Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes - 10/23/2008CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 23, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. INDEX 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 Ruby Garciamay, Planning Department Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Bob Rush noted the forum on the settlement agreement for Sober Living omes. He created videos of the debate forum and will distribute them to the None ommission. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 17, 2008. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 9, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Approved Unsworth to approve the minutes as written. yes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None bsent: None ITEM NO. 2 OBJECT: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion (PA 2005 -212) PA2006 -212 1107 Jamboree Road Continued to Request to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. The project 11/6/2008 ncludes the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom 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 emolition of 12 existing hotel rooms, the existing 3,190- square -foot Terrace Ballroom, and the existing engineering and maintenance building, and removal o he existing nine -hole golf course. The project will require the following approval rom 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 stablish finished grades for the purposes of measuring height; 2) Use Permit No. 5-046 to allow the expansion of the existing hotel, the timeshare developme to allow the proposed timeshare buildings and ballroom to exceed the 264 height limit; 3) Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 to allow commercial tand ing and to allow an architectural tower and tower feature on the propos oom to exceed the 35 -foot maximum height limit; and 4) Developm ;ement No. 2005 -002 between the City and the operator of the timesN alopment relating to the amount of tax payable to the City for the right ipancy of the timeshare units. Lepo reported that the applicant has requested the project part of this item :inued to the hearing of November 6th; however, it is recommended that emission proceed with the hearing on the Environmental Impact Report. nmissioner Eaton noted he had been advised to disclose that he had event at the Hyatt on July 4, 2008, which was paid for by the a sistant City Attorney Harp noted the dollar amount does not consist of a interest. Murillo, Associate Planner, gave a brief review of the project and w of the staff report as it relates to the environmental review. Commission inquiry, he noted that the topic area of recreation was determines be less than significant and not addressed further in the Draft EIR because the sole golf club is a commercial recreational facility for hotel use and the loss es not constitute a significant impact Staff will meet with the consultant and the camber of Commerce about the "draw" of the golf course for tourism. nn Hadfield of the Planning Center and project manager of the EIR, added t addressed the typical thresholds that are used and determined that act would not create additional demand that would have adverse impacts -ounding parks or recreational facilities in the City. The other opportunity ping the EIR is the Notice of Preparation to agencies and the public, and not receive any responses regarding this issue. The applicant also presen there is a relatively low use of their golf course. :e Newman of Government Solutions representing the applicants, noted tt asked for a continuance to November 6th. She stated this project is -manse with the General Plan, existing zoning, and was anticipated by in November 2006 confirming 88 new hotel rooms/timeshares should :d on this property. Harp noted, at Commission inquiry, a development agreement is in progi I should be completed in time for the November 6, 2008 meeting. A draft made available for Commission review. , nmissioner Unsworth noted his concerns: whether the economic impacts cou a measure of the significance of the project under CEQA; the impact on publ Ns and request for a modification; engineering -level reports on design lev dies; the Construction Management Plan, and, the findings on the parcel me i grading plans with regard to heights. following information was in response to Commission inquiry: . The $2 Million payment to the City for Marina Park improvements is one the public benefits negotiated as part of the Development Agreement w the applicant in exchange for the vested development rights to construct 1 project. This is not a mitigation measure and not a result of any identif impact. • The Development Agreement does not contain any mitigation measures. • Mitigation Measure 11 -2 restricting construction traffic during peak hog has been prescribed to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. • Information is pending on the number of new employees required for I expansion. • There is no criteria for golf course use, and "undeveloped" is the clos, category. • The trip generation rates are tailored to correspond to peak hour of tra volume on adjacent streets, which may not correspond to trip generation the site. • Citation of 5 persons per vehicle was made in a parking study submitted the project applicant, but was determined to be too aggressive. 1 prepared a new parking demand analysis based on rates published in Ul Shared Parking Manual. Vehicle occupancy was not utilized to devel parking rates in the Shared Parking Manual; however, if we do I calculation it works out to approximately 2 -3 persons per vehicle. • The General Plan analysis does not correspond to the analysis done for I Hyatt. The main difference is that the Hyatt traffic analysis was conducl based on existing volumes and applying a growth rate factor to arrive 2010 volumes. The General Plan analysis is based on projected mo, volumes. • The construction traffic analysis utilizes a different trip distribution than I traffic analysis done for the project. comment was opened. I Mohachy - noted his concern about his views, the need for more the use of view simulations. Vandersloot - noted the concerns of a recreation analysis in the EIR; the story poles; why a Coastal Development Permit is not part of the applic I the buffer to the environmentally sensitive area is not sufficient. Murphy - concerned about all the views. Murphy - loss of views will have an economic impact on his property, and, shares will impact traffic. e Bordas - asked for clarification on whether the height limitations were based natural or finished grades, concerned with lack of view simulations, golf course ipen to the public, construction hours, and Coastal Commission approval for a dification of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Berube - parking building built along Jamboree Road will impact views. Morris - concerned about noise, increased traffic, increased lighting, and ly Mohachy - concerned with view obstructions and potential problems parties, drinking, lighting and traffic. art Rush - the Development Agreement is a relative aspect of this disclosure is required of all who are involved. Public comment was closed. Mr. Lepo noted that City policy is that there is no protection of private views. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of view rights, development agreement and public input. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Unsworth to continue this item to November 6, 2008. Commissioner Toerge asked for passes to the gated community of Sea Island for he Commissioners to use. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that at the last Council meeting the appeal of the revised Sejour restaurant was heard and the decision o the Planning Commission, with modifications, was upheld; a second reading on the ban of Styrofoam cups; and, adopted revisions to the Safety Element of the General Plan incorporating the Hazard Mitigatio Plan. b. Planning Commission reports. Commissioner Eaton reported the Genera Plan update committee meets every week. Commissioner Hawkins note the Economic Development meeting met and recommended to the Ci Council that the outdoor dining incentives in connection to parking woul be continued. C. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like place on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. Commissioner Toerg asked for a report of all the accessory outdoor dining permits and location issued in the City since the ordinance was passed in 1991. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m. DJOURNMENT BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION