Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/2000• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 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 Janet Johnson - Planning Department Assistant Minutes of February 17.2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of February 17, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, 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, March 3, 2000. 11 *:f Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 SUBJECT. Big Belly D • • 6310 West Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3666 A request to convert an existing 1,500 square foot retail building into a full - service, small -scale eating establishment (pizza /deli) with 24 seats, that includes a waiver of the off - street parking requirements, and to establish a new alcoholic beverage service outlet pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Temple noted that on March 7th, she had received a forwarded message from Commissioner Kranzley who had received e -mail from Steve Puppo, President of the Newport Shores Community Association expressing their concerns regarding the proposed project. Of particular concern was the lack of parking on the subject site that could result in encroachment into the residential neighborhood for parking. The report written by staff notes that the existing business is legal and non - conforming but due to the reduction in the number of on -site parking spaces and the increase in the overall number of required spaces from 6 to 8 spaces, it does require a waiver of parking. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the applicant is asking for 24 seats but condition two address the use of 20 seats. Ms. Temple noted that this was a typographical error and it should read 24 seats. Public comment was opened. Lon Bike, 14 Muse Street, Suite 8204, Irvine - project architect noted that his client is concerned with parking and that there are some available public parking lots across the street. There is metered parking on PCH immediately to the west that would be available. We are asking for a minor modification to the project due to the constraint of the site. We agree to the other recommendations made by city staff. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Bike added that there have been no discussions regarding leasing parking from the owners at the Property House. However, they would be willing to look at this. Commissioner Ashley noted his concern of the available six parking spaces. Mr. Bike answered that there are three parking spaces currently on site but will be reduced to two spaces to accommodate handicap parking. Continuing he stated that part of the customer base will be local residents in the area with a large number arriving by bicycle or walking. Mr. Bike stated that responding to the homeowners concern of parking in the residential areas could possibly be addressed by entering into dialogue regarding a parking agreement with the adjacent property owner, since the businesses have off set hours. INDEX Item No. 1 UP No. 3666 Continued to April 6,2000 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 • E Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he was not in favor of this application as it stands for the following reasons: • Unreasonable to expect patrons to park and then walk across Coast Highway • Unreasonable to expect that patrons will choose metered parking over free parking in the adjoining neighborhood. • Parking is a problem in Newport Shores neighborhood • Employee(s) on site will probably use the one regular space, which means that there will be no regular parking spaces for the patrons except for handicapped parking. • Even with a parking agreement with the Property House, this application will require a parking waiver Commissioner Ashley noted his agreement stating that he was unable to support this application due to the parking. He suggested that the applicant work out a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjoining property owner to the south. Commissioner Fuller stated his agreement with previous statement and he would not support this application as presented tonight. Commissioner Tucker stated that this is a tough situation with the existing situation of parking. However, a food use at this location is more likely to be a success and of convenience to the neighborhood. Public comment was opened. Mr. Bike stated that in light of the commission discussion, requests a continuance to April 6th to pursue a possible parking agreement with the adjacent property owner to the south. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to the meeting of April 6, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None •as SUBJECT: Bristol Farms 401 Newport Center Drive Suite 100A • Use Permit No. 3670 A request to upgrade the existing Alcoholic Beverage Outlet approval to allow for the sale of general alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption (Type 21 License). INDEX Item No. 2 Up No. 3670 Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Commissioner Fuller stated that he has had numerous calls regarding the on -site sale of other than beer and wine as to whether it was permitted or not. Ms. Temple clarified that it is not approved by the applicant's existing Alcoholic Beverage Commission license or by the City. Public comment was opened. Jean Claude Sakoun, 1150 El Seton, Santa Monica representing Bristol Farms clarified that the Type 20 License is off -site consumption of beer and wine, Type 21 License permits the sale of general alcohol for off -site consumption. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to approve Use Permit No. 3670 with the findings and conditions attached in Exhibit A. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Abstain: None . EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3670 Use Permit No. 3670 Findings: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" use. A market use with alcoholic beverage sales and service is considered a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The project meets the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for an upgrade to the existing alcohol license for an existing food market and the existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following reasons: L� i *1 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of desired beverages in a market setting. The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting district in which the project is proposed is lower than the percentage citywide, and in the adjacent reporting districts is higher than the citywide percentages, due to more commercial land uses in these three reporting districts. There are no residences, day care centers, schools, or park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the project site. 5. Approval of Use Permit No. 3670 to permit an upgrade for off -site consumption of general alcoholic beverages will not, under the circumstances of the case. be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The market use is compatible with the surrounding commercial • uses, since market uses are typically allowed in commercial districts. • Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the sale and service of alcoholic beverages and noise. Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing market use, which serves the residential and commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area. • The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of the facility as a food market. • Because the market does not have a bar area specifically designed for the service of alcoholic beverages, the potential number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control problems in the area should be minimized. • A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made based on the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in a market setting. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. • Fashion Island also provides security, which will decrease the opportunity for alcohol, related problems. • 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan except as noted below. 