Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2000• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzey and Tucker - Commissioners Fuller and Gifford were excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford. Senior Planner Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary • Minutes of March 9,2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to approve. as amended, the minutes of March 9, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford Abstain: None Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, March 17, 2000. L ] Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 SUBJECT: Dolin Residence Retaining Wall (Peter D. Brandow, applicant) 1541 Dolphin Terrace (Continued from December 9, 1999, January 6, February 3, and February 17, 2000) • Modification Permit No. 4968 • Acceptance of a Negative Declaration Request to permit the construction of a 17 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. Ms. Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner stated that there was a supplemental staff report that was faxed to the Commissioners regarding the revised findings and conditions. Commissioner Kiser asked about the reference to a 17 -foot high rear yard retaining wall. Is that still true as the revised plans on the summary references . the retaining wall at a lower height? Ms. Garcia answered that the revised project has been through three revisions. The description is the original request as the public notice was sent out and has not been changed. The project itself has been changed substantially. The maximum wall height is seven feet. Public comment was opened. Peter Brandow, landscape architect, representing the applicant, noted that in working with the homeowners association and the two neighbors, the plans have been revised to show two terraced walls that step up approximately seven feet each. There is substantial landscape to mitigate the face of the wall; the main yard is at 92 feet above sea level at the request of the neighbors to mitigate view conflicts. The only thing not shown on the plan is the height of several small step planters that go up the walkway from the lower level to the house. Those levels were inadvertently left off the plan. The top -level planters are 87 fee, the middle ones are 86 feet and the lowest ones are at 84.5 feet. It is our intent to construct the plan as you have it with these additions. At Commission inquiry, he answered that he is in agreement with the revised findings and conditions attached to the supplemental staff report. Val Skoro, President of the Irvine Terrace Homeowners Association commented that their architectural consultant has reviewed the revised plans dated March 14Th. This revised plan, as the controlling document of this application should be . correct. We would like to see a corrected plan showing where the additional INDEX Item No. 1 M 4968 Acceptance of a Negative Declaration Continued to 04/06/2000 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 planters will be placed. We ask for a continuance in order for the documentation to be corrected and agreed upon. Chairperson Selich asked staff what discrepancies if any were between the revised staff report and what was distributed in the original staff report? Mrs. Garcia answered that the staff report faxed today, reflects the changes in the findings and conditions but the staff report received in the packet is actually the changes to the plan. Those changes are on the plan and are consistent With the report. Ms. Temple added that in this edition of the plan packet it was a plan without a Section. The first condition of approval does still incorporate the term Section, and we do not have a Section for this iteration. Mr. Skoro added that was an important issue relative to a neighbor looking down from a view standpoint. Zachary Sham, architect for Irvine Terrace, 2600 Newport Boulevard stated that he had met with staff. He has been in discussion with Mr. Brandow regarding the planters that are not shown on the plan. The elevations of the planters will be • 97, 96 and 94.5. We would like to see it on the plan as our concern is for the neighboring views looking across. Some of the findings have the height of the retaining wall at 14 feet lower than the building pad elevation of the homes. The retaining walls are at 85 feet and 92 feet and the house is at 100 feet. The height of the landscaping is a major concern and we would like some guarantee from the owner that they will keep it trimmed and down to the height of the 92 -foot elevation. We do not want eucalyptus or other trees being planted that will block views. The height certification of the bottom wall says top of wall is 87 feet but the actual top of wall is 85 feet continually until it steps up to 92 feet. This appears to be a mistake and we want it changed on the document. The three planters located above the pool deck, item 14 states that six foot in height is the maximum height as measured from the natural grade. The natural grade at the bottom planter is 96 feet, which puts it at 102 feet. We don't want it to be any higher than 94.5 feet, 96 feet and 97 feet. There is no mention of height of the pool deck. Chairperson Selich noted that the three major concerns were the heights of the three planter areas, keeping the landscaping trimmed down to 92 -foot level and clarification on item 14 on the three -foot heights. Is that correct? Mr. Sham agreed. Commissioner Kiser asked if the Commission should add provision of the cross section to that list of concerns? Mr. Sham answered that it would be helpful for the majority of the architectural committee to see the cross section, but as long as the cross sections meet what INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 the plot plan designates, that is detail enough. Wally Olson, 1512 Serenade Terrace noted his concern of the ramp and the need for a cross section of the ramp. There is one area by the barbecue where it is 92 feet high then over to the far left on the other side, it is 97 feet high. How do you transition five feet of elevation in that short span. There is a terrific slope there. What is going on there? Mr. Brandow stated that he has no problem providing a finished document with these items on it. They are on the drawings, but those particular elevations were not shown. The ramp represents 2017o. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich suggested that we could deal with these three issues and mark the plan and not have another continuance on this matter. We can also require that cross sections be submitted to staff for approval. The ramp is on private property and is not an issue for consideration. Commissioner Kiser noting in the latest revision, condition 3 shows the height of the tallest portion of the retaining wall shall be limited to 8 feet 6 inches, I . wanted to make sure that is consistent with what was shown on the revised plan. It seems to be a conflict as the revised plan in item 1 in the prior report shows that the proposed wall had been reduced in height ranging from 9 to 17 feet with a 3 foot guard rail to 7 feet at the tallest portion of the wall, gradually sloping easterly to the height of 2 feet. Mrs. Garcia answered that there are two planter walls. There is a lower wall that goes across the rear property line and the highest portion of that lower wall is 8 feet 6 inches. The planter wall that is inside of that from natural grade is 11 feet although it is higher up the hill. That will not be seen, but the lower wall has the main visibility from Bayside Drive. That inside lower wall can not be viewed from below the property. If the Commission would like to clarify that there are two walls there, the lower and the other planter wall inside of that, we can add another condition that the inside wall not exceed certain height. Chairperson Selich stated the tops of the wall heights are set, and the natural terrain beneath it will change depending on the contours underneath. We are concerned with the top of the height of the wall. Mrs. Garcia added that the lower wall has been lowered from 17 feet down to 7 feet of exposed wall. This is the wall that is most visible. We have top of wall elevations for both walls, which is the controlling factor. At Commission inquiry about conditioning the height of the landscaping, Ms. Temple noted that because of the presence of discretionary approvals, the • Commission could set a condition on the height of the landscaping. We do INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 have zoning regulations in one part of town, Corporate Plaza, where we established the height of the trees. We have conducted code enforcement to achieve compliance with that zoning provision. It can be difficult on an individual single family dwelling to embark on a code enforcement action, but if the condition is applied we will do our best to enforce it. Commissioner Tucker stated that there seems to be some confusion. I think it might be best to redo the plan with these minor corrections so that everybody knows exactly what is being signed on. Chairperson Selich asked if the applicant concurs with the continuance for one more meeting to April Oh, to which he replied yes. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to the meeting of April 6, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford SUBJECT: St. Matthew's Church (David Pfeifer, Architect) 2300 Ford Road • Use Permit No. 3633 Amended A request to modify the previously approved elevations, floorplans and building footprints for St. Matthew's Church, by adding an additional 2,257 square feet of useable area and increasing the capacity of the preschool from 50 to 60 children. Ms. Temple noted that this Use Permit is an amendment to one previously considered by the Commission. The amendment is required due to changes in the approved site plan. There is additional information, a set of revised findings and conditions as a new Exhibit A (distributed). This particular exhibit was prepared because the contract planner on the project inadvertently used the original set of findings and conditions before the Commission had made their changes during public hearing. The items in bold, reflect the changes as a result of this amendment, the items that are italicized are the changes the Commission made the last time they heard this item. You received earlier this week, a communication from the Harbor View Knoll Haomeowners' Association expressing concerns with regard to some of the features of the project. The applicant has been working with that association and a letter from the project's architect describing some proposed changes that they have agreed to will be distributed. As a result of those communications, we have prepared an additional condition of approval, number 14, which will specificially require that a perimter wall along Bonita Canyon Road be installed as a mitigation measure for noise concerns in relationship to the project. INDEX Item No. 2 Up 3633A City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted tha the Site Plan represented a sufficient barrier to road noise coming from Bonita Canyon Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The fence is intended to fill any gaps between the buildings on site. It will be allowed to be a property line fence, except that it could be modified to set further back from the intersection should the City site distance standards require it. Lot T is a landscape lot within the area. The present landscape is currently scrub because that side has not been developed. Public comment was opened. Fr. Steven Scarlett, Rector of St. Matthew's Church, 1723 West Cliff Drive stated that he had applied for and was approved the plan that is before you now. What we have done, however, is to rearrange some functions and shuffled some things with building square footage. None of these change the parameters of the project, as our intention is to build a church and pre - school that will be an asset to the community. The wall in question was addressed the last time. It is our intention to build that wall all the way around the perimiter. In our first phase of construction, the actual church will not be built and there will be a wall around the whole property. Eventually, when phase 2 comes along, we will build the church that will supplant some of the wall. The wall will then come up to the church building on either side. David Pfeifer, Dominy and Associates Architects 2150 West Washington, Suite 303, San Diego stated that his firm has been involved with over 75 churches in Southern Califomia. His firm is very familiar with the issues of putting a church in an established residential community. Noting a model, he pointed out the exisitng pre - school on the adjoining site with an existing wall. It is the Church's intention to maintain and continue that wall on the entire frontage on Bonita Canyon, around the corner and onto the southern limits of the project. This is in the Church's interest to provide a safe, quiet environment for the Church in their outdoor spaces. The model represents the first