Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2008CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 6 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren— All Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 31, 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 23, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Approved Hawkins to approve the minutes as written. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None I Absent: None R ft 1 SUBJECT: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion (PA 2005 -212) ITEM NO. 2 1107 Jamboree Road PA2005 -212 Request to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. The Recommended project includes the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom for approval facility, a new 10,072- square -foot spa and fitness center, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a two -level parking garage. Project implementation requires the demolition of 12 existing hotel rooms, the existing 3,190-square-foot Terrace Ballroom, and the existing engineering NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 and maintenance building, and removal of the existing nine -hole golf course. The project will require the following approvals from the City: 1) Parcel Map No. 2007 -003 to reconfigure two existing lots, to place the timeshare units on one parcel and the hotel on the other, and to establish finished grades for the purposes of measuring height; 2) Use Permit No. 2005 -046 to allow the expansion of the existing hotel, the timeshare development, and to allow the proposed timeshare buildings and ballroom to exceed the 26 -foot base height limit; 3) Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 to allow commercial tandem parking and to allow an architectural tower and tower feature on the proposed ballroom to exceed the 35 -foot maximum height limit; and 4) Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 between the City and the operator of the timeshare development relating to the amount of tax payable to the City for the right of occupancy of the timeshare units. Jaime Murillo noted the change to a revised resolution that was handed out. In order to approve this project, a statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted; it would have to be determined that there is sufficient public benefits that outweigh the project impacts of construction noise that can not be mitigated due to the length of construction time. He then noted the benefits of the project and consistency with CIOSA. Continuing, he noted the following responses to Commission questions: Soa operation — managed by the hotel operator. Findings for modification permit — Code allows architectural features to exceed maximum height limit with a modification permit but does not require specified findings. Reference to the 1989 amendment to the use permit that allowed previous expansion — parking demand analysis was prepared requiring 1.5 parking spaces per hotel room; however, in the event of special events requiring increased parking demand, contingency off -site parking would be made available. A similar condition has been proposed in the current resolution requiring approval of a special events permit for events with anticipated increased parking needs. View simulations — provided by the applicant. Response to City of Irvine comment letter — copy distributed to the Commissioners, to Irvine, and made available to the public in the lobby. Number of new employees — 53 to 63 new full -time employees are anticipated; an anticipated number of 25 -30 temporary sales employees during the first 2 -3 years of sales operation of timeshares. There may also be a need for an additional 20 part-time employees. Jobs created —jobs housing balance in the City is 1.0 as stated in the figures in the State of California Employment Development Department. Resolution — has been updated to include a statement of overriding considerations. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the operation of the timeshares Mr. Murillo noted the applicant would discuss this; however, there are two separate entities. Page 2 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 Commissioner Hawkins asked if there was an agreement between the timeshares and the entity operating them. Mr. Harp noted at the last meeting, Mr. Rush raised an issue regarding disclosure requirements related to Council Policy A 16 in regards to Mayor Selich and Council Member Rosansky. They both indicated that a reimbursement had been made to Government Solutions for the event attended at the Hyatt. Coralee Newman of Government Solutions representing the applicant noted that view simulations had been taken and printed forms were distributed; she noted their comments on the resolution with strike -out and comments on the development agreement. Tom Naughton of Sunstone, principal in charge for the entitlement process noted the spa operation will be operated by Hyatt but Sunstone will reserve the right to lease it out to a third party. The timeshare operation will be operated by Hyatt or an affiliate to manage and market the sale of the timeshare units. Sunstone will reserve the right to choose a different operator when or if Hyatt were to exit the timeshare business. The timeshare facilities will have access to the hotel facilities but it is not likely that a hotel guest would be using the timeshare facilities. Commissioner Hawkins inquired if there would be a contractual agreement between the timeshare and the operating company. Mr. Naughton noted there will be a homeowners' association formed that would contract with the management company. He noted there would be conditions on the use of the timeshares; dues, services, and contribution to a reserve for replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment. Commissioner Eaton inquired about the investment. Mr. Naughton noted it is roughly $50 million. Coralee Newman then introduced members of their technical team who assisted with this project. Referring to Condition 9, as recommended by staff to lower the tower feature by five feet, they agree. She then presented a Power Point project overview on the project site, gardens on site with rare botanical specimens, and renovations that had been done in the 80's. She noted the Summer Jazz Series will remain in place; however the bigger Jazz Festival will discontinue once the remodel takes place. Views were then displayed of the 25 -acre lot depicting the orientation of Sea Island, tennis club, Harbor Coves, Bayview Landing Senior Housing, the Newport Dunes Resort and Back Bay Science Center. Julie Cavanaugh of Government Solutions gave an overview of the staff report and discussed the project objectives, building sites, and business Page 3 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 Commissioner Hawkins asked if all circulation improvements for CIOSA have been made as well as the open space parcel dedication. He was answered, yes. Commissioner Hawkins then asked about the tandem parking and height measurements. Ron Sakahara of Lee Sakahara Architects noted grade will be measured from finished grade for the purposes of measuring height. He then discussed view simulations depicting the existing and proposed parking structure, ballroom and tower; and view sims taken from Harbor Cove and Sea Island. Commissioner McDaniel asked if there were lights proposed to be on the exterior timeshare buildings. Mr. Sakahara noted there will be ambient light coming from inside the timeshares themselves, but the buildings will not have exterior lighting. Commissioner Hawkins noted he had visited Sea Island Commissioner Unsworth asked Mr. Sakahara if he could confirm the language on page 17 of the staff report, which states, 'the cupola and tower feature will not block any private or public views." Mr. Sakahara said he could confirm that as a true statement. Robert Kahn of RK Engineering Group stated the conclusions of the parking study prepared for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were that parking and traffic circulation were adequate. Presently there are 655 parking spaces of which 70 are tandem spaces. The proposed project will have 912 parking spaces of which 498 will be tandem for the hotel and ballroom facilities through valet parking. Two new access points will be built for ballroom access and for additional ingress for the hotel facility. Referring to the Power Point exhibit he noted the valet parking, self- parking, timeshare and tandem parking areas. Discussion continued on the peak hour uses, Shared Parking Management Plan, potential surplus, off -site parking during special events and payment of ticket process. John Blarno of Ace Parking Management noted they would control parking through the use of cones, gate closure /opening and delineators for events. Paul Devit, General Manager of Hyatt discussed the valet program for the hotel and entrances off Back Bay Drive. Commissioner Hawkins expressed his concern of the letters of commitment regarding parking needs from The Irvine Company, Palisades Tennis Club and the Dunes. Page 4 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 Mr. Kahn noted the requirement and conditions of a special event permit. He added that during construction 467 parking spaces must be maintained within the parking facilities. Commissioner Unsworth asked if the approximately 23 months construction activities as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations meant that the total construction time would be approximately 23 months or if each phase would be approximately 23 months. Tom Naughton answered the timeshare components will be built as they are sold out but the grading will be done all at once. Bill Delo, Traffic Engineer with IBI Group, sub - consultant for the City who prepared the traffic study and parking study included in the EIR. Referencing page 42 of the Traffic Study and hand - written page 24 of the staff report, he explained the shared parking comparisons between banquet facility use, hotel use and timeshare use. There was discussion on capture rate and shortage of demand. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the expansion of the ballroom and current usage. Mr. Devit noted it will serve as a multi - functional facility; and, there is more demand for meeting space than room capacity. Commissioner Peotter asked about the traffic concerns related to increase of ballroom facility and how it would be accommodated on Jamboree and in the General Plan Update. Ms. Newman noted the additional room asked for on this site was part of the CIOSA and part of the voters' approval of the General Plan in 2006. This hotel is in the General Plan as 479 keys. Mr. Delo explained the trip generation rates and how they fit within the existing City standards and guidelines for intersections that would be impacted by the expansion; and, addressed possible stacking impacts on Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road access both egress and ingress. Commissioner Toerge suggested moving the proposed entry to get the potential stacking of cars away from Jamboree Rd would be a benefit than aligning the driveways. Mr. Delo answered that the proposed driveway entry location provides for more on site queuing space available than if it was located to the west. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the Development Agreement (DA). Ms. Newman stated the DA was established to off -set transient occupancy fees because of the City Ordinance regarding timeshares. The calculation Page 5 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 rant ana an aaamonai pt nnuuon anocatea Tor water quaury improvements in the Back Bay Dunes area. Benefits for the hotel is that the entitlement stay in place for a certain amount of years. Dennis O'Neil, representing the applicant to negotiate and draft the DA along with the ad hoc Committee appointed by City Council. The contract and agreement is in place on all points and conditions. There are a few items that we will be discussing with the Council at the appropriate time. Commissioner Unsworth, referencing paragraph 4.5 in the DA, asked if the development fees assessable against the property are considered to be liens on the property once they are due. He also noted there is no definition for "Development Regulations" and that the duty of land owner to pay for legal expenses incurred by the City should be referenced in the resolution; Mr. Harp answered these fees would not be liens against the property Discussion continued on the timing of the fee payments. Mr. Harp clarified that the changes discussed by the speaker were done at the discretion of the City Mayor. These are issues to be discussed and determined at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Eaton asked about the revenue stream from entitled units as compared to a lump sum payment at the beginning. Tom Naughton answered the development of the timeshare units is the trigger for the payment of DA fees. We want to place the payment of those fees on the timing of the timeshares as they are completed. The proposed fee to the City in lieu of the TOT was based upon the discounted present day value of what the City would have received in TOT from the Timeshare units up until the expiration of their lease on the property, in 42 years. Ms. Newman noted there is a different lighting fixture that will be placed on top of the parking garage. Mr. Sakahara displayed and explained exhibits on the lighting standards and types to be used throughout the project as well as atop the parking structure. JoAnn Hadfield of the Planning Center talked about noise from maintenance building. Public Comment was opened. Josh Mohachy, Harbor Cove resident, noted his concerns of view impairment, dust, air pollution, noise, roof color, details of construction schedule, building heights and requested story poles. Richard Leuhers, President of the Chamber of Commerce noted his support of this Droiect for the following reasons: Page 6 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 • Promote economic sustainability in the community. • Revitalization of hospitality product in the community. • The added trips on Jamboree Road will not be problematic. • The loss of the golf facility will not be an impact as this is only a nine - hole course and is not the best use for that valuable property and not a substantial loss to the community. • The existing ballroom can not accommodate today's audio equipment as the ceilings are very low and problematic. • The floor space is not large enough due to ancillary functions needed. Gary Scherwin, President of Conference and Visitors Bureau, noted his support for similar reasons stated, adding: • Meeting space is needed in the City. • The ballroom space is needed in order to market this community and is an important competitive issue. • The additional rooms will not be as advantageous as getting more meeting space. Gay Morris of Sea Island, noted her concerns of quality of life, loss of property values, amount of traffic accidents on Jamboree, and questioned how the view simulations were taken. Debbie Hartunian of Harbor Coves, questioned why the view sims were stretched as it made the project look further away than it is; it seems a conflict of interest for Mr. O'Neil as he was a Council member when the CIOSA was approved by the City; and stated that the local residents pay taxes and we want to enjoy the area just as well. Sue Ellen Volpe of Sea Island noted the future residences to be built on Santa Barbara by The Irvine Company will impact traffic on Jamboree. This project appears to be able to cause traffic problems as the project is surrounded by residential communities and an environmentally sensitive Back Bay. This convention center will have a negative impact due to noise, traffic and lighting. She is concerned that her water view as well as neighbors' will be compromised. Jim Murphy resident of Sea Island noted view sims taken do not truly reflect their views and noted his concern of the traffic queuing. Michael Volpe resident of Sea Island noted the speed of vehicles coming down Jamboree and the amount of rear end traffics that occur. He suggested using more of Back Bay Drive and underground parking. Richard Barrabe of Sea Island distributed pictures he had taken and noted his concern about the traffic stacking, big RV park and SUVs'. Jan Vandersloot, representing SPON, referring to the staff report noted Newporter North Environmental Study Area qualifies as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and that ESHA protection prohibits new Page 7 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 development that would necessitate fuel modification. The protection of ESHA is not adequately being represented in the EIR. Robert Hamilton a biological consultant from Long Beach retained by SPON distributed his report he had prepared this day. He pointed out the summary and conclusion regarding buffer, locations of coastal sage scrub and cattail marsh area. Fuel modification plans do not provide for the minimum 100 -foot buffer. Public Comment was closed. Mr. Lepo noted, at Commission