2. The approval is only for an upgrade to the existing alcohol license to a Type 21 License as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose for the sale of food and beverages. 3. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 4. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be a Type 21 license that permits general alcoholic beverages to be sold. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. • 5. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or leasing company. b. On -sale alcoholic beverage service of beer and wine only shall be allowed in the interior of the market and the common outdoor dining areas as currently permitted by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 7. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 8. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. 9. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 10. The hours of operation shall be limited between 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week. 11. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 12. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 13. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. Standard Requirements 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and • standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 4. The facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. Public Improvement may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 7. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 8. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of this chapter )Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 • • 9. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use 'Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals. comfort, or general welfare of the community. 10. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 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 A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan for the loo -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and swimming pools and landscaped garden areas. Chairperson Selich noted that this is the fourth hearing on this project. He explained that there will be additional information from staff, Planning Commission inquiries, and then public hearing will be opened to allow the applicant to present additional information then the hearing will be closed for Commission discussion. The project review design changes, effectiveness of balloon experiment, revised traffic study based on design changes. Then there will be discussion of items of concern to commissioners and public testimony. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he received the traffic study Tuesday evening of this week. Neither he nor anyone in the public had the opportunity to review the document and suggested that it would not be constructive to begin discussion or to have public comment on the revised traffic study until the public and Commissioners have had the time to review it. INDEX Item No. 3 Discussion Item Only Continued to 02/03/2000 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Commissioner Kiser suggested that for those Commissioners who had the time to review it should talk about some of the issues of concern to allow time for revision or addendum. Commissioner Tucker agreeing with previous comments, noted that there are a lot of issues and questions on the topic of traffic and is highest priority. Commissioner Fuller agreed with comments made by Commissioner Kranzley. Commissioner Gifford noted that she spent the majority of her time on the traffic study as she thought that would be the topic of tonight's discussion. Commissioner Ashley noted that we should give the opportunity for Commissioner Kranzley and the public to review and comment at the next meeting. Chairperson Selich noted that he would like to start the discussion, as it would be beneficial for the consultant to give an overview of the subject and to make as much progress as possible. It will be a continuing item of discussion. Commissioner Ashley asked staff to explain the raised intersection at Bayside • Drive and Bayside Village entrance that will slow traffic and increase pedestrian safety. Mr. Alford noted that the raised intersection is essentially a speed bump across the entire intersection. The idea is to create more visibility for pedestrians crossing the road and has the effect of slowing traffic as it comes across it. This could be enhanced by providing additional paving treatments, which have been shown to slow down traffic to a certain extent. Also some concrete or similar constructed bollards along each corner of the intersection could provide additional pedestrian safety. The main goal is to provide increased safety for the pedestrian and to slow down traffic at that intersection. The raised intersection is a good alternative, as it does not have the stacking problems that could occur with the proposed gate -house with the associated impacts on air quality and noise. Commissioner Ashley then noted that in the Traffic Study it is proposed by the consultant to have a 4 way stop sign there. Would this be eliminated with the speed bumps at the intersection? Mr. Rich Edmonton answered that was the original recommendation for that intersection and it has stayed in the report even in light of the proposed gated entrance. The advantage of the raised intersection is that with a stop sign it would require traffic to stop and start causing additional noise and air pollution. The speed bump would require a gentler flowing and hopefully acceleration away from it. If the raised intersection proved to be inadequate, • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 it would be relatively easy: to add stop signs to it at a later date. The design with the bollards can create a more confined feeling and make it more obvious to the motorists that there is an intersection. If you come along Bayside Drive,. prior. to the intersection it would ramp up and the whole intersection will be raised and the crosswalks will be on that raised portion. The concept is to include at least one crosswalk on Bayside at that location. The ramping up will be severe enough that drivers will want to slow down and it highlights the point where the intersection is. Pedestrian crossing warning signs can also be provided at that location. There is a pedestrian tunnel that goes under the road at that some location for people who might not want to use the cross walk. The crossing distance is also narrowed. The closest example of this type of crossing is in the Bayshores Community. It is not an entire intersection, but it ramps up, levels and then ramps down. Chairperson Selich asked for and received clarification from staff about the Settlement Agreement: • Is it true that under the Settlement Agreement a set of plans for 275 -room project as outlined met all the criteria in that Settlement Agreement, would they be able to file plans with the Building Department and not have to go through any discretionary approval? - True, Ms. Clauson answered. The City has always considered the Settlement Agreement to be all the authorization that is needed. • In the Settlement Agreement, there is an illustrated site plan as an exhibit. It is my understanding that is just an illustrative site plan. As long as they meet all the criteria in terms of the number of rooms and the square footage, etc. from where the existing recreational vehicle area ends all the way to the Marina bulkhead, that they can come in and create any type of design they want. As long as it meets the Uniform Building and Safety Codes and other City ordinances, the applicant can file that plan with the City for approval without any type of review. Ms. Clauson answered that the agreement does have some limiting language to it, the placement points on the exhibit are illustrative only and are not limiting. • If they had no need for discretionary approval from the City to do any project at all, there is no additional environmental review required? Ms. Clauson answered, you are correct. • If there was no environmental review, we would have no ability to condition the project for noise impact, lighting and traffic impacts? Ms. Clauson answered