Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/1999• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford and Kranzley - Commissioner Gifford arrived at 7:05 p.m. and Commissioner Ashley was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Robin Clauson - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Patrick Alford - Senior Planner Ginger Varin - Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of October 21, 1999: Motion was made by Commission Fuller and voted on, to approve the minutes of October 21, 1999 as written. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Ashley, Gifford Abstain: None Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 29, 1999 Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 SUBJECT: Tapas Grill (Stuart Rains, Applicant 4253 -A Martingale Way • Use Permit No. 3510 Amended Request to allow a remodel and expansion of an existing eating and drinking establishment. The application also includes a request to allow the addition of a 550 square foot outside patio in conjunction with the existing restaurant operation, and a change in the conditions of the existing use permit to allow dancing within the restaurant and alcohol usage on the patio. The patio use requires the approval of an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit. The proposal also includes a request to waive the additional off - street parking required. Public comment was opened. In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Stuart Rains, applicant, stated that he has read the staff report and agrees to the findings and conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3510 A and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 61. Commissioner Fuller, referencing the blueprints, asked about the wrought iron railing. Mr. Rains answered that there is not an existing patio in place and the blueprints do not represent an existing patio. • Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley requested from staff that on subsequent issues in a shopping center such as this, an inventory of parking spaces and uses be made. It is helpful to understand the nature of the center and know the number of spaces available in determining a waiver of parking. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley for approval of Use Permit No. 3510 A and the Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 61. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Ashley Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3510 (A) Findinas: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' uses and a restaurant use is considered a • permitted use within this designation. ^ INDEX Item No. 1 Use Permit No. 3510 Amended Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 2. This 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. That the proposed restaurant expansion can be adequately served by existing on -site parking and off -site reciprocal parking for the following reasons: • The site is subject or two or more uses and the maximum parking requirements for each use do not occur simultaneously. • The parking demand will be less than the requirement of Section 20.66.030. • The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3510 (A) to permit the expansion of a kitchen, dance floor, stage, office, electrical room and changing room, and the addition of outdoor patio service in an existing restaurant 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 the Municipal Code and the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations for the following reasons: • The use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since restaurants are typically allowed in mixed commercial districts. • Conditions have been added to address potential problems associated with alcoholic beverage service, parking, and noise. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use, which serves the neighboring commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area. • The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed kitchen expansion since there are no changes in the operational characteristics. • Outdoor patio service is incidental to the primary restaurant use. • The kitchen expansion is an upgrade of the existing facilities and will comply with current building codes and health department standards. • The subject property currently conforms with regard to parking and . the addition will not affect the parking situation. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 The parking required for the facility can be easily accommodated in the common lot, which operates on a first -come, first -served or shared basis. 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 proposed Cafe Dance Permit will not adversely affect the surrounding commercial or hotel uses with regards to noise or parking. Conditions: The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. All previously approved conditions of Use Permit No. 3510 shall remain in affect unless otherwise noted below. 3. That the net public area of the restaurant facility shall be limited to a maximum of 2,768 square feet. 4. The service of alcoholic beverages shall comply with the current ABC • license with the addition of available alcoholic beverage service on the outdoor patio. 5. The approval of outdoor patio service shall remain incidental to the primary interior full- service restaurant function and shall not be permitted to be open for business when the primary use is not also open for business. 5. A live entertainment permit shall be obtained as per Section 5.28.00 of the Municipal Code. 6. A Caf6 Dance shall be obtained. as per Section 5.32.00 of the Municipal Code. 7. A Special Event Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract a large crowd, involve the service of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. Standard Requirements 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and • standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 approval. 2. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 3. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. The proposed restaurant facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 7. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 8. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless . otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 9. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 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 use and to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance. 10. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 11. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 12. 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 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the hea safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 13. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Accessory Outdoor Dintna Permit No. 61 Findings 1. The proposed accessory outdoor dining is accessory to the Eating and Drinking Establishment. 2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the accessory outdoor dining will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or injurious to property or • improvements in the area for the following reasons: That the outdoor dining shall be subject to all the existing hours of operation, operational characteristics and conditions of any use permit applicable to the establishment. • No amplified music, dancing or entertainment is permitted outdoors. • All doors and windows leading to the outdoor dining shall remain closed while any approved indoor amplified or live music is being played. Roof coverings shall not have the effect of creating a permanent enclosure. • Fence, walls or similar barriers shall serve only to define the dining area and not constitute a permanent weather enclosure. • The proposed accessory outdoor dining will not be located so as to • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 result in reduction of existing parking spaces. Conditions 1. That the outdoor dining shall be subject to all the existing hours of operation, operational characteristics and conditions of any use permit applicable to the establishment. 2. No amplified music, dancing or entertainment is permitted outdoors. 3. All doors and windows leading to the outdoor dining shall remain closed while any approved indoor amplified or live music is being played. 4. Roof coverings shall not have the effect of creating a permanent enclosure. • 5. Fence, walls or similar barriers shall serve only to define the dining area and not constitute a permanent weather enclosure. 