Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1999CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. • 40 ROLL GALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund - Commissioner Gifford arrived at 7:05 p.m. and Commissioner Hoglund was absent. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Daniel Ohl - Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton - Transportation and Development Services Manager Patrick Alford - Senior Planner Janet Johnson- Planning Department Assistant Study Session and Reaular Minutes of October 7,1999: Motion was made and voted on, to approve the Study Session and regular meeting minutes of October 7, 1999 as written. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Hoglund Abstain: Fuller Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 15, 1999 INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 SUBJECT: Tapas Grill (Stuart Rains, Applicant) 4253 -A Martingale Way Use Permit No. 3510 Amended INDEX Item No. 1 Use Permit No. 3510 Amended Request to allow a remodel and expansion of an existing eating and drinking I Continued to establishment. The application also includes a request to allow the addition 11 -04 -99 of a 550 square foot outside patio in conjunction with the existing restaurant operation, and a change in the conditions of the existing Use Permit to allow dancing and alcohol usage on the patio. Staff has requested that this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on November 41h for the purpose of re- noticing the application to include the waiving of off - street parking. Motion was made to continue this item. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Kronzley Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Hoglund Abstain: None • sss SUBJECT: Districting Map Interpretation Request to provide interpretation and direction regarding the front yard setback for lots located on the north side of the 1100 and 1300 blocks of East Balboa Boulevard. Planning Director Patricia Temple stated that due to a notation regarding a deed restriction on the Districting Maps for the north side blocks of 1100 through 1300 East Balboa Blvd., there is a question as to the correct required front yard setbacks in the area. A title search through Guarantee Title revealed that the deed restriction was recorded at the time of the original subdivision in the early 1900's, and then subsequently disappeared. Staff's research disclosed no record of an amendment to the Districting Maps approving the restrictions. Therefore, the setback requirements were never properly codified and the default required setback should be 20 feet. However, while deed restrictions are not usually adopted by the City, staff has been adhering to the 2.5 foot setback for garages and b foot setback for the main building for quite some time. Ms. Temple noted this disparity was brought to staff's attention by an architect who is currently working on a project in the area. This particular project's • building area was designed based on a 2.5 foot front yard setback. Ms. 2 Item No. 2 Districting Map Interpretation Discussion only • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 Temple requested the Planning Commission's direction on the setback to be used for calculating the permitted building area for this particular project as well as other affected properties in the area. She also requested direction on whether or not staff should proceed with an amendment to the Districting Maps to codify these or other setbacks for the subject properties. Commissioner Kronzley asked the city attorney if the deed restriction disappeared, and was not enforced by the City, did not become null and void? Deputy City Attorney Daniel Ohl replied he did not know that to be the case, and that the setback requirements indicated on the districting maps would be applicable to the properties in these blocks. Commission Fuller asked if the setback requirements were ever enacted in the deed itself at the time of the original subdivision. Mr. Ohl stated he did not know, but noted the deed restriction was never enacted by City Council, thus it never became a restriction the City could enforce. Commissioner Fuller asked if deed restrictions were required to be passed by Council. Ms. Temple stated that such deed restrictions were rarely passed by • Council. In this situation, the deed was an agreement between two private entities. Because of the reference to the deed restriction indicating duel setbacks on the Districting Maps, the City has been approving projects on this basis, regardless of the fact the deed restriction is not enforceable by the City. Commissioner Ashley requested what setback dimensions are presently being used when calculating buildable area. Ms. Temple explained the standard method of calculating buildable area (the lot dimensions excluding the required setbacks). Commissioner Ashley then asked to what extent garages are found in the front setback in the 1100 to 1300 Block of Balboa Blvd. Ms. Temple stated there are many because there is no alley behind the homes. Commissioner Ashley asked if a majority of the houses that would be affected by this decision have garages using the 2.5 setback. Ms. Temple stated that a survey of this neighborhood has not been conducted, therefore, she could not answer with full accuracy. Commissioner Tucker informed Commissioner Ashley that he visited the neighborhood and it appeared most garages on both the north and south side of the street were built using a 2.5 setback. Commissioner Tucker inquired if the calculations determined to be "normal" by. the informal survey of the neighborhood also applied the south side of the street. Ms. Temple stated for purposes of the survey that only properties on the north side of the street were reviewed because the deed restriction applies only to this side. Ms. Temple stated that no variable setbacks exist in any district except in PC • districts, which are in the newer parts of town. In response to Commissioner INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 Tucker's question, she noted that the setbacks on the south side of the street vary from block to block. She suggested the Commission may want to take into consideration when making this determination the fact that the bay side setback in this location is zero. Ms. Temple noted in most cases when there is a zero setback on one side there usually is a setback in the range of 6, 8 or 10 feet on the other side of the lot. Chairman Selich asked if the 6 foot setback were selected by the Planning Commission, would be it used only for calculating floor area and would the garages remain at 2.5 feet? Ms. Temple stated that would be her recommendation. Commissioner Fuller asked if the bay side set back would remain at zero and noted that a 6 foot setback would be less restrictive than lots with 8 foot setbacks. Ms. Temple stated that depending on the size of lot, a 6 foot setback would yield a slightly larger structure than a lot with an 8 foot setback. Chairman Selich called on the architect to answer any questions of the Commission. Ian Harrison, 1936 Teresito Lane. Mr. Harrison stated that he and his client • looked at some of the recently approved plans for properties in the 1100 to 1300 block. The most recently approved project was given a 6 foot setback for the buildable area multiplied by 2, and the garage that encroached up to the 2.5 foot setback was multiplied by 1. It was his observation that approximately 99% of the homes in this area were built using the 2.5 setback. Chairman Selich asked how many square feet the subject property would be if built based on a 2.5 foot setback and a 6 foot setback. Mr. Harrison stated it would be approximately 3,200 square feet, as opposed a to 3,290 square foot structure if calculated a full 2 times at the 2.5 foot setback. The structure would loose approximately 90 square feet using a 6 foot setback. He noted lots in this block are not very deep (approximately 75 feet). Commissioner Gifford noted if the floor area ratio was calculated based on a 6 foot setback, there is an extra 3.5 foot section of land of that is calculated with a floor area ratio of 1 to 1. Mr. Harrison stated that was how the latest house was approved, which he felt was a fair compromise he and his client would be willing to accept. Commissioner Gifford stated she felt is would be appropriate for staff to conduct a full survey as suggested. Ms. Temple clarified her earlier comment stating that this particular project is well underway, and a delay to allow staff to study the situation could cause a hardship. Therefore, Ms. Temple is requesting that the Planning Commission determine what methodology to use for this particular project and also provide direction to staff to conduct further work to • come back with an amendment to the districting maps INDEX • �J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 Commissioner Kranzley prepared a rough calculation and stated there is an approximate 84 square foot difference; therefore. he would be more in favor of using the 6 foot setback for the calculation providing for a slightly smaller structure. His only concern is the project would not be consistent with the other houses on the block. Ms. Temple clarified the City would continue to allow the garages to be built using the 2.5 foot setback, as indicated by the note on the districting map, and the permitted size of the house would be calculated based on a 6 foot setback. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Harrison what he believed was the amount of square footage he could build and how the information was obtained. Mr. Harrison replied he obtained the setback information of 2.5 feet at the garage side from staff at the public counter and that the project was designed based on a 2.5 foot setback to determine floor area. Chairman Selich asked how many homes have been approved calculated the way the applicant has proposed. While the staff report indicated most projects have been approved based on a 6 foot setback, Ms. Temple stated she believes the most recently approved project was based on a 2.5 foot setback, which was approved approximately l year ago. Chairman Selich stated he would be in favor of using the 6 foot setback since that is the one predominantly used in this area. Commissioner Gifford stated she believes the most equable solution, given there is a lot of confusion, is the compromise offer the applicant has put forth of a 6 foot setback with a 3.5 foot differential of 1 to 1. She noted the applicant has relied up to this point on the setback being 2.5 feet and has told Planning Commission that is the setback he was told by staff. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the subject project using a 6 foot setback for the main structure with 2 times buildable area, and 1 times buildable area for the 3.5 foot differential. In addition, staff is directed to return with an amendment to Districting Maps 11 and 12 to resolve the setback issue. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: None Absent: Hoglund Abstain: None SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort Planning Commission discussion of the proposed Newport Dunes Resort • development, including preliminary review of the draft environmental impact INDEX Item No. 3 Newport Dunes Resort • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 report. Chairman Selich stated the project sponsors would be making an informal presentation to the Planing Commission to assist with their first review of the project. The Commission will not. take any action, as the presentation is purely informational, and will provide comments to staff on the draft environmental impact report ("DEIR"). Senior Planner Patrick Alford reported that we are currently in the public review stage of DEIR process, which runs from October 1 through November 15. In addition to the Notice of Preparation, Notices of Availability were sent to all Homeowners' Associations surrounding the site and individuals requesting the notice. A display ad was published in the local paper. Copies of the DEIR are available for public review in the Planning Department office and at each branch of the Newport Beach public library. In addition, the executive summary has been posted on the City's web site. The City is receiving public comments, both pro and con. We are looking forward to receiving comments from government agencies, civic groups and members of the public on the DEIR. At the end of the review period, responses to comments will be prepared and incorporated in the final EIR, ' which will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council when public hearings for the project commence. Mr. Tim Quinn, the project representative and resident of Newport Beach, has been responsible for the Newport Dunes Resort for the past 10 years. Also in attendance is Mr. Robert Gleason, personally involved in the redevelopment of the Dunes since the late 1980's. Mr. Quinn's family has owned and operated the Dunes for the past 30 years. They are primarily hotel operators with 3 properties in San Diego - the Bahia Hotel, the Catamaran Hotel on Mission Bay and the Lodge at Torrey Pines on the Torrey Pines Golf Course. This is the 3m and final phase of the Dunes development. For the past year and '/2 they have worked city staff and environmental consultants to assist With the preparation of the EIR. The document addresses all potential impacts and relevant concerns in a comprehensive and responsible manner. In addition, Mr. Quinn noted he has met with and will continue to meet with interested citizens and community groups. As a result of the EIR process and community input, the plan incorporates many design features, mitigation measures and conditions not contained in the already entitled 275 room hotel and freestanding restaurants planned, making this a for better plan the one already approved. Mr. Robert Gleason stated the previously approved plans are for a 275 room hotel with very little meeting space, approximately 30,000 square feet of restaurant space, and 5,000 square feet of freestanding retail space, with • very few amenities throughout. What is proposed now is a waterfront INDEX Discussion Only . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 destination resort. The components include a 400 room hotel, and 100 2- bedroom timeshare units. The units can be locked off from one another; therefore, the EIR analysis describes the project with a total of 600 rentable rooms. In addition, the amenities include swimming pools and whirlpools, 3 restaurant and banareas totaling approximately 13,500 square feet of floor area, ranging from poolside casual dining to fine dining. Also proposed are an 8,000 square foot full service spa and health club, water sport rentals, a 55,000 square foot conference center with pre - function space for registration and circulation; conference and catering facilities, 2 large ballrooms, 2 smaller ballrooms and a number of breakout rooms and board rooms. The project was designed by the local architect firm of Wimberly, Allison, Tong & Goo. Local facilities designed by this firm include the Four Seasons and Ritz Carleton in Laguna Niguel, as well as several other local projects. The architectural style of the Dunes project is Spanish Mediterranean, keeping the theme with the first and second phases of redevelopment along the east and south side of the swimming lagoon. The style will be reminiscent of Santa Barbara in the 1920's, with stucco exteriors, red tile roofs, interplay with solid and void, arches, colonnades and .a rich amount of detailing. The roof lines will be highly articulated and the landscaping will be quite dense and lush. The buildings will range 3 to 5 stories in height: the timeshare units will be 3- • stories in height, the hotel building designed around 3 courtyards with 3 wings built out towards the bay are also 3 stories in height and the north /south spine of the hotel building is 4 stories. The central portion marking the main entrance point is 5 stories in height with the maximum height being 75 feet Access to the project is via Bayside Drive. Vehicles will enter off Coast Highway and head up a ramp to the main entry point, which is at level three of the main building, providing an overview of the bay and Newport Center. There is a separate entrance for the conference facilities. Parking is provided in a surface lot and in a parking structure, providing a total of 1,200 parking spaces. The parking structure is against the building and largely enclosed with a landscape berm to shield it from the adjoining residences. The plan also includes improvements to Bayside Drive, as well as an off - street bike trail and sidewalk, neither of which currently exist. The bike trail will connect with the Class One trail along the back side of the Dunes and with the Back Bay trail, completing the county's back bay bike trail circulation. The sidewalk will connect with the promenade and pedestrian bridge and promenade around the lagoon. The plan also includes a planned community district plan. This document will set forth the allowed uses and entitlements and incorporates land use regulations, site development standards and design standards for building envelopes, massing, height, setbacks, daylight plane setbacks, as well as • landscaping, access and circulation signage and lighting controls. INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 Chairman Selich then turned to the Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Ashley asked if the 170 parking spaces designated in the EIR for the marina are truly reserved for the marina.. Mr. Gleason indicated parking .spaces closest to the marina will be reserved for marina customers and the parking structure closest to the hotel will provide parking for overflow marina parking as well as hotel and timeshare guests. He also stated the parking counts done for the project cover all uses and the 1200 total parking spaces are sufficient for the project, including the marina customers. Commissioner Fuller confirmed that the project is on a ground lease and the site is considered tidelands. He asked if the residential uses represented by the timeshares are consistent with the non - residential intent of the tidelands. Ms. Temple stated that issue of what is known as "vacation - residential' is a determination that will be made by the state lands commission prior to the execution of a new lease with the County of Orange. Mr. Gleason stated they looked in the matter quite extensively and years ago there was a prohibition on timeshare uses in tidelands per the State Attorney General. In 1996 there was an opinion allowing the use providing certain conditions were met, recognizing that timeshare use has become more like a • hotel use. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Gleason if they are in negotiations with the county to renew the lease. Mr. Gleason replied yes, they are in negotiations, and without the extension on the lease the project would not be built. Commissioner Fuller then asked if consideration was given for Back Bay Drive to be used as another access point in the traffic plan. Mr. Gleason informed him that consideration was given to this as well as other entrance alternatives, including Back Bay Drive off of Coast Highway, and the possibility of coming through the existing RV park or across the pedestrian bridge. However, when they looked at access from Back Bay drive, the volume off Jamboree could cause additional impacts in that area. Additionally, the project now calls for the removal of 150 RV sites and routng the traffic through the park could require the removal of an additional 100 spaces. Commissioner Fuller asked if there would be access between the proposed project and the existing RV park. Mr. Gleason stated the only physical access will be for an emergency vehicle access with a locked gate. Commissioner Fuller indicated he is concerned about the height of the project, and requested if the applicant would be willing to erect story poles to provide a better visual simulation for the residents in the mobile home park and across the bay on Morning Star. Mr. Gleason stated they would to do so and would meet with staff to research the matter. • Commissioner Ashley asked of the location for the 9 foot wall which is INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 planned to be erected to inhibit noise and light spillage into the DeAnza Bayside Village. Mr. Gleason stated a 9 foot sound wall is proposed along the property line between the hotel and Bayside Village. Additionally, two 6 foot sound walls are proposed along the length of Bayside Drive from Pacific Coast Highway to the main entrance. When asked if there would be a wall that extends westward from Bayside Drive along the route to the marina, Mr. Gleason stated there currently exists a 6 foot block wall in the area and the noise study did not indicate a new wall was necessary. Commissioner Kranzley asked how many employees on average would be on