yes, that is true. Commissioner Gifford asked if this was a real possibility? Her understanding has been that because of the change in economic conditions, that type of project would no longer be financially feasible. Chairperson Selich answered that he was affirming the baseline that the project is being compared to. The review that Commissioner Tucker went through with Ms. Clauson on the Settlement Agreement I wanted to make sure that it met with the provisions of the Zoning Code, which says that if a project • 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 of this nature was done, you would still have to get a Use Permit. I was under the impression that in meeting the criteria of the Settlement Agreement, they would have to get a Use Permit, which would allow the Planning Commission to put conditions on. it. Since the last meeting, I found out that my understanding on that was incorrect. The financial feasibility relates to the applicant rather than to the project. Commissioner Tucker stated that his understanding is when you go through litigation, you negotiate a settlement. You do not allow the party on the other side with whom you have settled to then have the ability to deny what was agreed to when you went though the effort to come up with the settlement. We have more control over the design of this project because changes to the Settlement Agreement are being requested. A project built under The Settlement Agreement could be almost anything. Public comment was opened. Robert Gleason, Newport Dunes, 101 North Boyside Drive addressed the Commission noting the accuracy of the visual simulations. We have gone through these results and the credibility of the firm that has produced these visual images; methodology and technology have never been challenged or • proven incorrect. Issues that we have had with the visual simulations have had to do with plans, which is why we have gone through very carefully over the last three weeks. We have remodeled the project, and re- positioned all the points to assure the accuracy. The overall result of that is that the photo simulations are accurate and in fact they are slightly lower than the ones you have seen before because the pad was a little bit too high. He then proceeded to present slides on the updated simulations of the new model from the points at which they have been taken for the EIR. Mr. Gleason then presented a comparison of hotel room counts. The number being used for the Marriott Suites at the Back Bay is 250 rooms as opposed to the Marriott in Newport Center, at 570 rooms. He then presented a slide detailing the square footage reductions which ranged: • Hotel - original square footage 500,000, revised square footage is 438,000 • Timeshare - original square footage 200,000, revised square footage is 160,000 • Total original square footage of 700,000 is now proposed to be 598.000. The presentation proceeded to show site plan alternatives versus the original plan. Height marker plan (balloons): • Tool - to use with the visual simulations to get a better idea on the height and scale of the project and verification of accuracy. • 23 marker points were set out which marked each of the building extremities as well as every single level of each building wing. • 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 • Those points were then charted and located by a licensed civil engineer and a dimension was given that would represent the finished height of the structure. • A new set of visual simulations -was then created from those some points -showing the exact balloon. locations and colors with the project model ghosted on top. Red represents 2 story elements, green represents the 3 story elements, yellow represents the 4 story elements and blue represents 5 story elements. • Conducted on -site media briefing, press release and coverage in the Register and the Daily Pilot, KNX Radio and OCN as well as in the LITE. Additionally, this information has been available on the web site. Since Friday night, there have been about 225 to 250 hits in that area. • Balloons themselves are great advertising. They are larger and more colorful and we have received numerous calls both pro and con. • Field report and photographs verify the accuracy and overall scale of the project. • Balloons will continue to fly through Sunday, March 12th. • We are willing to certify that the project, upon completion, will match the visual simulations that have been presented as part of the precise plan. Conference facility uses: • • Functions during the year as a way to sell guest rooms. • Most of the use is by hotel guests. • Catering refers to anything generated from off site business; weddings, seminars and /or day meetings. • When guestrooms and the conference center are occupied by different groups then there is a potential for conflicts particularly during the summer time. • Resources are managed carefully to serve all segments of the business. • We have updated these numbers for the 1999 summer period because of the concern that there was not recent enough information and the Commission has asked for peak day use. • Referencing the charts, he noted Saturdays with a 600 -620 person range from May 1 through Labor Day 1999. • There are two main ballrooms and a junior ballroom. The main ballroom for a plated dinner /dance nets 575 people. The junior ballroom for a plated dinner /dance nets 290 people, which works out to about 1 person for every 20 square feet. Conference impacts: • Traffic - functions take place principally between two times, 12 noon to 5 p.m. or from 6:30 p.m. on. The time in between is used to set up for a different function if two are happening in a room on the some day. • PCH peak hour traffic on the weekends basically occurs between about 3 and 4 p.m. using actual city counts on Saturdays and Sundays in August. Bayside Drive both north and south are impacted and PCH towards Dover • 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 and Jamboree. • Arrival times for group functions are not generally occurring during these peak times. (referencing slide presentation) • Parking - Traffic Study was revised to incorporate the new numbers that are larger than the numbers shown. previously. The project still has ample parking even if the worst case should happen due to an increase of spaces that occurred during the downsizing of the overall project. • We are proposing the following condition on the conference center space: Catering business May 1 through Labor Day, Friday evening through Sunday, maximum number of guests would be 1,750. (less than 1 person for every 20 square feet) • An additional condition to smooth out the arrival and departure traffic would be that no more than one half of the maximum number of guests may arrive within half an hour of each other; and, no more than a quarter of the maximum number of guests may arrive /depart during peak hour (3- 4 p.m.). • The minimum turn time in any room is one and one half- hours. • Enforcement of these proposed conditions could be required as part of the annual report under the Development Agreement and the Use Permit provisions of the Municipal Code. • Administration - City Manager waiver (maximum 6 times per year) and the • ability to petition for modification based on operating history and actual statistics. Commissioner Fuller asked about: Conference Center use for catering functions will be lower for the summer months than other periods of the year - Mr. Gleason answered that the idea is that the overall occupancy of the conference center during the summer periods is less than during the other nine months of the year. During those periods, that use is largely if not entirely group related business, i.e., staying at the hotel or other hotels and being bussed to the property. Although the actual number of occupancy may be higher in the winter time, it is the conflict that is created by off -site catering business coming to the project and leisure business not associated with that catering business that requires the lower use of conference facilities in the summer. The off -site catering business during the summer is substantially more. Commissioner Ashley noted that the first