y 0 3: �+Q C C p a) co d _ .L-• aL O O) d C �r3zE O 'r 3zEIr If] a) a) z Q � W V N m d E v` m o e T N n N E v Z Q m c c o�o0a 0 c u ) f6 LL. O E .O c o 2) N cw E O Z U •O 0 O U mr oY 2 U ° aN d o L m z� m o m a a) U 'a) O C O t0 ina> a)x� c O a o a � a r Ono m c o CL 0— m C c m d d N -6 V j Z 'm 3=> c m o z -0,� �� c m — Oo•3�)m y de= -0 a) co a) IS Lo Ep z E 3 T O c E y a CO m 7@ U a) O TQ N a) A L O C y . « ar o rn O � p a) a) E cc co = 3:z N m d E v` m o e T N n N E v Z Q m c >' c U CO L j O 5 aNi E we F= a) p O D O 8z U mr C& a)r U m c O m a) �^ o a O m r Sn a>, v C 0— m C c m C m — oE a) o a)= a N N U C ,U c a m L C Q) a) Z a) a a u O — co a) 0 > y 3 m N d o my= a)a ` C Z N c N = 7 p ° c E a) d A 7 m V CD y o >.Q a) r C = OO• N .L - • L co 02 L_ S U N C �r3zE N m d E v` m o e T N n N E v Z Q - l Mrs: CoraZee S. Newrnaty 2809 Broad.Street NewportBeach, CA 926:W3 V'� _�6 June 13, 2000 Mayor John Noyes & Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: LETTER OF SUPPORT Newport Dunes — General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (F) & Conceptual Precise Plan Approval Dear Mayor Noyes and City Council Members: "RECEIVED A R AGENDA PRINTED:" (a -t3 -0O As a long -term resident of Newport Beach, I would like to offer my support for the approval of the Newport Dunes Resort project that is before you this evening. I have followed the process through the Planning Commission, and believe the project has been modified to address the community's concerns. The current project is very close in size to the project approved in the Settlement Agreement, and I believe brings the City of Newport Beach many benefits. In the many roles I play in Newport Beach as both a business owner and mother of two school age children, I participate in a variety of civic and charitable organizations. I think the addition of a 31,000 SF meeting space would be a great asset to Newport Beach. Many of our thriving community organizations have to conduct their functions at locations outside of Newport Beach. The Dunes facility would provide an alternative that would be very desirable. I am support of the Dunes and hope the City Council will agree and approve the project once you conclude your deliberations. Sincerely, Coralee Newman Dear Mayor Noyes and Newport Beach City Council, 0 I urge you to approve Newport Dunes'pgg for a d stinati resort hotel. As an interested citizen, I believe -NEvport nes h orked with the community to develop a project @t is good forth Newport Beach. It bring benefdQ) the ty of including will many muni much - needed meeting space and tax doQ The Newpo nes Resort Hotel will be a beautiful addition tO� city. L4 ;'Gi v� 0�g1 Name VINa,1)o WE��a�7CS� m (� 2bp Address — ��e — 6 C� Harkless, LaVonne From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 11:27 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: NEWPORT DUNES RESORT HOTEL - - - -- Original Message - - - -- <n° From: Suchmanlaw @aol.com [mailto:Suchmanlaw @ aol.com] g Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 11:21 AM To: Palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us = Subject: NEWPORT DUNES RESORT HOTEL Dear City Counsel: - N Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting this evening but did want to express my unqualified support for this project. I believe that this is the type of well thought out and carefully planned first class development that will further enhance our city, as well as adding more tax revenue base. I hope that the City Council will unanimously approve this project. Sincerely, Stewart R. Suchman Law Offices of Stewart R. Suchman 2424 S.E. Bristol St., Suite 300 Newport Beach, California 92660 -0757 Telephone: (949) 251 -0251 Facsimile: (949) 251 -0281 JUN.13.2000 8t 59AM CPSB -LYNN CATHCART 949 673 0733 N0.112 P.1 /1 June 13,2000 Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Clerk PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 9265 &8915 RE: The Proposed Dunes Project Dear Mr. Alford: Sent via fay. 949- 644 -3250 In re- reading the letter I originally sent to you in November of last year I find that none of the concerns addressed therein have been addressed to my satisfaction. Therefore, I submit same as follows: As a 30 year resident of WestelifVDover Shores and 16 month resident of De Anza Bayside Village I have been very involved with the changes in the City of Newport Beach, particularly the traffic increases. I realize this is a normal occurrence in any desirable city, however, the last few years have over - burdened the intersection of Dover and Pacific Coast Hwy., especially at the Bayside bridge. The Dunes Project, as recently increased in size, would further impact that area, even with the addition of turn lanes. I do not believe your study has been a realistic one, taking into account the actual functions of a convention destination with a hotel of that size all funneling through Bayside Drive, north of Coast Highway. Please take another look at the traffic concerns, the pollution, and the noise which will be incurred by the residents of the surrounding areas utilizing Bayside as the entrance for this newly submitted hotel increase. Is the additional revenue to the city the overruling factor here? Sincerely concerned, Lynn Cathcart 300 East Coast Hwy. #246 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949- 673 -3703 fax. 949- 673 -0733 City authority use it wisely or Loose your seats. '`.6 To: All city Council members Q ,� ✓��yj�F� �G j�� `J� CC: Daily Pilot CC: Register a The city does have the authority to modify submissions ottleny them outright. Therefore it is your duty to use it forth e benefit of the residents of the city and NOT for the financial benefit of the city. If the city needs money it can privatize fire, ambulance, trash, facilities and infrastructure maintenance and parks. ® There is land south of Corona Del Mar which is open and outside the residential areas of the city. A road could be build over the hill to bypass the highway as it leads into Corona Del Mar. ® Pay attention to Bert Ohlig he has worked out the details of the failings of this proposed project. Though slightly modified from the origina! giant hotel it still has the same problems including being a violation of the legal and enforceable settlement agreement. o Moreover sound and noise carry over the water almost without attenuation. Our friends across the water may not get as much smog, NOYES and traffic but neither shall they benefit from the current round of mitigation because there will be no sound wall protecting them from the noyes generated bythetimeshares. Earlier there were some cheap shots at Mr. Ohligs qualifications to study the project. This cheap shot brings into question the fitness of the Planning Commission and EOAC members. They who were in turn appointed by the city council whose own qualifications must also be questioned. At the EQAC meeting of Feb. 7 Pete Tarr, servant of noyes pollution, made just such a cheat shop. This may now be a city for rich people but naked elitism is reminiscent of the "Anointed" whom Dr. Thomas Sowell so v#1 describes in his book "Vision of the Anointed ". We the residents of the Mobile home park are not the benighted you take us for. This is a republican city. We should know better than to behave like democrats to whom elitism is a sacrament. If the proposed project is only 9% over the size of the settlement agreement then why not go all the way back to the original 275 rooms. Traffic is greater now than it was in 1988 when the hotel was originally approved. Even the-original design will add several thousand daily trips to the traffic which NOW exists. Initially is seemed as though there was a rush to approve this hotel. While that pace has slowed and the hotel has gone from a giant to a more respectable size it is still IMHO too large for current conditions. I question the EIR's use of comparison of the approved hotel's impacts to the current modified version. We should only compare what now exists which is NO hotel and what you would have us accept. Further as I understand the traffic model is that this is a zero sum game wherein the new hotel mealy redistributes the traffic. If that is the case how will the city benefit financially. Will the new hotel pay more in TOT fees than those now existing or are the other hotels to receive a TOT reduction? Sincerely, awl Cm% c5ptizer 9-)) son of Mary Jane Dugan, the lady in the wheelchair. 6 To: The City Council June 12, 2000 Newport Beach, CF F.. v From: Barbara James 300 E. Coast Hwy Newport Beach, CA What are they thinking - - in regard to the Dunes Project ? ? ?? There is not any data, calculations, drawings, blueprints or parties connected to this property that could possibly know & show the impact of a 400 room hotel with facilities for conferences. plus TIMESHARE ?? Please let's not pass this. The people of Newport Beach do not need to have this mass in our backyards. The traffic on Jamboree and PCH to Bayside Dr. is, without a doubt, the worst in the city. Those corners are a mess during our Boat Parade. Think, this would be the way it would be daily and twice as bad on weekends. Again - - What are they thinking ? ? ?? Please give the people who put you on the council their say and vote. Thank� Barbara James A very concerned resident Har From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:34 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Newport Dunes Hotel /Project - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Tillie Zoobalan [mailto:tilliezl @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:33 AM To: Palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Newport Dunes Hotel /Project Me and my husband cannot attend the City Council meeting this evening, but want to voice our support for the Newport Dunes project. It will be nice to see a beautiful building on the corning of PCH and Jamboree instead of an ugly empty lot. We live in Harbor Cove so we are neighbors with Newport Dunes beach and strongly lend our support. Thanks for hearing us! Raman and Tillie Zoobalan Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com GO ; l 1 : .'.1.0 •41 -- - -- - -- CUT HERE To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not Wportll@uential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ Ifmy name or ogftature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would �ypport the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remove �. p name: immV tely! FulFName (k� you �ptegistered to vote) 0 . \ddre�s '�: you are re�istcred to voter t. 1. t C::)(.: ._________ Signature i CA OF citv ST ZIP ,•t --r 111n r ____________ To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: _ ____________ i. nnrtG e Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. M - If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ 'If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would supporf3ie Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remove my name immediately! J - Sul Name (as you are registered to vote) SI_ NMI unl (re ulred) jo g �� ��,✓a i9 vim, 0aW4Pje7- )e E04K CA _2�6� luuress (s:: you a:e re_istercd to vote) L'It Y S'I•l_IP .... ____________________________________________________________' _— ____________________________- .- -- I ncnc To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Trit c Phasjpg Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not su`port in- Ruential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ If-my nanN or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support t e- Traffic -Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remove rtty. namefbtmediately! =r7-Y z011146e pJeoTT x Full Name (as you are registered to vote) Aignature (required) 3 -Z7 144-R/GD<b 4 1c e �ko jla k-L / "1p-R CA 24Z Address Las you are registered to vote) City ST ZIP /'1 T PPRr7 ____ rl IT PPPP To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: e Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not �uppor4 nquential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remove my name immediately! t till Name Sri you are._re,lstere to vote) Si ` *nature (r uired) J � 3a) YVI A 121 90 bl lqw- A&g;,V# 7nA CA 9 ;ZZ2 Address (as you are registered to vote) City ST ZIP June 12, 2000 '00 _UN 1 : 11 9 :33 Dear Mayor and City Courlil_Members: , The Newport Beach City Council vote on Tuesday, June 13th, will probabily be the most Important in our City's history. I have lived here when you could walk across the Bay at low tide - sailed in the Flight of the Snowbirds - opened the first Mortgage Company in 1949 representing Metropolitan Life Insurance Funds with 4112% interest on home loans. For all these years I witnessed the growth of Newport Beach. I also have ridden a bicycle from the Juan de Fuca Straits in Washington State, to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico on Highway 1, "Camino Real ", the most scenic route in our country. I could see why all the motor homes, trailers and vans from every state were also enjoying our Pacific Ocean views. This Pacific Coast Route passes through the center of our city and the busy intersection of Bayside Drive and Highway 1. Daily ingress and egress from the De Anza Trailer Park, Linda Isle, Harbor Isle, Balboa Island and Promatory Point with emergency vehicles with all the other communities and tourists, is just about all the traffic this intersection can accept. This hotel site is also surrounded by the most popular bicycle path in Orange County. The Back Bay Path terminates at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway to furthur complicate the problem. It was a 38 minute drive from Hazel Drive in Corona del Marto the Crab Cooker in Newport, on a winter Wednesday evening. The traffic hold -up was and is the Bayside Drive intersection. The only parties that I have heard who are in favor of the Dunes Hotel are the developers of the Dunes Hotel and a few De Anza Park people who love the thought of walking to bars and a few young bucks looking for new and exciting places. The vote of the City Council on the Dunes project is a chance to convince the residents of Newport Beach that they were elected to look after their best interests. If the City Council is in favor of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Initiative, rejecting