site. Mr. Quinn indicated there are currently approximately 125 employees and he estimates adding about 350 to 400, for an estimated total headcount of 525 employees. With 3 shifts a day, the average total number of employees at any one time could be up to 250 employees per shift for the whole resort. Commissioner Kranzley asked what the difference would be in the number of employees with a 275 unit hotel versus a 600 unit hotel. Senior Planner Patrick Alford stated the EIR indicates a total of 200 employees at any time for the 275 room family inn. Chairman Selich referred to Commissioner Ashley's comments on the marina parking issues, wanting to know if the open parking would be exclusively for . the marina. Mr. Gleason stated it would be. He noted all time -share guests would use the parking structure. Chairman Selich asked what percentage of the time will the open parking satisfy the parking demand for the marina. Mr. Quinn estimated that the 170 open parking spaces for the marina would meet the demand most of the time, with the exception of Summer weekends. Chairman Selich asked if there would be some kind of staging area for temporary loading and unloading for the marina customers. Mr. Quinn stated yes, at the timeshare porte cochere area there is a marina drop -off area with numerous dock carts for the marina tenants' use. Chairman Selich asked if the entrance to the convention facilities was on the some level as the main entrance to the hotel. Mr. Gleason stated yes, when driving up the ramp to the hotel one has the option of going to either entrance. Chairman Selich's final question to Mr. Gleason was how he would characterize the quality level of the proposed resort. Mr. Gleason stated the Ritz Carleton would be the most equivalent example as far as the overall style; however, it may be a bit rich interior -wise in terms of some the finishes. However, the project is proposed to be a 4 star destination resort. Other examples would be the Surf & Sand in Laguna Beach, the Marriott or Loews on the water in San Diego. Commissioner Tucker commented on the image of the project, and the importance of the quality of the construction, as well as landscaping, to soften the overall effect of the buildings. Mr. Gleason referred to the 9 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October2l, 1999 rendering of the proposed project stating that it is typical of the project. There will be assurance as to the quality and style of work as part of the development agreement. In addition, the design guidelines are contained in the planned community district plan and the approved final plan. Commissioner Kranzley referred to a sidewalk shown in a rendering contained in the EIR and wanted to know if the sidewalks are accessible to the public. Mr-Gleason stated the whole project, including the sidewalks and bike trails, will be open to public pedestrians and bicyclists. Commissioner Fuller expressed his concerns regarding the lighting and spillage as well as noise as it relates to the residents of DeAnza Bayside Village, Sea Island and the residents who live across the bay. He also expressed his concerns about the height and bulk of the building and the need for commitment by the applicant as to a time when the story poles will be put up. Commissioner Tucker noted the Commission recently adopted a story pole procedure, but the matter does need to come back to the Commission for an ultimate decision. He stated the procedure is designed as an engineered construction where there is a plan that is certified stating what is simulated is • consistent with the actual height of the proposed project. Commissioner Gifford agreed with Commissioner Fuller and expressed her interest in seeing the story poles at the earliest possible time. Chairman Selich stated the specific requirements for story poles at this project should include each corner of each building as well as the peaks of each roof line. He requested that Mr. Quinn be prepared to come back to the next Planning Commission meeting with a proposal as to how they will be handling the story poles, as well as the timing of when the story poles will be erected for review by the public and Commission. He suggested they meet with staff to determine how best to handle the situation. For the benefit of the public audience, Chairman Selich requested staff explain the procedure. Mr. Alford stated the procedures recently adopted called for the erection of 2x4's or similar materials placed at each corner of the project and the crest of the roof line to visualize the boundaries of the project and the approximate height. Commissioner Kranzley expressed his concerns about the water quality in the bay and referred to the problems currently facing Huntington Beach. He asked if the water interceptor structures proposed for the resort would be adequate to protect the bay and catch pollutants during storm runoffs or were there any better interceptors than the one referred to in the EIR. • Mr. Gleason stated that they wanted to take a proactive stance on the issue 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 of water quality and retained the services of John Tettemer & Associates to obtain the best available expertise dealing with urban runoff to provide a proven solution. The mitigation plan includes storm interceptors, which will catch and clarify dry weather flow and runoff from the beginning of storms. Commissioner Kranzley stated he also shares Commissioner Fuller's concern regarding lighting and noise. He suggested that there could be improvements to the City Noise Ordinance and perhaps special conditions should be included in the sound measurement standards of peak noise levels. Commissioner Ashley asked if the construction of approximately 700,000 square feet of building area will be built in one phase or more. Mr. Gleason stated the 500,000 square feet of the hotel will be built in one phase and the timeshare units will be built in phases, starting with 20 -40 units. Chairman Selich then solicited discussion from the Planning Commission on the draft environmental impact report. Commissioner Kranzley .stated he was taken back by the Coast Highway /Marguerite. Avenue issue, and requested clarification of information contained in the appendices. Mr. Steve Ross of LSA Associates stated they • did their best to put the traffic study analysis of trip generation and parking use in laymen's terms, but admitted the information is complicated. He introduced Mr. Wes Pringle of WPA Traffic Engineering, who conducted the traffic impact analysis for the proposed project. Mr. Pringle explained the impact of the Coast Highway /Marguerite intersection comes into play in the build -out scenario as being a problem, and increases with the project in the build -out. He stated this is due basically to the way the traffic model works. The conditions are results of the city's traffic model, and when new land uses are included, the model redistributes all the traffic so you will sometimes come up with a decrease