level will be 10 feet high and that the succeeding levels 2 -5 will be 9 feet 6 inches high. Levels 2 -5 represents 38 1/2 feet height, he then asked about the Settlement Agreement that permits a building not to exceed 38 1/2 feet high. Is that from present grade which is at 12 feet or is that at sea level which is 12 feet below? Exclusive of the towers, you are asking for about 10 feet more height than the Settlement Agreement entitles. Mr. Gleason answered that it is not specifically set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The 38 1/2 feet is from grade, but grade is not defined as either • 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 existing grade or an artificial grade. The Municipal Code allows the establishment of that grade but that was not done in this case. The presumption would be from the center of the plot of ground on which we would be building upon. That center point is somewhere between 12 and 15 feet high which would make it 50 feet high from mean sea level. Depending on how the roofs over that are, which could make it 6, 8 or 10 feet. Commissioner Tucker talked about the floor plates. He stated that the four feet being gained was not worth reducing the grandeur of the structure. Is the Dunes set on this 10 foot, 9 1/2 or are the 12, 10 foot floor plates still a possibility? I think that you don't want to have a structure that is not competitive and does not have the same feel as other facilities in other locations. Mr. Gleason answered that when we re- evaluated everything associated with height in the project it was with the idea that what we would propose would be something that works for us in addition to reducing the height. We like to ask for 10 feet as 9 feet does not work for us but 9 1/2 does work. As far as 10 feet on the first floor then 9 1/2, the public areas of the hotel are each two levels in height. The loss in those areas is not significant enough from an architectural stand point. We have presented the revised plans and height . markers based on these calculations and compressed floor plates. Chairperson Selich asked for a recap on the square footage of the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Gleason answered that the Settlement Agreement allows as the overall project: • 500,000 square feet family inn portion • 15,000 square feet freestanding restaurant (net public area) with a load factor for back of house may be as much as 20,000 to 25,000 gross square feet. 5,000 square feet of office and commercial space • Total for all those uses would be about 530,000 square feet beyond the existing uses. • 598,000 square feet is proposed now. • At the time this Agreement was negotiated it was done without a hard plan. When the City challenged the EIR and they got into discussions, it was more of a general bubble diagram land use planning discussion. The plan that everyone has seen that was in the EIR was the plan that was eventually approved under the Coastal Development Permit by the Coastal Commission in 1984. This was done subsequent to the Settlement Agreement negotiations and executions. That plan encompassed approximately 300,000 square feet. Conference Center operational conditions: • Maximum occupancy of 1750 applies specifically to offsite catering. • 14 .Ilxf 743 City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 1750 maximum guests would represent use of all the rooms which represents 1 person for every 20 square feet. Commissioner Kiser asked about the square footage reductions. The net 598.000 total proposed square footage includes all of the retail, restaurant and health club. Mr. Gleason confirmed that includes everything and could be used to compare to the 500,000 square toot family inn portion only. Public comment was closed. Discussion by the Planning Commission on the proposed design changes: Commissioner Tucker - The applicant has attempted to address a lot of the concerns. My biggest concern with this project was it fitting on the site and is still a significant facility. As compared to what the Settlement Agreement allows for and the complete lack of control on the quality of anything that would be built under the Settlement Agreement, overall the design features look good. We need to move on and talk about specific issues that people have raised to see it if stands up to the scrutiny that is required of us under the CEQA guidelines. Commissioner Kranzley - had visited the site three times and has yet to see the • balloons in their full glory. Before I make any comments I would like to see them and hope that the applicant takes into consideration keeping the balloons if we continue to have inclement weather. The Planning Commission needs to spend time on the height and bulk issues of the buildings. Commissioner Gifford - Important to preserve the good look and architectural feel of what goes in there. I also need more time to look at the balloons, as I have not seen them in good weather. Commissioner Ashley - The design and impact concerns of the hotel in this fragile environment have been largely addressed by the applicant with the reduction of height. The building was probably a little more imposing than I originally thought it would be after looking at the balloons. If we proposed that they eliminate the fifth level which contains only 18 rooms to reduce the height of the building by 9 1/2 feet it would not make a big visual impact. Without this fifth level. the building would be flat and look monolithic. Commissioner Kiser - Congratulated the applicant on his handling of the Commission's concerns. He noted that he had seen the balloons when there was no wind and was able to view them from several viewpoints. The view to the Back Bay should remain the dominant feature of that area. The project as proposed is pretty close to allow those general views to remain dominant, but expressed concerns with the very highest parts of the structures. The balloon representation still needs work, and I would like to explore the possibility of removing the very top features down to allow the view of the Castaways Bluff • 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 from Coast Highway and Jamboree and view towards Morning Star area out into the Back Bay to remain the dominant features. Commissioner Fuller stated that his concerns of view impairment have been satisfied in the depictions that have been made. This is a big project and progress has been made. Parking is sufficient with a shuttle system if it is needed. I am concerned with the light and noise issues but the applicant has made a satisfactory effort in that area. The access for the service, employees and trucks from Back Bay Drive is a plus that the applicant has provided. I am still concerned with the intersection of Bayside Drive and Coast Highway; I support the changes that have been made so far. Chairperson Selich noted that there has been real progress on the design. Particularly likes the fact that the timeshares were reduced along the Marina bulkhead area as that allows for more graceful height transition from the water line up to the hotel. The removal of the area in the center of the 5+h story element and then to each side of the element the way the height was excised through the reduction of the rooms as well as changing the roof planes made a big -difference. I am still concerned with the parking structure, as I feel it should be reduced in height so that one story could be completely below grade thereby reducing the amount above grade. I realize there would be a transition problem where you would enter into the hotel, but it • could be dealt with in some manner. A lot of progress has been made. The absolute heights in the fifth story elements do not bother me because it is such a small percentage of the project. I think we need some vertical relief since it is such a large project and is spread out. I agree with comments on the floor plate heights. On something of the quality we expect of a facility of this type, that to reduce the height by three or four feet by short changing each floor plate height is a mistake in the long run. Commissioner Tucker noted the roof plan of the timeshares on page 9A. They are not all two