HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/2000• Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
6
•
ROLL CALL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Commissioners Fuller, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker -
Commissioner Fuller was excused, Commissioner Gifford arrived at 7:05
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Wood - Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director
Robin Clauson - Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonton- Transportation /Development Services Manager
Patrick Alford - Senior Planner
Genia Garcia - Associate Planner
Ginger Varin - Planning Commission Secretary
Minutes of January 20,2000:
Motion was made by Commission Ashley and voted on, to approve as written
the minutes of January 20, 2000.
Ayes:
Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes:
None
Absent:
Gifford, Fuller
Abstain:
Kiser
Public Comments:
Dan Jensen of 1811 W. Bay Avenue read a letter to the Planning Commission
regarding proposed expansion of property at 1813 W. Bay Avenue.
Gene Grant of 1812 W. Balboa Boulevard a neighbor or Mr. Jensen noted his
concern with parking at the proposed expansion of property at 1813 W. Bay
Avenue.
POstina of the Agenda:
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, January 28, 2000.
Minutes
Approved
Public Comments
Posting of the Agenda
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
0
•
SUBJECT: Dolin Residence Retaining Wall
• Modification permit No. 4968
• Acceptance of a Negative Declaration
Request to permit the construction of a 15 foot high rear yard retaining wall with
a 3 foot guardrail on top, which exceeds the permitted 6 foot height limit in the
side and rear yard setback areas. The proposed retaining wall is intended to
stabilize an unsafe slope and reclaim a portion of rear yard lost due to erosion.
The retaining wall will reclaim approximately 29 feet of rear yard surface area,
which previously was slope.
Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has asked for an additional two -week
continuance. She added that due to the constraints of State Law, the
Commission would be required to act at their next meeting to either approve or
deny this application. The applicant has been apprised of this.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to the next
meeting of February 17, 2000.
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Fuller
SUBJECT: Buddha's Favorite, Inc.
634 lido Park Drive
• Use Permit No. 3390 Amended
Request to convert an existing take -out restaurant to a full- service, small scale
eating and drinking establishment with alcoholic beverage service. The
application includes a request to establish a new alcoholic beverage service
outlet pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code. Also included is a
request for modification or waiver of off - street parking requirements and the use
of an accessory outdoor dining area.
Public comment was opened.
Miko Ushida, 655 Baker Street, BB 101, Costa Mesa owner, at Commission inquiry
stated that she has read, understands and agrees to all the findings and
conditions of this application.
Commissioner Ashley clarified with the applicant the seating arrangements of
twenty chairs inside for dining purposes and an outdoor table seating of four for
the service or beer or wine.
INDEX
Item No. 1
Modification Permit
No. 4968
Acceptance of a
Negative Declaration
Continued to
02/17/2000
Item No. 2
City of Newport Beach
•
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
Ms. Ushida answered that beer and alcohol will be served outside only if a
license is acquired from the ABC. The purpose of the table now is for outdoor
dining.
Commissioner Ashley then asked staff if any additional parking would be
required.
Ms. Temple answered that the Code allows Accessory Outdoor Dining without
the provision of additional parking so long as it stays within 25°10 of the net interior
public area. This dining area meets those criteria, so no additional parking is
required.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve Use Permit No. 3390
Amended
Commissioner Ashley stated he was not in favor of this application due to a
parking shortage that would be increased by this application.
Commissioner Gifford noted that the outdoor seating might be used just as
• often by people waiting for take -out food as for actual dining.
At Commission inquiry, Ms Temple noted that staff has not done any parking
counts or analysis. Typically during the day, there is some available parking in
the common parking lot. However, in the evening, when the Blue Water Grill is
in operation, there is great competition for the parking in the area.
Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: Ashley
Absent: Fuller
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3390 Amended
Use Permit No. 3390 Amended
Findings:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for 'Retail and
Service Commercial' use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage service
is considered a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with
the General Plan.
2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
• categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the
3
•11.11:1
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
California Environmental Quality Act.
3. The waiver of restaurant development standards as they pertain to the site,
off - street parking, landscaping and walls surrounding the restaurant site will
not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The project meets the purpose
and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for
restaurants (full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment) and
will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those
requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application, for the
following reasons:
• The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed
to be altered.
• The waiver of parking would not adversely impact the existing
parking situation and adequate parking is available on site to
accommodate this use.
• Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the
subject property.
• The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the
property to control noise can be achieved by the
recommended limitation on the hours of operation which should
• prevent potential noise problems.
• The change to the restaurant facility from a take-out facility to a
full- service, small -scale facility does not constitute a significant
change, which warrants an increase in landscape area.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter
20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following
reasons:
The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the
sale of desired beverages in a restaurant setting.
The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police
reporting district in which the project is proposed is greater than
the percentage citywide, and in the adjacent reporting
districts one is higher and the other lower than the citywide
percentages, due to more commercial land uses in these three
reporting districts. However, the small scale of the restaurant
and limited nature of the alcoholic beverage service (beer and
wine only) should prevent significant problems from the
alcoholic beverage outlet.
• There are no day care centers, schools, or park and recreation
facilities in the vicinity of the project site, though there are
residential uses located across the channel from the property.
. However, the project is not expected to be a problem since it is
4
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
oriented so that the activity is directed away from the
residential uses and there is limited seating and no bar area.
A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made
based on the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in
a restaurant setting.
5. Approval of Use Permit No. 3390A to permit a full- service small -scale
restaurant with service of on -sale alcoholic beverages will not, under the
circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons:
• The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding
commercial uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in
commercial districts.
• Conditions of approval have been included which should
prevent problems associated with the service of alcoholic
beverages and noise.
is a Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and
proposed uses.
• The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service
use which serves the residential and commercial uses and
visiting tourists in the area.
• The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of
the facility as a restaurant.
• The establishment will provide regular food service from the full
menu at all times the facility is open.
• Because the restaurant does not have a bar area specifically
designed for the service of alcoholic beverages, the potential
number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
problems in the area should be minimized.
Conditions:
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
site plan and floor plan except as noted below.
2. The interior dining area shall be limited to 20 seats maximum as delineated
on the approved floor plans. Any increase in the number of seating for
customers shall be subject to the approval of a use permit.
3. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to the interior of the
building, unless the appropriate approvals are obtained from the Police
Department and the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
4. The development standard pertaining to the site, perimeter walls, off - street
parking (4 spaces being waived) and landscaping shall be waived.
5. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction
with the proposed operation.
6. The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility as
defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose for the
sale or service of food and beverages.
7. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to
operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a
use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission.
8. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of
Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be limited to "beer and wine" and only in
conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. Any
upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the
approval of an amendment to this application and may require the
approval of the Planning Commission.
• 9. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership,
any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this
approval by either the current owner or leasing company.
10. This approval is for on -sale alcoholic beverage service only. The off -sale of
alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption is prohibited.
11. Alcoholic beverage service shall be permitted in the outdoor dining area
upon approval of the Police Department and the State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control.
12. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
13. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to
discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance
in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage
outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the
patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet.
14. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be
prohibited.
15. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the
• permitted use.
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
16. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise
standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of the
Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or
successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to
monitor the sound generated by the restaurant facility to develop a set of
corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance.
17. The hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00, daily.
18. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter
and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal
of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting
sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
19. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times the
restaurant establishment is open for business.
20. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall
undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in
responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to
. meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the
standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage
Service or other certifying /licensing body which the State may designate.
The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within
180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
21. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion
of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the
premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the
City of Newport Beach.
Standard Reauirements
The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
approval.
2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems
be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer.
3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code.
4. The proposed restaurant facility and related off - street parking shall conform
. to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
6. Public Improvement may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040
of the Municipal Code.
7. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
8. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with
the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a
license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date.
9. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to
this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use
Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this
Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
• 10. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
11. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of
noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers,
paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement. The
noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall
be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods:
a�+
•
INDEX
Between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Between the hours of
10:00p.m.and7:00p. m.
interior exterior
interior
exterior
Measured at the property fine of
commercially zoned property:
N/A 65 dBA
N/A
60 dBA
Measured at the property One of
residentially zoned property:
N/A 60 dBA
N/A
50 dBA
a�+
•
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
SUBJECT: Udvore Residence (Joseph B. Udvare, applicant)
2716 and 2718 Shell Street
• Variance No. 1234
• Modification No. 5040
Request to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling which
exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal
includes a modification to the Zoning Code for the following encroachments:
• Four 14) feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback with the
dwelling, and
• A bay window that will encroach 5 feet 6 inches into the required 10
foot rear yard setback and 1 foot 6 inches into the required 4 foot
side yard setback on the first and second stories.
Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of two
weeks.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to the next
meeting of February 17, 2000.
• Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Fuller
SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership
101 North Bayside Drive and
1131 Back Bay Drive
• General Plan Amendmet No. 97 -3 F
• local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51
• Zoning Code Amendment No. 878
• Planned Community District Plan (PC -48)
• Development Agreement No. 12
• Traffic Study No. 115
• Environmental Impact Report No. 157
• Conceptual Precise Plan
• Final Precise Plan
A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan
for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a
hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet
facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and
swimming pools and landscaped garden areas.
• Commissioner Selich noted that this is the second public hearing that the
9
INDEX
Item No. 3
Continued to
02/17/2000
Item No. 4
Discussion Item Only
Continued to
02/03/2000
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
Commission has held on this issue. At the last public hearing we received
comments from about 48 people on the project. We thank those of you who
participated. We ask that if you did testify at the last meeting, you not repeat
your testimony as it is already on the record. We are looking for new
information this evening, primarily on the environmental document and the
response to comments.
Senior Planner Patrick Alford stated this is the second report on the project.
The first report addressed the General Plan, the Local Coastal Plan and Zoning
Code amendments as well as the PC District Plan and the Conceptual Precise
Plan. This report focuses on the Development Agreement, EIR and responses
to questions raised at the January 20th meeting. We had hoped to have the
revised TPO traffic report, however, it is still under preparation by our traffic
consultant.
He noted the following:
The Development Agreement -
• .Vests the right of the applicant to proceed with the project approved by
the City for the 25 -year term of the agreement.
• Owners of timeshare developments who stay at Newport Dunes through
an exchange program will be assessed an entitlement fee of 10% of the
timeshare maintenance fee in effect at the time of the exchange.
• The City will have the right to use a portion of the property to facilitate
maintenance of the Bay.
• The applicant will contribute $75,000 to be used by the City to fund
projects or studies that improve the water quality or the environment in
Upper and /or Lower Newport Bay.
• The applicant will contribute $25,000 for the City to use in constructing or
equipping a Marine Educational and Water Quality facility on Shellmaker
Island.
• The applicant will pay up to $200,000 for the design and construction of a
view park at Upper Bayview Landing,
The EIR -
• Responses to the comments received from individuals and agencies
during the public review period, which ran from October 1s' to November
15, 1999.
• An addendum to the EIR was prepared for the alternative (Entry Gate)
design for Bayside Drive.
• In addition, supplemental noise studies were conducted to noise issues
raised by residents of Dover Shores.
• Still outstanding is an addendum for the relocation of the service road and
sound wall on the western property line. However, preliminary analysis
reveals no new significant impacts.
• Finally, staff has prepared written responses to the questions raised at the
• January 20th hearing as well as any other questions that were mailed,
10
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
faxed or e- mailed to us before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 31s. He
concluded noting that the applicant would provide additional
information.
Public comment was opened.
Ann Evans, Chairman of Evans Hotel, owner and operator of Newport Dunes,
made a brief presentation focusing. on specific issues including additional
computer generated animations on the 3D model; heights and key points of
the Development Agreement. The quality we envision for the Newport Hotel
will be of a quality level represented in the photographs presented in the
exhibit. Mrs. Evans then turned the presentation over to Mr. Gleason after
explaining the difference between four star and five star designations.
Mr. Robert Gleason noted the following as he presented an overview of the
resort location. The slide presentation featured:
•
Surrounding residential and commercial developments.
•
Total of 100 acres on parcel.
•
Visual aspects of the project include land use, traffic, architectural details;
landscaping, parking structure, vistas and enhanced paving features.
•
The finished grade of the public areas next to the Castaways is
approximately 1 10 feet with the top elevation.
• •
The architectural detail includes water features and reflecting pools.
•
Buildings are to be from 1 story to 5 story.
•
Brent Chase prepared the visual simulations. Past experience amounts to
over ten years in this field.
•
The east end of the time -share units is at a three -story level. There was a
project change from four -story to three -story; however, the change was
not reflected in the architectural plans discussed at the previous meeting.
The change was however incorporated in and analyzed in the EIR and
was accounted for in the visual simulations. The architectural plans will be
amended.
•
Building heights:
➢ 1 story - 12 feet (conference rooms and public areas)
➢ 2 story - 10 feet plus roof is 28 to 32 feet depending on how wide the
roof needs to be
➢ 3 story - 10 feet plus roof plus elevation is 50 feet with elevator turrets
➢ 4 story - 40 feet plus roof elevation is 50 feet with elevator roofs at 60
feet (at main time share building)
➢ 5 story - 60 feet plus elevator area is 75 feet maximum (about 1017a of
the building floor area not including the parking structures)
• Project benefits include conference space; improved public access;
additional revenue to city and local economy as well as the Development
Agreement conditions.
Brent Chase, of Hedrick, Chase and Associates, 27123 Calle Royal, San Juan
• Capistrano at Commission inquiry described the methodology used for the
11
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
interactive video and the pictures in the EIR that had the projected building
Within the existing landscapes. He explained that:
• Starts with a 3 Dimensional model that is modeled in real world dimension.
It is combined with site features in the computer model, shore line, streets,
etc.
• Visit the site and with input by the City and the applicant, take a number
of photographs from around the site.
Those photographic positions are then surveyed which gives the
coordinates.
• The coordinates are fed into the computer, which in turn presents that
perspective to us that matches the photographs.
• The photographs are then combined in the computer with the model in an
overlay method. As long as those site features that were put in the
computer model align with the photograph, i.e., edges of streets, boxes for
trailers, water edge, we know the computer model is locked into that
photograph.
• We have been doing this for the past ten years and have set the industry
standard in Southern California. It is the most accurate way to work.
• A panoramic camera with a fixed lens is used. It exposes the negative
that is the same proportion as the images you see, about 2 112 frames
wide and 1 frame high. It provides a panoramic view of the project
• without the distortion you get from wide -angle lenses.
• Per our analysis of how to use these images, the best of all worlds is to
present it billboard size and stand in front of it as you would at the project.
However, in order to have the proper viewing distance, you should be the
some distance to the display as the width of the display. It will fill your
peripheral vision as it would on site.
Commissioner Tucker asked about the difference of the feature on the time-
share. Did you take elevations that were outdated and plug them into the
initial analysis?
Mr. Chase answered that the original analysis was done about two years ago.
A year later, we were provided with a different concept study that showed
the time -share units at a three -story height. That computer model was then
inserted into our system and became the standard that we worked with. That
model was then the one that was utilized for the latest Dover Shores
illustrations, etc. It does not match the architectural drawings; it was a model
that was developed to assess a different design option with a lower time -share
building.
Commissioner Gifford asked if the photographs and visual representations
presented tonight represent the full picture? We had talked before about
what might be done as an alternative to story poles and I want to make sure
that we know when you have reached your total development ideas.
Mr. Gleason answered that when we started on the process, we said we
12
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
would continue to develop that computer model until it represents the full
architectural and landscape plans and provided views all around the project
from an animated movie view as well as interactive nodes. Some of the
landscape and all of the architectural plans are in the model. We can show
the 3D model from each of the public viewing spots that were in the EIR, i.e.,
the Castaways from the public walk. We will show an insertion of the model
into the real video in the foreground and in the background showing
Castaways and Dover Shores, which is the most complicated part of the
process and is not ready yet.
Commissioner Kiser asked about the height of a maximum of 75 feet,
representing 2000 square feet of elevator towers.
Mr. Gleason confirmed that would be the maximum amount of square
footage at that particular height. Referencing the exhibit, he pointed out the
elevator towers in the project as well as the architectural details.
Commissioner Kiser then asked for additional information to be presented at
the next meeting showing the square footages on all the elevator towers, to
which Mr. Gleason agreed.
Chairperson Selich then reminded the people in the audience, that in the
anteroom, there is a list of questions that were answered and who asked what
questions.
Commissioner Tucker stated that the Commission has a two- volume version of
the environmental impact report with subsequent comments and responses.
At some point the Commission is going to have to reach a conclusion on the
adequacy of that report and its completeness. What would be helpful, to the
extent of those who have read the reports, is to specify where you think
mistakes or inadequacies are in the report. It is not helpful to have someone
stand up and say that traffic is awful, what is helpful is to say that the report
does not adequately describe what traffic will be like because, then get as
specific as possible.
Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood added that the Environmental Quality
Affairs Committee (EQAC) has been reviewing the draft EIR and has provided
comments and intends to review the final EIR. That have set a special
meeting for this coming Monday, the 7th to complete their review and will
have a representative at the next Commission meeting to present their
comments.
Public comment was opened.
Esther Fine, 1830 Santiago Drive, as a member of the Orange Coast
Association of Realtors corrected a statement made at the last Planning
• Commission meeting of January 201h. Diane Coltrane stated that she was
13
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
representing the Newport Beach Association of Realtors and that the
Association was in favor of the Dunes project. A mistake was made, as there is
no Newport Beach .Association of Realtors, we are known as the Orange
Coast. Association of Realtors and our Association has not endorsed this
project. Diane was speaking on behalf of herself and not on behalf of the
Association. The Dover Shores Homeowners Association is not In favor of the
Dunes project, as it is proposed, however, we have no objection to what was
agreed . upon in the Settlement Agreement of 1988. We challenge the
comments made by a Mr. Louis Masadi who stated that property values near
a five star or luxury hotel appreciates. We know that property values
appreciate as market values go up, however, as a realtor, property values
near commercial real estate is much less in value than those in residential
communities.
Betty Padden, 213 E. Bay Front asked about the traffic at the entrance. It was
inquired if there was to be another entrance, but they were told it was
impossible because the blue prints had already been made. When you look
at how much traffic will be coming in off Coast Highway, including all the
commercial and building trucking as well as the parking of the employees
who will be traveling in and out. The width of Bayside is not that big
considering the size of.the construction trucks that have to travel. We have to
• think of everybody. I ask that you put another road in to help people get in
and out. Otherwise, it could be a potential fire hazard.
Pat. Greenbaum, 300 East Coast Highway, #25 stated that the Planning
Commission needs to stay focused on the issue. The issue is not the quality of
the resort and hotel and interior design. It is not the Evans Family legacy, nor is
it increased property value. The issue is not city revenue, I believe the issue is
location. A project of this magnitude does not belong in the center of several
residential planned communities and the rim of an ecological reserve that is
protected by the Coastal Act, Section 30240. The entire project site lies within
the Coastal Zone and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Coastal
Commission. Reading from a Coastal Commission letter dated August 1998 to
the Planning Department quoted, 'The Coastal Commission staff believes that
the proposed Newport Dunes project with the mitigation measures outlined in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inconsistent with the applicable Coastal
Act policies as well as post Commission actions for the project in the
surrounding site. That is the issue, and the last word I believe comes from the
Coastal Commission.