6. Such conditions the Planning Commission deems necessary or appropriate to ensure operation of the outdoor dining is consistent with the findings made at the time of approval. ••• SUBJECT: 407 Bolsa Avenue Vance Collins and Ian Fettes (applicants) • General Plan Amendment 91.2 • Amendment No. 894 • Resubdivision No. 1075 • Modification No. 4954 Request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Retail and Service Commercial (SP -9) to Two - Family Residential, to allow for the construction of attached two- family residential subdivision. The application includes: • amending Specific Plan No. 9 to remove the two lots from the plan, • amend Districting Map No. 25 to rezone the property to the R -2 District, • a resubdivision to create two parcels and allow them to be used for • condominium purposes, INDEX Item No. 2 GPA 91 -2 A No. 894 Resub No. 1075 Modification No. 4954 Continued to 11/18/1999 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 • a modification permit to allow: ➢ a 2 foot encroachment into the 4 foot side yard setbacks with a fireplace woodbox, and ➢ a 2 foot building encroachment into the rear 10 foot setback area. and property line walls ranging from 6 feet up to 12 feet in height in the front and side setback areas where the Code limits the height of walls and fences. to 3 feet in the front setback and 6 feet in the side and rear setbacks. Ms Temple stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to allow corrected hearing notice indicating exceptions to the Subdivision Code, to November 18, 1999. Motion was made to continue this item to November 18, 1999. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Ashley Abstain: None rrr SUBJECT: sCalculation of residential maximum floor area limits A resolution of intent to amend Section 20.10.030 (Property Development Regulation M) of the Zoning Code to partially exempt elevator shafts and similar vertical shafts from the calculation of residential floor areas. Public comment was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to adopt resolution of intent to revise Section 20.10.030 (Property Development Regulation M) of the Zoning Code. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Ashley Abstain: None SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort Planning Commission discussion of the proposed Newport Dunes Resort development, including preliminary review of the draft environmental impact Q INDEX Item No. 3 Item No. 4 Newport Dunes Resort Discussion Only • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 report. Chairperson Selich noted that the discussion will not include.the merits of the project, but rather look at the Environmental Report and the accuracy of the ,information presented in. that document. We will begin this evening with Commissioner Fuller's comments and questions. Commissioner Fuller noted the following concerns: ➢ The story pole issue - I understand the reluctance to incur the cost of the story poles, but this is such a significant development in this area. With the possibility of view obstructions, it is necessary to do the story poles in this case to measure the bulk of this project. I am in favor of having this done. ➢ The traffic study and effects on Coast Highway and Marguerite - I am concerned about the traffic study and the insufficient data and a 25% error and the different estimates for the same use. I defer to staff regarding the validity of the report, but I am concerned about the accuracy of the study that we have. ➢ The parking - I am concerned about the shuffle service back and forth. It was my understanding that there was not going to be any transportation, but it looks like there will be. ➢ Noise and light spillage - I am concerned how these will affect the surrounding. neighbors. I understand their concerns that they are going to be faced with noise that will possibly emanate from this project either over the wall or across the water. ➢ The possibility of access from Back Bay - I realize that this will disrupt the operation, but I am concerned about the amount of traffic that will go through the mobile home park onto Coast Highway. ➢ The use restrictions placed by the Settlement Agreement. I understand that those would not apply or would have to be re- negotiated. I would like clarification of that. Chairperson Selich stated that the EIR makes an evaluation of this project as a 600 -room hotel. I would like to understand how and why that determination was made. To me, this does not seem realistic, even as a worst case scenario. I can not imagine where there would be an instance when this hotel would be 1007Q occupied and each and every one of the time -share units would be rented out as a single hotel room unit. This is a theoretical worst case scenario, but in the real world, I can not imagine that this would occur. There could be some factor used, that maximum capacity, 'X, percentage of the time -share units would be rented out as hotel rooms and the rest would be used as time - shares. I looked in the report but did not find any documentation as to how that assumption was arrived at. Some simple surveys of projects that are similar to this would give us the information on maximum conditions at any point in time. Commissioner Gifford stated that the hotel the Planning Commission looked ritNJ • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4,1999 area a similar situation where rooms could .be locked off. In that case, we were looking at how we would apply the parking. I would like to understand how we have treated projects where the rooms can be divided internally, such as that hotel, with respect to parking, so that we can make an analogy. Ms. Temple answered that the historic way of dealing with trip generation and parking is to assume that each individual nodule that can be locked off is considered a hotel room. Commissioner Kranzley asked why we couldn't include traffic studies from actual cases. There are a couple of hotels in the city similar to the Dunes project, why can't we do traffic counts there? Would this be appropriate for inclusion in an EIR? Mr. Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager, answered that it could be done, it is a matter of trade off. What we use are .established average rates and recognizing that within those averages there are properties that would generate higher and some that might generate lower rates. Even within Newport, .one. property might be more successful marketing itself than another might. Those kinds of studies have been done in certain situations, i.e., The Four.Seasons Hotel actually paid for the consultant to visit several of their sites, including some in other states and document the actual trip rate in order to justify using a lower rate than the average we would have.otherwise used. Any applicant would have this opportunity, but we do not typically do that. Commissioner Fuller asked staff about the Marriott project that is in Newport Coast is it time -share and part time hotel use? Ms. Temple answered she believes that it is all time - share. Commissioner Fuller then asked if any studies had been done regarding locking off units similar to what is being proposed here? Ms. Temple answered that she has not reviewed the building plans for the resort in Newport Coast. Chairperson Selich stated that if there were 400 hotel rooms and they were fully occupied, it may be logical that 25% of the time shares would be occupied as single rooms and the other 75% would be occupied by time shares, that would give you a hotel analysis of 520 rooms instead of 600 rooms which is a 14% difference. Translating that difference in some of the studies done in this EIR, that makes a significant difference. It is a pretty important basic assumption that was made in this EIR that I think should be analyzed. If the 600 rooms is valid, at least provide us some sort of documentation that it is valid or come up with something that is. • 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Ms. Temple asking for clarification, noted that there are suites in the hotel as well which have been counted in a similar fashion, each nodule that could be broken down separately, has been treated as a separate room. We could supplement some of the information by looking at some hotels, be they time shares or not, and see what percentage of the suites get broken down and maybe provide some estimates as to what the differentials are? Would that be sufficient, or