phase of the development. The second phase will be the sanctuary building. When that gets built, it will be a 45 foot tall structure. The church building wall in the frontage will replace the sound blockage and sound attenuation created by the wall in this first phase. When this property was subdivided, there were actual landscape lots between the church buildable property and the right of way and are called Lot T, Lot R and Lot S. These lots will be landscaped and maintained by the church. The actual buildable property line is 37 feet back from the curb, and I estimate from the sidewalk to the wall would be in the 25 -27 foot range. After the initial approval, the church went through some analysis to the plans. Looking at how the facility was to be used, they determined they needed a little larger office space and a choir practice room in the second story area. We made some revisions to the plan that affected the massing. It was a net increase of 2,200 square feet in gross square footage. A lot of that square footage is under the steeply, . traditional gothic sloping roofs, so in terms of cubic feet, the volume did not INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 increase. We relocated where some of the second story is. We presented these revisions to staff who determined that these revisions should come to the Planning Commission. There is no change in use or architectural character of the project, it is still a church, social hall, worship center, offices, classrooms and a pre - school. The theme of the project is traditional, anglicon architectural style, steeply sloping roofs, lansard -like windows with some gothic themes, trying to mainatin the characteristics of a traditional church which this is. The wall was part of the original application and is still part of this application. Nothing of substance has changed in regards to the wall. The extents and heights are the same. The previous Commission approved this as proposed in the plans. This concept on the pre - school was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Irvine. Two different jurisdictional bodies have reviewed this issue of the wall replaceing the berm and have deemed that our application is sufficient in terms of mitigating the noise or the sight lines to Bonita Canyon Road. Commissioner Tucker, referencing the new, additional Condition of Approval No. 14 noted that it does not seem to indicate that the wall could come down and that appears to be inconsistent with your desires. This condition seems to indicate that a wall has to be up. I am not sure a note on a site plan will supersede the condition. Mr. Pfeifer answered that the site plan specifies that note, that this portion of the wall is to be removed in phase 2, this condition does not address that specifically. In that case, I would like to propose a modificaiton to this condtiion that the portion of the wall on the north side of the worship center can be removed in phase 2 during the construction of the worship center. Commissioner Tucker then asked about the lettered lots and the arrangements that they will be landscaped. How was it handled in the original development? The plan seems to say that the property line is to the south of Lot T when it is actually to the north of Lot T. Lot T is the applicant's property, is it not? Ms. Temple answered that since the tract map was not approved in Newport Beach, she is not familiar with it. The City's typical action with regards to lettered landscaped lots would be to require whoever is the owner, or the successors in interest, to maintain the landscaping. In this case, there is a probable likelihood that it is The Irvine Company. However, it could be that Lot T was transferred as part of the land transaction and therefore is in the ownership of the church, which would be the successor in interest. They would be obligated to maintain the landscaping. In this particular case, since the applciant agrees they have the obligation to maintain it, I would see no problem with a condition of approval being added that would obligate that the applicant or any successor in interest to maintain the landscaping. Chairperson Selich added that it appears that there is an area between the is lettered lot and the sidewalk, who will landscape and maintain that? INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 Mr. Pfeifer answered that the portion of the church property, the inside, is bounded by three lettered lots, Lot T to the north, Lot S to the west, and Lot R to the south. The church will install and maintain landscaping in all three of those lettered lots. Outside of those lettered lots, it is my understanding, that is the public right of way (parkway). Mr. Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager noted that the Municipal Code requires that parkway landscaping be maintained by the adjacent property owner. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple answered that she would prefer that the wall only be allowed to be removed for the portion of the lot which is replaced by the sanctuary. The sanctuary does not run along the entire Bonita Canyon property line nor at all along the Prairie Road property line. It would be appropriate that the portion of the wall that would be superseded by the sanctuary could be removed in phase 2. Mr. Pfeifer, in answer to Commission inquiry, answered that the site plan has a demarkation that states, remove this portion of wall in phase 2. It starts at one end of the worship center building to the other end. That is the only portion to be removed, and will enable the sanctuary to have a facde on the street. We do not want the sanctuary behind a wall visually. Neal Steinbrenner, 2750 Hillview Drive, President of Harbor Yew Knoll Board of Directors, stated that he sent a letter to the Planning Commission. One of the main points made was when the original plan for this site was developed, which included the current pre - school and the planned project, the homwowners had some decisions and agreements made with the Transportation Corridor Agency. The issue at question at that time was primarily related to the noise. The Bonita Canyon Drive that went in was expected to be a major corridor transporting traffic. The ability of the berm to be constructed, which was agreed to by the TCA, was to help mitigate the sound and sight. There is a central parking area that will remain and will be expanded that will look straight up Hillview Drive into the primary residences on that street. The current preschool does provide adequate sound barrier as a building, just as we believe that the buildings that are going to be constructed will also provide sound attenuation. It is in the area where the berm used to exist and will now not have buildings present, that we fear an undue increase in the sound levels. The current wall that was constructed was felt by the original applicant that the height that was originally requested (equal to the original berm which would provide adequate noise mitigation as it already had been there) would be too high. The residents who rived there before the berm was constructed and while the berm was in existence and now after part of that berm was removed and subsequently lowered with the new wall, state that the noise has increased over what it had been with the berm in place. We are worried that the current wall and extension that should provide some sound attentuation, is not high enough to • provide the attenuation that was there before. Our contention was that under 8 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 the California Environmental Quality Act if a change is made, you can not do it to the detriment of what the existing conditions were. In this case, it would have been with the berm. We would like to see that wall raised. I feel we can work with the applicant to come to an adequate solution. There is a lot of traffic on Old Ford Rod and Prairie Road, We would like to see a maintenance of a wall that equats the current height of the berm. If the berm is dropped and a wall is not constructed, it will increase the visible area that noise will impact our association by approximately 60%. We have a problem when our homes are up for sale and we have to disclose these kinds of issues. I understand that when the new parking lot is completed there will be adequate facilities for both pre- schools to work concurrent and to keep employee parking off the street. We do not have any fences around our properly, it is open to public view and is a safety concern to our residents. If the walls are lowed, all the passing traffic on Bonita Canyon is allowed to look into some of the homes. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Steinbrenner affirmed that the association believes the current wall along Bonita Canyon in the existing parking lot was actually built too low. If the new wall that is planned along Bonita Canyon could be two to three feet higher, that would mitigate a lot of noise. On Prairie Road, there is currently a berm all the way to the corner. If that berm is removed, then that noise mitigation factor goes away. If a wall could be constructed that is exactly the same height in the facility diagram, it would be basically in front of the parking spaces that are currently there. Instead of terminating at the southern portion of the preschool that is there, it would extend another 60 feet or so. That would allow the noise from Prairie Road to be diminished in the community. John Long, 2745 Hillview Drive noted his concerns of parking by preschool staff on the street instead of in the parking lot as intended and as the original plans talked about. I would like to see a condition of the use to require all employees of the church and preschool to use their parking lot, not the public street for parking. The second concern is the hours of operation and use of the preschool. Some original documents I had talked about 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. I see the latest report talks about 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. In earlier conversations prior to this meeting tonight, I learned that it was not only a preschool but a day care center prior to school. Having heavy traffic influx of potentially 60 cars at 6 or 7 a.m. creates a potential hazard for our residents There is only a stop sign on Hillside Drive and there is no traffic control coming down Old Ford Road. If it is a preschool then the hours of operation should be clearly defined as such and not day care hours. If the use is intended for day care, then it should say so. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that employee parking was addressed in Condition 2 for the church employees. The use permit was not issued by the City for the Child Development Center, it was approved by the City of Irvine. While there is cooperation the church, the child development center is a separate business. The church will include, as part of their own operation, a preschool that is in addition to the exisiing child development • center. We are only able to deal with the church and its preschool and not the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 existing Child Development Center. Marcia Voss, 2767 Hillview Dirve spoke of her concerns of security and privacy. The earthen berm was in place when she purchased her home, but shortly afterwards it went down to build the Newport Coast Child Development Center. The wall went up after that. She stated that she is now hearing sound and noise from the property and is concerned about her property value. She noted that a six foot wall for a preschool can be scaled if there is play equipment present. Maybe raising it a couple of feet is warranted for the safety of the children. There is a problem with pakkng on Ford Road because of the development center as the teachers do not park in the parking lot. Continuing, she expressed her concern about access for fire trucks as there is only a short portion of the road that is painted red. Is there enough room for a fire truck going up the cul- de -sac? Will Graham asked that a congestion study be done on the traffic that will be coming into the church environment. I think the church is a wonderful thing, but with the day school that is proposed there will be an enormous amount of traffic. Fr. Scarlett, Rector of St. Matthews Church spoke to the issues of: • Pre - school operations hours - intend to have a Montessori pre - school • operation with before and after care in order to serve working families. There will be some number of children who will arrive earlier than a standard 9 a.m. starting time. It would not be a great amount, and is necessary for the viability of the preschool concept. To not have that before and after care would be a great detriment to the economics of what we are planning. • Traffic study was done and was approved in the original application. • A 60- student preschool does not lend itself to a huge volume of traffic. Because people tend to drop the children off at staggered times; it should not be a huge flow of traffic at any one time. • There seems to