Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2000CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. • • ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker - All present STAFF 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 Jim Campbell - Senior Planner Genia Garcia - Associate Planner Ginger Varin - Planning Commission Secretary Minutes of February 3, 2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of February 3. 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Fuller None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, February 11, 2000. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 n U • SUBJECT: Dolln Residence Retaining Wall • ModiBcation permit No. 4968 • Acceptance of o Negative Declaration Continued from December 9, 1999, January 6, and February 3, 2000) Request to permit the construction of a 15 foot high rear yard retaining wall with a 3 foot guardrail on top, which exceeds the permitted 6 foot height limit in the side and rear yard setback areas. The proposed retaining wall is intended to stabilize an unsafe slope and reclaim a portion of rear yard lost due to erosion. The retaining wall will reclaim approximately 29 feet of rear yard surface area, which previously was slope. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Selich asked the applicant's representative if he understood the options available tonight. The Planning Commission can not continue this project; action must be taken. If the action is a denial, it can be appealed to the City Council. If the appeal is upheld by City Council, then the application will not be able to be re -filed for a period of one year. If you requested a denial without prejudice this evening, then you can continue to go back and work with the homeowner's association and try to resolve any outstanding problems. The decision is yours as to whether you want to proceed with the hearing tonight. Ray Desell, of Peter Brandow and Associates stated that he has met with the homeowners association and has been given good direction. We can go back and work with the architectural committee to reach some type of consensus on a finished plan. Our direction is to continue this project. Chairperson Selich stated that the Planning Commission could not continue this application. The correct procedure is to deny without prejudice so that you can continue to work on this application with the homeowner's association. Planning Director Patricia Temple stated that the Permit Streamlining Act provides for a further extension of up to ninety (90) days so long as we receive a written request from the applicant. If we can get a note to that effect, we can go ahead and continue this item for another three weeks, which would be the meeting of March 9m. Assistant Planner, Eugenia Garcia stated that the architectural committee and the applicant have come to an agreement. What staff is lacking is a revised plan to show the Planning Commission. Additional conditions on the project may result from those revised plans. The architect should be able to come up with a revised plan and submit that to the architectural committee and come back to the Planning Commission with something that is acceptable to the applicant and committee. INDEX Item No. 1 Modification Permit No. 4968 Acceptance of a Negative Declaration Continued to 03/23/2000 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 • 40 Ms. Temple noted that she would have the applicant authorize the ninety (90) day extension pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, but actually have the hearing continued to the date of March 23rd. Mr. Val Skoro, President of the Irvine Terrace Homeowner's Association stated that the association was not notified of this application until November 1999 through a posted notice on the project address. In a letter dated February 14, 2000, the architectural committee made some suggested recommendations for guidelines and has not heard from the applicant that these are acceptable. Public comment was closed. At Commission inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson explained that generally there is 180 days from the time that we receive a completed application to complete and adopt the environmental document, in this case, the Negative Declaration. Under the Permit Streamlining Act, you have from sixty (60) days from the day of adoption of the Negative Declaration to act. You have not adopted the Negative Declaration, so there are two deadlines. The 180 days brings us to this meeting, so as long as the applicant agrees to extend that period. The hearing may be continued. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to the meeting of March 23, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director's Interpretation of Section 20.62.050 of the Municipal Code (Dan Jensen, appellant) Review of the interpretation of the Director on the provisions of the Zoning Code related to non - conforming uses. Commissioner Kranzley recused himself from deliberation on this matter due to a client relationship with the architect on the project. Commissioner Fuller asked staff if an approval in concept is a written approval or a verbal authorization? Ms. Temple answered that the approval in concept is a formal application and review of plans which is issued prior to an applicant taking his project to the Coastal Commission, and this would be in writing. INDEX Item No. 2 Appeal of Director's Interpretation Director's Interpretation Upheld City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Public comment was opened. Dan Jensen, 1811 West Bay, distributed a written copy of his speech noting that he had reviewed the Director's report to the Planning Commission and finds the following: • Determination being concurred with the Assistant City Attorney - she had stated to me that she was not certain that this Code applies to residential applications due to the change in operational characteristics language. My interpretation of Section 20.62.050 of the Zone Code is: A use (the purpose for which it is or may be occupied or maintained), this is an existing triplex. It is normally permitted by right (to use something to which one has a just claim); building permits previously issued provided a just claim of three units. Or, by the approval of a use permit but which is nonconforming by virtue (by authority of) of the required conditions of the district in which it is located, (Chapter 20.10 defines R -2 District as Provide areas for single family and two family residential land uses) may be expanded, increased or intensified by way of a change in operational characteristics (Any change in the conditions under which the use was initially permitted). This would be an increase in on -site parking from three in the existing to five in the proposed project, upon the approval of a use permit, which was applied for. Through out this time, I have • been told three units were permitted by right. This interpretation certainly would allow expansion of the property. Section 20.00.030, which deals with Effect and Intent, goes on to state the following when interpreting and applying the provisions of this code. It is not intended by adoption of this code to repeal or in any way to impair or interfere with any existing provision of law of the City of Newport Beach, or any rules, regulations or permits previously adopted or issued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to law relating to the erection, construction, establishment, moving alteration or enlargement of any legal building or improvement. Included is a copy of the Residential Zoning Corrections completed on 11 /22/1999 by Mr. Jay Garcia, Senior Planner. Mr. Garcia would have been the third planner to review this project. He indicated three units were allowed on the site. I bring this up because it is relative to the fact that three different planners reviewed the project and all agreed that this project could be expanded because, it was permitted by right. The zoning corrections spelled out one option for not requiring a Use Permit that was to the number of habitable rooms and apply for a Modification permit. I was told I needed a Use Permit because the project included an increase in habitable rooms beyond the existing number. I would also like to address the claim that I knew all along that a Use Permit was required for approval of this project. The letter dated 05/06/1999 was written the day after I met with Mrs. Garcia. During that meeting, we discussed all types of P INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 permits, which may be needed for approval. The letter was written well before Ms. Garcia had done any research on the property and it was not known at that time what would be required. The indication in that letter stating a "Conditional Use Permit" would be necessary was speculation on my part. Ms. Garcia could not have known if one would be required vithout doing research. The bottom line is if I had known a Use Permit was required, why would I have wasted time in applying? Continuing, he noted that this has been a terrible ordeal when this project would be a win for the City with higher tax basis. I have shown an architectural model that was made as a visual aide for the Use Permit hearing to many of my neighbors. The ones who have seen it are excited to see the change. I believe the planners that I dealt with do know the code. A code that should allow projects that 'promote and enhance the well being of residents, visitors, property owners and businesses of the city' be developed. After all, that is the function of the Planning Department. In the Planning Directors report to the Commission, she spells out how staff conveyed incorrect information to me. This information has cost me a lot of time and money. I do question whether or not the information given to me early on, is correct. If the Planning Commission agrees with my interpretation then, it • would seem Ms. Garcia has done her job correctly. I truly believe she, as well as others within the Planning Department, have felt all along expansion of this property is allowed. Parking has not been a problem for our area. This property is the only triplex on the block. I can not see how allowing this property to be expanded would require amending the provisions of the Municipal Code. After all, not everyone on this block is permitted to have three units by right. It is now up to the Planning Commission to decide what will be allowed. Commissioner Gifford referencing the Residential Zoning Corrections, page 3 under remarks, the second item is information submitted with the approval in concept was erroneous in that only three dwelling units are authorized, this may require an amendment to the Coastal Permit. Could you please elaborate? Mr. Jensen answered that the information he submitted to the Coastal Commission was that there were four dwelling units. It was indicated to him that a Mr. Ray Kimball had built the property with one bootlegged unit. I went through a process to see if there was a problem with that fourth unit when I bought the property. I did not come up with anything, and it was not until I met with Ms. Garcia in May that she had done an extensive research and was able to show a lot of information. There were building permits for three units, but to be honest, there are four dwelling units. Whether or not one of them is an illegal unit or not, I don't know. That is the way it was when I bought it. I don't currently rent more than three units on the property. When I submitted the application to • INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 the Coastal Commission I put down four units. Whether or not that requires an amendment, I do not know. I don't think the Coastal Commission had much of a problem with the fact that we are looking at decreasing the number of units and increasing on -site parking. This was an administrative hearing, not a public hearing. It was indicated that the Planning Director would make the decision if an amendment was required. Ms. Temple noted that should the Planning Commission concur with the applicant's appeal, and determine that this use is a type of use that maybe expanded in the Non - conforming Chapter, Mr. Jensen would probably move forward with the plan that had been considered by the Coastal Commission. Therefore, no additional Coastal Permits would be required. Should that decision not occur and the applicant determines that he would reduce the number of units to two in order to