Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 39 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle - Commissioner Cole arrived at 7:35. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 2, 2004. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: ELECTION OF Larry Tucker, Chairman OFFICERS Michael Toerge, Vice Chairman Jeff Cole, Secretary Chairman Tucker presented outgoing Chairman McDaniel with an engraved plaque, thanking him for his dedication and hard work. He then recognized and welcomed the newest Commissioner, Ms. Daigle who was nominated and voted on by the City Council, and congratulated Commissioner Cole on his re- appointment. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 2 of 39 CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of ITEM NO.1 June 17, 2004. Approved Approved as amended and ordered filed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve the minutes as amended. Ayes: Eaton, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: Toerge, Daigle HEARING ITEMS I SUBJECT: La Fogata Restaurant, Use Permit No. 3235 Amendment No. 2 and Outdoor Dining Permit No. 75 Amendment No. 1 (PA2003 -294) 3025 East Coast Highway The applicant requests to amend Use Permit No. 3235 to increase the permitted seating from 18 to 26 and to permit the sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption (Type 41 ABC License) and to amend Outdoor Dining Permit No. 75 to change the patio seating arrangement at an existing eating and drinking establishment. Public comment was opened. Mr. Houshang Khademi, restaurant owner, noted that he agrees to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the area under his establishment is not occupied as of today and has been vacant for several years. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve the amendment to Use Permit No. 3235 and Outdoor Dining Permit 75 amendment 1 subject to the findings and conditions of approval as presented in the staff report. Ayes: Cole, McDaniel, Toerge, Tucker Selich, McDaniel Noes: and Daigle Absent: None Abstain: None None ITEM NO.2 PA2003 -294 Approved file : /!l ; \Plancomm\200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 3 of 39 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft ITEM N0.5 Environmental Impact Report (PA2003 -218) PA2004 -104 1700 W. Balboa Blvd. Recommended Marinapark LLC, requests entitlements to remove and /or demolish EIR certification existing structures on the property and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that would include a lobby and registration area, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four tennis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Girls Scout facility, and a tot lot. Chairperson Tucker described the goals of the hearing and then went through some provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, which is referred to as CEQA, so that everyone is clear what is before the Planning Commission tonight and the type of testimony that is relevant for what is before us. Goals of Hearing: The sole purpose of this hearing is to review for adequacy the Marinapark Resort EIR (including proposed mitigation measure), comments and responses to comments which have been provided to the Commission (collectively, the Final EIR, or FEIR). We are not here tonight to hear about whether or not you or we like the project. To be candid about it, it doesn't really make much difference what anyone in this building thinks about the project, since if the Council decides to put this matter on the ballot in November, all who live in Newport Beach and vote will have the final say. Our charge tonight is to review the FEIR for adequacy. If we find that the FEIR adequately addresses the potential impacts to the environment of the construction of the project, then we should recommend that the Council certify the FEIR. If not, then we will make a different recommendation to the Council. Certification of the FEIR is not an approval of the project, merely that the FEIR adequately summarizes the effects the project would have on the environment, after mitigation measures are implemented. I would like the administrative record to demonstrate that a discussion of the issues took place at the Commission level and that we understood the consequences of the project before us for consideration. I intend for us to demonstrate that understanding by discussing substantive issues raised in the EIR, the public's written comments to the EIR, the responses to comments as well as credible and relevant verbal comments from the public at this hearing. The foregoing will provide the basis for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council and, as required by CEQA, will be file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 4 of 39 based upon substantial evidence in the record. I have worked up a list of issues to be discussed. These are the issues which I believe are most substantive and therefore most worthy of discussion at this hearing. The list is based upon comments received on the EIR. Please keep in mind that not every impact is a 'significant' impact. The EIR addresses what is significant and what is not and how one knows. Some of the effects are judged on empirical data (i.e. traffic and noise) and some of them are judgment calls (i.e. land use compatibility). Substantial evidence is defined by CEQA and does not include personal opinions not supported by fact, no matter how heartfelt. The Planning Commission is bound by CEQA to disregard argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion and other evidence which is not credible. After we review the issues list, as it may be supplemented by the Commission, we will then take public testimony. Each speaker may raise EIR related issues which the speaker believes merit further discussion. Finally, we will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the Commission to provide any comments a Commissioner has on the list of issues, or otherwise. After that, we will consider whether recirculation is necessary. Finally, we will vote. I apologize in advance for what I expect will be a rather formal proceeding. However, if the FOR is certified and thereafter challenged in court, the administrative record will include an actual verbatim transcript of our hearing, so l want the record to be complete and to demonstrate that we understood our responsibilities under CEQA and that we considered all substantial evidence that was presented to us before we reached our decision. Thanks to the diligence of our staff and consultants and the sophistication of the commenting public, I believe we and the public will easily be able to understand the consequences of the project. That is the goal of this hearing. He then read the following excerpts from the CEQA Guidelines that govern how these documents are prepared. The Basic purposes of CEQA are to: Inform governmental decision - makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. . Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. . Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by file : //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 5 of 39 requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. . Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental ager approved the project in the manner the agency chose significant environmental effects are involved. . The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. . CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument of the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement. . An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision - makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. . In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentators. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. . Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 6 of 39 assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. Arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical changes in the environment is not substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Chairperson Tucker then noted that staff and the Commission will talk about the issues and acknowledge the issues raised in the comments and some of the responses to comments. Following that, it will be time to take public testimony. List of issues: . Traffic: a. Standard of significance - what is the standard that the City uses and how is it implemented? Mr. Edmonston answered that the standard of significance that the City uses is a two -fold standard provided for in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The first step is to see of the project traffic would add 1% or more to the traffic expected to be at the intersection one year after project completion. If it exceeds 1% at any intersection, then it goes to an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculation. The City's standard is level of service (LOS) D or ICU greater than .90. file: //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 7 of 39 . b. Series of intersections selected for analysis, comment on how those were selected. Mr. Edmonston answered that the standard process is that his office looks at their knowledge of the City, the size of the project, and comes up with an initial list. If during the traffic study, it is found that the intersections at the edge away from the project still are exceeding 1 %, then we would add additional intersections to where we would clearly go out far enough to where we have defined the threshold area. The same methodology and protocol was used for this project as for all other projects in the City. c. Trip generation rate - there were several comments that the EIR did not take account of the various types of uses within the building such as the meeting space, restaurants, etc. Why was the trip generation rate used the proper rate? Mr. Edmonston, referring to the Trip Generation Rate Table in the DEIR, said there is a reference that all those rates are to be found in the 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 (ITE). The resort hotel rate came from a study conducted by the engineering firm of Austin Foust Associates who also did the study for this specific project. They surveyed a number of well known resort areas across the country and came up with the trip rates used. Comparing those for the peak hour traffic to what is in the ITE, they are somewhat higher in both the AM and PM peak periods, so the numbers used in the report are somewhat more conservative than ITE would provide for. The way those numbers get into the ITE or into the study that Austin Foust and Associates did was actually counting driveway traffic. The driveway traffic would include patrons of the hotel, delivery trucks, employees of the hotel, all the traffic going on and off the hotel property is represented in those counts and they are averaged by the count of the rooms. That is the same process used for establishing the anticipated traffic for this project. Commissioner Tucker noted that during the last meeting he had asked a question about how many more vehicle trips needed to be generated before it tripped the intersections that were performing closest to level D. The response was that at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway an additional 131 AM peak hour trips and at Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road an additional 931 PM peak hour trips would need to be generated. He then asked, is that a small amount of increase from a project, a moderate amount, a huge amount? Mr. Edmonston answered that they looked at the most critical of the critical intersections and based on the peak hours, backed into the number it would take for an additional 340 rooms to exceed the 1% in cause of the next level of analysis. It would take roughly four times the size of this project to have that impact. The other issue is that the file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 8 of 39 consultant did counts over this past holiday weekend of the actus mobile home park because that was one of the other questions raises during the previous hearings is how much traffic really is in that mobil home park. They found it never exceeded about 50 cars per how which is the peak traffic that is forecasted for this project. Based of that comparison of the site, there really would be no increase, bL based on using the standardized rates the City typically uses, there i a small increase in traffic but no increase great enough to bi significant. Ms. Wood added to the question on how comparing the impact fror this project versus what it would take to bring those two intersection: to Level of Service E. As Mr. Edmonston said, the numbers that would take are 131 at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway and thi project contributes 3 trips during the AM peak hour at that intersectior and at Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road it would be 931 trips t, have the peak hour reach Level of Service E and the projec contributes 16 trips. Chairperson Tucker noted that is a stark contrast. Lastly, there wen some questions that some of the commenters had about not analyzinj Seventeenth and Eighteenth and Twentieth Streets. Why weren those analyzed? Mr. Edmonston answered that the response to that is the way traffic i assumed to arrive at this site, we were looking at approximately 1; vehicles in the peak hours that they would be traveling on the segment of Newport Boulevard. It is significantly less than 1 % of whe is out there. It wouldn't be noticeable. It was so much below the 1 threshold, which is again our first threshold we look at. Chairperson Tucker noted that under the Traffic Phasing Ordinano (TPO) you can have a significant amount of traffic increase from ; project, but if it does not rise to the level where the project is wors than Level of Service D, then under the City's ordinances, it is not significant impact. Mr. Edmonston answered that is correct. There are two criteria, on is the 1% threshold with the assumption that if the project adds les than 1 % of the traffic that is a number too small to even look further. it exceeds 1 % you would look further. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission for any other comment or concerns on traffic issues; there were none. Chairperson Tucker then continued: . Boat Slips: a. Comments in terms of the configuration of the boat slips an, the impacts of installing those boat slips. One of th, file: //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 9 of 39 recommendations of the Harbor Commission was to come in with a floating longitudinal dock. Mitigation measure LU -1 has that as the dock profile. One of the questions raised was that this new dock profile has not been analyzed in the EIR. Can staff say how this measure is addressed in the prior comments on impacts. Ms. Wood answered that it has been analyzed especially in response to comment B20. This mitigation measure answers some of the concerns about dredging and reduces the amount of dredge material from 1,750 cubic yards to a maximum of 500 cubic yards. It eliminates the need to do the bulkhead and any fill and also does not extend beyond the pier head line where the previous proposal would have required some approval to extend beyond the pier head line. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission for any other comments or concerns on boat slip issue; there were none. Chairperson Tucker continued. . Review of contaminated substances: EQAC questioned why the level 2 studies weren't available with the Technical Appendices with the EIR. The Commission now has received the Level 2 studies, which were quite brief in nature. Will staff comment on the sufficiency of that material for review. Mr. Houlihan of Michael Brandman and Associates, consultant for the City answered. He noted that his firm had prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report as well as the Responses to Comments document. The question regarding the Level 2 Studies, both studies were prepared by Petra Geotechnical. There were two different studies because there were two different locations of samples taken. The first set of samples were taken at the low tide line and the second set of samples were taken in the area where the dredging is going to occur. Under both sets of samples they were tested for various concentrations of hazardous materials. There are four types of hazardous materials tested for and included semi - volatile organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and total petroleum hydrocarbons. For each one of those on both sets of samples, none exceeded any of the action levels for those constituents. Chairperson Tucker noted it was not included in the original data that was available because it was really by way of background information and there was nothing that indicated there was anything further to study. Mr. Houlihan answered there was no further analysis to do as there was a determination that the levels were pretty low and didn't need action. They were referenced in the Bibliography as two separate studies. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission for any other comments or concerns on the contaminated substances issue. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 10 of 39 Commissioner McDaniel noted the samples were taken from five feet. Is there any reason why you would need to go deeper than that? I am looking why you went to five feet. Mr. Houlihan answered that five feet was determined as the amount excavation that was needed. It is the lower level of excavation. Chairperson Tucker continued: Tideland boundary - the tideland boundary was covered by the City Attorney at the last meeting and to summarize it the tideland boundary has not been identified. It either gets identified by agreement, which doesn't seem to happen or litigation, which I guess is the more common approach. It is an issue that was out there and to my mind the project, whether it is on tidelands or not you can pretty well tell what is going to be dug up and what is not going to be dug up. Tidelands seems to have a lot more to do with the types of uses that can occur and who gets the revenue than per se a pure environmental impact. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission for any other comments or concerns on tidelands issue. There were none. Chairperson Tucker continued: . Loss of recreational facilities. . a. There is a temporary loss of all facilities when the construction is taking place. And a permanent loss of the basketball court area, the tot lot and tennis court will be back with the new project. There will be some green area along the tennis court frontage that will be gone. He then asked the Commission if anyone needed further analysis than what was in the Response to Comments. He was answered no. He noted that it seems all we have lost is a half court basketball court and it is hard to view that as a significant affect. Chairperson Tucker continued: . Parking - could staff review what is the replacement for the currently metered parking lot and how that works. Ms. Wood answered that the replacement will actually increase the number of spaces. Right now, the parking lot is metered and available for the general public. What is proposed as part of the project is a larger lot that roughly doubles the number of spaces. Part of it would continue to function as metered parking for the general public. What the applicant is trying to provide with the new half of it, is to provide more secure, more guaranteed parking for people who are coming to use the Girl Scout House and Community Center. He has proposed some sort of access gate to make that work and then at times when the Girl Scouts or the Community Center did not need that file: //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 11 of 39 parking, it like the other half would be available for the general public. For most of the time we would have a greater supply of parking for the general public. The details on how to handle the reservation system still need to be worked out. The number of parking spaces is actually increased and the goal is to provide a system where some of them are secured and always available for the Girl Scout and Community Center needs. Chairperson Tucker noted that basically the metered parking spaces are in a bigger lot and are still more or less the way they are. In a few places the parking needs for the patrons was brought up and the parking needs of the staff for the facility and suppliers were brought up. Would staff answer? Ms. Wood answered that similar to the trip generation for the traffic analysis, the parking requirements on our Zoning Code are designed to meet the needs of not only the guests or the people coming to the restaurant or people who might be coming to a function in the ballroom, it also includes employees. What we require for hotels is one space for every two rooms, so for this 110 room hotel proposal it would be 55 spaces. Then if we add what is required by Code for the Community Center and the Girl Scout House that is a requirement of 21 spaces; for the tennis courts it would be a requirement of 16 spaces so we have a total requirement for the entire project of 92 spaces. What is being provided in this proposal is 209 spaces so there are over 100 spaces more than our Code requires. Even if the Code is somehow not on the mark, and I am not aware that we have parking problems in any of our other hotels that meet our standard, we still have a greater number than required. Chairperson Tucker noted that what is available is over twice what the requirements are. Say we had instead of a car for every two rooms, we had a car per room, we should still be okay. He then asked if any Commissioners had issues with the comments or responses to comments on parking; there were none. Chairperson Tucker continued: . Alternatives: a. Why wasn't there a greener alternative which is less intense? For instance, Dr. Vandersloot suggested tearing up what is there and leaving it in its natural state after hauling out the debris, presumably sand. Why wasn't an alternative such as that proposed? Ms. Wood answered that the EIR is supposed to analyze alternatives that would be feasible and could have the potential to have fewer effects than the proposed project. Part of being feasible is to meet the project objectives. The process of redeveloping this site, which the City owns, started at least in my memory in 1997 with a Revenue Study that was done for the City Council which concluded that a hotel on the site would produce the greatest amount of revenue for the City. Since then the City Council has taken a lot of steps to pursue file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 12 of 39 that alternative beginning with issuing the request for proposals, working with the State Lands Commission to determine the tidelands boundary to decide where various kinds of uses would be appropriate, receiving the proposal from Sutherland Talla Hospitality and others and then finally selecting this hotel proposal over some others including one from our Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, which people might consider greener. I think it has been clear for a while that one of the City's objectives for this property is to have something that would generate some revenue and having a completely vacant or natural site is not going to do that. So that did not seem to be a reasonable alternative to analyze for comparative purposes. Chairperson Tucker noted that Councilman Webb noted that with the project objectives that existed that there really wouldn't be a project that could be an alternative that wasn't a commercial project in large measure that would measure up, if you will, to the project. It is basically the same answer is, that is what the Council has decided is the project and objective. Ms. Wood noted that although the marine recreation alternative that was included in the Draft EIR does not achieve those economic project objectives or would not to the extent of the proposed project, so there has been something considered that would be less commercial. Chairperson Tucker then asked for an explanation of the rationale of the staff in terms of what was included in that marine recreational alternative in terms of facilities. Ms. Wood answered that what we tried to do in putting that alternative together is to include facilities that we have heard a demand or the desire for from various segments of the community. So there was recreation such as the facilities that are there today with some expansion of those, some provision of marine facilities to satisfy the boating segment of the community, and slips for charter boats to tie up which would address some of the concerns that we hear about an existing commercial use in the harbor and provide a better facility for that. We were looking at a rare piece of land that could become vacant and how would we use that best to satisfy a number of recreational needs that we have heard in the community. Chairperson Tucker noted that Commissioner Eaton had comments at the last meeting regarding alternatives and environmentally superior alternatives. He asked if he was satisfied with the response to comments or do you have some additional comments you would like to make and we'll see if we can get you some responses here. Commissioner Eaton answered he was not satisfied. All his comments were grouped together and the comment about the environmentally superior alternative being called the project as opposed to an alternative, which is what the Guidelines require, was not responded to at all. So I was going to ask if we can now have some supplemental response as to that particular issue. file: //H:1Plancomm12004\0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 13 of 39 Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, answered he does not understand Commissioner Eaton's question. He said he had tried to respond. Commissioner Eaton answered he would repeat what he said at the last meeting. What the Guidelines say is that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project, which was the case here, the El R shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. In this case what the EIR has designated as the environmentally superior alternative is the project itself, which in my opinion is not from among the other alternatives and my question then and now is how does that relate to the requirements of the Guidelines? Chairperson Tucker noted that we only have two choices. Commissioner Eaton answered, right and I have some follow -up comments if you think this is the appropriate time to ask those questions. Chairperson Tucker told him to go ahead and ask and we'll see if we can't come up with a response. Are you still on alternatives, if so, go ahead and discuss all you want about alternatives. Commissioner Eaton answered, yes he is still on alternatives. In the response to B96, you will recall one of the questions was how was it determined, and this was an EQAC comment, that there was going to be more traffic from the marine recreational alternative than from the project and the response was well that will be stated in the response document and the response document talks about how big the parking lot is and then an assumption as to how many times those parking spaces would turn over. My first question is, the numbers don't seem to match what the assumption is. It talks about two or three times per day turning over but the numbers in the paragraph don't seem to match that. The second question is, a number of comments in the document particularly talking about the traffic projections from the project itself refer to the fact that they attempted to provide traffic generation rates in accordance with the TPO which calls out for using the ITE Seventh Edition and we just heard tonight that actually one of those came from a different study, not the ITE. My question is why weren't the ITE rates also used for the marine recreation alternative, as an example, why didn't you use rates from the beach park alternative plus the marina alternative, combine those and compare that to the ITE rates for the hotel? As a matter of fact what happens when you do that, if you assume the full 8 acres as beach alternative and 20 full slips in the marina -- with a horizontal dock it will be less than that but assume that— the traffic is less if you use those rates and obviously Mr. Edmonston will have to go back to verify that. My question is, if the traffic generation is less using the ITE generation rates that were used for the project and which several of your responses said you should use and you felt compelled to use for the hotel itself, does that then suggest that if the traffic rates are less that then the traffic, air quality and noise impacts are less and that therefore in fact the marine alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, which would then comply with the CEQA section that talks file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 14 of 39 about the environmentally superior alternative being selected from among the alternatives? Difficult question and complicated. Chairperson Tucker stated I guess if that is what the Guidelines say and my recollection is they do, then I guess one of those two other alternatives was the environmentally superior alternative. As I recall, the reduced sized project because it had a free standing restaurant also carried more trips than the project. Am I correct in that? Ms. Wood answered, yes. Mr. Joe Foust from Austin Foust Associates who prepared the traffic study is ready to respond. Mr. Joe Foust, principal of Austin Foust Associates prepared the traffic study. He noted that the comment Mr. Eaton is referring to and specifically the marine recreational use could be quite variable but in particular we were talking about a 250 car parking lot with some 8,000 square feet of the Girl Scout uses and some other things. Trip rates, I started out looking at it that way but if you are going to build a 250 space parking lot in that area, parking being what it is, I'm sure that unless you have severe enforcement, that parking lot is going to get used. If you have 250 spaces and it is used just one time a day, that is 500 trips, 250 cars in and 250 cars out. So where that trip generation comes from is simply the use of that parking lot, if each space is used only once a day somebody parked there all day long or parked for five minutes and then it was used again, you have 500 trips there. That is the same as the size of the project that we are talking about . In that area my experience and I think your experience too is that the turnover which I am conservatively estimating at two to three times a day, in other words each one of those spaces will be used two or three times. Each time that you use that space and fill that lot you are talking about a multiple of 500. So conservatively I think you could expect to generate 1,000 to 1,500 out of that parking lot alone, which is substantially in excess of the size trip generation for the marina hotel we are talking about which is at 500. So that is where that comes from. As far as adding on top of that, then the 250 car parking lot is going to cover the uses of the 8,000 square feet more or less of the various types of buildings that are going to be there. The trip generation came from the use of the parking lot and a reasonable expectation that lot would be heavily used and turn over two or three times a day. If it only turned over once, then its a push on the project in comparison with the project. Chairperson Tucker asked if that was reasonably responsive to Commissioner Eaton. Commissioner Eaton answered yes as far as the traffic generation aspect, but he would still like to hear about the alternative. Commissioner McDaniel asked Mr. Foust if a parking lot has X amount of spaces, you are considering that non -users of the hotel will be parking there as well? If this project was a swimming pool and the parking spaces were there people would be using them to go to the beach and do other things. I am concerned that these trip generations that you are talking about are specific to the use of the hotel and the file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 15 of 39 facility that is there. Or, is the hotel getting adversely impacted with these trip generations because it will be open for other facilities? Am I making sense? Chairperson Tucker noted that what Commissioner Eaton is talking about is the alternative where there isn't a hotel there. It is just a marine recreation facility. Commissioner McDaniel answered okay. I want to separate those two to make sure we are talking about the project or something else. Mr. Foust added the hotel project has its own parking which is part of the hotel and that parking will be for the hotel. It then has the replacement of the existing lot and then some metered parking that is being replaced. We are not building or putting in parking that is not already there except for the hotel. I understood the alternative would be to have in addition to some 8,000 square feet of buildings to replace the uses that are already there, the Girl Scouts, that we would also be building a 250 space parking lot. Commissioner McDaniel answered I got it, thank you. Chairperson Tucker noted that with a hotel, the presumption is that you are bringing people into the area that might not otherwise be there. But with the parking lot when you are talking trips you usually are talking just who crosses the drive or how many people cross the drive and not try and figure out who they are. You have seen the alternative uses that are proposed, is it your opinion that the number of new trips into the area as opposed to people that drive into the area and say wow, look they have a new parking lot here I was coming down here anyway and I don't know where else I was going to park. Are there people that would have been in the area anyway versus new trips or do you believe the new trips by the uses that are shown on the alternative still equate to the conservative number of trips that you have assumed? Mr. Foust answered the conservative 500 that I am talking about is the net. That is the net increase over what the mobile home park is generating now. In total it is a little over 600, so there is a credit for the mobile home park down there of its trip generation on its limited usage. There are 24 full time uses and that generates about 120 trips a day. So, when I talk 500 trips that is the net increase over what is there today. The existing parking is already there today. The 500 does not include the existing trips into those parking lot spaces used, we are calling that a wash in terms of the public parking. Chairperson Tucker noted his confusion. I thought the marine recreation alternative use also generated at least as many trips or more trips than the hotel project. Mr. Foust answered, again I'm saying the 250 space parking lot if you just filled up each space just once a day that is 500 trips. That is a net push right there, I am saying that it would turn over more then that. In my estimation, it is likely that that 250 space parking lot of the new file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 16 of 39 alternative that you are talking about, new spaces, would produce substantially more traffic than the hotel would produce. I don't feel I have convinced you yet. Chairperson Tucker stated okay. Intuitively, I am still a little troubled by the fact that the hotel is going to bring in people that weren't in the area and that the 250 space lot -- I am just looking for some comfort— that there is enough other uses on the site where you will at least have as many new people introduced to the area that weren't already down here that just happened to stumble across these new parking spaces. Mr. Foust answered that in addition to that lot we have 8,000 square feet of building. Chairperson Tucker noted that there are other uses on site, such as the boat launch. Mr. Burnham added that you have to assume that if there is a new parking lot down there and it is open to the public and there are no restrictions limiting its use to guests or patrons of a particular facility, it will fill up with persons who would otherwise not be in the area. You have to assume that, just like we assumed that of those mobile homes that aren't being used as full time residences, we assume no trips for those. You have to assume kind of worst case in terms of a public lot on the peninsula. It's going to turn over multiple times during any given day if you have access to the beach as you would under those circumstances in the other facilities. It is a pretty conservative assumption and because I wanted to address Mr. Eaton's comments on alternatives, 1 have always considered the project to be an alternative that you would measure the no project alternative against. But, after looking at the Guidelines, I think he is correct, I think you have to select an environmentally superior alternative out of the alternatives to the project as opposed to the alternatives and the project. I believe Mr. Houlihan is prepared to do that. Commissioner Eaton clarified that for the traffic generation the mobile home park was not assumed to be full occupancy, but I believe it was for the purposes of deducting from the generation of the hotel. Is that correct Mr. Foust? Mr. Foust answered no. We only assumed that the mobile home park generated about 120 daily trips out of 24 that were occupied. The others were not occupied, generating no trips. Chairperson Tucker noted that's today. Who knows what is going to happen ten years from now? It could be fully occupied if it were a mobile home park and people could be living there full time. Mr. Foust answered that as Mr. Edmonston pointed out because that issue was raised at the last meeting, and has been raised a number of times, I took the liberty to go out and count it over the July 4th holiday weekend. I did not count how many were occupied but 50 - 60 vehicles an hour going in and out of that facility is a little bit more than file: //H: \Plancomm \2004\0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 17 of 39 what the marine hotel will generate. Chairperson Tucker noted his comment at the last meeting was how many bedrooms and how much occupancy. To me I wasn't convinced that fully occupied for the mobile home park wouldn't be more intense. Mr. Foust noted that based on this past weekend, there wouldn't be a change, you wouldn't see anything. You would see actually a minor reduction. Mr. Burnham noted that the result of all of this is the EIR would overstate the traffic impacts of the project compared to the existing conditions. Chairperson Tucker noted