be issues with the wall. The main issue, as I understand it, is the homeowners' association would like the section in the parking lot to be two feet higher. The only thing I will say is that both the City of Irvine and this Planning Commission in reviewing the EIR last time, determined that the wall did not deal with sound attenuation. They approved this project with the lower wall there. We want a good relationship with Harbor View Knolls, but this proposal is as approved the last time. It was determined to be within the accepted decibel level for this type of development in this community. If there is something to be done to accommodate the parking lot area, we may be able to work something out. At Commission inquiry, Fr. Scarlett added that there will be a preschool playground fenced in as a sub -area inside the larger parking lot. There will be a preschool playground that is a defined fenced area. We are required to have a certain amount of outside square footage per student in a preschool. That amount of area will be fenced in as a preschool play area. To get to the larger 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 lot, the children will need to be let out. There is another wall around the exterior property to make it two fences between the children and either Prairie Road or Bonito Canyon Road. Mr. Pfeifer noted that Title 22 states you have to have a five -foot wall at the perimeter of the preschool play area. This wall will be at least six feet high. There is an open wrought iron /chain link fence proposed within the walled -in campus to subdivide the play area from the rest of the campus. A study was done to analyze the existing sound levels at the Harbor View Knoll in relation to the exposure of the parking lot and the wall versus berm in that area. With the berm, the sound level is 43.5 decibels with the current traffic conditions for Bonita Canyon Road. Removing the berm and erecting a wall, that sound level goes to 47.8 decibels. The community standard for acceptable level of decibels is 65. There is an increase of 3 or 4 decibels, the sound level will nominally be increased but it is still well below the acceptable community standard. He then presented standard decibel levels used by the Architectural Graphic Standard referenced book and explained the decibel levels. A traffic study was done as part of the original application and the City required no mitigation. In terms of safety on the extension of Prairie Road, when the other preschool was built, they widened the street as part of their development. The north side of the street is allowed to have the off - street parking. There is a portion of the south side of • Ford Road extension that is red curbed and is at the terminus of Harbor View Knolls cul -de -sac, which is a fire access road. They have to drive up a berm and through some turf, but that is clearly accessible by the Fire Department. This access has been reviewed by both Orange County and the City of Newport Beach Fire Departments as part of the road improvements constructed over a year ago. The proposed grading plan for the wall shows that it starts on about a two-foot berm. We are limited by the edge of the parking to the property line as the only area where we can build anything. We have gotten up as fast as we can on a two to one slope that gives us a two-foot high berm and then a six - foot high wall above that. From the visible side of the parking lot that wall is eight feet above the paving and we feel any higher would start to create a looming effect. That is why the wall is as high as it is. As part of the previous approval, we reference the berm that was done by the Transportation Corridor Agency. That berm has been interpreted by this Planning Commission and the Irvine Planning Commission as not being a mitigation of sound; rather it is a mitigation of sight. It was based on a point ten feet across the street on the for west bound lanes from which the line of sight has to be blocked from the homes. It is a very descriptive, measurable type of calculation and this wall has been designed to meet those criteria. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Pfeifer added that the sound study is part of the record. Ms. Temple clarified that the sound study was done as part of the EIR by the City of Irvine for the Bonita Canyon development and was provided to the • Commission at the time the Bonita Canyon project was approved. It was 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 available to the Planning Commission at the prior use permit approval hearing and is in the Planning Department for review. Some of the work regarding the sound attenuation was done as part of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor EIR. There was a subsequent EIR prepared for the Bonita Canyon development that was approved by the City of Irvine. Commissioner Tucker asked if we should accept the proposition that the difference between the berm and a six -foot wall is 3 decibels raising it from 44 to 47? Does the neighboring homeowners' association have any standing to talk about noise mitigation? The applicant has tested that the berm was not for the purpose of noise attenuation but rather for sight, is this correct? Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood noted that she had worked on these sites when the City of Irvine reviewed the child development center. There was a discussion about a change of 3 decibels in noise not being significant and being barely perceptible to humans. Whether this change from 44 to 47 is the accurate number, I do not remember. Public comment was closed. • Commissioner Kranzley, noting that a compromise could be agreed upon between the applicant and the association on the wall issue, suggested that maybe we should continue this item to allow this to be as amicable as possible. Public comment was opened. Father Scarleff stated that this application was submitted in August. We finally got on the calendar, and we need to get going. We have a bank willing to loan the money; the project is ready to go. A couple of feet in the area between the church and the preschool requiring some mitigation to take care of things tonight, I would say we would be able to do that. Mr. Pfeifer added that as long as it was specific. Specifically the new portion of the wall, I don't think it is fair to burden the church to replace any of the existing walls. The new portion from where the wall starts to the sanctuary, where the building starts to shield the exposure to Bonita Canyon Road, to raise that a foot is not a huge deal. Chairperson Selich reiterated that you prefer to offer to raise it a foot tonight instead of a continuance. Father Scarlett answered yes. The foot would be just to the northeast corner of the phase 2 sanctuary. The existing wall is built on two feet of remaining berm above the street level with six feet of wall and add a foot, we hove nine feet, which is the height that was talked about with Mr. Steinbrenner. . Commissioner Tucker asked if the portion already built by the Newport Coast 12 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 Development al School is on the church property? He was answered yes; there is a distinct construction joint. To the west of that joint is a temporary wall. It is where this development will start. The property line is actually further east. We are talking about where the permanent wall ends, which the school put on the church property. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to approve Use Permit No. 3633 A, with the findings and conditions attached in Exhibit A with an added condition 12 amended to also provide that in the construction phase 2, the portion of the wall adjacent to the sanctuary will be removed so that the north elevation of the sanctuary is exposed to Bonita Canyon Road. There is another condition 13 to be added that will provide that there will be an additional foot of wall height that will go about the perimeter of the property from where the school exists to around Bonita Canyon Road along Prairie Road. This additional height will bring that wall to a total of nine feet. Clarification was made that only the wall along Bonita Canyon Road from the existing fence to the eastern edge of the sanctuary is to be an additional one foot in height. An additional condition is to be added that the applicant is required to maintain landscaping of the lettered lots contiguous with the buildable lots. . Ms. Temple suggested that the condition also include that landscaping be installed as well as maintained. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that the code deals with the requirement of trees and parkway plantings for adjacent property owners in Title 13. It is automatically required and when the landscape plan for the lettered lot is submitted, it will include the parkway. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kronzley and Tucker Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3633 AMENDED in in 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses, since a church is considered a support use of the nearby residential uses and the revised architectural design enhances the overall aesthetic image of the project and the surrounding area. • 2. All significant environmental concerns for the project have been 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 adequately addressed in the previously accepted environmental impact report and there are no additional reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with the project. 3. The design of the proposed improvements as revised will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. Approval of a parking management plan in support of the requested waiver of required on -site parking is still appropriate and applicable because of the following project components: • The proposed number of parking spaces provided is adequate to accommodate the proposed church facility and the other uses on site as revised, and the child development center on the adjoining site, because the peak parking demand of the two facilities occur at different times of the day, and on different days of the week. • The off -site parking area is located so as to be useful in conjunction • with the church uses, as revised. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the church facility. • The proposed off -site parking will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. • The overall daytime parking demand for the property as revised is reduced since there will be only administrative office use, and no services held. • The limited weekday worship services should prevent any conflicts for on -site available parking. • The increased building areas and modified building designs will not increase the peak parking demand for the project, as the peak parking demand of the site is derived from the seating capacity of the sanctuary, which is not being increased. is 6. The approved waiver of 16 required parking spaces is still appropriate since a parking management plan has been accepted and approved by the Planning Commission. The approval of Use Permit No. 3633 as amended, 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, for the following reasons: 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 The approved waiver of 16 parking spaces will not be detrimental to the neighborhood because a parking management plan has been approved and compliance with the plan is a condition of approval. The noise associated with the proposed uses, as revised, is not anticipated to create any adverse impact on the surrounding uses since the worship services occur during off -peak evening hours and on the weekend and the conditions of approval imposed require that the noise be confined to the interior of the building. Conditions: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved revised site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The operation of the project shall comply with the parking management plan described below: • A minimum of 88 parking spaces shall be provided on site for the proposed facility. An additional 16 parking spaces shall be made available on the adjacent lot on weekends. • The pre- school shall be limited to a maximum of 60 children and • operation during weekday daytime hours in Phases I and 2. Any increase in the number of attendees shall not be permitted without approval of an amendment to this use permit. Childcare in conjunction with worship services in the evening and on weekends is permitted. • The sanctuary shall be limited to a maximum of 312 seats and 9,372 square feet. Any increase in the seating or size of the sanctuary building shall require an amendment to this use permit. • Classes associated with the church shall be limited to Sundays and weekday evenings only. The size of counseling sessions shall be restricted so that no more than 20 persons occupy either the administrative offices or sanctuary facility between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., during the week at any time day time worship services are scheduled, unless otherwise approved by the Planing Director and the Traffic Engineer. • Worship services shall be permitted during the week prior to 6:00 p.m. provided that seating is limited to a maximum of 156 seats. This limitation is established at a ratio of three seats for each parking space, based on a 52 -space weekday parking demand surplus. • All employees shall park on -site. • Concurrent use of on -site facilities for worship shaft be limited to 312 seats. 