Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/2001• • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley - All Commissioners were present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of January 4.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to approve as amended the minutes of January 4, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Gifford Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, December 1, 2000. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 SUBJECT: Newport R 151 East Coast Highway Use Permit No. 3684 • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 78 A use permit to permit the use of the outdoor stem and bow sections of the boat to be used for accessory outdoor dining for lunch and evening food service, closing at 10:00 p.m. Acoustical entertainment is proposed. Planning Director, Patricia Temple noted that the applicant is requesting that this item be continued for two weeks for further refinement of the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 8th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: The St. Clair Company 500 Superior Avnue • • Use Permit No. 3679 A request for the approval of a Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit of buildings of 32 feet up to 50 feet, in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves the demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 square feet. Associate Planner, Eugenia Garcia noted that the applicant has been informed that a Sign Program for the site is required because it is a multi - building site on a single parcel. Currently, the Code requires a Sign Program to be approved by the Modifications Committee. However, the Planning Commission could allow the Sign Program to be approved by the Modifications Committee with the option to call it up for review. The Planning Commission could also condition the project that the Planning Commission reviews the Sign Program. A letter from the applicant's engineer regarding the storm water quality protection system that answers questions regarding one of the conditions on the on -site retention of low flow diversion system was presented. Ms. Temple added that in the list of questions asked by the Chairman, further information on the issue of consideration of the appropriate number of parking spaces would be provided. I have worked with Mr. Edmonston in trying to see whether there was any logical way to connect projected daily traffic trips or peak hour traffic trips to some relationship with required parking and could discover no relationship between those two factors. We looked at codes for INDEX Use Permit No. 3684 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 78 Continued to 02/08/2001 Item 2 Use Permit No. 3679 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 various forms of industrial and Research and Development (R & D) types of land uses from various agencies that range from the City's Code requirement of 1 space for 500 square feet or 2 per 1,000 ranging up to what is our standard office rate of 4 spaces per 1,000 or 1 space for every 250 square feet. Looking at the number of parking spaces on site, which number was based on the peak shift characteristics of the Hughes facility that formerly occupied the site, we discovered it was somewhat less but similar. to the higher range of that potential occupancy and therefore the higher range of what could be considered an appropriate parking requirement. We concluded that parking requirement in the range of 3 per 1,000 seemed to make sense although we do not have anything more than our knowledge and some additional commentary by Commissioner Tucker that today's R & D type facilities do reflect a portion of office style occupancy in terms of the number of employees per square feet. Therefore, we do believe that providing higher than the Code compliment of parking would be necessary to support the facility over time. The second issue was related to the question of standing approvals for the project in that the particular approvals involved for exceeding the basic height limit for the existing parking structure and the existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) approval were based on a project that included a single tenant occupancy of the project site. I consulted with the Assistant City Attorney about whether the construction of those approvals was such that in order to be • found consistent with the prior approval, most particularly the TPO approval, that the site necessarily should be occupied by a single tenant. We first went to the Zoning Code to try and discover whether the City had any authority through its Zoning regulations to impose a requirement of single tenancy, there is no such authority therein. We felt that the only existing approval that a reasonable construction between single tenancy and the project requirement could be through the TPO approval. We looked at that approval and it did not include a condition that required exclusive tenancy and again went through the ordinance to determine if there was any factor to conclude differently than our current determination that no further TPO approval is required for this project. In fact, Ms. Clauson concluded that due to the construction of the TPO and the fact that it sets out thresholds to determine whether traffic studies are required and the fact that the new traffic circumstances surrounding the property didn't trigger any of the thresholds necessitating a new TPO approval, that in fact the project was consistent with the existing approval. No TPO approval was required for this project. We believe that there is no requirement under the existing approvals that the project remain in single tenancy. So long as the use characteristics of the occupancy remain the same, the City does not have the authority to compel single tenancy on the basis of prior approval. Commissioner Gifford noted that she was not present at the last meeting where this project was first discussed, however, she listened to the taped record of the meeting. She noted a few clarification issues: • Parking - the classification of industry research and development was defining and yet I presume we need to be assured that this is going to • be used for industry research and development (R & D), which is INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 defined under the Code as establishments primarily engaged in the research, development and control production of high technology, electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale. I am not sure that the staff report and all the discussion seems to just say this is an R & D facility. I haven't seen any facts that appear to support why this is an R & D facility even if it is just statements from the applicant as to specifically the characteristics of the businesses that are going in there. If someone comes in as an applicant and they have a restaurant, we know what that business looks like and we accept the fact that they say they are going to put a restaurant there. Someone comes in and says I want to park this as R & D because it is going to be used as R & D, for most of us that is more ephemeral, we can't recognize it as easily as we can a restaurant. I don't see anything in here that says exactly how the conclusion