Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/2004• • Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page I of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and All Present Tucker. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Robert Burnham, City Attorney Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 28, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of ITEM NO. 1 May 20, 2004. Approved Approved as written and ordered filed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 • • Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 2 of 23 Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: H.K.J. LaFogata Restaurant (PA2003 -294) ITEM NO. 2 PA2003 -294 Request to amend Use Permit No. 3235 to increase the permitted seating from 18 to 26 and to permit the sale of beer and wine for on- Continue to site consumption (Type 41 ABC License) and to amend Outdoor 07/08/2004 Dining Permit No. 75 to change the patio seating arrangement at an existing eating and drinking establishment. Staff requested that this item be continued to July 8, 2004. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to continue this item to June 17, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002- ITEM NO. 3 265) PA2002 -265 600 St. Andrews Road Continue to Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use 06/17/2004 Permit for the replacement and construction of additional buildings and a below grade parking garage. The General Plan Amendment involves an increase the maximum allowable building area with no change to the existing land use designation. The Zone Change would change the zoning district from R -2 & R -1 to GEIF to be consistent with the existing General Plan, Land Use Element designation. The Use Permit involves the alteration of existing buildings, replacement of the existing fellowship hall and classroom building and the construction of a new multi - purpose gymnasium and youth center. The Use Permit also considers setting the maximum allowable building height of 40 feet for the two proposed buildings. Staff requested that this item be continued to June 17, 2004. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to continue this item to June 17, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 3 of 23 is • SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft Noes: None • Absent: None Review of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Abstain: None is • SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft ITEM NO.4 Environmental Impact Report (PA2003 -218) PA2003 -218 Continued to Review of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 07/08/2004 Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan (formerly known as the Regent Newport Beach). The project applicant, Marinapark LLC, proposes to remove and /or demolish existing structures on the property and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that would include a lobby and registration area, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four tennis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility, and a tot lot. Chairperson McDaniel noted that tonight, the Commission would be providing direction to staff and the applicant. Senior Planner, Jim Campbell noted the following: • Both the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project itself will be reviewed to provide direction to both staff and the consultants for the upcoming hearings. • Schedule - July 8th the Planning Commission will be hearing this item; City Council will be holding hearings on July 13th and 27th. • The City Council has decided to put this project on the November 2004 ballot. • At tonight's meeting and the one on July 8th, staff hopes to be able to formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the EIR as well as any proposed changes to the project. • Staff wants to provide an open forum for public input that will be provided at these two meetings. • At the conclusion of the meeting, staff would like to have any requests for additional data or questions that the public or Commission might have, for response at the next meeting. file: //H:1Plancomm\200410603.htm 07/1712004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 . At Commission inquiry, he noted that the last date for response to comments on the EIR is June 9th. Any comments to be made should be submitted by the 9th in order for staff to respond. The following City consultants were in attendance: David Lepo from Hogle Ireland, the project manager; Mike Houlihan and Jason Brandman from Michael Brandman, Associates, the preparers of the Environmental Impact Report; Joe Foust, the traffic engineer. Stephen Sutherland, Marinapark Resort project manager, noted that this August marks the 6th year since the first site plan was drawn. He then made a Power Point presentation highlighting the project noting: • The project is the'Marinapark Resort and Community Plan', and will encompass an area on Balboa Peninsula from 16th Street to 18th Street and Balboa Boulevard to the public beach. • The architecture will be a Mediterranean villa style with a yachting resort theme. • Accommodations will be made for sail boats from Lido 14's up • to vintage Americas Cup and sailing will be an activity for guests to enjoy. • He then pointed out the proposed site plan in relation to the American Legion facility that is not involved in the project, the boat slips that will not be beyond the American Legion line of slips; and the tennis courts that will be re -built over a subterranean parking facility for 100 cars. • He then displayed where additional surface parking will be noting the existing public lot on 18th Street (to be refurbished by the applicant ) with 21 metered stalls. • There will be a shared access for the Girl Scout/Community facility when it is not in use. • The existing tot lot will be moved next to the Girl Scout facility and will be separated by a wall. • The new Girl Scout facility will be larger and the grounds will be doubled with landscaping /gazebo /fire pit areas provided. The interior will be fully ADA accessible and have a modern • commercial style kitchen; will have a stage and air conditioning, and will be outfitted with a security system. All of these arrangements are being made at the request/direction of the Girl Scout Council. Page 4 of 23 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 0 • Ll Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 . There will be a spa building built next to the Scout facility and the buildings will be similar in style and two stories high. . The spa will be for hotel guests but will also be available for residents and the public. . The dock area will have a concrete walkway and will not impede public access. There will be twelve slips, some wider than others, and will be operated for the yachting and rowing club. Four of the slips will be available as visitors' docking. . The number of guest rooms is five star level hotel. He noted with fifteen years experience in America. 