expand the square footage of the property in compliance with the Code, then I would look at the envelop to see if it was within the perimeters of what was approved. For instance, if height, floor area, and number of parking spaces complied with City and Coastal Commission requirements, I believe that we would determine that it was within the scope of the approval and not require another permit. However, should substantial alterations to the design occur, or additional floor area be added, it is possible that it would need a new Coastal Permit. • At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple stated that the desired addition of the project is approximately a 400 square feet bedroom on the third floor in association with the removal of the unauthorized dwelling unit and the addition of parking. Ms. Garcia added that currently there are four kitchens in the dwelling now per her inspection of the property. Commissioner Fuller noted that he use to build duplexes in that area some time ago. The City required us to record a CC and R with the property agreeing that we could not convert to an extra unit. I wonder if this was done for this property. Ms. Garcia answered that in the late 50's early 60's the Modification Committee at that time approved a modification to enclose some exterior stairways. At that time, the exterior stairways adjacent to them in the garage was a storage area. After the stairways were enclosed, that large storage area which was in front of the two existing parking spaces in the garage was converted to a fourth unit and has been a fourth unit for a number of years. Ms. Temple noted that she was not aware that such a covenant was required, but she could research the matter. Chairperson Selich noted that in the staff report there is no record of a Report of Residential Building records being filed on this property, when you completed your escrow. Could you please comment on why this was not done? • INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Mr. Jensen said he did most of the research himself when the property was in escrow. I was not aware of this particular form; however, the sellers agent had ordered a city inspection on the properly. I do not recall getting a copy of this report. It does not seem that there is any in the city files. Commissioner Ashley asked the applicant if he was aware that this property was in the R -2 zone when he purchased the property and that he had four dwelling units on the lot? Did you consider that somewhat strange in as much as an R -2 zone only permits two dwelling units? You were advised by the realtor who sold you the property that the property was zoned R -2 and he indicated that those apartments were a non - conforming use. Did anyone explain to you that when you have a non - conforming use that it is illegal to expand those uses? Mr. Jensen answered that he was aware of the zoning, but that he had come to the City and looked at the building permits, which show zoned R -4 in 1951. He agreed that the realtor had advised him that the property was zoned R -2 and that meant that the apartments were a non - conforming use. It was never explained to me that it was not permitted to expand the use. I went in to talk to a City Planner after I closed escrow and at that point in time, there was not going to be a problem with expanding it but there was a problem with parking. Public comment was closed. • Commissioner Tucker, noting the second paragraph of the staff report, that when the property was re -zoned in 1988, the Municipal Code did not allow the expansion or intensification of non - conforming uses. However, a special exception to this limitation for zoning amendments adopted subsequent. to October 24, 1988 was included in the Code, and would have allowed this triplex to be expanded with the approval of a Use Permit. In 1997, that exception that would have allowed the expansion was deleted from the Code. Now, we have Section 20.62.050 A, that seems to allow for the expansion of a nonconforming use. I am having a problem following this. Ms. Temple answered that it allows for the expansion of use, which is permitted or permitted with a Use Permit. In the staff report is an example of an RSC zone that would allow residential with an overlay that allows residential uses only on the second floor. There could be a ground floor residential unit in the district, so it is a use which is permitted but which is made non - conforming because the requirements of the district have changed. When this issue was brought to my attention, I was trying to find a reasonable way to make this application able to be considered. I brought this issue to Assistant City Attorney Clauson whether this meant use as a residential use versus a non - residential use versus the various residential use classifications, which are distinctly defined in the Code. When you go to the residential use classrfications, they are clearly distinct, single family residential means one dwelling unit per lot; two family residential means no more than two dwelling units per lot and multi - family residential means more than two dwelling units per lot. The Code clearly sets forth that there was a distinction of • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 use between those three land use categories. Therefore the zoning districts apply to land consistent with them. Chairperson Selich stated that the whole issue of non - conforming uses was probably one of the most in depth discussions the Planning Commission had during the time that the Code was revisited. There was a three - person sub- committee that went through and did a whole comprehensive re -write of the Zoning Code. We had very long and involved discussion on what we were going to do with non - conforming uses. One of things that was a conscience decision on the committee's part was to put language in there that would not permit in situations such as this, to allow the non - conforming use to be expanded. The rational was that if we did not draw the line somewhere, then we would never get these non - conforming uses turned over to conforming uses over time. I know that the full Planning Commission discussed this issue at length. I can tell you that in my opinion staff's interpretation