that this is R & D is supported. I heard on the tape the question about relating to the aspect establishments primarily engaged in, whether primarily, does it mean less than 50 %, what does it mean as opposed to the ancillary use of office and administration? With respect to those two things, I would like to get more information. Ms. Temple noted that this was and is part of the crux of the Commission's concern and questioning at the last meeting. Clearly when you are dealing • with buildings that are open, leasable tenant spaces with the characterization to a particular kind of use in order to maintain consistency with prior approvals, I think the question really is a good one and the City needs to feel comfortable with and can be assured, monitored and maintained on into the future. Because of that concern, we have attempted through conditioning, page 4 item 4 where we made further modifications to originally proposed conditions. It is up to the City to monitor the ongoing use as to this property. That is done at several junctions of the project development and ongoing administration at the City level. When the initial tenant improvements come in, it is up to staff to look at what is being proposed and to make sure provided space is for the type of activities that one might ordinarily find in businesses that are doing product research and development and prototyping. Commissioner Gifford asked if someone is reviewing a permit to see that the improvements and determining from looking at the building plans and improvements that it is primarily research and development, what are the characteristics of those plans and improvements that are looked for that would say, absolutely this is R & D? Ms. Temple answered that typically you find more open floor areas that have different characteristics for electrical service, maybe mechanical ventilation service, perhaps more storage areas for parts and assembly, things of that nature. I agree that it is not a simple thing; there is not a set pattern of floor area that really would be a determining factor. That is why beyond just the simple review of tenant improvement plans, there needs to be ongoing administration and look at the actual tenants themselves to determine whether INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 they fall within the use characteristics. Commissioner Gifford asked as you look at those tenants, what characteristics are you looking for that are going to give the answer as to whether they are R & D under this definition? Ms. Temple answered basically how we would do it is at such time a business license was requested, we would simply require all of the tenants to come to the Planning counter in order to receive information as to the types of permitted uses in the tenant spaces and to discuss with the business what the nature of their operation was. Through that discussion we can inform them as to whether they would be considered a permitted use. We would ask what the business is and would look for some type of manufacturing, product design, or product fabrication for resale. Commissioner Gifford noted that it is mainly the applicant's statement and no evidence to the contrary based on tenant improvements. Ms. Temple answered that when we deal with applicants, we have analyzed them based on how they have characterized the operation would be. I agree it is difficult in this case, but there are industrial areas that remain predominately industrial and we haven't experienced that kind of degradation to any notable • degree. Ms. Garcia noted that during the plan check process, many times when staff is in doubt as to the use, will ask for a letter of operational characteristics and product information brochures, information about the company before we will approve the use. Those are scrutinized when there is a question and a lot of times the applicant if they truly are an R & D use, they will be able to supply that information, even if they are a start up company. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that the construction of Mitigation Measure No. 31 and Condition 35, represented in item 4 on page 4 of the Supplemental report has been set up to be as liberal as possible as to the permitted uses that fall within the use classification, but also as careful as we could be to ensure consistency with the prior approvals, particularly the TPO approval. It contains three components: • Refers to Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which is the MIA zoning district. There are many permitted uses within the MIA district that may not fall within the parameters of the prior approval. • Additionally, we have added a parameter that is use classification descriptions B, D and F. They are described earlier in the report as industry custom, industry limited and industry research and development, all of which we feel would contain uses that would qualify under the parameters of the existing approval. What that does is to provide a palette of permitted uses rather than creating a single use zone but dealing with all those uses that we consider qualified • under the existing approvals and to show the applicant that there are INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 many types of businesses that fall within this categories. It needs to be considered in conformance with the TPO approval, which is the one that sets the prior existing use as being a manufacturing and R & D type of use. It included a lot of ancillary offices in support of that principle permitted use. Hughes Aircraft did have a personnel office, accounts receivable and payable office and an administration type of office use but were part of a business that is a qualified use. The intent of that condition is intended to provide and give us the ability to enforce over time as we review not only tenant improvements but also the re -use even if a tenant improvement is not part of the request. Commissioner Gifford noted those ancillary office uses are built into the R & D parking ratio and would be part of the R & D facility. Ms. Temple agreed noting that this type of business use to be more distinctly manufacturing and industrial but the use itself as a qualified use has changed over time. There are a lot of businesses that we feel would be qualified which may have somewhat different characteristics and therefore greater occupancy. An example might be a software developer, where they don't need big rooms full of electronic equipment to do chemical experiments, but still in fact are developing a product to prototype and ultimately market. is Therefore it would be a qualified use. Because of that, in order to make sure the project is not under parked that we probably should hold with the higher parking as provided on site and not reduce it. Commissioner Gifford noted that is what we are struggling with, how do you know when you see it. The Code isn't much help. If we have the ability to make the finding that this use is in fact an office use and not in fact an R & D use if that was the case. I have not heard enough about what they are doing there, because it is not rented and who knows? Ms. Clauson noted to the extent you make a finding that it is an office use you have to have facts in evidence in the record that would show it is going to be an office use. We have facts that show it is going to be an R & D use from the point of view that is what the zoning authorizes. If the finding that it is going to really be an office use is based upon the fact that you don't think it is possible for any R & D use to be anything other than an office use, it is a way to make a finding that you are changing the Zoning Code. We have to work within the constraints of our Code and the way it is drafted. If the constraints of our Code are not drafted in a way to deal with the change in technology or the change in what an R & D use is, it still makes it difficult for us by this process to amend the Code to address that. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that office use is a permitted use in the MIA District, however, it would not be consistent with the General Plan or with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval. The land use designation on this property is general industry and provides for industrial uses and other use that is INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX supportive of those uses. Commissioner Tucker noted that when you look at all of the General Plan and the Zoning text provisions, MIA allows or permits office. When I first looked at that, I thought that as long as it wasn't medical or dental there would be nothing further required. The Code says the MIA District provides areas for wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. It has that limitation on it and I think that what we are grappling with is that R & D has changed over time. Either they put uses in that comply with the code or they don't. I don't think there is anything that we can do tonight to pre -judge or pre - establish if the applicant uses the property in compliance with the code. That will have to be decided as it comes up. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the M1 A District allows for limited accessory. There is some limit to the ability to have an office building there. Ms. Temple stated that what is being referred to is the intent and purpose of the MIA District. When there is some judgement involved determining the meaning and intent of that section, those are the guiding principles upon which the zoning district is based. The permitted use section lists these types of office uses as permitted uses. That probably was not an intention to just allow • general office development in the district. I believe adjustment to that Zoning Code section should be made such that it is evident that those offices are permitted as ancillary or accessory to the otherwise permitted uses. A change of that nature certainly would strengthen the consistency between the Zoning District, the General Plan and the intent of the City in approving this project. The only other area that has M1 A zoning is in this surrounding area on Industrial Avenue and Production Place. The uses are industrial and R & D type uses. Commissioner Agajanian asked if the principle concern for this definition between R & D and office uses is an operational one related to parking or are there other issues? Commissioner Gifford answered that is the principle context in which she was bringing this up, with regards to the parking. Commissioner Agajanian stated that there is a condition that states that all employees of the facility shall park on site. If the ratio of parking there now eventually becomes under - supplied more parking would be required and would spill over onto the streets. Under that condition, they would be violating the Use Permit. We can address the operational issue of parking spillover with this condition and avoid the hassle of trying to define R & D and office if all we are concerned about is parking related aspect as opposed to other issues. Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement but from the applicant's perspective, I think reading a definition of what constitutes R & D and what keeps that applicant in conformance with the Zoning Code would be a little • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 scary because I think it is very subjective interpretation as to whether you are meeting the criteria with a particular tenant or not. I would like to propose that we have a discussion item to come up with some distinctions in R & D that give a Planning Director or whoever might be in a position to decide looking at building permits and applicants' statements to try to come up with criteria that might have some modernization in terms of R & D definitions. Continuing, Commissioner Gifford noted that when she looked at the site, she noticed the mature trees. I am hoping that the window material will give some degree of reflectiveness in it to mirror the view of those trees. The project people told me that staff had guided them away from anything reflective. I am assuming that is on a basis of the general concept to reduce the glare of headlights and signs that might reflect. I think that might be a nice way to enhance the landscaping that is there, but I want to hear from staff. Ms. Garcia answered that early on when we discussed the design of the building, we had talked about light and glare on the site. The applicant is very sensitive to that issue as the residential areas and public streets are located close to this site. We did not guide them to any particular design pattern or materials but the applicant did keep in mind the glare issue. Public comment was opened. • Carol Hoffman spoke representing the St Clair Company noting that there is a need for this type of use in the area. I know how much you have struggled with office versus R & D, but the demand for R & D tenants is such that it is simply not going to be an issue from a leasing standpoint. The architecture of the building is defined by the color renderings of the LPA firm along with a colored elevation that attempts to provide more detail as to the landscaping on the parking structure from a standpoint of the size of the trees as well as the vines that will be placed on a large portion of the structure that does not have the openings into the parking levels. Referencing the exhibits she noted: • The building has definition with an awning and a different third floor. • Windows are slightly reflective. • The materials board depicts colors and stone to be used. Continuing, Ms. Hoffman noted that she had asked staff to bring along a copy of the Sign Program for 888 San Clemente, which is the latest office building the Irvine Company constructed and is right next to the Police Station. That Sign Program has the quality that we are all interested in modeling. It does limit the number of major tenant signs and the secondary signs that are permitted (eyebrow signs). To the extent that we can craft something similar, we would be happy to do that if you wish. The water quality is a concern and commitment of the St. Clair Company. The condition language allows for the flexibility of doing the best solution, whether fossil filter or something else. Referring to the exhibit she explained the site drainage. We looked at whether or not there was an opportunity to do a detention basin, but the combination of the elevation, the existing grade, slope and parking are such that to create INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 a retention