would you want something else? Chairperson Selich answered that the difference is when you have time share units with the hotel, a certain number of people will be using their time shares and will not be renting them out as hotel rooms. When they are rented out as two rooms, they are being counted as two units. Ms. Temple noted that the time -share units would stay as a suite and would also be relevant to the suites within the main hotel that are not time -share units, which can also be locked off and rented separately. Perhaps some surveying on both fiime- shares and conventional hotels as to how many times the two room suites get broken down and the percentage of business it represents would be useful to quantify for the Commission what the percentage differences might be. . Chairperson Selich answered that we should look at the projects like Desert Springs in Palm Desert where you have a hotel operating in conjunction with time - shares and see what their worst case situation is. There are similar businesses that could be looked at to find out what the maximum occupancy is. Commissioner Tucker stated that we had the same discussion last week. For CEQA purposes, we want to have something studied in the worst case scenario, but I am curious to see what the realistic prospects are. It might make a difference on Coast Highway and Marguerite with just a small reduction. I would like to ask, if we get that information, how would it be integrated with the EIR document? Chairperson Selich answered that worst case is right here as a value judgment with no facts to support it. CEQA does not require that you come up with the theoretical worst case, otherwise you would be analyzing water and fire distribution systems with everyone's faucet open all the time. It should be a realistic worst case situation and the fact is there are similar facilities operating throughout the country that I think would be very easy to go and find out what is their worst case situation, what is their maximum occupancy. That is a more realistic worst case than just saying that all the rooms are going to be occupied at the same time. Commissioner Tucker noted that the interesting thing about the traffic study in • this particular case, the long range base -line conditions project with 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 improvements even for Bayside Drive, which has got to be the most impacted location, the traffic study indicates that the actual volume of traffic ratio decreases with the project with the improvements versus without the .project over the long haul. From the standpoint of someone who is interested in preparing the EIR not to be attacked, they are better off having the 600 rooms. I would like to see it from a more realistic view, but I can certainly understand where they are coming from on this issue. Chairperson Selich stated that there is no documentation for this as the worst case situation and there should be documentation that either it is or there is another one that is the worst case situation. Continuing, Chairperson Selich asked how the conclusion was reached in Alternative C of the Executive Summary, that the expansion of the RV resort is the environmentally superior alternative that eliminates the unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the proposed project? I could not follow the logic on how that was arrived at. Mr. Steven Ross of LSA answered that the various alternatives to the project were compared related to how each alternative impacted all the various environmental issues that were analyzed in this document. Through the compilation of all those environmental issues, especially the significant environmental impacts of the project, it was the RV resort which had no significant visual impacts because it did not have the significant height of the proposed project and it was smaller than the existing or the entitled family inn resort. Also trip generation from the RV resort was smaller as well. There are a number of reasons why that expansion of the RV resort would be less of an impact than the proposed project. Referencing Table 1.31 - Comparison of Impacts, Chairperson Selich asked if the number of L's was counted and the one that had the least was the one that was environmentally superior? Mr. Ross answered that it is actually those impacts that are significant impacts that are the most critical impacts to look at. The purpose of an EIR is to evaluate what impacts are the most significant of the project, those that can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. If you look at the asterisk under A: Family Inn that asterisk represents eliminates significant unavoidable adverse impacts o the proposed project. Under C: RV Resort, there are two asterisks, one by Circulation and one by Noise, so that project eliminates the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project in terms of noise and traffic. That is why that was concluded. Commissioner Kranzley referencing the traffic study on Coast Highway and Marguerite noted his concern that in the I% traffic volume analysis it says east bound project peak 2 % hour volume. Am I correct in understanding that the • number of cars that would be going east bound is 8 in a two and one half 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 hour time period and then going west bound is 7 cars. Mr. Edmonston answered yes. Mr. Kranzley ten expressed his surprise that so small a number of cars makes it to the Executive Summary. This raises a lot of concern over an issue that is inconsequential, yet it made its way into the Executive Summary. Is that because we are required to? Mr. Edmonston answered that the table you referred to is part of the TPO analysis, which is the -short range. Because of those relatively small numbers, an ICU wasn't required to be calculated. Where it shows up as a problem is in the long range study which is where we use the model and, after the comments of the Planning Commission at the last meeting, I went back and spoke with Terry Austin of Austin Foust Associates who does our modeling and asked him for a different way to explain this difference of what happens with and without the project. He said that in his experience over the years, it is probably the single most difficult thing for people to grasp. What you are really looking at are two scenarios, 20 years from now. It may seem like it is just a matter of adding the project and getting the difference, when you add the project it can cause a considerable re- distribution of trips throughout the model between various land uses. That is why, when you look in the appendix, the change which really is the most significant in the long run, shows that in the AM peak hour, with the addition of the project east bound • through traffic goes up by 40. Yet, that is a much larger number than identif ied on the 2 Yz hour time and because it is not linked to the project because of the re= distribution in the model and they round to the nearest 10. That can also exaggerate the impact as well. The model is as good a tool as we are likely to be able to develop to project what happens 20 years down the road. It has so many assumptions in terms of all the traffic, all the zones in the City are going to be developed to their full potential, people are going to travel the some way in 20 years as they do now, it is somewhat of a coarse tool. It is like a skill saw versus a scalpel. The scalpel is like the TPO we use for the short range, because we can predict that time frame better. There is no long -range scalpel for us to avail ourselves of, unfortunately. Commissioner Gifford stated that is what we were told the last time we looked at this. However, I thought that the interest of the Commission was in finding out if we could peel back layers of the model to see specifically what projects take it over the top. The Commission is looking for something more. Mr. Edmonston answered that he had not picked that up as direction from the last meeting. The one direction he did have, was to look at what the impacts would be if half the traffic from the hotel accessed the site from Back Bay Drive instead of Bayside Drive. The results of that can be made available. There is a method in the model where we can take a link on Coast Highway near Marguerite and ask to show where that traffic comes from within the • area but, if you can not correlate it back to a particular development or 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 future development. Ms. Temple