HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Pacific Republic Capital Office Building - 1150 Granville Drive��EW�Rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: March 26, 2002
d PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 20
e.
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Todd M. Weber
Cq«GpRRt' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 949 -644 -3209
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: None
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Pacific Republic Capital Office Building (PA2001 -161)
1150 Granville Drive
SUMMARY: Development of an 8,000 square foot professional office building with
below grade parking. The application includes a General Plan Amendment
and a Zoning Code Amendment to increase the existing development
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
allocation from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. The Code amendment
includes a request to reduce the rear yard setback of 35 feet along Newport
Center Drive to 25 feet. The project involves the establishment of a Site
Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District for the project site to allow Planning
Commission review of the project. A Modification Permit is requested for 3
different encroachments into the proposed 25 -foot rear yard setback along
Newport Center Drive and an additional monument sign.
For the meeting of March 26, 2002:
1) Hold a public hearing.
2) Adopt Resolution No. 2002- to approve General Plan Amendment
No. 2001 -003 and approve Site Plan Review No. 2002 -001 and
Modification Permit No. 2002 -029 (PA2001 -161) for the property
identified as 1150 Granville Drive.
3) Introduce Ordinance No. 2002 -
Amendment 2001 -002.
For the meeting of April 9, 2002:
which would grant approval to Code
Adopt Ordinance No. 2002-. thereby approving Code Amendment No.
2001 -002 as intended.
APPLICANT: Pacific Republic Capital, Newport Beach
Introduction & Background
In 1994, the City Council re- designated the land use of the property from Multi - Family
Residential to Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial, in conjunction with the
conversion of the Granville apartments to condominiums. At that time, the site was allowed
5,000 square feet of commercial office development. On June 28, 1999, the Council approved the
initiation of a General Plan Amendment that authorized this request to proceed.
The project involves 4 discretionary applications, which are listed as follows:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -003
The General Plan would need to be amended to reflect the increased development
allocation.
2. Code Amendment No. 2001 -003
The District Maps within the Zoning Code would need to be amended to reflect
both the increased development allocation and the reduced setback along
Newport Center Drive.
3. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001
Site planning and building design protection for the property in conjunction with
the increased development allocation.
4. Modification Permit No. 2002 -029.
Request for the following: (1) an encroachment of 5 feet into the proposed 25 foot
rear yard setback along Newport Center Drive for a portion of the partially
subterranean parking to provide access from the disabled parking spaces to the
elevator; (2) an encroachment of 5 feet into the proposed 25 foot rear yard setback
along Newport Center Drive for the second -story balcony along the rear of the
building; (3) an encroachment of 5 feet into the proposed 25 foot rear yard setback
along Newport Center Drive for the second -story roof eave along the rear of the
building; and (4) an additional monument sign.
Discussion
The project site is identified as Lot No. 10 of Tract Map No. 14839 (Granville Condominiums)
and is surrounded on three sides by streets; Granville Drive to the west and south and Newport
Center Drive to the east. The project site is included within Block 900 — Hotel Plaza in Newport
Center (Statistical Area L1) in the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. The LUE
specifies office development for this particular property. The Zoning Code designates the
property as Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial. The property is within the
Coastal Zone. A full and complete project and site description are contained with the March 7,
2002 staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit No. 6).
It should be noted that only the additional monument sign was included under the requested
Modification Permit within the public hearing notice for the Planning Commission meeting.
Prior to the meeting, it was discovered that other aspects of the project that needed to be included
in the request for the Modification Permit. All three encroachments, as listed in the summary
Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161)
March 26, 2002
Page 2 of 2
above, are along the rear side of the building and contribute to the project's ability to provide
partially subterranean parking and a rear balcony while also maintaining the roof design for the
entire building. After a review of the entire project, the Commission felt that the additional
requests under Modification Permit No. 2002 -029 were appropriate and integral to the design for
the proposed building. It was the consensus of the Commission that the additional modifications
were not significant enough to warrant a continuance for re- noticing purposes as long as they
were included in the notice of public hearing for the City Council meeting.
Planning Commission review of the project centered on the justification for the requested
increase to the development allocation from 5,000 square feet (sq. ft.) to 8,000 sq. ft. It was noted
that the project could be built at 5,000 sq. ft. with no City review of, or control over, the final
design (both the building and site). The project architect stated that a 5,000 sq. ft. building was
not going to meet with the owner's intent to construct a building to be used as the company's
new headquarters. Additionally, a building at 5,000 sq. ft. would make it financially infeasible to
construct the parking below the building. The Commission felt that a large, surface parking lot
would result from project implementation under the existing regulations. It was the consensus of
the Commission that the additional 3,000 sq. ft. makes it possible to develop the site as designed
with increased landscaping and open space as opposed to parking. The setback reduction and
modifications sought offer the project the ability to place the building further back from
Granville Drive, which was requested by the Granville Community Association should the
project be received favorably (Exhibit No. 5).
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the applicant's request,
subject to several conditions of approval. The accompanying Resolution and Ordinance would
enact the Commission's recommendation.
Measure S Analysis(Greeniight)
This discussion is for informational purposes only and is not to be considered in the decision to
approve or deny the project. Statistical Division Ll has a current General Plan limit of 6,801,321
sq. ft. The project will add 3,000 sq. ft. of non - residential intensity, approximately 6 AM peak
hour trips and 6 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, none of the three thresholds to require a vote
pursuant to Measure S (Greenlight) are exceeded. If the City Council approves the recommended
amendment, it will become a "previous amendment" that will be tracked for ten years. During
this time period, the floor area and traffic will be added to any future amendments or other
applicable changes (results of General Plan update) to determine if a threshold is exceeded and a
vote is required.
Environmental Review
This project has been previously reviewed, and it was determined that it is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). While the proposal involves construction of a
new office building, the project and its eventual use are proposed for a lot where all necessary
public services are available. Furthermore, the property site is located in an urbanized area which is
not environmentally sensitive.
Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161)
March 26, 2002
Page 3 of 3
Recommendation
Based upon the review of the various documents to be amended as well as the proposed project
specifics, staff recommends that the City Council approve the request by adopting the attached
Resolution and Ordinance.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
=
Exhibits
Prepared by:
TODD M. WEBER
Associate Planne
1. Resolution No. 2002 -_, including findings and conditions of approval
2. Ordinance No. 2002-
3. Color photographs of the model prepared for the project
4. Letter from the Granville Community Association dated March 2 and received March 4,
2002
S. Planning Commission staff report and DRAFT minutes dated March 7, 2002
6. Plans
Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161)
March 26, 2002
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
2001 -003 AMENDING THE SECTION TITLED "JAMBOREE
ROAD/MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD AREA (STATISTICAL DIVISION
L)" WITHIN LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION FOR
PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 1150 GRANVILLE DRIVE (LOT NO. 10 OF
TRACT MAP NO. 14839)
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach
General Plan, the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element sets forth objectives, supporting policies and
limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element designates the general distribution and general
location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including
commercial floor area limitations; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan dictates that the City shall provide for sufficient
diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches
and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community.
Since the intended land use and the Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) Commercial
designation for the property will not change, the proposed project is consistent with this policy;
and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan dictates that the City insure redevelopment of
older or underutilized properties and preserve the value of property by allowing for some modest
growth, while maintaining acceptable levels of traffic service. The implementation of the
proposed project will result in an increase to the existing development allocation for a
commercial office site by 3,000 square feet, which would have a less than significant impact on
the projected capacity and levels of service of the circulation system. Therefore, the proposed
project is consistent with this policy; and
I
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and
adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and
undergrounding of utilities to ensure that the quality character of residential neighborhoods are
maintained and that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible
with surrounding land uses. The proposed project is consistent with this policy; and
WHEREAS, development of the site is required to comply with the applicable City
standards as outlined in the Zoning Code, for building height, setbacks, and required parking.
The proposed project is requesting an increase in authorized development allocation, a reduction
to the rear yard setback along Newport Center Drive, and an additional monument sign along
Newport Center Drive. The proposed project complies with all other applicable development
standards; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the subject amendment to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, the proposed project has been determined to be Categorically
Exempt under the Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on March
7, 2002 to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -003 and recommended approval to the
City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 26, 2002 to
consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -003.
NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
Section 1. The City Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with
the intent of the General Plan. The project consists of an increase in the development allocation
of 3,000 square feet for the site. The project does not include a change in land use designation.
I
Section 2. The amendments proposed under the application for General Plan
Amendment No. 2001 -003 are approved, as shown in the Attachment No. "1 ", referenced and
incorporated herein, for the property identified as 1150 Granville Drive.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the Planning
Commission of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 21" day of March 2002 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
I
Attachment "1"
General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -003
1. Proposed changes to the General Plan (shown in strikeout/underline format):
JAMBOREE ROAD /MACAURTHUR BOULEVARD AREA (Statistical Division L)
Newport Center (Statistical Area L1)
10. Block 900 - Hotel Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, the Balboa Bay
Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Country Club, Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive.
The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and
Multi - Family Residential land uses. The allowed development is 611 hotel rooms with
ancillary hotel support facilities and 16,G0 19,630 sq.ft. of office development [GPA 94 -1
(A)]. The residential site is allocated 67 dwelling units.
�b
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA LI
Residential (in du's)
Commercial
(in sq. ft.)
Existing
Gen. Plan
Projected
Existing
Gen. Plan
Projected
01/01/1987
Projection
Growth
01/01/1987
Projection
Growth
1. Block 0
0
0
0
246,146
432,320
186,174
2. Block 100
0
0
0
196,545
196,545
0
3. Block 200
0
0
0
207,781
207,781
0
4. Block 300
0
0
0
130,408
134,908
4,500
5. Block 400
0
0
0
440,118
440,118
0
6. Block 500
0
0
0
377,170
377,170
0
7. Block 600
0
0
0
1,284,134
1,426,634
0
8. Block 700
0
0
0
327,671
327,671
0
9. Block 800
0
245
245
253,984
253,984
0
10. Block 900
67
67
0
616,630
622,630
6 88
625.630
9 000
11. Civic Plaza
0
0
0
365,160
456,710
91,550
12. Corporate Plaza
0
0
0
15,000
115,000
100,000
13. Tennis Club
0
0
0
0
0
0
14. NB Country Club
0
0
0
0
0
0
15. Amling's
0
0
0
3,960
5,000
1,040
16. Villa Point
0
228
228
0
0
0
17. Sea Island
132
132
0
0
0
0
18. Fashion Island
0
0
0
1,603,850
1,633,850
30,000
19. Newport Village
0
0
0
55,000
170,000
115,000
TOTAL
199
672
473
6,123,557
6;808321
334,264
6.803,321
537,264
Population
394
1,331
937
Revised
86/.24808
03/07/2002
�b
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE DISTRICT MAPS WITHIN THE ZONING CODE
TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION AND
REDUCE THE SETBACK ALONG NEWPORT CENTER
DRIVE FOR THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 1150
GRANVILLE DRIVE
WHEREAS, amendments to Title 20 must be adopted by approved by a Resolution of
the Planning Commission setting forth full particulars of the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Pacific Republic Capital, has submitted a request to increased
the development allocation from 5,000 square feet (sq. ft.) to 8,000 sq. ft., and reduce the setback
along Newport Center Drive from 35 feet to 25 feet for the property identified as 1150 Granville
Drive; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the subject amendment to the
Zoning Code, the proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt under the
Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on March
7, 2002 to consider the applicant's request for Code Amendment No. 2001 -003 and
recommended approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council duly noticed a public hearing on March 26, 2002
regarding Code Amendment No. 2001 -003, amending District Map No. 48 within the Zoning
Code for the property identified as 1150 Granville Drive.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That Code Amendment No. 2001 -003 is approved as depicted in Attachment
No. 1.
Section 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this
Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the
same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
13
Ordinance No. 2002 -
Page 2 of 3
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach held on March 26, 2002, and was adopted on the 9`h day of April by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
14
Ordinance No. m=
%e ms
Attachment No. I
oaancelnn> U
—
Code Amendment 2nnlp3
OD
\�
d
/
«-®
z
! !
CL
,-
k;
\
/
/
>�
�
«
,
.
Ills
�
•�
� /
ail
\
� [
�
�
a.
°
»..
z
«
'
�9\
ƒ «
OL
IN
M @`
oa,R
w,w
!!
t
Hot Ps
�
!tea
;Saw
2
{
•,
;. ,,!
�
..
■
a
� �
«
�
E
��l.•,,
2
)
!
`
VA
' MEN W
F ° �\ ,
lr ' �•
� t
� I
9F 1
\ f Y
f
3
/f
ry
v �
it " '^a�',t�� ^2'• c ti • '.
7�
•lv..
0
THE GRANVILLE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
March 2, 2002
City of Newport Beach
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Attn: Newport Beach Planning Commission
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
RECEIVED 6Y
PLANNING DEPARTMFNT
CITY
AM MAR 0 1 2OOZ PM
718,9114
4
Granville is a community of sixty -eight condominiums which were built in the early 1970's as
apartments by two developers named Causey and Rhodes. In 1994, these apartments were
converted to condominium units by a developer named Peter F. Bowie. During the conversion
process, the project was subdivided into Lots A and B, and numbered lots 1 through 10. The
dwelling units occupy Lots 1 through 9, however, Mr. Bowie retained Lot 10 as his own property
for future development.
Pacific Republic Capital, current owner of the property known as Lot 10, now has a proposal before
you for a General Plan Amendment which would allow them to construct an 8,000 square foot
office building at that location, with subterranean parking. This proposal also asks that the rear
vard setback along Newport Center Drive be reduced to 25 feet. This setback request would allow
the building to be situated further away from Granville Drive, which is the entrance to our
community.
As the design for the project has developed, William P. Ficker, architect for the project and a
resident of Granville, has made several presentations to the members of The Granville Community
Association so as to keep them abreast of the development. During these presentations, several
members have expressed an interest in acquiring Lot 10 for our own use, but nothing ever came
from these discussions. If we had our druthers, we would rather see the property remain as open
space than to have it developed as office space; however, understanding the realities of the situation,
the owner of the property is entitled to develop the property in accordance with the requirements of
the General Plan and other conditions required by the City. Therefore, the Association does not
oppose the project, but it has a keen interest in seeing that it blends in with the residential nature of
our community.
We have reviewed drawings of the proposed layout of the building on the lot, and have reviewed
elevations of the proposed building. The project, as proposed, is of a harmonious design and of a
proper scale for the location. If you approve the proposal for expanded square footage, we strongly
urge you to impose the requirement for subterranean parking, with minimum paving for vehicles on
the surface. We also urge that you approve the reduced setback along Newport Center Drive so as
to preserve the park like appearance of the property as you drive into our community.
Sincerely,
Seth M. Oberg, President
�3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: March 26, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item:
v_ %2 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Todd M. Weber
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 949 - 644 -3209
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: None
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Pacific Republic Capital Office Building (PA2001 -161)
1150 Granville Drive
SUMMARY: Development of an 8,000 square foot professional office building with
below grade parking. The application includes a General Plan Amendment
and a Zoning Code Amendment to increase the existing development
allocation from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. The Code amendment
includes a request to reduce the rear yard setback of 35 feet along Newport
Center Drive to 25 feet. The project involves the establishment of a Site
Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District for the project site to allow Planning
Commission review of the project. A Modification Permit is requested for 3
different encroachments into the proposed 25 -foot rear yard setback along
Newport Center Drive and an additional monument sign.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: For the meeting of March 26.2002:
1) Hold a public hearing.
2) Affirm, reverse, or modify the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -003, Site
Plan Review No. 2002 -001, and Modification Permit No. 2002 -029
(PA2001 -161) for the property identified as 1150 Granville Drive; and
3) Introduce Ordinance No. 2002 -_, which would rescind Ordinance No.
2002 -003 and grant approval to Code Amendment 2001 -002.
For the meeting of Apri19, 2002:
Adopt Ordinance No. 2002 -_, thereby approving Code Amendment No.
2001 -002 as intended.
APPLICANT: Pacific Republic Capital, Newport Beach
Introduction & Background
In 1994, the City Council re- designated the land use of the property from Multi - Family
Residential to Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial, in conjunction with the
conversion of the Granville apartments to condominiums. At that time, the site was allowed
5,000 square feet of commercial office development. On June 28, 1999, the Council approved the
initiation of a General Plan Amendment that authorized this request to proceed.
a /�
The project involves 4 discretionary applications, which are listed as follows:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00'
General Plan would need to be amended to reflect the increased development
allocation.
2. Code Amendment No. 2001 -003
The District Maps within the Zoning Code would need to be amended to reflect
both the increased development allocation and the reduced setback along
Newport Center Drive.
3. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001
Site planning and building design protection for the property in conjunction with
the increased development allocation.
4. Modification Permit No. 2002 -029.
Request for the following: (1) an encroachment of 5 feet into the proposed 25 foot
rear yard setback along Newport Center Drive for a portion of the partially
subterranean parking to provide access from the disabled parking spaces to the
elevator; (2) an encroachment of S feet into the proposed 25 foot rear yard setback
along Newport Center Drive for the second -story balcony along the rear of the
building; (3) an encroachment of S feet into the proposed 25 foot rear yard setback
along Newport Center Drive for the second -story roof eave along the rear of the
building; and (4) an additional monument sign.
Discussion
The project site is identified as Lot No. 10 of Tract Map No. 14839 (Granville Condominiums)
and is surrounded on three sides by streets; Granville Drive to the west and south and Newport
Center Drive to the east. The project site is included within Block 900 — Hotel Plaza in Newport
Center (Statistical Area Ll) in the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. The LUE
specifies office development for this particular property. The Zoning Code designates the
property as Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial. The property is within the
Coastal Zone. A full and complete project and site description are contained with the March 7,
2002 staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit No. 6).
It should be noted that only the additional monument sign was included under the requested
Modification Permit within the public hearing notice for the Planning Commission meeting.
Prior to the meeting, the Commission noted other aspects of the project that needed to be
included in the request for the Modification Permit. All three encroachments, as listed in the
summary above, are along the rear side of the building and contribute to the project's ability to
provide partially subterranean parking and a rear balcony while also maintaining the roof design
for the entire building. After a review of the entire project, the Commission felt that the
additional requests under Modification Permit No. 2002 -029 were appropriate and integral to the
design for the proposed building. It was the consensus of the Commission that the additional
modifications were not significant enough to warrant a continuance for re- noticing purposes as
long as they were included in the notice of public hearing for the City Council meeting.
Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161)
March 26, 2002
Page 2 of 4
Planning Commission review of the project centered on the justification for the requested
increase to the development allocation from 5,000 square feet (sq. ft.) to 8,000 sq. ft. It was noted
that the project could be built at 5,000 sq. ft. with no City review of, or control over, the final
design (both the building and site). The project architect stated that a 5,000 sq. ft. building was
not going to meet with the owner's intent to construct a building to be used as the company's
new headquarters. Additionally, a building at 5,000 sq. ft. would make it financially infeasible to
construct the parking below the building. The Commission felt that a large, surface parking lot
would result from project implementation under the existing conditions. It was the consensus of
the Commission that the additional 3,000 sq. ft. makes it possible to develop the site as designed
with increased landscaping and open space as opposed to parking. The setback reduction and
modifications sought offer the project the ability to place the building further back from
Granville Drive, which was requested by the Granville Community Association should the
project be received favorably (Exhibit No. 5).
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the applicant's request,
subject to several conditions of approval. The accompanying Resolution and Ordinance would
enact the Commission's recommendation.
Measure S Analysis (Greenlight)
This discussion is for informational purposes only and is not to be considered in the decision to
approve or deny the project. Statistical Division Ll has a current General Plan limit of 6,801,321
sq. ft. The project will add 3,000 sq. ft. of non - residential intensity, approximately 6 AM peak
hour trips and 6 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, none of the three thresholds to require a vote
pursuant to Measure S (Greenlight) are exceeded. If the City Council approves the recommended
amendment, it will become a "previous amendment" that will be tracked for ten years. During
this time period, the floor area and traffic will be added to any future amendments or other
applicable changes (results of General Plan update) to determine if a threshold is exceeded and a
vote is required.
Environmental Review
This project has been previously reviewed, and it was determined that it is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). While the proposal involves construction of a
new office building, the project and its eventual use are proposed for a lot where all necessary
public services are available. Furthermore, the property site is located in an urbanized area which is
not environmentally sensitive.
Recommendation
Based upon the review of the various documents to be amended as well as the proposed project
specifics, staff recommends that the City Council approve the request by adopting the attached
Resolution and Ordinance.
Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161)
March 26, 2002
Page 3 of 4
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Exhibits
Prepared by:
TODD M. WEBER
Associate Planner
Resolution No. _, including findings and conditions of approval
2. Ordinance No. 2002-
3. Plans
4. Color photographs of the model prepared for the project
Letter from the Granville Community Association dated March 2 and received March 4,
2002
6. Planning Commission staff report and DRAFT minutes dated March 7, 2002
Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161)
March 26, 2002
Page 4 of 4
rEW°�4r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: March 7, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 2
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Todd M. Weber
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 949- 644 -3209
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Council Review: Automatic
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I L E COPY
PROJECT: Pacific Republic Capital Office Building (PA2001 -16 )
1150 Granville Drive
SUMMARY: Development of an 8,000 square foot professional office building with
below grade parking. The application includes a General Plan Amendment
and a Zoning Code Amendment to increase the existing development
allocation from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. The Code amendment
includes a request to reduce the rear yard setback of 35 feet along Newport
Center Drive to 25 feet. The project involves the establishment of a Site
Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District for the project site to allow Planning
_.__.— ___Commission review of the project. A Modification Permit is requested
sought for an additional monument sign.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Approve General Plan Amendment (GP2001 -003), Code Amendment
(CA2001 -003), and Site Plan Review 2002 -001 (PA2001 -161) subject to
the findings and conditions of approval in the draft resolution attached as
Exhibit 1.
APPLICANT: Pacific Republic Capital, Newport Beach
LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Granville Drive and Newport Center
Drive intersection.
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Lot No. 10, Tract No. 14839
GENERALPLAN: Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial Uses
ZONING
DISTRICT: APF
31
General Plan Amendment (GP2001 -003) & Code Amendment
(CA2001 -003) & Site Plan Review (SP2002 -001)
(PA2001 -161)
1150 Granville Drive
Current
Development:
Vacant landscaped lot along the entrance to Granville Drive
To the north:
Existing residential uses called the Granville Condominiums
To the east:
Existing Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses within Block
100 across Newport Center Drive
To the south:
L
r
Existing Recreational uses across Granville Drive
r
Subject
Property
_.
�•��
Nir ��Tao�.;.,
.
'�
,
"ate„
m;
G)
0
0
t
®
rn
FARALLpNDR
-- — — Q-- --
— — —
-
;602
z
0 200 400 Feet
M!Osiiia
N
VICINITY MAP w E
General Plan Amendment (GP2001 -003) & Code Amendment
(CA2001 -003) & Site Plan Review (SP2002 -001)
(PA2001 -161)
1150 Granville Drive
Current
Development:
Vacant landscaped lot along the entrance to Granville Drive
To the north:
Existing residential uses called the Granville Condominiums
To the east:
Existing Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses within Block
100 across Newport Center Drive
To the south:
Existing Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses within
Corporate Plaza West across Granville Drive
To the west:
Existing Recreational uses across Granville Drive
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 2 of 13
Introduction& Background
Th4roject involves a request to increase the development allocation from 5,000 square feet to
8,000 square feet, allowing an office building to be constructed on a lot that has been landscaped
through the development of neighboring properties. The project includes a code amendment to
establish the Site Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District and to reduce the rear yard setback along
Newport Center Drive from 35 feet to 25 feet. The Site Plan Review will ensure that the finished
appearance and design of the building is compatible with the surrounding development. Lastly,
the project also contains a request for a Modification Permit for the second monument sign.
In 1994, the City Council re- designated the land use of the property from Multi- Family
Residential to Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial, in conjunction with the
conversion of the Granville apartments to condominiums. At that time, the site was allowed
5,000 square feet of commercial office development. On June 28, 1999, the Council approved the
initiation of a General Plan Amendment that authorized this request to proceed.
Site Overview
The project site is identified as Lot No. 10 of Tract Map No. 14839 and is surrounded on three
sides by streets; Granville Drive to the west and south and Newport Center Drive to the east. The
project site is included within Block 900 — Hotel Plaza in Newport Center (Statistical Area Ll) in
the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. The LUE specifies office development for this
particular property. The Zoning Code designates the property as Administrative, Professional,
and Financial Commercial. The property is within the Coastal Zone.
The property is improved with landscaping but has no existing buildings. There are
approximately a dozen mature trees of varying species spanning the site. The nearest existing
building is the guard gate at the entrance of the Granville condominiums.
There is an existing slope towards the rear of the property, adjoining the improvements along
Newport Center Drive, which was constructed at a higher elevation than Granville Drive. Those
improvements include a sidewalk and landscaping that acts to screen the site from Newport
Center Drive.
Finally, the site was improved with a rolled curb and gutter system, which has been painted red
along the entire stretch of Granville Drive to preclude on -street parking. The nearest traffic signal
is located at the Newport Center Drive and Granville/Farallon Drive intersection. There are no
existing curb cuts that lead into the property but there is an existing storm drain and fire hydrant
that abut the site.
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 3 of 13
J"
Project Overview
Thlincreased development allocation is sought so that a 7,770 square foot, two -story office
building with a level of partially subterranean parking may be constructed. Some of the existing
trees would need to be removed or relocated in order to accommodate the development.
The two -story building is proposed to be at a maximum height of 26 feet above existing grade.
The plans indicate that the maximum building height at the four comers of the building (using an
average of the varying grades at those points) is 23 feet. The building's architecture utilizes a
sloped roof design that includes two separate skylight elements. The exterior roof material is
proposed to be tile or slate. Other aspects of the finished appearance for the roof include the use
of copper gutters and accents. Stone veneer is proposed as a base material for the front building
elevation (along Granville Drive).
The partially submerged parking area includes 29 spaces. Another two spaces are proposed along
an auxiliary circulation loop connected to the main drive driveway that leads from the street to
the parking area. The driveway has been placed where the existing fire hydrant is located, and
therefore, the hydrant will be relocated.
The applicant originally proposed a Development Agreement (DA) as a mechanism to ensure
that the project would result in a site and building design that is compatible with the other
existing developments in Newport Center. This was requested of the applicant by the Granville
Community Association to ensure that the development would be subject to review by the City.
Upon further review, staff deemed this mechanism was not appropriate because there was no
public benefit resulting from the project that justified consideration of a Development
Agreement. The desired result could be achieved by applying the Site Plan Review Overlay
District to the project site, with a review of the proposal based upon those criteria.
Analysis
General Plan
The General Plan designates the land use for the site as Administrative, Professional, and
Financial commercial. The project conforms to the land use designation, but the size currently
proposed is 3,000 square feet beyond what was approved in 1994. The applicant is, therefore,
requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to allow the project.
The General Plan contains 12 general development policies that are discussed within the
following table:
General Plan Policy
Policy Analysis
A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses
The proposed project proposes an increase to the development
so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities,
allocation by 3,000 square feet for a commercial office project already
churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to
authorized at 5,000 square feet. The proposed project is consistent
each resident of the community.
with this policy in the fact that the intended land use will not change.
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 4 of 13 j
3 `II
General Plan Policy
Policy Analysis
B. To insure redevelopment of older or underutilized
The project proposes to increase the development allocation to 8,000
properties, and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits
square feet for a property already authorized for 5,000 square feet of
specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To
APF commercial development. The request includes an amendment to
insure that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the
the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. It is
City, variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip
anticipated that the increase in development allocation would result in
generation characteristics of the use or uses proposed for the site.
an increase of approximately 112 trips per day (16 AM Peak and IS
PM peak). The Traffic Engineer has determined that the proposed
increase in the development allocation would result in less than
significant traffic impacts on existing levels of service at intersections
within the City.
C. Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving
Not Applicable. While the property is located within the Coastal
facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to
Zone, it does not abut the harbor nor is it located new the harbor or
minimize franc congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to
any harbor - related, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities.
the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high
quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that
border the harbor.
D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be
No significant natural landforms, including coastal bluff's and cliffs,
controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the
are located on the site or in the immediate area. No designated or
preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural
otherwise significant public view exists presently. The property
resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along
slopes upwards to the rear of the property where it connects to
bluffs and cliffs.
Newport Center Drive. Public views of the project site will be limited
mainly to Granville Drive, as the existing mature landscaping along
Newport Center Drive will limit views of the site to those when
traveling northbound on Newport Center Drive.
E. Provisions shall be made for the encouragement or
Not Applicable. Even though the project site is located within the
development of suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine-
Coastal Zone, the Newport Center area does not contain marine
related facilities so as to continue the City's historical and maritime
related uses nor a historical maritime atmosphere.
atmosphere, and the charts and character such business have
traditionally provided the City.
F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate
The project will be required to comply the with design standards
standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design,
prescribed by the Site Plan Review process. The site is already
parking and und-rgrounding of utilities and other development
improved and ready for development with undergrounded utilities.
standards to ensure that the beauty and charm of existing residential
The two -story office building has been designed to resemble elements
neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects
of both the neighboring residential and commercial development in
are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses
it's use of architecture, colors and materials. The project attempts to
and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within industrial
provide a pleasing transition between the different uses.
developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and
consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
G. Prohibit or restrict certain types of land use conversions or
Not Applicable.
forms of ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing,
arc incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or
safety problems.
H. Continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil
Not Applicable.
producers and prohibit the construction of new onshore oil facilities
-
except as may be necessary in conjunction with the operation of the
West Newport oil field.
1. Restrict and control development in flood hazard areas.
The site is not in a flood hazard area; therefore the policy is not
applicable.
J. The City shall aggressively pursue annexation of territory
Not Applicable.
within its sphere of influence with due consideration given to costs
and benefits associated with incorporation.
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 5 of 13
General Plan Policy
Policy Analysis
K. The land use designations and building intensity standards
Not Applicable.
in this Element reflect limits on John Wayne Airport imposed by the
Airport settlement Agreement and the provisions of that Agreement
have become an integral part of the land use and planning process of
the City of Newport Beach. The City should take all steps necessary
to preserve and protect the Agreement as well as assist in the
selection of a second commercial airport which, in conjunction with
John Wayne Airport could serve a majority of the County's short-
and medium -haul demand.
L. The City shall encourage its community commercial
With the exception of the requests for an increased development
districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential
allocation and the reduced setback along Newport Center Drive, the
areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its several community
project is consistent with existing development standards.
commercial districts through the adoption and application of its
planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations,
policies and activities.
Local Coastal Plan (LCP)
The project site is situated within the-designated _ Coastal-Zone. -However, _the site is not
designated in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) as an environmentally sensitive habitat area or a
unique coastal resource. This fact supports the Categorical Exemption determination under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proposed by staff for the project. The site is
somewhat inland from the coast and does not include bluffs or cliffs as it is situated within a
built, urban environment. Project implementation would not involve diking, dredging, filling or
shoreline structures. Public access and circulation are issues not in conflict with the proposed
commercial office project, which would be located within an existing street system.
Office buildings are recognized as a permitted use under the existing APF designation. The
adopted LCP included an amendment to authorize development on the project site at 5,000
square feet (LCP 34). If approved, the LCP would need to incorporate the proposed increase in
development allocation of 3,000 square feet as well.
Zoning Code Amendment
The property is zoned Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial. A Code
Amendment is requested for the project for two purposes. First, the District Map for the site
reflects a development allocation of 5,000 square feet. If this project were approved, this map
would need to be updated to reflect the new entitlement requested.
Furthermore, as a result of the General Plan Amendment in 1994, the project site was assigned
specific and unique setback requirements as follows: front yard setback of 20 feet along
Granville Drive, street side setback of 35 feet also along Granville Drive, and a rear yard setback
of 35 feet along Newport Center Drive. It is the understanding of staff that in 1994 the assigned
setbacks were increased along the front, street side and rear setbacks in an attempt to exercise
some control over the placement of future buildings, which would affect the site design. The
applicant is now proposing to reduce the setback requirement along Newport Center Drive from
35 to 25 feet (minimum). This is proposed along with the increase in the development allocation.
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 6 of 13
3(c)
The applicant feels that the proposed rear setback of 25 feet is consistent with other buildings in
the immediate vicinity.
J
Development Standards
The interdepartmental review of the project focuses on applying the prescribed development
standards to the specific characteristics of the proposed office building and any ancillary
improvements. The project proposes a two -story office building, 8,000 square feet in size, along
with a partially submerged parking area below the ground level floor. The subject property is
surrounded on three sides by streets.
Setbacks
With the exception of the rear yard setback from Newport Center Drive for this property, the plans
submitted for the office building comply with the setbacks established in 1994. Without the
setbacks listed on the District Map, the standard setbacks would apply. They are: 15 feet in the front
yard along Granville Drive, 15 feet in the rear along Newport Center Drive, 5 feet on the interior
side abutting the Granville Community Association, and 15 feet along the street side also along
Granville Drive. The consistent application of the setback of 15 feet is due to the fact that the
project site is surrounded on three sides by streets, effectively making each side a front. The
applicant's justification for the reduction is the proposed design and the voluntary application of the
Site Plan Review (SPR) Overlay to the site, which will ensure proper design for the building itself
as well as compatibility with the surrounding urban environment.
An examination of the existing site conditions helps to understand the effect of the reduced rear
yard setback requested. While a corner of the building makes a modest cut into a portion of the
steep slope to the rear of the property, the majority of this steep slope is outside of the proposed
building footprint and is in the area that is 25 feet from the rear yard property line. At that point,
the property slopes upward approximately 12 feet behind the proposed building as it extends
toward Newport Center Drive. Additionally, with the exception of the removal of two existing
Eucalyptus trees that are approximately 24 feet in height, all of the existing and mature landscape
along Newport Center Drive will remain. This landscaping has grown into what is effectively
termed a "living" wall that significantly screens the site from Newport Center Drive. The request
for the reduced setback seems acceptable in that: no major cuts into the existing slope would
occur, no portion of the building would be raised up by being placed upon a part of the steep
slope, and the condition of the existing landscape on site effectively would screen the proposed
building from views along Newport Center Drive.
Building Height
The maximum building height prescribed for the project site is 32 feet. The cross section provided
in the plan set shows a maximum building height of 26 feet above the established grade, of which
the partially submerged parking structure will extend 2 to 3.5 feet above grade.
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 7 of 13 1
3
Parking& Traffic
Th project plans show a total of 31 parking spaces provided. The code requires at least 1 space for
every 250 square feet of building area, which would result in 32 spaces required for an 8,000 square
foot building. The project is deficient 1 space as shown. The applicant has expressed that the
construction plans will comply with all applicable parking requirements, meaning the building
would have to be reduced to 7,750 square feet utilizing the current parking design. A condition of
approval has been proposed which would require either the building to be reduced so that only 31
spaces are needed or that the total parking spaces are increased to 32.
The Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and determined that an insignificant amount of peak hour
trips would result from project implementation. For an office use that is 8,000 square feet, it was
concluded that the increase in AM peak hour trips would be 16 total and the increase in PM peak
hour trips would be 15 total. The overall daily increase would be 112 additional trips generated.
Other conditions were incorporated as a result of this review to ensure that site circulation and
access are compatible with the existing surrounding development.
Plan Review (SPR) Overlay and Additional Development Standards
In order to apply the Site Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District to the site, one of the following
criteria must be present:
A. The site contains areas having a slope in excess of 26.6 degrees (50 percent slope).
B. The site contains or is immediately adjacent to coastal bluffs.
C. Development of the site has the potential to affect public views.
D. Development of the site has the potential to affect environmentally sensitive areas including:
1. Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or
otherwise sensitive.
2. Riparian areas.
3. Freshwater marshes.
4. Saltwater marshes.
5. Intertidal areas.
6. Other wetlands.
7. Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities.
E. The site is located in a geologic hazard area, as described in the General Plan.
F. The site is in a residential district subject to noise levels greater than the 60 Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL).
G. The site contains significant historical or archaeological resources or is in an area of unique
historical or archaeological interest.
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 8 of -13
3
H. The site is immediately adjacent to a thoroughfare designated as a Scenic Highway or Scenic
Drive in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
I. The site is Immediately adjacent to the ocean or bay.
J. The site directly abuts a residential district, but is located in a district designated for
nonresidential use.
K A density bonus is proposed or has been granted for the site.
The project site qualifies under Criteria `7." While the parcel is designated APF, it abuts property
containing the Granville Community Association that is designated as Multiple Family
Residential (MFR).
As mentioned above, the Granville Community Association requested that the City require the
Applicant to enter into a Development Agreement to ensure that the project would be subject to
some form of discretionary review. If the project were to remain at the approved development
allocation of 5,000 square feet, it would not be subject to any form of discretionary review, rather
it would only be evaluated against the development standards within the Zoning Code.