basin large enough to carry the volume on the basis of our preliminary analysis did not appear to be feasible. We recognize the interest in that being a solution but we are anxious to work with staff in the final designs and we are subject to the approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The parking structure is at one comer of the property and we recognize that it is perhaps not as convenient to some of the buildings. That is why we are providing these parking bays more convenient to each of the buildings. Because of the complaints of area parking and the spillover by other uses, we wanted to make sure that this property was not guilty of that. Lasity, with the evolution of R & D uses, the kinds of tenants we are looking at, this parking ratio is much closer to what the real demand is for those kinds of uses. A combination of all those things is reflective of the parking that is being provided even though we have added only about 100 spaces to what is existing there today. The reconfiguration, the design and the relationship between the parking and the buildings all result in that which is being provided. We look forward to a favorable resolution of this issue tonight. Commissioner Kranzley noted that he had spoken to the applicant's representative earlier regarding the issues we have talked about, the issue of how to define this as an office or an R & D use. As long as we have some type of condition that limits the impact of whatever is there, the applicant made some proposals to my concerns. The first condition is that the project shall be • limited to 5,214 average daily trips consistent with the previous approval for Hughes. The second condition is that the project shall be limited to a maximum of 1,965 employees,, consistent with the previous approval for Hughes. I understand it is a nightmare for Code Enforcement, however, if we have issues in the surrounding areas with overflow parking or traffic, we at least have two clear -cut conditions that we can point to and call up this Use Permit. With the Hughes Aircraft Company, the assumptions were based on three shifts; however, this is based on all arriving at one time. Ms. Hoffman noted that the analysis that was done under the TPO has given us the limit on the number of trips that can be generated in the peak hour. To the extent that the owner was able to attract a tenant who did work on shifts, we would like the flexibility of being able to live within the previous average daily trip generation factor as long as we did not exceed the peak hour. That is the reason why we chose the figure from the previous approval since what you are really asking was how to make sure we were not going to exceed that which had been previously operating. Commissioner Kranzley agreed noting that under the TPO for instance, they leased out all their space and it is one shift. We allow for 1,965 employees and 5,214 average daily trips. They all came in one shift, what would the impact the TPO have on issues where the project is generating more than the study and more than the use peak hour trips? Ms. Temple answered that the project actually generates substantially less daily • trips, which is the first TPO threshold of determining whether a traffic study is INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 required pursuant to the ordinance. The CEQA traffic work did find that because it was not a shift operation and not a single tenant who could control the hour at which the larger segment of employees would arrive and depart that the conventional peak hour traffic attributable to R & D was appropriate. The project has more peak hour trips than identified in the previous analysis, however, since it didn't trigger the threshold for a TPO report, we did analyze the impact of that change in the CEQA analysis and used TPO methodology to determine whether that would result in a significant effect and found that it did not. We felt that because the TPO analysis was not required, it did not increase the traffic in the area by more than 300 average daily trips, which is the first screening threshold. Even though analyzing the increase in trips, it did not trigger any TPO significant type effect, we could find it consistent with the TPO and did not create any significant environmental effect and make the Negative Declaration valid. Commissioner Kranzley noted that if I propose a condition and it is approved that we allow 5,214 daily trips, would we have a problem since these would be all in one shift? Ms. Temple noted that it you have that many daily trips attributable in a single shift, then I think there could be a problem. A reason for the limitation in the original approval was for the adequacy of the proposed parking. Ms. Hoffman noted that if you did not exceed the number of trips allowed for Hughes previously, you might want to consider adding language that you can go up to the 5214 as long as you don't exceed the TPO peak hour of this particular use. We are required to comply with the TPO and this states what we are required to do. Ms. Temple stated this would be an enforcement problem. Either the City would have to proactively hire some consultant to go out and do both daily and peak hour driveway counts on some annual basis or the applicant would have to submit such data prepared by a qualified professional. Once again, we would be relying on the applicant for the accuracy of the data. It is something of a monitoring issue. Commissioner Kranzley noted if this condition combined with the other conditions with the review process as you are reviewing the business licenses, etc., I understand it is a monitoring nightmare, no matter what we do there is uncertainty here. I am trying to get to defined point that we can point to and say you are in violation of this condition in the Use Permit. At 1965 employees there was only 1536 on the first shift the rest were on the other shifts. I want to mirror the impacts of Hughes and I don't want to make it worst. I am struggling with micro - managing your business, but on the other hand, I want to make sure we have ways of shutting down a business that is negatively impacting the community. • Commissioner Tucker stated that the Use Permit before us has to do with design 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 features, and now we are trying to attach conditions that have to do with operational characteristics. Do we have a nexus type of problem here; do we have any ability to do any of these things that the applicant seems to be willing to consider? Ms. Wood answered that the nexus is through the TPO rather than the Zoning Ordinance because this is a development that is not doing a new traffic study, not getting a new TPO approval. It is trying to stay within that and your concerns about traffic, parking and occupancy of the building have to do with staying within the TPO approval. Ms. Temple added that the TPO approval is its own entity and if the project became something other than what was approved pursuant to the TPO, the City would be within its rights to either conduct enforcement of that approval or to require new approvals. If it were to become 100% office accidentally because staff did not do a good job, that would be more than 300 additional trips beyond the existing