in traffic and other time with an increase. In this case at Marguerite and Coast Highway, there is an increase in traffic in the morning peak hour. He explained that while there is an increase, it is not due solely to the project but to the redistribution of traffic that occurs when you put the project in the model. Mr. Pringle stated that traffic models are not entirely accurate. Ms. Temple provided a perspective regarding the tools used for traffic analysis, stating they become more speculative the further into time we try to estimate traffic. Therefore, we tend to have more accurate and reliable results for near term analyses than with long range analyses. As Mr. Pringle noted, when relying on a computerized traffic model which uses a fairly sophisticated mathematical methodology to distribute traffic, you don't always get the results that reach a common sense conclusion. However, Ms. Temple stated that for purposes of most projects, they are quite valuable • when comparing one scenario against another. They are less accurate when 11 .ThTD W1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 predicting absolute levels of service or intersection functions. Additionally, long -range analysis to the intersection level is really only as good as the distribution and assumptions that are put into the model. Therefore, the information provided should be used for comparative purposes rather absolute predictions for the future. Commissioner Kranzley noted that based on the information and explanation Mr. Pringle provided, the report is still confusing because it states "the project will contribute traffic to the intersection of Coast Highway and Marguerite in Corona del Mar, which is projected to operate at an unacceptable level:' Providing further clarification. Mr. Pringle stated the analysis and model results indicate that the intersection at build -out conditions would have a less than acceptable level of service. The proposed project contributes somewhat to the impact, but it is not the major contributing factor to the impact. Commissioner Gifford asked to what extent other elements can be identified that have gone into the model that do create. the traffic impacts at that intersection. Mr. Pringle stated that the model is based upon the General Plan Land Use build -out and the inputs to the model are basically that information. The model generates traffic from the General Plan, and through a mathematical procedure, distributes that traffic to the various parts of the road.system. When any input the model is changed in anyway, it goes back, • starts over and redistributes everything; it is an approximation and cannot be looked at too precisely. Commissioner Gifford asked if there is a way to incrementally phase into the model certain elements of the General Plan build -out, and then identify what it is making the major contribution at a given intersection. Mr. Pringle stated it is possible to run a select link model which shows where all the traffic is coming from and going along Coast Highway at Marguerite. Mr. Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager, verified that Mr. Pringle was correct, such a model could be done. He reiterated Ms. Temple's statement that there is a fair amount of art mixed in with the science of traffic modeling. He noted that a traffic model is an iterative process and the model reassigns traffic on each iteration, and are based on travel speed. Mr. Edmonston stated they had asked the modeling consultant, a sub - consultant of Mr. Pringle, for some additional explanation of this phenomenon, but have not yet received all that they requested. He hopes to have a better explanation before any future meetings. He noted perhaps running select link analyses on some of the intersections that don't appear to provide what might be the obvious result would be helpful in understanding the analysis. Commissioner Ashley asked about the number of trips generated per room at the resort on a daily basis. He noted the model indicates there will be 8.92 • trips. If that were applied to the 600 room hotel, the total trips would be in 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 excess of 5,500 trips. Added to that are the number of trips to the which comes to an average of 4,000 daily trips to and from the resort. an indication in the analysis that Bayside Drive north of Coast Hwy has 3.600 daily trips. He asked for an explanation of. how the tri numbers were obtained. marina, There is already count Mr. Pringle stated the 3,600 trips on Bayside Drive were an actual count over a weekend period. Mr. Steven Ross clarified the difference between the -5;400 trips generated by a 600'room hotel and the 4,800 trips generated by the project site as a whole. He noted that 150 RV spaces are being removed as a result of the project and that those trips generated by the RV traffic count for 600 daily trips. So if the 600 trips were deducted that exist today from the 5,400 trips generated by a 600 -room hotel project, you come up with 4,800 trips. Mr. Edmonston informed the Commission that the counts indicated on the first page of Appendix A of the Traffic Study were taken based on travel in the south or north bound direction. He noted the consultant has highlighted the peak counts. Mr. Pringle provided an explanation on the Jamboree /Ford situation raised by • Commissioner Ashley. The difference in this situation is the ICU values do not change with the project: there is no project impact here because there is no increase to the ICU due to the project. Whereas, the Coast Highway and Marguerite intersection was not analyzed in the near term in the TPO. It was .identified in the long -range as an impact, so it had to be identified in the report. Mr. Edmonston provided further explanation, stating the ICU short range analysis is very different with the project. This is because the already approved project is considered a committed project for the TPO analysis because it is vested through the settlement agreement. So for the purposes of the TPO, the net increase to the overall street system is only 800 daily trips, versus in the long range analysis where you are looking at 4,800 daily trips. In this analysis, you are comparing differences in the General Plan. Commissioner Tucker noted one matter an EIR is supposed to accomplish is a look at all available alternatives. He asked why an entry to the project off Jamboree wasn't at least studied. Mr. Ross stated WPA did not analyze the alternative access points because they were not part of the traffic analysis and parking analysis. However, alternative access points are included in the EIR under figures 4.7.3 on page 4.7 -11, where it provides discussion for several access alternatives. Alternatives "b" and "c" looked at access via Jamboree through Back Bay Drive to the resort through the RV park. However, that would result in eliminating approximately 100 more spaces from the RV park. Commissioner Tucker suggested that perhaps the EIR should include • additional studies on alternative access points prior to the document being 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 certified to ensure that all bases are covered. Ms. Temple informed the Commission that as set forth in CEQA, alternatives are required to be looked at in an EIR. The CEQA guidelines specify that the level of analyses for alternatives does not need to be to the level that the principal project would be analyzed. She stated if there are any particular aspects of alternative analyses the Planning Commission needs more detail in order to make an informed decision, staff would like to know in order to conduct supplemental analyses. Commissioner Kranzley noted that additional access points off Back Bay Drive may not be viable for the resort, but may be a viable as an alternative for service and employee vehicles. Commissioner Tucker continued noting the comments in the EIR regarding the impact at the intersection of Coast Highway and Marguerite, which stated that no feasible mitigation measures exists that could improve this intersection. He asked if that wasn't something that the Planning Commission would decide under the TPO and then refer to Council. How is this decision made? • Mr. Edmonston addressed the question, stating that the indication at Marguerite and Coast Highway is not under the TPO portion of the traffic study, but is part of the long range study which uses the inputs from the City's General Plan. You -may recall in the past the City had required a developer to mitigate a traffic phasing level impact by adding a 3,d east bound lane on Coast Highway. However, it was not a very effective mitigation and created a tremendous amount of animosity from the business community, and therefore it was removed. Chairman Selich asked why TPO terminology would be included in the long range projection as it contributes to the confusion. Mr. Edmonston stated he was not sure, but perhaps a different set of words could be used in the TPO, such as "infeasible improvement." Commissioner Tucker noted the type of hotel this is proposed to be seems as if it will generate less traffic than a typical hotel such as a Four Seasons, and the same methodology is being used for that type of hotel versus the proposed hotel. He noted his concern that the report is prepared in an unrealistically conservative manner. Mr. Pringle agreed the traffic study did take a very conservative approach to estimating traffic. The analysis assumed trip generation rates for a "regular' hotel and not a resort hotel for two reasons. The available data on trip generations for resort hotels is very limited. The current ITE rate is based on a study from 1972 on one hotel in Hawaii which may not be representative of is the proposed project. He does agree a resort hotel would have less traffic 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 than a Four Seasons -type hotel, but by using that type of hotel the analysis provided a worse -case condition. They also compared difference in trip generation between a 400 room hotel with 100 vacation or timeshare units versus a 600 room hotel. The 600 room hotel approach gave the higher traffic count and has been used through all the analyses. The impacts are probably over- estimated, but that procedure is what is typically used in traffic studies and has been used in Newport Beach for the last 30 years. Ms: Temple added the conservative approach is a result of numerous litigation over time within the State of California, and the directive the courts have given as to what constitutes a defensible EIR. She noted it is safer to overestimate and it is important understand the project is likely to have less impacts than those identified. Commissioner Tucker observed the numbers on Table 9 of the Traffic Study do not change much under various different conditions at each intersection. Mr. Pringle stated that these numbers represent the difference of what is in the settlement agreement and what the new project would generate. Commissioner Tucker noted the ADT for this project and that what counts under our ordinance is the impact of those trips on the levels of service. Mr. • Edmonston stated the short range analysis focuses exclusively on intersection performance and that the intersection is what controls the level of service on the entire network. In the long range analysis one would look at both intersection as well as .volumes on the links. Mr. Pringle added that daily traffic count is a very rough way of looking at an impact; technically it doesn't have a lot meaning because you have to breakdown to what is happening in a given hour to analyze it. Commissioner Fuller requested additional information regarding the shuttle service from the east side of the site along the emergency access road to the resort when the parking lot is full. He noted the comment was inconsistent with a statement that there would not be access between the two areas. Mr. Quinn stated that under such conditions when the parking structure and parking lot for the resort is full, hotel and time -share guests would be provided parking on the other side of the property and then be shuttled through the RV park to the hotel. Mr. Quinn further clarified the statement that the shuttle route would be either along the emergency access road by removing any vehicular impairment or down the promenade which would be wide enough to accommodate a van -type shuttle or electric cart shuttle. Commissioner Fuller requested a clarification regarding a comment made by Ms. Temple relative to an analysis for a proposed access point on Back Bay Drive instead of Bayside Drive. Ms Temple remarked she had said that if the Commission requested additional traffic analysis focusing on the access on Back Bay Drive, we would undertake a more detailed analysis. Commissioner • Fuller indicated he would be interested knowing what the impact would be if 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 both Back Bay Drive and Bayside Drive were available for access. Mr. Edmonston stated technically there may be a limit as to how the model can do such an analysis, because one side of the resort is in one traffic zone where trips are produced and loaded onto the network and the other half where this project is located in a different zone. The model would get very complicated and it would be a much more extensive effort to create one extra large zone that could load on to all the different roadways. Another possibility might occur if an analysis was done based on the assumption that half of the trips entered from the alternative entrance, or focused on an employee group. Chairman Selich closed the Commission's discussion to allow the public to make their comments. He stated the public review period for the EIR ends on November 15, and the agenda for the November 4th Commission meeting is light. Therefore. the Commission will continue its discussion at that time. He opened the meeting to public comments. Fred Baton, 300 East Coast Highway. Mr. Baton commented that he felt the project would be a class act and gave his blessing to the applicant. He noted Mr. Fuller's comments regarding noise across the water, and requested • consideration regarding that matter. He noted a 6 foot wall along Bayside Drive wouldn't be much of a deterrent; whereas a 9 foot wall would. He expressed his hope that the existing landscaping will remain. He noted there is no parking in Bayside Village and wondered how will a bike trail and sidewalk will be included along with parking on the street. There is currently a shortage of parking and when a visitor comes the residents move their car onto the street. Would the resort parking facilities be available to the Bayside Village residents? The conservative estimates of traffic count on Bayside Drive indicated in the Traffic Study (August 22) are overblown and he requested a more average count be done. He noted that in the 10 years he has resided in Bayside Village he has seen and heard numerous accidents and hopes that adequate turn lanes will be improved. Mr. Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star Lane, located directly across from the proposed project. Mr. Folkedal commented he is Vice President on the Board of Dover Shores Community Association. Speaking on behalf of the association, they are strongly opposed to the project. Has met a number of times with Mr. Tim Quinn and they are still agreeing to disagree. They believe that the size and elevation of the project are inconsistent with the upper Bay and residential use 200 feet across the water. The 100 timeshares look like 200 one- bedroom apartments immediately across from their homes that he and his neighbors have spent millions of dollars to own with reliance on the General Plan, the height limit and the settlement agreement. He believes the settlement agreement should be enforceable on all parties. He has met with representatives from Sea Island and Linda Isle and the other associations, • who to have independently written to Patrick Alford objecting to any change 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 in the settlement agreement and the size of the project. On behalf of his association, he has engaged experts to comment on the EIR. Commissioner Tucker asked Mr. Folkedal it the objection is to the size of the proposed project. Mr. Folkedal stated that the elevation starts at 12 feet above sea level. He noted a 75 foot structure added to that would blot out any view from the water to the horizon in front of you, creating a Marina del .Rey -like structure. In addition to the height, he opposes the inherent noise impact. The potential exists to have 5,000 new neighbors across the water on vacation with their windows and doors open. He noted both the Newport Dunes and Hyatt Newporter do not presently comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. At the end of the Jazz Series, Mrs. Folkedal used the decibel meter to measure the music at 10:30 p.m. and got a reading of 68 dB. Commissioner Tucker commented on the amount of technical information presented and expressed his appreciation to Mr. Folkedal's approach to represent his interest. Mr. Folkedal noted he is in the aviation industry and a local businessman, also the treasurer of the Airport Working Group, and he is very much aware of the importance of addressing facts. Commissioner Gifford asked if Mr. Folkedal if he has any opinion as to whether or not his association has standing to enforce the settlement agreement. Mr. Folkedal stated they had asked that of their counsel this afternoon and had not yet received an opinion, although they believe they do. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff -about the letters submitted by the Homeowners' Associations. Mr. Alford stated some correspondence may have been received in response to the earlier mitigated negative declaration, but we have since received correspondence specifically regarding the DEIR over the course of several months. He stated they are attempting to relay the letters as they are received and will include all of the letters from the Homeowners' Associations when we present our staff report at a later time. Bert Oblig, 305 Morning Star Lane, also directly across from the proposed project. He noted they currently have a number of sources of noise from parties at the Dunes with live bands, DJ's, etc., the Hyatt Newporter, the Back Bay Cafe and occasionally the rowing base. Mr. Oblig expressed his concern for the lack of care shown for the neighbors. He noted that while Bayside Village has been addressed, there is no indication in the EIR of noise mitigation for the residents in the Dover Shores neighborhood. He noted that the Back Bay is a beautiful nature area, and some of the views will be obscured by the proposed project. The intended use for the project is for conventions and timeshare vacation units, with the potential of 5,000 people on site partying and vacationing. He also expressed his concern of the magnitude and nature of the project; uses which are not compatible with • the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 Commissioner Ashley provided a clarification regarding the assumption of 5,000 transients at the site across from Mr. Oblig's residence. The 100 timeshare units built at an average of 1,000 square feet and made into 2 lockable rooms could sleep 4 people at most. Consequently, the most any one time in the timeshares would be 800 people. Commissioner Gifford further clarified the concept Mr. Folkedal and Mr. Oblig were trying make with respect to 5,000 people at the site. She noted they were attempting to distinguish between two different groups of people in the 200 possible units for occupancy: those who would live there year round versus rotating groups of people staying for 5 days trying to get the maximum amount of enjoyment in that short time. Commissioner Kranzley informed Mr. Folkedal and Mr. Oblig that the city does have a party ordinance, which would apply to this property. Mr. Alford further elaborated that. the noise.ordinance affects all properties, both now and in the future.. In addition, he noted there are special events permits that are used to regulate the outdoor activities. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that this ordinance would not apply to the people staying in the timeshare units. If they disturbed the peace and the police were called out, they would • fall under the party ordinance which would cost the landlord (in this case the hotel) $500 after the first offense. Therefore, there does exist a means to protect the residents in the area. Mr. Alford pointed out that the proposed Planned Community Development Plan contains a provision for a noise management program should any problems arise that have not been anticipated. These provisions give the Planning Director the ability to enforce additional noise regulations. Commissioner Kranzley noted the Planning Commission could call the permit up and place additional restrictions on the use. Mr. Alford noted the PC Development Plan text also provides precise plans that function as a use permit, so they can be conditioned and called up for review if necessary. Chairman Selich asked if staff was satisfied with the accurate representation of the visual simulation contained in the eir regarding what the project is proposed to look like. Mr. Alford stated yes, we are comfortable that they accurately depict the project as it will appear on the site. He also pointed out we are doing some additional visual analysis from other perspectives. Barbara Cohen, 1007 Dolphin Terrace in Irvine Terrace, 2 doors down from Pacific Coast Highway at Jamboree. Over the 28 years she has lived on Dolphin Terrace, Pacific Coast Highway has changed from 4 lanes to 14 lanes at that intersection and Jamboree from 2 to 5 lanes at that intersection. Recently she was made aware that the level of that intersection was raised in height approximately 5 feet. Now there are plans for another hotel which will • bring 4,800 additional trips a day to what was once quiet beach community. 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 At the speed this area has been developed, there has been a neglect to do things to protect long time residents. She would like to know what is planned to control the noise, the,light, and air pollution that has impacted all the local residents from this speedy development. She noted the standard of living has been decreasing, and would like to know what is planned to compensate long time residents of the increasing impacts. She.found no facts that a new hotel. is needed, and with the proposed development will come more traffic in the way of airplanes, buses, automobiles. Thus creating a wealth for the property owners and city, with no regard for the repercussion this resort development will make on long time residents in the area. She was particularly interested in part 2 of the EIR, page 12 figure 3 regarding ICU analysis for the intersection of Jamboree and Coast Highway. She thanked the Commission and provided staff with her written concerns. Joyce Lawhorn, 265-Mayflower Street in Bayside Village. She stated she doesn't feel the DER sufficiently takes into consideration the concerns of the residents on her street. Their homes back up to the project. The parking structure is proposed to be in 3 levels will look over her back door. She is also concerned about the lighting from the top level of the hotel with all the • guests entering and exiting and the light spillage. The only mitigation planned for sound is a 9 foot wall along her fence. The unloading of everything for the full service hotel is to take place behind her home between hours 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. The construction times will be from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. five days a week, from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on Saturday and on Sundays whenever they feel there will not be any noise impact. She believes they will be impacted and the matter should be looked at. There is not enough setback, a green bell should be placed between her neighborhood and the 9 foot wall. Chairman Selich thanked the public for their comments and reminded them this is the beginning of the process and is not a public hearing. In the interim, if the public has any comments on the EIR or project itself, they should place them in writing and send them to staff for forwarding to the Planning Commission. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple stated there was no City Council meeting on October 11. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - None. • c.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan 19 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 program - Ms. Temple reported the various committees have continued to meet, and the most significant thing to report is that we are still holding with our schedule. The principal activities related to the traffic study are fully underway. The NOP is out and we are still receiving comments on that document. The next study session with the Planning Commission will be November 4th. Chairman Selich asked about plans for another parking structure in the 400 Block of Newport Center. Ms. Temple stated the item came up for preliminary review with the Development Review Committee approximately 3 months ago. The request was to further extend the existing parking structure in order to address the shortfall of parking in this area. Mr. Edmonston advised that the structure is currently in plan check and adds 200 parking spaces. Commissioner Kranzley asked if consideration is being given to the impact at Coast Highway and Marguerite from the Dunes Resort and the implication that this might have on any additional build out at Newport Center. d.j Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a • subsequent meeting - Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Edmonston if it would be possible in future dialog or written materials regarding "feasible improvements" to be specific about why an intersection is not practical. Mr. Edmonston advised that the city attorney has been involved in some of the traffic studies in an attempt to develop wording that would more closely match wording in the ordinance. The purpose is to show how it relates to the ordinance and make findings in the ordinance fall in line with what is in the study. Mr. Edmonston also advised a supplemental study for the Dunes Resort project is being prepared which complies fully with the new TPO. Commissioner Ashley expressed his concern about the transient occupancy tax that is not paid to the city with people occupy time share units and would like staff to report at a later time. He would like to know how the city calculates the revenues that would be forthcoming from projects where a TOT is not paid. Commissioner Kranzley stated this a long standing concern of his as well; however, this is in the purview of City Council. Commissioner Ashley stated he did not believe the Commission should act on the matter, but rather learn more about it. Further, he believes the Commission should be involved in making decisions relative to economic supply and demand issues, but not be involved in making decisions based on financial considerations. Ms. Temple stated she would transmit to the Commission some of the staff reports prepared for Council from when the City was considering • the timeshare ordinance. She also stated a fiscal impact report will be 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1999 transmitted to the Commission as part of the hearing package for this particular project. Both of these items should provide answers to Commissioner Ashley's questions. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report — none. Chairman Selich announced he received a letter this date from Commissioner Hoglund submitting his resignation from the Planning Commission. f.) Requests for excused absences - none ADJOURNMENT: 10:05 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • • 21 INDEX Adjournment