Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/2000 (2)Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 20, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Sefich, Gifford and Kranzley - All Commissioners were present Sharon Wood - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Robin Clauson - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston- Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford - Senior Planner Ginger Varin - Planning Commission Secretary • Minutes of January 6,2000: Motion was made-by Commission Gifford and voted on, to approve the study session and regular minutes as amended of January 6, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, January 14, 2000. • Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Old Newport Development Old Newport Boulevard, LLC (applicants) • Planning Director's Use Permit No. 47 • Lot Line Adjustment 99 -16 A use permit to allow approximately 900 square feet of additional floor area for a proposed office building. The application also includes a lot line adjustment to merge three existing lots into a single lot and a request of an on- street parking credit. Planning Director Patricia Temple noted that this item had been considered at the November 1999 Planning Commission meeting, at which time the application included a variance to exceed the basic height limit and a modification to allow tandem parking. During the deliberation, the Planning Commission had requested that the applicant review his proposal and look to modify the project. The project has been re- designed and now does not require either the variance or the modification and only needs the use permit, (which could have been acted upon by the Planning Director) and a lot line adjustment. However, since the Planning Commission had discussed this item, staff felt that this application should be brought back for your final review and determination. • Commissioner Fuller asked about the off - street parking credit and was told that the applicant is entitled to that credit. Public comment was opened. Richard Haskell, applicant noted that resulting from the last meeting, the building was re- designed and now conforms to all requirements for that area. Stacey Weiss, 3233 Broad Street asked where the extra 900 square feet is coming from? She asked if it is in keeping with the Specific Area Plan noting that the residents and business owners on Newport Boulevard worked diligently as a team to come to this agreement. Continuing, she noted her concern of the parking configuration on the street. Ms. Temple explained that the Specific Area Plan for Old Newport Boulevard encourages the consolidation of lots through a provision for a flow area bonus. In this particular case, the project involves a combination of three lots into one allowing for the project to make use of a unified site design. Through the approval of the use permit, by either the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, floor area up to a .75 level is allowed. That particular aspect of the proposal is consistent with the Specific Plan. In terms of the on- street and off - street parking, the project through a combination of both meets its full parking as required by the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan envisions angle parking in the center of the street and also provides for parallel parking on the • curb line. This project is consistent with those design concepts of the Specific 2 INDEX Item No. 1 PDUP No. 47 LLA 99 -16 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 Plan. David A. Hughes, 427 B Westminster Avenue, president of the Newport Breeze Homeowners Association noted similar concerns as stated by the previous speaker. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to approve Planning Director's Use Permit No. 47 and Lot Line Adjustment 99 -16 including the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit A. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Findings and Conditions for Approval for (Planning Director's) Use Permit 47 and Lot Line Adjustment 99 -16 0 FINDINGS: For Use Permit 47 1. The proposed project would combine three existing legal lots into a single lot and will be limited to non - residential land uses. 2. The floor area ratio of the proposed project is 0.53, which is below the 0.75 maximum allowed under the provisions of Section 20.46.050 of the Municipal Code. 3. The additional 900 square feet of floor area allowed under the provisions of Section 20.46.050 of the Municipal Code would generate an additional 45 average daily trips, which would not significantly impact adjacent streets or intersections. 4. The proposed increase in floor area is in accord with the objectives of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan through the consolidation of existing legal lots to provide unified site design. 5. The proposed office development is consistent with the Retail and Service Commercial Land Use Element Designation and the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan District and therefore will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and • will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 to the general welfare of the city. 6. The proposed office development will comply with the provisions of this the Zoning Code, including all the special regulations of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan District. For Lot Line Adjustment 99 -16 1. The project site described in the lot line adjustment consists of three legal building sites established by Tract Map No. 27. 2. Any land taken from one parcel will be added to an adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment since the elimination of the interior lot lines will take the land from three parcels and combine them into one parcel. 3. The parcel to be created by the lot line adjustment meets the minimum lot area and lot width criteria established by the Zoning Code and the proposed floor area and land use development are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. • 1. The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and /or facilities since the area is fully improved in terms of streets, storm drains, water and sewer facilities. CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. A parking credit for the four (4) on- street parking spaces is approved under the provisions Section 20.46.040 (Property Development Regulation L). 3. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding public streets and alleys and adjoining properties. 4. The landscape plan shall include a minimum of one (1) tree for each fifty (50) feet of street frontage shall be provided. Each tree shall be a minimum of 15- gallon in size and planted within five (5) feet of the front property line. The tree species shall be the some as the designated street tree (podocarpus grocilor). 5. The landscape plan shall include a trailing or twining groundcover, be planted on top of of the retaining wall to assist in breaking up its the mass. 6. The proposed landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the • approved site plan. The landscaping on -site shall be regularly maintained INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 free of weeds and debris. All trees and vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 7. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or, obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 8. Intersections of private drives and Old Newport Boulevard shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 mph. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four (24) inches in height. Curb, gutter and full width sidewalk and street paving shall be constructed along the Old Newport Boulevard frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 10. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 11. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department for the on -site improvements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 12. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the site distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 13. 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. 14. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 15. The project signs shall be relocated to comply with City Standard I I0-L. 16. The site plan shall dimension the width and depth of spaces, unless a typical detail is shown on the plan. • 17. All parking spaces adjacent to the public right -of -way shall be located at 0110 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 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. ••• SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Boyside 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 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 • u 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 it 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 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 it 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 it 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 it 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. I:t7 *:1 . 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 it was not a permitted development. There is language in the agreement that states that the parties jdeveloper, 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 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 location to be Ms. Clauson answered that when the Settlement Agreement was reached. the City agreed to and authorized 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 o 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 following: • Resort located on a 100 acre parcel tidelands, which is subject to a long- term ground lease from the County of Orange. • Lease had been extended for another 50 years in 1989. 1989 re- development 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. • 2nd 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 All include a 400 -room 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 foot conference center, which has 41,000 square feet of actual, meeting facilities. • Architectural style is meditenanean and the architects (Wimberly, Allison, Tong and Goo) are locally based and have done both the Ritz Carlton and the Four Seasons, as well as international projects. (A computer - 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 on 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 MLI *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, 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 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 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 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 Bolen, 265 Mayflower - opposes • downgrade real estate value, • • not enough area for cars to enter at the some time, 13 II`.117�:1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 • 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 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 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 Alta 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 McCallo, 2107 Windward Lane supports this project for similarly stated reasons. 15 M21 ;F-4 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 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 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 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 it 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 `ll.II] • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 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 3m 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 40 addresses were then distributed to the audience). 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2000 INDEX 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 YYY ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that on January 1 lt^, 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. 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 Commissioner would 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. YYY ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. Adjournment RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 19