3. Noise generated by the use which include the use of musical instruments, pre- recorded music and /or singing shall be confined to the interior of the is structure and all windows and doors within the facility shall be closed, 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 except when entering and leaving by the main entrance of the facility. 4. The church structure steeple /bell tower shall be limited to a maximum height of 75 feet. 5. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate the installation of landscaping with each phase of the project. The landscape plans shall be subject to the approval of the Planning, Public Works, and General Services Departments. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. The landscaping shall be maintained by the applicant. 6. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 7. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction With the proposed operation. 8. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent • properties or uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 9. Exterior illumination of the church structure shall comply with the recommended sign luminances established for illuminated signs in Chapter 20.67.025 of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the Planning Director may order the dimming of any illumination found to be excessively bright, based on that criteria. 10. The applicant shall provide executed, reciprocal parking agreement that provides the maintenance required off street parking on an adjacent lot for the duration of the proposed uses on the site prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The project shall include the installation of a new perimeter wall, six feet in height and be constructed with materials to match the existing wall along Bonita Canyon Road on the adjacent preschool property. The wall location is shall be begin at the point where the existing wall on the adjacent preschool 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 terminates along Bonita Canyon Road, continue west to the corner, then south along Prairie Road and terminate into the south side of the church preschool building. The perimeter wall shall be constructed concurrent with the Phase One improvements and shall be designed to accommodate the required sight distance setbacks at the intersections. 12. The project shall include the installation of a new perimeter wail, six feet in height and be constructed with materials to match the existing wall along Bonita Canyon Road on the adjacent preschool property. The wall location shall begin at the point where the existing wall on the adjacent preschool terminates along Bonita Canyon Road, continue west to the corner, then south along Prairie Road and terminate into the south side of the church preschool building. The perimeter wall shall be constructed concurrent with the Phase One improvements and shall be designed to accommodate the required sight distance setbacks at the intersections. The wall in the area of the Sanctuary may be removed during Phase Two construction, as depicted on the approved site plan. 13. The portion of the wall along Bonita Canyon Road from the existing fence to the eastern edge of the sanctuary shall be an additional I foot in height. • Standard Reauirements: C 1. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 2. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 3. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. The operator of the church facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 Between the hours of Between the hours of interior Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: N/A Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: N/A Residential exterior interior exterior 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA 6. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the facility to insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Planning Director. 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 amendment to the 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. I:I1 :1 • 8. This Use Permit for the revised Phase 1 of the project as described in the staff report shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval, as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Use Permit for Phase 2 of the project shall expire unless exercised within 60 months from the date of approval of the Revised Phase One, as allowed by Section 20.91.050A of the Code. SUBJECT: Rothschild's Restautant Item No. 3 2407 East Coast Highway UP 1851A • Use Permit No. 1851 Amended A request to upgrade the existing Alcoholic Beverage Outlet approval to allow Continued to for the sale of general alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption (Type 47 04/20/2000 License). Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has requested a continuance to the end of April. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to April 20, 2000 as requested by the applicant Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford • 18 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive • General Plan Amendmet No. 97 -3 F • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 878 • Planned Community District Plan (PC -48) • Development Agreement No. 12 • Traffic Study No. 115 • Environmental Impact Report No. 157 • Conceptual Precise Plan • Final Precise Plan A 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 fifth hearing on this project. We will • receive additional information from the staff, questions from the Commission to the staff, then the hearing will be opened for the applicant to present additional information, and the hearing will be closed for Commission discussion on the project. The Commission's discussion will center on the reviewing the proposed project design and changes made by the applicant and deciding if the Commission wants to make any additional changes beyond those that have been proposed. We will then move on the environmental impact issues. We will be using the response to comments that are in the EIR from the citizens and Environmental Quality Affairs Committee as the base line of review. We will then re -open the public hearing to allow comments by the EQAC on the EIR. This is the first time that we have had an EIR formally reviewed by this committee. We will then review the EQAC comments and responses. We will review the revised traffic study to the extent it is not covered in the environmental issues. We will finish up with discussion of remaining issues of concern to the Commission or the public raised in previous testimony. The issues of concern are the convention space and operation, and the Bayside Drive design. Public hearing will be opened and then the Commission will go back to discussion until 11:00 p.m. Senior Planner Alford noted a correction to the staff report on page 2, under the conference facilities trade show question, the number of square feet should be 46,000, not 36,000. Mr. Edmonston, Transportation Manager stated that the latest traffic study shows the long -range impact of the project at the intersection of Coast Highway and Marguerite in the morning would increase the ICU from .89 to 19 INDEX Item No. 4 Continued to 04/06/2000 IS City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 .90. A member of EQAC had identified this as a question. The consultant )Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.) has suggested that a better way to analyze small changes is to take the speeds that are in the model and lock those in. The model will not then be able to adjust those figures. With those speeds locked in and re- running the model, the impact of the 470 room project would increase that a.m. ICU from .89 to .92. There would still be an impact as there was with the original project. Chairperson Selich referencing page 3 of the staff report on the discussion of height limits and the interpretations as it refers to the Settlement Agreement, does the City Attorney's office concur with this interpretation? Ms. Clauson answered that she had not checked with staff on how they did the analysis, but when she was asked about that language, she indicated that the analysis should be done with the City's Zoning Ordinance as it is today and as it was at the time. The concept was that if the applicant would come in and get a permit, they would submit plans that would be reviewed by staff per the agreement. The analysis was done as if the applicant had submitted the plans. Chairperson Selich stated that after all the analysis and calculations were done the conclusion is that the Settlement Agreement permits the peak of the sloped roofs to be 38.5 feet. Ms. Clauson answered that is correct. Public comment was opened. Robert Gleason, 101 North Bayside Drive noted the following: • Traffic study - done to comply with updated TPO analysis and downsized project. • Revised proposal of trips is now 3,611, which represents a 25% decrease. • Height - balloons were in place over the weekend. • 83% of the project is within the three story height parameters with 16% of the project at four stories or above. • Planned Community District Plan is the foundation document of everything that is happening and all other approvals. It contains development standards, restriction, conditions, entitlements and procedures for submittals of the precise plans under that document. Those precise plans function like use permits and can be conditioned and called up for review under the provisions of the Municipal Code. • Additional environmental analysis will be done as part of the final EIR that will be submitted for certification to the City Council. • We have revised our plans in response to the public and Commission's response in a responsible manner. He then recapped all the past responses made to traffic, parking, bulk and scale, view, height, Boyside Village concerns, Dover Shores concerns, etc. through revised visual simulations. He concluded that there has been a lot of 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 honest debate over an extended period of time. We are eager to participate and are most eager to move forward. Commissioner Kranzley noted that in the Settlement Agreement, there is an increase in size on the freestanding restaurant, you also have the ability to build 12,500 square feet of restaurant area within the family inn. How does that compare to the amount of square footage that you are going to have in restaurant area in this use? Mr. Gleason answered that the 12,500 square feet is any kind of food or beverage establishment. In this current proposal there is 13,500± square feet, so it is roughly equivalent to what was entitled under the family inn scenario. Chairperson Selich then asked about the three -story time -share on the marina front, how many units are in the third story? He was answered that in the building along the bulkhead, there are 8 units, but it is a double loaded corridor, so 4 face the marina and 4 that face back towards the lagoon. Chairperson Selich then stated that the next step is to look at the size of the project. There have been four public hearings and two study sessions with well in excess of 100+ people who have testified plus scores of faxes, letters and emails have been received. We have analyzed all the information and any new information is getting slimmer. As a Commission, we have concurred that: Something other than a 275 room family inn is worth pursuing if it can be properly mitigated the present location is the best location on the site to have a hotel access off Bayside Drive is the most feasible alternative We have not reached a consensus, however, on height, bulk, and size of building. We have asked the applicant to make changes and they have done that. Balloons have been put up to facilitate the assessment of height and still have not reached a conclusion on this issue. We can not move forward on this unless we settle on what the size of the hotel should be. We can not address the environmental issues, the impacts on adjacent properties, and the mitigation measures until we decide what it is we are trying to mitigate. In my opinion, it is time for use to settle on the size of the project. I put forth this proposal for the Commission's consideration: I am in support of a larger hotel than that which is approved in the Settlement Agreement, but only if it is far superior to that which is permitted under the Settlement Agreement, is of significantly greater benefit to the entire City than the presently approved project and if the impacts of this project upon adjacent and nearby properties can be adequately mitigated. If all that can not be accomplished, then I can't support the