the Dunes Project will be a big boost in their favor. This is City owned property and a most inappropriate location for a hotel, bars, restaurants, and a convention center. Thank you for your consideration in taking a strong stand to prevent the catastrophic and perminent problems that would result from this expansion. Long lines of backed -up traffic preventing the citizens from having normal access and use of Pacific Coast Highway is unacceptable now and in the f ture. Since, ly, Robert L. Settler 544 Hazel Drive Corona del Mar, California 92625 (949) 760 -1944 CUTHERE ------------ -- - -- .. . .. ----- ----- --- ---- ----- ----- CUT HERE To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: e Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. e If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to g4cify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for then' S 'p e If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition w uch wwd support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiati: i3,, pleaWrema've my name immediately! < MAZY S .L-AKE x � �� Full Name (as you are registered to vote) Signatur required) 777 -D o m i rIS-o D.R 9PrL- 4�W?aRr: 1�cac t1 cA tp Address (as you are registered to vote) City ST ZIP rrruu•v- •.._ To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: e Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. e If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to quaftiy for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them;'.' o e If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which wQ.tild support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, pleat remove my name immediately! _ x (�ffA Sim Full Name (as you are registered to vote) Signature ije tired) �.. � Address (as you are registered to vote) City CA 9x66 0 ST ZIP Terry A. Sheward .n .. W g700 . K#CWDnOr ==Af%td re / IRnOM1A . 07 June 9, 2000 City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 RE: NEWPORT DUNES RESORT HOTEL Dear Council Members: '0'J �' !iI 11 .'; 9 :l 0 I am writing at this time to ask that you reject the plans for the Newport Dunes Resort Hotel under consideration next week. It is my very strong opinion that this type of further commercialization of our city is unwise and we do not need more and more tourists, additional traffic, additional pollution, etc. impacting our lifestyle. Summers are alrcady difficult enough and the additional housing units that you have allowed in the city recently should set the tone for a residential, not a commercial, area. Please REJECT the proposal for the Newport Dunes Resort Hotel. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Very truly yours, 4fvtl Terry A. Sheward TAS:jsh Page 1 of 1 Harkless, LaVonne From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 8:46 AM i '00 J ,, ; 13 0 To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Newport Dunes Resort Hotel Proposal - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sandy Doezie [mailto:sandydoezie @yahoo.comj Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 9:26 PM To: Palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Newport Dunes Resort Hotel Proposal To our Newport Beach City Councilmen: We have lived on Balboa Island for many years and have always enjoyed the pleasant relationship that we have experienced with Newport Dunes and all of their facilities. Their R.V. Park has been an asset to our community. We have had occasion to have many visiting family members and visiting friends stay there with their RV's. We have enjoyed numerous breakfasts, lunches, and dinners at "Back Bay Cafe ". Bicycling throughout the grounds has provided us with hours of enjoyment. We have every confidence that the proposed Newport Dunes Resort Hotel will heighten the avenues. of enjoyment that would be available to all of us here in Newport Beach as well as to the thousands of visitors that come to our Beautiful City! Please approve THE NEWPORT DUNES RESORT HOTEL. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Doezie Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos --now, 100 FREE prints! 6/13/00 ll: 1 nCnL ____________ ________ _______________________ To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. n— ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which we ld J .j support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiatiy , please remove my name immediately! RIC44 P- C- t �, �,1© i` x Full Name (as you are registered to vote) Signature (fegg ired) -' N; _? S G Z3 I.� 130.k, hL.Vik �` Elm CA qZ :\ dre;� las %rou are registered to coteI City ST Zip Li- I n L: Kt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: e Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them.- ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative; plea remove; my name immediately! _ =_- Full Name (as you are registered to vote) ignature (ret{nire o Z.3 1 0L 151AOD r1�su,nAn.�- r�unE CAI &e) Address (as you are registered to vote) City ST ZIP ------------- (9 IT rrPRP `V To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: _ ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. CD ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify foRhe bandt, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for their ; ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition :which weuld support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative_ , please remove my name immediately! _ w a / n •I • N �u /Yi / / C Pl b Lt rn 3{ l�>!1/l•�%f. < ^/i? s`I G✓ Fu ame (as you ar registero vote) Signatu (required) el Gclh, to i ✓C���V C1ercvia /�/ il%v CA Address (as you are registers to votel City Sr ZIP LL ; ru.rct -------------------------------------------------------------- To City Clerk LaVonrie Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel /convention center) We have way too much traffic already. - o ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the balU, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them:; ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition lk ich would �r support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the dGreenli h t initiative; le � my name immediately! P ash remo "(eouir .ba ,P�s -S� G�irC x Full Name (as you are registered to vote) S /:f( CA : \ddress (as ou are registered to vote) City ST ZIP r i T u p o r. ------------------- __________ _______ ______________________.. •�f 1T GICDC To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council • Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. • If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ° • If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which wmtld support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative; please remove my name immediately! Full Name (as you are registered to vote) Signature (required) CA Address (as you are registered to vote) —� City ST ZIP r,rrr urac ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- CI IT HFRF. Lbi iLi L:iZL' G,: tL l.w %LL�piL \G «r.