inquiry, noted there the report just handed out was not reviewed by staff; however, as he has confidence in the expertise of the City's consultant, there is no preponderance of evidence that would change the original determination of Glen Lukos Associates and the Planning Center. Tony Bonkamp of Glen Lukos Associates stated they prepared the biological surveys and noted the previous speaker may have had some outdated materials. Referencing exhibits, he noted the vegetation mapping and buffer areas, the process taken for the mapping and surveying of the special treatment areas as well as landscape materials to be used. Commissioner Eaton noted the fuel modification area is a compromise with the Fire Department objectives and the objectives of the biologist. Commissioner Toerge asked if studies have been made on the number of traffic accidents on Jamboree. Mr. Brine answered that since 2005 a total of 11 accidents have been reported to the Police Department, the majority of them being rear -end accidents. Ms. Newman noted that the noise will be reduced due to the three -day Jazz Festival going away. Lighting that currently exists will be removed and replaced with new lighting fixtures with shielding. There is a series of mitigation measures dealing with the construction impacts. There are no impacts to public views. The view sims were taken from many of the speakers' homes and represents a good sampling. If directed by the Planning Commission, we can take more view sims. Following a brief description of the community needs and project proposals asked that the Commission approve this application. Mr. Lepo, referring to the hand out of Ms. Newman of the conditions of approval, noted: • Accept the changes to Conditions 5, 24, 39 • Condition 46 the hours should be 8:00 a.m. Ms. Newman asked for a change to 7:00 a.m. for early deliveries of produce. They have no issue with the refuse pick up after 8:00 a.m. • Condition 60. 65. 67. 68 and 70 there is no basis as thev are from Page 8 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 • Condition 79 change can be approved. • Conditions 81, 83 and 84 changes can be approved. • Conditions 87, 89 and 90 there is no basis as they are from Public Works Department. • Condition 91 and 92 refers to all buildings and staff does not accept the changes as they are from Building Department. Mr. Lepo noted that between now and the Council meeting, these conditions can be confirmed with the other departments for clarification. Ms. Newman noted condition 91 is physically impossible; however, it will be a meet and confer item. Commissioner Toerge noted he had visited several of the sites. He is not compelled to compromise resident quality of life for municipal economic gain. He represents residents. He does not see view denigration or property value impact. Traffic generated to this site is incorporated in the General Plan at the maximum capacity with review and traffic report done and approved by the City Council, Planning Commission and the voters. The nine -hole golf course is not a regional attraction, although it is a shame to lose it. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to adopt resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH. No. 2006121052) and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 and Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations with the following changes: • Condition 19 — "Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized prohibited.... • Condition 20 — Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.) to minimize evaporation. the following m • Condition 36 — "Any proposed illumination of the new ballroom cupola and tower feature shall consist of soft accent lighting so as not to become a visual disturbance to the views of the adjacent residents. The illumination shall be off at 10 p.m. and not illuminated earlier than 6 a.m." • Proposed modifications submitted by the applicant with staffs concurrence: • Conditions 5, 24, 39 are okay; Condition 46 be re- worded deliveries of food products could occur as early as 7:00 a.m. but trash and refuse disposal is after 8:00 a.m. • Conditions 60, 65, 67, 68 and 70 not changed but City staff will meet and confer prior to Council meeting. • Condition 79 is okay to change. • Conditions 81, 83, and 84 are okay to change. Page 9 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 prior to Council meeting. • Condition 91 change is acceptable. • Condition 92 not be modified. Commissioner McDaniel noted he will not be supporting the motion. As a member of the Local Coastal Plan Committee for several years, is not convinced that timeshares qualify as visitor- serving. There is not a good understanding of the visual corridors for the neighbors but this does not qualify for the Local Coastal Plan. Commissioner Hillgren noted he will not be supporting the motion. He stated that Condition 9 needs to be addressed as there needs to an artful attraction for people to use Back Bay Drive so it should be 57 feet 6 inches. Motion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Unsworth to amend the main motion and delete Condition 9. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Toerge Chairperson Peotter stated that the main motion now stands amended. Commissioner Eaton noted this is a very major project that has been thoroughly documented in the public hearing. The issue of the timeshares will be more fully discussed at the City Council and Coastal Commission. Commissioner Hawkins asked staff about Condition 84. Mr. Lepo noted that Condition 84 needs to be brought back to staff for a determination prior to the Council meeting. Commissioner Toerge and Commissioner Hawkins noted they would amend his motion accordingly. Commissioner McDaniel noted the Coastal Commission has given the City parameters to live with and we need to be responsible as to what those are and deal with them to be given that gift of doing this ourselves. This is an issue that will be taken up someplace else, but at our level we need to be responsible for. Commissioner Toerge noted he served on the Local Coastal Committee and timeshares are considered visitor - serving. Commissioner Hillgren noted that in terms of the uses proposed he is a proponent of the proposed uses and additional meeting spaces are worthy and believes timeshares work. The environmental review that has occurred successfully addresses the issues with CIOSA and so forth. I do know from experience that hotels are operating businesses and they need to work. I am not confident that the plan we have functions well and part of our responsibility is that we have a goal to have a great facility when all is said and done. I have Page 10 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 concerns that the parking and stacking are not as good as they could be and for those reasons will not support the motion. Chairman Peotter suggested restricting the high - pressure sodium lighting in the parking areas to match the street lights and recommends lowering the parking lot standards another 6 feet to a total height of 20 feet. It will mean more poles but they will be less intrusive. I suggest an amendment to the main motion to modify Condition 33. This was seconded by Commissioner Hawkins. Vote taken was to amend the main motion. Ayes: Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Eaton and Toerge Vote on main motion amended to delete Condition 9 and modify Condition 33. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter and Toerge Noes: I McDaniel and Hillgren z�• SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach (PA2008 -182) ITEM NO. 3 PA2008 -182 City Hall GPA —An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to Recommend change the land use category from Open Space (OS) to Public Facilities (PF) Approval and an amendment to the Newport Village Planned Community to change the land use designation from Open Space to Governmental /Institutional on 6.5 acres generally bounded by Avocado Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, the Central Branch of the Newport Beach Public Library, and the eastern prolongation of the centerline Farallon Drive. These amendments will limit land uses of the subject property to the administrative offices of the City of Newport Beach pursuant to Section 425 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Alford gave an overview of the staff report. Public Comment was opened. Jan Vandersloot, representing SPON and Greenlight, noted his issue of the statement that no Greenlight vote is required. As the Commission does not know the dimensions of the new City hall or traffic generation, there are certain parameters that would trigger a Greenlight vote. There was no mention about the size of City hall in Measure B, nor was traffic; however, you don't know these. So you should not be saying a Greenlight vote is not required. This has to wait for the specific project that will be the subject of the EIR. This amendment is premature and should be processed at the same time the City hall project is actually approved as there may be changes to size and expense. This should not be approved with the argument that a Greenlight vote is not required. Mr. Harp noted that there are two Charter amendments. Typically you would look at what was last in time and to the extent there is an issue, the City has no choice in the matter and has to amend the General Plan as a ministerial Page 11 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 act. Even if it was put to a vote and lost, you are still commanded by the Charter to take action and still would have to amend the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Eaton asked about the timing. Mr. Harp noted their position is the Charter supersedes the General Plan and if the General Plan is not consistent with the Charter, it is time to bring the General Plan concurrent with the Charter provisions as soon as possible. Ron Hendrickson, local resident noted it is an excellent staff report and covers the legal issues. There will be significant landscaping provided as per looking at the final six proposed designs that have been made available for public review. There will be park areas and the citizens will be pleased with the final design. Public comment was opened. Commissioner Toerge asked if there was acreage cited in Measure B. Mr. Lepo answered there was a reference of within the 12.82 acres site. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2008 -009 to the City Council. Commissioner Hillgren asked where this would be situated. Mr. Lepo answered it is proposed to be on the southerly half of the whole site south of the extension of Farallon Drive. The Measure said it had to be within and on the 12.82 Acre site. Commissioner Hawkins noted he supports the project but can not support the motion as the environmental analysis is inadequate. Commissioner Eaton noted he questions the environmental documentation and also thinks it would be more appropriate to process the amendment with the project. Ayes: Unsworth, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hiligren Noes: Hawkins Abstain: Eaton Page 12 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 It was agreed by the Commission to suspend the balance of the agenda. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that at the last Council meeting Planning Commission reports. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 of 13