stories, some are three stories. The effectiveness of the balloons Commissioner Gifford asked to defer any decisions on the balloons since the conditions have not been favorable. Commissioner Kranzley asked to defer his comments on the effectiveness of the balloons until more reasonable weather conditions occur. Revised Traffic Study Mr. Rich Edmonston stated that the revised study is an updated version based on the changes the applicant indicated at the last meeting on the hotel and timeshares. It includes the revised access for employees and deliveries and correctly depicts the reduction of traffic associated with the RV park space • 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 reduction as being on Back Bay not on Bayside Drive. Table 5 is now Table 6 and is substantially revised in an .attempt to make it clearer which trips are associated.Wth the proposed hotel and which trips are deducted from either the removal of the RV spaces and/or the removal of the other uses permitted under the Settlement Agreement. The results are that in the short range TPO analysis, all intersections satisfy the TPO operating at a Level of Service (LOS) D or better. In the long range, there are identified two intersections that were made worse by the project and did not meet the City's criteria, that was Bayside at Coast Highway and Jamboree at Ford. The recently completed free right turn lane from East Bluff onto Jamboree mitigates that intersection so that even with the project, it operates at LOS D in both the morning and afternoon peak periods. At the intersection of Jamboree and Bayside, the applicant has proposed improvements to Bayside and those mitigate the impact at that location. The parking section analyzed two scenarios depending on whether it was parked based on a 470 -room hotel or. a 370 -room hotel plus 100 timeshare units. Both those cases on a typical day based on occupancy show approximately 300 spaces total on site that would be above and beyond the required uses. The maximum use scenario with all hotel rooms full, the Marina in business and all ballroom and meeting room spaces occupied by non- visitors to the hotel, the surplus dropped to about 50 spaces. There have been a. number of changes made to the study in order to make it clearer to read and user friendly. Chairperson Selich asked for a re-cop on the whole project traffic generated by area by use. Mr. Edmonston answered that in the Settlement Agreement dated 1988, the remaining uses that were entitled were the 275 room family inn, a 15,000 square foot net public area restaurant and a 5,000 square foot building that was marine - related commercial. Those are tabulated in the new Table 6. The applicant has indicated they will not be building the free standing restaurant, not building the marina commercial 5,000 square feet and he would be building what has been analyzed as a 470 room hotel in place of the 275 room family inn. Table 6 indicates on that basis, the total trip generation will be a net reduction on a daily basis of 390 trips from what was approved under the Settlement Agreement. The Table shows that in the morning peak hours there would be 60 more trips generated by the proposed project and in the afternoon there would be an actual net decrease in trips of 18. The Settlement Agreement dealt with new uses after 1988. The factor for trip generated by uses in the whole project is in the traffic model by zone. It is a little difficult to separate; for example, on the east side of the lagoon the same traffic zone includes the Hyatt, and on the other side includes the mobile home park. There is a variety of other things in it, but we have rates for the hotel, rates for resort commercial, rates for • 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 the Newport Dunes which is the beach area based on an acreage basis; and rates for the general office as well. Rates on the west side are for the marine and restaurant and those types of uses. They are all included in the model. • Those rates were based on ITE: standards or they were rates discussed in some traffic studies done at the time of the Settlement Agreement that looked at some of the uses such as the marine expansion discussed in earlier versions of the Settlement Agreement between 1983 and 1988. • The development was permitted through a series of agreements. There was a 1983 version that allowed for some additional slips in the marina and had rates associated with it in 1983. But by 1988 those had been developed and were therefor no longer part of that Agreement because at that point they were existing. For traffic counting purposes we would have used the trip rates that had been reviewed and approved in the past for those uses. Chairperson Selich stated that he is trying to ascertain if a constant in the traffic model was used throughout the years, or whether it has been floating up and down when we did the traffic models for the rest of the property either based on changing the trip generations used with different. trip rates or using actual counts versus trip rates. Ms. Temple answered that we can take out the non -Dunes related uses in the two traffic model zones involved and perhaps go back as far as the 1988 model used for the General Plan update and give you what the various iterations have been. Mr. Edmonston agreed that could be done. There will be a 1988 model, 1992 model and then the 1996 model that is presently being used for this project. Chairperson Selich noted that he still has problems with Table 6. The numbers for the previously approved uses to be deleted and the numbers in the Settlement Agreement. It doesn't make sense that a 275 -room hotel with a 15,000 square feet of restaurant is going to generate close to the same amount of trips as this size project that we are considering. I would like comments on how realistic these numbers are, do you really believe that if they were to build a 275 room hotel add another 5,000 square feet of commercial and do 15,000 square feet of net public area restaurant that it would generate the same amount of trips as this proposed project? Mr. Edmonston answered that the one item that is certainly questionable is in the traffic study done in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement that assumed a trip rate for the family inn as 8.7 trips per day per room. That was an extremely conservative rate and was the rate that was in the ITE at the time for a regular hotel. There probably wasn't any reason to challenge it then because it would represent a worst case condition upon which the Dunes would pay traffic fees. I don't think that anybody else would have challenged • 18 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 it as being an overly conservative rate. In looking at the information we have, the current rate of 8.92 per room is appropriate for a facility of this type. The difference would probably be greater between this and what is in the Settlement Agreement, primarily the Settlement Agreement in my opinion would overstate the amount of traffic that would actually occur from a family inn. Commissioner Kiser asked about Table 1. • The trip rate per hotel of 8.92 that has been used, is it consistent in the traffic analysis? Mr. Edmonston answered yes. • The daily trip rate resort hotel per room is not available. I was confused by the note that says the hotel rates were utilized in this study due to the fact that these rates were higher than those shown for 'resort hotel'. Is there a resort hotel rate? Mr. Edmonton answered that to the right of the table there are trip generation rates for both the hotel and resort hotel for a.m. and p.m. peak hours. That is the data that is most often collected when traffic studies are being made because that data is most critical in analyzing the impacts of the hotels. There is some data available on the peak hour basis and later in the report there is a table footnoted when talking about total traffic. There is no documented daily number for the resort hotel category. • • On that same table it shows the timeshare units of 100 dwelling units. Is that from the ITE standards? Mr. Pringle answered that the trip generation rates for the timeshares refers