�R iLGiy`. -�"v" YRGF 61 WwPORT BIRCH (0NfIRIN[f & VISITORS BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 2000 TO:. LaVonne Harkless City Clerk, City of Newport Beach FRONT: Rosalind Williams President /CEO RE: Newport Dunes Resort Project 'GO JU ?I 1' ". � 10 �, ell Please allow this statement to be read into the public record at the City Council meeting scheduled for this June 13, 2000. On behalf of the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors, I would like to encourage the City Council to vote in support of the Newport Dunes Resort project. Not only is this a prudent decision for the financial well being ofthe future of Newport Beach, it will also serve in support of the numerous other hospitality interests that allow our community to be financially viable. Your support will allow residents and businesses alike to continue to enjoy the services and lifestyle we have come to expect in this community. It is no secret that comprable resorts are underway in Huntington Beach to the north and Laguna Beach and Dana Point to the south. Each of these resorts not only drain Newport Beach of deserved revenue but will also add to traffic flow that the City will be Hard pressed to mitigate without the additional revenue created by the Dunes project. Please vote in favor of this project. cc: Mayor John Noyes Mayor Pro Tern Garold Adams Council Member Tod Ridgeway Council Member Janice Debay Council Member Norma Glover Council Member Dennis O'Neil Council Member Tom W. Thomson NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE & VISITORS BUREAU 3300 w. Coast t- LgrttRy, Ncwpmt Beach, Califomla 92663 (949) 722.1611 I- 800 -94 -COAST FAN (949) 722 -1612 www.newportbeachcvb.cout ji= r uz � \� \� cn CD � � � ( / f6) \ \ J C-1 t) cz > ca cz ca ca U CL OD ca c4j \_ cc ƒ ca ca cc DD \ ca \\ \\\ .« CZ ji= r uz � \� \� CUTH1 :RF. ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------- -------- -- - - -- - -- CUT HERE To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. 0 ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to g4a-�fy for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them: 9 ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition=w}iich vvbuld support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remoke my name immediately!` —' `- X Full Name (as you are registered to vote) Signature (required) z� I)m CA M��p Address (as you are registered to vote) City ST ZIP /`I TT IJCDC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- - l rTT uCDC Page 1 of 1 Harkless, LaVonne From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:16 PM •00 ,!N ] To: City Clerk Cc: Robert H. Gleason (E -mail) 0; Subject: FW: Newport Dunes Resort Hotel - - -- Original Message---- - From: Justin Alderson (mailto:Jus2g a home.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:14 PM To: Pal ford@c ity.newport-beach.ca.us Cc: newportdunes @laer.com Subject: Newport Dunes Resort Hotel To Whom It May Concern: As a local business leader in South Orange County, I thought I would take time to let you know how excited we are at the prospect of having a new world class destination resort in Newport Beach. As one of the premier golf courses in Orange County, we are dependent on hotel for their regular and convention guests and the business they provide. Without them, we wouldn't be able to be as successful as we are. As the premier business community in the country, Orange County must always remain receptive to new development and businesses. Without this Orange County will become stagnant -- the last thing any of us wants. Your vote of confidence in support of the Newport Dunes Resort Hotel Project would be a smart one -- one that will ensure Orange County and Newport Beach much prosperity. Sincerely, Justin W. Alderson Director of Business Development Tijeras Creek Golf Club 29082 Tijeras Creek Road Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone (949) 589 -9793 6/12/00 Page 1 of 1 Harkless, LaVonne From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 12:49 PM To: City Clerk , Cc: Robert H. Gleason (E -mail) Subject: FW: Support for "The Newport Dunes Resorts Hotel" - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Bisconte, Greg f mailto:g.bisconte ri accessdmc.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 12:24 PM To: 'Palford ri ciry.newport- beach.ca.us' Cc: 'Newportdunes @laeccom; Bisconte, Candace; Rucinski, Shelly; Lee, Chris; Paige, Taya Subject: Support for "The Newport Dunes Resorts Hotel" Unfortunately I will be out of town on this Tuesday and will not be able to attend the "City Council Meeting in which The Newport Dunes Resorts Hotel" will discussed. I would like to state my support for the project with the belief that the benefits for the community and city are overwhelming positive and will create a stream of continued benefits into the future. I am a native Californian and I have witnessed over the years the hardship that developers have to go through to complete a projects. The sheer amount of regulations, Federal, State, City and planning with community involvement makes a person wonder how anyone ever completes a significant project. I voice my support for community and city planners to work together to solve any issue related to this project and get it on track as soon as possible. Think back over time and you will realize that time is of the essence. Remember the beautiful hotel projects that were scheduled in the early 1990's that fell to recession which dried up development funds for these projects? This is an opportunity for the community and city which should be pursued diligently now. Best Regards, Gregory S. Bisconte Vice President & G.M. ACCESS California A Division of California Leisure Consultants, Inc. 949 - 454 -2111 www.cal - leisure.com 6/12/00 Harkless, LaVonne From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 12:48 PM To: City Clerk Cc: Robert H. Gleason (E -mail) Subject: FW: Newport Dunes Approval - - - -- Original Message---- - From: seanwalsh @lidopeninsula.com [mailto:seanwalsh @lidopeninsula.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 12:43 PM To: palford @city.newport - beach.ca.us Subject: Newport Dunes Approval To whom it may concern: As a native Newporter, born (Hoag in '63), raised and presently residing (2915, Broad St.), it is my honor to support the Dunes Resort project, which clearly benefits our community as a whole. As a partner in my families business, Lido Peninsula Company LLC, I am sensitive to any waterfront development and redevelopment in our harbor and in reviewing the revised plan for the Dunes Resort, can honestly lend my support to the Evans family and can only hope that the City Council can see what an opportunity this is to bring a world class resort not only to Newport Beach, but to the waterfront where one is truly needed. Sincerely, Sean M. Walsh i To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much tra tc a rea y. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential 1 developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which wot0l support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiatiNv l lease remove-i'1 my name immediately! z n yn II // / j1 F 1l Name (as you are reftstered to vote) Signature (restni �" a c/e I / CA � 'Z 6 1 'S c;ty, Address (as you are registered to vote) ST ZIP -- I11nI lU 1 ncnc -------- ---- ------- ------------- - - - - -- __------- -_ -_ -. To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: 1 I:T IrI',I l lil IICICC ��� �� ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. _ = ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify fo ,!he balidt, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them: ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative; please remove my name immediately! /� o �j2,?{ L'; ('P �C , C��/E 5 X [t aLYGr ac I 1 �LJc./'g Full Name (as you are reg;: ered to vote) j Swriature ( r�5luired) ISID 661.7?dc'a 51e. _1),4 CA - A dress (as you are registered to vote) City ST Z1P - --------- -- - - -- t u i HLKL To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualifZ. for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them_' = o — ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiativ , 'lease move;' my name i mediately! X O Zr 7 CA Address p v are re�nstere to c"5 ote) � i City ST ZIP IHI-Kt ----------------------------- --- ---------- -- - - - - -- ------- -- ------ - - - - -- L u t hl-Kt To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify. for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remave my name immediately! _ Full Name (as you are registered to vote) Signature (required) It-7 Lt/gQ4+9r,s Address (as you are registered to vote) 11 1T 1JUD c --- ------ ------ ilZ -'� pofcr- City CA ? �lGo ST ZIP :I1.1 11. ___ _ ______ ___ __ _...._.. _.. To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. _ CD ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify forr the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. c ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition W,'6ich would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiativve, plea_ remove my name immediately! „' C T w DA iJ C. 4A K K.t 5 x-A S' " 1-511 Name (as you are registers to vote) Signature required) ro9 V%(, -6t'CL. CA gz(,(.2 Address (as you are registerealo vote) City ST 7_IP 1_ I nr. Kr_ ___ _____ _____ ---------- ..--_________________-___ _____- _- ..___- _________________ lG l t1tKi. To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: o Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them:- e If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remove my name immediately! 0 Full Name (as you are registered to vote) Stgt ture (Required) n l09 `� �G�/1i1� CA 9,0 /ors Address (as you are registered to vote) 6ty ST ZIP 11coc--------- ------------- ---- - -.... _. . __ -------------------------------------- - - - - -- CUT HERE GLCB";�RK �70 10:030M To City Clerk LaVonnc Harkless, Mayor Noyes and CitpouU' ill 2 .. "10 :10 °•001 ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way 71:,7 r too much traffic already. O- .;r ' ": -- :�..Y.. I�kACH ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remove my name immediately! Full Name (as you are registered to vole) Address Ns you are registered to vote) Signature (required) To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noycs and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic- already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ if my name or signature is.being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remove my name immediately! Full ame as you are registers to vote _..... Signature (required) !f. you are registcred to t, ity S 1 !1P TO: '00 Juri 12 8 :24 LaVonne Harkless City Clerk of Newport Beach °F; -: 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 ve rcx To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DO NOT approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. We have way too much traffic already. ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do not support influential developers by putting it on the ballot for them. ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Greenlight initiative, please remove my name immediately! Tha yo ignature ate e� �LJa�75o� Print Full Name (as you are registered to vote) c 7 O U k U m m m Y a d Z •O c m m O z O m d O •U c 7 O U U U m m a m Z c c m d 0 z L m L a. O Y O 7 y N O 2� C a 000 OZ O C o�O= Z O L F• U O a N m _ O C Wr 0 m N ` m o a> V C O c y a) ,a y X.2 C a) co O— m m c m C m — o c o E m -_' CL N N C' Q j 3= >•- m Z.0 'D ) Co == a)(D m c m m E u v E 3 omoaa)*0 7u �m a) >. Q a) 0 C = N_L at C 7 O N N _.r 3 z E ¢ m c �m -0m o s p p d o _a c_ c c 3 Q Q mLL�O a w c o E d D a O V Z Co = p O L «a C a M _mZL. r= O O > U c' p c a) y o n@ o CO X 7 a a >. -0 — m N C m r — 0acioE m m CL N y 0) V > m 7 3 - ._ m m a Co Z -D a) m d o= O m o y d 3 n cE "D o m o a) mm 7 N U M'9 O TQ a) C C = dt 0 O 7 D O a) O L 3 U a) 7 a) — L 3 z E ¢ m E m z M N d v v ON 1 A m aa) Z Q ( z 97 2A ■ / z ■ L%l W ID \�/ \ \ — o u _r 0 -§)[( _ )3787 \ '00\0 \w ƒ [t$f&\ o Q 0co § mzf= «2 cc uz fat $ )_ _ § =\ g 3)tz o 0 (D 0 a) # 0 a) 0 (D 2 2) >f)& 2 22k) +] « )2)§ ®] ,o)rn \ 0 \E \ \ \ z 2a 0(D ƒ {#{;t ƒ {# /{)+ m / #ƒ+ \ (k m ) C z r) ( z 97 2A ■ / z ■ L%l W ID \�/ \ \ \�, _ �ƒ)[( _ '00\0 \w ƒ $ . \ 0C,0 0 Q a) cc « uz fat $ § \_ _ /\C o c co # 0 a) 0 (D ) }« 2 y)a� « )2)§ ®] «o }rID j m \ \ z m ƒ 0c -co0a) ƒ {# /{)+ k / )27}rI m )3(\) R )2#zr= ( z 97 2A ■ / z ■ L%l W � ■ z x w TI N k E ) ID \�/ \0 \�\ _ f �ƒ)[( _ )32 e { $ . \ 00$ v Qzz® @D « #22£22 ) )D- 3£#» =] 0 Ix c$ ■ SEER 2 >7a% 2 c0 o 2) $ Z -0 )R° j m \� \ z -a0(D ƒ 0 �; §±kf ƒ { <,{E� k / )27}rI ` / = 2: k )27} /± � ■ z x w TI N k E ) \ \ \�\ e 0 ��o0 5 \ 0 .w a Qy =a @/ « #)f 4=2 ( )D Un 0 \00(D 2 2)\{§e z .0 2 'D m ® Co / ƒ j )\E -a0(D ƒ {k; /ƒ+ {y6\ k / )27}rI � ■ z x w TI N k E ) Z. 6 d ( § \ § a \� \ \0 kj \ §) `$feg { aCU ) } )\ /0\ 3£2»x] =EEE'u ( {i�kT Z.0 {�] Hof /2 0CE a) -,222± C) o /{#40 )czEcE ) < 7 � � Q � � N (J- CD \® k7% ■ »2! j ° \ \�/ \0 0 . _, _ k -ƒ0 k )3787. ) -§)[( / 0CL u Q a) m « /zf= =2 2 i /)) ( ))0.0w 0 3 /7) -y ■ 0 Q) 2 0 a) z f{ \f§® m 2 Z'0 '0 ,o)p, c�� \ \�\ c u ° ® *§I §« ƒ {# = ` (D t(D ` a) /{(#\ }£7zr± ] )#7);J Z. 6 d ( § \ § a \� \ \0 kj \ §) `$feg { aCU ) } )\ /0\ 3£2»x] =EEE'u ( {i�kT Z.0 {�] Hof /2 0CE a) -,222± C) o /{#40 )czEcE ) < 7 � � Q � � N (J- E / z < CD \® k7% ■ »2! j ° t \�/ \0 ƒ§ - ( k \� /§ }� ) -§)[( A =e a \(f ; .c @/ '02.63 §2 ƒ 2 i /)) - C)cn =( 0 / \t =27 « ■ 0 0 a) z f > m ) 2 a) z2 0 3 ° o ( \ \ c u ° O0c'0 .6 2ƒ (< a)a: ` 2] ;f§) )_*)*± a)2 0, ] )#7);J E / z < v � � CD \�/ \0 . ) -§)[( , '0 0 o a) ƒ - C)cn a Q(DM « t5 Z 0 ( co ) - ` 7 3�y>�7 ( cu 3af2®' 2 2] ;f§) )_*)*± 2 N I22\Ea) / \ \\ z S a) k ° =W0akq z < ƒ {# ;o {\) R ) 27ir\zcc v � � Z, � § ( } E cc R \> @ »t( 0 co o -c Ea) 0300- \ ) Co \D §j //) (\77# =0 °/{ ) } / \o `� §Iff ( < a) a) Cl )27}rI \ \ \/, k '00o0 \o � 300 -o a) (3 §z=o > ®2y ( { ] '0 {����E�5 z�()\f0 2))2 «\�± $ /��� \sU Eo \ ° °co0af« i {#0_@_ ` - ° \ / \kk \}I E ) } \ j ■ k z ■ _c /� \ \CL -§)k( k0o0a> j ocl.0 § Q»o ))f =�0 f )) ƒkk: 0 C) Cl # £ CL 3 z CL N °� 2 z"a of�M \ 0c w� ) ° ) {�;§2 §f M { «, =@= 2 ■ / { ( 4 0 R 2272£ƒ $ %72 \ §2 \ \k -k0 ( -0300 / f !_&- U a f 3: m 0 WcLa) -0 f \ ] CL q § 0 3£2C�2 U 1 0. | o0oo |� z 2)\fm) Z-0 .0i � ` 0 M Z 7 \ /\ \\ am0G0 ! 