he understands what it does. It is important to put it on the record so that it is there and what is used today was very conservative. Commissioner Eaton noted that quoting from pages 5.5 -2 and -3, it says, 'to be conservative related to the project's traffic contribution, the net increase in trips was determined by the difference of the number of trips associated with a fully occupied hotel and the number of trips associated with a fully occupied mobile home park'. Are you now saying that is not correct? Mr. Foust answered we assumed only the 24 units were actually occupied in the winter. That sentence is not correct. Chairperson Tucker, noted the sentence is not correct but the schedules are correct. Mr. Foust answered yes. Continuing Chairperson Tucker noted in other words you were assuming 5ADT per occupied mobile home. Mr. Foust answered pretty much, yes. I would have to look at the exact numbers, I thought it was 5.22, but whatever, it is close enough. Chairperson Tucker asked if there was anything else on the alternatives. Commissioner Toerge noted that at the June 3rd public hearing, I raised a couple of concerns about statements in the conclusions for the alternatives to the proposed project. Namely, the conclusions state that the marine recreation alternative would meet many of the project objectives. However, it is not known if the marine recreation alternative is economically viable and therefore it is unclear if it meets the objectives related to the City revenues. In the response to comments, it is stated that it is not known if the marine recreation alternative is economically viable because an economic analysis was not conducted for this alternative. However, this alternative was included because it was expected to be able to be economically viable and a feasible alternative. It is a very important reference to me. I do file: //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 18 of 39 have a question of staff and that is can you share with the commissioi and the public the relevance of economic feasibility in an EIR at all. I: it a relevant issue, or is it not? Ms. Wood answered that Mr. Burnham should answer that when hi returns. Chairperson Tucker continued with land use compatibility issues. W had several comments by the Harbor Commission that had to do witl the Harbor and Bay Element. It led me to want to have staff commen on the applicability on the Harbor and Bay Element polices, nev development on land not previously used for harbor related purposes. Ms. Wood answered that as noted in your introductory remarks MI Chairman, some of these things are judgment calls and I think thI land use compatibility is one of those areas where it is more of judgment call than an empirical data driven planning decision. To me the comments from the Harbor Commission seem to express a viev that it is only first priority water dependent uses that should be allowel on waterfront property. I think that the policies actually provide : priority system which includes water enhanced uses such as thi proposed hotel use. I think that is a question for the decision makers whether that is something that is going to be acceptable and in thi; case as the people vote on this general plan amendment. Some c the other policies in the Harbor and Bay Element direct the City'; decision makers to consider the continued viability of the harbor ii making land use decisions. It doesn't say that you can only allov uses that are essential to the operation of the harbor, but they an looking to protect existing uses of that nature. I don't think that the proposed hotel does threaten any of those kinds of uses. It's not case where we are instituting residential use next to a boat yan where you would be bringing in people who would then bI complaining about the noise or smell that might be coming from tha operation. The hotel use is completely compatible with the America) Legion that is next door, there is no impact on the American Legiol Marina and by the way, this is an opportunity for me to note that ou public notice on this hearing included a map that showed the entin property the City owns including the American Legion site and I jus wanted to clarify that the American Legion is not part of this project. I will remain as it is except to the extent that the developer works witl the American Legion to make improvements to their existing facility. Chairperson Tucker noted that if you have something that prioritize: uses but lists this particular type of use as a third priority, it is stil listed as a potential use. Ms. Wood answered it is not prohibited. It is consistent with tha general plan policy, it may or may not be what the decision maker: want the use of this site to be. That is to be decided later, but it is no an environmental question as long as it is not a prohibited use. Chairperson Tucker asked Commissioner Toerge if he was satisfies with the responses to your questions you asked at the previous meeting. Now that the City Attorney is back we will go through the file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 19 of 39 previous one. Are your concerns sufficiently addressed? Commissioner Toerge answered that his concerns at the last meeting revolved around the conflict of the proposed project with a number of elements in the General Plan. In the responses to comments, to summarize it briefly, that is why this is before the Planning Commission and why there is going to be a General Plan Amendment and a Zone change to accommodate this project. He then summarized for the City Attorney, in the conclusions related to the alternatives of the project proposal there was a statement in the draft EIR that the marine recreation alternative would meet many of the project objectives; however, it was not known whether the marine recreational alternative would be economically viable. In the response to comments there is a statement that it is not known if it is economically viable because an economic analysis was not conducted. However, this alternative was included because it was expected to be able to be economically viable and a feasible alternative, which satisfies my concern of last meeting. The question that I have is, is economic viability relevant in the review of an EIR? Mr. Burnham answered it is relevant in determining whether an alternative is feasible. Economic viability is a specific consideration in the Guidelines in determining if an alternative is feasible both in terms of whether you should consider that alternative in the draft EIR and whether the alternative feasibly attains project objectives. Commissioner Toerge asked how do we know? There is no economic data, no feasibility study on either the proposed project or the alternative in the EIR in the public record. Mr. Burnham answered it is assuming that the alternative is economic feasible. Chairperson Tucker noted it assumes viability for purposes of the environmental analysis. Commissioner Toerge asked how do we make those leaps of assumption that either project is economically viable, either the proposed project or the alternative without data? How does the EIR make that representation without data in the public arena? Mr. Burnham answered that to some extent there are some assumptions that are not fully supported by fiscal impact reports. You are not required to do a full blown fiscal analysis of an alternative or the project in the EIR. To some extent the rule of reason is used in another context, but typically hotels do provide more of a potential for economic viability than say a parking lot that is adjacent to sand, which is the so- called green alternative. Even unsuccessful hotels may be required to pay rent where the lenders may be required to operate an unsuccessful hotel or if an unsuccessful hotel is turned over to the City, maybe the City can operate it successfully. Chairperson Tucker noted it is my understanding that there is no need to have an economic analysis for a project because if someone wants file: //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 20 of 39 to do a project that is stupid, that is their prerogative, as long as it is not environmentally damaging. The reason you have a feasibility feature on an alternative is so that you don't end up with something whacky or highly unusual alternatives that may sound great but there is no feasibility to it. Anything else on that Commissioner Toerge? Continuing, Chairperson Tucker asked how do you propose that we deal with the environmentally superior issue now that we have to select something other than the project? Mr. Burnham answered you should hear from the consultant who prepared the EIR who is probably most familiar with its contents and I believe that is Mr. Houlihan. Mr. Houlihan with Michael Brandman and Associates answered that while you were discussing I was going through and comparing both the marine recreation alternative to reduced alternative to see which one would be environmentally superior. As CEQA states you are basically doing a comparison between the proposed project and the alternative. What we had identified was that each of the alternatives, the marine recreation alternative as well as the reduced alternative, were not environmentally superior. So going through that evaluation, was going through the various issue areas that we evaluated. Of the issue areas, they are geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, land use and planning, transportation or traffic, air quality and noise, aesthetics and public service or utilities. Going through a brief review or a brief overview, I identified a greater amount of impacts related to the marine recreation alternative. Again, the impacts are still considered less than significant for both the alternatives and can be mitigated. However, again all we are doing is comparing which one might have greater for example traffic effects. There is traffic information provided in the response to comments for the marine recreational alternative and in the draft EIR for the reduced alternative. For the reduced alternative there is less traffic. As a result there would be less air emissions created. As a result there would be less noise impacts in the area. In addition the reduced alternative has a smaller boat slip component compared to the marine recreation alternative; therefore, less dredging would be required and less impacts on biological marine resources. In addition because of less dredging associated with the reduced alternative there would be less water quality impacts to the bay. So, through that evaluation I have come up with the conclusion that the reduced alternative is environmentally superior to the marine recreation alternative. Chairperson Tucker stated that in either event, so I am understanding this, it is still your opinion that the one with the least amount of environmental impact is the project. You are saying as between the other two, we need to designate the one that your analysis comes up with as a reduced project which is the smaller hotel with a free- standing restaurant. Mr. Houlihan answered yes. Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any questions on comments file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 21 of 39 on the discussion, there were none. I think we were at noise now. Commissioner Cole asked to hear from staff the so- called controversy relating to the changing in the land use designation from recreation and environmental open space to recreation and marine use. Particularly addressing some of the comments I thought were not in my opinion weren't overly well addressed as it relates to the concern regarding the housing that is demolished in the Coastal zone if those houses are occupied by low and moderate income housing. Just a thought on the General Plan need for that. Ms. Wood noted that the need to replace housing in the Coastal zone arises only if those units are called, in that section of the law, affordable. For the Coastal zone replacement housing it's whether the occupants of the housing units are of low and moderate income, it has nothing to do with what the rental or other costs of the housing are. We have received some information since the response to comments document went out from a report we are doing on the relocation impact study, which is not complete yet. But, it has found that there is sufficient replacement rental housing in the region and in fact has found that in the surrounding communities, with the exception of Newport Beach, that a lot of the rents for existing housing are actually less than some of the people are actually paying now for their housing costs in the mobile home park. Commissioner Cole asked to walk through the need for a General Plan Amendment and the process and why the change in land use designation is necessary. Ms. Wood answered that the current designation of recreational and environmental open space does not allow for the development of a hotel. It would allow the tennis courts and even allow some commercial recreational facilities but not visitor accommodations. The proposed land use designation, which is recreational marine commercial, does allow for visitor accommodations, so the project could not be approve without the General Plan being amended to change that land use designation. The project also requires an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element because it talks about future and additional recreational facilities on this site with particular reference to aquatic facilities and so if the project is to go forward that Element needs to be amended as well and have that language changed. Commissioner Toerge asked the Harbor and Bay Element as well or any element of the General Plan that is affected? Ms. Wood answered any Element that is affected. We believe the only two are the Land Use and the Recreation and Open Space. We believe it is consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element. Chairperson Tucker noted I guess that was a direct question that I had asked earlier. Noise is the next one. . Noise file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 22 of 39 . a. What amount of noise finally gets to the point it's a significant problem or significant for environmental purposes. I think people expect that if there is an increase in noise that somehow that is allowed, well it actually is allowed. Describe briefly for us how noise is dealt with in our ordinances. Ms. Wood answered, the standard in environmental review is that increases of less than 3 decibels are not detectable to the human ear. In this case, because we have not had a significant increase in traffic from the project, and traffic is usually the greatest contributor to noise increase, then we also do not have a significant noise impact. There will be short term impacts during the construction period and there may be some noise from hotel operations such as things like live entertainment or deliveries. Those kinds of noise impacts are controlled by the provisions of our Municipal Code and the EIR has found that following the Municipal Code will keep those impacts to less than a significant level. Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any questions or comments on how noise was dealt with in the response to comments, there were none. Continuing he asked staff to go through the four additional mitigation measures that have now been recommended with this last staff report. Ms. Wood answered: That the first one is Land Use 1 on page 35 of the response to comments document in response to comment B20. This is the mitigation measure that involves re- design of the marina to what is called the longitudinal or marginal dock and that was done in response to comments with regard to dredging and fill. It eliminates the fill impact and reduces significantly the dredging impact and also does not extend beyond the pier head line. The next is Hazardous Materials 1 on page 30 of the response to comments document in response to comment B3. This requires that the project proponent provide a list of all hazardous materials and their quantities that may be used or stored on the project site during construction. The draft EIR had not found that there would be significant impact from hazardous materials but because of the concern raised in the comments, especially with proximity to the elementary school, this mitigation measure was added to further reduce those impacts. The next is Biological Resources 6 on page 62 in response to comment C2. It is related to the first new mitigation measure with regard to the longitudinal dock and this is with regard to the mitigation for the biological impacts. The ratio of mitigation is increased from 3:1 to 4:1 in response to the California Coastal Commission; that would be their requirement. With that increase in the ratio, even though the amount of dredging has been reduced, the area of mitigation required does increase from .71 acre to .95 acre. file: //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 23 of 39 The final one is Hydrology and Water Quality 1 on page 63 in response to comment C6. This is an addition to an existing mitigation measure which just restricts the construction activities in the water between October 1 through March 31, so that it does not interfere with wildlife reproductive activities. Commissioner Eaton noted the way it is worded, shouldn't the words 'to the period' be added between activities and between? The way its worded it is not quite clear whether you are talking about between October and March or between March to October. Ms. Wood said yes. Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any other issues that a Commissioner would like to raise at this point or any other comments just generally on the responses to comments. Commissioner Eaton noted this is an opportunity to fill in if there are any gaps and it becomes part of the administrative record, is that correct? So, if I perceive there are any gaps this would be the place to attempt to fill them in. Mr. Burnham answered it is always a good idea to try to highlight what you believe are needs for additional information. I am not sure that we would refer normally to this as an opportunity to fill in the gaps. Chairperson Tucker noted there are not gaps. Mr. Burnham added that we need to know if there are and then we assess those in terms of providing additional information or maybe it is in the document elsewhere. Commissioner Eaton noted he has a few of those: The first one is on page 55 - it talks about the marine recreation alternative being designed to be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and tidelands restrictions. Later on in the tidelands restrictions you talk about marine water tidelands restrictions as well as upland tidelands restrictions. My question is if the marine recreation alternative exceeds the pier headline is that a tideland restriction? Mr. Burnham answered no. Did we talk about upland tideland restrictions because that is definitely an oxymoron. There are uplands, there are tidelands, but there is no upland tidelands. Commissioner Eaton answered that in the response to comments on page 101, in response to G4, you did. Continuing, . On Page 62 you are re- wording either a description or a mitigation measure but at the bottom of C2 you are talking about replacement benthic habitat at the ratio of 4:1 to what had originally been proposed before you had revised the pier so that file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 24 of 39 it did not have the displacement of the benthic habitat that the original pier proposal had in the project. My question is that still necessary to have that 4:1 ratio which results in 41,344.24 square feet of mitigation? Ms. Wood answered, yes it does. Although the re- designed dock reduces the amount of dredging it doesn't eliminate it completely and the ratio has increased from 3:1 to 4:1. Commissioner Eaton asked if you need to have such an extensive amount of mitigation if the displacement wasn't as great because of the LU1 mitigation that took out the fact that you would have to dredge in order to make room for the dock. Therefore, if you don't have to dredge nearly as much of the benthic habitat I assume you don't have to replace as much of the benthic habitat. Ms. Wood answered no we don't have to replace as much but because the mitigation ratio has increased, those two factors combined still. Commissioner Eaton stated that it looked to me like you had based even the 4:1 based on the original displacement. Mr. Houlihan answered that the comment related to C2, there is a proposed project with mitigation measures. The mitigation measure modifies or reduces the size of the dock. We still have a proposed project but with the mitigation measure it is modified. It was still necessary to go back and identify what the proposed project's effect was. We looked at the total amount of effect that we identified in the EIR and included the Coastal Commission recommendation 4:1. What we had done in this mitigation was three tiers and I noticed that on page 63 the second and third paragraphs of that mitigation measure were not indented but there is a quotation after the third paragraph that was to be included as a mitigation. Basically it identifies the proposed project and what is the need for mitigation; and then the second paragraph is if the mitigation measure BR -5 is included, then what if the off -site mitigation is required; and then the third paragraph if BR5 and LU1 is included what is the off -site mitigation requirement. It is a three tier. Commissioner Eaton noted that those are alternative measures in effect depending on if LU1 is included. Am I transposing that correctly? Mr. Houlihan answered as long as the mitigation measures LU1 and BR5 are approved by the City Council. Commissioner Eaton answered that explains it. He then continued: . On page 69 your response to D1 from the Coastal Commission. This might be too small except that the Coastal Commission comments are going to become important later on in the comment. The last part of their comment D1, asked whether or file: //14: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 25 of 39 not you had made the delineation of the wetlands based upon their definition or the Corps of Engineers definition. I suspect that will become an issue later on and you didn't respond to that question. Mr. Burnham answered that every improvement that is occurring within the water would be considered wetlands under either definition. am not sure that it would have any environmental significance. Ms. Wood added that the end of that comment from the Coastal Commission is concerned about fill and with the implementation of the new mitigation measure LU1, then there would be no fill. That is what the response indicates. Commissioner Eaton answered okay and continued: On page 102, your response to G13. The comment was that the additional access through the hotel is beneficial and is basically related to access between Balboa Boulevard and the beach. It is pointed out that there will be two new accesses through the hotel. The comment was that is great as long as the hotel security doesn't restrict that access. Is there going to be a mitigation measure or lease provision making sure that doesn't happen, and that was not responded to in that response. Mr. Burnham answered that he could guarantee that the lease will provide that the lessee comply with all laws. Those will include mitigation measures that are approved by the City Council, conditions imposed by the City Council, Coastal Commission, Army Corps, etc. Being the landlord we have the ability to enforce those provisions by declaring a default or breach of the lease. We will augment the response accordingly. Commissioner Eaton continued: On page 120, the response to H26. The comment of H26 was that in the opinion of the commentator, to maintain perceived fully public access to the beach there should be some mitigation measure or lease restriction or some measure to prevent the hotel from, in effect, taking over the beach by starting to provide services, such as umbrellas, chairs, etc., in effect occupying the public beach with their private facilities and that was not responded to. Mr. Burnham stated he would make the same comment. The lease will, and in fact, they have talked to the project proponent about providing the public some amenities on the beach. But, the lease will make it clear that the hotel shall not interfere with the public's ability to use the beach and that will include putting any thing on the beach that is not available to the public. Commissioner Eaton answered okay and continued: file: //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 26 of 39 On page 137, the last sentence in response to K5 says please also see response to comment K7 regarding emergency evacuations. But there is not a word in K7 about emergency evacuations, so 1 was wondering if that was intended to refer to some other response. You will clarify that before it gets to Council I assume? Mr. Burnham noted we will clarify that. I think it is fair to say that the additional number of folks on site will not have a material impact on the evacuations in the event of emergency given the number of folks generally on the peninsula at any given point in time. Commissioner Eaton answered he would not quarrel with that and continued: On page 149, the next to last sentence of the response to 02, says please see response to comment B22 regarding land to water access. But the response to comment B22 talks about hazardous materials and doesn't seem to have anything to do with land to water access. I was wondering again if that was intended to refer to some other response? Ms. Wood answered yes, we will get the correct referral in that. Commissioner Eaton continued: On page 166, which is the start of the U comments. The first comment was not numbered and therefore not responded to. Was that because you determined that wasn't an environmental comment that needed to be responded to, or did you just miss it? Mr. Burnham answered that in response to the observation, I believe we need to provide a brief response. I think the comment does raise some environmental issue. But those are environmental issues that we have addressed in other responses. Commissioner Eaton continued: On page 173, the response to U4. It says the tennis courts are at grade. Did you really mean to say that? It is my understanding and most of the other responses talk about them being four or five feet above grade. Ms. Wood answered that is an error. The tennis courts will be atop the parking structure that is five feet above grade. Commissioner Eaton continued: On page 105, in the response to G23, it says if the decision makers wish to consider the possibility of additional modifications to the Marine Recreation Alternative as they evaluate the impacts and the desirability of the Marinapark file : //H:\Plancomm\2004\0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 27 of 39 proposal, they may do so based on the information provided. Can the recommenders to the decision makers also do that, namely us? Mr. Burnham answered that the agreement the City Council struck with Sutherland Talla really focuses the attention of the Commission on the recommendations relative to the certification of the environmental document, but, certainly any Planning Commissioner can offer comments in the record as to his or her feelings about the project or the alternatives. Chairperson Tucker asked if anyone else had any comments or questions on the response to comments. Commissioner Daigle noted she would just like to thank the community for all their input and comments and looks forward to any additional comments in any areas you believe that continue to need to be addressed. Chairperson Tucker noted next will be the public testimony part of the hearing and it is a standard operating procedure and as our agenda indicates the time allotted to speakers at Planning Commission meetings is three minutes per person and that is the time allotted tonight as well. Questions that you may have, you ought to ask and then move onto something else. We won't answer the questions as you are standing there, you will need to use your three minutes or however much of that you care to use. We will attempt to answer the questions after you are through. The lights on the podium will start off green and turn yellow when you have one minute left and red when your time is up and you will need to wrap it up right when your time is up so we can move on with this hearing item. When you do come up, keep in mind as I indicated earlier that argument and unsubstantiated opinion and speculation are things that CEQA specifically tells us we can not consider. The more technical and directed your comments, the better. With that, come up, introduce yourself for the record and take your three minutes or however much of that you need and give us any comments that you want tonight. Public comment was opened. Louise Fundenberg, president of Central Newport Beach Community Association thanked the Commission for receiving their three page document which you got today via fax. Our group is concerned particularly about the statement that there are only fifty employees. It was stated in the draft EIR and also in the responses. Yet, at the City Council meeting of June 8th, in response to a question made by Councilmember Nichols, Mr. Sutherland stated he would have a pool of 150 employees but anticipated only 50 of the employees would be on site at any one time. We are concerned because this makes the shift changes if you have that many employees and we feel an analysis should be made on the fact that there are 150 employees' and not just 50 employees. It affects the parking and the traffic and is a concern to us. Thank you for your time. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 28 of 39 Chairperson Tucker asked those of you who want to speak to come on down and fill the front seats so that we can move this along, if anybody wants to speak. I'm not seeing anybody. Jan Vandersloot, representing himself and the citizens group SPON, Stop Polluting Our Newport. I live in Newport Heights and I am wanting to pass out two documents; one is my comments and one is SPON's comments. The first thing I would like to say is I have not been able to receive a hard cover copy of the EIR and I have not been able to access the Internet to see what the Environmental Impact Report says on the Internet. I am on the Internet a lot. The fact that the site is unavailable so much of the time makes it not a good tool for public access or public input. Basically I would like to ask that you seriously consider whether or not the recreation and environmental open space alternative is not actually the environmentally superior alternative. The fact that the consultant is now saying that a development alternative is the environmentally superior alternative to open space and recreation just is astounding to me. I have never heard of that in twenty -five years of looking at environmental impact reports. I just can not understand that and I think the basic reason is that the marine and recreational alternative you have before you may be too big and have too many boat slips on it. But the fact that you have open space devoted to recreation, how that can not be the environmentally superior alternative to me just boggles my mind. One of the reasons I think for that also is that what you are comparing this hotel project and I should say hotel timeshare project, you are comparing that to existing conditions, you are not comparing it to what the way it is zoned. It is zoned and is designated on the Land Use Plan as recreation and environmental open space without the mobile homes there. That is what this project ought to be looking at as a comparison, what is a hotel compared to entirely open space without the mobile homes. All this is addressed in the SPON comments, I would like you to read that part of it. But that is the basic reason why you are saying that the environmental open space alternative is not the environmentally superior alternative. I would like to mention that. I live in Newport Heights and I have a hard time getting parking down at the beach on the peninsula and if you are thinking about the citizens of Newport Beach and our children and our grandchildren, we don't want to be driving around the peninsula around and around and around looking for a parking spot and have a potential parking lot on this REOS designated land built up with a hotel and having people coming in from Japan and Germany coming to that hotel and we don't even have enough parking space for our own citizens to be there. Thank you for choosing the REDS alternative as the environmentally superior. Mr. Burnham noted that CEQA does require the EIR to evaluate the project against what is on the ground, a plan to ground comparison as opposed to a plan to plan comparison. Craig Raiger, 1721 West Balboa. Needless to say, this project would have a huge impact on my quality of life. The gentlemen here spoke about how many people were counted coming out of the trailer park over the holiday. He failed to mention that I sat on my patio and watched gridlock for 3 112 hours over the weekend every evening, file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 29 of 39 which severely impacts not only myself but everybody downwind of me. So that is a severe impact not only just myself but everyone downwind of me on the peninsula. We also receive overflow parking from everyone who comes to visit the Newport Pier that can't find parking in that small parking lot. They park out in front of our place at the blue meters down as far as they can. Everybody that is going to be coming to visit the people in the hotel are now going to impact people farther downwind more and more as people try to come and visit the pier have to search for parking much further down. One of the things I haven't seen anyone mention so far is the visual impact. It isn't my right to have a view of the harbor, but this will take a one story trailer park and turn it into a two story facility which will severely impact my view of the harbor, which wasn't my God given right, but currently I enjoy that along with everybody else along that part of 18th and 17th block and part of 16th block. Once again I think the parking, the in and out you are comparing a 26 unit trailer park to a 110 unit facility. I believe the parking will just make our gridlock completely unbearable and affect the property values of everyone in Newport Beach. My final comment is I don't know why anyone is considering this project, the City of Newport Beach has been experiencing a 15% increase in revenue over the last couple of years. Why do we need this project, it isn't for the revenues we don't need it. It impacts the entire peninsula community adversely, I don't see anything good about it. Dolores Offing, a resident of Newport Beach, stated she had called to get a copy of the document on Friday as she was going away for the weekend and the document wasn't ready on Friday, it was ready on Saturday. I believe a copy of the document was placed in the library, which met the Brown Act requirement of 72 hours prior to the meeting on Thursday. I have not been able to access it on line either, so it isn't anything that's really been available for the public and I haven't had time to go to the City to get it. So, my concerns might already be addressed that's why I preface that. First of all, car rentals. Normally, when you go to a five star hotel or any hotel, you can go downstairs to the concierge and they can get you a car. If you can experience 3 1/2 hours of gridlock, nobody in the hotel is going to want to have to wait 3 1/2 hours to get their car rental. So, I am wondering if there are accommodations in the hotel to have car rentals on site available for rental. Another thing that people do when they go to a hotel, since you only have one parking space per two rooms, is they get a cab. I don't remember in the document reading anything about taxis, cabs, where they are going to park, how they are going to park. Another thing that I have noticed is because I travel past Hoag Hospital a lot and I sometimes go early in the morning or late in the afternoon, is they're building a new tower there. The construction traffic, I don't remember anything in the document and I could be wrong, that designated how they were going to deal with the construction employees. Okay? Because you go around Hoag and on Hospital Road and stuff and all those areas, everything is filled up with construction employees that walk then too. So, I am wondering how that's going to be accommodated for parking for the people that live there. These are my concerns with the document without having read the responses. So thank you very much. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 30 of 39 Chairperson Tucker noted you will have the opportunity to raise any issues that you discover between now and the Council meeting next week. Marie O'Hora, thanked the Commission for recording her responses at the last meeting. It is the first time in recorded history that they spelled my name right, she really appreciates that. I thank you for over the weekend, I did notice the trip wires, and I thought really you are taking our comments seriously. You've asked for an additional study on the traffic on Balboa Boulevard and I was very grateful and we drove over them a lot. There is just one little problem with where they were placed. They were placed across from the tennis courts. Now, that is not access into the Marina Park and I spent most of my 4th of July in the Marina Park and I am very sorry that in my 35 years of residency 1 did not get one of those units because it is one of the quietest spots in Newport Beach. And I don't know who was counting traffic but there was no traffic. I had a very lovely tour and spent three hours at the park and thought if they ever renew these leases, boy, I'm going to be first on the list. Now, the other thing that I would really comment about is a parking space for every two rooms. Now is this going to be the carpool destination resort? I really find that very difficult, you are going to have this many rooms and people really do bring their cars. Now, the other thing is I called around to what I consider elaborate hotels, and asked if you have a five star hotel, how much staff do you have per person? Because obviously at a five star hotel you do more than a one star hotel. And, what they explained to me is that they have two to three and a half staff for every person that comes and uses the hotel as a guest. Now, unless you have a great number of employees who are using our rapid transit system, that's going to mean a lot of cars. Now, my last comment is who owns this property? I know the City of Newport Beach owns this property. I consider myself just a teeny tiny part of the City of Newport Beach, so I feel that we own this property. I think we have a right to say how it will be used and I don't know what the best use is, but I don't feel the best use is a hotel. Thank you. Tom Billings, with Protect Our Parks, noted we will find out in November whether the public wants to put a hotel on public park land or whether they want to have a park and stay a park for their community benefit and use. I realize that is not an EIR question at this point. Although, if you look at economic viability, is that the only criteria, which was brought up by Mr. Eaton, and I would say no, it should not be. Let me just hit on a couple of key points that I found as grievous faults in the EIR results and again Mr. Eaton thank you for clarifying which to me seems crystal clear, it seems like it wasn't to the others. Mr. Toerge thank you, you reflected on it as well. . Number 1, the objectives are written so that only a hotel proposal would be selected as the preferred alternative. The objectives over - emphasized the need for the site to generate revenues for the City which is inappropriate for the future use of the park. The code, I guess it is 21.001 requires government agencies to develop standards or procedures to consider alternatives. It was spoken of a marine use alternative but that there wasn't enough information and never got into economic file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 31 of 39 viability. Currently there is an alternative use that is being developed by a group of people in Newport Beach that care about this community use and it is called Las Arenas Aquatic Center. I won't go into detail about that right now, but it is an alternative marine use and recreational use which falls into the category of what the General Plan calls for at this time. Of course, I know that in the election in November we will decide on whether the public wants to change the General Plan and give away this property to a developer for a hotel. Number two, the Impact Analysis should also assume that the mobile homes are removed. I guess you call this plan to plan versus plan to ground. I don't know EIR or DEIR rules specifically without getting advice from a CEQA counsel at the time, but if you are looking at plan to plan hotel or recreational use to General Plan well then you are comparing a hotel to a park. Is economic revenue generation to take care of City insolvency the justification or is what the public wants a criteria? I realize this is not an EIR issue at this time but I consider it in my mind that it should be. Georgine Vaught, resident of Newport Beach, noted her recollection is that Mr. Sutherland said that there were going to be timeshares built on this property. Nowhere in the information that I have received tonight does the word timeshare appear. Is that going to have any effect on the EIR? Chairperson Tucker answered that he was not sure of what the speaker received tonight, but he has stacks of information that does mention the timeshare use. Ms. Wood added that the draft EIR and in a few places in the Response to Comments it does indicate that the project description includes the potential for twelve of the units to be fractional ownerships, which is a different way of saying timeshares. Madelene Arakelian, resident on the peninsula and has spent 60 years down in Newport Beach. I remember when we changed the Fun Zone that was the beach my husband courted me on. And now I have a deep concern that this strip of land that is supposed to be for marine use is going to be designated for a hotel. Last night I walked it and I don't know how many of you have walked it, but it is absolutely gorgeous. And to think that we are taking this away from the public gets me very angry. I have a question for Sharon. The General Plan Amendment has not been done yet? If it hasn't been done, and at the moment it is designated for marine use, and has the tideland issues and everything else, shouldn't that have been done already so that we could go forward with this project? Or, is it when we vote on it in November we're voting for the General Plan Amendment and not for a hotel? Mr. Burnham answered that in November, if the EIR is certified and Council calls an election, yes the General Plan Amendment would be what the voters would either approve or disapprove to amend the file: //H:1Plancomm1200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 32 of 39 Land Use and Recreation Elements to allow the construction of the resort. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Tucker asked if staff wanted to respond to any of the comments or would any Commissioner like a response to any of the comments. He then noted he would like to hear about car rentals and taxis. I guess car rentals we don't know what the use is going to be on the inside of the hotel but just as a matter for hotel trip generation rates, I would guess the concept of a taxi service would be included or should be if it wasn't? Mr. Edmonston answered that again typically the determination of these rates, all traffic entering and leaving the property is tabulated and then divided by the number of rooms to come up with the trip rate per room. Yes, to the extent that the other sites were studied to determine this rate, I would expect they would have the same sort of uses, whether it's limousines or airport shuttles or rental cars. It would have been the same other than if a rental car is coming from an off site location it would have four trips, two coming and two leaving associated with the stay versus if it was on -site it would come back and stay there. There might be some minor difference again depending on whether these other sites had on site storage of rental vehicles or if they were always in a situation where they came from some off -site location when a client wanted one. Chairperson Tucker noted that we did discuss earlier in a fair amount of detail the exact or at least our best estimate how much more traffic would have to occur before we had a recognizable level of service degradation under the TPO. I don't think additional taxi trips is going to get to that level that we are going to trip something. Your answer basically is that it is included in the base trip generation rates. It may not have specifically called out taxis, the manner in which the people come to and fro, but it contemplated all trips. Mr. Edmonston answered yes, the studies were done at resort hotels, which we felt was the most appropriate category for this project. Ms. Wood noted that another potential impact of rental cars could be if they are stored on site then they are occupying parking places. But in this case where the parking that is provided is more than twice what the Code requires, I don't see that that would have a potential to have a significant impact. Mr. Burnham added I don't think it would be a significant impact either, but that use is not listed as part of the project description. So as far as I am concerned if that use were something that the hotel operator wanted to develop on site, they would need the environmental document reviewed and we would have to look at that as an amendment to the project. I don't think it is permitted given this project description. Commissioner Eaton asked about Mr. Billings' comments and Dr. file: //H:1Plancomm\200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 33 of 39 Vandersloot's comments and particularly the SPON letter referring to the no project alternative. Having been in this practice I can remember two cases in particular, one in Anaheim and one in El Dorado County where it said where you have a situation where you have a likelihood of a plan that could be implemented, and an existing situation, you really need to do two no projects to look at both. In both of those cases, the existing plan had a much higher intensity and density allowed. What they did in those two cases, they compared only to the higher plan and said, well we have nothing but benefits here by reducing that as opposed to what was actually on the ground. I believe that the essential character of those cases were taken into account in Section 15126.6 Paragraph E subsection 3, sub b, where it says, "If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, (in this case I'm interpreting that to mean like eventually requiring the displacement of the mobile homes because they conflict with tidelands restrictions) such as a proposal of some other project, this no project consequence should also be discussed." It reiterates it saying, "However, where the failure to proceed with the project will not result in the preservation of the existing environmental conditions that analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non - approval." Do you feel this EIR runs the risk of not taking that into account? Mr. Burnham answered, no, because I think the marine recreational alternative is the flip side to the no development, no project alternative, which is the retention of the mobile home park. The marine recreation alternative would be a no project as a no General Plan Amendment. It would be a project that is consistent with the existing General Plan designation for the site both in the Rec and Open Space Element and the Land Use Element. I think that takes into account what could happen if the mobile home park were removed as part of this process and I also think it is somewhat remote to conclude that the mobile home park -- let's assume the voters reject the General Plan Amendment -- at that point in time my suspicions are that the City would try to figure out what to do and potentially develop • marine recreation alternative, either the one proposed in the EIR or • different one. That I suspect would take a substantial amount of time during which the mobile home park would remain in place. Chairperson Tucker noted that the Guidelines say about alternatives to the proposed project, "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation." I think that, back to the Guidelines, the nature of the project and the objectives, I think that staff has picked out and justified, as they are required to do, is to publicly disclose their reasoning for selecting alternatives. At least in my opinion, they have met the burden here. They could have picked a lot of other alternatives and maybe they should have picked a lot of other alternatives, but in terms of what is required by CEQA, which is really file: //14:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 34 of 39 all that is before us tonight, it seems to me that they have given an alternative that allows comparison to the project. That is kind of the nature of the beast that we are dealing with here. Does anybody else have questions? Commissioner Selich noted on the letter from the Central Newport Association, paragraph 3 on the second page where they were requesting the analysis on the impact of 150 and not on 50 employees, I thought an interesting point was brought up on the shift changes. I don't think it would be 150, but 50 if everyone changes shift at the same time. I was wondering if staff had any comments on that. Ms. Wood noted she actually has had some experience working in a hotel. Perhaps we should have Mr. Foust talk about this too, but I do not believe that these employees are going to all change shifts at the same time. The majority of the chamber maids are there in the morning and then some come for the evening turn down service and depending on what day of the week it is you may have fewer or greater number of employees working in the restaurant. You may or may not have a function going on in the ballroom, which is not a very big one in this case, and so people would come at different times and perhaps not even every day for that sort of thing. Some of the employees are going to be the grounds maintenance crew and they will have different schedules than the people working in the rooms or restaurant. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of those will turn over on a shift as if they were working in a factory. Commissioner Selich noted that one of the comments made various times on the EIR is the fact that it is a five star facility so there is going to be a greater ratio of employees to guests then you would have in a normal hotel. Also, earlier in the information that was brought out it was indicated that we are parking this hotel at twice the ratio than normally we require a hotel to be parked at so we probably have that covered in any event. Ms. Wood added that it is also important to keep in mind the size of the ancillary facilities, the amenities that are included in this hotel versus what you might find in other hotels, which also affects the employee count. In many hotels such as the Ritz Carlton, the St. Regis, even the Montage that we have in the region, those hotels include large ballroom space and can accommodate large functions and even business meetings. Where in this case even though it is called a ballroom, given the size I am not sure that is a good term -- it is only 3600 square feet, which is a little bit smaller than the building we are in. Given that information, I think the lower employee count per room is reasonable for this proposal versus what you would see in one where you need to have a lot more food service people for those facilities. Commissioner Daigle noted should more units become timeshares over time, how would that affect traffic? Mr. Burnham answered that we would again have to look at any file : //H:\Plancomm\200410708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 potential environmental impacts associated with a conversion of more resort units to fractional ownerships which I do not believe would happen and will not be allowed by any lease. Mr. Foust can address any impacts. Mr. Foust answered we have assumed a full 100% occupancy of the hotel, so all the rooms would be occupied all the time every day of the year. A little bit of research into that suggests it is 85 or 90% is probably realistic. Again, everything we have done traffic wise has been done on the conservative side. In terms of timeshares, they do not achieve 100% occupancy all the time. The probability is although you might get a few more families come in and maybe have a guest or two, I suspect that the trip rate for the timeshare throughout the year would result in a lower than 100% of all of the hotel rooms. It probably would be a net traffic benefit to have the timeshare compared to a fully occupied five star hotel. Chairperson Tucker then addressed the consideration and the need to make substantial changes to the draft EIR and to recirculate the draft EIR. Ultimately, the purpose of CEQA is a disclosure law. Really in its most simplistic form it's an effort to try and make sure the decision makers and the public understand the nature of the project involved and the consequences to the environment if the project were to have been built. And so, when I look at the issue of recirculation, it needs to be in accordance with the Guidelines as well, that the agency is required to recirculate when significant new information is added to the EIR after the public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review. In this particular case, I believe that just the level of sophistication of the comments, the number of comments we have had, the detail that we have been through and the discussion that we have had, I am not seeing a significant omission that needs to be corrected at this point. It's not that the document is perfect; it is far from perfect because it is not possible to make one of these things perfect. I think the public's participation in pointing out errors and failure to recognize nuances and to look at every aspect of this project is just testament to the fact that no matter how hard you try, you can't get to perfection. CEQA does not require perfection. This is a re- development of a project where the ground has already been developed. It's not like it's 500 acres with coastal sage scrub, wetlands and environmentally endangered species, which is a lot harder to understand than this project. I feel in this particular case, at this point, there is no aspect of this project that I do not have a good understanding of what its consequences will be. There were some areas that I think we pointed out tonight where the document and the administrative record could be strengthened and I think we have done that. I am not seeing the need to recirculate. I will throw this open to the rest of the Commissioners and see if we have any other feelings on that or any comments on the EIR generally but particularly we need to come to the conclusion of whether or not to make substantial changes and we need to recirculate the EIR. Commissioner Eaton noted he disagrees with the selection of the reduced alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. I think the marine recreational alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because I think the wrong traffic analysis was used. They Page 35 of 39 file : //H:\Plancomm \2004\0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 36 of 39 should have stuck with the ITE generation as they did for the project and the other alternatives. That would have demonstrated, if they had done that, that there was actually less traffic and therefore less traffic impacts and less air quality impacts and less noise impacts and that should have been the environmentally superior alternative. However, my real concern was that we were not identifying one of the alternatives as an alternative and that has now been taken care of. An alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. In terms of looking at the basic impacts of the project itself, I don't think which alternative is the environmentally superior alternative is that relative. I think we do have a comprehensive view of the impacts of the project itself and therefore, I don't think the document needs to be recirculated and I am prepared to eventually recommend certification. Commissioner Cole noted he generally concurs. The environmental consultants and the City did an admirable job of putting this together and have in my opinion adequately addressed potential impacts to the environment and I have found there is no significant evidence to show that there has been any kind of impacts in any areas. I think they have also adequately addressed the threshold regarding alternatives so I am also in favor of not recirculating the EIR and I would recommend that we proceed with the certification and send this to the City Council. Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees. We have had some exhaustive testimony and some very good quality input from the public and from staff and environmental consultants and the Commissioners and I don't see any significant omission. I also appreciate very much our Chairman's summation tonight of our charge this evening, that our responsibility is to be sure the document adequately brings forth the environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures. That is really our charge, does this document do this? A vote to certify this EIR is not a vote for the project. It is simply representation that the project EIR does indeed address those impacts and the potential and likely mitigation measures. At this point, I am not in favor of a re- circulation of the draft EIR. Commissioner Selich noted he was not going to make any kind of speech. He supports what the Chairman's comments were on it and I think it is in adequate condition to move on to the Council. Commissioner McDaniel noted he agrees. Commissioner Daigle noted she also would not be in support of re- circulating the document: Chairperson Tucker noted that concludes that part of it. Are there any final comments on the draft EIR? He noted once again, as Commissioner Toerge points out, our charge is to come to a conclusion on the adequacy of the document. There are a lot of people that feel strongly that this property should not be used for a hotel project. Ultimately, if they show up at the ballot box, assuming it gets through Council, which I shouldn't assume because it might not, file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 37 of 39 then it will be up to everybody to express their opinion as to the project. In doing that, certainly those who have participated in the project understand what its consequences are and they have kept us honest by making sure we understand what the consequences are. Hopefully you have seen that we did read the document, we read the comments, we read the response to comments and we spent a lot of time on this matter to discharge our duty which is to pass a recommendation along to the Council as to the adequacy of the EIR. do have a question of the City Attorney before we make a motion and that is how do we deal with the environmentally superior alternative? We have the consultant recommending one alternative and Commissioner Eaton has a different opinion and I guess right now we have a resolution that doesn't refer to either choice. I am not exactly sure how we correct the record to pick the environmentally superior alternative. Mr. Burnham answered I would suggest that you straw vote that issue and adopt a resolution revised to reflect the straw vote. I understand Commissioner Eaton's point of view. If you use an ITE rate maybe you could come to the conclusion that the marine recreational alternative is environmentally superior. There is evidence to support either determination. Chairperson Tucker stated we would then just adopt the resolution that is in the staff report modified to reflect the environmentally superior alternative we select. Mr. Burnham answered yes. Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton that the environmentally superior alternative be the marine recreation alternative based upon the ITE generation rates. Commissioner Cole - would be in favor of supporting the City Attorney and the consultant's recommendation and keep the environmentally superior alternative the proposed one presented by the consultant. (no) Commissioner Toerge - in favor of the straw vote that the marine recreation alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. (yes) Mr. Burnham noted for the record he does not have an opinion, just to clarify. Commissioner Selich - noted that though it might seem counter intuitive I think that the consultant's recommendation makes sense. It is analytically consistent with the rest of the document so I support that one. Commissioner McDaniel - in favor of this consultant's project as it is. Commissioner Daigle - supports the consultant's recommendation. file : //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Chairperson Tucker noted he guesses it doesn't matter what he thinks, it sounds like the consultant's recommendation is the way we are going. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to adopt the resolution recommending City Council certification of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Final Environmental Impact Report that is attached to our staff report as attachment 1 and that we modify that resolution to reflect that we have selected the environmentally superior alternative of the reduced project alternative. Are there any comments? Ms. Varin noted that Commissioner Daigle has listened to all the previous meetings on our tapes and is able to vote on this item tonight. Commissioner Eaton added his commendation to the commentators, particularly EQAC and the Harbor Commission. The Harbor Commission really went to a lot of work and a lot of their comments unfortunately aren't really going to pertinent unless ultimately the hotel is voted in and the alternatives for the site are considered. They have a wealth of good information in there that can be used in that circumstance. Chairperson participation say anythinc Tucker noted we all can second that. We had a great level with very good comments. Anybody else, wish to Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Noes: and Daigle Absent: None Abstain: None None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel, McDaniel a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that at the meeting of June 22nd the City Council adopted the amendment to the Corporate Plaza with regard to medical and dental uses. b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that at the next meeting there will be a fiscal impact analysis presentation on Marinapark. The meeting is on the 21st at 8 a.m. here in the Chambers. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. Ms. Wood added that at there will be a study session on the Guiding Principles on August 5th. You will receive another version to show the suggestions that had been made at the joint Study Session with the City Council. file : //H:1Plancomm\200410708.htm Page 38 of 39 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 07/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - an update was provided in the packet. The modification findings report will be brought back following the Local Coastal Program and procedures for call for reviews, as staff time allows. g. Project status - Chairperson Tucker noted that the lawyers working on the St. Andrews project, have reported to him that there is on -going discussions with the school district, church representatives, neighbors and three City Councilmembers. The church representatives will be making available some planning dollars to see if there is a means to increase the school parking. A brief discussion followed. h. Requests for excused absences -none. Page 39 of 39 ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. J ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/16/2004