Loading...
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