back up to the recreational homes and yes, it is from ITE. In the analysis, we used that actual hotel rate, which is higher, for the timeshares as well. We have used a conservative approach to this. We felt it would be a better approach to use the hotel rates for the timeshares, as the timeshares are more like a hotel. Commissioner Ashley asked: • Table 1 referring to the timeshare units, the daily trip generation for the dwelling units is shown as 300 which means that each dwelling unit would be 3 trips per day. Mr. Pringle answered yes and applied hotel rates for the timeshare units and estimated the traffic on that basis for the study. This table is in here for information and background for what we were analyzing for this particular study. We used the worst case analysis. Chairperson Selich asked why no traffic was being distributed on Bayside Drive at the intersection of Coast Highway. Basically the answer was that the traffic was not broken down less than 5% distribution increments in the traffic modeling. Coast Highway was considered a parallel route. Would you address this again, why no traffic was distributed going from Bayside Drive down to Jamboree Road from the project? If, you did not address it, how can you now identify that there is an impact at Bayside and Jamboree when the traffic model in the report does not show traffic being distributed? What are the mitigation measures at that intersection? • 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 4. 2000 Mr. Edmonston answered that there are two distinct traffic analysis in the report. The TPO is a short-term analysis that follows the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The historical application is to keep as much traffic from a project on the major highways in the City as possible to represent a worst case analysis. Since traffic going straight across Coast Highway on Bayside would then no longer be on a major arterial, we did not distribute that. If you then look at the long range analysis which is done with the model and look at the sheets in the Appendix, the model does send traffic across there because the model has the entire locations of streets and land uses in it. In the long range, the study does show traffic on Bayside Drive. In terms of mitigation, the two intersections are Bayside and Coast Highway, which is where the applicant is going to widen and provide an additional lone on Bayside coming from the project. This would mitigate the ICU at that intersection in the long range; there is no impact at Bayside and Jamboree from the project. Chairperson Selich commented that what you are saying is that in the TPO analysis we overstate the traffic on Coast Highway but we understate it on Bayside Drive because we are throwing all the traffic on Coast Highway. In the long -range model, we make a more realistic distribution of what is going on Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. Mr. Edmonston answered yes. • Chairperson Selich then asked with the reduction of the size of the hotel facility and.the fact that you are now counting the RV trips going on Bayside Drive and the employee and delivery traffic is now coming off Back Bay Drive, what is the net effect of traffic on Bayside Drive in this version of the traffic report versus the previous version? Mr. Edmonston answered that the long -range analysis shows that in the a.m. peak period there are 60 additional cars coming out of the Dunes project in the morning. In the short-range ICU analysis it shows an increase of 55 vehicles coming out in the morning and in the afternoon it is an increase of only 17 vehicles coming out, going in there are 32 vehicles in the morning and 20 in the afternoon. Again, these factor in the approved project of 275 -room hotel and the restaurant and retail building. These numbers are net over the baseline. Looking at the model data between the two studies, there is a reduction in the morning coming out of 20 trips, coming out in the afternoon there is a reduction of 20 trips from the impact of the project. At the completion of the Dunes Project, taking into consideration the trips generated by the project, employee and delivery, and the reduction for the RV spaces being removed, there will be an increase of 3,520 daily trips on Bayside Drive and an increase of 80 daily trips on Back Bay Drive. Commissioner Tucker asked for computations assuming different occupancy rates. Referencing Table 2 he noted that with 9 trips per room with 470 rooms the total trip generation is 4,230. That is the numerator that needs to stay constant for each one of the occupancies. I am trying to compare the • 20 L11 . City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 INDEX difference between the approach we take that assumes 100% occupancy as compared to what the trips per room would be as per occupied room. Numerically with 95% occupancy, that would mean 447 rooms were occupied divided into 4,230.is 9.46 trips per room. With 90% occupancy it would be the same as having 423 rooms occupied with 4,230 trips and is 10 trips per room. I am attempting to have a table that reflects what the trip generation rate would be had we done it on the some basis as many other jurisdictions. We are going to do it on the assumption that 100% of the rooms are occupied. Wes Pringle, traffic engineer clarified that all the studies are done for occupied rooms. All studies are done on the maximum number of rooms. If a hotel that had 500 rooms and only 200 rooms were occupied you would assume that was applicable to all 500 room hotels and would not work. The trip generation for an office building is done the same way, assuming 10017o occupancy. The same methodology is used at worst case with 100% occupancy here. Commissioner Tucker continued that there should be some type of accounting as to what has happened between the Settlement Agreement and now in terms of trips that have been used. The Defend the Bay letter of January 28th is one that we need to go through and understand the contentions in that letter as either on or off base. • Recess was taken. Public comment was opened. Dan Purcell, 600 Acacia Avenue stated he observed the balloons after reading the article in the Daily Pilot. He felt he was able to get a good feel about the expanse of the project but he was concerned with the representation in the Daily Pilot. He stated that it was not a fair representation of the project. Barbara Lichman, 2603 Main Street - as an attorney representing the Dover Shores Community Association stated that it is difficult to comment on documents that the public has not been provided. There is a revised plan on the height and bulk of the plan, but the public does not have it in writing. There is a revised traffic study that may have new information that ought to be circulated under CEQA but the public does not have it and we are asked to make comments on it tonight. I understand we will have future opportunities but we have been here for three hours. There is no certified EIR for this project all we have is a draft EIR. We have a Settlement Agreement but we do not have a vested right for the 275 -unit inn under that Settlement Agreement. Section VII page 20 of the original Settlement Agreement states, "All parties understand that this Agreement is intended to establish limits on development and not guarantee construction or development'. Vested right is a guarantee of development right. This Settlement Agreement specifically abrogated the vesting of rights under it. Therefore, if the 275 -unit project were built, this 21 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Commission would have the right to make changes. Normal vesting rights accrue where there is permit, environmental documentation and when there is ground broken. I don't think this process is proceeding in a way that gives the public adequate opportunity to comment on these issues. We are looking forward to another opportunity on the traffic study, height and bulk and vesting. Commissioner Tucker commented that the language could be interpreted as that the developer did not guarantee they would build the project, not that the City did not guarantee that the project could be