clarified what Mr. Edmonston alluded to last time, was a select link analysis, and those can be done. However, they do not show what projects are creating the synergy, it just looks at where the growth in the community might be interacting in generating more traffic. We can tell you generally what part of town some of the additional traffic might be coming from, but ..certainly could not identify specific development projects. Commissioner Gifford stated that would be helpful as a 'first cut', to see what parts of town may be or are problematic. Mr. Edmonston stated he would follow up on this for the Commission. Chairperson Selich asked if the some model was used for both the short term and long term analysis. Mr. Edmonston answered that the short-term analysis is done on a manual basis where existing counts are added to traffic from regional growth in the time period between now and one year after project occupancy. We also add.traffic that has been approved by the City, but are not either constructed or fully occupied which forms the background traffic. The project traffic is added on, then. a comparison is made. For the long range, because we do not have those kinds of count, we are basically • forced to rely on a tool.like the traffic model. The short range is based on actual ground counts added to regional growth, committed projects and then generated project traffic based on the standard generation rates. It is a layered approach. We start out with estimating an area of impact for any given project and give the key intersections in that area to the consultant. When they do this 1 -% test, we look at that to get a feel for whether we anticipated a large enough area in the list given. If it looks like at the borders of that area there is still considerable traffic, we may expand that area. My office initially generates the list and the consultant works on it and based on the initial results of that, we may expand the area or not. Commissioner Tucker asked if we are looking at the short range traffic impact and talking about ground counts plus committed projects and assuming the worst case as opposed to a realistic case, don't we have the prospects for reflecting a little more traffic than what would realistically come up? If someone, for instance, was interested in making sure their CEQA document on traffic was bullet proofed and they estimated through on everything that could possibly happen, is that the number that then gets factored in for committed projects? Mr. Edmonston answered that the committed traffic project comes from previous traffic studies that have been approved by the City or in the case of projects in the City of Irvine, that data is collected from and worked out with them. It anticipates that this project if approved as it is now, we would then • be adding the numbers out of the traffic study into that database. Once the 14 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 hotel is occupied, then it is no longer a committed project, because we are actually counting its trafficwhen we do the periodic ground count. There is a window of time in there where it might be over- stated. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that what draws Coast Highway and Marguerite over the line; is the westbound thru traffic in the AM that takes it from 1860 trips versus 1820 trips on the long range General Plan Baseline. -There is also an increase in the eastbound left turn by 10 trips, but the rest of them appear to be the same. Mr. Edmonston noted that the east bound left, with the change of 10 could actually have been as little as 1 or 2 trips that may have caused the rounding difference. Because of the overall accuracy of the model, the consultant produces these numbers rounded to the nearest 10. That is why I looked primarily at the west bound through which is at least 30 trips and could be as many as 40 trips. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Edmonston about the study done on the Back Bay Drive: Mr. Edmonston stated he did not notice great differences. Again, typically it takes a fairly big change for the model even to be able to track it. When we plot volumes on roadways, they are rounded to the nearest thousand cars per day. So the shift of the overall project with some 5400 trips, actually the net increase is less than that, taking just half of that it may • disappear in the rounding. I can send follow -up information on this study. Chairperson Selich, referencing Appendix G, Trip Generation Rates, noted the use of 8.92 in the traffic study and asked how this number was realized as the proper generation trip rate. Mr. Edmonston answered that on Table 3, 8.92 is the rate from the ITE. What this table does is to compare it to actual rates measured at other sites as was suggested earlier what might be done. How comparable those sites are to this hotel, it was felt that they were of a similar nature and you would see the comparisons: Hotel - 8.92; San Diego Hilton - 11.2; Vacation Village - 7.8; the Del Coronado and some others averaged over three or four sites at 6.0. There is a range that validated using the 8.92 and it fell in the middle of that range. There are some greater differences in the other columns under AM and PM peak hour trips. Chairperson Selich stated that you used the ITE rate for a regular hotel and not a resort hotel. Is that correct? Mr. Edmonston concurred noting that in the ITE, there is a resort hotel category but it was based on a single site in Hawaii and was taken many years ago. Referencing the table, Mr. Edmonston noted that footnote 3 refers to a "Resort Hotel Traffic Study' done by Austin Foust Associates of the Del Coronado, the La Costa, Hilton Head and the Newport Marriott. The reason that I didn't feel that was the most appropriate use is that at least some of those other sites are located in areas where you would tend to stay on the hotel property a greater percentage of time than you would a site in Newport. Even with a lot of the amenities, it is • surrounded by so many other opportunities, i.e., Fashion Island, etc., people 15 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 would go to. Making sure that we had at least a somewhat worst case document, we felt using the regular hotel average rate was appropriate. There are.studies that.looked into the amount of conference space and the ratio of the conference space to hotel rooms, they all led to support the use of the hotel rate. Chairperson Selich asked when the long -range traffic model is run now, are you using the same -land use trip rate generators used when the model was originally adopted? Mr. Edmonston answered that the City has periodically updated that. In fact, it is currently being updated to a 1999 -year model for use in the Newport Center efforts and subsequent efforts. The model used now and for this report was updated in 1996. It is on the order of every three or four years that the model is updated. We go back into the ITE document to see if they have changed rates. Between 1996 and 1999 there are changed rates in a number of categories. Chairperson Selich asked what factor is being used for resort hotels now? I went back and looked at the one used originally and we used a trip generation factor of 6 trips for resort hotels. In fact, we had something like 1900 resort hotel rooms in the long -range traffic model, has this been changed do a different factor? Mr. Edmonston answered that he did not • recall. Chairperson Selich commented that it would be important to find out if these other resort hotels that are in our traffic model are being treated the same as we are treating this particular analysis. If they are still at 6 trips and we are projecting this at 8.92 trips, it seems we have an inequality as to how we are analyzing these things. In my opinion, we are overstating the traffic generation by using the business hotel and not using the resort hotel. As I look at the list of hotels that are presented on Table 3, The Vacation Village Resort in San Diego is probably the most comparable to what we are building here. I checked on the meeting space, the amenities, and the location, all which are similar to what we have here and seems the most logical one to compare to. Comparing the ITE rate for business hotels, we are creating an inequality in doing this analysis. Commissioner Tucker, agreeing with the previous testimony, noted that the biggest part of the problem is that ITE, other than one study done a long time ago, does not really have anything