of the Code and the City Attorney's interpretation of the Code is that which the committee came up with and recommended to the Planning Commission as a whole. I believe that it is what the Planning Commission as a body discussed and voted on and approved. Commissioner Gifford stated that during this process, the Planning Commission agreed to stand firm on non - conforming uses and not apply the same standard • to non - conforming buildings. Commissioner Ashley noted that the applicant appears not to have been fully aware of what the Ordinances allow him to accomplish. In his reading of the various statutes, he came to a different conclusion than what we intended in 1997 when we adopted this language. It is unfortunate but I feel that if we were to approve his request, it would impair our ability to prevent the intensification of nonconforming uses in this location and also prevent these uses to eventually be acquired and developed consistent with the zoning. We would have no ability to prevent someone else who was a neighbor of doing the same thing and thus we would be creating precedence absolutely contrary to the spirit of the ordinance created in 1997. Commissioner Kiser asked about precedencial nature. Assistant City Attomey Clauson answered that as for as the precedencial nature, it would be in the effect that the Commission would be making an interpretation of this Section. The interpretation of this Section would be that this allows for an expansion of a non - conforming residential use. Staff would be inclined to apply the interpretation consistently until it was changed. Another point is the public policy reasons why estoppel is so hard to get against a public agency if there is a mistake made in the interpretation of the code or information given out. The legal concept is that the court balances the interest of the applicant versus the interest of the community at large and the application of the regulations to achieve the goals and the reason why the zoning was created in the first place. • .f[`l J0 1 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 • The interpretation that would allow for something that is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance would be contrary to that public policy as well. Commissioner Gifford noted that she had spoken to the applicant about this matter. An interpretation of the Zoning Code and the function of the Planning Commission in terms of land use planning and Mr. Jensen's issue believing that he has been misled. There is a different forum for pursuing that matter. Our role and charge here is strictly limited to interpreting the Code. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to uphold the Director's interpretation of Section 20.62.050 of the Municipal Code. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Kranzley SUBJECT: Lido Newsstand Jim Duda and Roger Stangeland, applicants) 3443 Via Lido Interpretation of the definition of gross floor area related to a pending building permit. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there was an inventory of the uses with the parking requirement. Ms. Temple answered yes, and that staff is currently working to verity and make sure that the City and property owner are in concurrence with the available parking supply. However, based on staffs analysis which indicates a somewhat greater draw on the existing parking supply despite that, there still is unassigned or available parking spaces pursuant to the Code, should the Planning Commission determine this to be gross floor area. This parking is available factoring in parking waivers that have been granted and legal non - conforming parking situations which exist on the property as well as certain transactions which occurred between some off -site locations in terms of their rights to use the parking pool. Commissioner Ashley stated that the applicant is most concerned about calling this gross floor area in terms of the area he wishes to improve, which would require one more parking space. He does not want to have to provide for that, why couldn't this have been taken up by the Modifications Committee since the applicant is not going to ask to increase parking by one more space. Ms. Temple answered that the property owner does not believe that this is a space that should require parking. One of the reasons he is interested in not INDEX Item No. 3 Planning Director's Interpretation Upheld City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 having a further allocation of the parking pool to this space is because of a pending application that may involve further waiver of the parking. The applicant understands that this is a sensitive issue for the Planning Commission and would like that new project to either not have a waiver or to have as small a waiver as possible. Commissioner Fuller asked staff about the traffic fair share fee to be paid if this is considered floor area. Ms. Temple answered that if this was determined gross floor area it would be subject to the traffic fair share fee. However, the applicant does have the opportunity to request of the City manager, a waiver or reduction of that fee. Some of the points made to staff could support a finding for the waiver of the fee. If not waived, the fee would be $700. Jim Duda, 3471 Via Lido representing Via Lido Plaza stated that this is a minor alteration to the existing newsstand. Via Lido Drugs brought us a plan to enhance the newsstand to provide protection for their merchandise on inclement days. The proposed improvement calls for a new awning with an accordion style, clear plastic curtains that may be drawn during windy or inclement conditions. There may be a misconception as to how the plastic curtains will be used. They are not there for security purposes and are not • intended or able to be locked up to enclose the space. The curtains will be tucked away at night and on those days when not in use. Staff admits that there is a gray area in the definitions as they apply here. Staff believes that because this new canopy and curtain may create an enclosure, the newsstand floor area should now be counted and that one additional parking space should be required. At the same time, staff agrees that there will be no impact on parking. From our standpoint, this merchant is only trying to protect his merchandise during inclement weather and we value this merchant's business and support this canopy solution. If the Commission determines that this is considered additional floor area and requires an additional parking space then to us it is simply not worth doing. I regret we have not been able to resolve this matter with staff, but would appreciate your consideration on behalf of Via Lido Drugs. Bruce Byers, 3445 Via Lido, General Manager of Via Lido Drugs stated he had applied for a building permit in November and did not realize it would be such a long process. His intent is to provide better service to the customers and protection of the merchandise. As a result of rain, we are not able to open our newsstand. We wish to improve the newsstand. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Duda stated that this application has been in process since November and has been to both Planning and Building Departments. I was told that it was approved on one date and then found out that it was not approved and the reason given was there was no problem with the awning but there was a request for an additional parking space. We had not understood •10 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 that we would be charged a space. Three months later, here we are. We do have other future uses for the surplus parking but the issue here is whether this would be an intensification that would require an additional space. Commissioner Fuller stated that what is there now is an awning for a roof, then panels. You wish to construct a roof or structural member? How about the sidewalls? The pocket door requested, are you suggesting that could be open so that customers could come in and out? Mr. Byers clarified that there are wooden panels that come off during the day and stored away and placed back on at night. They are not allowed to come off during inclement weather, therefore we are not able to make sales and service the customers. The way it is currently constructed, it is not adequate to protect the merchandise that is there. We want to replace the existing canopy with a permanent roof covered with hot mop. The sides are open, it would basically have an accordion style door that comes over during inclement weather to secure the area and allow customers to shop within it. When not in use and at night, it folds back because it would not provide security needed for closing down the store. The merchandise is protected in that manner. The pocket door would be pulled during inclement weather, the customer would enter through an existing side door that is ten feet adjacent, and they would be able to go into the area and shop. It would be closed in the front and opened • on the sides during inclement weather. Commissioner Kiser asked about the existing extent of the newsstand, where the awnings come to on the sidewalk and where the proposed new roof and ceiling extension. Looking at the newsstand, it looks like the awning comes out two and one half feet. I went by today, and there are things displayed considerably out from the newsstand, closer to the street. Does the proposal include having this new structure come out all the way to where things are displayed now? Or, will the roof only come out as far as the existing awning? Mr. Byers, referencing the exhibit, answered that there is a structural member that goes across diagonally. Taking off the extended part of that where the solid blocks are, that is very close to where the existing awning is, if is almost an ell shape design. We are proposing to come out and round that area which will provide for the curtain. This area is basically the same area that the customers use when they shop. The wall will extend up. Discussion continued on the drawings and applications orientation. Commissioner Fuller asked about the walls that were going to be built. Mr. Byers answered that the wall with the pocket door is an existing stucco wall to be wood framed and will extend approximately ten feet to connect with the existing roof. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Commissioner Tucker asked if there would be any additional space for merchandise? He was answered that based on the pocket that needs to be built to hold the curtains will take up to 36 inches of space and will use merchandise space. Commission clarified with the applicant: • Outdoor area will only become indoors during inclement weather. The enclosed outdoor area will not be used for security at night. • The height of the roof to be added will be twelve feet and will run fourteen feet to stand a door and stairwell behind, which goes to a storage, receiving area. The roof that has the hot mop finish will be at a fourteen -foot level at the top. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked staff what makes this floor area? Is it the roof structure with the fill in of the glass block or is it the sum total of the roof structure, the fill in the glass block and the sliding partition? Would they be able to do the roof and the glass block and not the sliding curtain and not be considered floor area? If they had the roof and not the glass block, would it still be considered floor area? If this was a single - family residence without the glass block and it was open • without the partitions and had a roof over it (essentially a porch) would we count that as floor area? Ms. Temple answered that it is the sum of the total when viewed in light of the Uniform Building Code's definition of gross floor area when walls may not be present. However, the other confusion is that the note on the plan indicates that the doors are a glass. framed folding system with lock, indicating a much more substantial enclosure. The wording implies a much more solid and secure enclosure. Under the Uniform Building Code since they are building a roof, it would be the area underneath the roof that is considered gross floor area. We use the Uniform Building Code definition to help clarify the Zoning Code definition of what constituted the area within the surrounding walls of the building. Since the Uniform Building Code considers the surrounding wall of the building when walls are not present as being the area underneath