built. William F. Smith, 405 Morning Star Lane - expressed his concern with sound. Whenever there is a loud party across the way, he is saved by the curfew of 10:00 p.m. I am concerned about the noise levels and hope that testing will be done. We hear it now, and it will be increased with the timeshares in place. Jay Simon, 1417 Newporter Way questions the overall heights. He asked what the total height of the project would be with the roof structure? Regarding the balloons, is the length of the balloon to the top of the roof structure? Ms. Temple answered that the balloons depicted the total overall roof height • of the project as modified by the applicant at the last meeting. Bob Bartholomew, 31 Cape Andover spoke of the beautiful area and views. I believe the area needs to be improved and the Planning Commission makes decisions as to what is economic for the City. A project of this type and size concerns me with regard to height, lighting, noise from outdoor parties and traffic. Is this project going to be economically viable and what would be an alternative use to the facility if it doesn't work out? Vahe Meghrouni, 61 Cape Andover agreed with the previous speakers with regard to noise and light adding he was dismayed at the length of the project. You are supposed to protect our rights. If we happen to be uninformed or cannot be informed because we are not given the data, you are supposed to protect our rights. Pat Greenbaum, Bayside Village asked the following: • Can the delivery access road accommodate all sizes and weights of the commercial vehicles? • Should the access road to the truck dock be limited to weight and size of commercial vehicles such as diesel type? • Would this facility accommodate trade shows, which bring in set up and tear down equipment and supplies? Perhaps the answers to these questions could be included in the revised traffic study and traffic potential of the conference facilities, namely delivery trips. • 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Bill Kenney, 824 Harbor 'Island Drive representing the Promontory Bay Homeowners Association stated that in an effort to work with the developer they met with them as well as a coalition of communities south of Coast Highway. Representatives of Bay Shores, Linda Island, Beacon Bay, Balboa Island, Little Balboa Island and Promontory Bay attended the meeting. Our main concern is traffic generated by the hotel and convention facility and where the traffic would be channeled. During the meeting we came up with two altematives: • Relocate the project entrance to Pacific Coast Highway at the signalized entrance to Promontory Point. It is physically possible and will provide a significant entrance statement. • Relocate the project entrance to Back Bay Drive and create a vehicular bridge over the lagoon in a location where the pedestrian bridge is currently located. This would save all of the RV spaces. To date, the project developer has not given due consideration but we hope they will. We ask you this evening to think about how the relocation of the project entrance either to Coast Highway or Back Bay Drive might address many of the concerns of the citizens about this project. We hope you will direct the applicant to relocate the entrance. With direction from you and participation and diligence on behalf of the applicant and these communities • than our concerns can be overcome and we will then be in a position to be in favor of this project at a future hearing. Larry Dill, 300 East Coast Highway, #260 spoke in favor of this project. He said the facility is safe, clean and crime free. The new project will enhance the area. Ramona Harris, 300 East Coast Highway, #222 gave a personal history of the immediate area and the City in general. Max Hampton, 721 Bayside Drive noted his appreciation of the work done on the traffic studies and models used to forecast what will happen. He stated that those intersections are problematic now and that it makes no sense that you can put 470 rooms and 1,750 people in a convention facility and have no impact. There has been no discussion as to what happens about the parties on beaches or parties outside in addition to the 1750 people who can be in the convention facility. The developer took this property under the limitation of 275 rooms with no convention facility. Anything that goes beyond that is a gift from you to them. We need to do something to keep the traffic off Bayside. Please, either cut out the convention facility or at least drastically reduce it and do something to limit functions outdoors and on beaches and keep traffic off Bayside Drive. Bob Bolen, 265 Mayflower Street stated that the balloons were a great help. The parking garage is behind my place and looks to be 33 feet high. It • 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 eliminates our views of Fashion Island and Saddleback Mountain. Joyce Lawhorn, 300 East Coast Highway #265 stated that the impact of the garage structure is behind her. With the 80 -foot setback, the three levels of the parking structure will house 308 vehicles. There will be a bike trail and landscape area and a 9 -foot wall with 101 parking spaces behind us. The loading docks have been turned to face the remaining RV park. Steven Briggs, 1016 Westwind Way stated that the 1988 agreement points out that the Dunes has contractual vested rights to construct this 275 unit project. They have those vested rights because the other parties to the agreement gave up or were given something. They were given the opportunity to rely for a decade and a half on the expectation that project would be built. Those expectations that the City and County preserved for its citizens and residents are not being preserved at the point this project is approved in its increased size. I viewed the balloons and certainly demonstrate to a small degree the height issues. They don't demonstrate at all volume or bulk. I would suggest that you need to view the balloons from various locations completely around the project. There are 32 houses on the Castaways effected directly by this. There is three times that many just in Dover Shores on the west side of the project alone. This project is much bigger than depicted and the balloons are an inadequate way to demonstrate the volume and densffy of the project. • Bob Rimmer, Bayside Village, #282 expressed his concern about the health of the residents of Bayside Village if this project goes through. The location of the hotel and entrance of the hotel are of primary concern. He noted gas fumes, noise and traffic problems with this project. Our way of life will be drastically changed with the added traffic on Coast Highway. Dan Converse, 509 Morning Star Lane noted his concern of noise and size of project noting similar reasons previously stated. James Sachtschale, 1953 Vista Caudal speaking for Mr. Ohlig stating that his method is correct on the graphics that he presented. Mr. Sachtschale stated that his technical education was from the University of Illinois where he studied gas dynamics. He affirmed Mr. Ohlig's methodology. Debbie Hartunion, 911 Spring Tide Drive stated that she purchased a premium lot and was told that the project as approved was going to be two to three stories high. If this project is going to be five stories, the light and glare will be shining into my bedroom. I get noise from the Dunes and the Hyatt now that I never thought I would get. I have had to call the police on several occasions. I notice from the drawings, that the ballrooms face the water. I know the Dunes has tried very hard to accommodate the Planning Commission, but I think it is because they are asking for more than what was granted. I look at it as a citizen of Newport Beach and what I have to lose which is the quality of life for the City and the Back Bay. • 24 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane - expressed his seriousness of the issues of the views. He noted that the revised views are wrong: • A distance point on one side is taller. • Vanishing point is going into the center of the image even though the shape would not prompt that. • The four story image has been crunched to three stories • Items on both sides of the image are not equal and distant The balloons are supposed to be 77.5 and at the angle should be pretty close to level. There was not enough advance notice as to when the balloons were going to be put in place. This project is 1.7 times the height, and rooms, and 20 decibels different from the last numbers I saw. This is way above the original agreement. Bill Hamilton, 3620 5th Avenue spoke in favor of the project stating that it will be good for the City of Newport Beach. Traffic is my biggest concern, but not that bad. By trimming back the project size, the applicant has attempted to mitigate the bulk problem. The Evans people are good people and will do.a marvelous job with this project. . Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive stated that the Dunes site is public property, on Coastal land in an environmentally sensitive area surrounded by residences. It is being leased to a concessionaire. The Settlement Agreement was hard fought and the homeowners depended upon the guarantees. It is important that the City consider commitment to the residents in that area. The Settlement Agreement is a commitment to the residents in this community. Sections from the various Settlement Agreements stated that no structure shall exceed the basic 35 -foot height limit established by Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, no structure or any portion of the structure shall exceed a height of 38.5 feet. Mechanical equipment may be permitted in excess of the basic 35 -foot height limit providing that the equipment does not exceed a height of 38.5 feet and is fully screened from public view. It goes on to say that no structure shall exceed 3 stories and the family inn shall be constructed with a pitched roof. There are descriptions in the agreement and it allows exceptions for chimneys. It is the height limitation that should be adhered to as well as the noise limitation. I have no fear that the Evans family would do a wonderful job with a 275 -room hotel. Kathy Leek, 623 Baywood Drive as a supporter of the tourism in Newport Beach stated that there is a need for the hotel and a need for conference space. She stated that she recognizes that counting cars is important, but from her perspective of calling on the various hotels throughout the area and bringing people into the community shows a different point of view. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 East Ocean Boulevard asked about the looks of the parking structure by the main entrance to the hotel. She then mentioned the • 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 glare from the parked cars reflecting up onto the Castaways. On the traffic study figure used between the 275 -room hotel and the proposal, the difference figure is what I am concerned about. That figure is used and I don't think it is right. Even with the reduction, the number still comes out for greater than 800. That will throw off all the numbers in the study. The responses to the EIR were totally inadequate. For example, the intersection at PCH and Superior /Balboa, we questioned how that could be lowered with the project. The answer was that some traffic that formerly went to other hotels would switch to the new hotel, which then in turn leads to reduction in traffic on certain roadways. That is not an answer to that question. Dr. Jennifer Frutig, 1715 Marlin Way stated she would like to see an accurate representation of the revised project. I object to the distortions and the pictures that were shown in terms of the view from the east lagoon and also from the Castaways. I have no idea what the revised project from either one of those locations is. I wish they would please give us an accurate representation. Richard Luehrs, CEO of the Newport Chamber of Commerce commented that the Chamber continues to review this project. They have done a fine job in reducing the size and bulk, they have met the traffic constraints and mitigation measures by reducing the number of rooms. This project adds more • than a million dollars each year to the coffers of the City of Newport Beach that could go toward future traffic mitigation. This project continues to raise twenty -five million dollars to the small business of Newport Beach. Projects like this go towards ensuring the health and welfare of our financial picture now and well into the future. I ask that you give favorable attention to this project. Commissioner Kranzley thanked Mr. Ohlig for his efforts and asked him if the Planning Commission conditioned this project that it has to comply and look exactly like the views that are presented how would he feel about that? Or, are you more concerned about the fact that they are misrepresenting or would you be okay with the hotel they are representing in their pictures. Mr. Ohlig answered that he is operating in two ways. From a personal interest as a homeowner adjacent to the property that measures 50% of view is dominated by this project. I am acting as a citizen that just loves the bay, which is why I am making views from other vantage points. I still believe that this is a massive structure. It looks nice with the plants, etc the way it has been done, but I am not comfortable with what I am seeing. I know there are certain angles that it looks reasonable at, but I still believe it is massive and dangerous the way it is being done. When I look at the balloons, they are not where I imagine them to be based on the topographical maps I have studied. Commissioner Kranzley confirmed with Mr. Ohlig that his answer was no, he would not accept the project conditioned to comply to look exactly like the views presented this evening. 0 26 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich told the audience that they were welcome to submit to staff in writing anything they felt they did not say tonight. We will review it prior to the next meeting. He suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission review the Development Agreement and report back. He suggested Commissioners Tucker and Kiser. There were no objections. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to March 23, 2000. Ayes: Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None StM ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the meeting of February 22nd Council reviewed the study that • was done for potential changes to the Mixmaster intersection. The alternative recommended and approved was to provide some left turn opportunities and mostly to add signage for pedestrian safety and to help people find their way through the intersection. Staff was authorized to proceed with plans and specifications and the engineers estimate for that project. We had the Balboa Village Pedestrian and Streetscape improvement plan as well as the redesign of the pier parking lot. A more detailed presentation on cost estimates of design and contingencies as well as a plan for funding it. The final costs estimate turned out to be seven and a half million dollars. The City Council still supported it. I was encouraged by comments made by both the Council and members of the public. Part of this plan is that the property owners are expected to form an assessment district to do undergrounding of utilities. She then notified the Planning Commission that the Study Session on Wednesday the only item on the agenda is to talk about General Plan update and possibilities for surveys and visioning. The City Manager has arranged for a consultant to be there to make a presentation. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting -Ms. Temple noted that she is scheduling a meeting for April 13th that will address five reports. Discussion then followed on how the Dunes is going to progress. • 27 INDEX Additionci Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. e.) Requests for excused absences - The next meeting of March 23rd will start at 6 p.m., however, Commissioner Kronzley said he would be late. Commissioner Fuller asked to be excused from the meeting of March 234 making this his last meeting and Commissioner Gifford asked to be excused from the meeting of April 61h. ADJOURNMENT. 11:15 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 0 28 s111111�:1 Adjournment