Staff believes that there are no public benefits that warrant the approval of a Development
Agreement. Furthermore, it was concluded that a Development Agreement was not the right
mechanism to require an enhanced review of the project to ensure a compatible design with the
neighboring residential development. Both staff and the applicant felt the Site Plan Review
process would accomplish this same end result.
The SPR process establishes 12 standards for review of projects. Their applicability to the project
is discussed below:
A. Sites subject to site plan review under the provisions of this chapter shall be graded and
developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and
landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms
such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be
indiscriminately destroyed: The project site is not located next to the harbor or any other
waterfront. Instead, it is proposed on a landscaped lot, previously graded, that is located
within a built, urban setting. The site is not located next to any designated bluff or cliff area.
The project proposes to maintain, as much as possible, the existing on site pad grades and
the upward slope towards the rear of the property where it connects to Newport Centel
Drive. A number of large trees will need to be removed as part of project implementation
and the Planning Commission must determine an appropriate means of restitution.
B. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding
sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the
surroundings and of the City: The development is relatively small as compared to the
intensity of other office properties across Granville Drive and Newport Center Drive. The
building location at it closest point is set back approximately 65 feet from the property line
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 9 of 13 h
3 "I
abutting the Granville Condominiums. The proposed building design appears to be of
above- average quality based upon the model created for the project. The proposed
building height is 6 feet under the maximum permitted and its design incorporates elements
typical of residential development (i.e., sloped roofs, enhanced landscaping, etc.).
Additionally, the applicant suggests that the building, as designed, will appear to be
single -story from the front elevation along Granville Drive. The design could be
perceived as providing a transition in building height and design between the nearby
multilevel office buildings and the Granville Condominiums. Approximately 64% of the
site will remain as landscaped open space. With the exception of the proposed reduction of
10 feet to the rear yard setback of 35 feet, staff feels the project is consistent with the
development standards applicable to the site. All of these factors lead staff to conclude that
the project is sensitive to and compatible with the neighboring residential development,
taking into consideration the applicable development standards and other site limitations.
Should the project be approved, it would be conditioned in a manner that ensures all other
applicable development standards are adhered to.
C. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with
special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as
Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the
General Plan: While the project site is surrounded on 3 sides by streets, there are no scenic
highways, drives or roadways abutting or near the project site. There are no public parks
abutting or near the project site. The project site is separated from the abutting Granville
condominium development by a guard gate and a wall associated with that development.
D. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or
landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific
mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable
level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impact:
The site is not within a designated Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA).
E. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific
mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable
level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts:
The Public Safety Element of the General Plan indicates the project site is not located in
an area of slope instability but may be subject to stronger shaking potential with regard to
seismic hazards. Furthermore, the project site is located in an area of moderately high
expansive soils but with only a slight potential for erosion. However, if approved;
construction of the project would be subject to all applicable seismic development
standards incorporated into the 1997 Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.).
F. Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than
60 CNEL only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior
areas to less than 60 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45
CNEL or less: The proposed project does not include residential development and,
therefore, this standard is not applicable to the project.
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
- Page 10 of 13 w
G. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways,
i and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site
development. The project has been reviewed by the various City departments with regard to
setbacks, parking areas, vehicular access ways and other site - specific conditions that could
affect project development. Staff believes that the location of the access to both the site and
building for pedestrians and vehicles are functional. Additionally, they appear to be
sensitive to the neighboring residential development by being located on the building
elevation opposite from the Granville Condominiums. The Traffic Engineer has submitted a
set of conditions applicable to the project that have been incorporated into the attached
resolution should the Commission approve the project. These conditions will require
cdmpliance with all applicable development policies and standards, except where approved
as modified.
H. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable specific plan
district policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies
and objectives: This topic has been discussed previously in this report and the site is not
subject to a Specific Plan._
Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into
consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas,
and sensitive resources: The proposed design for the site attempts to minimize the
intrusion of the building, including the partially submerged parking area, into the existing
upward slope towards Newport Center Drive. A review of the vehicular access to and from
the site has been conducted in the context of the existing urbanized area surrounding the
project. The pedestrian and vehicle access to both the building and site are located on the
building elevation opposite from the neighboring residential development where the site
experiences only slight grade changes. There are no known sensitive areas or resources
applicable to the project. The project does not require significant alteration of the site
outside of the building footprint and attempts to maintain existing grades where the
partially submerged parking area and building above are located. Therefore, the project
appears compatible with the site.
J. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas
shall be concealed. The project plans indicate that the trash enclosure will be concealed
from off -site views. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that there will be no
equipment visible from off site and the conditions of approval require that all electrical
and mechanical equipment be concealed from off -site view.
K Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible; No
known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist on site. Additionally,
the lot has been graded and improved with irrigation and landscaping. Therefore,
archaeological and historical resources are unlikely to exist due to the improved nature of
the site.
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 11 of 13 1
L. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an
abutting residential district. The discussion under SPR development standard "B" above
addresses this requirement by demonstrating that the project, as proposed, will not have
significant adverse effects on the Granville Condominiums.
In summary, the project consists of increasing the development allocation for an improved or
landscaped lot that is ready for construction. By applying the site plan review procedures to the
project, it appears that the increase can be accommodated based upon the staff recommended
conditions of approval. Therefore, based upon this information, the Planning Commission must
make the following findings in confirming the staff recommendations:
A. Development of properties will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan
or specific plan district objectives and policies.
B. The value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by
inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate
placement of structures and failure to preserve, where feasible, natural landscape
features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of
occupancy and use of existing properties in such area.
C. The benefits derived from expenditure of public funds for improvement, acquisition
and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the
exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of
private buildings, structures and open spaces.
D. Unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may
benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural
terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City.
Modification Permit
The Sign Ordinance only permits one monument sign per commercial property as outlined in
Zoning Code Section 20.67.030. The property has the unique feature that it is surrounded on
three sides by streets and that the front of the project is not visible from Newport Center Drive or
the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive. The applicant proposes a single
sided monument sign near the intersection and a double -sided monument sign near the main
entrance to the proposed building along Granville Drive. It could be argued that the monument
sign near the intersection is needed to better identify the property, as the site is difficult to see
when approaching from Newport Center Drive.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed location for this monument sign near
the intersection and found it to be in compliance with site distance standards. The other
monument sign is typical of this type of development and identifies the project from the front
entry driveway. Public Works also finds that the sign meets applicable site distance
requirements. Together, the total combined sign area of 120 square feet is well under the
maximum of 200 allowed by code for a single monument sign. Based upon these factors, staff
(Pacific Reptiblic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 12 of 13
feels the request for a Modification Permit to allow the second monument sign is reasonable and
sho)(d not be detrimental to the Granville Condominium community, or to the City.
Measure S Analysis (Geenlight)
This discussion is for informational purposes only and is not to be considered in the decision to
approve or deny the project. Statistical Division L1 has a current General Plan limit of 6,801,321
square feet. The project will add 3,000 square feet of non - residential intensity, approximately 6
AM peak hour trips and 6 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, none of the three thresholds to require
a vote pursuant to Measure S (Greenlight) are exceeded. If the City Council approves the
recommended amendment, it will become a "previous amendment" that will be tracked for ten
years. During this time period, the floor area and traffic will be added to any future amendments
to determine if a threshold is exceeded and a vote is required.
EnvironmentaiReview
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures). While the proposal involves construction of a new office building,
the project and its eventual use are proposed for a lot where all necessary public services are
available. Furthermore, the property site is located in an urbanized area which is not
environmentally sensitive.
Recommendation
Based upon the review of the various documents to be amended as well as the proposed project
specifics, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request by
adopting the attached Resolution, subject to the conditions of approval included therein.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Exhibits
Prepared by:
TODD M. WEBER
Associate Planner
Resolution No. _, including findings and conditions of approval
(Pacific Republic Capital (PA2001 -161))
(March 7, 2002)
Page 13 of 13 ��
J
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001 -003, CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 2001 -003, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 2002 -001,
THEREBY AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN AND THE DISTRICTING MAPS IN THE ZONING CODE
PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION AND SETBACKS,
AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 1150 GRANVIILLE DRIVE (LOT NO. 10 OF
TRACT MAP NO. 14839)
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach
General Plan, the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element sets forth objectives, supporting policies and
limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element designates the general distribution and general
location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including
commercial floor area limitations; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan dictates that the City shall provide for sufficient
diversity of land uses so. that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches
and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community.
Since the intended land use and the Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) Commercial
designation for the property will not change, the proposed project is consistent with this policy;
and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan dictates that the City insure redevelopment of
older or underutilized properties and preserve the value of property by allowing for some modest
growth, while maintaining acceptable levels of traffic service. The implementation of the
proposed project will result in an increase to the existing development allocation for a
commercial office site by 3,000 square feet, which would have a less than significant impact on
Exhibit No.1 dl
the projected capacity and levels of service of the circulation system. Therefore, the proposed
project is consistent with this policy; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and
adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and
undergrounding of utilities to ensure that the quality character of residential neighborhoods are
maintained and that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible
with surrounding land uses. The proposed project is consistent with this policy; and
WHEREAS, development of the site is required to comply with the applicable City
standards as outlined in the Zoning Code, for building height, setbacks; -and- required parking.