3 : © M,o z ■ ƒ ( # &0 IF ){(4a R \2 #z;J or Noyes and Newport Beach City Council, to a rove Newport Dunes' plans for a destination resort an interested citizen, 1 believe Newport Dunes has worked )mmunity to develop a project that is good for the City of each. It will bring many benefits to the community, including Jed meeting space and tax dollars. The Newpv n. let will be a beautiful addition to the city. ime (dress or Noyes and Newport Beach City Council, to api2rove Newport Dunes' plans for a destination . to interested citizen, I believe Newport Dunes has worked mmunity to develop a project that is good for the City of each. It will bring many benefits to the community, including fed meeting space and tax dollars. The Newport Dunes el will be a beautiful addition to the city. ime . 1: i iW A lle,hv-ef (dress /&���li / /�'1 -i Ave. y2 GY2 -food ��Q /.�JvJi9l✓/ /�us�2 dear Mayor Noyes and Newport Beach City Council, I urge you to approve Newport Dunes' plans for a destination resoi hotel. As an interested citizen, I believe Newport Dunes has works with the community to develop a project that is good for the City of Newport Beach. It will bring many benefits to the community, inch, much - needed meeting space and tax dollars. The Newport Dune; Resort Hotel will be a beautiful addition to the city. Name W ce,%A Q Address WmAwaxcf 14 �j CA 2�Q 944 ,631 -6114 Dear Mayor Noyes and Newport Beach City Council, I urge you to approve Newport Dunes' plans for a destination rest hotel. As an interested citizen, I believe Newport Dunes has work with the community to develop a project that is good for the City o Newport Beach. It will bring many benefits to the community, inch much - needed meeting space and tax dollars. The Newport Dune! Resort Hotel will be a beautiful addition to the city. Name N61AQd k401(-1, J _LA , Address 3 3,k 4& n �J�-✓�L &&6--n .LS . or 9 a-(, f L yes � ILL i HEW -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- - - - - -- l U' i rf t•. Kt To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, DOS approve the proposed Dunes Hotel/ convention centerAINIONOuq ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do4osupport influential developers *00 .'UN 1 19:09 ! i ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or qualify a petition which would U support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal,the, Greenlight- initial ive, pleasne Rove my nameimnwilib�l C , 14. xeC-L_ Full Name (as }ou are registered to vote) Signature (required) address wu are (as rep *istered to vote) C in' '� SST ZIP _�/tJC� Gr"iG__Al - Z)- _TfJ -. /"7G!/• 'Ooai' •�!? ' !dig ------- ----------------------- ___ = _ - - - - - -- - -- To City Clerk LaVonne Harkless, Mayor Noyes and City Council: ♦ Please, D04M approve the proposed Dunes Hotel / convention center. rM aft*80" ♦ If the Traffic Phasing Initiative fails to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, do asupport influential developers ♦ If my name or signature is being used to endorse or �jUalif�la�etit!' ton wouldyDO N support the Traffic Phasing Initiative and repeal the Gree light initiative, please,{emove my named t.... : ; C -'EACH , C,vi Fu Name (as you are registers to vote) t Signat re (required) Address (as you are registered to vote) City ST ZIP i�/U Aa/r7o�t- G ,lip 70A.X To JUN -11_00 :?: UN 0:=:: Z. - F'r•1 i i June 10, 2000 Dear Mayor John Noyes and members of the City Council: F• , 0 1 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED: " 4i I13(c10 I would like you to enforce the 1988 settlement agreement and deny permission to build the proposed Dunes Hotel. This hotel has the potential to impact the quality of life of Newport Beach resident in multiple detrimental ways. In fact, I cannot envision a single site in our city which will impact so many citizens in so many ways. The major issues of concern are the noise, the increased size of the structure and the traffic generated by the hotel. There are multiple other areas of concern, but these have been addressed fully in the 15,000 words of prior letters to the Planning Commission, and will not be repeated here. By now, I'm sure you know the history of this hotel. As California public tideland, the County of Orange has the legal right to lease this property. In the 1980's, the Dunes sought the right to build a large hotel on this site, and the County of Orange granted that right. However, because the land was physically located in Newport Beach, the city sued to regain the ability to control what type of development was allowed in the city. In 1988, the last of a series of settlement agreements was signed, giving the Dunes the right to build a family inn with up to 275 rooms. The agreement also contains language stating that the provisions of the agreement would be binding on future boards and councils. It is ironic that Assistant City Attorney Bob Burnham made arguments similar to those now being made by hotel opponents back in the 1980s when the city was contesting the county's approval of such a large hotel. Fast forward to the late 1990s. The Dunes is again asking for a larger hotel, except now they are using the 275 room family inn as the starting point for negotiations, instead of negotiating from the starting point of no existing hotel. The 275 room family inn was negotiated to be a low impact structure to the surrounding communities. For example, the settlement agreement specified that there was to be no amplified music outdoors. Obviously, this provides a wonderful protection for neighbors who would be bothered by such music. As you know from prior noise problems in Newport, (Windows on the Bay, party boats, etc) noise simple does not attenuate well over water. Also, the topography of the area ensures that most home are at a level above the source of the noise, also aggravating the propagation and perception of noise. The noise engineer hired by the Dunes denies that this will be a significant factor, but common sense tells us otherwise. Even if the noise engineer's calculations are correct, the fact remains that the proposed hotel allows a quality of life changing amount of noise in the form of outdoor amplified music. Since the hotel is specifically building an event courtyard, the expectation for frequent outdoor events is high. There is no other site in Newport Beach where so many neighbors will be affected by a single source of noise. The original structure was negotiated to be 38 feet high, only 3 feet higher than the city's 35 foot waterfront height limit. The new hotel will be 65 feet at its tallest point (75 feet above sea level- higher than the Castaways cliffs). The hotel will be as tall as the Balboa Bay Club apartments and 30% longer. It will be nearly '/< mile long and over 1/8 of a mile wide, and this doesn't even r . _' include the timeshare buildings. In short, this is a massive structure, and it will dominate the view of the Back Bay from the Pacific Coast Highway stretch between Jamboree and Bayside Dr. The 35 -foot waterfront height limitation was put into place after the high rise apartments at the entrance to Lido Island were built, and it was put there for