roofs, the combination of the two worked to cause us to make this interpretation. A porch would not be counted as floor area because the code contains an exclusion of floor area in residential districts for areas that are open on at least two sides or open to one side and the sky. That exception does not exist for commercial. Chairperson Selich reminded the Commission that they are not approving a project. You are making an interpretation of the Zoning Code that not only affects this property but also would affect future interpretations in something of this nature. My recollection is that we ran into some real problems on a similar situation as this with outdoor dining. Now the outdoor dining spaces have become enclosed with canopies and glass walls, etc. Before we knew it we were approving additional floor area in these restaurants under the guise of • 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 outdoor dining. We are not approving a project here; there are no discretionary permits so an interpretation of this would be followed by staff. That could result in gross misuses similar to what happened in the outdoor dining. I believe that if we do approve this, with no discretionary permits involved, there is nothing that would prevent the applicant from removing the newsstand and turning it into selling something else. In my opinion, it is pretty dangerous precedent to set. Commissioner Fuller noted his agreement. He had looked at the definition of the gross floor area as defined by the area of the building including the surrounding exterior walls, etc. Any finished portion of a building, which measures more than four feet from finished floor to ceiling and is, accessible shall be included in calculations of gross floor area. This seems to meet this test in my mind. The Building Code definition states the floor area is the area included within the surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion thereof, etc ... not provided within surrounding exterior wall shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. To me, as I interpret these plans, the applicant proposes to extend a structural roof out and then build an exterior wall that is ten feet to connect with the roof. As much as I would like to see this be constructed, it is clear to me that we would be setting bad precedent here. I think it is gross floor area. Commissioner Ashley stated that the Commission can approve this as being • specifically related to this application and we could condition this accordingly. This is a very unusual outlet and they are proposing to enclose it in an unusual way. It is basically intended to be open much like a porch or courtyard but will be closed when the climate requires. I think we can exclude the floor area they are proposing from the gross floor area calculations for the exclusive purpose of reducing the required parking. The applicant is seeking to escape the need to provide one parking space. Based on the fact that it is an unusual retail outlet being enclosed for an unusual purpose, but not really enclosed permanently, I think we have a right to say that under these unusual circumstances it is appropriate to exclude this as gross floor area for calculating the need for a parking space. Ms. Clauson note that this is an interpretation of what the Planning Commission's understanding is of the definitions and an application of the facts to that definition. You have a two-fold decision to make. The staff report talks about the lack of precedencial affect on say, the outdoor dining area if the Commission is looking at the facts of this particular application and applying it to that definition to make a determination. That determination would be with these facts, they do not equal floor area as opposed to some other application that might come through. Those facts may not match the definition. That would require that the Commission would agree that the definition of gross floor area in the Code is as staff has said. Chairperson Selich asked if the Commission could essentially condition its interpretation to the point that this project could be restricted to only • 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 merchandise, magazines, restrict them from other types of sales occurring in this area? Ms. Clauson answered no; you could not condition it in that respect. It could be conditioned in the respect as described and it depends on what you want to go by. The application talks about the glass doors and the lock. You would have to go with as that project is described in the structural that it does not meet the definition of the floor area, not what is being sold as merchandise within it. I don't know if the Commission can reach that conclusion. I am talking about the actual proposal of what is going to be open, how its going to be open, whether plastic or glass, what type of enclosure. The point that the Director is making is that the definition of gross floor area does not necessarily mean that it is all enclosed. There is a two -sided decision for the Commission to make, the meaning of what the gross floor area definition is and what are the facts and how do they apply to that definition. Commissioner Kiser stated that there are inconsistencies with what are on the plan sheets and the facts in the staff report. I do not understand how the finished structure will look based on the construction plans. If we had something with more detail, as to the kind of enclosure, then it would be easier to come to a conclusion. 