else. But, this clearly is not going to be the type of location; it is not going to be a business hotel. I am not sure what the rate should be, but it seems that it should be less than the 8.92. Where we come up with something that makes sense, I am not sure how to do it. Evaluating the other sources is about as good as we can do, and then be somewhat conservative on that. So the Vacation Village looks like it would make sense. • 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Commissioner Gifford noted that this should not be subjective, either by the Planning Commissioners or anybody else as to what seems comparable. I might think that La Costa was like vacation Village, for instance. It does seem appropriate, that whatever the comparisons are that are selected, everybody who reads this report has the ability to understand what each unit of comparison stands for, how many hotel rooms, how much business meeting space, and provide some data on the sources that are used for the comparisons. When people want to make a determination of how comparable it is, they have something concrete to look at and it is not just based on a subjective opinion. Chairperson Selich noted that, in looking at the 1988 traffic model, the 6 trips per room for a resort hotel was based on a study done for the City by Austin Faust. So they actually did a study of resort hotels and came up with the factor that is used in the City's traffic model. If we are still using that, it seems something like that would be more appropriate here, or, if we have changed it, then there should be some criteria that we based that decision to change upon. We do not know if that factor has been changed or not, but it is something we should find out. Chairperson Selich, referencing page 7 of the traffic study, noted it states that • Table 4 summarizes the data for "Catered" events, how is that factored into the traffic analysis? Mr. Pringle, of WPA, answered that this was put in to indicate the comparison of what happens as far as the activity in the meeting rooms. The question came up in the process of the study as to whether the meeting rooms would be generating more traffic. It was not put into the trip generation calculation, but was considered in the parking analysis. The higher number of attendees for catered events seems to coincide with the trip generation rates in Table 3. There is a relationship with the weekend data that shows higher trip generation rates than weekdays and is reflected by the catered events. Referencing Table 5, Chairperson Selich asked about the Trip Ends: Peak Hour block in Hotel, it has 2,392 trips. Is that supposed to be 275 rooms times 8.92 trips? Mr. Pringle answered that as it is footnoted, the number may be from the 1983 Settlement Agreement. Mr. Edmonston confirmed that these numbers were provided to the consultant, and based on what was actually agreed to by the City in the Settlement Agreement. There were some differences in trip rates at that time because the original agreement was back in 1983. There were different rates for several of the land uses than what we would use today. However, we gave the hip credit information based on what was in the settlement agreement because that is what they were entitled to. • The Settlement Agreement did not say how many trips, but that you were 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4,1999 allowed "X" number of rooms and then whatever factor was used at that point in time to come up with this number. Mr. Edmonston noted that there was an independent calculation done of those trips covered under the Settlement. Agreement. We can provide copies of the original agreement and the amendment in 1988. We did not take a number of rooms times a rate, that was done back in the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Tucker noted that the: 8.92 times 600 rooms is not 5400, did you round up? Mr. Pringle answered that the numbers are rounded to the nearest 100. The reason the odd numbers come out is that the Settlement Agreement did carry it out to the nearest trip. When we do things now, we round up to the nearest 100 if in the 1000's, or nearest 5 if under 100. Commissioner Tucker then referred to Table 4, Hotel Catered Events. The source is the Evans Hotel the applicant; do we have any other independent information? Mr. Pringle answered no. Commissioner Gifford noted that.for.more information about the data from that source, it.refers you to Source: Appendix B. I was interested in finding out additional information such as time periods, years and square footage in the .ballroom, but could not find Appendix B, where is it? Mr. Pringle answered that the table was actually provided by the Evans Hotel. These numbers indicate the number of people utilizing the meeting /catering space by day of the week and time of day. Mr. Edmonston clarified that Appendix B is in the traffic study, not in the EIR document. Chairperson Selich continued by referencing Table 5, Trip Generation in the box marked Trip Ends: Peak Hour. In subtracting the RV spaces out, the footnote indicates that the daily volumes were estimated. There was a reference to doing some other calculations in regards to RV spaces, was the some factor used for all? Mr. Pringle answered that the difference is, the ITE does not have a daily value, only peak hours. Traffic engineers do not deal with daily volume, and it is not a number we use. It is in here for information purposes, but is not part of the analysis. Continuing, Chairperson Selich asked if there were RV space numbers in the Settlement Agreement? Mr. Edmonston said he would refer to the agreement to see if any of those numbers were included. Referring to page 11, Traffic Impact Analysis, he asked if this is what is called our TPO analysis? He was answered that the first paragraph refers to the Congestion Management Program, but the rest of it then is the study that complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Chairperson Selich noted that people get confused between the short-term is model and long term model. He suggested that this be clearly defined as the 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 analysis of the City's TPO. People can then more readily differentiate between the TPO analysis from the long -range analysis. Chairperson Selich, referring to Figure 3 trip generation, noted the traffic report indicated that the City provides this to WPA. He asked for an explanation of how this was arrived at. Mr. Edmonston answered that Figure 3 illustrates the resulting distribution percentages, which have been previously approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. We would have gone back and referred to earlier traffic studies and provided that information, looked at and reviewed it as well as asking Mr. Pringle to do the same. This is the genesis of that drawing, both staff and the consultant would have looked at this to determine if this was a reasonable distribution percentage. Mr. Pringle added that several years ago, they did interviews at the Hyatt Hotel on Jamboree. That information gave us some distribution data that has been utilized and over the years modified slightly as things changed in the region. Chairman Selich noted that on this figure, there is no distribution going towards Balboa Island. Mr. Edmonston answered that when the City first adopted the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) it had layers of conservativeness built into it. We had been directed to carry trips with small • amounts of distribution to intervening roadways. Looking at the approach used. by other agencies, almost every intersection you come to 1 or 2% may bleed off and that may or may not reflect the accurate usage. The recently adopted TPO, in an attempt to clarify it even more, includes a provision that those percentages would be rounded to the nearest 5% as they are in this exhibit. The concept has been to keep it on the major arterials and therefore, it ends up being a worst case assessment. Once the project is actually occupied and the counts are made, if it was worst case, then it is corrected at that time because now they are existing counts. Referencing Figure 3, discussion continued on the percentages of directional distributions. • Commissioner Gifford clarified that Figure 3 reflects an assumption that 70% of the traffic coming out of the project goes eastbound, only 57o of it is going into Newport Center and none goes in from Jamboree? Mr. Edmonston answered yes. Mr. Edmonston noted that this study was done under the old TPO and there will be a supplemental report prepared under the new TPO, as there are slight differences. The 5% was neither in the ordinance nor the administrative procedures, but it was what historically had been done. We had a couple of projects where discussions involved that and it was felt it would be good to put into the ordinance. Chairperson Selich noted that this maybe something to re- visit, as the analogy of Eastbluff is comparable to Balboa Island which is a major destination point. 