The proposed project is requesting an increase in authorized development allocation, a reduction
to the rear yard setback along Newport Center Drive, and an additional monument sign along
Newport Center Drive. The proposed project complies with all other applicable development
standards; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the subject amendment to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, the proposed project has been determined to be Categorically
Exempt under the Class 3 (New Construction or Conveision of Small Structures) requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94, the Planning Commission has held a duly
noticed public hearing on March 7, 2002 to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -003,
Code Amendment No. 2001 -003, and Site Plan Review No. 2002 -001 and recommended
approval of all three applications to the City Council.
trJ
X
O NOW THEREFORE the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does
hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
General Plan and Code Amendment:
The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the General
Plan. The project consists of an increase in the development allocation of
3,000 square feet and a reduction of 10 feet to the rear yard setback of 35
feet for the site. The project does not include a change in land use
designation.
2. The Code Amendment is necessary to maintain consistency with the
General Plan while also authorizing setbacks that allow the building to be
located closer to Newport Center Drive. These factors facilitate the overa_ll__ _.
design of the project.
Site Plan Review:
3. Development of the proposed project will not preclude implementation of
specific General Plan or specific plan district objectives and policies. The
project has been reviewed in comparison with the policies of the General
Plan and does not include a change in land use designation. The project is
deemed to meet with the intent of the General Plan and does not conflict
with adopted objectives or policies.
4. The value of property is protected by preventing development
characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive
building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to
preserve, where feasible, natural landscape features, open spaces, and the
like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of
existing properties in such area The design of this project has taken into
consideration the proximity and character of the neighboring residential
development by agreeing to a Site Plan Review process for the project.
The location and the design of the building, the partially subterranean
parking area, and all other related improvements are sensitive to the
character of the nearby residential development by providing adequate
separation, a large degree of open space and landscaping, and an enhanced
building design.
5. The benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement,
acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities
are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and
4�0
Xe'
site location characteristics of private buildings, structures and open
spaces. The project has been reviewed against all applicable standards for
public improvements and has been conditioned to comply with them.
6. Unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the
community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to
preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental
resources of the City. The slope to the rear of the property as it abuts
Newport Center Drive has been maintained as much as possible while
observing other site limitations and Municipal Code requirements.
Section 2: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hereby approve
General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -003 as depicted in Attachment "A ", Code Amendment No.
2001 -003 as depicted in Attachment `B ", and Site Plan Review No. 2002 -001 subject to the
conditions of project approval depicted in Attachment "C," referenced and incorporated herein.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the Planning
Commission of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 7`h day of March 2002 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
In
Larry Tucker, Chairman
BY:
Earl McDaniel, Secretary
Y�
>• Attachment "A"
To Resolution No. _.
I. Proposed changes to the General Plan:
JAMBOREE ROAD/MACAURTHUR BOULEVARD AREA (Statistical Division L)
Newport Center (Statistical Area L1)
10. Block 900 - Hotel Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, the Balboa Bay
Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Country Club, Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive.
The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and
Multi- Family Residential land uses. The allowed development is 611 hotel rooms with
ancillary hotel support facilities and 16,63 0 19,630 sq.ft. of office development [GPA 94 -1
(A)]. The residential site is allocated 67 dwelling units.
-------ESTIMATED
GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA LI
Residential (in du's)
Commercial (in sq. ft.)
Existing
Gen. Plan
Projected
Existing
Gen. Plan
Projected
01/01/1987
Projection
Growth
01/01/1987
Projection
Growth
1. Block 0
0
0
0
246,146
432,320
186,174
2. Block 100
0
0
0
196,545
196,545
0
3. Block 200
0
0
0
207,781
207,781
0
4. Block 300
0
0
0
130,408
134,908
4,500
5. Block 400
0
0
0
440,118
440,118
0
6. Block 500
0
0
0
377,170
377,170
0
7. Block 600
0
0
0
1,284,134
1,426,634
0
8. Block 700
0
0
0
327,671
327,671
0
9. Block 800
0
245
245
253,984
253,984
0
10. Block 900
67
67
0
616,630
622,630
67000
625,630
99000
11. Civic Plaza
0
0
0
365,160
456,710
91,550
12. Corporate Plaza
0
0
0
15,000
115,000
100,000
13. Tennis Club
0
0
0
0
0
0
14. NB Country Club
0
0
0
0
0
0
15. Amling's
0
0
0
3,960
5,000
1,040
16. Villa Point
0
228
228
0
0
0
17. Sea Island
132
132
0
0
0
0
18. Fashion Island
0
0
0
1,603,850
1,633,850
30,000
19. Newport Village
0
0
0
55,000
170,000
115,000
TOTAL
199
672
473
6,123,557
6;500 33a
514,264
6,803,321
537,264
Population
394
1,331
937
Revised
064229"9
03/072002
4F
Attachment "B"
To Resolution No.
a'
Attachment "C"
To Resolution No.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Site Plan Review 2002 -001 (PA2001 -161)
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, building
plans, and elevations dated January 8, 2002. Additionally, any change to the materials listed
on the elevation requires Planning Director review and approval.
2. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire
Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted
version of the California Building Code. The construction plans, including the provisions for
parking stalls, must meet all applicable State requirements for disability access. Adequate
access and existing must be cleared through the Building Department. Specifically, the
building must be constructed with a fire sprinkler system that satisfies the requirements of
the Fire Department. Additionally, an appropriate exit must be provided at the northeast
comer of the building that satisfies the requirements of the Building Department.
3. Additional Building Department requirements include:
a. The elevator is required to be 54 inches by 80 inches, minimum, with a 42
inch minimum access doorway; and
b. The number of bathroom fixtures must comply with 4 -1 of the Uniform
Plumbing Code (U.P.C.).
4. That all public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department. Specifically, the proposed driveway requires that an easement be
recorded due to the fact that Granville Drive is a private street.
5. Additional Public Works/Traffic Engineering requirements include:
a. With the proposed relocation of the existing fire hydrant, City Council
Policy L -2 must be observed which requires a minimum separation distance
of 5 feet from constructed improvements to fire hydrants, streetlights, or
public utility system appurtenance;
b. The angle and the slope of the driveway must comply with City
requirements;
C.. The curb radius along the exit lane must be of adequate size to provide the
minimum separation needed between entering and exiting vehicles;
d. A back up distance of at least 7 feet shall be provided for the end stalls in the
parking garage. One end stall shall be provided for a turn around;
e. If the garage is to be gated, the Traffic Engineer shall review and approve the
proposed gate location; and
f. The auxiliary circulation loop must be enlarged if it is to be used by delivery
trucks.
■
6. The size of the building at the time of permit issuance must meet with all applicable
requirements for number of parking stalls, parking stall size, egress/ingress, access points
and backing distances.
7. Deliveries shall be scheduled outside of peak operating hours of the use so that all access
will not be blocked. No deliveries shall be permitted before 7:00 am or after 10:00 pm.
8. The Planning Director shall review and approve the post - construction landscape plan. Any
landscaping affected by the proposed driveway shall be relocated or replaced at the
applicant's expense.
9. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct
rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public
nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero
cut -off fixtures.
10. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the illuminance recommendations
of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the
Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on
surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The applicant shall prepare
photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director may order the
dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively
illuminated.
11. Plans for exterior lighting and signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval. The lighting plan shall be designed to eliminate light spillage and
glare onto adjacent properties or uses. The lighting plan shall be prepared and signed by a
licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City with a letter from the engineer stating
that, in his professional opinion, this requirement has been met. Prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an
evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and
glare specified in the lighting plans.
12. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be
prohibited.
13. All trash shall be stored within the building or within trash containers stored within the
trash (container) enclosure (i.e., three masonry walls and a self - locking gate), or
otherwise screened from view by neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up
by refuse collection agencies. The trash containers shall have a lid or top that remains
closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse
collection agency. The design of the trash enclosure shall incorporate self - locking gates
and the Traffic Engineer must approve the location.
14. Should the property 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 business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
�t
15. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent
public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
16. The developer is responsible for all applicable Fair Share and San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor Agency fees.
F:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared \PA's\PA2001 - 161\ GP2001- 003_CA2001- 003_SP2002 -001 peresolution.doc
5,
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2002
Camco Pacific Construction Company
1811 Quail Street
• (PA2001 -157)
Re- adoption a Planned Community Development Text Amendment to
Newport Place nlsLQned Community Block G & H, permitting a 1,590 net square
foot addition to an a 'sting office building located at 1811 Quail Street.
Chairperson Tucker noted'-t at the Planning Commission had seen this ite
previously and this is a technic &•clean up only.
Motion was made by Commissioner zley to recommend that the City Council
adopt an ordinance rescinding Ordinan No. 2002 -003 and re -adopt Planned
Community Development Text Amendmen o. 2001 -002 as depicted in the
attached industrial statistical analysis by adoptin Resolution No.1551 entitled, "A
Resolution of the Planning Commission of th City of Newport Beach
recommending that the City Council Rescind Ordinanc o. 2002 -003 and adopt
an ordinance approving Planned Community Developmen ext Amendment No.
2001 -002 for Property Located at 1811 Quail Street."
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranbey, Selic
Noes: None
•••
INDEX
Item 1
PA2001 -157
Recommended for
approval
SUBJECT: Pacific Republic Capital Office Building Item 2
1150 Granville Drive PA2001 -161
(PA2001 -161)
Development of an 8,000 square foot professional office building with below grade Recommended for
parking. The application includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Code approval
Amendment to increase the existing development allocation from 5,000 square
feet to 8,000 square feet. The Code Amendment includes a request to reduce the
rear yard setback of 35 feet along Newport Center Drive to 25 feet. The project
involves the establishment of a Site Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District for the project
site to allow Planning Commission review of the project. A Modification Permit is
requested for an additional monument sign.