approval. You couldn't approve that because you could not make the finding of General Plan consistency. Therefore, they would need to come back for a General Plan Amendment and probably a Zoning Amendment. Commissioner Tucker noted that the use either complies with what the property is is in general planned and zoned for or it does not. It may be a challenge trying to figure out exactly what that compliance is, but I don't see how that can be pre- conditioned now. The applicant has heard us discuss this for two meetings, they understand the risks of coming in and getting an R & D project approved and then building and leasing an office project. I am not sure what else we can do. Commissioner Kranzley asked that if we don't have any of these conditions about head count, or average trip generation, the TPO in essence provides protection prospectively as well? It we start seeing problems there and generating more average trips than greater than 300 average trips, the permit can be called up for review. Ms. Clauson noted that Commissioner Tucker's issue is that this is a Use Permit for height and so there are certain findings that have to be made by the Commission for that. There are also provisions of the City's TPO that talk about that no permit shall be issued except under certain circumstances. If you go by the City's code, we are meeting the TPO, then if this project meets the TPO then the permit can be issued. Staff's point is that the R & D designation, the conditions limiting to specific R & D uses within that R & D designation is what the TPO is based upon. The nexus still goes back to the TPO and that is the only connection that I think you have to condition your approval on. Other then that, the height or the use, I agree that there isn't any condition. Continuing, Ms. Clauson added that there is a Use Permit for height and then there is a requirement for an environmental document that has mitigation . 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 measures. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the project approvals, as they need to be. That is one nexus or requirement and then again, the TPO. Staff's concern is that under the provisions of the TPO that we're adopting these conditions to make the project look like the approvals that look like the traffic that is being generated by that study. The problem is the some kind of issue that the Planning Commission grapples with all the time. How do we know this restaurant is not going to turn into a bar? How do we know this office building is not going to turn into medical office? We have our Code Enforcement issues and we can always look at our ordinances and update and require maybe floor plans in the future, but we have what we have now to work with and that is all we can enforce. At Commission inquiry, Ms Clauson added that there are provisions in the Use Permit for looking into the design of the project. You can make a nexus. Ms. Temple added that the other Use Permit for this property was for the height in relation to the parking structure. That approval remains in place. The TPO approval was for the increased square footage at the same time the parking structure was approved. They are reconstructing that square footage so the TPO approval still remains relevant and enforceable. The prior approvals were used as the basis of this analysis. Commissioner Kranzley asked if we do the findings regarding the TPO and it doesn't trip any of the issues then when the project is built out whether it is this one or another one, but does not act the way the applicant proposed or the TPO proposed, does the TPO gives us any recourse? Ms. Clauson answered no it does not. The TPO is not done for the purposes of conditioning projects. It is done for the purpose of analyzing the traffic impacts of the projects. If we have a situation where staff comes to us and says we have all kinds of problems with parking, traffic then we are going to have to look at what the tenants are and if we find 100% or nothing but office tenants that do not qualify then we are going to court. We would ask for an injunction to keep them from leasing outside of the zoning as they are in violation of the zoning approvals. The zoning in this permit has limited their use to certain types of uses and that is the only use they can have in there. Ms. Temple added that when we approve a project pursuant to the TPO, we do not set a condition that thou shall monitor and assure that you don't create any more daily trips or peak hour trips as analyzed in the traffic study. We simply say you have to stay a use as categorized by ITE or SANDAG, etc. use characteristics under which we analyzed your project. If a use change comes about at a later point in time for instance a retail space wants to become a restaurant, then we compare the two use rates, look at the thresholds for requiring a new traffic study and determine whether a new report is required. That is why we set that it has to be uses that qualify and are considered similar for traffic generating purposes to the existing approval in order to determine • consistency. 12 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Commissioner Tucker noted that therein lies the problem. We have a parking ratio of 2 per 1,000; traffic features that are industrial, on average; and we know that neither of those things is how the property is really going to operate. Under the TPO the traffic engineer tells the applicant here is how you study this project. If it doesn't trip the TPO, it is not an issue based on the zoning that is there. We have a code versus operational inconsistency and we need to sort out these details. I don't think we have everything that we need in our Codes today to have that internal consistency. It is not the applicant's fault; they are playing by the rules. We know what this thing is likely to be, yet we are studying it based upon what the Code says it is today even though we know that use is not likely. Commissioner Gifford asked if we put a condition limiting the number of employees in the use permit and that condition was violated, would the remedy be to go to court to make them take off the excess height? Ms. Clauson answered that the remedy would be to enforce the conditions of the approval. We can not make them take away the excess height. The number of employees would be difficult to establish. I would have a hard time to do an investigation to go into court and say that they have this many employees. We would have to bring all of the businesses and tenants and document payroll records. I would rather look at the type of businesses that are operating in there. The permit stays in effect, it is not to take away the use permit, just to limit the number of employees. Commissioner Kranzley asked the applicant's spokesperson if they would be willing to accept a condition that limits the number of employees to 1965 with a maximum of 1536 on any one given shift? Ms. Hoffman answered that extended hours of operation would allow for traffic to be dispersed differently than what might have occurred under shifts. For example, a lot of these hi -tech firms may start at 7 in the morning and go through 3 in the afternoon. Is that a shift in your mind; it is not quite the same as having 3 eight hour shifts