a clear reason. Allowing tall building around the waterfront changes the character and feel of our community and diminishes the public's ability to appreciate our harbor and waterways. I can affirm the need for a height limitation every time I row crew on Newport Bay. When I row past the Balboa Bay Club apartments, the entire ambience of my experience changes. We need to protect our views, not sacrifice them for the sake of increased revenue. Our quality of life is too important to allow such an exception to the height limitation to azqq1.re And, of course, traffic is an overriding concern of most citizens in Newport Beach today. The official acceptance of a traffic study which states that the addition of 195 rooms and a 31,000 sq. ft. convention center will generate less traffic than a 275 room family inn and restaurant is absurd. Yet the Dunes states, and the city believes, that this is the case. Traffic engineers for the city of Newport Beach indicate that trip generation rates have changed and that a freestanding restaurant must be counted as a prodigious traffic generator. However, it is hard for a layperson to understand why a restaurant built right next to a hotel is much different from a restaurant built inside of a hotel. The traffic study treats the thousands of feet of restaurant space within the hotel as if it doesn't exist, and calculates that the traffic generated by such restaurants is included in the overall traffic trip rate for the hotel. J UPI-11 -tj 11 :_11 t4 N: :: F'f1 F'. tj4 Similarly, the fact that the hotel now contains 31,000 -sq. ft. of convention space, which can legally accommodate 4428 conventioneers, does not warrant any independent trip generation numbers. Instead, the trip generation rate of 8.92 trips per room per day is maintained steadfastly to be an accurate predictor of traffic generation for the whole hotel complex. Given that the Dunes now claims that the hotel will only be generating 3600 new trips per day for the entire complex, a layperson such as myself cannot be blamed for finding the whole traffic study suspect. Councilman Gary Adams himself has described the process of creating a traffic study as being no more than an educated guess. The most ridiculous claim of the Dunes' traffic engineer is that the development of the hotel/timeshare /convention center will actually improve traffic at 36 major intersections in Newport Beach, including the intersection of Dover and PCH. This incredible claim evolves out the long -term traffic computer model used by the city. This model states that no new traffic will enter the city, but existing traffic will be redistributed instead. Using this flawed logic, the stage is set to claim that there is no significant traffic impact expected from the construction of the hotel. It is logic like this, and actions such as City Council approval of similar projects that have led to the Greenlight Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative. Many residents feel that the City Council is out of touch with the electorate, and that the Council is more receptive to the requests of developers than the needs of the residents. JUt4- 11 -00 5.i ir4 e r;y Mayor John Noyes has commented in the past that residents need to trust the City Council to make the best decisions for the city. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, trust needs to be earned. Please, earn the trust of the citizens of Newport Beach by honoring the 1988 settlement agreement and denying permission to build the proposed Dunes Hotel. Thank Susan Skinner Caustin, MD 2421 E. 16`h Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 - 722 -6699 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, C.A. 92663 June 7, 2000 Dear City Council, The promotion of the Newport Dunes Resort Hotel has been artfully and professionally done by those that will profit from it. It is appealing to all the local businesses, again for the financial gain involved. The City of Newport Beach also plans to profit handsomely from the revenue and business involved The location is central to the prime traffic area of our city. The losers are those of us who live here and try to drive the streets which are already crowded with cars and an excess of traffic signals. This will even further impact our children and grand children. The back bay and bay are polluted now. It is time to stop the lure of money for the "City" to entice us to allow a facility of this ilk and dimension here. It is time to preserve Newport Beach for the resident tax payer and voter. Sincerely and Hopefully, Maclyn B. Somers, M.D. 2 1Yn 1GB2u4 r nGeatt l a+v Y O mDef S . M.D rn f 1 n� ['S L` O t7it'' r! -,.-v me Iv o2 De p St4 t`-6-i00- vet 44AA4�� Fee) 4646-r /'? y wig R40JV .:r or o4 w 7't� ,Z 61�r►r�D r� �{ �t��! caG�i��`, .2N`t�vxo . %t1 ����LdPI"IvCov�Y �i�,D Ga�t4 -S��t G�ivt� �o►%� DMZ i�� r�� �j2n � �G•rs' ,� /�` ��%�f �fl � yJ�k`.� C:Qp y�A� B G�/✓lMrrl��r r-,�6 ,� lea UNVeP TAApOV $Y J�CVZ) P/ Cr14Af ;aA9AI AND G ;�OY 6i ��� �u.� ZWZ;J de IJO-� Y &VX . 'lq�e P,V ulpeA ereo?'s Gain Su -L�A� SST /tS ics r• k �N� N6 A✓,r,D Ri,¢ �oGK Tio /(� le 2/SV ri�4eiyX�V 7"-' "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" Date:June 6, 2000 To: The City Council From: Joyce Lawhorn, 300 E Coast Hwy. #265, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Impacts to Mayflower Street, the Dunes West Boundary I have been active in this project since inception. The Dunes has stated that it will only take 2 or 3 meetings for the City Council to approve its Hotel Project. In 10 planning meetings, not much was accomplished. What was down sized was returned. In words it sounds smaller, however, it still takes up the same amount of area, it still needs to remove 150 RV sites and it still covers 85 % of the Bay front. This project should fit in the same footprint as the Family Inn to be compatible with the surrounding residential areas. If not, the Family Inn should never have been used as a comparison. It has done nothing but confuse and expect this new project to be built in the same area or not at all. I am composing this on the eve of the Dunes appreciation celebration for their supporters and would be supporters. An example of what PR and money can do. One thing it can do is sway normal people into believing nice people do nice things and I find the developers to be very nice people. BUT... You can fool some of the people some of the time, maybe just long enough to get your project approved. In their new promotional brochures, the artist's drawings look beautiful and the information reads like a fairy tale. We the people who are truly impacted by this project for the rest of our residencies, who live on Mayflower Street, adjacent to the west boundary, feel overwhelmed by this whole process. As the process goes on, there are more and more questions, not fewer, as it should be after 10 planning meetings. The deeper one gets into this project , the more the public is being deceived or just plain uninformed. Some of the deception follows: 1. VISUAL AFFECTS Dunes and DEIR statements state that "Minimal impacts on views from all directions except from Newport Dunes' own beach along the Page 1 eastern shore of the lagoon." Is the Mayflower view of the 3 level parking structure, the back of the house, and the loading docks not considered a visual impact? Are the project directors and planners blind to our existence? 