110. It is being designed as a his background in resort design Europe and Mexico as well as in . The 110 guest rooms will be located in sixteen, one and two story villa style buildings. The buildings for the most part are lower than the surrounding homes. The density is less than the existing residential neighborhood. Many of the private homes in this area are about two square feet of structure for every square foot of land. We are at one third of square foot of structure for every square foot of land. . The traffic studies have shown that the added cars on the road from this project compared to the existing mobile home park is below what triggers the 'Measure S' threshold. . There are 60 spaces in the mobile home park, two of the mobile homes have been removed. Out of the remaining 58, two are management offices. There are currently 56 residents in the park. . He then presented before and after visual impact simulations on 18th Street; Girl Scout lot; 17th Street and Balboa Blvd.; and, views from the water. . The villas on the waterfront are one story except the one by the American Legion property, which is two story. . The Girl Scout facility will have a second story for community use and will be just over 2,000 square feet enclosed plus an outdoor terrace area of about 200 square feet. This building will be built and paid by the applicant, but will be turned over to the city. . The main resort lobby two story structure will have water fountain elements. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm Page 5 of 23 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 • The environmental advantages will reduce traffic on Balboa . Blvd., the existing zoning allows public open space and marine recreational facilities. • The improvement of water quality is based on a number of issues such as underground vaults on the property that will capture new rainfall and skim the oil and debris from the parking lots, landscaping areas, etc. before it enters the bay. There will be an underground tank storage area and when there is flooding during the winter storms, the skimmed water will stay in the tanks until the tide is down and /or the storm drain recovers and then it will be put into the system. • The other issue is the State tidelands law, a hotel is considered a public use and visitor serving and is permissible in State tidelands. • Community improvements include the beautification of the Balboa Peninsula; and an agreement to fund a minimum of $500,000 to remodel the American Legion facility on approval. The tennis courts are being re -built and will remain open to the public. The City Recreation and Senior Services Department will run adult/child programs in these new courts and the new . community center. • There are two restaurants proposed on the property, one is the 'All Day Cafe' and is 515 net square feet and the specialty restaurant will be 1,100 square feet and will be open and available to residents, they both will have waterfront views. • Residents will have full access to the grounds and resort. • There will be improved access to the beach. • There will be two public view corridors on each side of the lobby. • This is publicly owned property and should benefit the residents. With this proposed use, we feel it does. These benefits include upwards of three million dollars in total revenue annually to the City of Newport Beach, and property values for the surrounding area will increase. The plan has been referred to as a gem and a shot in the arm that this area of the peninsula needs and is 'a landmark in waiting'. The following questions were asked by the Commissioners and answered by the applicant: • Commissioner Toerge asked: Page 6 of 23 file: //H:1Plancomm1200410603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 • What are the proposed site access control measures on 18th Street? • Please review the availability of parking for the public. Will the parking structure be available for the public. Commissioner Selich asked: • What is the size of the lounge and ballroom and how do they compare to other hotels? • What percentage of the property is tidelands? Commissioner Eaton asked: . Will there be a cap as to how many of the units will be time share? Commissioner Cole asked: • The height of the villas, does the lobby extend higher? • In the photos that were shown, what is the height of the residential buildings? Mr. Sutherland answered: • There will be no controls to get into the driveway to access either the public parking lot or the Girl Scout parking area. Beyond that there is a fire access gate that is permanently closed. There will be no access at all from the hotel to that driveway on 18th Street. Employees and deliveries will access the property from the 15th Street alley behind the American Legion under the tennis courts to the parking structure; the loading dock is right next to the tennis courts. There is no access at all for the hotel from 18th Street, that is only for emergency purposes or the public lot or Girl Scout lot. • The parking structure is not available for the public who use the beach. It will be available for a fee to the public that goes onto the resort grounds . • The lobby lounge is 1,100 square feet; the ballroom is on the second floor of the lobby and is 3,605 square feet. Comparing • that to the Marriott, it is less than 10% of their public meeting space area. Comparing it to the St. Regis in Monarch Beach, this proposed