that do not participate at all in the peak hours. It seems to have as strict a condition over that one period might be more limiting than is necessary pursuant to the traffic limitations. In terms of the nexus between some of those conditions, if all we did was come in and ask for a building permit and ask for the square footage we would be allowed without that additional height, a lot of those conditions would be established and made pertinent to this project as part of the building permit. These conditions are listed here rather than have them just on a plan check at such time when we come in. With regard to the rest of it, there are R & D uses all over the County. Good people like the Irvine Company and others are leasing those buildings, they are operating and are kept that way. This company comes in and says we recognize that is what the zoning is and we are willing to live with that. We are going to have leasing plans that deal that way and work with • brokers to look for R & D uses. In R & D uses, consistent with what happened in 13 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Hughes, there was a 55% office related to R & D and a 45% that was a more technical manufacturing, assembly, fabrication. Some of the discussion that talks about if there is going to be office here is purely academic because frankly, there is office for this part of that. You can't have R & D without human resources and all those other elements of running a business. Yes, there will be office elements just as there were previously as listed in the staff report on page 5. Commissioner Kiser asked if you could give us an idea of what an R & D tenant is today; what are the types of uses; how large would you expect these companies to be; how many employees and what do you foresee as a mix of office and R & D type manufacturing space? Mark Barker noted that the R & D tenant of today is different than the ones in the past. There is no typical tenant out there, it is the tenants we hope we are lucky enough to attract and hoping to get similar ones to those in University Research Park. Those tenants are more office tenants as more research and development happens on computers today. However, they are still qualifying R & D uses. If we were getting an approval for an office, we would not be limiting it to 4 employees to 1,000 square feet as a maximum. If we bring in an R & D tenant and it is going to put us over, I don't think we should be held responsible and not be allowed to have the occupancy. We are responsible • developers. Commissioner Kiser asked for an idea of what kinds of tenants are expected for these buildings? Will a tenant occupy an entire floor, two floors or an entire building? Are we expecting to have 18 - 20 tenants in one building? Should we expect that today R & D means someone in a cubicle on a computer developing software? I would like to get an understanding. Mr. Barker answered that your guess is as good as mine. R & D tenants are not typical. Ms. Hoffman added that there are companies that come in using computers to figure out new products, whether it is new software or hardware. There are companies that may be looking at a new car wash product doing testing with chemicals, bio- medical types of looking at data and developing cancer testing. It is the ability to test for some ways in which cancer patients can give their own medication and how is that packaged and develop the information doctors can give to the patients. It runs the whole gamut; some things are done on computers, some in test tubes, in cubicles, in a collaborative setting and /or done on an individual basis. Mr. Barker added that we do not have any information or statistics. We are hoping to have no more than two tenants per floor in any one given building. We would like one tenant to take the whole park, but the reality is one tenant would have more bodies than multi tenants. You would add a multi tenant • corridor that uses up useable square footage. 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked staff if this project in your opinion are you convinced it will not create outside of the additional 163 peak hour trips that it has than what the existing approved facilities will do? Are you confident that you can keep it occupied in that fashion? Ms. Temple noted that in terms of additional impacts of CEQA level of significance it could be different, but I believe it will fall within the parameters of what had been there historically. Yes, I am confident that we can keep it occupied in that fashion. Mr. Edmonston answered that if it is occupied in the fashion that we have been told it would be and based the analysis on, I am confident that it will not create any significant impact from traffic over what is there now assuming it was occupied. Chairperson Selich added that I have obviously gone into this in depth by all the questions that I have asked. I come to the some conclusions that Commissioner Tucker has that we have some things that we need to deal with in our R & D regulations. We don't need to burden this applicant with them. I • am satisfied with the conditions that staff has put forth, the only thing I would like to see is the landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission for review. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 3679 and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration with the additional conditions: • that the project shall be limited to a maximum of 1965 employees • that the landscape plan comes back to the Planning Commission for review • Condition 16 that talks about on site retention or low flow diversion is changed to add language that if fossil filters is what ends up being finally approved by the Public Works Department, that the filters are subject to a yearly maintenance requirement. • Condition 5 shall be revised to say that all employees and visitors to the facility shall park on site. • Add that the signage program as well as the landscaping plan come back for approval. Ms. Temple noted that the Sign Program approval is an actual condition approval normally dealt with by the Modifications Committee. Ms. Hoffman, speaking for the applicant accepted the conditions as proposed. She asked for specifics to be included with the landscape plan. Chairperson Selich answered that you should get with staff and take a look at • the plan that the Lange Homes did on the Shores Apartment. It was an 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 excellent plan and accepted unanimously. It shows plant sizes and particulars. Ayes: McDaniel , Kiser, Agojanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMff NO. 3679 Mitigated Negative Declaration A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findings: 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the • Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare • which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the 16 •Wi1 1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. 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 by this condition of approval. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot located on the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road and the residential areas. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. 3. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. 4. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a.) Use of low- emission construction equipment b.) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees • c.) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d.) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e.) Use of low- sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment f.) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g.) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference L 5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from construction activities. 6. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur, fuel for stationary construction equipment. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 8. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy- efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 The project shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.64). 10. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 11. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. 12. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive provisions of AB952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 13. All earthworks shall comply with the requirements of the Excavation and is Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Building Department, and may include the following: • Soil engineering report • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans • Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and irrigation plans 14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and over - watering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services, Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan. 15. Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediation as determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 16. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or • construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan and its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. 18. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste . management, and hazardous waste management. The SWPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. fLJ 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a SWPPP shall be provided to The City of Newport Beach for approval. 20. The applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. 21. The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. IM •U197�1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 23. All construction equipment fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. 24. Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent facilities at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. 25. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. 26. All equipment installed for all uses on site shall be screened from view and noise associated with the use of the equipment shall be attenuated as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be based on the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 27. The applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and • truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 28. The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. B. Use Permit No. 3679: Findin s: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" commercial use, and a research and development facility is permitted within this designation. 2. The proposed height of the two new research and development buildings is appropriate in this case, and meets the intent of Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: • The increased building height results in a reduction in site coverage and more public visual open space between buildings. 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 • Increased ground cover and landscaping throughout the site will soften and partially screen the buildings along Superior Avenue. • By constructing separate buildings, instead of one large building, as currently exists on the site, the buildings provide greater architectural articulation. • The new location of Building 1 provides a more interesting project as viewed from the public streets, rather than viewing an open parking lot. • The increased building height results in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the building is in scale and balance with massing and height of the existing structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. • The glass mullion system design breaks up the fagade of the buildings to create buildings that appear less bulky. • The new buildings are in scale with the commercial buildings in the vicinity and are in scale with the existing parking structure. • Because the new buildings are of similar size and proportion, abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. • The proposed design of the buildings includes both vertical and • horizontal articulation, which breaks up the building mass. • The increased building height will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit and redesigning the buildings to the basic height limit would result in changes to the building mass articulation and architectural style of the buildings that would be more bulky, or the overall building footprint would potentially increase and many of the benefits of the open areas between buildings would be lost. • The proposed project represents an aesthetic improvement on the site. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3679 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further, the use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Therefore, the increase in height for the proposed project will not be detrimental to surrounding properties for the following reasons: • The construction of the two new buildings is a reuse of existing square footage that is being demolished on the site. • There is no increase in square footage, rather a slight reduction in the overall square footage of the site. • The proposed development fully conforms to the established • development standards of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 with the exception of height. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed uses. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation on the site is being provided with the proposed project. • No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. Conditions of Aooroval: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. A minimum of 1,421 parking spaces shall be provided on site. The Planning Director may authorize a reduced amount based on the City Traffic Engineer's review of the on -site parking striping plan. 3. A detailed parking plan shall be submitted for approval by the Traffic Engineer. The plan shall show all surface and parking structure spaces. The plan will reduce the number of compact parking spaces to the • extent feasible. Disabled parking spaces shall conform to current standards. 4. Construction workers shall park their vehicles and all equipment on site at all times. 5. All employees and vlstfors to the facility shall park on site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. 7. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 8. Plans for the existing buildings and proposed buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to ensure adequate fire prevention and fire suppression systems are provided. 