10 outdoor Gifford stated that the outdoor newsstand is a nice amenity in the outdoor center and it would be reasonable to help the merchant to protect his merchandise. My thought would be to look at the idea that if we made a finding of facts that in this case the determinative factors were that the shelf space would not exceed x linear feet and positioned against the back wall; the curtain would not be something suitable as a security barrier and would not have a locking device; and the use of this space was a newsstand. Under those circumstances, we would find that this interpretation as suggested by staff is correct given those perimeters and I would like to suggest that if the Commission was in agreement on that, we could see something that would give us a better idea of how it would look. Chairperson Selich stated that this is floor area. It looks great and is a beneficial addition to the shopping center, but the bottom line is that it is still floor area. To try and twist the interpretation around in my opinion to just get a project that we think looks nice is not the way to do it. Commissioner Kranziey, agreeing with comments, adding that if you put a roof on, add two walls with a door that is square footage. If I live in a house with a garage and I close the garage door, put carpet in, and install wall, it is an extra room with square footage. This is additional space for the commercial just like that garage space is for living space. This is square footage and can not be interpreted any other way. Commissioner Gifford noted that it could be made to appear that it is the 0 1 4 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Planning Commission making a determination as to whether this merchant would be able to protect his goods or not. In fact, the landlord has the ability to give him that protection by simply agreeing to provide an additional parking space. Commissioner Kranzley added that the landlord could have come to the Commission to allow us to waive that additional parking space. We don't even have to provide the parking space; we could just waive the parking space. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to uphold the interpretation of the Planning Director. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJE T' Udvare Residence (Joseph B. Udvare, applicant) 2716 and 2718 Shell Street • Variance No. 1234 • Modification No. 5040 • A variance for the construction of a new single family residence which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to permit the the following encroachments: Four )4) feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback with the dwelling, A bay window that will encroach 5 feet 6 inches into the required 10 foot rear yard setback and 1 foot 6 inches into the required 4 foot side yard setback on the first and second floors. and A three (3) foot encroachment into the required 5 foot front yard setback with an open deck on the second floor. Ms. Temple noted that staff requests a continuance to the second meeting in March. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to March 23, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None • 15 INDEX Item No. 4 Variance No. 1234 Modification No. 5040 Continued to 03/23/2000 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 is 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 last meeting, but that he had 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 wanted 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. Clauson added that we are 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 authorizes and the City is obligated to that. Public comment was opened. Mr. Robert Gleason, Newport Dunes, 1131 Back Bay Drive addressed the • Commission noting that they had listened carefully at the Commission's request to address components of the project that were of a concern. I think that there are a number of people who support this project, and we have come back with a number of changes to share. At the some time, the questions that have been raised and the insights provided by members of the public and Commission are constructive in this process. You asked that we look at specific issues of: • Location of the project on the east side. • Hotel entrance on Back Bay Drive. • Possibility of reducing the size of the project. • Installation of some type of height markers - either story poles or balloons. Presenting a 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 road adjacent to Bayside Village. • Revised project will have fewer than 4,000 trips. • Removal of 30 hotel guest rooms • Removal of 25 time share units • Removal of one of the proposed ballrooms. Unit count reduction in time- share: • 17 INDEX 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 41h and 51h 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 fa4ade 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 roots represent 58% of building footprint: 3 stories represents 25 %; all above that is 12% at 41h 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 pre- function space (4,000) Larger ballrooms remain flexibility. Loading dock reoriented Village. • ballrooms (5,000 square equals 16% reduction. to address community feet) plus associated need and maintain south towards PCH, not west towards Bayside l INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 • 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. • 19 INDEX 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 some 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 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 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 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. It 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. It 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 some 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 it be possible? As I understand the room count, it 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. It 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 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 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 it, they will be welcomed to talk about it 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 INDEX 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, refired 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 it 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. It is time to assess this area and it is time to get the water cleaned up. Melanie Fitch, 108 30th 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 15th 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 it would be nice to keep it 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 HR. 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 Coustin 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 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 at PCH and Bayside Drive. The air quality 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 it is not permitted by the General Plan and the Coastal Commission Local. Coastal Plan. If it.