Commissioner Gifford asked for additional information regarding the setbacks of
the surrounding buildings.
Ms. Temple stated:
• Looking at all the surrounding buildings, both office and residential in
the vicinity, the most commonly existing setback is 35 feet and in the
residential area it expands to as much as 40 feet.
• Corporate Plaza Planned Community area setbacks are larger.
• She then distributed a copy of a digital aerial photograph with an
overlay of parcel lines in red showing the relationship between
63
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2002
existing buildings and the parcel lines.
• The property in question has been marked with an approximate 25-
foot line and would be less but comparable to those within the vicinity
of the project.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added:
• The setback from the project overhang is 20 feet.
• There are 5 -foot roof overhangs.
• There is one place on the second floor where there is a deck with a
railing at 20 feet and is shown as a railing on the elevation plan only.
• Because we did not notice those particular setback encroachments,
assuming that the 25 -foot setback is established on Newport Center
Drive, they would require the approval of a modification permit.
• It is our intention to renotice the hearing for the City Council including
those modifications for the roof overhang and the deck and a portion
of the subterranean parking structure that also goes beyond the 25
feet.
Ms. Clauson added that approval of the project would be subject to the need
for a modification. This project is a recommendation to the City Council on the
General Plan.
Ms. Temple added that there have been other issues where compliance with the
Code arose. If this project was not going before the City Council, one of the
options would be to approve the project with a condition that a subsequent
modification application be submitted and reviewed by the Modification
Committee. The Commission could, if they found that issue to be substantial
enough, simply continue the hearing to allow for appropriate notice so that the
entire project and all its aspects could be heard at one time. It would be how
significant you deem the consideration of the modification to the overall
approval of the site plan.
Chairman Tucker noted that we should go ahead and listen to all the aspects of
the item and then review the options.
Commissioner Kranzley stated as a tenant of the 1100 building for three years, the
intersection of Granville Drive and the driveway into the bank parking lot and the
driveway into the tennis club is at best hazardous. What can be done to help or
create a less hazardous intersection?
Mr. Edmonston answered that both that piece of Granville Drive and the bank
property and the property servicing the tennis club are all privately owned over
which the City does not have direct control. We have worked with the tennis
club and The Irvine Company when they were developing their property looking
for alternative alignments there. The use of the tennis club parking lot as a
through way is of great concern to the tennis club and so they put in speed
bumps to slow that down.
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2002
Ms. Temple added that Corporate Plaza West is owned by The Irvine Company,
the Cal Fed bank is owned separately and O'Hill Partnership owns the tennis
club.
Ms. Clauson added that for any accidents that happen on private property, the
City would not have liability. If anything happens on public property, if there is an
engineering design it is signed off, there is immunity to the City. At Commission
inquiry, she added that there would be no liability to the City.
Discussion continued on the parking, site distance criteria and traffic through the
private lots.
Commissioner McDaniel asked why we are asked for an increase in the
entitlement? It is a beautiful building, but other than a windfall profit for
somebody that we would be giving this applicant as opposed to somebody else,
I hope someone can give me an explanation.
Commissioner Selich asked that in reviewing the site plan and building design,
did staff pursue holding the 35 -foot setback on Newport Center Drive and either
sliding the building back closer to Granville Drive and reducing that setback or
looking at making the building longer and skinnier? One of the restrictions this
building has is the 90- degree parking in the parking structure that makes it 60 feet
wide. Did you look at doing angle parking with a one -way drive with an
entrance in and an exit out of the structure to get the building so it was longer
and skinnier and not encroaching into the setback areas?
Ms. Temple answered:
• There has always been an interest by the various project proponents
to reduce the setback on Newport Center Drive.
• Did not talk specifically about the issue of changing orientation as a
means to achieve a different building footprint.
• Talked about extra coverage and reducing the setback on Granville
Drive as being needed in order to preserve the setback on Newport
Center Drive.
• During this most recent review, we did not go through extra- ordinary
discussion in regards to re- siting or re- planning the building.
• There is rationale and justification for this request; this is the project the
applicant wanted to submit.
• The overall design and the modest height of the structure combined
with the fact that a large amount of the building becomes less and
less visible as you go up Newport Center Drive due to its increasing
grade, does lessen the impact to the public roadway of the reduction
of the setback. That combined with the maintenance of a broader
setback to a residential neighborhood in Newport Beach, in our
opinion, was an appropriate balance to strike in this project.
Commissioner Selich then distributed to the Planning Commission a copy of the
original site plan that was proposed when the zoning and the general plan was
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2002
changed on the property back in 1994 adding this is a comparison to what we
have now.
Bill Ficker, 1127 Granville Drive spoke as a representative of the applicant noting:
Ownership came about through foreclosure approximately two years
ago.
Following the foreclosure, the applicant decided it was not practical
to build a spec office building on that property, especially one of
5,000 square feet.
They want to use the building themselves and probably rent part of
the space at first until they expand into it.
The applicant is a capital company providing for mainly new medical
industries.
• Presently, they occupy office space in Corporate Plaza.
• They decided this would be a good headquarters for them and
permit them to build a nicer building and be in a nicer location.
1 suggested that there would have to be some benefit to the
community in general, although it isn't as great as the benefit to the
Granville neighborhood in particular. If we could do a building that
has the support of the neighbors, that might be reasonable.
Primarily, the maximum building possible on site was 8,000 square feet
and that is what we have requested.
That permitted us to park all of the cars under the building and do a
building that is more organic in design using stone and maintaining a
lot of landscape over 59% of the site.
• During our submittal of the plans, they were reviewed by Planning,
Public Works and Building Departments. We increased the turn
around area so you don't just go down a ramp. There is a place for
delivery trucks to park and a handicap space outside for
convenience. All except two cars would be parked under the
building.
The perpendicular parking is, in our opinion, the most practical way
because all the parking is below grade. This permits us to use one
ramp, which helps a great deal with the development of the site and
reduces the length of the building.
We were trying to reduce the mass of the buildings as reflected in our
drawings with low eaves, sloping roofs and hip roofs.
• I thought with the 25 -foot setback, a 4 or 5 -foot overhang or small
balcony in front of the second floor mezzanine seemed logical and
not offensive.
• At that time we thought we would be working with a Development
Agreement and would be coming back with very specific
construction drawings that would be scrutinized at that time.
• We feel we could work within this envelope that we have projected.
• We have the support of the Granville Association and we do
something that is pretty good visually for that area.
• Looking at the model, 25 or 35 feet is a very big setback, especially
with the scale of the building.
Unp 47
5�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2002
• The building across the way is 35 to 45 feet above the sidewalk grade
and is set back 35 feet. Their underground parking does protrude 10
feet into that 35 -foot setback.
• We have a five -foot intrusion into that 25 -foot setback for a piece of
the basement and that is primarily for handicapped parking access.
• The project protects the Granville area from future developers coming
in and building a 5,000 -foot glass box and paving the lot for 20 cars
parking with no controls by the City.
• We have tried to do something here that is of exceptionally good
quality.
Commissioner Agajanian asked the interest in having the additional entitlement
of 60% increase in floor space was for the benefit of whom?
Mr. Ficker answered that his clients wanted to build a bigger building if they were
going to develop it for their own use. They felt they had to have a larger building
they could grow into. The benefit to the City is putting all the parking under the
building. This building will not look smaller than a 5,000- square foot building,
however, a 5,000 square foot building could be a greater mass due to the limit of
the height. What protects the neighbors is that this building will be a lower key
building and will not go up to the maximum height because of the additional
area. The important thing is that you and we have control of the aesthetics and
design of this building.
Seth Oberg, 1117 Granville Drive, spoke as President of the Granville Homeowners
Association noting:
The association scheduled a number of meetings over the past few
years for presentations about this project.
• There have been no serious objections raised about this design.
• We are interested in the aesthetics of this building and we feel the
design is very pleasing.
• He urged that the Commission approve the request to reduce the 35
foot setback along Newport Center Drive to 25 feet so that the
building is moved back as far into the back of the lot as possible.
• Granville Drive is a private street owned by the Homeowner's
Association and we are used to the park like atmosphere and wish to
retain as much of that landscaping as we can.
• We ask for a condition on this that the on -grade parking be limited to
the two spaces that are in the proposal. We wish to limit the amount
of parking on grade to preserve the landscaped look of the lot.
Mr. Ficker noted that moving the building back, every foot that we gain is
meaningful in the ramp slope to get from the street down to the drive into the
parking area.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Selich stated his concerns of preserving the 35 -foot setback on
6
INDEX
61
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2002
Newport Center Drive that we have with all the other buildings. I received the
1994 staff report that included the site plan that I passed to the Commission
earlier. I think the two site plans speak for themselves and the building that will
have underground parking and more landscaped area, is worth giving the
additional 3,000 square feet for. We are not creating some kind of precedent on
the setback because it is important that we have the setback. Mr. Ficker
brought up some good points about the site lines, low profile of the building
versus other buildings that are much larger in scale; the slope going down to the
building and the fact that the building does sit at the first floor level substantially
below Newport Center Drive. Looking at all of this, I support the project and it is
worthwhile giving the extra 3,000 square feet to get the parking under the
building. It is probably not feasible to do that type parking for 5,000 square foot
building. I am in support of the project.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that having worked next door for a period of time,
he was concerned about the increase of trips and entitlement. I think this is a
superior design and has been said, giving the parking underground, it will also
maintain a park like area around the building that has such a low profile. It
provides a superior building for that corner. I am in support of this project.