9. All deliveries and storage shall be restricted to the site and shall not utilize any public rights -of -way. 10. Intersections of the private drives and Superior Avenue shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 landscape, walls, and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 11. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 12. The drive approaches along Superior Avenue shall be reconstructed to meet handicap standards and any displaced or deteriorated sections of curb, gutter or sidewalk along the Superior Avenue and Dana Road frontages shall be replaced, all under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 13. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 14. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct site hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments for approval. 15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study (including groundwater data) to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments. The study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program subdrain system if deemed necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. 16. On -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system, or a fossli filter system, or other system of equal effectiveness designed to filter and clean on -site drainage to meet water quality standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the NPDES requirements shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay and shall be approved by the Public Works, General Services and Building Departments. if a fossil filter system is what the Public Works Department chooses, then the filters shall be subject to a yearly maintenance program. 17. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 schedule. Prior to occupancy of the buildings, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 18. The landscape plan shall be subject to the approval of the General Services Department, the Planning Department, and the Public Works Department. The plans shall include a berm along the Superior Avenue street frontage; the utilization of existing trees on both the Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages, with any replacement trees to be a minimum of 24 inch boxed trees; ground cover and shrubs shall be planted along Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages to fill in the areas between the existing and proposed trees. 19. The landscaping shall be regularly maintained and shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 20. The landscape plan shall include the slope area along Newport Boulevard located on the subject property, which shall be modified to include drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 21. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 22. The facility shall be limited to a maximum of 1,965 employees on site at any one time. 23. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Commission. 24. The applicant shall submit a sign program for the site, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Standard Requirements 25. The project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 26. All mechanical equipment, including roof -top mechanical equipment, shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building materials and noise associated with the equipment shall be sound 24 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 • attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance. 27. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 28. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 29. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 30. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 31. Each building shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 32. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department for the removal of all construction materials, excavated dirt and debris from the site. 33. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 34. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 35. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and related structures shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 33. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 34. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 35. The Planning director shall review all building plans and future tenant improvement plans and shall make a finding that the tenant occupancy is a use that is consistent with Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and as further defined in Section 20.05.060 (B), (D), and (F) and that commercial and office uses are ancillary and accessory to the research and development uses, and the project is in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval." The proposed use of the site shall remain a research and development use with ancillary commercial and office use, as defined by Section 20.05 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 36. The mitigation measures identified in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of Use Permit No. 3679, are required as part of and incorporated herein as a condition of approval and shall be implemented and completed prior to final occupancy of any building for the proposed use. 0 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that on January 9th, the Council referred the Fluter Mixed Project back to the Planning Commission for review; the Navai residence was approved; the Balboa Inn expansion was approved with an amendment; the Starbucks item was continued to January 23rd as well as the signs for Jiffy Lube. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich reported that the EDC is continuing to meet to review projects. The energy crisis was discussed at the last meeting and the committee may be coming up with some ideas to be presented to the City Council. The EDC has moved the Development Plan Ordinance back towards the Planning Commission that will be brought for consideration in February. C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - a brief commentary was given on the Banning Ranch regarding resources being finalized for their land use plan. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - update the Planning Commission on the Santa Ana River Crossing Study; a presentation on the Hoag Hospital new east addition and seismic updating for the existing towers is scheduled during • 26 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 the month of February, and M1A review of regulations and standards. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f.) Status report on Planning Commission request - Ms. Temple asked about the nail salon sign on Coast Highway, it is a permit issue that will be looked at by Code Enforcement; the fichus trees on Main Street is due January 26th and the replacement suggestions. g.) Project status - Commissioner Kranzley noted that the General Plan Update Committee has made progress developing an overall framework on schedule for the process, defining parameters and scope. A copy of the consultant's draft report will be sent to all Commissioners. h.) Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 41 0 27 INDEX Adjournment