HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/2000CI
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker -
Commissioner Gifford was excused
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager
Patrick Alford. Senior Planner
Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary
Minutes of March 23.2000:
Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley and voted on to approve, as
amended, the minutes of March 23, 2000.
Ayes:
Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes:
None
Absent:
Gifford
Abstain:
None
Public Comments:
None
Postina of the Agenda:
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, March 31, 2000.
Minutes
Approved
Public Comments
Posting of the
Agenda
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 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)
• Modificalion 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.
Associate Planner Eugenia Garcia noted that on page 2 of the report, there is a
suggested condition regarding the height of the top of frees, that condition was
meant to be the trees that screen the lower walls and not all of the landscaping
within the deck area. The suggested condition should read, 'The height of the
top of trees or other plantings used to screen the two lower retaining walls shall
be limited to the 92.0 mean sea level elevation:'
• Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson stated that on the suggested condition for
the Commission's consideration, there is recourse for the height of the trees within
the CC and R's of the Association. Adding that condition to this approval dealing
with the height of the trees rather than the screening of the wall would then put
the city in the position of enforcing a height restriction on trees for view purposes.
Chairperson Selich asked if there was any historical precedence on how to
address situations such as this where there are local CC and R's for local
communities?
Ms. Temple answered that the City does not enforce community associations' CC
and R's. As noted at the last hearing, we do have one Planned Community text
in Newport Center, which enforces Newport Center height plane for landscaping
as well as buildings. Typically, we have not imposed landscaping height
requirements as conditions of approval in residential communities.
Ms. Clauson added that the condition on the landscape plan is intended to
screen the walls, you might want to change the condition that it would be plants
suitable for that purpose and not something that might grow larger.
Commissioner Kiser asked if we put that suggested condition of approval, would
that give any kind of an additional right of action of the neighborhood. He was
answered, no; it would just put the responsibility on the City for enforcement.
• Public comment was opened.
112111 *1
Item No. 1
M 4968
Acceptance of a
Negative Declaration
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Peter Brandow, landscape architect spoke for the applicant stating that they
have no problems with conditions of approval that are placed, however, he
noted the height limit of the trees is covered by the CC and R's. The rules states
that if a neighbor requires a tree to be trimmed, then he has to pay for the
trimming. The plants that we have specified will not exceed height over the
retaining wall, only screening of the wall.
Val Skoro, President of the Irvine Terrace Homeowners' Association noted his
thanks to staff in taking into consideration the concerns of the association and
the residential community. As for as keeping the landscape trimmed, if someone
complains about the height of the trees, the complainer has to pay to have the
tree(s) trimmed. Our own CC and R's don't help us in this situation.
Bill Robins, 1547 Dolphin Terrace thanked staff for their time and consideration in
this project. As the most impacted neighbor on the adjoining slope, the trees,
which are required to screen the wall that is being produced, if not maintained,
will impact his view. He asked that a condition be imposed as part of this
approval to maintain the height. Additionally, he noted that another neighbor
has asked for a tempered glass only on a sidewall, as other materials could be
used that might become discolored over the years. We would also ask that the
• March 24th plan, which is the last one that the Association has looked at, be the
final plan.
Zachary Sham, architect for the Irvine Terrace stated that the only condition that
they are concerned about is the pumping of the swimming pool water. We
would like to see that the water is pumped up to and out on Dolphin rather than
down Bayside Drive.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to approved Modification permit
No. 4968 and accept the Negative Declaration with Exhibit A, findings and
conditions as modified. The amendments shall include - The trees will not be
permitted to extend beyond 92 feet and maintained by the owner.
Ms. Clauson stated that the City has a Water Quality Ordinance that handles
discharges of water.
Commissioner Tucker asked if the maker of the motion would agree that in
condition 1 to refer to the approved site plan dated March 24, 2000 and
condition 13 to state the side property line fencing shall be constructed of clear
tempered glass and that the landscaping that was referred to also be
designed not to exceed 92 feet in height at its ultimate grow out level.
Ms. Clauson clarified that the 92 is elevation, the real difference is 14 feet that
• the applicant is screening.
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Commissioner Kiser clarified that this height limit should refer only to the lower
retaining walls. It sounds as if the CC and R's can take care of other problems.
Commissioner Tucker added that he was asking for the type of vegetation that
at the outset does not have the capacity to grow much more than the 92 -foot
elevation. The City would not be placed in a position to have to enforce the
height of the vegetation.
Commissioner Ashley clarified that his motion refers to the plantings at the lower
retaining walls that is represented on the landscaping plan submitted to the
City.
Ms. Garcia added that the existing trees are located on the commercial
properties and are to be retained (noted on the plan). The trees that are the
topic are the new trees in the southwest corner on the landscape plan. They
are proposed to be pine and eucalyptus trees. Staff has reviewed this plan,
and the trees listed do tend to grow tall. The condition is worded so that the
landscape plan is subject to the approval of the Planning Department and the
General Services Department.
• Chairperson Selich noted that he is not in favor of conditioning a project where
the CC and R's of an association would take care of the issue. To bring the City
into the picture from an enforcement point of view is not a good idea.
Commissioner Kiser suggested that the motion be revised to indicate that the
types of planting materials that are approved on the plan would be of a type
that would not normally grow beyond or could easily be trimmed to the height
of the retaining walls that the planting materials were required to screen. It
would then be left to the Association to enforce heights.
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley. Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Modification Permit No. 4968
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Findings:
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared
in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQAj, the State
CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3.
•
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the
proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade
the quality of the environment.
3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised
by the project.
4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other
projects.
5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that
would be caused by the proposed project.
6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in
the various decisions on this project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. During construction activities, the project is required to comply with the
erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and
all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines,
including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04 or
applicable sections).
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the Planning and Building
Department for review and approval.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
construction traffic control plan which includes the haul routes, truck
hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction
warning /directional signage to the Planning and Traffic Department for
review and approval.
4. The applicant shall implement each of the design recommendations
stipulated in the geotechnical reports prepared for the proposed project.
Those reports shall serve as the definitive guides to geotechnical mitigation
requirements for the construction of the proposed retaining wall structure, in
addition to standard engineering practice and local and State building
codes.
5. A geotechnical engineer shall observe all excavations, subgrade
preparation and fill placement activities. Sufficient in -place fill density tests
shall be performed during fill placement and in -place compaction to
•
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April b, 2000
evaluate the overall compaction of the soils. Test areas that do not meet
minimum compaction requirements should be reworked and re- tested prior
to placement of any additional fill.
6. The retaining wall construction system shall be approved by a recognized
testing agency and installed per the applicable conditions of approval and
mitigation measures contained herein.
7. At the time of plan submittal to the Building Department, the applicant shall
submit a formal request for the use of alternative materials or methods of
construction for review and approval by the Building Official.
8. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval
of the Public Works Department to determine compliance.
9. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will
comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to
odors from construction activities.
10. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following
• measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality
impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular
watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality
Management District ( SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining
equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling
construction activities to minimize project - related emissions.
11. Construction activity mitigation shall include the following measures:
Dust Control
• Limit the disturbance area and use enhanced dust control measures.
The menu of enhanced dust control measures includes the following:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas.
• Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public roadway.
• Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from roads in the
vicinity of the project.
• Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other
dusty material.
• Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25
mph.
• Hydro -seed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain
inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
•
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Emissions Control
• Require 90 -day low -NOx tune -ups for off -road equipment.
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
Off -Site Impacts
• Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site.
• Wash or sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours.
• Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
12. The applicant shall submit a traffic control plan and a construction access
plan to address construction traffic and parking in order to maintain safe
access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall
include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee
parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic
Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant
shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department and a
street /sidewalk closure permit from the Revenue Division. Additionally no
is construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Bayside
Drive or El Paseo Drive.
13. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of
the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal
Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the
hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to
6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at
any time on Sundays and holidays.
B. Modification No. 4968
Findings:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single
Family Detached Residential" uses and a retaining wall structure is
considered an accessory use which is a permitted use within this
designation.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Oeclaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed
project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the
environment.
•
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
3. The granting of a modification to exceed the permitted height limit in a
setback area will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in
the neighborhood and the modifications as approved are consistent with the
legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the
following reasons:
• The use is compatible with the surrounding residential uses since
retaining wall structures are typically allowed in residential districts.
• Conditions have been added to address potential problems associated
with landscaping, aesthetics and height.
• The height of the retaining wall is 14 feet lower than the building pad
elevation of the homes above.
• The retaining wall will stabilize an unsafe eroding slope condition.
• The location of the retaining wall behind the commercial building will
reduce the visibility of the wall from the public streets.
• Additional landscaping has been provided on -site and in the right of
way in front of the wall to enhance the aesthetics of the project and
minimize the impacts of the wall height.
• The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
property within the proposed development.
• • The retaining walls will be painted a color that will blend in with the
natural foliage existing on the site to soften the appearance of the wall
while the landscaping matures.
Conditions:
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan, cross sections, landscape plan and elevations dated March 24, 2000,
except as noted below.
2. A landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be submitted to the Building
Department in conjunction with plans for construction of the project and shall
be approved by the Public Works, General Services and Planning
Departments. Landscaping shall be provided in a combination of trees, low
shrubs and ground cover consistent with the approved landscape plan and
acceptable to the Planning Department, Public Works Department and
General Services Department. Additionally, the slope area between the rear
and side property lines and the front of the retaining wall shall be
appropriately landscaped with bushes and trees specified in the approved
landscape plan to obscure the direct view of the wall. A combination of low
shrubs and ground cover shall be provided on the slope along the rear
property line consistent with the approved landscape plan. Prior to issuance
of the final of building permits for the retaining wall, the applicant shall
schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm
installation of the landscaping specified by this condition of approval. The
• approved landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved
8
11:111
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
plan and shall be permanently maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. All
landscaping and trees used for screening purposes shall be planted on the
subject property, unless granted permission by adjacent property owners to
locate plantings on adjacent properties.
3. The height of the tallest portion of the retaining wall shall be limited to 8 feet 6
inches and be constructed as a planter wall that will not require a guardrail
on top, as indicated on the approved plans.
4. A height certification for the walls and decks shall be required prior to pouring
the concrete and shall be submitted to the Planning and Building
Departments for approval.
5. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement
of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment
and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local
requirements.
6. The construction of the proposed wall will require traffic control plans to
handle construction traffic and activities adjacent to Bayside Drive. The
• applicant is required to obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works
Department and a street /sidewalk closure permit from the Revenue Division.
7. No construction equipment shall be allowed to park overnight on Bayside
Drive.
8. The wall shall be painted a color that will blend in with the natural foliage
existing on the site. the color to be approved by the Planning Department.
The retaining wall landscaping shall be installed and maintained in
accordance with the approved plans.
10. The owner shall contact Edison, Pacific Bell and the Southern California Gas
Company to determine whether the easement running along the west
property line boundary is presently being used or is planned to be used by the
utility companies in the future. If the easement has no present or future use, it
shall be abandoned prior to construction of the proposed retaining wall
unless otherwise approved by the Public Work Department.
11. If it is determined that the easement running along the west boundary
property line is presently in use or is planned to be used by a utility company
in the future and the property owner is not permitted to construct over the
easement, the relocation of the pool equipment and retaining walls
proposed to be located in the easement area shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department.
•
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
12. A drainage easement is required on the property directly below in order to
be able to run a drain line to Bayside Drive for the irrigation of the rear yard
and a drainage plan shall be submitted to the Building Department for
approval.
13. Side property line fencing shall be constructed of clear tempered glass
14. The three planters located above the pool deck and garden area shall be
limited to 6 feet in height as measured from natural grade.
15. The planBng materials used to screen the two lower retaining walls shall be
those which are not anticipated to exceed 92.0 feet above mean sea level
elevation.
Standard Requirements
The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
approval.
2. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060
40 of the Municipal Code.
3. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
4. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of any required public improvements, if
it is desired to obtain a grading or building permit prior to completion of the
public improvements.
5. Public easements and utilities crossing the site shall be shown on the
grading and building site plans.
6. This Modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date
of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
* *s
SUBJECT: Big Belly Deli
6310 West Coast Highway
• Use Permit No. 3666
A request to convert an existing 1,500 square foot retail building into a full- service,
small -scale eating establishment (pizza /deli) with 24 seats, that includes a waiver
0 10
INDEX
Item No. 2
Up 3633A
� 6:1 �
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
of the off - street parking requirements, and to establish a new alcoholic beverage
service outlet pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code.
Ms. Temple noted that at the last time this item was considered, it was requested
the applicant seek out alternative locations to provide parking. He has done so.
However, the same parking waiver would be required, should the Commission
choose to approve this, because the extra parking is available only in the
evening hours. The applicant was only able to find three additional parking
spaces. Even in the evening condition, the project does not provide the code -
required amount of parking.
Public comment was opened.
Lon Bike, 14 Ewes, Irvine, project architect stated that he has pursued a parking
agreement with an adjacent neighbor. That parking agreement is for three stalls
on the adjacent properly to be used after 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and
then after 3:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. To help mitigate some of the parking
concerns is a reduction in seating. Currently the plan has 24 seats in the
restaurant and we would like to reduce that number to 18. The required parking
would then be reduced for the project.
• John Christiansen, 2097 Orange, Costa Mesa spoke as one of the four partners in
the project. He stated that he is sensitive to the parking issue. He stated that he
and his partners are locals, and not a national corporation. Our target customers
are the beach -goers and locals. We want to service people who are already in
the neighborhood. The parking is difficult. In front of the Properly House, there
are 2, one hour free parking spots within fifty feet of our proposed business.
Additionally, there are 4 metered parking spots north of us. We intend to pay for
that parking when our customers come in. We will advertise so those customers
will park there instead of in the residential areas. Parking across the street, we do
not want to use that for our customers. The beach -goers are already parked
there and they are the ones we are hoping to attract as customers. As owners,
we realize how important parking spots are to the customer. The last thing we
are going to do is to use any potential customer parking. As locals, we will bike or
carpool to work. Concluding, he noted that this project would be good for the
community.
Commissioner Kranzley asked the applicant if he would be willing to have a
condition that the employees to park off site? I want to condition this so that
there are four cars are using the available parking spaces.
Mr. Christiansen answered that maybe we can set up a parameter that the
employees could not park within a certain block or so. Or, tell us we are not
allowed to park there at all. We will find a way.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that his concerns are for the residents of Newport
• Shores. They are inundated with parking in their residential areas when people
11
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
gravitate to free parking rather than metered parking. The residents are
constantly fighting for parking spaces in front of their homes. My concern is
exacerbating the problem having the deli there. I am sure the deli will be
successful wherever it is, I am concerned about parking in Newport Shores. I
would propose some condition prohibiting employee parking on site.
Mr. Christiansen stated that some business has to go in this building. A clothing
store was in there before. I do not want to add to the parking in the area, but
someone has to go there. If not us, who?
Chairperson Selich noted the difference is that a retail store can go in there
without a Use Permit. You have to come before us with a Use Permit as a
restaurant is considered a high parking generation use. So, we have to address
the parking issue that would not be addressed with a retail store.
Commissioner Kranzley asked if the business would be sit down business or a lot of
people coming in and picking up food and going back to the beach?
Mr. Christiansen said it would be a lot of both. Residents can come in, get a meal
and take it back home. A lot of beach goers will be doing the same. There will
be some people who will stop and eat in. The seating is not a big issue; we will
• have a little of every type of customers.
At Commission inquiry, the applicant stated that there are three parking spots in
the adjacent business. There is an agreement with them, and we are paying
them for that use during the available hours. A parking plan has been submitted
to the Planning Department.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Ashley noted the change in Finding 3 of a waiver of 4 parking
spaces instead of 6. Under Condition 2, limit to 18 seats maximum.
Ms. Temple noted that the applicant is not proposing to reduce the net public
area, just to not put as many chairs and tables into the floor space. Should the
business develop to the extent they would have a high number of people
coming in, it is very difficult for the City to enforce a seating limitation when the
actual floor area is designed to accommodate a higher number of seats. We
have experienced that as an enforcement problem for a long time. We can
impose the condition of course, but since the floor area itself is not getting any
smaller, we could have some enforcement challenges in the future.
Chairperson Selich noted that if we calculate it on the square foot as opposed to
the number of seats, it still would only require 7 spaces for parking.
Commissioner Kranzley asked if the rest of the Commissioners would be willing to
• accept a condition where the employees park off site and out of the immediate
12
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
area? Parking across the street will be hard for the afternoon shift during the
summer weekend; there might not even be a space there. It is an enforcement
issue, but at least if we get complaints from Newport Shores, we can say that the
applicant is in violation.
Chairperson Selich answered that maybe requiring annual parking passes for the
City lot across the street. You don't want them parking in the Newport Shores
area.
Commissioner Kiser asked about the required parking in Condition 24?
Ms. Temple answered that the Code allows if the Planning Commission is willing
to approve a use permit for a project which involve the use of parking which is
not on the site, we would have the City Attorney work on and ultimately have
recorded an off -site parking agreement. This is a legal agreement that would
be accepted by the City and the applicant.
Ms. Clauson added that the agreement gets recorded against the property
that is providing the offsite parking. There is a provision that if for any reason
that parking is lost, then the applicant would be required to provide the
parking elsewhere and would come back to the Planning Commission to do
that.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the required agreement would cover all the
spaces that weren't on site. In this particular case, we are talking about them
being short of spaces, even with the three spaces. Do we have a combination
of an offsite parking agreement and a waiver then? He was answered yes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley for approval of Use Permit No.
3666 with the findings and conditions in Exhibit A as amended. I would also
add a condition that would require employees to park in metered parking
spaces off site.
Commissioner Kiser suggested that the proprietors be required to purchase one
or more annual parking permits in lieu of that.
Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood asked about the condition. There are
some metered spaces directly adjacent to the site. Are those the ones you are
intending for the employees to use?
Commissioner Kranzley answered that it would be hard to designate which
metered spaces, at least we are getting them off site parking. I know that they
are intending to give quarters to their customers. I will change my motion to
reflect that the employees are required to park in the metered spaces across
the street.
• Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Tucker
13
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3666
Findinas:
1. The Land Use Dement of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and
Service Commercial" use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage service is
considered a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with the
General Plan.
2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
3. The waiver of restaurant development standards as they pertain to the site,
off - street parking, landscaping and walls surrounding the restaurant site will
not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The project meets the purpose
and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for
• restaurants (full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment) and
will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those
requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application, for the
following reasons:
• The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be
altered.
• The waiver of 6 4 parking spaces would not adversely impact the
existing parking situation and adequate parking is available on -site, off -
site and through public parking to accommodate this use.
• Additional parking will be available during the evening hours when
the parking demand is the greatest through an off -site parking
agreement for 3 additional spaces on the adjacent realty building lot.
• Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject
property.
• The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the
property to control noise can be achieved by the recommended
limitation on the hours of operation which should prevent potential noise
problems.
• The change to the facility from a retail use to a full- service, small -scale
facility does not constitute a significant change, which warrants an
increase in landscape area.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter
20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following
• reasons:
14
ILt1#:1
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April b, 2000
The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of
desired beverages in a restaurant setting.
• The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting district
in which the project is proposed is less than the percentage citywide,
and in the adjacent reporting districts one is higher and the other lower
than the citywide percentages, due to more commercial land uses in
these three reporting districts.
• There are no day care centers, schools, or park and recreation facilities
in the vicinity of the project site, though there are residential uses
located to the north and west of the property. However, the project is
not expected to be a problem since there is no outdoor seating and
there is limited seating and no bar area.
5. Approval of Use Permit No. 3666 to permit a full- service small -scale restaurant
with service of on -site consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer & wine
only) will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to
• property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the
City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the
following reasons:
•
The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses
since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts.
•
Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent
problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages and noise.
•
Adequate on -site, off -site and public parking is available for the proposed
use.
•
The proposed use will serve the residential and commercial uses and
visiting tourists in the area.
•
The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of the
facility as a restaurant.
•
The establishment will provide regular food service from the full menu at
all times the facility is open.
•
Because the restaurant does not have a bar area specifically designed
for the service of alcoholic beverages, the potential number of Police
and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control problems in the area
should be minimized.
•
A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made based on
the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in a restaurant
setting.
•
The designs of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
•
property within the proposed development.
15
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan and floor plan except as noted below.
2_ The interior dining area shall be limited to 24 18 seats maximum as delineated
on the approved floor plans. Any increase in the number of seating for
customers shall be subject to the approval of a use permit.
3. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to the interior of the
building, unless the appropriate approvals are obtained from the Police
Department and the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
4. The development standard pertaining to the site, perimeter walls, off- street
parking (six spaces being waived) and landscaping shall be waived.
5. The development shall provide a trash enclosure for the trash bin located in
the rear of the site, in a design that complies with City standards and in a
location that is satisfactory to the Planning Director and such enclosure shall
be installed prior to occupancy of the building.
is 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall secure approval from
the County Health Department.
7. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction
with the proposed operation.
8. The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility as
defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose for the
sale or service of food and beverages.
9. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to
operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a
use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission.
10. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of
Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be limited to on -site consumption of "beer
and wine" only and only in conjunction with the service of food as the
principal use of the facility. The sale for off-site consumption of alcoholic
beverages is prohibited. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license
shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and
may require the approval of the Planning Commission.
11. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval
® by either the current owner or leasing company.
16
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
12. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
13. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to
discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance
in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage
outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the
patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet.
14. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be
prohibited.
15. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the
permitted use.
16. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise
standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of the
Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or
successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to
monitor the sound generated by the restaurant facility to develop a set of
• corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance.
17. The hours of operation shall be limited between 11:00 a.m, and 10:00 p.m.,
daily.
18. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter
and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal
of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting
sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
19. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times the
restaurant establishment is open for business.
20. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall
undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible
methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the
requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of
the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other
certifying /licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment
shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
21. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion
of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises
and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of
• Newport Beach.
17
Tfl-ly :1
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
22. The project shall comply with ADA requirements, including the conversion of
one on -site parking space to a handicapped accessible parking space in a
design and location approved by the Building Department, and such
handicapped space shall be provided prior to occupancy of the building.
23. Installation of any awnings or canopies will require review and approve by
the City Building Department.
24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall execute the required
off -site parking agreement in accordance with Section 20.66.080, C and D of
the Zoning Code. The use permit shall be valid as long as the off -site parking
agreement is in full force and effect. Any modifications to the terms of the off -
site parking agreement will require re- review by the City Planning Commission.
Should the off -site parking agreement become null and void, the use permit
for Big Belly Deli may be revoked.
25. The applicant shall install direction signage on the building in a location and
design approved by the Planning Director, indicating the location of the off-
site parking and shall provide the some notification on the menus for the deli.
• 26. Aff employees of the restaurant shall be required to park in the public metered
lot across West Coast Highway and shall be prohibited from parking on the
street or on -site when working at the facility. The on -site parking areas shall
be reserved for customer parking only.
Standard Requirements
1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
approval.
2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems
be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer.
3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code.
4. The proposed restaurant facility and related off - street parking shall conform
to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
6. Public Improvement maybe required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of
the Municipal Code.
• 18
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
•
7. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with
the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a
license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date.
8. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this
Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit
upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use
Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the community.
9. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 2O.8O.O9OA of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
10. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of
noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers,
paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement. 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:
Between the hours of Between the hours of II
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
interior exterior interior exterior
Measured at the property line of
commercially zoned property:
Measured at the property line of
residentially zoned property:
Residential
N/A 65 dBA
N/A 60 dBA
45 dBA 55 dBA
ss*
N/A 60 dBA
N/A 50 dBA
40 dBA 50 dBA
SUBJECT: Annexation of Bay Knolls and Newport Coast /Ridge
Areas
General Plan Amendments, LCP Amendment, Prezoning Amendments, sphere
of influence changes, detachments, and annexations necessary to complete
annexation of the Bay Knolls and Newport Coast /Ridge areas to the City.
Ms. Temple stated that this item regarding the pre- annexation general plan and
zoning for pending annexations, it is requested that the Bay Knolls portion of the
packet be continued to April 13th and to table review of the Newport
Coast /Ridge portion, pending completion of the joint powers agreement by the
• 19
INDEX
Item No. 3
Annexation
Continued to
04/20/2000
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
City Attorney's office.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue the Bay Knolls item to
April 13, 2000 and table the Newport Coast /Ridge portion as requested by staff.
Ayes:
Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Tucker
Noes:
None
Absent:
Gifford
SUBJECT:
Newport Dunes Partnership
101 North Boyside Drive and
1131 Back Bay Drive
• General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 F
• Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51
• Zoning Code Amendment No. 878
• Planned Community District Plan (PC -48)
• Development Agreement No. 12
• Traffic Study No. 115
• Environmental Impact Report No. 157
• Conceptual Precise Plan
• 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 stated procedures for this item.
Public comment was opened.
Robert Gleason, Newport Dunes, 101 North Boyside Drive noted the following:
• Letter from Brent Chase (firm that did the computer models and visual
simulations) submitted to Planning Commission addressing the accuracy
and methodology.
Removed the 5th floor of the hotel as shown by Exhibit on wall.
• Maximum guestroom roof height is 52 feet; elevator shafts are at 62 feet.
17% of the project is now at a four -story level.
• Removal of the third floor of the timeshare units by the bulkhead. High point
of those buildings is now 32 feet.
• Replaced units removed from the third floor along the bulkhead in the main
timeshare building that is set back opposite the marina center and away
from the bulkhead.
• We request that the 18 guestroom modules removed from the fifth level be
• relocated to an area where the health spa was previously located. It does
20
INDEX
Item No. 4
Continued to
04/06/2000
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
not increase the building footprint area and the height of the building with
those units is 37 feet.
• Spa was relocated towards the back of that building.
• We request that the conference space be allowed at 31,000 feet. That
allows for one large conference room of 12,000 feet; maintain three
separate ballroom facilities in a way that works operationally and maintain
adequate breakout space. By relocating some of the uses we are able to
reduce the building footprint by about 15,000 square feet.
• Overall square footage is 581,000 square feet (17,000 square feet reduction
from the prior proposal) which is about 10% more than what was allowed in
the Settlement Agreement.
• Traffic generation - potential peak hour traffic conflicts related to the
conference center and conflicts created by catered businesses. He then
proposed the following conditions on the conference center:
Summer Weekends: May 1 through Labor Day - Fridays starting at 5:00 p.m.
Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays.
•
The maximum number of catering guests occupying the Conference
Center at any one time shall be 1,500.
•
Functions totaling more than on -half of the maximum number of guests
(750) must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart.
However, individual events may have a single start /end time.
• ♦
Functions totaling no more than one - quarter of the maximum number of
guests (375) may be scheduled to start or end during the P.M. weekend
traffic peak hour on Pacific Coast Highway from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The minimum time between functions to be held in any single room
during two different time periods is one and one -half hours.
♦
Applicant will be required to provide information to prove conformance
with this condition as part of the Annual Report due under the
Development Agreement.
♦
Enforcement shall be through the Use Permit procedures in the
Municipal Code.
♦
The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of
four waivers of this condition per year; provided, however, that any
request for such a waiver must be accompanied by a traffic and
parking management plan designed to minimize the impacts
associated with the waiver.
♦
Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, applicant may
apply for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic
generation and parking demand statistics.
Monday through Friday except holidays all year
♦ The maximum number of catering guests occupying the Conference
Center at any one time shall be 1,500, provided, however, that from
Thanksgiving Day to New Year's day, the maximum shall be 2,000.
♦ No catering events in the conference center will be scheduled to start
• or end between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (exclusive).
21
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
♦ Functions totaling more than one -half of the maximum number of guests
(750) must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart.
However, individual events may have a single start /end time.
Applicant will be required to provide information to prove conformance
with this condition as part of the Annual Report due under the
Development Agreement.
♦ Enforcement shall be through the Use Permit procedures in the
Municipal Code.
♦ The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of
twelve waivers of this condition per year; provided, however, that any
request for such a waiver must be accompanied by a traffic and
parking management plan designed to minimize the impacts
associated with the waiver.
♦ Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, applicant may
apply for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic
generation and parking demand statistics.
Commissioner Kranzley asked about the building heights. The third floor of the
building with reducing the plate height, could fall under the 38 1/2 -foot limit
other than elevator shafts and architectural features? We have asked that the
plates be raised for the quality of the rooms.
• Mr. Gleason answered yes, in theory. However, in areas where the third floor
rooms are double loaded with a wider span with a different roof treatment, it
could be lower.
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Selich noted that there are two requests made by the applicant.
One is for increased conference space and restoration of 18 rooms.
Starting with the conference space, lets start the discussion:
Commissioner Tucker - adding back the conference space, especially when
you look at the size of the hotel versus what was approved under the
Settlement Agreement does not make that much difference. It is still a pretty
significant decrease from where the applicant started. I am in favor or putting
back that conference space.
Commissioner Kranzley - stated he would like to defer his comments until after
public hearing on this. We are asking the public to comment on the proposed
changes that the applicant has presented and I would like to hear that
testimony before I make my comments.
Chairperson Selich noted you don't want to take the straw vote now? He was
answered no; he wanted to hear public testimony first. Hearing no objection
• from the Commission, he deferred straw vote on this issue until public testimony
22
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
was heard.
Chairperson Selich then brought up the Environmental Impact Report for
discussion. He noted that the EIR is not meant to be a document to determine
an action of approval or denial of the project. It is an information document
used by decision - makers in the consideration of a project. To the extent that
we make any design changes or decisions, those are interactive with the EIR.
We have to comply with all CEQA guidelines. The basic purposes of CEQA and
doing an EIR are the following:
1. Inform governmental decision- makers and the public about the potential
significant environmental affects of proposed development.
2. Identify the ways any environmental damage can be avoided or
significantly reduced.
3. Prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment by requiring
changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation
measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be
feasible.
4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a government agency approved the
project and the manner the agency chose if significant environment
affects are involved.
5. When an EIR shows that a project would cause substantial adverse
changes in the environment, the government agency must respond to the
information by one or more of the following methods: changing the
proposed project, imposing conditions on the approval of the project
(mitigation measures), adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader
class of projects to avoid the adverse changes, choosing an alternative
way of meeting the same need, disapproving the project, finding the
changing or altering the project is not feasible, or finding that the
unavoidable significant environment damage is acceptable as provided in
other areas in the CEQA guidelines.
6. CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy,
completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
7. Courts do not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental
conclusions, but only determine if the EIR is sufficient as an informational
document.
8. CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced and must not be
subverted to an instrument to the oppression and delay of social, economic
or recreational development and advancement.
Continuing, Chairperson Selich noted that the final EIR that will result from this,
will include the revision of the draft EIR; comments and recommendations
received on the draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons,
organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; the responses
of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process, and any other information added by the lead agency.
This is a brief overview of what the environmental review process is about and
maybe it will help. Looking at the review of the EIR we have seven areas that
23
UtW10
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
we will look at as highlighted by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee:
= Visual Resources (view impacts)
=> Noise
=:> Lighting (light pollution)
=> Water Quality
==> Air Quality
=> Traffic
=> Parking
Visual Resources
Commissioner Tucker - noted what he has heard in terms of testimony
concerning the visual impacts of the project:
Structures are too massive
• Structures will block views from Dover Shores to the south to the Bluffs,
Coast Highway and Promontory Point; and portions of the swimming
lagoon
Project looms over Dover Shores and Boyside Village
Project sets a bad precedent on the sanctity of views in Newport Beach
• Computer simulations that have been generated are misleading and
the public may not appreciate the full impact of the project
• He asked that the Assistant City Attorney talk about how view protections and
our ordinances all fit together as well as additional concerns noted by other
Commissioners.
Ms. Clauson stated that the City does not have any ordinances that deal with
private views. The City does try to protect public views, which are also
considered in the EIR. Views from residences from Dover Shores are not
protected by City Ordinances. If there was a public view as to a park or street,
then that would be what the City would typically consider.
Commissioner Tucker noted he is trying to make a record of the issues that are
identified by public testimony and then for the Commission to come back and
deal with those issues: For the integrity of the environmental review that we are
doing this is what I am suggesting, that we list issues and then have a discussion
of the results of those comments.
Commissioner Kranzley noted this was a comprehensive list.
Commissioner Ashley stated that there has been nothing presented on how this
project, if developed, would so seriously impair current views. This is a separate
parcel of ground and not upsetting public views except in particular instances
along Coast Highway. When driving along the coast it is hard to see Back Bay
so consequently, I don't think public views or private views are something that
we need to concern ourselves with anymore.
• Commissioner Kiser, agreeing with previous comments, added that the key
24
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
element was the reduction of height of the hotel structure and significantly
reducing timeshare heights closest to the water. It is a large project, and will
be a very significant part of the viewscape in the back bay, but as revised at
this point, public views from Coast Highway and down through back bay will
be acceptable. The project will change the landscape and hopefully will be
pleasant to look at as well in the way of a hotel. He added that the balloon
project, regardless of the amount of wind at that period of time, was successful.
It gave the project a good indication of where it was and was a great
supplement to the modeling that had been done.
Chairperson Selich, agreeing with comments made by Commissioner Tucker
noted that he had carefully reviewed all the visual simulations that were
prepared as part of the initial EIR and all subsequent work. He finds them to be
adequate and representative portrayals of the project.
Commissioner Tucker noted that with the changes made, the project would
not be massive. The views from Dover Shores are not going to be downgraded
much; they will be of the hotel instead of Promontory Point, Coast Highway and
the Bluffs. As for as looming over Dover Shores and Bayside Village, we have
carved back the project to try to stop that from happening. The people from
Bayside Village, no matter how this project is designed are going to be at the
• back of the house'. The applicant, over a series of changes has kept moving
the structures away from Bayside Village. That is about as good as it is going to
get. The computer simulations, even if I believed Mr. Ohlig's representations,
assuming for the minute they were 100% accurate, I would still have the same
conclusions concerning the visual impacts.
Commissioner Kronzley added that when we started looking at this project, we
had a Settlement Agreement that allowed for approximately 530,000 square
feet of hotel, restaurant and commercial area. The applicant was proposing a
total of 700,000 square feet. The project as proposed by the applicant this
evening is now down to 581,000 square feet, which is 9.6 %, increase over the
original Settlement Agreement. I think for those who continue to use the words
huge project, massive project, then we would have to say that the original
project was massive as well. Talking about the 275 massive project on this site,
then lets be fair about it. I think we have the project down, even if we accept
the counter proposal by the applicant, we have the project down to within a
chip shot of where the Settlement Agreement allowed. I think that the visual
impacts are greatly improved by the use of architectural features and the
quality of the architects who have worked on this project. We have come a
long way.
Land Use
Commissioner Tucker:
• Added that land use, which fits in with the visual resources, is one of the CEQA
25
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
items. Comments he heard in public testimony on this were:
• Conflicts with existing residential uses
• Too close to the Back Bay Ecological Reserve
• Too big for the location - already discussed
In terms of the conflicts, it really does not conflict anymore than the project
under the Settlement Agreement.
Noise
The next issue is noise. The comments I heard in public testimony were:
•
Sound travels across water at a louder level than across land.
•
Parking garages and squeaking tires are going to be a problem,
especially for people along Mayflower.
•
Music will be heard throughout the Back Bay area.
•
Noise generated by 24 -hour traffic to the hotel.
•
Timeshare users are party people and they will have bigger units and will
make more noise.
•
Bowl effect with the location of the project that encourages an
amplification of sound.
•
Convention, banquets /conference rooms will be served by heavy
trucking and late night traffic with people working on displays.
• •
Marina clubhouse will have unsupervised events and it is already noisy.
•
The day for baseline noise should have been a less noisy day rather than
a crowded summer weekend.
•
There will be noise generated by jet skis and party crafts.
•
Technical issues with respect to some of the reports such as which
receptors measure the most noise at the worst case, where are they
and how should they be measured.
Commissioner Kranzley agreed with the listing.
Ms. Clauson commented with regards to the noises that relates to studies or
any issues in the EIR, that the consultant who drafted the EIR and worked with
the noise studies is here for comments or clarification on any of those issues.
Additionally, Lieutenant Hennessy from the Police Department is here to answer
any questions regarding recent or current noise complaints at the property.
Commissioner Kranzley added that what he heard was the noise from the
fireworks, but I don't think that will change one way or the other.
Commissioner Ashley asked the consultant to speak as he had questions
regarding the noise study that was done in the draft EIR.
Commissioner Ashley noted that there has been considerable comment that
no noise studies were performed that would indicate the actual impact that
• would occur on Dover Shores, Promontory Point and Castaways residences. It
26
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
seems that most of the noise studies were conducted in the vicinity of the Hyatt
Newporter Inn and then some extrapolations were made as to what the
impacts would be elsewhere. Could you tell us what actually was done?
Steven Ross, LSA, 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine answered as the consultant on
the EIR. Mestre Greve Associates prepared the noise analysis for this report;
they also did the air quality analysis. The noise analysis was based on what the
proposed project is. To gather existing ambient noise information, the noise
consultant did a noise meter readings at a couple of locations on the project
site adjacent to the areas where the service drive was originally proposed for
this project. It was near the current bike lane between Bayside Village
development and the proposed project site. That established what the existing
noise levels were at those locations. That was not necessary for figuring out
what the proposed project was creating because it just established what the
noise levels were at those particular locations. The noise analysis is based on
modeling, using mathematical calculations about how far sound travels and
how much that sound level drops off over a given distance. For those
purposes, the analysis assumed that there was no drop off based on textures,
vegetation or building that was in the way of that distance. For instance, the
comment about noise traveling across the water, there is not much absorption
by buildings or vegetation. The study took into account that there would be no
• absorption by that, it is just the distance from the noise source to the receptor
that was used in these calculations. Noise traveling across water might be the
worst case scenario but noise levels that might be received by other locations,
behind the hotel, would be dampened further by the design of the hotel,
topography, etc. As far as noise levels at the Hyatt Newporter, that was used
as one example of noise generated by the proposed hotel project going
across the swimming lagoon and off in the distance. There were concerns that
entertainment or other activities occurring in the court yards of the hotel would
generate noise and that noise would be directed through the design of the
hotel across the swimming lagoon and towards the Hyatt Newporter. The
report says that sound drops as it goes further out. That is why the Hyatt
Newporter was mentioned because it is in the direct line of sight. Because
there are building walls between those courtyards and the Dover Shores area,
those would mitigate noise levels considerably before they read the Dover
Shores area.
Commissioner Ashley asked if the impact of noise in areas that were not
measured if they could be included in the final environmental impact. There is
a difference of opinion of how much noise will travel across the bay. It would
be well to resolve this issue.
Mr. Ross noted that Mestre Greve Associates relative to the Dover Shores
concerns did a subsequent analysis. Noise generated by the hotel, timeshare
units, and the maximum noise levels and how it travels across the water and
received at Dover Shores. Looking at the worst case scenario, the impact at
• Dover Shores fell below what the City regulations are. That study is in the
27
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April b, 2000
response to comments related to noise.
Commissioner Ashley noted that the noise ordinance adopted by the City is
strong. Anytime that there is some obvious and excessive sounds that would
emanate from this project, it could be changed to fall within the limits of our
ordinance. The applicant has done a good job to buffer the noise that would
affect Bayside Village with all of the improvements proposed there.
Chairperson Selich asked for comments on the amphitheater affect. We have
had comments that the noise can be amplified. Staff answered that the bluffs
and other features actually act as sound absorption as opposed to a reflector.
Mr. Ross answered that is another section that was addressed in response to
comments document that you have. The noise analysis looked at noise
traveling across an obstructed area. To have noise bounce off the bowl
shaped cliff area as noise travels, the sound level is reduced and as it bounces
off things there is additional noise levels reductions. The hills are made up of
materials that help to absorb sound as it travels and bounces off the bowl and
comes back, the noise levels will be reduced less than if it was sound that travel
directly to a receptor.
• Commissioner Kiser stated that the staff report discusses mitigation measure 9 -4.
Referencing page 3 he read, '...in order to insure that City noise standards are
not exceeded, Mitigation Measure 9 -4 requires that amplified music be limited
to a Leq of 75 dBA when measured 50 feet distant from the noise source. Thus,
it should not be seen as a weakening of City noise standards, but rather an
additional measure designed to insure that noise standards are not exceeded.'
I wonder if someone could comment on how the mitigation measure interplays
with the standard City's noise ordinances?
Senior Planner Patrick Alford answered that noise measurements are taken from
the affected property, not necessarily at the noise source or a certain distance
from the noise source. The Hyatt being the closest property in the direct line of
sight was used in this case. It was determined that if you had noise playing in
the functionary courtyard at 75 dBA, by the time it reached the Hyatt
Newporter it would come down to the noise standard for that area. But, as an
extra insurance, they wanted to make sure that the noise was not played any
louder than 75 dBA, that is why the mitigation measure is placed on the
proposed project. This cap does not supplant the noise ordinance, but refers to
noise generated at the source versus at the adjacent property.
Commissioner Kranzley asked staff if they had reviewed any other city
ordinances regarding this peak 75 dBA?
Mr. Alford answered that the 75 dBA is a common standard. Other
communities in the region have different series of levels in which they could
• exceed. For example, Dana Point has a time interval of a half -hour and then
28
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
they have smaller increments within that half -hour. As stated in the staff report,
ours is fifteen minutes, and we have the maximum cap. In response to levying
a condition that would super impose the Settlement Agreement condition
about music as for as sound, he answered that there was no Noise Ordinance
in place at that time. Typically what you would see is conditions like that
dealing with specific noise sources under certain situations. You could impose
conditions regarding the method of measurement tied to the noise ordinance.
One of the problems with these earlier conditions is that they do not set forth
any methodology. It is uncertain how you would measure that 55 dBA.
Ms. Clauson noted that there is a suggestion for a condition that would require
the measurement to be reduced by an additional 5dBA when the noise source
is music or voices.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that the concern is the peak at 75 dBA. It
appears in the Settlement Agreement that in no event shall amplified music
provided by corporation, its lessees exceed 55 dBA when measured at a point
50 feet distance from exterior wall.
Commissioner Tucker added that in the noise study itself, there is a noise
mitigation measure recommendation that outdoor amplified music should not
. be allowed alter 10:00 p.m. nor before 7:00 a.m. Assuming we adopt that
mitigation measure, what we are talking about are those incidents of noise that
will happen before 10:00 p.m. Hopefully that would address some of the issues.
Captain Paul Hennessy, Patrol Division Commander of the Newport Police
Department reported that during the past two years there have been 13 calls
to respond to disturbances of the peace. In most of those circumstances, they
have all been related to music or noise. Of those 13 calls, we identified two
had occurred on the Hyatt premises due to some special event. Two other
calls, one was cancelled prior to arrival on the scene and the other one was
unfounded. Of the remaining, 8 were permitted events that were occurring at
the Dunes and had to do with amplified music or a PA system. In those
circumstances when we respond to those calls, because they are permitted,
the have City permission to be conducting the activity they are doing.
However, at the same time we try to be sensitive of the needs of the
community and in an effort to get the offending parties to limit their noise to
quieting down, we attempt to do so in a manner in which we ask for their
cooperation. Most cases, we get that cooperation. Typically it is a party that is
going on and somebody has paid a significant amount of money to have this
take place, so we do try to work in consultation and cooperation with those
people who are hosting that particular party. In most cases we do get
cooperation. Obviously, there are circumstances where if it goes beyond that
we do not get the cooperation of the parties and we might take a more high
profile approach in terms of dealing with it. None of the cases that I reported
on did it resort to that type of enforcement activity to get cooperation. In
• response to Commission inquiry, Captain Hennessey noted that it appears that
29
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
half of the noises were coming from special events on the Dunes property itself.
As you are aware, they have the tent facility that is set up to accommodate
events. In terms of the actual complaints, the vast majority did come from the
Dover Shores area across the bay from the Dunes area.
Chairperson Selich stated that he has reviewed the noise study and he has
done this for many years as part of his career. I found this noise study to be
within the standards of all the noise studies in terms of methodology and the
way it was approached. Two issues that came up during the hearing were the
amphitheater affect and the sound traveling across the water. Those issues
have been addressed correctly in the analysis.
Commissioner Tucker noted that there was going to be noise from the project
that could have been built under the Settlement Agreement. As we have
heard from the City Attorney's office testify, under the Settlement Agreement,
we did not have control on how the project would be designed at all. The
steps that have been taken, the requirements that have been laid out
strengthen and address the issues of noise as best as it can be addressed. The
issues about sound traveling across water, the parking garage and the
amphitheater affect and that timeshare users are noisier, I don't see any
information there that really has not been addressed in the response to
• comments. The one question I have is the likelihood of trucking and set ups of
the conference rooms. Before we get to that, I think the EQAC letter or
questions had some comments about the 9 -foot wall blocking sun and light
and cutting off airflow. Since the wall has been moved 30 feet that has been
answered. The noise pollution from watercraft rentals could go on today. The
only question is how the conference space trucking situation works, what are
the types of uses in those rooms?
Mr. Gleason answered that the EIR contains a mitigation measure concerning
delivery times as from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Our normal operation for
deliveries would be morning and mid - afternoon. For the conference center
loading in and out, we would expect more tabletop displays as compared to
what you would see if you went to a car show. Those are typically not in semi
trucks, but rather in 20 -foot trucks, which is typical of our deliveries in general.
We could comply with the time restrictions placed. Evening type deliveries,
loading in and out would be minimal. The only other real issue there is
entertainment. Those tend to come in a van and have their equipment and
come and out and will be done at the loading dock and would comply with
those times as well.
Commissioner Kiser asked about personal watercraft rentals. He was answered
that there is currently no intention of providing this. There is a restriction already
that there are no motorized craft allowed in the lagoon.
Mr. Alford added that this issue was addressed in an earlier staff report. In the
• PC development plan there are only two areas where equipment rentals are
30
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
identified, they are the day use area and the hotel site. There is no motorized
vehicles allowed in the lagoon, the only other potential launching sources
would be the boat launch area or the marina.
Continuing, Mr. Alford noted that the noise assessment identified passed by
noise from large trucks as being the main reason for the 9 -foot wall. Since the
deliveries are now going through Back Bay Drive and the loading dock has
been moved further away and re- oriented, it is possible to not even have that
pass by traffic. It is possible that wall could be lowered, but at this point we do
not know.
Light Pollution
Commissioner Tucker noted that he had not made a listing for this subject
because the Commission has not heard much about this since the first meeting,
which was the comment, no more Fletcher Jones. I just viewed our ordinances
in the nature of this project and where the residential area is and I personally
did not hear anything that needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that the issues regarding lighting were
adequately covered in the EIR and mitigated in the EIR. There is opportunity for
• concerned citizens to make sure that the lights are not intrusive. He added
that this hotel would have more stringent noise standards than anyplace else in
the City. We have added a condition that actually reduces the noise levels
that are allowed at this site and I hope that the Noise Ordinance goes in that
direction citywide.
Commissioner Ashley noted that the provisions added to the PC District plan to
ensure that all light and glare would be confined, makes this a non - issue. The
City is requiring a lighting plan to be submitted for approval prior to the project
itself.
Commissioner Kiser added that the hotel is somewhat lower than when the EIR
was prepared and to the extent there is any lighting splashing off the building,
it will be mitigated. The lighting plan will have the attention it needs.
Chairman Selich noted that EQAC brought it up in their letter. They asked for
additional studies on the effects of the lighting on surrounding communities of
Dover Shores and Bayside Village. That should all be addressed in the lighting
plan that is developed.
Water Quality
Commissioner Tucker noted the following issues:
• More impervious materials in parking lots.
• Concentrating drainage at the marina bulkhead into the bay.
31
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Larger rains will not be retained but will overflow into the bay.
Addition of fertilizers and pesticides.
Commissioner Kranzley agreed with the listing.
Commissioner Ashley stated that a Water Quality Management Plan had been
prepared for this project. It contains a series of water interceptors structures to
make sure that no pollutants enter the bay. Also, a maintenance plan has
been created for this project that will include instruction of employees with
respect to the maintenance to the landscaping operations, litter control, etc.
will prevent any of these items from being a pollutant on site. I am pleased
with respect to these plans to ensure that the quality of the water will be such
that it would not create a toxic problem in the bay.
Commissioner Kiser agreed with previous comments.
Chairperson Selich noted that EQAC recommended additional studies on the
water quality and the response from the consultant was that the studies were
sufficient for the project, and I would agree with that. I would point out that if
you look in the Executive Summary, take a look at the mitigation measures, the
water quality is probably the most exhaustive treatments given. It certainly has
• the most in terms of mitigation measures on it. I think it is pretty well covered.
Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood added that the Development Agreement
has a provision for the applicants to contribute $75,000 to the City to be used
for studies or projects to improve water quality or the environment in the upper
and lower bay.
Commissioner Tucker added that the report and information is adequate and
complete on the water quality issues. There is an annual maintenance
requirement and under the CEQA requirements there is a report that has to be
filed with the City that is an ongoing report. If the City is doing its job, it will
make sure that the applicant has to do his job.
Air Quality
Commissioner Tucker listed the following issues the public raised:
Many more cars and trucks than today.
Idling of cars during crowded conditions will contribute to air pollution.
• So called hot spots will be created when a great deal of congestion is in
small confined areas.
Buses and vans will contribute to air pollution by bringing in
conventioneers and conference attendees.
The air quality degradation based on the existing undeveloped site
compared to the built out project will be significant.
The Settlement Agreement should not be used a s a base line.
• 0 The construction air quality will be a problem as well.
32
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Commissioner Kranzley agreed.
Commissioner Ashley noted that the assessment of air quality affects that would
result from this project, show that there is not going to be any real long -term
consequences. There will be short -term problems resulting during the phases of
construction as well as from grading operations. Those are going to be
mitigated and we could assume that there is going to be some air pollution
that results from the creation of the Bayside Drive entry gate where vehicles
could queue. I think the issue of air quality has been addressed and mitigated
by what has been proposed.
Commissioner Kiser agreed with the previous comments. He noted the biggest
concern would be during the construction period. The mitigation measures
that are required will suffice to take care of those problems to the extent that
they can.
Chairperson Selich noted that there would be a significant and unavoidable
impact as stated in the EIR. There is the cumulative contribution to regional
adverse air quality conditions because the project is in a non - attainment area.
It is impossible to do any EIR in our area without making that finding.
• Traffic
Commissioner Kiser asked about the March 2000 update of the traffic report.
Specifically he asked about the analysis of the Dunes project having to do with
the TPO analysis versus the long -range analysis. The critical area of the hotel
siting and having access almost entirely off Bayside Drive. The TPO ground
counts that form the basis for the analysis do take into consideration not only
the existing projects but also all approved projects and the traffic expected to
be generated by those.
Mr. Edmonsion affirmed this, adding that also factored in is regional growth
between the date of the count and the time of the analysis, which in this case
was 2005.
Continuing, Commissioner Kiser asked about the traffic (number of cars) going
from the project and onto Coast Highway upon leaving the hotel site versus the
cars that are going to be turning left or right onto Coast Highway. The
memorandum dated March 15th indicates that in TPO analysis versus the long -
range analysis, all of those trips were put onto Coast Highway. None of them
were put onto Bayside drive. There seemed to be two possible reasons: in the
TPO analysis, any amount of traffic less than A would be essentially allocated
somewhere else. Could you clarify the reasons for the trips being put 100% on
the Coast Highway in the TPO analysis?
• Mr. Edmonton answered that the TPO calls for distribution of traffic in
33
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
increments of 5 %. The purpose for that is so that there isn't a rapid bleed off of
traffic of 1 or 2% at every intersection that traffic might come to. It makes it a
conservative analysis because it tends to keep a greater percentage of the
traffic on the main arterial streets. In this case, that was the primary reason that
the traffic was distributed solely to Coast Highway. It is to keep it on the main
street and then that traffic is deemed to go through more intersections that get
analyzed and therefore there is not the concern that the analysis bleeds off too
much traffic before it gets to other potentially critical intersections.
Commissioner Kiser noted that he has concerns that the intersection at Bayside
Drive and Jamboree being as close as it is to the project could potentially
become what is considered to be a critical intersection. It doesn't make the list
of critical intersections at this point. Is there any kind of safeguard that is built
into the TPO analysis versus the long -range analysis to keep it from becoming a
critical intersection if an error has been made?
Mr. Edmonston answered that when an intersection is identified such as
Jamboree and Bayside that has a very good level of service (A, B, or C) we only
count those intersections about every five years because of the unlikelihood
that a project would make its level of service approach D. We do count those
periodically and they are monitored. In the case of the Bayside and Jamboree
intersection, there is not a lot of other development expected in close proximity
• to that intersection that would cause it to go up. Of the roughly 105
intersections in the City that are signalized, we only keep close tabs on about
55 of those, the others have much lower volume than the main ones and are
not likely to need to be analyzed under a TPO study. If a project was to occur
in the immediate vicinity of one of those, then we would do an updated count
and we would include that in the analysis. This intersection is not that close and
with the small amount of traffic that might go across and continue down
Bayside it would not be enough to bring that intersection up to a level of
concern.
Commissioner Kiser then asked about the same areas in regards to the long -
range analysis. Referring to the memorandum, it shows that in the case of
Bayside Drive south of Coast Highway, the model projects that the Newport
Dunes project through traffic would increase by 40 vehicles in the a.m. peak
hours and 60 in the p.m. peak hours. The projected volumes on this segment
without the project are approximately 750 in the a.m. peak and 1500 in the
p.m. peak hours. It concludes the increase from the Dunes project would be
less than 5 %. From the perspective of a resident exiting their driveway or a side
street, the average number of cars per minute passing by would increase from
13 to 14 in the a.m. peak and from 25 to 26 in the p.m. peak hour. Could you
give a sense of how this will be acceptable?
Mr. Edmonton answered that those cars are distributed across the four lanes
with a certain percentage going eastbound and westbound. The key is one
more car in a minute, which by itself, is not a lot of traffic. The numbers are
• both directions. There is a signal at both Coast Highway and Jamboree, which
34
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
will create some, breaks in traffic. I am not aware of the City getting
complaints from those properties on that segment of Bayside. The current level
is about 25 cars per minute in both directions in the p.m. peak hours. The long -
range analysis assumes the completion of the City's street system and the full
development of every parcel in the City as permitted under the current
General Plan.
Commissioner Ashley asked about the amount of traffic that could be
accommodated by Bayside Drive north of Coast Highway. As a two -lane road,
during the a.m. summer hours would be 488 total movements. Over a two hour
period of time 488 movements would only be 244 movements per hour. That
appears to be a small amount of traffic to be carried by one lane per hour at
25 miles per hour.
Mr. Edmonston answered that from a road capacity standpoint that is correct.
The City, in terms of the TPO analysis calculations, uses 1600 vehicles per hour
per lane as the capacity. Service level D is 90% of that (1400) still substantially
greater than what we are talking about here. Also, the daily capacity of a
two-lane road is 10,000 to 15,000 trips.
Commissioner Ashley noted that on Bayside Drive above PCH there would be
• about 4200 vehicles that would be moving south bound in the summer time per
day and as many as 3085 moving north bound. That is well below the capacity
of Bayside Drive on a daily basis.
Mr. Edmonston noted that the numbers included in Table A of the March 151h
attachment would indicate that the project as proposed now, would add 3520
trips to what is currently there. When this is added to what the consultant
counted on the busiest Saturday from Bayside Village Mobile Home Park and
the marina, you are in the 7500 car per day range.
Commissioner Ashley stated that the evening peak hour traffic is about 737
vehicles between the hours of 4 and 6 p.m. on southbound trip and
northbound would be about 407 vehicles within that peak hour period. I have
been most critical of bringing traffic into the project through Bayside Drive,
because to allow outsiders to commute to a commercial project through a
residential community has bothered me all along. When I found that Back Bay
Drive did not work as an access point for this project, and looking at the
numbers that are coming in to the resort, I can honestly say that the way in
which the applicant has come up with designs to buffer the adverse effects of
that traffic is workable. The real problems will be sufficiently mitigated to satisfy
me.
Chairperson Selich noted that in the EQAC letter of November 151h, they
question the 800 trips per day difference on the Chart 5A. Since this letter was
written, we have debated this endlessly and I think we've answered that
• question on the 800 trips as much as it is going to be answered. Some people
35
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
may not like the answer, but it has been adequately explained how it was
arrived at and what it means. In looking at the March 23 letter, they question
the trip generation rates. Again, I think there has been a lot of discussion over
the last six meetings that we have adequately covered that subject and how
the hip generation rates and methodology used to arrive at those numbers.
Another point that EQAC made was on the alternative sites in the Dunes.
Although the EIR was correct in the way it did analyze alternatives, this
Commission did elect to look at alternative sites within the Dunes project as
more of a planning issue as opposed to an environmental issue. We reached
the conclusion that the hotel where it is presently sited is the best place to be
situated. They raised the issue of large truck traffic, which has been addressed
in the meetings and the testimony we have had.
Mr. Edmonston added that there is a table in the study that shows the long -
range cumulative effect of the impact on the intersections in the City if this
project would be approved along with the Koll, Conexant and others. In the
short range, the cumulative effect is included and addressed because we add
the traffic of the projects that have been approved, a factor for regional
growth, and projects outside the City that are expected to happen.
Chairman Selich noted another item brought up by EQAC and that was the
• small difference in the trip generation rates between Family Inn and the
proposed 600 -room hotel. I think that has been answered, particularly in the
letter that Mr. Edmonston wrote on march 15th.
Mr. Ross )LSA) added that the response to the EQAC letter regarding fire
response across Coast Highway is that there is adequate capacity along PCH
for traffic to move through those intersections. At peak hours, some of these
intersections do show in the long range, some impacts. However, emergency
access across PCH will not be significantly impacted. The Fire Department did
not raise any significant concerns about this proposed project.
Chairman Selich continued with another concern raised in the EQAC letter,
and that was they could not understand how in certain situations traffic could
be reduced as a result of the project or certain re- designs of the project.
know that we discussed this in previous meetings, but could you answer that
Mr. Edmonston?