Commissioner Gifford noted she is in support of the project for the reasons that
have been mentioned.
Commissioner Agaianian noted his support of the project. He stated that this is
not to be interpreted as a precedent at all; an increase in the entitlement is a
large amount. I would not support anything of that nature, but the fact that it is
3,000 square feet does not make it that big an issue. Given that it is a superior
design we are getting, I think it is an equitable trade -off that we are getting. I
am in support of the project.
Commissioner Kiser noting his agreement with the previous statements stated he
supports the project. He asked that the monument sign adjacent to Newport
Center Drive not limit the site distance to Newport Center Drive. The design of
the building fits well on the site and in the neighborhood.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project as his
concems /questions have been answered.
Chairperson Tucker noted:
• Looking at the Newport Center Drive setback, buildings along this
perimeter do not have this sloping that obscure part of the building,
this is unique.
• The 25 -20 feet is not inappropriate given the circumstances.
• The neighbors are happy with it.
• Supports this project.
Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any comments /questions on the
conditions.
INDEX
5�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2002
Commissioner Gifford, referring to page 9 of the staff report, 'the Site Plan Review
process establishing 12 standards for review of projects and their applicability to
the project as being discussed on items A through L. Item A, regarding the large
trees that will be removed, how is that to be restituted? Is that mandatory?
Todd Weber, Associate Planner answered that the two tall Eucalyptus trees
located towards the center of the lot identified on the second sheet of the plan
set, will need to be removed because they are right in the middle of where the
building is anticipated to be located. With the improvements to the entry drive,
etc., some of those trees along Granville Drive may need to be either removed or
re- located to accommodate that drive. The applicant prepared a landscape
plan that was presented at your chair this evening that shows the landscaping
proposal. This landscape plan can be tied to the conditions of approval.
Discussion then followed:
• The three tall Eucalyptus trees on site and three fichus trees that are in
the way will be removed.
• Most of the planting there now, will stay. It will be thinned out.
• The street tree planting that is there now will stay.
• We are adding a couple of trees on Granville Drive.
Ms. Temple then suggested two changes:
• Condition 1 - add after January 8, 2002 and landscape plan dated
03/05/2002.
• The stamped date on the plans shall be changed to August 13, 2001.
• Staff will go through and itemize each sheet and date in the
conditions.
• A condition to be added: The monument sign at Newport Center Drive
and Granville Drive shall comply with Public Works Design Standard
IIOL
Commissioner Selich asked:
Criteria on landscape plans showing the tree sizes, etc. Ms. Wood
answered that there is no criteria in that regard. There could be a
condition that a more detailed landscape plan be reviewed by the
Director, or, come back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Gifford asked in referring to the Landscape Plan:
• How do we compare what is existing to what is going to be done?
Ms. Wood noted that we need more specifics as well as language that trees that
are to remain, need to be protected during construction.
Following a brief discussion, it was decided by the Planning Commission that the
issue of landscaping need not come back to the Commission and that staff
should handle this item.
INDEX
61
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2002
Condition 8 will have added verbiage, The applicant will retain as
much of the existing plant materials on site as practicable and to the
extent that material is removed, it will be replaced with like material to
create a similar screen than what exists presently and shall be
protected from damage during construction.
Condition 12 shall read; Storage outside of the building shall be
prohibited.
A condition shall be added to - Limit non - covered parking to two
spaces.
Chairperson Tucker stated that we have reviewed this project. Procedurally we
probably should have had some other things noticed, that can all be corrected
at the Council level. I see no reason to bring this item back to the Commission.
The rest of the Commission agreed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to recommend to the City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment (GP2001 -003), Code Amendment
(CA2001 -003), and Site Plan Review 2002 -001 (PA2001 -161) subject to the findings
and conditions of approval in the draft resolution attached as Exhibit 1.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich
Noes: None
tir
Mortozavi Triplex (PA2001 -193)
1324 W. Balboa Boulevard
• (PA2001 -193)
INDEX
Item 3
PA2001 -193
Request for arnaddifion and alteration of an existing nonconforming triplex. The Continued to
existing triplex is n conforming due to the fact that it is located in the R -2 District 03/21/2002
where two dwellin units are the maximum allowed. The triplex is also
nonconforming in that th roperty provides only three parking spaces where the
Zoning Ordniance requires a imum of six spaces (2 per unit).
Ms. Temple reported that staff has r uested a continuance of this item to March
21, 2002.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley continue this item to March 21,
2002.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kr ey, Selich
Noes: None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business
a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that at the Cty Coun
60
r
m
2
v
0
i
6
l
P
�L
L
�l
Fia4 W. —I'A® •-..
i
THE PICKER GROUP
OFFICE BUILOINO
A
.ari
Pw:.L Y
:oLS'a.<
+.
b
M.1M
+L
�'
« ➢+
`
14
n
m^
�'+
v5
,
'4
i ➢_
r,
>�m
Plru
\
Fia4 W. —I'A® •-..
0
m �� •s
Fpu0yp11p;ign
THE PICKER GROUP
OFFICE BUILOINO
A
.ari
Pw:.L Y
m
+.
b
M.1M
+L
�'
« ➢+
`
°�e +DDD�
n
m^
�'+
v5
r'4 ni Ye
i ➢_
>�m
°
enY�
�rose
O
<�
°o
a.p
�i� a2
Mp
`fl
LM
i��P
Z<a0
T$�pl`Dixi2�p
'ae� �i;�LPDi
Py
D
Dn
N
4P
Oo yp
iC
�'APa P. .wi
?,. be p f
n
°
mK
D,.
p
NO •iw a
➢pew
AN
E,
Pp
Y�vO
0 [�
4
L
N
,
It
1y
C;.`
0
m �� •s
U3
THE PICKER GROUP
OFFICE BUILOINO
It
MIMIIa mom
I
t
1
fMLLMY GIR NW OIAPIaIE WU1[
=
11
'w"'°w'vu°' •• v""
MPV MMILIW • Y.,K��
anvil M1ta uwam Mo
{
7
U3
:
rl
z r'
mO y
o
0 0
o�0 0
c�
YD TI 0
m� _
=D A
. A y
1
A A
rA m
_
mMo cA j
�FaR OL N
OFFICE BUILOINO
OFFICE BUILOINO
_�
1
MINE aaE1 00
YEIIOEI LflIiF: ail!
r'
Fam" WYE 110 IUYn11E OtlYE
•''
i
lE10f1 a1CX ULMYA MY
"HIT MCI tatfum M0
,
;
: ,•
al
C�1
a
Z
m
�FaR OL N
�4
OFFICE BUILOINO
OFFICE BUILOINO
_�
1
MINE aaE1 00
YEIIOEI LflIiF: ail!
Fam" WYE 110 IUYn11E OtlYE
f111LL01 UK 110 a11n4E WYE
i
lE10f1 a1CX ULMYA MY
"HIT MCI tatfum M0
�4
i
1
_ - -
•N� �
'IOn `l
AEA a .AI
I
d
��Cwl
-r
u —)
THE PICKER CROUP
OFFICE BUILD /NA3
i
Ynmrc min Dort
inYtYl Eni n0 WmLLE 011rt
-
..uiriwiuDyn� ru ren�+
RY1gIl YARN CUIfoMl 111ii
�j 7
u —)
Ti
n
o�
r-
_i i_
I�
mRpD^ p.
evPP
n
°pa n
i
w'q P
t]
i
THE PICKER CiROUP OFFICE BUILOIN�
ruwiu olrrt uo eumt�[ pun
..uwii�:.n� " RIIGI VICX - tltuWW 1111
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
i
I
i
D � I
m
U, I
I /
- Rd
TvH EE —'^F IBC KE R� OI
OFFICE BIJILOiNO 1�
..10, WRt WIE j`
tIWIOM OIIIIF „• OWIILI[ENE
r„
II
o-
I,
y
b
TI
r�
t
- Rd
TvH EE —'^F IBC KE R� OI
OFFICE BIJILOiNO 1�
..10, WRt WIE j`
tIWIOM OIIIIF „• OWIILI[ENE
J.
dtbl
JC
Ar -:0
lz
THE PICKER pROVP
im
it
Dull
frj p' yR Lin
DM UMMU OW
Iw
�fu�
CItRp14A 11111
Al
F.
dtbl
JC
Ar -:0
THE PICKER pROVP
I
Dull
DM UMMU OW
Iw
�fu�
CItRp14A 11111
i.�
n'
L,
i�
�o
L
'm
I�
'm
�I
N
n U
1
9
i
y L
° x
J-q_—
� 12
� ilm
�l d•sio wo �� ..
C IT e,:e E °Y
y � PTpe9�
P °Unit °jy
Z ip °Y�nD
6. O
" - °nn nnc 2n
N'�'m YC� PTe
'OAE ®j2
OIL `YP
P
nNr, so
Ga I 0
Nq
N
., �_ Wq
THE PICKER GROUP
OFFICE BUILOINO
w.vuAr ., wma�n, nu ..a�w�
rWLLW OUR An 11YriW GmE
.�
.-�. �...,.... ti...:�..
rinwr slue cunau rml
r