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Chairperson Selich then referenced the Executive Summary. Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. He asked for an explanation of the water run -off impact of this project into the bay and the storm drain system. What if any plans are there to improve the quality of water run off, is it feasible to connect other drainage structures into the system that goes out into the bulkhead into the main part of the bay and not into the lagoon? Steve Ross, LSA answered that it is re- directing the flows from the lagoon into the bay through the bulkheads. As far as the overall quality of the water, the study did not address that issue. The project site is about 10 acres undeveloped at this time so currently water percolates through on the site. The rest of the site is the existing marina area which is paved and there is no change in that condition. As far as overall improvement, I don't think the project improves the water quality, but the study did not get into that other than where it is being directed and what was being done to minimize any pollutants going into the bay from the project site. The analysis did not state that there are any off site improvements that are being proposed to improve water quality, it did talk about the possible re- direction of storm flows that currently come in to the lagoon from Sea Island drainage area. There is concern by the Orange County Health Agency as to the coliform coming from Sea Island and is one of their top priorities. What they would like to do is • redirect that into the sewer lines around the Newport Dunes project and out. The applicant has stated he would like to participate in this endeavor, but it is not committed in this document. Chairperson Selich asked if it was not feasible to tie if into the new storm drain system going through the bulkhead? Mr. Ross answered he could get back with an answer. Continuing, Chairperson Selich referring to the Visual Impact Section, on page 4.10 -33, Significant Unavoidable Impact asked about View K (Figure 4.10.5 -K photograph). It states it is creating an unavoidable visual impact. In the analysis, I could not follow how you came to this conclusion, how did you determine a view impact and how was it determined by the listing of Impact Significance Criteria on page 4.10 -7? Mr. Ross answered that it comes down to exhibits 10 -A as well as 10 -D and 10 -E. What the analysis basically says is that from the view at the public beach, views of the cliffs near the Castaways are blocked by the project. The cliffs are considered a prominent important view from the public space with coastal access. In most other views analyzed in this document, the project is viewed from above, Coast Highway and bluffs on the other side of the bay. There are no significant impacts to significant resources like the bluffs. A subjective analysis is used in each of these images. Mr. Patrick Alford added that this particular view is on the project site but that • it is a public area and that is why it was analyzed in terms of a public view 20 IIL1T • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 impact. The major impact is to the coastal bluffs below the Castaways project from the east side of the lagoon. Discussion followed on the exhibits used. Commissioner Tucker asked what the time -share units that face the existing marina will look like, particularly the patio features? It looks like there are small patios off the sides, but it is hard to tell. Mr. Ross, referring to Page 13 of the plans, answered that the floor plan shows balconies that are part of the time share design. The balconies off some of the guestrooms, not on corners, look to be about 6 feet deep and 15 feet wide. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker asked about the height of the structure. He was answered by Mr. Ross that all but the central portion of the project above the main central entrance point with the 5th story, is 50 feet or less. There are some portions of the project that do exceed 50 feet, some elements of the time share units go up to a maximum of 60 feet, but the overall 75 feet represents 25% of the building area. Chairperson Selich referring to Figure 4.9.1 noted his concern of the noise emanating out into the mobile homes from the area of the parking structure. What is the design of the parking structure going to be like in that area? Is it • open parking from.the service drive or is it closed. Mr. Ross answered that it is only open in a couple of areas. Referencing the plans on page 10, he explained the entry elevation, noting the secondary entrance to the parking structure and explained the materials used and how the structure sits on the project site. Commissioner Kranzley asked why there were no noise measurements locations placed on the other side of the resort. He was answered that the measurement sites were chosen because of the concern of the residents so close to the proposed project. The analysis does address the distances involved and the land use being the commercial at the Hyatt and the noise being allowed for commercial land use. Commissioner Kranzley asked for noise measurements going from the other directions as the Hyatt might be impacted by noise over water, if there was a band playing at the Dunes. Mr. Alford noted that most of the noise measurements were done for the stationary or mobile vehicle sources. So we are looking at mechanical equipment and cars /trucks, but not party noise, as that is covered by the Noise Ordinance. Discussion continued on the enforcement by the Police Department under the Municipal Code. Ms. Clauson noted that the provisions of the ordinance are the loud and • unreasonable noise in Chapter 10.2. There are factors to be determined 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Commissioner Fuller, referencing Figure 3.4.2, and Figure 4.10.3 photo G asked if they were taken from the same point? He was answered that Photo G is actually taken within Bayside Village Mobile Home Park north of Bayside Drive. The closest view is depicted in View F that shows the berm. Mr. Gleason pointed out that Simulation G is from within Bayside Village Mobile Home. Park. and looking above those garages you can see a little white wall which is the parking structure. Commissioner Fuller asked if there was a parking structure shown somewhere in View E? Mr. Ross answered that it is in there somewhere, however, the applicant is trying to screen the parking structure as much as possible as depicted in the simulation. Chairperson Selich asked why the street section on Bayside Drive has an off site bike trail and two on street bike lanes in two directions. Mr. Edmonston answered that the City has tried to provide a dual system that serves both the family thot.may be on a casual.bicycle outing with their kids and are not comfortable riding in the street with traffic, as well as the more experienced cyclists who would not ride on the sidewalk if they had to. We have similar situations all over town where we have 12 -foot wide sidewalks to accommodate bikes and pedestrians as well as either bike lanes in the street • or wide enough curb lanes to accommodate both bicycle and vehicular traffic. The City has a Master Plan of Bike Facilities; this sidewalk portion ties in. You can ride along Back Bay Drive around the Dunes and now down Bayside and on the bridge to Coast Highway, up Dover, and do a complete loop around the bay on this type of facility. Chairperson Selich noted that he would like to see an alternative street section developed for Bayside Drive for consideration. It is important that on a major hotel entrance such as this, that there should be some nice landscaping on the street section. We have not allowed that to happen with these plans. A design could include landscape median going up that street and then evaluating whether the on- street bike lanes or the off - street bike trails be sacrificed to allow the landscaped median. Commissioner Gifford clarified where it is called an off - street bike trail, is that like the 10 -foot wide that goes along Irvine Avenue up along the bay where it is divided by the Interpretive Center and it is actually pedestrian and bikes? She was answered yes. It was determined that the pedestrians and bikes could be compatible, however, I notice that it is marked all bike path. If we are talking about sacrificing something, and it would be the bike trail, we are also sacrificing the pedestrian trail. Mr. Edmonston answered that the current plans for the cross section have a narrow sidewalk on one side of the street and the wider sidewalk on the other is that would be the joint sidewalk that both bikes and pedestrians could use. If 22 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 you narrow that down to a typical 5 or 6400t wide walk, you would gain the difference between that and the 12 -foot joint -use trail. They would parallel each other. Public comment was opened. Mr. Robert Gleason, with Newport Dunes answered questions and concerns raised in the Commission's deliberation: ➢ Noise - there is one area of the hotel called the function courtyard, which is adjacent to the conference facilities. It is our intent to have occasional receptions in those areas, but it is not principally what those areas are for. As we are a residential use also, we are sensitive to the noise problems. The functions will not be of a loud band variety or a luau type variety but rather be receptions held before people would go into dinner. Any occasion that had amplified music would be done with a Special Events Permit consistent with what is being done at the Dunes now. ➢ Time -share use - the industry average is about 20% public use over the course of the year. ➢ Information supplied by us for catered events - we were asked to supply that information from the standpoint of an abundance of caution in the traffic study. We approached this by looking at another hotel we operate • to give the peak times and uses on Fridays and Saturdays during the months of July and August in the most recent years. ➢ Water quality and storm drain systems - there are currently five storm drains that drain into the swimming lagoon for the existing portions of the project. One of those drains the whole of Sea Island, Villa Point and the golf course. That has been recently diverted to the sanitary system as the pilot project for all of Orange County. The other four drain just the areas of the project. One of those in the existing RV park that would be removed as part of this project will be diverted and put through the clarifier, so that particular area would be improved. It would be infeasible topographically to divert the other drains north and into the back bay. Mr. Quinn, also with Newport Dunes, added that of the five storm drains that the project has, four of them are not a problem because they do not have any dry weather flows. Unless it rains, there is no flow going through them. The one that has been the problem is the one that drains the golf course, the Hyatt Newporter and Sea Island, which is the one being temporarily diverted. We are working on a permanent diversion for that one as it has flows all year around. Mr. Gleason continued: ➢ Heights - the PC document talks about a maximum 75 feet, but only 25% of the project can be higher than 50 feet as measured per the Municipal Code. That would be the overall guidance. The project as proposed . here, about 10% of the building structures actually exceed the 50 feet 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 ➢ Views - View G, north of Bayside Drive, Bayside Village is actually elevated about 4 or 5 feet above the Newport Dunes property unlike the area south of Bayside Drive where it is at the some height or a little lower. ➢ Bayside Drive alternatives - we share the concerns as to the number of bike trails and the landscaping that is left in the right -of -way and have worked on alternative proposals for that street. They will be commented on in the EIR and will include additional landscaping, the removal of the on- street bike trails as well as additional control at the entrance of Bayside Village. ➢ Off - street bike trails - the one that runs along the back of the property now, is a Class 1 off - street bike trail and is divided and stripped with two - way bike traffic. The pedestrian access is via the sidewalk on the southerly side of that street. ➢ Story pole issue - I have called architects and developers to get an idea how to approach story poles for a project of this size. We are concerned with view issues, which is why we had the thirteen view simulations prepared. We have no idea how to do the story poles for this project for a couple of reasons: the physical challenge of the site with 288 building corners, 199 roof ridge high points and 316 roof planes. The story pole plan that was done at Treasure Island in Laguna Beach had 113 stakes, • the highest of which was at 45 feet. The story pole procedure has most commonly been done in the context of single family residences. I am not sure that it is the most efficient solution on this project. There is obviously a cost issue but more importantly, I do not think it ends up providing the amount of detail you are looking for and might serve to confuse and mislead as to the size and layout of the buildings. We propose the visual simulations be provided from more private view areas of concern such as Dover Shores, Castaways, Sea Island and Villa Point. I am in the process of looking at preparing a model for the project; I am not far along in that analysis, as we want to do the model in relation to its surroundings in the basin that the Dunes sits in. Commissioner Gifford stated that story pole plan sounds rather formidable and the idea of a model would be very helpful. Commissioner Fuller stated he wants the story pales. Recognizing that this is a significant task, it may not be necessary to document every ridge -line and corner, so maybe we can simplify that with staff's help and direction. I am in support of the story poles, but we do not have to go to such detail. Commissioner Tucker stated that he is not sure how much value would be in the story poles. Under the Settlement Agreement, 38.5 feet is allowed today. Most of the project is below 50 feet and I am not sure as to how much difference that will really make in terms of somebody's views. We are really • talking about is having a 500,000 to 700,000 square foot structure in that 24 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 location that sits down and may not block anybody's views. It will be imposing and if B was along the coast and might actually affect someone's view looking down at the water, then I probably would feel differently. The 38.5 foot structure is going to block whatever views of the water that a 50 foot structure will block. Commissioner Kranzley asked if we could take the areas that are higher than -38 feet and just story pole that assuming they could already build something at 38 feet, to see what the differential is. Mr. Quinn added that the predominance of the structure is 3 stories, which is higher than 38 % feet to get the roof elevations. Commissioner Kranzley withdrew his suggestion. Chairperson Selich noted his concurrence that what we would get out of it is not worth the effort of the story poles. The more you cut it back, the less it will tell you. It may not present an accurate portrayal of what is happening if the whole project is story pole. It is a large and complex structure, and I would rather see other methods to portray the project and how it relates to its surroundings. I am dubious about the use of story poles in other than a direct view blockage, not something like this. Commissioner.Kranzley agreed with the determination of the story poles in this • instance, and concurred with the use of a comprehensive computer modeling from all the various areas, private, public, etc., so I would hope that it would be not only comprehensive, but something that could be for the record. Commissioner Fuller reiterated his request for story poles to show the view obstructions as they are the best way to show the average person what is going to go in there. I would not support anything but that. Commissioner Gifford noted her commitment to the idea of how to allow people to get a real sense of what this would be. Given that we are looking at these kinds of numbers, it is a lot of story poles. It seems to me that a varitable forest of poles will not be helpful. I would like to retain the objective to give people the best opportunity to see what this is going to look like by the use of a model plus creative alternatives. For example, is there a form of photography that can simulate the view from different points of the model? I would like to ask the applicant and staff to continue exploring alternatives that might provide additional ways for people to get a real sense of the project. Ms. Temple noted that in her experience, one thing that could be done in the process of a computerized model effort enhancement is to have larger scale exhibits prepared. The smaller ones are hard to decipher, having very large panorama type exhibits were quite effective in the past. I suggest that this is • something that the applicant looks into. 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 Commissioner Tucker noted that the elevations /heights of the various comers need to be called out clearer so that people can look at the plans and get an idea. as to what the height is. Mr. Ohlig distributing exhibits to the Planning Commission noted the following: ➢ The noise is 20 decibels higher than in the Settlement Agreement, which relates to approximately 100 times the energy. ➢ There are no time restrictions. ➢ Size of the time - shares is 1500 square feet with dividable patios, which comes out to 200 patios. ➢ Traffic - this will be mainly recreational but there is potential for other traffic from Boyside and Coast Highway. ➢ Views - tall trees are more attractive than small trees. Referencing the exhibit, he noted that the marina clubhouse is shown. He then discussed his representations compared to the representations in the EIR. Joyce. Lawhom, 265 Mayflower - referencing map #5 from the EIR noted that this is what the residents of the mobile home will be looking at. She noted the following concerns: • • Boundary line at the back fence. ➢ Bike trail is a 15 -foot easement for the hotel. • Service road will be next to the bike trail. • Service road will take all the service trucks. • Loading docks are in the back; the times for deliver are in the EIR. • All the mechanical equipment is back there. We are really impacted and I suggest that you come to my house and look at my view. She concluded noting that not enough is being done for the residents on Mayflower. Carl Spitzer, resident of the park noted the following: • Whatever modeling is done should be certified as you would certify story poles. • The modeling should include the surrounding areas i.e. the mobile park. • Story poles is a visual aid. All need to do is approximately 64+ to outline the edges. Mary Jane Duggan expressed her concern about the increased smog level, which would impact all the homes on Linda Isle, apartments on Promontory Point and Castaways as well as the mobile home park. She asked K there was any way to predict the increase of emissions that will occur? Ms. Temple noted that a hot spot analysis may have been done on that intersection but if not, then it will be done and included in the response to 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 comments. Chairperson Selich asked if there was going to be a report on the questions that were raised during the Commission deliberations. There may be some assumptions compounded by other assumptions and they have created an overstated case here. it merits going back to take a look at and validate the materials. Ms. Temple answered that staff can go back and evaluate, even ask Mr. Edmonston and the consulting engineer to evaluate the assumptions based on the comments of the Commission to see whether any of those comments would lead them to believe any adjustments need to be made. If so, we could accomplish some changes to the traffic study. However, one of the things that gives the City the greatest amount of protection as well as the applicant, is that the City follows a very consistent format in evaluating projects for all different reasons, but particularly traffic. CEQA lends a great deal of weight to locally adopted standards, which are rigorously adhered to in terms of defending the adequacy of the analysis. I don't think I want to get to - a place where we actually significantly change from our normal operations. If it would meet the needs of the Commission should some modified analysis be presented, I would like to present it as supplement information that the Commission could use in terms of the determination of significant effects or as appropriate to override and identify significant effects. I do agree that we are conservative at every turn. The tradeoff is far more defensability in the EIR should someone decide to litigate it a later point in the process. Chairperson Selich commented that what he had pointed out were not changes in the methodology, rather exception or an aberration that needs to be dealt with. It has nothing to do with standard methodology. I would like to have these addressed as to whether they are valid points or not. If they are not valid then adjustments need to be made to the EIR. Commissioner Gifford noted her concurrence adding that we need this additional information. Then we can decide how to use it. Commissioner Fuller reiterated his opinion that the story poles need to be done even in some limited manner. He noted that it would be a mistake not to do it. Commissioner Tucker commented on the information that was presented by Mr. Ohlig. He noted that this type of exhibit has not been terribly precise, engineered, or certified in any fashion. If these exhibits are to be compared to the applicants and taken seriously, then you need to get them certified. What we have found in the past is some pretty distorted representations. 27 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November r4, 1999 on the traffic, does the Commission feel that this should be scheduled for any additional study sessions? It was agreed that this does not need to be on any further agenda until the public hearing outside of the traffic issues. Ms. Temple answered that if the Commission wishes staff to bring back traffic issues, one option is since so many of the traffic questions would be of the .nature of an.EIR comment, which we would respond to in the response to comments format or prepare a supplemental report that would be included in the response to comments. Would you like to respond to a supplemental report prior to the public hearing on this item? Chairperson Selich answered that it would be dependent on what you come back with. Ms. Temple answered that staff will bring it back before we close the response to comments. We will figure out the time - frame, as the normal turnaround response time is four weeks. However, if it is determined to totally re -craft the traffic study that could take substantially longer. • ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that at the last City Council meeting, the Council took final action on the Zone Code Amendments previously considered by the Planning Commission; approved the Corporate Plaza transfer and the Planned Community Amendments. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich noted that the EDC had a presentation on the Dunes project at the last meeting. They will be formulating a recommendation at their November meeting to submit to the Planning Commission for hearings in January. The City Council received a report on potential future revenue for the City, which will be looked at by the EDC. They will be making recommendations to City Council on future revenue sources. C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - Ms. Temple noted that the project is on schedule. The Planning Commission sub - commiffee at their next meeting will be reviewing some of the preliminary concepts that the consultant is developing in regards to the zoning documents. A study session is scheduled for November 18th starting at 6:00 p.m. • d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a 28 `l.lr7�:t Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1999 • LJ subsequent meeting - Ms. Temple noted that at the coming City Council meeting, the position vacated by Commissioner Hoglund will be announced. A committee will be appointed to review applications and make recommendations on a slate of candidates. I will forward a schedule of timing prepared by the City Clerk's office. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f.) Requests for excused absences - none ADJOURNMENT: 10:05 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION INDEX Adjournment