Mr. Edmonston answered that the model distributes traffic throughout the area
that it looks at. It looks at in greater detail the area within the City of Newport
Beach and partiality into surrounding cities. It is also tied into the countywide
model that the Orange County Transportation Authority runs. When you add a
use like a hotel the total number of trips on the street system does not change
because the hotel by itself competes for business with similar uses, which are
considered retail. So it competes with restaurants, spas, other hotels. Those
hotels could be nearby or distant, therefore, the total number of trips is the
• same but the trips that might be going to Huntington Beach or down on the
36
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
peninsula would be re- directed to this hotel in the model's assumptions. It
could compete with hotels in particularly the Irvine /Costa Mesa area, the
closer they are physically the more the competition the model would assign
them.
Commissioner Tucker noted that one of the issues we need to get into is trip
generation rates and what is appropriate, but really getting to the bunching of
trips at one time during peak hours. We have a couple of technical matters to
go through and decide upon. In a letter dated January 20th, Defend the bay
raised the issue of the number of trips allocated in the original Settlement
Agreement and the number of uses that have come along since that have
taken some of those trips. The question is how many of those trips are left? The
other issue raised by a couple of letters is the proper baseline for traffic. Do we
start from scratch since there is no project there, or do we start with the trips in
the Settlement Agreement. The last issue, is Coast Highway and Marguerite in
the long term still performing at greater than .90 or .92? Is it the case that if half
of the trips to the hotel were off Back Bay instead of the majority off Bayside
that this intersection would be at .90 or less in the traffic model?
Mr. Edmonston answered that the project would increase the ICU in the
moming at Marguerite and Coast Highway from .89 without the project to .92.
• The analysis that was done resulted in that conclusion. However, after the
model run we did when the hotel was reduced to the 470 room proposal, it
showed it also going to .90, but I would want to do additional analysis before
could answer that question.
Commissioner Tucker noted that it was interesting in the last go around it was
thought that the trips coming in the morning from the south would not make a
difference whether Back Bay or Bayside was the entry point. It just goes to
illustrate how difficult a job it is and how unusual traffic models work when you
start projecting out twenty years.
Wes Pringle, 23421 Southpointe Drive, Suite 190, Laguna Hills stated his resume.
He stated he has a degree in civil engineering and has been doing traffic
engineering for forty years. He has worked in city government and as a
consultant, most of the time as a consultant. He is registered as a civil as well as
a traffic engineer in the State of California and have done numerous traffic
impact studies. Specifically in Newport Beach I have done them prior to the
first TPO. I have had my own firm since 1976 until I sold it in January 2000. 1 have
been active in the professional societies as an officer at the local as well as the
international level. I have served on numerous committees in those
organizations.
Commissioner Kranzley, referring to Table 1 of the EIR, the trip generation
comparison, when you see hotels and you see this comes from an ITE study,
what is the ITE? Where do those numbers come from?
• 37
ft:b]# 1
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Mr. Pringle answered that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is a
professional society of transportation engineers. Currently they are
approaching 20,000 members worldwide in about 90 countries. The majority is
in the United States. Part of the organization does generate studies, collects
data and publishes various documents that can be used as references by the
profession. There are handbooks on traffic engineering, transportation
planning and one of the more important things over the years has been a book
called Trip Generation. It consists of three volumes and covers a myriad of land
uses. It is made up of data that is collected by both consultants and
government agencies throughout the United States and other parts of the
world by land use categories. Those data are compiled, analyzed statistically
and in some cases just an average rate is given. If there is enough statistical
data, there are equations provided that best fit a curve that is a plot of the
data. It is a resource and there are references as to what the basis for each
one of the trip generation rates are. I tried to research the hotel rates
specifically; some of the data is relatively old. One of the best sources was a
recent one that was one that covered 15 hotels throughout the country and in
relatively large suburban activity centers. It was done by the Transportation
Research Board, part of the National Academy of Sciences, and that study
included data on not only the trip generation in room relationship but it also
included the meeting rooms /restaurants /lounges and other such uses. You
• have seen some of the data from San Diego, which was included in the original
EIR, which was one of the sources. One of the other sources was from the
Transportation Research Board, there are other minor ones around, but those
are the main sources that I have found.
Commissioner Kranzley, as an estimate on this ITE 8.92 for hotel, how many
hotels would have been included in that to make that average?
Mr. Edmonston, referencing the Trio Generation, answered that the 8.92 was
based on four hotels. Some of the information the Mr. Pringle is referring to was
added as appendix G to the March traffic study. While the daily rate was
based on a fairly small number, the peak hour rates are based on 17 studies in
the a.m. and 19 studies that were available in the afternoon. This greater
number is because traffic engineers are interested in the peak hour generation.
so they can analyze the impact on the street traffic.
Mr. Pringle noted that there was only one study done in the early'70's in Hawaii
on a resort hotel but the applicability to Newport Dunes was questionable, so
we did not use that. The data provided for the 15 hotels was relatively
comparable. This is based on what hotels they are, where they are located
and what is around them.
Commissioner Kiser, referencing Table 1, asked if there were resort hotel rates
available? Why is it shown as n/a in that column?
• Mr. Pringle answered that it is not available for the daily. Traffic engineers are
38
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
40 Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
mostly concerned with peak hours and many times do not have data on daily
trip generation for various uses because it is not important enough to us to
study. In this case, the resort hotel in Hawaii, they did not collect data on the
daily rates, the data was collected on the peak hours. The note at the bottom
refers to the fact that the peak hour rates are higher, not the daily.
Commissioner Kiser, referencing Table I, then asked about the recreational
homes at 3.16 as a daily rate. How is the timeshare units used? Is this
appropriate for the timeshares that can be locked off for hotel use? We still
have a proposed project as 25 of the 75 that could be locked off and could be
used as 50 hotel rooms.
Mr. Pringle answered that the table illustrates the recreational home trip
generation rates if used for the timeshare units. It was rounded and that is why
3.16 times 100 was put in at 300 in the daily. Because of the general lack of
concern from a traffic impact standpoint, if you look at the next numbers 100
times .11 is carried all the way across. Those rates were utilized for the
timeshares. In the actual study, the hotel rate was used for all of the rooms.
However, in the actual analysis the higher rate was used assuming the
timeshare units were hotel rooms.
• Commissioner Kranzley talked about the conference center and how it is going
to work. The applicant has proposed two new conditions. The first condition
addresses summer weekends.
1. Application: Conference Center at the Newport Dunes. Summer
Weekends: May 1 through Labor Day - Fridays starting at 5:00 p.m.
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Catering functions [i.e., those designed to
attract primarily off -site guests not staying at the hotel).
2. Restriction on maximum number of guests: The maximum number of caterin
guests occupying the Conference Center at any one time shall be 1,500.
3. Restrictions on arrival and departure times:
a. Functions totaling more than on -half of the maximum number of guests
(750) must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart.
[Example: party one has 500 people and Part two has 300 people;
together they total 800 guests; this is greater than 750 (one half the
maximum); therefore, if party one starts or ends at 6:00 p.m., party two
could not start or end until 6:30 p.m.] However, individual events may
have a single start/end time.
b. Functions totaling no more than one - quarter of the maximum number of
guests (375) may be scheduled to start or end during the P.M. weekend
traffic peak hour on Pacific Coast Highway from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
[Example: party one has 200 guests and party two has 250 guests;
together they total 450 guests; this is greater than 375 therefore, if party
one starts or ends during the peak hour, part two must start or end
before 3:00 p.m. or at 4:00 p.m. or later].
4. Restriction on minimum room turn time: The minimum time between
• functions to be held in any single room during two different time periods is
39
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
•
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
one and one -half hours.
5. Enforcement mechanisms:
a. Applicant will be required to provide information to prove conformance
with this condition as part of the Annual Report due under the Development
Agreement.
b. Enforcement shall be through the Use Permit procedures in the Municipa
Code.
6. Future administration:
a. The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of four
waivers of this condition per year; provided, however, that any request for
such a waiver must be accompanied by a traffic and parking
management plan designed to minimize the impacts associated with the
waiver.
b. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, applicant may
apply for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic
generation and parking demand statistics.
Chairperson Selich asked Mr. Gleason why he needed a different standard
under 31b than 3a.
Mr. Gleason answered that the idea was that there would be a further
• restriction during the peak hours specifically, which is what I heard from the
testimony and the Commissioners' concerns. This condition was specifically
meant to address just the summer weekend issue that had come up about off -
site catering traffic potentially conflicting with the recreational weekend peaks.
This only addresses weekend peak and catering business and that potential
conflict. The second condition that we propose tonight was meant to address
weekday peaks in the normal commute time peak hours. 3a would apply at
any time of day during this period, so it would apply equally at 6 a.m. at noon
at 6:00 p.m. or any other time. 31b is meant specifically to apply only during the
peak hour between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Condition two that has been proposed addresses p.m. peak hour periods on
Coast highway.
1. Monday through Friday except holidays all year
2. Restriction on maximum number of guests: The maximum number of catering
guests occupying the Conference Center at any one time shall be 1,500,
provided, however, that from Thanksgiving Day to New Year's day, the
maximum shall be 2,000.
3. Restrictions on arrival and departure times:
a. No catering events in the conference center will be scheduled to start or
end between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (exclusive).
b. Functions totaling more than one -half of the maximum number of guests
(750) must be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart.
[Example; party one has 500 people and party two has 300 people;
together they total 800 guests; this is greater than 750: therefore, if party one
is starts or ends at 6:00 p.m., party two could not start or end until 6:30 p.m.
40
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
However, individual events may have a single start/end time.
1. Enforcement mechanisms:
a. Applicant will be required to provide information to prove conformance
with this condition as part of the Annual Report due under the Development
Agreement.
b. Enforcement shall be through the Use Permit procedures in the Municipal
Code.
2. Future Administration:
a. The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of
twelve waivers of this condition per year; provided, however, that any
request for such a waiver must be accompanied by a traffic and parking
management plan designed to minimize the impacts associated with the
waiver.
b. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, applicant may
apply for a modification of this condition based on demonstrated traffic
generation and parking demand statistics.
Commissioner Kranzley asked about the increase in the maximum from
Thanksgiving Day to New Year's Day. I am concerned about boat parade
traffic. I understand this is a slow time for the hotel and this is a way to make up
revenues during this time period.
• Mr. Gleason answered that there are two reasons. From an overall traffic
generation standpoint, the amount of guestroom business and the associated
businesses that goes with that is relatively small and is certainly less than 50 %G.
That is the time of highest demand for catered events and the idea being to
trying to meet the local demand for catered events that it would be
appropriate to have a higher maximum number since the mix would be
predominately off -site catered events. There would be really no conflict on site
for traffic or parking generation from the guesirooms.
Commissioner Kiser asked if these mitigation measures were intended to go for
parking as well as traffic generation on the City streets.
Mr. Gleason clarified that these would be for conditions of approval and not
mitigation. The parking would be handled as they conform to the worst case
parking analysis that was done under the traffic study in terms of the numbers.
They would bear out and enforce those maximum use scenarios.
Chairperson Selich asked Mr. Edmonston about the reference to the peak hour
as being between 4:30 and 6:00 p.m. If we would adopt a condition such as
this would it be better to set a time such as this? Or, in we are looking at the
long -term operation of this facility, would it be more appropriate to have it
conditioned that the City Traffic Engineer determine the peak hour?
Mr. Edmonston answered that a fixed hour would be easier to deal with. If the
• intent is to ensure that these types of restrictions on the number of attendees
41
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
beginning or ending during peak hour, then an open provision that would
require some communication between the City and the project is best. We
would typically count that intersection every other year. The count can vary.
The count that we did prior to this last count, showed the peak hours 4:45 p.m.
to 5:45 p.m. and then our most recent count showed that the peak hours
moved 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. It does vary a little and each year when we look
at intersections, we picked that actual busiest hour. There is no pre- determined
peak hour.
Chairperson Selich stated that the reason he brought this up was that the City
of Santa Barbara approved a similar project at the Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel.
They put a condition on their conference facilities that dealt with similar issues.
It said, 'that hotel and conference activities shall be scheduled for arrival and
departure times at off peak hours. Activities shall be scheduled so that the
arrival and departure times do not coincide with arrival and departure times of
other activities. The peak hours shall be specified by the Director of Public
Works.' Do you think the peak hour would shift dramatically over time?
Mr. Edmonston answered that it would not shift significantly. There has not
been a recent dramatic shift; it might shift fifteen minutes one way or the other.
• Commissioner Kranzley asked for specific language that would allow us to go to
the operator of the hotel if there was a change in the peak hour and we could
adjust this condition.
Ms. Wood suggested rather than writing the condition for specific hours, just say
during the peak hour as found in the City's latest traffic counts. That way it can
fluctuate without having to go back and amend the condition or negotiate
with the applicant.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston explained that a peak hour is based on a
traffic count of fifteen increments. A peak hour is four consecutive fifteen
minutes that has the most traffic going through the intersection.
Commissioner Kranzley added that we have a condition that encompasses
one and one half -hour and was a hard fought deal, I am not willing to give up
that half -hour at this point in time. Can we make it a peak hour and a half?
Mr. Edmonston answered that the applicant originally had a one -hour period. I
suggested that it be stretched a little because of the fact that we had variation
in the last count.
Commissioner Tucker noted that if the time is going to change, there needs to
be some process by which the applicant is advised of the different hours.
Something would need to be placed in the mechanism to give fair notice.
• Chairperson Selich noted that this is something that staff will look at and we will
42
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
be bringing this back when we look at the conference center.
Commissioner Tucker stated that this is the proper approach. From all the traffic
studies he has read, there really is not a traffic problem other than the issues
that come about by the conference center. Reading from a memo from Barry
Eaton to Earl McDaniel, EQAC members, said, 'I should state that almost all
planners and traffic engineers agree that in general hotels are not the major
traffic problems that office buildings and some retail uses are because they
spread much of the traffic throughout the daytime and evening hours rather
than concentrating it at peak hours when the roadway system is most likely to
be at full capacity.' I believe that to be the case and I also believe that the
conference facility use is going to cause issues with traffic for this particular use.
Attempting to come up with conditions that regulate that really addresses the
traffic issue. That is the issue that is out there.
Commissioner Kiser asked who Goodwin and Associates were and who chose
them as they are referenced in Table 3 in the March report.
Mr. Alford answered that initially most of the data came from staff. The
Goodwin study was one that dealt with how this project would actually
compete in the market and had a lot of information regarding room sizes and
• number of rooms. We took some of that data as well as data from other
sources and compiled it to develop this ranking hotels in the terms of ratio
between the number of rooms and the amount of ballrooms and meeting
rooms space. We took information from the Goodwin Study and used it as a
source of information.
Commissioner Kiser noted the differences on Table 1 in the March report and
asked how they were put together.
Mr. Alford answered that what he was looking for when looking at projects was
the ones that were in comparable situations. Ones that were in Southern
California and in coastal communities or actually on the waterfront. The
information that I contributed to this table had those parameters.
Mr. Wes Pringle added that for Table 3, the hotel information was basically
what we had available in our office. They information was from studies we had
done ourselves or had access to.
Commissioner Kiser asked if this ends up being a representative sample similar
to what is in the ITE studies? I would like to see something that tells us about
how this group of twelve hotels does end up being representative. Particular
since six of them show meeting space per hotel room considerably higher than
the proposed hotel and the other six all of which were in different studies,
actually show it quite a bit lower at the 60.52 level.
• Mr. Alford stated that because we did not have a comparison of this
43
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
information tied to trip rates, we went back in our March 91h report and
included an attachment which showed similar information with actual trip
generation rates and provided a nexus between this data and actual traffic
rates.
Public comment was opened.
Patrick Bartolic, EQAC representatives stated that the issues you have gone
through tonight were our concerns and you have addressed many of them.
We still have a concern about traffic and did not include several projects that
had been approved or in the study process by City Council currently. Because
these projects impact Coast Highway traffic, studies need to be made that
show the cumulative effects of adding Banning Ranch, Newport Center
Expansion, Koll Center Expansion, Conexant and future build out of the coast.
It was alluded to by the consultant that those were studied, but in the response
to comments their answer to us was, 'The General Plan build out is assumed for
background traffic increases with the exception of the Newport Coast
development the projects listed in the comment seek to exceed what is
currently accounted for in the general plan. As such these projects were not
included in the City's traffic analysis. Tonight they said they were. Which is it?
You have addressed our concerns of parking, noise, light pollution, and water
• and air quality. You have scaled back the project and most of our
commentary relates to the original proposal.
Mr. Alford answered that Newport Coast has already been provided for in the
General Plan, so it is not considered a new project. At the time we started the
Notice or Preparation, most of the projects mentioned in the EQAC letter were
not on file. Recognizing those projects have progressed during this process, we
have provided for an additional long- range, cumulative impact analysis in the
latest traffic studies. That can be used by the decision - makers. As for as the
CEQA process, we held to the projects that were approved or in the works at
the time of the notice of preparation, as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.
Mrs. Wood added that on the cumulative project analysis for reasonably
expected projects, those numbers are overstated because they included the
Newport Center project, which has since been withdrawn. They also do not
include any traffic mitigation measures that would likely be required of those
other projects. So those are the gross traffic numbers from the other projects.
The Banning Ranch proposal is less than what is in the General Plan.
Mr. Edmonston added that Table 7 in the traffic study lists the projects that
were considered committed projects and were included in the traffic phasing
ordinance portion of the analysis.
Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star stated that he would welcome a final EIR
that our consultants can look at. We hope this would have the correct
• baseline data as noted in our letter. The police can not and do not enforce
44
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
the noise ordinance. They do go out and enforce disturbing the peace. When
we have called them on excessive noise from the Dunes and /or the Hyatt, they
go out and try to mitigate the problem. They do not go out, nor should they go
out, with any meters to decide if there is any violation of the noise ordinance.
When I hear the mitigation measure is that we have a noise ordinance that will
be enforced, I have to ask the question, who? We haven't seen that person in
our time living on Morning Star. When we have noise inside our rooms of 57dBA.
even with double glazed windows at 10:30 at night and the ordinance says
40dBA, who do we go to? We are in a quandary. With regards to the
conference space, I believe it is an excessive amount of space compared to
other Newport Center hotels. It would be nice if they could be 5017o bigger than
everybody else, but I don't think we need that or the traffic.
Commissioner Kranzley asked when we were having issues with Joe's Crab
Shack and Windows, there was some discussion we were going to be hiring
additional code enforcement people that would be available in the evening
hours to help on nighttime issues. What is the status?
Ms. Temple answered that the Planning Department has two full time Code
Enforcement personnel that cover the whole City. Clearly not a seven day a
week, twenty -four hour a day capability. Both of those persons have the ability
• to monitor sound with a meter, but we often plan our evening code
enforcement hours after we have received a complaint. That way we can
hopefully re- create or catch a situation that might be similar. If we do
document a violation, we go through the code enforcement procedure,
notice of violation and an administration citation. Also, we work with the
property owner to make sure they understand the provisions of the noise
ordinance. We did request in our supplemental budget for this upcoming year
an additional half time person, but to date that has not been on the approved
list.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that Mr. Folkedal should let the Code
Enforcement people know there has been a violation of the noise ordinance.
That would alert them to come out and monitor the issues to the extent that
they could.
Mr. Alford added that the PC text states that if there is evidence that the noise
ordinance is being violated, the Planning Director can establish a noise
abatement program to address issues of very specific detail. That is currently
part of the project as proposed.
Mrs. Wood added that we did increase the amount of code enforcement staff
from the time you were talking about. We had previously had one full time and
one part time person, so we increased the second person to full time. Ms.
Temple is referring to a request to add even more staff to keep up with it. I
think that the Dunes as it has been operated is a more difficult activity to do
noise ordinance enforcement on then places like Joe's Crab Shack or Windows
45
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
•
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
on the Bay had been. That is because there has been no regular activity at the
Dunes. it is mostly associated with special events permits. So a complaint of
noise one night, that some activity is not going on the following night.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple stated that we ask for applications for
special events 30 days in advance. A lot of groups do not come in that early
and if we can get through the process, we will issue special events permits in as
little as two days. These events often go past 10:00 p.m.
Mrs. Wood added that in the cases of some restaurants, the Commission has
added conditions limiting the number of special event permits that can be
issued for a site and even limiting the hours for special events. I believe that
when we have a regular activity going on it is much easier to follow up on
complaints and take the noise measurements and get the information we
need to make enforcement action. I am anticipating that if the hotel were to
be approved with regular functions in the ballrooms, those would not be
subject to special event permits. They would all be governed by the mitigation
measures and conditions of approval that the Commission and the Council
would apply.
Joyce Lawhom, 265 Mayflower Street stated that her major concern was what
• would happen in the case that the impacts on Mayflower were unbearable,
and you just answered my question. We as individuals would have to call first
the police and then the Planning Department. She asked if there was a need
for a queuing study for the entrance ramp because of the bunching that was
brought up tonight for events with 500 or 600 guests coming to the center. I
would like a little more information on the circulation of traffic on the fire
access road. There is an exit from the three level parking structure on that road
that affects Mayflower as well as all the employees and construction traffic
coming in.
Pat Greenbaum, Bayside Village noted that she had reviewed the packet that
had been provided by the applicant. Referring to page 3, she noted, 'the size
of this project and conference center will allow us to compete effectively with
other resorts in the Southern California market.' Does this mean that I must
suffer in my living room because this company wants to compete effectively
with other resorts? I am appalled, what a good neighbor!
Susan Caustin stated that this is public land and the benefit to the public needs
to be greater than the detriment to the public. This conference center is going
to be the largest center in Newport Beach, looking at a comparison of other
hotels in Newport Beach. The original rational for the conference center at all
was to insure that the hotel had economic viability, not necessarily the most
profitability it could be. To me, when you talk about 30,000 square feet in
excess of any other hotel in the City, you are talking about an applicant that is
looking to increase his profits and will be aggressively marketing that
. conference space to outside groups. We heard him talk about 1500 to 2000
46
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
people coming in at a time, that is a tremendous amount of traffic through that
area. The public benefit versus the detriment, to me it is not an equitable
balance. I sent a letter earlier that talked about the fact that there is no new
traffic trips being added from this hotel. When I hear that, I have to ask, where
is the benefit from this hotel? If there are no new traffic trips coming in, there is
no new revenue coming in either, it is one or the other. Where is the public
benefit from the hotel? This is likely to go to a referendum and the public will
probably get an opportunity to answer. Take this hotel back down to 275
rooms, which is where I think it belongs.
Ayres Boyd, 2541 Crestview Drive spoke on behalf of a special committee of
associations otherwise known SCA. They are comprised of eleven homeowner
associations, around 2000 houses that surround the Dunes project. It includes:
Sea Island, Bayshores, Linda Isle, Castaways, Beacon Bay, Promontory Bay,
Cliffhaven, Villa Point, Dover Shores, Little and Big Balboa Islands, Harbor View
with more joining weekly. In response to what has been proposed and revised,
we felt compelled to organize the associations to study the project on its merits
and create and issue a joint position paper. We formed SCA to reach an
amiable compromise between homeowners, developer and the City's interests.
SCA feels we can support a project given a compromise among those three
interests outlined in our position paper. SCA has met weekly to discuss and
• complete this paper. We will present this paper to you and the developer after
all of the associations have an opportunity to pass it by their boards. The SCA is
offering their support of the project in return for being including in the planning
and design of the project. We would appreciate the Commission and the
developer receiving the alternatives put forth by SCA and work with us before
approval.
Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane asked about the EIR. He expressed his
concerns about the data provided the public. He asked what activity would
be taken to give those people an accurate impression of the project. The
process has been subverted and I request a remedy. When you start talking
about thousands of people and their activities that is substantial. Enforcement
is a big issue to me. I have documentation of all of my attempts to document
the problems and the remedies requested: I have talked to the Police
Department. I have numerous emails describing repeatedly the Jazz Series and
Dunes events. No action has been taken. The impact is being understated
and I am concerned with that. The process is not progressing as it should, we
are not really being fair to the public and I am looking for the remedies in that
regard.
Commissioner Kranzley asked Mr. Ohlig if had an opportunity to meet with the
view simulation people.
Mr. Ohlig answered that he did, and that their capabilities at this time are
impressive. He feels confident they have the capability to accurately model
• the height and mass of the project. They also indicated that was the case
47
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April b, 2000
since February. There are still some aspects about where you chose to view the
project from. They have picked views that are obscured by berms, etc. when
there are public sites much closer that has a great deal more traffic. I believe
that the technology is adequate, it could be employed in a more effective
manner to help the public judge the impact of the project. I have a new view
for the Greenlight Initiative people to use.
Commissioner Tucker stated that Mr. Ohlig has been here week after week.
Tonight we went through a list of issues, things that we heard and then we have
people get up and make blanket statements about misrepresentations. This
testimony is not helpful at all, we have a series of issues and you need to tell us if
you think there is anything that we may have missed that we should be
covering. Just to get up and criticize everybody accomplishes nothing. The
whole purpose of the testimony and what the Chairmen indicated was to get
specific. To get up and generally talk, you have already said that you are not
going to be in favor of the project no matter what happens. It is still your right
to get up and raise specific issues, and we will consider specific issues. We are
trying to go through and address those things and we need you get specific
about issues. I know you have the capability to get specific because on the
issue of views you have been, but I have no idea what else you are talking
about. We went through all the visual impacts that we heard people make
• comments about and we dealt with those issues. That is what the process is all
about. You may not agree with our conclusions, but it is incumbent upon us
and you to raise the issue specifically. That is what this hearing process is all
about.
Mr. Ohlig answered that the fact that this is your process does not necessarily
provide comfort. This will impact a lot of people. I am concerned about the
magnitude of the project and the way it differs from the original Settlement
Agreement. I will provide better documentation in terms of the other views
and as for as the potential misinformation the public has received, that is not
an interest of yours to pursue. But, I will give you proper documentation on my
concerns about views, traffic and noise.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that we got some numbers tonight that make the
proposed hotel less than 107o bigger than the Settlement Agreement square
footage of 1988. When we talk about a huge project, then we also now need
to talk about the Settlement Agreement as being a huge project.
Mr. Ohlig stated that in terms of percentage of height increase and in terms of
noise generation, clearly the square footage. But the square footage was out
of character of a 275 -room hotel as well. The square footage does not bother
me as long as it is not high and noisy and does not generate traffic.
Public comment was closed.
• Commissioner Tucker stated that we have not gotten into the design
48
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
•
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
guidelines, P C text or the Development Agreement. So the quality of the
project is not something that we have been discussing tonight in terms of its
construction quality. That is for from an item that has been forgotten. We must
have a whole series of things we need to get through and some of those are
the CEQA issues.
Ms. Clauson added that the Commission is reviewing the draft EIR with the
appendices and response to comments that we have received. The project
may have changed in the process of the public review period, but it hasn't
changed for purposes of CEQA. The environmental document that you have
has a project description of a 600 room hotel with the accompanying
conference space and that is what has been analyzed and that is what all the
appendices and technical reports have analyzed. That is what you are
analyzing as far as a disclosure document. Whether the information in it
discloses the environmental effects of that project, and it is not going to
change as far as the environmental document goes. When the final
document goes to the City Council that is what they will consider. If the
environmental document is deemed to be adequate, it does not mean that
the project has to be approved. A lesser project can be approved after the
environmental document has been reviewed and deemed adequate.
• Chairperson Selich stated that the last issue was parking.
Commissioner Kranzley stated he heard issues regarding the adequacy of
parking and that the draft EIR has addressed those issues. Subsequent staff
reports have addressed those issues as well.
Chairperson Selich stated that the EQAC was concerned about the parking
ratios and the way the parking was accounted for in the EIR. The response to
comments was not completely understood by EQAC. The response did
indicate that as a matter of course parking demand studies are done and deal
with shared parking and synergistic uses, and how the parking operates is
taken into consideration for this project.
Commissioner Kiser noted an item on Table 15 of the March 2000 traffic study,
which calculated the number of non - guests using the meeting area would be
628 having to do with parking requirements. Then indicating attachment 2 of
the April 6th letter prepared by the Dunes indicates 548 guests instead of the
628. The amount of meeting space in last meeting's proposal and this meeting
is 36,000 versus 31,000 square feet and that is about 86% of the prior amount.
The number of parking demand 548 and 628 is the some ratio. The numbers do
work and I don't find fault with them at this point.
Chairperson Selich noted this takes care of the EQAC list. There are some other
topics:
• Land use
• • Population and housing
49
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Earth resources
Public health and safety
Public services and utilities
Continuing, he referenced Table 1.3C in the EIR, which is the summary of
project impacts and mitigation measures, does anyone have anything to add?
Commissioner Tucker asked if all the mitigation measures are listed. Mr. Alford
added that there was one not included in the final draft EIR and that dealt with
the ceasing of the music after 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Tucker requested that be included. We have heard a little
testimony about the effects of the project on the ecological preserve. In going
through and doing the alternative analysis we came to the conclusion that it
would be more of an impact if we actually moved the hotel to the west side of
the lagoon. I am not sure we heard much more about it. We heard a little bit
about it in terms of the lighting and that will be handled as part of the process
of developing the lighting plan.
Chairperson Selich asked if there were any comments on biological researches
and cultural scientific resources.
• Commissioner Tucker asked for responses on traffic (Defend the Bay letter of
January 28th), starting point for traffic and baseline (November 15th letter from
Barbara Lichman) issues that were brought up in letters we have received.
Ms. Clauson stated that in our estimation that letter did not recognize the fact
the Settlement Agreement, in the City's estimation, gives vested right for
development of the project as outlined in the Settlement Agreement. For
purposes of baseline, it is our interpretation of the CEQA law that you can utilize
vested entitled projects when making a baseline evaluation. Furthermore, for
purposes of disclosure, the environmental document does disclose the current
conditions and the increase in traffic over the current conditions. In addition,
the TPO is the ordinance that the City uses and has always used for
establishment of a threshold of significance under CEQA for determining traffic
impacts. The TPO also includes the traffic that is being generated per the
entitled project. We disagree with the representations made in that letter for
all those reasons. As a disclosure document, the EIR does what it is supposed to
do. For determining thresholds of significance, we are permitted to use the
existing numbers as the baseline as well as our TPO for determining the level for
significant impact.
Mr. Edmonston added that the letter quoted a number of trips out of the 1988
Settlement Agreement and then deducted trips from that for other uses that
are in existence on the Dunes. They concluded that there were not enough
trips left to accommodate the hotel. What may have been left out is that in
• the Settlement Agreement it says 'new traffic' so it was above and beyond
50
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
what was on the ground in 1988. That may have not been factored into that
letter, as I recall it, but I do not have the letter in front of me to verify that.
Commissioner Tucker asked for a discussion whether we believe that the EIR is
adequate the way it is or, if a re- circulation would be appropriate.
Chairperson Selich told the Commission that a straw vote be done on this with
the understanding that there will be a formal vote at the time we vote on the
entire project when we have all the required findings.
Ms. Clauson stated the CEQA requirements for re- circulation. Draft EIR's do not
need to be re- circulated unless there are substantial changes to the project or
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken that will generate new environmental impacts or substantially
increase the severity of already identified impacts. It is not enough that the
impacts are different, but does the incremental effect of the new action or
project change result in impacts that rise to a level of significance. The issue
would be if any the project changes that have been described upon
evaluation would result in an increased environmental impact.
Commissioner Tucker stated that we have received input on this and the
response to comments. I believe that we haven't seen any changes or new
information from a CEQA standpoint significant that would require a re-
circulation. We have been talking about a project that is destined to get
smaller than the one in the draft EIR and I think all of the issues raised are
nuances to those issues as opposed to the new issues. I would not support a re-
circulation of the EIR. I believe there is substantial evidence that it does not
merit re- circulation.
Commissioners Kranzley, Kiser and Selich agreed with the comments.
Chairperson Selich then brought back for discussion the additional conference
space that the applicant is requesting to be added along with the suggested
conditions that he has put forth.
Commissioner Tucker noted that he is in support of the additional conference
space. Tonight's discussion clarifies that the real traffic issue has to deal with
the proper conditioning how that conference space is used. I am not in a
position that the exact language of that condition is okay, but 1 am sure we will
end up with language that will address our concerns.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that with the understanding we are still working
on the conditioning of the conference center, the additional square footage
does not bother me as long as the operation does not negatively impact peak
hour traffic anymore than the Settlement Agreement. I have to review the
proposed conditions, but we are very close.
• 51
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000
Commissioner Kiser stated that the proposed conditions go a long way in
solving a lot of the potential problems with peak hour traffic to the extent that I
have had a chance to look at them this evening. The Commission has to be
careful with the peak hour traffic. I have struggled with the 25,000 versus the
31,000 square foot conference center. I have come to the conclusion that I
would not support going to the 31,000 square feet. I have looked at all the
numbers on the hotels but the ones that are in our city operate very nicely with
the conference space they have. The other consideration is that I have heard
from many sources that we really need a larger ballroom to accommodate
larger groups. I understand that a 12,000 square foot ballroom would fit that
need. It seems there are ways that this can happen. Again, I can not support
going from 25,000 to 31,000 square feet because this relates so directly to the
peak hour demands. I think the hotel could operate very well with just what
the Commission indicated would be acceptable at our last meeting.
Chairperson Selich stated that he was the one who suggested the reduction in
the hotel space to that specific level at the last meeting. I did it because I was
concerned about the peak hour impacts of the off -site catering events. At the
time I made the remarks, I really came up with the number to insure that we
would have control over that situation. With the conditions that the applicant
has proposed to put on the project it has removed my concern. I am in
• support of adding the 6,000 square feet and the conditions that were
submitted. My only question on them was whether we allow the peak hour to
be determined by the City Transportation Services Manager or whether we set
the peak hour in the condition itself.
Chairperson Selich then brought back the issue of the 18 rooms.
Commissioner Tucker stated that he is in favor of adding the 18 rooms back in.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that as they are within 10% of the Settlement
Agreement, he is in favor of adding the 18 rooms back in.
Commissioner Kiser stated that he is not in favor, as a 452 -room hotel in this
particular site can be operated as such. I vote no.
Chairperson Selich recapped the 18 rooms are back in and the conference
space is acceptable provided that the condition is acceptable to the
Commission.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to April 20,
2000.
Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford, Ashley
• 52
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2000 INDEX
xxx
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business
a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported
that at the March 28th City Council meeting two items were heard. The
first one was some assumptions that staff is proposing to use as we
analyze the Greenlight Initiative. You may be aware that we have
retained a consultant to look at the last ten years worth of General Plan
Amendments and see in which statistical areas we will have triggered the
provisions of the proposed Initiative with regard to new amendments of
the General Plan going to the vote of the people. Council's discussion
was interesting as they had questions and directed staff to go ahead with
the study. This study is not looking at the overall impact of the initiative, it
is not looking at what it may or may not do to the City's economy. It is
merely a look at what future General Plan Amendments might have in
the way of review process based on what has happened over the past
ten years. The City Council is continuing their discussion of a possible
General Plan update. At the last meeting staff submitted a report on an
analysis of each of the elements, when it was last updated, whether it
does or does not comply with State Law, some issues that we think could
. be addressed if each of these elements were included in the update.
This item has been place on the Study Session for this Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.
and there is anotherstaff report.
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.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Kranzley asked to be
excused from the April 13th meeting.
. x
ADJOURNMENT: 12:10 p.m.
Adjournment
PATRICIA TEMPLE, EX- OFFICIO SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
• 53