Ralph Rodheim, 311 Onyx stated his support for the project noting the quality
of the project. It will be good for our community. This project needs to be of
the right size and traffic should not impact the residents.
Dave Brownell. 300 East Coast Highway, #67 stated that this project must be
held to accountability. He recounted a survey of the Bayside Village
• Association advisory vote as 69% favoring a gatehouse and security gate and
14
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
88% favoring a relocation of the sound wall. I called 100 of my neighbors and
got the following responses - 3 declined to state opinion, 8 were undecided,
21 opposed the Dunes project and 68 favored the project. I believe this truly
represents the current sentiment in Bayside Village after all of the discussions of
the past several months and after the proposed mitigation measures.
Darwin Britvich, 300 East Coast Highway #31 spoke in support of this project
because.the Evans people have shown a tremendous amount of concern for
the issues of the people who live in my community. Some of these are
legitimate concerns, and they have tried to mitigate them in a very
reasonable way and they are continuing to do so. A lot of people who live in
Bayside approve this project, however, we do want to see some things taken
care of that show concern for us.
Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower Street noted her concerns for the community.
She stated that her street is 3 feet from the west boundary of the project and
that no one will feel the impact as much as the. residents on Mayflower Street.
If this was a business complex, it would at least be closed at 6 p.m. and closed
on the weekends. But, this is a resort hotel that is open 7 days a week, 24 hours
a day with most of its use occurring at night or on the weekends. This hotel will
loom 75 feet above us. We ask you to reject this proposal as planned; we are
• not against a plan. The impact that this project will have on our lives, on the
privacy and even our health puts us in jeopardy. Additionally seven sections
of the California Coastal Act state that this proposed development does not
conform to its guidelines for boating, public access, low cost housing and
recreational activities, just to name a few.
Robert Bolen, 265 Mayflower Street commented that this project does not
belong in Upper Newport Bay. Specifically, we on Mayflower Street have a
problem with the location. The proposed nine -foot wall will not stop noise from
the vehicles and trucks on the service road. We would like you to hire a sound
engineer to prove this point. Hotel guests with their vehicles at the top of the
parking structure after 10:00 p.m. are going to cause a lot of noise, commotion
and disturbance. It happens in every hotel. At the top of the garage is a
main entry to the hotel with people coming and going at all hours of the day
and night. We are concerned about after 10:00 p.m. The air conditioners will
also produce a lot of noise along with blowers. All this noise will be right above
us only thirty feet away. The proposed project will create intolerable noise
over the City's 50- decibel limit at all hours of the day and night. There will be
air pollution. These will all affect our quality of life and will impact our property
values.
Mrs. Long, 214 Tremont, stated that she does not oppose the project.
However, she opposes the use of Bayside Drive as the main thoroughfare
because of air pollution. We live under jet fuel fall out, plus dirt, grime, dust
plus emissions from the cars will add to the pollution. Is there anyway that the
• main entrance can be Jamboree to Back Bay Drive? Please think about it, we
15
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
do need help, as we will be greatly impacted by the air pollution.
Collin Berger, 601 Bayside. Drive spoke as a designated representative of the
Promontory Bay Homeowners Association. We are concerned with the height
density and traffic that this project will create. We doubt the credibility of the
traffic survey where it states that not one car would travel south on Bayside
Drive. We are not opposed to any development of the Newport Dunes
property and are willing to work with the project applicant and other
homeowner associations that are opposing the development in an effort to
forge a development plan that is acceptable to all. We would ask that you
postpone any action on this project to give us time to meet with interested
parties to come up with a development plan that we can all embrace. To
approve the project as proposed will only lead to greater delays for the
project, possible environmental litigation and a great dissent in the City. We
will work with great diligence and good faith to come to a common ground
on this project.
Larry Porter, 2712 Cliff Drive added his opposition to this project for similar
reasons previously stated.
Bert Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane stated that he has put a lot of time and
effort in studying the exhibits presented in this application and that they are
too high and too close.. He then distributed exhibits to the Commission. He
voiced his concern with the presentations made by the applicants. He stated
that his past exhibits he presented are not in the response to general
-comments and asked that they be included, along with his presentation
tonight.
Mr. Alford noted that the materials received after the hearings are included in
the staff report. In every case, Mr. Ohlig submitted his exhibits at the hearing,
so you have them before you. The ones received after the report went out
have been submitted before you tonight.
Susan Caustin, 471 Old Newport Boulevard, asked for story poles as that is the
only way to get the accurate information. She distributed a plot plan where
she recommended that they be erected. She asked the Planning Commission
to pay close attention to the quality of the hotel that is coming in and if
necessary, to make sure there are quality assurances within the project. She
questioned the traffic report that removes 600 trips from the RV spots that are
going to be removed and considers that they do not need to be counted.
Those RV traffic trips would come out onto Jamboree and not onto Bayside
Drive. Those traffic trips need to be added into the impact at Bayside, they
may be within the number of trips allowable, but I think they need to be
calculated into the ICU numbers of the Bayside /PCH intersection because if
600 cars come on to Jamboree, what happens if 300 go one way and 300 go
the other way. You only end up with 10 or 15 of those cars of the 600 at PCH
• and Bayside going out the other way. They will all end up in the Bayside
16
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
intersection. I question whether the noise from the garage has been looked at
closely enough for its impact on Bayside Village. I am not sure that it has been
looked at closely enough.
Bob Cdustin, 471 Old Newport Boulevard #203 representing Defend the Bay
stated that the visuals are flawed. Therefore, the only right thing to do is re-
circulate the EIR and let people know they have to look. at it again. As to the
bay quality, the applicant is proposing to have run -off go out into the main
channel going away from the lagoon away because the system they have
chosen is going to eliminate only 80% of the pollutants. However, they happen
to be the least dirty of the pollutants. Still going into the bay will by the silts
and the clay which carry the pesticides, phosphorous, nitrates and things you
don't want to come in contact with. He presented a transcript of people who
experience the displeasure of putting up with an Evans Hotel. (He then
discussed his experience during his stay at the Bahia Hotel as well as his
experience at the Catamaran Hotel).
Ramona Harris, 300 East Coast Highway stated her support of the project
noting it will be safe. She then discussed similar hotels in the area comparing
traffic and length of time it takes to sell all the time - shares.
• George Sanders, 300 East Coast Highway stated his support of the project
after the creative work done by the applicants to improve problems on
Bayside Drive guard gate. There is a problem on Mayflower and that is why
the wall has been moved back and raised and is a definite improvement that
will help everybody. We are interested in seeing this hotel go forward.
Peggy Fort, 614 Via Lido Nord, as a business owner stated her support for the
project as it will bring in revenue to local businesses as well as the revenues
through the TOT. As a resident, I look forward to referring my out of state family
and friends when they come to visit me here in Newport Beach.
Rush Hill, 1211 Cliff Drive spoke in support of this project as an architect,
planner and First Chairman of the Economic Development Committee. He
stated that we must compete with our surrounding communities for a
sustainable revenue source and, where appropriate, mitigation opportunities
and mitigation revenues. I believe out of the sites that are available in the
overall community, this site is the appropriate place for this project. Those of
us, who live in this town, demand a high quality of life. The police, fire, marine,
the water quality, the harbor quality, parks, road, even the free trash service
we demand must be funded on an ever - growing basis and we must compete
with other communities for that opportunity. The City of Costa Mesa enacted
a doubling of its TOT and a doubling of its marketing campaign because they
recognize that a project like this is the kindest kind of project to serve visitors, to
serve the community and generate substantial revenue such as sales tax, TOT,
and property tax. Huntington Beach is bringing on line 500 new rooms and
• 55,000 square feet on our border in one project. We continually lose business
17
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
on a weekly basis to the City of Irvine. Our income from Newport Beach
residents funds Irvine City Hall in part because we can not hold meetings,
conferences and banquets in our community the size of Irvine. It is important
for this project to be able to have that ability to compete. The other sites that
have been identified over the past six years, for a property of this type and
community, Marina Park, Mariner's Mile, South Coast Ship Yard, Lido, those four
sites would only hold a "boutique" property, if any at all. The Dunes is the only
site we have where we can build the type of competition base that we need
to have to compete with other communities. We can not put our heads in the
sand. If we do nothing, we are going to have these properties all around our
borders. We will have the traffic as they arrive at John Wayne Airport; they
drive through Newport Beach to get to Huntington Beach. We will not have
the mitigation opportunities, we will not have the revenue opportunities and
we will be as we were six years ago, looking to reduce the quality of life in this
town, reduce the police and fire protection, marine and all the rest because
we did not plan properly. I urge you to support this project, as it is carefully
planned, carefully thought out and look forward to having it in this community.
Stephen Sutherland, 2101 15th Street spoke in support of this project
representing the Economic Development Committee. He stated that the
EDC was presented and asked to make comments on the fiscal impact
• analysis that was prepared by Dave Kiff of City staff. This analysis deals with
the revenues that the proposed Newport Dunes Resort project would
generate for the City. It looks at bottom line net revenues. The income
streams were presented in three different categories. The first category was
property tax, the second category was sales tax revenues and the third
category was the hotel occupancy tax or TOT. The property tax shares
resulting from the improvements on the tidelands property and held in trust by
the County pay a possessory interest tax instead of a direct property tax. The
Dunes project would likely value the property as an ownership, which will
make the project's hotel and timeshare subject to tax liability identical to the
taxes paid by a traditional property. The structure of the hotel ($100 per
square foot valuation) at 485,000 square foot complex or $48.5 million. The 100
timeshares units would have 51 intervals and at some point in the future all of
those intervals would sell out. Assuming that the cost for a one -week interval
would average $20,000.
Barbara Kenady, 1 Palagonia Aisle, Irvine stated her support of this project on
behalf of non - profit organizations that have benefited from the Dunes
generosity. The generosity from the Evans Family is greatly valued in the
community. The Evans Family has integrity, experience in hotel management
and they are extremely conscientious. The Newport Dunes expansion could
only add to their giving back to the community.
Pauline Bearden, 212 Tremont stated her support of this project. She stated
that the Dunes is a lovely place and is a great asset to the community.
0
18
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
Lee Rutter Runels, 941 Via Lido Soud voiced her support for the Dunes project.
She has witnessed the transformation of the Dunes from a run down eye sore
to an attractive multi - purpose resort. The proposed hotel will exceed
expectations and create another wonderful place for residents and visitors to
enjoy. The additional meeting space will be great for local residents. Those of
us who live in Newport have seen a great deal of change, some good, some
bad. I believe that this project is one of the good ones. The owners and
management of the Dunes have been great neighbors for the last fifteen
years. It will create jobs as well as create revenue for Newport, tax dollars that
will be used to hopefully maintain and improve our community.
Larry Root, 1210 Polaris Drive as a member of the Dover Shores Homeowners
Association stated that when he bought his home, he relied on the
subsequent General Plan and height limitations, especially the Settlement
Agreement. Many members of the association feel the same. We are
concerned about the beautiful area of the Back Bay that is not the place to
put a large convention hotel. However, the Dunes Settlement Agreement
provided for 270.rooms and public facility for people of moderate income so
they would have access to bayfront locations. Removing 40% of the RV
spaces is not in the public interest, especially when the proposal calls for a
massive four star convention hotel with 100 time - shares and actually are
• bayfront condos for sale on a weekly basis. The Coastal Commission has
pointed out that this is a degradation of the public use.
•
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Root noted that his community association was
poled and that 86% are against this proposed project.
Jennifer Frutig, 1715 Marlin Way questioned the credibility of the draft
Environmental Impact Report on the issue of the number of peak hour car trips
at Jamboree and Dover Drive.
Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive spoke about the word commitment in
regards to the Settlement Agreement. The Agreement of the 198o's was a
commitment to the Dunes to allow them to do 275 rooms and commits them
to a height limitation of 38.5 feet maximum (higher than our City's height
limitation). It was also a commitment to the citizens of Newport Beach and it is
that commitment that I am asking you to consider tonight. It is extremely
important to recognize that our City's representatives at that time felt that the
negotiations were the right ones. Just because the Dunes has not built it, does
that take away the commitment that was made to the residents at that time?
The height is a concern, as well as traffic. We are having a hard time with the
visuals and I ask again for story poles. You might consider that the height of
the time - shares facing Dover Shores will be approximately the some height as
the Balboa Bay Club apartments on the Coast Highway. The highest point of
the Dunes hotel, not counting the elevator shafts makes it almost equal to a
point at the Castaways cliffs. It is much too massive for that location.
19
UTIT-ri
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
Richard Luehrs, Newport Harbor Area Chambers presented a copy of a
resolution that unanimously passed by the Chamber's Board of Directors in
support of this project. He commented that the Evans family has been a great
corporate neighbor and supported our community over the last twenty years.
We are fortunate to have a family owned and operated facility in our
community willing to invest the kind of money as a betterment for all of our
visitors and residents in Newport Beach. This is the right project, the right time
and in the right location and we hope you agree.
Jim deBoom, 2082 S. E. Bristol, #201 as Executive Vice President of the Orange
County Coast Association that deal with coastal issues such as development,
water quality and traffic. In September, two developments were discussed,
one in Dana Point and this one in Newport Beach. He then introduced a
resolution that was adopted in support of the Dunes expansion. We have
heard reports from several coastal city mayors that they would like to have a
development of this quality in their city. We encourage the City of Newport
Beach to enable the Newport Dunes development.
The applicant was given an opportunity to rebut:
• Mr. Robert Gleason noted the following:
• Issue of Coastal Commission approval - project is in the original jurisdiction
of the Coastal Commission and requires a Coastal Development Permit
following the process in the City.
Parking Structure noise - the parking structure is almost entirely enclosed,
with the exception of the top deck and is surrounded by a perimeter wall.
Mestre Greve is doing a supplemental noise analysis as part of the analysis
of the relocation of the sound wall along the service road. The report will
be part of the next staff report.
• Meeting with homeowner associations - we have a meeting scheduled
with Promontory Bay Association, Dover Shores Association and Linda Isle
Associations. We have tried unsuccessfully to meet with Harbor Island and
Beacon Bay Associations.
• Time -share heights - all three stories at a 40 -foot roof element.
Commissioner Kiser asked about the parking garage across from the service
road.
Mr. Gleason answered that the entry to the parking structure will be from the
upper level and then ramp down into the structure. The only area where the
lower two levels open is an entrance located approximately half way along
the length of the parking structure along the first level. The upper deck is
open, but the balance of the two decks is entirely enclosed except for that
exit. He then referenced the video showing the elevation of the hotel building
looking towards the east. The first two levels of the parking structure have
walls visible in some areas along the slope and berm with landscaping. The
rest of the whole area is enclosed. From the property side with Bayside Village,
20
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
there is the existing bike trail for 15 feet, a 15 foot landscape buffer then the 9
foot sound wall, then the service road with additional landscaping and then
the parking structure. He then explained several exhibits depicting views
including conference rooms, 3 level parking structure and landscape berm.
Commissioner Kranzley asked about story poles, what if we created an almost
2 dimensional story pole outline of the profile of the building as opposed to the
width of the building? I am not quite getting the full picture from the
computer visual simulation that has been presented so far. I am not sure how
expensive it would be to just do the profiles as opposed to doing the whole
outline. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Gleason answered that the story pole was not so much the actual dollar
cost as it was the efficacy of that effort, To the extent the you reduce the
number of roof points, it gets easier. The other issue we could not quite figure
out was the physical construction issue. The story poles done on Treasure
Island got to heights of about 45-50 feet. In this case, some 75 foot elements
with 60 feet elements would need to be researched as to how to construct.
Commissioner Kranzley asked if there was some sense of value in the story
• poles to answer questions brought up in public testimony. I wonder if there
might be some real value into settling some of these bulking issues, once and
for all not only for the public, but the Planning Commission as well. Taking into
consideration that we want to make sure this is not a prohibitive project in fact
almost like building a little housing area.
Mr. Gleason answered that the difficulty with that is we looked at the
computer model to provide a better sense of being at the site to give a sense
of context. It is not quite there yet, but with real video, will get there. As for as
the story poles go, we need to look at this in more depth, as the difficulty is
really one of time.
Commissioner Tucker asked for and received clarification of the parking
structure. He noted that the parking structure is really a two level parking
structure with parking on the roof of the structure that equates to three
parking levels. The parking on the top level is really an open level? Mr.
Gleason answered yes.
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Selich that this is the time we will be going through the
deliberation that includes the many texts, reports and testimony from the
public meetings. It is our duty to make a recommendation of the disposition of
this project, to approve, deny or modify. We will narrow the issues down and
get into specifics. I ask each Commissioner to list out their concerns. We will
keep a running list on the chart so that the members of the audience can
•
keep record as well. There will be time for additional public testimony at the
21
RID]:*
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
next hearing if there is supplemental information presented by staff. There will
be no decision tonight; hopefully, we will narrow things down tonight so that
we can get.more specific testimony from the public. We may give direction
to the applicant on things to investigate.
Commissioner Tucker focused on the traffic as reading through the letters and
listening to the testimony had brought out several issues:
• Trip rates selected - 8.92 per room and the ITE calls for 8.92 per occupied
room
• Back Bay access - traffic model information shows that at Marguerite and
Coast Highway, in the long term, goes to a Level of Service E but if 5076 of
the traffic was diverted to Back Bay then PCH and Marguerite would not
go into LOS E. How does our traffic model actually look at things?
• Capacity of the ballrooms has become an issue - floor plans show there is
pre- function space located between the two 12,000 foot ballrooms and I
am curios as to whether the two ballrooms could be combined and what
would it mean for the single event type as far as traffic is concerned?
• How often will the ballrooms be maxed out at one time? If they are, how
many people can be accommodated? Look at peak situations as well as
the average and how our traffic study addresses those issues.
• • Types of convention business - trucking and displays?
• Ratio of meeting space to hotel rooms?
• Settlement Agreement traffic trips allocated; many of those trips have
been allocated so there are not many to be used, as we have been
assuming, in out traffic study.
• Questions raised on the distribution of traffic south on Bayside to Balboa
Island.
• Update of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, which we do not
have yet.
• The intersection of Riverside at Pacific Coast Highway, what will the TPO
analysis show?
• Proper base line for traffic as discussed in the letter from the attorney for
Dover Shores.
• Confirm that the traffic study shows 5400 trips will be added onto PCH and
Bayside and that 600 trips deducted some place else at Back Bay and
Jamboree.
Commissioner Kranzley added:
• Impacts of employee using other entrance off Jamboree.
• Meeting rooms /convention center will work.
• Bulk - story poles that run the outline of the profile of the building should be
considered.
• Noise - for the peace and tranquility of city residents might add conditions
that apply to the proposed project.
. Commissioner Gifford added her concerns:
• The appropriateness of Pacific Coast Highway as the point of entry. I am
22
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
not satisfied that we have had enough of a look at an entrance off
Jamboree.
• Location of hotel - I would like to explore the concept of re- location to the
other side of the lagoon. When the Development Agreement was
negotiated it was binding on the City and the Dunes. If there is now a
question of re- opening the agreement, it does not need to be re- opened
in a compartmentalized fashion. You deal with all the pieces. The original
concept of the Agreement was cohesive, family oriented, low key
development. If we start to look at changing that, we do not have to stick
with all of the original concepts such as the location of the hotel.
• Major development as compared to a number of hotels /resorts that are
luxury business. I have not seen anything represented to us comparable as
a luxury development that is near an RV park or near a mobile home park
as part of the window to the property or the surrounding area. There is a
tension that the original development agreement and some of the things
focused on by the Coastal Commission as an accessible, affordable,
family oriented kind of development. What is being proposed is more of a
luxury end. For Coastal Commission purposes if ever these two things can
be resolved and for the sake that this third piece really fits in. The City will
live with this for a very long time if this project is approved. If it turns out not
to be viable because of some economic miscalculation in terms of the fit
• and its surroundings, etc., we would certainly be stuck with something that
was not a small project to try to rehabilitate.
• Scale is massive - We had a discussion about the idea of story poles.
Based on what I have seen to date, I have a sense of a very high wall at
the end of the bay. That gives me great concern.
Commissioner Ashley added:
• This project is a good one for the City.
• The environment that is being proposed for the development of the
project is fragile.
• Object to the plan design and oppose Bayside Drive as the ingress and
egress to this hotel project. There should be no access to the project from
this street and there should be an emergency breakaway fence placed at
its terminus.
• The quality of life for the people in Bayside Village will be disturbed by the
project traffic.
• Back Bay Drive off Jamboree Road should be the only access to this
project.
• Bayside Drive is a local street designed to provide circulation for a low -
density residential neighborhood and was not intended to become a
commercial avenue to a resort project.
• If Bayside Drive remains the only way in and out for this project, then
construction vehicles, buses, service vans should not permitted to go in or
out on Bayside Drive. They should be confined to using Back Bay Drive.
• • Story poles should be used to profile the building.
23
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
Commissioner Kiser added his concerns:
• Appendix B to the EIR regarding trip generation of meeting /catering
information needs substantiation from a non - interested party.
• Peak hours need to be studied.
• Bayside Drive traffic trips need to re- evaluated.
• 1 am for the use of story poles on the major points of the hotel, corners and
such in some form whether story poles or helium filled balloons.
• View simulations did very well with the approaches to the project and the
interior creating a sense of what could be built, but the views across the
bay need a lot more work as well as from Dover Shores community of the
time shore section.
• There needs to be minimization of noise from the parking structure to the
Bayside Village location.
• Ratio of hotel to meeting space along with the trip rates.
• Bulk of the project is in a sensitive area.
'Chairperson Selich stated that one thing that needs to be discussed first, prior
to anything else, is whether we want to consider this project at all? There is an
approval already through a Settlement Agreement for a 275 -room hotel. The
first thing we need to do is to discuss if it is appropriate to expand this 275 -room
hotel and why before we get into expansion discussion. My concerns on the
• project have been stated by the other Commissioners:
• Hotel of this magnitude does it fit within the context of this community?
• Location of the hotel is it appropriate to be dealt with?
• Trip generation rates - we need to understand how these are developed.
The back up that ITE uses takes into account all of the convention space
and the ancillary commercial uses, etc, that go into the hotel /convention
space. There seems to be a tendency to focus on different types of uses
that are contained within that 8.92 generation rate.
• Access off Bayside Drive - should look at developing an alternate access
off Back Bay Drive in some form or another.
• Traffic model - Bayside distribution.
• Bulk and height issues - we need to look at this in the context of the
community, it's massive and perhaps we can look at reducing the impact.
• It sits 12 feet above sea level and perhaps sinking the parking structure
down a level or so, perhaps other portions of the buildings could be
brought down in some fashion so that it does not have such a massive
appearance.
Commissioner Ashley added:
• That a pedestrian bridge that now goes from the east side of the property
to the west side of the property serving people parked on the east lagoon,
should be changed to a vehicular bridge with two lanes of vehicular
traffic.
• Chairperson Selich asked for deliberation on whether the project has merit or
stick with the 275 -room approval that we presently have?
24
It:U10
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
•
•
Commissioner Tucker answered that this is quite a change. We are talking
about a change from a 500,000 square foot structure to a 700,000 square foot
structure plus another 50,000 - 70,000 square feet of ancillary uses. The problem
I have with the existing entitlement is that I don't think it will benefit the
community. The issue as to where you come off, either Jamboree or Boyside,
the question is still the same. My sense is I am concerned about the scale of
the project. I don't think the project will fit on the east side. On the issue of the
story poles, I feel comfortable with what it will, be like. The project will be
noticeable, but not as much if it was on the highway. We need to refine and
change some things, but I would be in favor of trying to come up with
something that works as this is a far superior project to what the Settlement
Agreement calls for.
Commission Kranzley stated that we need more information. There is a
potential to create a project that traffic wise could look a lot like the entitled
resort through the Settlement Agreement. It included a 15,000 square foot
freestanding restaurant, etc. which creates a lot more peak hour trips than the
hotel rooms. Convention rooms on site have the potential of creating captive
residents. I don't' have enough information and I would like to continue
researching this. A straw vote on the story pole issue comes out to at least 4
Commissioners asking for some type of story poles. We need to see some type
of physical representation.
Commissioner Gifford stated that it is possible for the Commission to look at
possible alternative of a better project. If is a worthwhile effort to work with
the applicant's idea to see if there is something more beneficial and no more
detrimental.
Commissioner Ashley stated that the
1980 Settlement Agreement would
feasible. The proposed plan is w
Settlement Agreement.
275 Family Inn that was proposed in the
be obsolete today. It would not be
istly superior to the Family Inn of the
Commissioner Kiser agreed with all of the previous statements. He added that
the architectural design and hard work done on the concept of the hotel if it
could be translated into something economically viable on a smaller scale,
makes a lot of sense for the area and the City.
Chairperson Selich noted his concurrence with moving this project on. The
275 -room project was conceived 20 years ago and the economic fabric of
the City and County has change. It would not be a feasible project today. I
tried to evaluate it by leaving a 275 room facility there and maybe do a super
luxury five star facility with a much more limited scope, not dissimilar to what is
being proposed out on Balboa Peninsula. In doing that analysis I came to the
conclusion that it would not work on that site. The economics of it working
would be very slim and it would probably be difficult to find an operator that
25
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
would consider doing that on that particular site. This proposed project has
merit and the impact on the community is what needs to be looked at. We
need to craff.this project so that it has minimal impacts in all those areas and
still be a benefit to the community, which it most likely would be. We need to
minimize the impact on the surrounding community.
Chairperson Tucker stated that we should focus in on what makes sense, not
the size of the project, as it will change some of the important features such as
traffic. It might be better to figure out the type of facility that the Commission
thinks would fit here. It would also be beneficial to look at the number of
rooms, story poles, and public space.
Commissioner Gifford stated that there is not enough information regarding
moving the project to another site as well as having on entrance off Back Bay
Drive. The location of the hotel might be secondary to that and whether or
not it is feasible. The applicant and staff might come back with a type of
feasibility analysis to moving the hotel to the other side of the hotel.
Commissioner Ashley noted this would result in a total re- design of the project.
They would have to start all over again and we would be in the position of
having to review another EIR and I don't thinks this is necessary. They're other
• ways to handle it.
Commissioner Tucker concurred with previous comments adding that the
bigger issues are traffic, pollution and noise. It would be nice if there was more
land on the other side because it would fit better. It is better to leave the
facility where it is and look at alternatives in terms of access.
Commissioner Gifford asked it there is a feasible project that would fit there?
Chairperson Kranzley stated that this is an important project and in an
environmentally sensitive area. I want us to do the right thing and looking at
the feasibility is the right thing to do.
Commissioner Kiser noted that if the proponent was interested in reducing the
scale of the present proposal, and could be done in an economically viable
way, at the same location very possibly it would take care of most of the issues
that have been raised. I am in favor of having the feasibility be analyzed.
Chairperson Selich summed it up by saying that we are asking staff and the
applicant to come back with some type of analysis that we can consider at
the next meeting:
• Move access - peak hours are between 8 and 11 in the morning and
around 4 P.m. as it will not congest Jamboree Road.
• Get traffic off Bayside Drive.
• Commissioner Tucker noted that this would wipe out the RV spaces if it stays at
26
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
the current site.
Chairperson Selich answered that there would be a need to eliminate or re-
locate additional RV spaces. The applicant would have to make other
arrangements; we are not talking about making drastic changes at the hotel
site.
Commissioner Kiser asked if we are assuming there. are only two accesses for
this project, either off Back Bay Drive or Bayside Drive? And if so, is there any
possibility of another curb cut off Coast Highway, somewhere east of Bayside
Drive that would lead to a road through some of the RV spaces?
Chairperson Selich answered that there was analysis in the EIR, but because of
the grade differential, no one has seriously pursued that alternative. The next
issue is story poles; he asked how it would be done.
Commissioner Gifford stated that the Commission should give the applicant
some directions, such.as outlining, profiling significant points, or balloons. We
can not ask the applicant to story pole every version that we look at. I have
the feeling that the Commission has the sense that story poles are needed for
the public.
• Commissioner Kranzley opined that the Commission would not have to pole
bigger than what. is being proposed. We have potentially the worst case
scenario. I don't think the applicant would have to change every story pole,
because it would not be bigger than it is now.
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Gleason answered that if you scale it back to so few, it is difficult to get a
visual sense of what is proposed. We need some input as to where those
might be. The balloon idea may end up being the thing that works the best.
We would be interested in the balance of the discussion about what we are
really looking at as a building envelope and as a project. It is important that
what we do in going forward, is in synch with that. We need some sense of
bulk and scale issues on the project that will have an impact on the story
poles.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Ashley commented that this notion of erecting the story poles to
get a visual outline of the building will certainly effect the judgement we have
on the size of the hotel in terms of the number of rooms. If we don't find that
the height of the building is objectionable as designed, we would not
necessarily be talking about reducing the number of rooms or even the
• meeting room space that has been proposed.
27
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
Chairperson Selich asked the Commission if they need the story poles before
giving the applicant direction? The applicant needs to have direction other
than the access feasibility report.
Commissioner Gifford answered that she has enough sense from the visual
simulations. If we were to scale it down, the usefulness of the story poles would
only demonstrate to me some differences. Based on what I have been able
to see, my direction would be to scale it down.
Commissioner Kranzley added that he wants to see the story poles, sooner
than later. If we scale it down, it will be better than what the story poles tell us
now.
Commissioner Kiser agreed with Commissioner Gifford's comments adding that
looking at scaling it down is the better way. I don't want to put the applicant
through too much expense, irritation and /or delay.
Commissioner Selich noted that he was not concerned with the number of
rooms. He is concerned with the impact. A lot of concerns that the people
have raised, i.e.; number of people in the convention facilities and peak hour
impacts can be handled through conditions on operations that we put on the
• hotel. I am concerned with the visual mass of the hotel and I feel that it
should come down about a story. I like the articulation because it adds a lot
to the building. I would like to see the applicant work more with the grade of
the property, since the mass on the back side is really dictated by the mound
of earth going up juxtopositioned right up against the building. The parking
structure could probably be sunk one level. Just doing that would do a great
deal to take away from the mass of the structure. Other elements of the
building would be grading of the property to bring the massiveness down.
Commissioner Ashley added that the story poles need to go up so that the
community will see what will be built up.
Commissioner Tucker stated that scaling back the project could be done by
removing a floor off the time -share units_ It would then have a more gradual
transition from the marina back to the hotel proper itself. I would look at the
fifth floor as not being solid but be more a design feature.
Commissioner Gifford noted her concurrence as the height is an issue and
perhaps breaking up the horizontal mass would have some appeal. The
applicant knows of our concerns about the bulk and mass and should take
their own approach to what they think would be best.
Chairperson Selich told the applicant that the Commission is asking for them to
come back with ideas to lower the height of the project. He added that the
• ballroom use should be talked about at a later date. It was decided not to
start on a list of the findings and conditions for this project just yet.
28
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
Mrs. Wood added that there were three issues to be studied:
• Possible relocation to the other side of the lagoon.
• Different access point.
• Some ideas to lower the height and bulk of the project.
Motion was made.by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to February
17, 2000.
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Fuller
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported
that on January 25th, the joint meeting between the Planning
Commission and the Council staff was directed by Council to report
back with approaches. for beginning a comprehensive General Plan
• update; Council approved on 2nd reading, the Extended Stay America
Hotel and the amendment to the Code regarding calculation of floor
area; and approved the residential project on Balsa Avenue as well as
first reading of setbacks for Alvarado Place.
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
program - Mrs. Wood reported that the Irvine Company has withdrawn
their request of that area, as well as the State Teacher's group. We are
meeting with the remaining property owners, Pacific Life and O'Hill
Properties and going over with them some time schedules and cost
estimates for proceeding if they choose to proceed. Staff will want to
have some conversation with the committee on the General Plan
update or with the full Commission if we should continue to proceed with
the zoning consolidation.
d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kranzley asked about giving some
types of credit to people who are doing things that are in the best
interest of the community.
e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future
• agenda for action and staff report - none.
29
INDEX
Additional Business
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2000
0
•
f.) Requests for excused absences - none.
ADJOURNMENT: 1 1:15 P.M.
RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Ur7
INDEX
Adjournment