project. Of all the testimony received, I was most moved by Mrs. Skinners testimony at the last meeting where she said that the Settlement Agreement is a contract 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 between city government and the citizenry. After the meeting, I re -read the Agreement and I tend to agree with her on that to a point. That Agreement is seventeen years old, its is the result of a settlement that came out of litigation and as anyone knows, settlements that come out of that are not the best. I was not part of the negotiations and do not know what compromises were made, I can only speculate. However, I don't feel that every detail of that agreement is sacred. From my perspective, I tried to evaluate what the spirit of the agreement provides, and I think that is what is important here. Our community is different, economically and socially, than it was seventeen years ago. I believe if the City was in the some spot today as it was then, that the Settlement Agreement would provide for a very different concept than the 275 room family inn. However, to me the spirit is clear. The agreement does not consider this an open space parcel, it is a hotel site, and it says so. That was clearly negotiated. If we were starting from scratch, I would prefer to be some type of aquatic park or some type of natural open space area, but that is not what is on the table here. The agreement says in its spirit, to keep the height and visual intrusion as minimal as possible. The City's history since the early 70's is one of keeping the height limits down adjacent to the bay. Recently we approved the expansion of the Bay Club and kept the tower element of that project to a height of 57 feet, which works out to be 68.5 feet above mean sea level. Furthermore, to me the spirit of the agreement says to • keep the traffic under 4,000 cars a day. The Settlement Agreement gave the site rights to that amount of traffic and that has been carried in the City's General Plan and Traffic Model ever since. The spirit of that Agreement tells me to provide maximum access to the bay, lagoon and the beach. This is public trust land and the public has the right to have maximum access to it and the water. To me, these principles in addition to those that exist in our General Plan should be the guidelines that this Commission follows in reviewing this proposal. We need to settle on the size of this project so that we can move on so that we can start to make some decisions on mitigation and conditions, and evaluate the impacts. I propose the following: • Restore the plate heights to the previous level that was initially proposed. That original plate height is needed to keep this a quality structure. • Remove the fifth floor from the hotel structure. This would eliminate 18 rooms. • Reduce the conference space to 30,000 square feet maximum, 25,000 square feet for function and 5,000 for pre - function. • Reduce the maximum number of conference space attendees that was suggested by Mr. Gleason at the last meeting by a proportional amount to the reduction of conference square footage. If the Commission accepts these proposals, or something close to it, I would point out to everyone that it would still be subject to further modifications if we find it necessary to mitigate an impact. However, it would certainly set forth the directions for the rest of the proceedings that this Commission would undertake. How does this proposal meet the criteria I set forth earlier? From the broad public perspective, it keeps the buildings low. The absolute heights 99 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 of the bluffs on the west side of the bay have been stated to be important. However, I look at it from a much broader perspective. From the height of Newport Center to the intersection of Jamboree and Coast Highway down to and across the bay to the bluffs is a grand view of the broad horizon. That is my perspective. Where the portions of this building rise to the height of the bluffs or above it is not important in and of itself. What is important is how this building fits in that grand panorama. It must be low enough that it does not rise up to and unduly block or intrude into the vista. It must also have enough articulation, architectural interest and pleasing proportions in the building profile to enhance that panorama and present itself as a landmark. Since the last meeting I have vacillated between removing the fourth and fifth floors to removing the fifth floor only. I have reviewed all of that and after careful consideration, I can't see removing the fourth floor as it violates the criteria I set forth earlier for architectural interest and proportion. I can go either way on the fifth floor, but since there is so much concern over it, I have included deleting it in my proposal, as I don't think its removal will be fatal to the building design. I also mentioned earlier placing the first level of the parking structure underground. I know it is feasible and I know it is expensive. My final conclusion on that was that it would not significantly improve the aesthetics of the building, and I would rather see the money invested in sinking that level of parking underground go into making the portions of the structure that is visible • of the highest quality. If my calculations are right, this would leave the building at 53 feet at the peak of the highest fourth floor element. I did a map and a table on this structure where I identified 87 different points and had the absolute elevation calculated in term of elevation above mean sea level, above the pad elevation as the applicant has proposed and as above the existing in the natural grade. I have made this available to my fellow Commissioners to review as part of their analysis. For their reference, point 54 is what I am referring to as being 53 feet as the highest element in the fourth floor. At the eave points it is 42 feet and it would be 60 feet at the peak of the elevator tower, assuming the elevator tower is reduced proportionally in height when you go from five to four stories. All of these heights I mentioned, are against the finished grade that the applicant has proposed, which is 10 feet above mean sea level. To compare this proposal I am making to the bluffs, consider the following: • Castaways bluffs range from 75 feet to 82.5 feet above mean sea level at the park area and 77.5 to 85.9 feet at the Taylor Woodrow Housing Development. • Coast Highway and Jamboree Road intersection is 82.215 feet. • The hotel would now be 70 feet above mean sea level at its highest point. • This is within 18 inches of the tower that was approved on the Bay Club project. • An imaginary line drawn across the bay from Coast Highway and Jamboree Road intersection to an average elevation of 82 feet on the other side of the bay, the highest point of my proposal would still fall 12 feet short of penetrating that line. • Removing the third story of the time share building adjacent to the marina 23 INDEX Ol City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 All reduce all of the buildings on the water frontage from three story buildings in height to the same two story height that is permitted in Dover Shores in their homes on the water. Thus the Dover Shores residents will be looking at two story structures similar in heights to their own. • The three and four story portions of the hotel will be away from the water and recede more into the background. Having two story structures on the water makes a better transition from the marina front to the larger portions of the hotel. • The reduction of the conference space brings that space close the typical conference space in similar sized hotels. The conference space is necessary for the hotel to sell rooms in the off season by hosting conferences. It is also necessary for local events. We need additional space for events for our community. In reviewing hotels in our traffic studies and investigating other hotels, 350 rooms and 30,000 square feet of conference space seems to be about the average number needed for a facility of this nature to operate successfully. • If the applicant wants to replace the lost rooms in the area where the conference space was deleted, I do not have a problem with that. However, I don't think the building should be increased to provide these room, as one of the benefits of this building layout is the large amount of landscape grounds that it will be providing. Any attempt to lower the • building and spread the footprint out impinges upon that aspect of the project. • These reductions bring the hotel to a size that is large enough to be a quality resort and conference center that benefits the city overall and provides for the common good. Yet, it is small enough that the visual impacts upon adjacent and nearby properties is minimal. Above all it sits low enough and does not have a significant impact above and beyond that approved in the Settlement Agreement on the panorama across the Back Bay. I will not support this concept unless we can mitigate the impacts on nearby and adjacent properties. I won't support it unless we are assured that the end result is a top quality hotel that benefits the City as a whole. If the Commission endorses this concept, or something close to it, I will be looking toward the Development Agreement to ensure that quality. Commissioners Tucker and Kiser are serving on the sub - committee to review the DA and I will be looking through it to provide detail criteria far beyond that which is in there now. I will be looking for criteria that will ensure the facility will be a top of the line quality hotel and looking to provide stricter conditions and management plans. All of this is to ensure that we get the highest quality, least impact project possible for our community if this is approved. Commissioner Tucker stated that the fifth floor element is relatively small and is more an architectural projection as opposed to building mass. I prefer to see the fifth floor remain. I concur that the timeshare buildings along the bulkhead should be reduced to two stories. I concur with the reduction of 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 conference space. I would specify that the 12,000 square foot ballroom stay and therefore the other 12,000 square foot ballroom be reduced to 8,000 square feet. I too have a very strong feeling about this project being one that I can support only if it is better than what is allowed under the Settlement Agreement. If it is not, then there is no need to grant more entitlement. I too will be looking at the quality assurance of the project. We need to have something that is a terrific structure because it is going to be there a long time. For those people who have come and testified week after week and spent their time and energy on expressing their opinions, we have heard what was said. There are some parts of testimony that we get that we have to weight and evaluate and come to a conclusion as to whether it is meritorious. With the reductions along the bulkhead, the legitimate concerns of Mr. Ohlig have been addressed. With the fourth and fifth floors only constituting 16% of the project and with the screening, his issues should be taken care of. The residences along Mayflower, unfortunately under every plan that I envision, will be the at the "back of the house." The question is, is what is being done to that area better than what would be available under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement allows no ability to affect the site plan at all. There is no telling how it would be designed. With the significant increase in the setbacks, it is as good as it is going to get for the people in that particular area. The re- design is well thought out from a noise standpoint and • no material change is necessary to address that issue. That is not to say that there are not noise issues, only that the location of the structure should not have to be re- oriented due to noise. We will be looking at operating conditions and restrictions to protect against undue noise and lighting. Massing has been my biggest concern and I think that with a little more change in the timeshare section and a little bit of reduction in ballroom space, that should be adequately addressed. I agree that if the purpose of the ballroom space is to sell rooms, I think 30,000 square feet of ballroom space ought to be able to sell the rooms in this hotel. I am not sure that the purpose of this hotel is to provide ballroom space for other hotels in the area. I concur with the conclusion on the plate heights. I look forward to moving into discussion of the CEQA issues. I am supportive of the Chairman's comments other than the fifth floor issue. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he agrees with the Chairman's comments and agrees that the fifth floor element should be removed. The applicant has hired high quality architects that have done hotels throughout the country and the world, and I believe that they can make an architecturally stimulating project with four stories. From the beginning, I believed that we could create a project that would be better for the community with the conference center as long as we could determine how the conference center would work. I will not approve the project until we feel comfortable that the trips generated from this hotel will be at least equal to or less than the trips that were established in the Settlement Agreement. I also believe we have an opportunity to look at the conference center prospectively rather than • retrospectively. Very few conferences that I have been to were planned a 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 week or two before the conference. Most conferences are planned months or years in advance of the date. I think this will give an opportunity to the City to look at dates in the future where this conference center is operating at areas that approach concern levels and help mitigate those issues prior to the event. Noise has been a concern and it is important that we added a condition for a 5- decibel reduction on certain types of noise to protect the citizens in the surrounding areas from noise that negatively impacts their quality of life. Commissioner Ashley stated that he concurs with the remarks made by the Chairman. He asked if it is the intention, that if the third level was removed from the timeshare project will there be a redistribution of these third floor units? I am still opposed to all of the traffic that this resort project will generate on Bayside Drive. I recognize there is no reasonable alternative to that. Bayside Drive is going to be the major entryway. I would like to see all the timeshare units out of the project. The reason for this is that the timeshares do not make the same contribution to the revenues and income stream to the City as the hotel. A room tax is not applied to timeshare units that are occupied by the owners or by people who are exchanging and staying at a timeshare from another resort project where they own. For that reason, rather than to see a greater reduction in hotel rooms, and leaving the timeshare units . as proposed in tact, I would prefer to see the timeshare units go. I think that if we kept the entire project somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 overall units, the hotel would not lose nor become a foreclosure. I don't want to see it so large as to create an inconvenience to traffic and to risk that would cause problems that we could never undo. How important are these timeshares units to the City of Newport Beach in terms of what this project can mean to us? I like the project; it is a quality project. Chairperson Selich explained that his intent was strictly on the height of that structure. If there was room otherwise to re- design within the building bulk and do the 8 units, that would be fine with me. The some goes for the 18 rooms on the fifth floor too. Commissioner Kiser stated that he concurs with almost everything that was said by the Chairman. He noted his concern that the peak hour traffic generated by the conference space usage could cause serious problems. I appreciate traffic studies and intersection studies, but the reality of the development that has occurred in Newport, the traffic on Coast Highway is significantly greater than it was in the past. We have to look very closely at any additional traffic, particularly anywhere near the peak hours going onto Coast Highway. I can support the project with everything that I have seen with the traffic studies as of tonight with the revisions made based on the smaller scale of the project with that amount of conference space. I would propose that the 18 rooms on the fifth floor not be recovered anywhere else in the hotel to reduce it by 18 rooms. We have to remember here, we started With a monstrous hotel in that location. Starting with a 600 -room hotel we 26 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 have come down to a 470 equivalent rooms. I would propose that the 18 rooms be deducted leaving 452 as well as the timeshare units reduced by 25 units leaving 50 timeshare units. It the 25 rooms removed were the ones proposed to be the lock off units, that would effectively remove 50 room count from the hotel as well ending up with a hotel proposal of about 402 rooms. This would get the hotel down towards the size that is closer to the Settlement Agreement amount that was agreed to a number of years ago. The fact that a lot of the boat owners will be using the parking lots behind the proposed timeshare units, would not be a very welcoming or public friendly fagade between the parking lot and the slips. The boat owners would have to travel between the timeshare buildings to get out to their boats in the marina. If the 25 units were removed and the buildings separated along that area it would allow more view of the boat slips and easier access to them. By making the buildings somewhat smaller and separated more, it could provide for a more architecturally interesting project. Otherwise, it is an excellent project and I expect that a lot more things will need to be done, but I support this project. We can condition things like motodzed watercraft rentals, etc. so that we can take care of some of the potential noise issues and/or eliminate some other concerns. Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood stated that there has not been much discussion on the Development Agreement or the fiscal impact analysis. As they are relevant to some of the comments made by Commissioner Ashley, I would point out a couple of items. The draft of the Development Agreement, to which the applicant has tentatively agreed, was in the February 3m packet as attachment 2. Beginning on page 15 there is a description of an entitlement fee that would be paid by the timeshare owners. That is to compensate the City for the transient occupancy tax that would not be paid by people who are in the exchange program for timeshares. In addition the TOT would be paid whenever one of those units goes into the nightly rental pool and is treated as a hotel room. The other distinction between hotel and timeshare is that the City would receive higher property tax per unit for timeshare than for a hotel room because the intervals are sold to so many people for a week or two at a time per year. Each one of those has property tax assessed on it. Using our fiscal impact analysis, looking at property tax and TOT per hotel room it would be about $3600 a year and per timeshare unit, it would be a little over $4,000 per year. Chairperson Selich then conducted straw votes: • Restore previous plate heights - all yes • Remove fifth floor from the hotel structure - 4 yes, 1 no • Not be allowed to replace those rooms in other portions of hotel - 3 yes, 2 no • Remove the third floor from the timeshare building that is closest to the marina - all ayes Reduction of conference space to 30,000 square feet (reduction of . conference space 8,000 and 12,000 with 5,000 square feet proportionally 27 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 from pre - function) - not voted on Public comment was opened. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Gleason stated that the reduction to 25,000 would probably be similar to what we have proposed. He clarified that the proposal as revised included the two 12,000 square feet ballrooms and one 5,000 square foot ballroom and then break out conference space to make up the difference of the square footage. There was also an associated 36,000 square feet of pure meeting space and 10.000 square feet of pre - function. A proportional reduction would be 25,000 and 8,000 to 7,000 square feet on the pre- function space, but that relates more to the layout then anything else. Our preference would be to review what is feasible. Commissioner Tucker noted that we need one larger scale venue that will accommodate larger scale events in our City that seem to find their way to the Hyatt in Irvine. Chairperson Selich agreed and suggested that maybe the way to do it would be 25,000 square feet of functional area with at least one 12,000 square foot room with a proportional reduction in pre- function space. My proposal is based on looking at similar size facilities and how much conference space they need to operate. The purpose of the conference facility is not to make it a convention center but the intent is to have enough conference space to serve community needs and to also provide the ability to sell conference rooms and facilities in the off season. 30,000 square feet seems to be the most common amount for hotels of this size and really translates to 25,000 square feet of function and then if the pre- function fluctuates to 7,000 instead of 5,000 to be proportional that does not particularly bother me. Commissioner Kranzley noted that taking a look at the applicant's proposal for the maximum of people in the conference center which was 1750 divide that into 46,000 square feet it works out to 1 person for every 26 square feet. In the Settlement Agreement, they were allowed to have meeting areas for 400 people. Applying the some proportion, that is about a 10,500 square foot meeting /conference room. They were also allowed to have 5,000 square feet of commercial and a 15,000 square foot restaurant. It seems like we are back within the general confines of what they were allowed in the Settlement Agreement with a 30,000 square foot conference area. Chairperson Selich restated that proposal and continued taking straw votes: • Reduce the conference space to approximately 30,000 square feet with a 25,000 square feet of function space with a minimum of a 12,000 square foot ballroom. The remaining space to be allocated by the applicant with the pre- function space to be provided proportional to the overall • reduction in meeting space - 4 yes, 1 no 28 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 • Reduce the maximum number of conference space attendees suggested by Mr. Gleason at the last meeting proportional to the amount of the reduction we just voted on for conference space - all yes • Remove all of the timeshares Commissioner Tucker expressed his concerns that if we insist that the applicant make this a very high quality project, it costs money and is tantamount to us saying we are going to spend some of their money. When you start removing too much of what the project is, you start to run the risk that the applicant is not going to be able to make the thing pencil properly in order spend the money to make it as nice as possible. I think that with the reduction in the hotel rooms on the fifth floor and the reduction of the room in the timeshares, I don't think we ought to require that all the timeshares be removed. Commissioner Ashley noted that the removal of the timeshares (100 units) was to address the concerns of the citizens who have expressed their concerns of the amount of traffic resulting from this project. This is in a very confined area that is fragile and we need to look at the issue of how much is enough? We have to address the number of timeshare units in the project. Commissioner Tucker commented that the project is subject to the CEQA review, which includes a traffic study. To the extent that we find out that the project, from a traffic standpoint, won't perform, then the inevitable would be the removal of additional units. My comments were design type features; we still have to go through in detail all the traffic issues. I would rather see timeshares gone than hotel rooms gone if I had to make a choice. Commissioner Kiser added he would like to see the timeshares gone completely. He did not intend to make that proposal, nor is he now. I know there is some construction finance ability issues having to do with timeshares inclusion in development projects for hotels. With the reduction of the timeshare buildings to two stories, I think that is taking care of a lot of the concerns. From purely legal issues, whether it is the salability of these realizing they ore on the lease land, then I suppose it is really a sub - lease. There is a Master Lease and there would be a timeshare of a sublease position. Ms. Clauson answered that the County of Orange holds the lease. This would be the negotiation with the County. As for as the legal issues of whether the County can lease the property for timeshares, I do not know if we have done that evaluation, that is something the County would do. Chairperson Selich noted he is not in favor of removing timeshares at this time. This concept could be modified if we find that there are environmental impacts or things we could not mitigate, traffic certainly being one of them. To delete them at this point purely on a traffic issue, I can not agree with. • Remove the timeshares totally - 3 no, 2 yes • Remove 25 timeshare units, those being the lock -off units that can be 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 rented out - 3 no, 2 yes • Replace timeshares elsewhere as long as they stay within the building heights - 3 yes, 2 no Chairperson Selich recapped the straw votes: • Restore previous plate heights. • Remove the fifth floor • 18 rooms from the fifth floor