2. NOISE The Dunes visual computer presentation of noise presented at one of the planning meetings showed that the noise is directed to the east and to the north and south and there is no impact. Again problems for the Mayflower residents were not addressed. No noise from the open open third level parking structure which is valet parking and parks over 900 vehicles in its approximate 120,000 square feet. No noise from the entrance on the third level. No noise from the congregating of people for the 31,000 square feet of meeting rooms also on the third level. No noise from the back of the house which holds the dishwashers, the trash compactors, the waste disposals and will also be the service yard. No noise from the extra 100 employee parking spaces used 24 hours just behind the 9 foot wall, 30 feet from us. No noise from the service access road behind Mayflower. No noise from the loading dock and no mention of any of these impacts. There are many who are hard of hearing. In order to live on Mayflower Street, that will be a necessary when this hotel is built. 3. TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION The whole city finds that it is incomprehensible and the explanations are illogical as to how a 470 room hotel can have less traffic and impact than a 275 room motel. Let the traffic engineers prove that one. Queuing of vehicles on the ramp to the third level entrance and on Bayside Drive at the guard gate will add to the traffic and air quality problems. Is it possible that the daily trips for the 275 room motel were overestimated? That because the trucks and employees will come in another entrance so they don't need to be counted? That no vehicle driving to Back Bay Drive will drive through Bayside and Coast Hwy on their way to or from Jamboree? Engineers, explain to the whole of Newport , especially the Greenlight supporters how the traffic will decrease. And lastly, how many of you have a major thoroughfare running THROUGH the middle of your development? Page 2 4. SIZE, HEIGHT, MASS Now, let's get down to the facts of downsizing. The meeting space was cut from 55,000 to about 36,000 square feet. (approx.19,000 square feet cut) The Hotel went from 400 rooms to 370.(approx. 14,000 square feet cut) The 4th floor and 18 rooms were eliminated, however the 18 rooms were replaced in the north wing. 25 time shares were cut. (approx. 43,000 square feet) Now there are 75, 1,500 square foot time shares. The total now of 470 rooms, 77 rooms larger than the Ritz Carlton and the square footage of all the Dunes rooms are larger than the 400 square feet of the Ritz Carltons'. That's a big development. It's hard for me to visualize a hotel larger than the Ritz Carlton on that 30 acres, especially right behind the residences of Bayside Village. The square footage for the 3 level parking structure is not even mentioned. It does exist. It does take up space. It has the most impact on Bayside Village with a ramp to the third level, which could cause queuing up and spilling of pollutions to the North side effecting Bayside Village and especially Mayflower Street with the open third level valet parking 24 hours a day. It is 350 feet in length (The length of the bike trail where the 150 RV are being removed.) and approximately 120,000 square feet but it has not been mentioned and seems to be irrelevant. According to the Dunes and the Planning Department this hotel now stands at 581,000 square feet, down from 700,000 square feet and only 9.6% larger than the entitled Family Inn. The Family Inn was only 35 feet high. The Dunes Project, according to their literature is a maximum of 62 feet high. If this is so, why is it necessary to remove 150 RV sites? That hotel should fit in the same footprint as the Family Inn. If it does not, the public is being deceived. The RV sites serve as a buffer zone for Mayflower residents. If they are removed and replaced with what is planned WE ARE IN JEOPARDY! 5. SET BACKS The Dunes has stated, in their new materials, that the hotel has a 100 -foot setback from Bayside Village. Why do the site plans show 85 feet from Mayflower Street? Are we not part of Bayside Village? I would like to have the map of the Dunes Project show the Mayflower mobile homes drawn to scale so that each of the residents, who are greatly impacted by this hotel, can visualize exactly where their home is Page 3 located in relationship to this development. ONE ALTERNATIVE If the 114,000 square feet of remaining timeshares were eliminated, the hotel would fit in the same footprint as the Family Inn. According to the developers, this is a destination hotel resort. Why does it need time shares? The Dunes developers need to compromise. They are in the hotel business, as they have stated over and over. They are asking for a very large hotel with the most meeting space in Newport. Isn't that enough? The time shares have nothing to do with providing rooms for events and fund raisers. They have nothing to do with the city's need for more meeting space. In fact, the time shares are just there to sell and make money from the sales, not to create money for the city. The time shares rob the day users of the water views one of the reasons people visit. The RVs could remain and provide a buffer zone for half of Bayside Village. Do you think the quality of our lives will be changed? You bet. We will be negatively effected by noise, lighting, loss of views, circulation of traffic and more. How about our privacy? We will be invaded? Will we be able to maintain our health with the extra pollutants from vehicles and mechanical equipment? Do we have to die to find out? There is a lot more to say about the affect of this development on the Mayflower residents. I apologize for this letter's length . I am confident that the City Council will not arbitrarily approve this hotel without some realistic solution for the residents who live on Mayflower Street. Once it is built, if this project turns out to be a massive mistake, who will be responsible for the relocation of the residents on Mayflower Street. I'm assuming it will be the City of Newport. Z �Z, L Page 4 \Gtic1 I (� '� bj 1 n 1�`, U V n fl, t 0 0;7 -70 ....... ...... Aell Ile 32, 1 let �-- P"Tc-4e /. /ie �i�lG 1,141 1/0 V, 714 675 -2996 I SWJ�oRar Bii Y� Real Estate Investmouts Mike Weeks Hwy. 133 MANAGER Ne CA -4S60 9. °'�(�� �W�W ✓••'/ Tom. �.GL'LL ?Li.� r� e�2 IL ��" / 7 3, 40. LAI --- ------- US_ Li, � -cacti• AYAl , e:� -- i 3 - -©.ed . _. i Z) J REVERSE MORTGAGE NETWORK BOB BRENNAN, SENIOR CONSULTANT PHONE (%UJ) 723 -0233 P.O. Box 2762 Newport Beach,Ca. 92659 /A9 J� ou A 411 I %fix 5 13��K'f ��� 14- z' Z' A/C�� -tom= off, /- i�.coti Llad ,qL Y -LAW� -3q Z; _::; il "5- 1 ILI /, -?/,/(7 f` !ie.d_ J /, ")-ri La Joe--- a m 40 u) i cf-� Ai 0 n,5-1 914-1 �Sh ; 1� -? I /, ri . . . . . . . . . . . ei WA Fad ('A -l/ jk . � � �. � ♦ i�i f /ice/ J / I FAY cr