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 ihe.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. It 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 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 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? 41 27 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 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 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. 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 • 28 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 Commissioner Kiser - balloons Commissioner Fuller - story poles Chairperson Selich - balloons 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 DeAnzo 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 28 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 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 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 if 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. Edmonston 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 0 30 INDEX 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 some 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 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 • B ECT: The Balboa Inn (Michael Pourmussa, applicant) 105 Main Street • Use Permit No. 3661 • Acceptance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration Request for a Use Permit for the expansion of the Balboa Inn. The project involves the construction of a two -story structure consisting of 11 new guest suites, pool and viewing deck, hotel- related retail, and 22 parking stalls. The project will also require the demolition of an existing one -story retail building and pool area that currently serves the existing Balboa Inn. The use permit application also includes consideration of an exception to the maximum allowable building bulk pursuant to Section 20.63.060 of the Zoning Code and the use of tandem parking within an at -grade enclosed parking garage. Ms. Temple requested that this item be removed from the calendar to allow for additional project modifications. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to remove this item from calendar. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that on February8th meeting, second reading approval of setbacks on Alvarado Place and the General Plan Amendment on Balsa Avenue; approved an agreement with the Planning Center to do an analysis of General Plan Amendments by statistical areas over the past ten years; also, approved the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan with specific directions to implement recommendations immediately (increase meter fees, modify meter time limits, create a visitor parking guide, implement bus layover area, improve red curb visibility, develop a validation program for the pier lot and to implement an electronic meter pilot program). Additionally, Council agreed to initiate negotiations with CalTrans on relinquishing Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - EDC is doing a review of the report given to Council on the revenue short fall. There will be a report at the next EDC meeting. c.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - Ms. Temple reported that we received the withdrawal request from Pacific Life and we are checking with the remaining applicant. The 0 32 INDEX Item 6 Use Permit No. 3661 Acceptance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration Removed from Calendar Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 City will have to re evaluate proceeding with the zone changes that have been developed as a separate project with no entitlement. 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. Mrs. Wood noted that we are planning to have at the study session on March 14th, a discussion of the General Plan update process. We will be working on a report with options and cost estimates, etc. If we could have your committee meet with us as we are preparing that report, we could pool your recommendations on Newport Center into that. Chairperson Selich agreed and will work with staff. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f.) Pending projects - Ms. Temple stated that we are dealing with Newport Dunes currently, we have Conexont, Koll Center - Newport, Newport Banning Ranch and our annexation pre- zoning actions all lining up this spring. WE have them scheduled to follow one upon the other. However, I also need to inform you that in addition to the two other • cases pending on the calendar, there currently three variances, eight use permits and one zoning amendment in various stages of preparation. Most of these have been deemed complete and staff is working on putting reports together. Many of them are fairly complicated proposals, which will take a significant amount of Commission time. Speaking with the chairman, one option would be if I see an agenda start to develop with far too much work to reasonably to be accomplished, to see if there would be any concurrence of the Commission to schedule special meetings in the Thursday intervening the normal Thursday meeting. This would be to keep the smaller projects moving along through. Chairperson Selich stated that we have an obligation to move the routine things through but at the same time not to rush the big projects where we need to have time for deliberation. This year we are faced with some of the biggest and most important projects that we have had in quite a long time. I am willing to have an extra meeting or two when it is necessary. Commissioner Gifford noted that her calendar is opened to be scheduled by her offices. She needs to know which Thursdays so that she can make arrangements. As it is now, she could not commit to doing meeting every Thursday. Commissioner Ashley would also need advance warning. Ms. Temple stated that we will need to plan two weeks in advance and as long as we achieve a quorum that will suffice. f.) Requests for excused absences - none. • 33 Mks 4-4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2000 ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 P.M. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION �J 16 34 INDEX Adjournment