project has just over 3% of the meeting /convention space as the St. Regis has just over Page 7 of 23 file: //H: \Planeomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 100,000 square feet, which is almost the same size as this entire . project. . It is proposed that twelve suites will be dedicated as interval shares, a minimum of 1/8 but most likely 1/4. For example, if we have a three month interval, then that suite would be sold for that three month time period. Mr. Burnham added: • This is the applicants proposal for the time shares, but the City Council will have to approve this interval shares issue through the lease negotiations. • The tidelands have not been determined. The State Lands Commission staff believes that approximately 65% to 70% of the parcel is tidelands. There has been no adjudication of the mean high tide line and the opinion of the State Lands Commission staff is based on meander surveys and some old aerial photographs. It is still undecided. Continuing, Mr. Sutherland answered: • The building height of the lobby is 34 feet. It is still two stories, but it has a higher ceiling area. When you first walk into the lobby, you have a 34 foot high ceiling; then a grand stairwell that goes upstairs along with an elevator to the lobby upstairs. • There are many three story buildings in this neighborhood. Public comment was opened. Chairperson McDaniel addressed the audience noting that the Commission is looking only at environmental issues tonight. Louise Fundenberg, President of the Central Newport Beach Association, noted they would like to go on record that this area has always been General Plan Open Space Recreational. This is the last open space on the peninsula. She noted the concerns of the members who live across the street from this proposed project that their view would be wiped out. At the annual meeting this project was discussed and the residents want this to stay open space. They looked at the EIR and saw an alternate plan for a marina, but that marina was in there to make the hotel look good. A different plan for a marina might be a better one than the one alternate put in the EIR. • Commissioner Kiser noted that the association members are concerned about the loss of open space at the project site. What open space that is on the project site would be lost? Page 8 of 23 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Ms. Fundenberg answered that the strip of beach, even though the • applicant states it will be open to the public, the members feel that once a hotel is put in there, the public will not come in to use that beach. It will not be available to the general public, it will be blocked. It is a matter of access to the public beach and the need for more open space than is currently proposed. Tim Collins, resident of Balboa Peninsula, noted: • The project is characterized as a resort hotel with docks. • He would like to see the water side of the tidelands and the bay and harbor impacts studied in more detail in the EIR. This analysis is relevant to the environmental impacts of the project overall. • The alternative contained in the EIR as exhibit 7 -1 is a better alternative, but by no means the best alternative for the bay. • There could be better design and more visitor serving boating. • It could have more revenue potential and have less environmental impacts as the docks designed and presented in . the EIR. • A better design would be more suited to the real demand for the public from the water side. It would accommodate larger and more boats, and with ample guest docks could be overall better serving. • The applicant commented he sees this as a yachting resort, I don't think that 28, 30 foot boats as configured in these docks will allow it to meet the objective as a yachting destination. • There is a potential to improve the financial viability. • The protection of the environment is going to be a function of how successful this property is. In his opinion, this dock area would be a loser when you consider the cost to build it and the fees that should be paid for the tidelands use. • He suggested that the applicant should be asked to challenge its consultants and study alternatives, submit market research and analysis to support those alternatives. • • Exploring said options could reduce the environmental impact for example, dredging. And a re- designed dock would be more responsive to the Harbor Element of the General Plan as to which the original scoping of the EIR was lacking. Page 9 of 23 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 . This property is the gem of the peninsula and we need to get A • right. At staff inquiry, the speaker clarified that he is speaking to both types of dock, those as part of the resort hotel and what is described in the marine recreation alternative in the EIR. The alternate is preferable and the docks as designed as part of the hotel resort are not the best public use of the waterfront. John Corrough, resident of Balboa Island, noted he agrees with the comments made by the previous speaker adding the following: • An analysis of the EIR shows that the presumed attainment of the various Harbor and Bay Element sections is not supported by the facts or analysis or conclusionary statements that are in the EIR. • One of the most basic aspects of this project that is linked to the Harbor and Bay Element that needs to be discussed is this is not in fact a water dependent use. This is a water enhanced use under the definition of the Harbor and Bay Element and under the definition of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCP), it is not a coastal dependent use. • . The hotel is the primary use on the site and by itself does not meet the criteria of those two important documents (Harbor and Bay Element and the LCP). It is dependent on a very small marina for its water dependency. • You do not get Americas cup boats in 30 foot or 26 foot slips. • You do not get a lot of revenue out of this project when the cost to create is somewhere between 8 to 10 times the cost per slip of the typical high value marina such as the one recently constructed in front of the Balboa Bay Club. • Somewhere there is going to have to be a lot of costs to make up in the way in which that facility is either subsidized or in some other way justified. • With all of the money expended for the public good on site, the project is burdened by those costs as well as the marina costs. • This situation can be solved by further analysis of a marina opportunity and potential so that it is less environmentally damaging and producing revenue to the City, tidelands fund and • the resort. Commissioner Selich asked if the speaker is suggesting that the Page 10 of 23 file: //H:1Plancomm1200410603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 marina component be larger and if you are, are you saying it should • extend more into the bay or along the beach? Mr. Corrough answered that any or all of those options should be explored. However, none of those were examined as alternatives. There is not enough analysis shown or documented in the EIR to justify that. Commissioner Selich noting that the pier head line does not go to out to the end where the slips are proposed, asked as part of this project is the pier head line going to have to be moved and adjusted? Ms. Wood answered that staff will have to find that out. Mr. Burnham noted that on the issue of deep water slips or a substantially larger marina, the City is required to develop alternatives that could mitigate any potential impacts and also achieve project objectives. Some of the things that went into developing the alternatives in the EIR is to minimize the impact of the marine facilities on the public use of the beach and public access. Also minimizing the extent to which dredging or any alteration of the marine environment is necessary. The types of facilities the previous speaker referred to would have a substantially greater impact on the subtidal zone than • the alternatives, that was a consideration. Marie O'Hora, resident of the peninsula, noted her concern of the bay that is already compromised. The 10th Street beach was closed one out of every two days in July and August of last year. It does not have anything to do with storm runoff. I don't know what is polluting the bay, but the addition of a 100 plus guestrooms plus the additional traffic of people using the bay makes it more dense. I don't understand how a structure of this sort will reduce traffic. Parking on the peninsula is very troublesome. Concluding, she added that by having the election to approve this plan with the national election disenfranchises all the summer home owners who are taxpayers in Newport Beach and not able to vote for or against this project because they are voting in their own communities. Commissioner Kiser asked if her concerns of density and parking considered the fact that there would be 60 mobile home occupancies removed from the site. Ms. O'Hora answered that 100 guests are being added. This is being used as a destination resort, people will drive to it. She added that she has a sailboat that draws 6.2 feet and there are sections over by Lido where we barely skim the bottom. So whatever dredging that you • are going to have to do in this area will be considerable. Commissioner Tucker noted that the assumption of the preceding Page 11 of 23 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 speaker was that the project would result in more intense use of the . land than the existing use. He noted that he was not certain that was the case. He then asked how many bedrooms there are in the existing trailer park facility. Is there any way to find out how many? Ms. Clauson stated that staff is in the process of preparing a relocation impact report and are gathering information about the mobile homes for purpose of finding alternatives for relocation of them if the park is closed. We may have more information with regards to the bedrooms and also information on how many of them are second homes or summer vacation type residences versus permanent. She added that the rental agreement prohibits the subletting of the mobile homes. Commissioner Tucker stated that it would then be people showing up for the summer to use their facilities and guests while they were there. How many parking spaces are presently in the trailer park? He asked that this information be supplied at the next meeting. Ms. Clauson answered that parking is limited to the roadway access to each of the units. She will get the information for the next meeting. Mr. Burnham added that any resident who is registered to vote can • vote in any election. The rational the City Council had in wanting to schedule this issue for voter consideration was to maximize the turnout. It is fair to say this is going to be a fairly contested presidential election, there are a lot of other issues on the ballot that will draw people to the polls in November. Historically the presidential election gets about 75% of voter participation as opposed to 10-15% for a standard /special election. Commissioner Tucker then asked who is going to own the Girl Scout House after it is completed? Ms. Clauson answered that the City owns and maintains the facility and currently has an annual lease with the Girl Scouts for that property. This lease will be negotiated for the use of the new facility once it is completed. Mr. Burnham added that the lease would require the lessee to maintain the property to a very high standard. Commissioner Tucker then asked about the views. People across the street that have views over the public land, are those public views that are protected? • Mr. Burnham answered that the view from a third story of a residence would not be considered a public view, even as it looks across public property. Page 12 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm\200410603.htrn 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Commissioner Tucker then asked about water dependency. If the project is approved by the voters, we still have to go through the zoning on the project. Would this be zoning that is water dependent or like a planned community text where the basic zoning would be tailored? Is the water dependency element relevant or not? Ms. Wood answered that the zoning for this project will be a Planned Community text and staff already has a draft. It is a General Plan issue, more so than a zoning issue because the zoning implements the General Plan. She then introduced the consultant team in attendance; David Lepo from Hogle Ireland, the project manager; Mike Houlihan and Jason Brandman from Michael Brandman, Associates, the preparers of the Environmental Impact Report; and Joe Foust, the traffic engineer. Seymour Beek, resident of Balboa Island, noted the following: • A yachting resort in the sense that people will come in their boats and use the marina, they don't really need a hotel. • The use of waterfront and slip area is not well thought out. • Where did the project objectives come from, where are they listed, and who thought them up? Mike Houlihan, Michael Brandman Associates, answered that the project objectives are listed in Section 3, page 3 -8. These objectives were set out by both the City and the project applicant. Through CEQA, project objectives can be set out by an applicant as well as the lead agency. Mr. Burnham added that this August the project will be 5 to 6 years in process. The City issued requests for proposals in 1999 for the redevelopment of the Marinapark and received 8 responses, went back to public hearing and received input and narrowed those to 4 proposals that Council wanted more information about. There were more public meetings and comments, meetings with community groups and these project objectives are a distillation of what staff heard over a 5 -6 year period as the interest and objectives of the community, City Council and others that participated in that process. It is typical for staff and the EIR preparer to develop project objectives based upon the history of the particular project taking into account what the project proponent wants. Ms. Wood added that this is an unusual project as the City is the property owner and so has a special interest that it wouldn't have on • private property. Jan Vandersloot, resident of Newport Heights, noted the following: Page 13 of 23 file: //14:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 • Asked that the project objectives be considered leaving the area • open space. • The property is zoned Recreational and Environmental Open Space and that zoning should remain intact. He does not see an alternative that uses that zoning as a project objective. • We should look at the benefit of public views from the streets. The citizens own that property and should be able to view the water. • The Parks Commission submitted an alternative to the City Council but that is not listed in the EIR and it should be. • We are a wealthy City and should be able to keep the property that we own as open space for future generations. • Some of the other impacts would be the loss of foraging habitat, and some of the specifics of where the mitigation areas would go have not been defined. Mr. Burnham noted the property is zoned PC and is designated as recreational and environmental open space in the General Plan and • that designation in the Land Use Element authorizes a wide range of uses. Exhibit 7 -1 attempts to take the Land Use Element designation for the site and parcel out portions of the parcel for parkland, portions for beach and slip parking, it retains the Girl Scout and community center. It is the implementation of the General Plan designation for the site. Ms. Wood noted that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission alternative was one of the 8 proposals submitted to the City Council in response to the RFP. When the City Council made the decision to work exclusively with Sutherland Talla now Marinapark, LLC, at that time they simply rejected that proposal. Since the General Plan Amendment is something that is going to the voters, then the people have the opportunity to decide whether it should be changed to allow the hotel development or whether it should remain open space. If the decision is to remain open space then more detailed plans of what that means in terms of future development will need to be discussed. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted his concern with how the marine recreation alternative was treated, specifically that it is not the environmentally superior alternative based in large part on a • conclusion that it would generate more traffic without any data at all to back that conclusion up. Because of that you assume it has more negative impacts in terms of traffic, air quality and noise than the Page 14 of 23 file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 proposed project. Is there some basis upon which that conclusion . was drawn? Mr. Houlihan answered information will be provided in the response to comments. Commissioner Eaton then commented about the alternative section. EQAC has made a comprehensive report on the EIR and the responders should respond and make additions where necessary and appropriate to the EIR where that can be done without requiring a recirculation. CEQA guidelines state that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. As an environmental professional that has been writing and reviewing EIRs for over thirty years he has never seen an EIR that declared the project as the environmentally superior alternative. In his opinion, the project is not an alternative, it is the project. The marine recreation alternative can easily be the environmentally superior project if the basis of the traffic is because they have created such a huge parking lot to serve such a huge water and entry point. Then the marine alternative could be reduced slightly so that it does not have those extra impacts which might also reduce the hydrology and water quality impact as well. You don't need to go through the manipulations to make that alternative less than an environmentally superior alternative. The project is strong enough, it is a handsome project and maintains virtually all the existing open space uses which are on the property now, you don't have to say it is the environmentally superior project as well. It is clearly an economically superior project. To create an open space project on this property, the City would lose all its revenue it gets now from the mobile home park, it would cost a lot of money to build it and to maintain it, where this project will provide stronger revenues to the City without any of the costs incurred. The project itself can stand on its own as the economically superior project and not manipulate the marine recreation alternative into something other than the environmentally superior project or alternative but which would cost the City a lot of money. The EIR would have stronger viability and the City would have stronger credibility if it admits that the open space marine recreation alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Mr. Burnham noted that he attended some if not all the meetings during which the marine recreational alternative was discussed, its not accurate to say there was a manipulation of that alternative. Rather what staff and the EIR consultant attempted to do was identify the needs within the general area, and the needs the harbor has for additional parking for charter boat activities; a slip component that was • greater than the project slip component to address some of the marine recreation issues directly; there is a park land component because that is consistent with the Recreation and Environmental Open Space; Page 15 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 1 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 and, then we expanded the Girl Scout and Community Center parking iarea and provided adequate parking for an expanded public park use, which is what we have heard some people in the community favor. It was an attempt to take the site and assign certain uses to that site that would meet needs that currently exists within and around the harbor. One of those is a need for additional parking for beach visitors, for bay visitors and for people who are using the harbor for recreational activities. That was the rational for developing this particular alternative, we did not attempt to come to an alternative that increased the environmental impacts, it was designed to meet the needs that currently exists. Commissioner Tucker asked: • How many more ADT's would have to be generated to trip the 1% analysis requirement at Newport Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway in the P. M. peak and Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road in the A. M. peak. Those are the two locations closest to Level of Service (LOS) E. People are making claims about traffic generation numbers that have been used in the study. I would like to know how much latitude still is there to be able to say it really wouldn't make a difference if there was 50% more traffic. There is some number that gets to that point where the two closest nearby intersections would require further analysis. • It would be helpful to have by the next meeting the responses to the EQAC letter. Their conclusion is that the document needs to be revised and recirculated and they have raised some interesting issues. There are a few things in the letter that need to be brought out. At the next meeting we have on this, we will spend time setting the record. I would like to have more lead time on responses to comment on the EQAC letter. • The parking issue and how delivery and service vehicles and where the employees park were big items at the public scoping meetings. The trip generation rates assume all the additional staff functions. The response to comments should be handled in detail. Commissioner Toerge asked: . In the Draft EIR on page 2.1 - the last sentence of one of the paragraphs reads, '.....in all the proposed project will include 352,962 square feet of development on 8.1 acres.' That is 8.1 acres, so what is the number supposed to be? Mr. David Lepo of Hogle Ireland noted that number should be 110,000 square feet total. Page 16 of 23 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Continuing, Commissioner Toerge asked: • . On Page 2.1 - We do not know the location of the tidelands, yet in a number of meetings I have listened to and participated in, the location of the tidelands has been used as the reason why we can't maintain the mobile home park. The proposed project includes twelve units available for fractional ownership. How is this allowed if the mobile homes are not? It is a matter of ratio, not location? How would the City participate in the sale of these fractional ownership share units? How will the buyers be determined? . On Page 2.11 - 520 daily trips is not considered significant, how is that determined and what amount would be significant? . On Page 3.8 - In my view the project does not serve to maintain a recreation and open space system that meets the needs of the recreation needs of the citizens as it is stated in the report. It may serve the paying public, but not the citizens. . On Page 5.4 -6 - The proposed project conflicts with the General Plan, specifically the Land Use Element, the Harbor and Bay Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element. On Page 5.4 -12 - under the Recreation and Open Space Element analysis, the project reduces recreational opportunities for the public it states it in the EIR. At this opportune time, the City should be attempting to increase parks and related recreational facilities rather than reducing them. • Under the City's Municipal Code 5.4.19 - the project proposes to change the existing General Plan designation from Recreation Environmental Open Space to General Plan designation Recreation Marine and Commercial. Other than to accommodate the proposed project, why would the City do this? • Under 7.5 project alternatives - the conclusions in 7.2.3 claims that it is not known if marine recreational alternative is economically viable. I feel we should know whether the only alternative proposed in this EIR is economically viable. No studies have been presented to this Commission that support the economic viability of the proposed project. Where is the analysis? • Land Use Element, page 26 - recreational and open space is defined, nowhere in this recreation and open space land use designation is there reference to the suitability of this zoned for a hotel. I don't see that. When I hear recreation, I don't think hotel. I hope that is explained. Page 17 of 23 file: //H:\Planeomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 • Page 42, the major land use proposals for each area in our • existing land use element, under Statistical Area D1 under Marinapark it is indicated that the existing mobile home park will be allowed to continue. The land is proposed to be used for aquatic facilities and expanded beach and community facilities, again no mention of a hotel or similar land use. • The Harbor and Bay Element, page 3 - proposed project is not consistent with goal HB -1, specifically policy HB- 1.1.2. Whereby the goal is to preserve the diverse uses of the harbor and water front that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Bay and provide needed support for recreational boaters and visitors and residences with regulations limited to those necessary to protect the interest of all users. Further, the policy states that when reviewing proposals for land use changes the City shall consider the impact on water dependent and water related land uses and activities and the importance of providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential to the operation of the harbor. This shall include not only the proposed change on the subject property but also the potential to limit existing land uses, activities, facilities and services on adjacent properties. I feel the proposed project is not consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element. • . The Recreation and Open Space Element, page 2-4 and 2 -5, the citywide needs are expressed as community pool facilities and boating facilities, no mention of a hotel. In the service area needs for Service Area 3, which is the Balboa Peninsula, it suggests that there is very little vacant land for recreational opportunities. • The Recreation and Open Space Element states that unmet park needs can be satisfied via renovation of facilities such as Los Arenas Park, the very property that is the subject of this application. Objective 4 on page 3 -10, policy 4.2 discusses the need for boat launching facilities, marine sanitation facilities, guest slips, showers, restrooms, drinking fountains, junior lifeguard facilities, no mention of a hotel. • Page 3 -11 of the Recreation and Open Space Element mentions maximizing the opportunities for launching and beaching of small boats. I don't see that opportunity in this plan. • In the Description of Planned Facilities on Page 4.5 of the Recreation and Open Space Element, under Marinapark - the Marinapark area encompasses the existing Los Arenas and Veterans' Memorial Park, the American Legion Hall, Balboa Community Center and the Girl Scout Base, the Marinapark, the mobile home park and the public beach from 15th Street to 19th Page 18 of 23 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Street. In addition to retention of such existing facilities as the • public beach and the four tennis courts, the area for its future opportunities for park, recreation and aquatic facilities are not yet fully planned. Seems to me the project is not consistent with this. . He concluded asking that these issues be addressed as well as the suitability of this project as it relates to the existing General Plan at our next meeting. Mr. Burnham answered: • State Lands Commission staff has taken the position that approximately 70% of the existing parcel is tidelands. A substantial portion of the site that is currently devoted to the mobile home use is, according to State Lands Commission staff, tidelands. There has been no final determination as to where the actual tidelands boundary is. Throughout the bay, the majority of the tidelands boundaries were established by court decree in the late 1920's and early 30's and do not actually reflect the precise location of the line of mean tide when California was admitted to the Union. The only way to determine a boundary line is through legislation, litigation or boundary line • agreement. In preliminary discussions with the State Lands Commission staff, they will support the use of 30% of the site for. non - tideland uses. The Community center is not a tideland use, the Girl Scout facility is not a tideland use, the tennis courts are not a tideland use. The State Lands Commission staff have indicated that they will have no specific problem with the twelve time share units, but they would have a huge problem with any greater number. The revenue derived from this site he suspects will be designated entirely for tidelands purposes. • The sale of the units would be determined through lease negotiations regarding receiving the TOT equivalent from each of those units and making sure that if other units are used for marketing purposes that the City receive full TOT when those rooms are occupied as well. Ms. Wood added that a hotel is not part of the existing land use designation, that is why there is a request to change the land use designation with this proposed project. Commissioner Selich noted that the Commission's job is to review the Environmental Impact Report and the alternatives, and make sure that we have an adequate EIR. A lot of things that Commissioner Toerge refers to are policy issues and that is exactly what is going to the voters to decide, the policy issues. Page 19 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Ms. Wood noted staff and the consultants can take another look at the . areas Commissioner Toerge mentioned and see if we need to add anything to the environmental analysis with regard to those comments. It is correct that in so far as they are policy issues, that is what the City Council has decided to put to the voters. Commissioner Selich asked about the no project development alternative 7.1 on page 7 -2. The description of the alternative states the existing mobile homes and recreation facilities would remain. If 70% of the property is tidelands, is that a correct description of that alternative? Did the State Lands staff ever develop a sketch, or working map? Mr. Burnham noted it is a correct description of the assumption that you need to make under the no project, no development alternative. There is always the possibility that there is no redevelopment of the site. There is some legislation processed sometime in the future that relieves the land from the restrictions on use that are associated with tidelands such as was done with Beacon Bay. That is not the desire of the City Council nor the State Lands Commission staff. For purposes of this alternative we assumed no project, no development, no change in the existing land use on site. • Continuing, Mr. Burnham answered that what they have done was to review the old meander surveys that were conducted in the 1880's and 1890's and those have been overlaid onto the site to try and determine roughly what the tideland boundary was as of that time, and then assume it had not changed much since California was admitted to the Union, which is the perfect definition of the tideland boundaries. Looking at those surveys, aerial photos and the site today, 70% is roughly that percentage of the site that falls between the bayward extent of the property from the meander survey line. That line meanders from the n/e corner of the site and comes about a third of the way down the easterly boundary and then proceeds on a diagonal to a point much closer to Balboa Blvd on the west side of the site. Commissioner Tucker noted: • The decisions will end up being made at the Council level. Commissioner Toerge's comments on the land use and planning section of the EIR need to be included in the response to comments. • The issue of parks is interesting. I think we have miles of park in that area, it is called the beach. • • CEQA looks at the physical impacts of a project to the environment. The economics objective in the EIR does not fit in with the concept of physical impacts to the environment. Page 20 of 23 file: //HAPlancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 • At the next meeting, we will go through the process of examining • the EIR; and assuming there are four of us who believe it covers everything, then we will certify that document. • That means we have come to a conclusion that the EIR fairly discloses what the consequences are of the project. It is entirely possible we may reach that conclusion even if all of us think it is a rotten project. • Whether you like it or not, what we are being asked to do is review the EIR for adequacy and what we will be looking for at the next meeting is substantial evidence. • It becomes a technical exercise when it comes to the certification process. He noted that any comments to be received at the next meeting should reference the page number in the EIR document itself as it would be helpful for clarification. Ms. Wood noted that the Planning Commission would be recommending to the City Council whether or not to certify the EIR. At Commission inquiry, she noted that for the voter approval, the General Plan Amendment will include some amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element and staff will look at others previously mentioned. The Amendment will be one that would maintain consistency. Commissioner Eaton asked if there was going to be a fiscal impact analysis and if the terms of the lease would be provided. Mr. Burnham noted that there will be a fiscal impact analysis; however, the lease itself will certainly have a bearing on the ultimate amount of revenue received by the City. The contemplation will be an option to lease pending issuance of all permits and satisfaction of other conditions as was done for the Balboa Bay Club, or the lease itself would be subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. That probably would be done some ten days prior to City Council action on this item and would not come to the Planning Commission. It will be available to the public when they vote. Commissioner Selich asked if the City Council had to certify the EIR before they can decide to put the General Plan Amendment on the general ballot and what is the last date they can do that? Mr. Burnham answered yes. The only exception would be if the measure came to the City Council pursuant to an initiative petition and in that case the City Council has the mandatory duty, if the signatures are adequate, to place the measure on the ballot. Otherwise, after the Sierra Madre case, the City Council has to certify an appropriate environmental document prior to placing the measure on the ballot. Page 21 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 The last regular meeting of the City Council to take that action would by July 27th. Commissioner Cole noted: . The Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council at the July 8th meeting. . In the area of recreation there is need for more facts and analysis. There seemed to be a lot of conclusions drawn without'' support and seem more like an opinion. . In the land use section, the parking analysis needs to have more facts and analysis particularly as it relates to comments related to the project parking demand. . The marine recreational alternative needs to have more clear analysis on how you came up to the conclusions. . The reduced intensity alternative should also be addressed more in detail. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to July 8, 2004. Page 22 of 23 Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: I ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that Council initiated an amendment to Districting Map and Specific Plan for Lido Marina Village; hearings on the Code Amendment to change the Districting Map for that lot on the corner of Clay and Orange Streets, an update of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan that was voted to approve and forward to the Coastal Commission; and, the Planning Commission action on The Newport Technology Center action was sustained. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - No meetings. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 23 of 23 d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report • on at a subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - an updated report was included in the packet including an update on Assembly Bill 2702 regarding second dwelling units. g. Project status - none. h. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Toerge noted he would be late to the next meeting. Commissioner Kiser asked for an excused absence for June 17th and therefore this is his last meeting. He was thanked for his hard work and dedication. ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT 0 0 MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //H:\Plancomm1200410603.htm 07/17/2004