can not be relocated elsewhere. • Remove third floor from the timeshare building on the marina front. • 8 units removed can be replaced elsewhere as long as they stay within the height limits • Reduce conference space to maximum 25,000 square feet for the functional areas with a 12,000 square foot ballroom and a proportional reduction in the pre- function space. • Maximum number of conference space attendees is reduced by a proportional amount to the reduction in conference space above. Straw vote - all ayes Chairperson Selich stated that the City Council has designated the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee as the body responsible for reviewing environmental impact reports and making recommendations on the adequacies of those documents to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Patrick Bartolic, 620 Iris spoke as a past member of the sub - committee that reviewed the EIR. He is no longer on EQAC. He thanked staff and Commission for their time and effort on the project. He then presented a handout that listed the comments on the EIR, the answers from Responses to comments dated January 28, 2000 and EQAC comments on the responses given. He stated that they looked at the entire environment from the top end of the bay down to the parcel that this project is being built on. It was looked at from the perspective of views, bulk, size, water quality of the bay and noise. We reviewed the California Environmental Act, requirements of mitigation, negative and /or adverse impacts, and adverse impacts of air quality, visual resource, view planes and traffic. EQAC identified all of the above issues in the draft EIR. Virtually none of the questions identified were answered or had the underlying impact mitigated in the Response to Comments dated January 28, 2000, and therefore the Response did not make an adequate response to EQAC comments, questions, and requests for information. Therefore. EQAC finds the EIR and Project Impact Mitigation lacking and recommends against accepting the EIR for the Dunes Resort project. Commissioner Tucker asked if, during our detail review of the EIR if we address the issues that you represent in your finding letter, at that point would that be acceptable to EQAC? Under the CEQA guidelines, some of the questions may not have been able to be answered and some may have been. 30 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 Mr. Bartolic answered that the EQAC sub - committee looked at the EIR with the assistance of city staff and we felt these were issues were left unanswered for whatever reason. The EIR is a huge document, however, there is one page that identifies the twelve initial areas that were analyzed. Three of those twelve are identified as adverse negative impact that could be mitigated, another five areas mentioned significant impact that may or may not be mitigated. Our goal is to say that we looked at the EIR, we asked for responses, we did not get responses that we had hoped would allow us to either say that the EIR should be accepted intact or not. Based on that, the EIR committee felt they could not recommend that the Planning Commission go forward with the project based on the existing EIR, as it is not complete, nor satisfactory. The consultant did not attend any of the meetings. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 East Ocean Boulevard a member of the EQAC committee stated that there is new technology for water quality. One of our concerns is the runoff going into the bay. At the Marblehead project in San Clemente, (she distributed a copy of a news article), the developers are putting in underground storage for all runoff. This is relatively new technology and could be applied to this project, which would mean that there would be no runoff going directly into the bay from this project. I would hope that you look at and discuss this with the developer to see if it could be added to improve the water quality of the bay. Public comment was opened. Jan Artenion, 11 Ocean Vista, stated that she was representing the Community Associations of Dover Shores, Sea Island, Harbor Cove, Bayshores, Linda Island, Beacon Bay, Promontory Bay, Balboa Island, Little Balboa Island, Castaways and Cliff Haven coalition. She stated their support of the hotel project on the leased land. However, based on the size and magnitude of the proposed project, these associations have come together to form a coalition and draft a position paper that will address the concerns about the impact on the quality of life. We look forward to working with the developers and city staff so that the development will be the greatest development and least negative impact on the associations, which surround it and ultimately on the city as a whole. We respectfully request that you delay approval, until as a coalition, we can be heard. Ramona Harris, 300 East Coast Highway #222 thanked the Commission for their time and work on this deliberation. She noted that the decrease in the conference and ballrooms might defeat what we need in the city. We do not want to be a suburb of Irvine. She stated she saw the balloon displays and compared them to be less than the towers on 17th Street. Barbara Lichman, 1320 Mariners, attorney for the Dover Shores Community Association noted it is difficult to give original comments on a project we have not had the opportunity to review. In order to approve any project there is 31 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 certain criteria: • CEQA compliance • Project is consistent with Local Coastal Plan • The project does not result in conditions or circumstances that are contrary to the public health, safety and general welfare. Despite the downsizing of the property, which is significant, we are still going to be faced with the same conditions that gave rise to the noise, some traffic, air quality and water quality impacts. Nothing done tonight has addressed the issue of the noise that will be created by this project with the possible exception of the downsizing of the timeshares. But they have not been redesigned to reduce the noise. We will be at the next meeting with specific comments on those issues and we ask you to turn your attention to CEQA, Coastal Act and the public health, safety and welfare impact of the project. At Commissioner inquiry, she added that the revised noise impact analysis in the draft EIR stated that the noise was predicated on the supposition that the music from the hotel would not be too loud and it would end at 10:00 p.m. Parties at hotels do not end at 10:00 p.m. and the supposition was created entirely for the purpose of escaping the 10 dBA weighing that occurs with noise after 10:00 p.m. This weighing creates a higher noise impact after 10:00 p.m. than if the same noise occurred during the day. If the model stops the noise at 10:00 p.m. it avoids that weighing. You can not assume that the music will not be too loud. Right now, we have residents that are disturbed by events occurring at the Dunes. Those assumptions are not correct. We commented on that on our comment letter on the draft EIR. Brad Salata, 98 Linda Isle noted his support of the project. Mr. Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane thanked the Commission for their work. He passed out exhibits and referencing them noted the discrepancies he found in the material. He stated that he has provided some benefit to this discussion. From the last meeting he noted that he had expected some plans to arrive for him so that he could analyze them. The simulations have not been made available to the public and we are asked to make comments on something that will affect our lives. The balloons have helped and the last page on my exhibit shows that they are higher than Promontory Point for us. I am grateful for the changes that have been proposed tonight. I am more than willing to explain my methodology. At Commission inquiry, he explained that the balloons represent the three -story structure. These photographs were taken from my back yard. The Commission thanked him for his work. Chairperson Selich clarified that all of the images that are available to the Planning Commission, all of the reports we get have not been available to the public. Is that what you are saying. Mr. Ohlig answered that it has not been possible for him to get down to the Planning office during the day. It has been 32 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 difficult. Chairperson Selich then asked the applicant to make available to Mr. Ohlig a copy of all of the diagrams that have been distributed to the Planning Commission. He was answered that could be done, and also that all of the information is and has been on their web site. The consultant will be made available to Mr. Ohlig. Tom Hyans, 217 19 +h Street talked about visualization of the project. He noted his support of the Dunes and the Settlement Agreement. It was an agreement between the people that was concluded about twelve years ago. The new project hit the table about ten years after it was concluded, about 1998. 1 went to look at the balloons three times. The first time was from the Castaways; I saw balloons leaning in all directions at the same time. The computer graphics are absolutely impossible to understand. The simplest way to approach the problem is to do an architectural model. He presented a picture of a model done for the Sage Hill School. This seems to be a simple thing for the applicant to do. It would address the concerns of height, scale, location, etc. The picture you saw is on the Green Light web site. This picture was taken from made from a lower location on Coast Highway than what was mentioned in the sight plane noted by the Chairman. • Alan Beek, 2007 Highland complimented the way the meeting has been organized. He stated that the EIR has ignored one of the more important alternatives that ought to be considered. The sound could be taken away, the visual impact could be ameliorated and the traffic could be moved over to Back Bay Drive instead of on Bayside Drive by simply moving this project over so that it nestles up against the cliff on the other side of the lagoon. That alternative was brought up and not addressed in the EIR. You may object that there is not room to put the hotel on the side, well that whole lagoon is sand which has been moved around repeatedly by the Shellmaker dredges and a dredge is a cheap way to move sand from one place to another. That alternative should be given major consideration. I point out that this whole thing is a county park. The county has adopted the philosophy that a park is not for the people to enjoy, but a place to make money. The city fought them over what they were doing to our community and we got a negotiated agreement. Your idea of having conventions being brought into town, I don't see how having those in town is going to improve my quality of life at all. Having less traffic is a clear criteria and better if you make it less peak hour traffic. Don't bring in those conventions, that is not an improvement, that is a decrease in our quality of life. Make it better than the Settlement Agreement. At commission inquiry, Mr. Beek stated that the Green Light Initiative speaks to traffic, floor area and to dwelling units. Those are objective criteria. If you make less peak hour traffic, that would be great! Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower stated that she has been at most of the 33 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 0 meetings. She studied the EIR since 1998 when the Negative Declaration was initiated. The applicant has not shown any pictures from Mayflower. In the Settlement Agreement, none of the RV's were removed, and they do protect the residences on Mayflower by providing a buffer between whatever they want to build and our back doors. I saw the balloons and presented pictures taken from her home and the house next door. They were taken from the level of the bike trail. The balloons were colored to represent the two -story elevation. The parking structure is to be three levels, so the level marked is the top of the second level where the valet parking will be. There will be 308 cars parked for the restaurants. They are very close. She also gave copies of page 26 and t.7 -17 from the EIR and asked the Commission to address the questions. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Lawhorn stated that the RV area is the standard section of the Dunes Resort. These are the people who come and stay one month at a time usually. They are normally very quiet neighbors. The RV area is approximately 15 feet from her back yard. Chairperson Selich asked under the Settlement Agreement, would they not be able to move the RV spaces around on their area any place they want without discretionary review by the City? Ms. Clauson answered, yes. They are not conditioned as part of the Settlement Agreement to a specific location. If the applicant wants to move them anyplace else, they can do so. Robert Balen, 265 Mayflower Street stated that almost all of the residents on Mayflower Street have signed petitions opposing this project. Those petitions are in Mr. Alford's office, and I hope you are aware of that. The main concern is our quality of life. To me personally, if that garage were one story with a sound wall that will block the noise, there would not be so much of a problem. I don't think there is anyway to mitigate it as a two -story structure. Tree screens planted to obscure the concrete wall would help. Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star Lane reminded the Commission there were no timeshares in the original Settlement Agreement. He and his neighbors relied on the City's General Plan, the zoning, height ordinance and the Settlement Agreement and when you talk about changing those after the fact, we can not go back and change our investments. For most of us, this is the final investment. I came here to talk about noise. (he distributed a handout) There has been some discussion on our ability to rely on the noise ordinance. Calling the police when there are noise problems at the Dunes, if the police find they have a Special Use Permit, that is all they need to see. The Use Permit specifically says comply with the City Ordinance. The police are not armed with dBA meters, nor am I proposing they should be. It has historically been unsatisfactory. Amplified music outside at any time will not comply with the City Ordinance. 34 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 At Commission inquiry staff stated that they would respond to the 75 dBA and the 55 dBA questions. Susan Caustin asked why the City does not consider a commitment as a commitment? That is why Green Light is in existence now as we do not fell we can trust what has been said in the past to be promulgated through the future. A Use Permit is only as good as the commitment behind it. Once a project is built, there is a tendency to slide into not quite doing things right. If you do put a use permit, I ask that you put one in that will restrict the use of the conference space to only people staying within the hotel. We hear that the conference space has to be in there to maintain the economic viability of the hotel. Yet, we know that a lot of people want to use this space for their own events or projects. This is the most traffic sensitive intersection in the City. So one of the things I ask is a restriction that it can't be used for anything but selling your hotel rooms. (passed out medical conference information). It has been very difficult to get information in a timely fashion. Two meetings ago, I asked for a copy of the actual traffic count that was on the screen. We have asked for copies of the power point presentation, but I am still waiting. I never did get the actual outline of the project when I came to pick up information this past Wednesday. That information has been very difficult to obtain. A commitment by the City needs to be carried through, and I ask that you honor . the commitment from 1988. Pat Greenbaum, 30D East Coast Highway stated that she had addressed the traffic potential of the conference center and those questions have been answered tonight. I thank you for that. I walk regularly on the new emergency and service road that is the entrance to the lower Back Bay entrance that comes of Jamboree. It is now going to be the entrance for the commercial and employee vehicles. That road is considered an emergency and service road. It passes through the RV stalls on that road and I can not imagine staying in an RV on that road for any length of time. I see that as a white elephant eventually with commercial and 500 some employees coming past those RV's on a daily basis. If that residential affordable housing project goes in at that location, which is the four acres that The Irvine Company owns will be at that entrance, that will be unacceptable to residential housing planned by the Irvine Company. My point is vehicle noise and air quality to those two resident living sites. Melanie Fitch, 108 30th Street stated that the applicant will not let the water quality be bad, the noise level be high or the grounds be less than pleasing because their guests would never return. The Dunes project people are going to be working there, so they will want to have a quality environment to work in. As for as the view, it is difficult if someone can not visualize a balloon that some spatial reasoning person can not visualize a model either. To advocate an expense because it might be clearer, it won't be clear to enough people who can not grasp the balloon idea. People going down Coast Highway • should not be looking at vistas and views, they don't drive well on highway 35 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 already! You should put up all the walls you can! For people to advocate they can see across Dover Shores is not good. The Dunes project will enhance people's property values. The term timeshare is a negative term. It is difficult to distinguish a person that was sitting on the sand who is a timeshare guest from a person sitting on the sand who is a hotel guest. The conference rooms are used as an expansive room. It is not because it is stuffed with people, but it is because you can see things better and you keep it roomy. Usually the guest speakers are at lunch times and wedding reception attendees do not all leave at the same time. During conferences, they break into small groups and dissipate at different times. It is important to watch this unique development and an opportunity to have the large ballrooms. Jennifer Frutig, 1715 Marlin Way asked about the revised traffic study. The 1988 Settlement states that it allows for 308 trips in p.m. peak hours. There is a Table 5 regarding catered events provided by the Evans Hotel chain that showed, based on a 17,500 square foot conference area, that 610 - 619 peak number of attendees for a specific period on Saturday evening in August. Based on this table, a 30,000 square foot conference area would result in approximately 1,000 peak number of attendees. How do you reconcile this data with the Settlement and is this factored into the number of peak hour trips that would significantly impact the intersection of Bayside and PCH? I admit, I have • trouble understanding some of these tables, even with a PHD. How do they apply to the original Settlement? Dan Purcell, 600 Acacia Avenue commended the statements made by the Chairperson. He noted his concern about limiting the audience participation stating it is bad public relations if people can not get up and speak their minds. If you limit, it should be done in advance. Commissioner Kranzley stated for the record, that there will be additional public hearings and the public will be given the opportunity to speak. I was never going to shut off public testimony; I was merely trying to organize a little bit of tonight's presentation. Ed Fitch, 602 Kings Road stated that his house overlooks the Dunes and Coast Highway and has no problem with the project with its original heights. I support this project. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich invited the visual consultant for the Dunes and asked him to explain the methodology used to develop the visual simulations. Particularly to the issue of viewpoint used, how high or close? Brent Chase, President of Headrick Chase and Associates, San Juan Capistrano explained the following: . • Completely analyzed this project due to the redesign and Mr. Ohlig's input. 36 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 • That entailed complete 3D remodeling of the structure in the computer of the revised design in Alternative 1. • We went out with a GPS unit that allows us to stand in a spot and within 20 seconds will give us real coordinates in the world to about a third of a meter accuracy. • We went back to the original photographic sites and got those coordinates for the view at the some viewer's height. • All the modeling done was by the same viewer from the Castaways, the private residences, and the lagoon beach. • The height above ground was approximately 5 foot 6 inches. • The original photo locations were verified as well as palm trees, the existing buildings, roadways, gatehouses, curb edges, the GPS was used to gather all that information to get stationary points to lock the computer model to. • That is the way the balloons were analyzed. They were placed in the computer model at the points specified as ridges and eave lines, etc. and we joined the balloon locations with the GPA information, we put balloons into the photography two days before they were out on site. I went out on Saturday morning after they were first put up and had a photograph that showed the balloons installed and our computer files that showed where the balloons should be. They compared to almost 100% accuracy. • It was a great opportunity for the applicant to show the accuracy of what • we were doing, because the model forecasted where the balloons would be. • This is a differential GPS unit that takes coordinates from eight satellites. Three satellites give the on the ground location, four satellites give the up and down, and with the full complement of eight, it is able to continue to verify and give that much more information to you to triangulate your position. • It does not give it to you right away, you have to take it back to the office, download information from another resource and the computer processes that information and puts it down into an X, Y and Z, which is the height. Because there are 10 to 15 view points or palms in that view, when the model dropped onto the photograph and a palm that is on the left, and a palm on the right side and a building that is way on the back that may by up on the road, if all those things from the computer model tie in, all those things triangulate the computer model into the space. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the applicant is going to agree to a condition of his Use Permit that states that an image like this will replicate the building they are going to build. If Mr. Ohlig's pictures are dramatically different than your pictures and his are correct, somebody is going to have to get a saw and start cutting. Mr. Chase stated that the representative Alternative 1 design and the location of the balloons in the model when those balloons are in a picture out on site from actually being flown and we have another image that represents the • balloons where the computer model says they are and they lay on top of 37 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 each other without fail, that is as accurate as we can get. It is proof positive. I think Mr. Ohlig found a few errors in the original model that was done. However, with this new technology, we have nailed it down. I have invited him down to our office to explain our methodology and explain how it works, but he did not take me up on the offer. Commissioner Ashley asked if it makes a difference on the size lens that was used? Some of the pictures appear as though a wide -angle lens was used. Mr. Chase answered that he has used a panoramic lens across the board. There may have been some detail shots taken out of those. We utilize one camera with a fixed lens. It is real important, as the computer model needs to have that information. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked staff if it was feasible to retain a third party to do an independent evaluation of their model visual simulations. He was answered yes. Commissioner Tucker stated that he has no problem visualizing what a 50/65 - foot high building will look like in terms of height. The bigger issue is the feel for the mass of the structure. It seems like we have spent too much time on this issue. Commissioners Ashley and Kiser concurred with comments made by Commissioner Tucker. Chairperson Selich noted that he would not ask this to be done. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to April 6, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford Ms Temple stated that the request for a continuance for the Rothschild's matter asked for a hearing on April 201h. Motion for reconsideration was made by Commissioner Kranzley. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford 38 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2000 Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue the Rothschild item to April 20, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Gifford ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the meeting of March 14th Study Session where the Council is talking about a possible General Plan update, the City Manger arranged for a fine that does surveying, envisioning and public participation processes. They have directed staff to give informatin on the various General Plan elements. Those will be discussed starting this coming the 28th. There was an appointment of three Council members to the Affordable Housing Task force. 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 - none. 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 - none aaa ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 39 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment