Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/2001• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley - All Commissioners were present STAFF PRESENT! Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Robert Kain, Assistant Planner Ginger Vorin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of January 18.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to approve as amended the minutes of January 18, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Gifford Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, February 2, 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 SUBJECT: Newport Riverboat Promoters 151 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3684 • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 78 A request to permit outdoor dining in conjunction with the operation of an existing full- service restaurant /museum facility. The outdoor dining areas will be located on the stern and bow sections of the boat and will be used for lunch and evening food service, closing at 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Selich noted and staff agreed that the applicant has withdrawn the request for acoustical entertainment on the patios. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that there have been no complaints that they are aware of at Mama Gina's. Noise complaints have been received from Joe's Crab Shack when they first opened and had operable windows. That problem seems to have been corrected. There were also noise complaints from Windows on the Bay from their outdoor patio. The closing hours were after 10 p.m. and later on the weekend, probably 1:00 a.m. The acoustical study dated in the staff report has a typographical error on the date. The report date should have been December 2000. • Public comment was opened. Clayton Shurley, 618 Tustin noted that the acoustical report was done in December 2000. He noted that for the last two years he has been doing outdoor dining. They had requested the music for weddings, which usually take place before dark. However, due to the letters received from the community in opposition to music, they decided to withdraw this request. He wishes to work with the community and neighbors. The outdoor dining would allow them to compete with other restaurants and allow them to continue to have the community functions. Additionally, this would allow for the larger functions to go outdoors. The restaurant closes at 10:00 p.m. He noted that he has read, understands and agrees to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. Chairperson Selich noted that one of the reasons there has been success with the noise control at Mama Gina's is that they have a double door situation. Is that something feasible you could do? The double doors make for an airlock system. Mr. Shurley answered that would be difficult. It was recommended to install a six - foot Plexiglas wall around the deck to alleviate any noise concerns. The sound study noted that even with a live band inside, there was no reading over the road noise on Coast Highway. I feel that with the seamless Plexiglas wall, it would alleviate any noise concerns and save on the doors. Senior Planner, Mr. Campbell added that after observing the structure, • theoretically it is possible to install the double doors. If the new doors were inside INDEX Item No. 1 Use Permit No. 3684 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 78 Continued to 08/09/2001 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 the existing doors, they would reduce the amount of area for banquet seating. If they were outside, you would basically be changing what the boat looks like. Jon Schwartz, 89 Linda Isle directly across from the boat noted his opposition. The restaurants mentioned across from Lido Isle are on a wide channel. I would invite anybody here to come to my home and listen to the noise. Music vibrates my windows at times. I have called the police on numerous occasions as well as Code Enforcement who have measured the sound and caught violations of the previous CUP. The restaurant continues to open the doors. It is too close to my home. No matter what they put up, the sound will carry. I have no problem with the stern deck activity, but on the bow deck it is too close to my home and bedroom. I request that you deny this use permit. At Commission inquiry, he answered that he moved to that location about seven years ago, the music goes on until after 11:00 as well as conversations; was only there for a short time when the Ruben E. Lee was there and had no problems. When the doors are open it makes a big difference than when the doors are closed. Doug Liechty, 93 Linda Isle noted that he had called the police on numerous occasions since they moved there. He noted the packet of material he presented to the Commission. Continuing, he added that the acoustical study done on December 2, 2000 was done while a vinyl awning was in place. Without • the vinyl awning, the prevailing westerly winds cause conversations to be carried and heard down the channel. The reference to Mama Gina's is different with an airlock situation. They have the glass barrier covered by an awning. There are very few people out there after dark. I think the stem wheel section would not have the same noise problems that we have from the bow. I would request that you deny having the outdoor dining on that upper deck on the bow. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the Ruben E. Lee had been there for several years prior to his buying his home. Marshall Steele, 2149 Orange Ave., Costa Mesa, the Facilities Manager at the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum spoke in support of the application. He noted that the complaints noted by Mr. Schwartz were from parties held during the holidays. Mr. Shurley had obtained a special permit for those events and was in compliance at that time. The police have taken some of their breaks in our parking lot and if there had been any problems, would have responded. The police have my home number and I respond to any and all complaints to do with the Nautical Museum. The site sound study was done during the month of December because that is the busiest month for catering parties. The Texas Deck, which houses the bow and stern veranda, was used for numerous private parties. We host several functions as a museum, most notably the Chili Cook off. At that time we had a band in the parking lot and up to 1,000 people. We did not receive any negative comments from Linda Isle or Bayshores at that time. Overall, Mr. Shurley and the Nautical Museum have done an exceptional job to get along with our neighbors. As facilities manager, he is responsible for the upkeep of the site. He added that it would not be feasible at all to install baffle doors aesthetically either inside or outside. Additionally, it would create problems • with the ADA regulations as well as the Fire Department. There would have to be 3 Ills] • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 enough space for a wheel chair to enter one door, stop and then enter another door. That would require at least 48 to 50 inches. The overhang of the building is approximately 30 inches so we would have to add on to the roof. It would decrease the space inside, as well as there is a rise that goes from the interior to the bow veranda that would need some sort of enlarged ramp. There is a small ramp there now. The museum owns the boat and the restaurant is leased. Commissioner Tucker noted that the only change that is being suggested is the replacement of the four -foot screen with a six -foot screen? He was answered that is correct. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker stated that we obviously have some people here that are complaining about noise. Do you think that they are ultra sensitive, do you think there is no noise, I mean why are they here complaining about noise? Mr. Steel answered that obviously there is some noise. We have hied very hard to comply with the CUP. Commissioner Tucker stated that is the question, are you complying? There is an ability to make some level of noise that, while it might bother some people, it is not something that will cause this body to ask the restaurant to do more than what is required in our ordinances. For us, we have a noise study that seems to • say there is going to be some noise, but this is not an actionable level of noise, but it was studied in the winter with a tarp around the facility. The six -foot screen is not something that was part of the noise analysis and it is hard to know what we would be getting if we went along with this. I am looking at the noise study that says there is going to be some problems, you can't guarantee that there is not going to be some level of noise and that needs to be compared with how much noise is allowable before you step over the line. It is not entirely clear from the evidence that we have been presented where we should come down on that issue. I don't know that I am in a position to really understand which way to vote on this thing based upon what I have heard and seen. Mr. Steel answered that Mr. Shurley is willing to dampen the sound with the Plexiglas and I don't think that the Board of Directors would be opposed as there is some Plexiglas up there now that until now with this complaint seemed to be working. All we can do is try to do our very best. We are a community museum and this museum is actually owned by the community and supported by the City. We are willing to do whatever the City tells us and whatever else we can do to comply. Until we try the additional Plexiglas and see how it works, I have no other answer. Phil Glasgow, past President of the Nautical Museum and on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees stated I am here on behalf of this application and to encourage your support. We have been working hard with the restaurant for many years. We are aware of the noise problems in the community. The restaurant has been made aware that is our key priority. The Pride of Newport is . a museum and a key team member of that museum is the restaurant. We have over thirteen community service organizations using it. We have the tall ships; INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 HMS Embark Endeavor here; and have had hundreds of children come to see the museum. As a board we are well aware of the noise problems and doing whatever we can. We do not intend to allow music outside. The bow and stern areas use of tables and chairs is a necessity and support the museum. We do know every function that is coming as all requests for the boat are reviewed by the Board of Directors. We will support the additional Plexiglas and if we can find any other ways to dampen the noise we will go ahead and do that. At Commission inquiry, he answered that the double doors would be more of a problem from an aesthetic point of view, as the boat is built to look like a riverboat. To put a double door there is going to stick out and look weird and would not fit into the character of the boat. We can go back and talk to the architect, but I don't think it is feasible. We have worked hard to keep the aesthetics even when we put the new air conditioning system on there recently. Since this is a nautical museum and our heritage we are putting the history of the harbor in there. We could put double pane glass in there to help reduce the sound. Commissioner McDaniel noted: • Riverboat restaurant is a landmark in Newport Beach. • It has been there since 1963/1965 before any of these houses were built. • People come from all around to visit. • • It is right off Coast Highway. • There is plenty of parking. • You were alone out there prior to people coming down and building around you. • People come to have outside dining and enjoy the harbor. • All the people complaining this evening should have known that there was a restaurant there and that there would be some noise and at 10:00 p.m. it is a pretty reasonable time to quit. Commission Kiser asked how many of the special functions use the outdoor bow deck in the evenings versus lunch type uses. It seems that most of the problems relate to the folks who live on Linda Isle. Their main problem appears to be with the bow deck and not the stern. I wonder if we could restrict the time. Mr. Glasgow said it would vary because of the different functions. We have toned down the number of functions to keep the noise level down. The functions are reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors to make sure that we are in compliance. A lot of those functions do not last that long. Some of the functions are community functions like our service clubs that are gone earlier or you have a Chamber function that starts at 5 and by 7 they are gone. It just allows us the ability to expand out. If we don't have that, they all stay inside. We also look at the number of people coming on board and every function needs to tell us how many people will be in attendance. We look at those numbers because we are a museum first and our team member is the restaurant and it helps us by providing income to the boat. But the Board does watch what is done. I � f. J INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Micheal Lawler, 1515 Cumberland Lane, attorney for the restaurant, noted the following: • Plexiglas in place now is only four feet high and is primarily on the starboard side of the boat for wind protection. • It is not acting to attenuate sound right now. • A full six -foot high Plexiglas around the entire bow as suggested by staff, I am certain that would be very effective in eliminating the sound. • This request is to have outside dining only. • This restaurant is not the kind that attracts a rowdy crowd. It is not a late night crowd. It is corporate parties, civic organizations, charitable groups, weddings and service organizations. Commissioner Tucker asked about six feet versus eight feet. In terms of the music I think if it were taller it would knock down most of the noise of the guests out there. If the Plexiglas was taller, it might mitigate some of the noise impacts of the music coming from the inside. Mr. Lawler answered that sound travels straight. If the wall is six feet high it will block out the linear voice projection if someone is standing. The staff report requires or recommends a minimum of six feet. Maybe it could be more, but I don't know what the costs would be. We could go back to the acoustical engineer who did the sound test and get a recommendation of the optimum - height. Commissioner Kranzley stated that there is a condition that we have added to a number of our outdoor dining permits that actually lowers the level of certain sounds that have a tendency to be most annoying by 5 decibels. Would you be willing to accept that added condition? Mr. Shurley answered what would the requirement be or what would I need to do that? Commissioner Kranzley stated that we had Wieland Associates do a review of our noise ordinance and they felt there were certain weaknesses. They felt that if we added this into the noise ordinance itself it would actually improve it quite a bit. So, I have tried to do it since we haven't reviewed the noise ordinance and have added it to our restaurants. Mr. Shurley answered that we are willing to work with the City and the neighbors to accommodate them as much as possible. Mr. Campbell read the condition. 'In determining the project's compliance with community noise control ordinance, Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, each of the noise level standards specified in Section 10.26.025 and 10.26.030 shall be reduced by 5 decibels for simple 'tone noise such as a whine, screech or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music or for recurring and pulsive noise such as hammering or riveting'. The 5 dBA would • lower the number for residential. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Mr. Shurley answered that is not a problem. Commissioner Kranzley asked if a sheet of Plexiglas in front of the door would help the problem. Mr. Shurley answered that might be a good idea, but the Fire Department would not approve it. I think the best thing to do is make sure that we keep the doors shut at all times and put the Plexiglas wall up. He added that any change to the hours of operation or loss of space would have a great impact on him financially. Banquets are the most profitable part of the business and being able to have functions up there is mandatory to be able to stay in business. The restaurant can operate just fine down below, but without that other portion of the business we can't compete in this area of Orange County in the Mariners Mile with all the other restaurants that are in place and be able to turn a profit. We have to have a certain amount of volume to exist. We have been greatly damaged by this program already and nearly went out of business. Being able to put the Plexiglas up and pay all the fees just to be here tonight was a major expense for my family and me. We are willing to do whatever is required to make the City happy as long as we can do it and operate as a business. I appreciate the neighbors' concerns, but we are a restaurant and to be able to operate profitably, we need • that deck that we have been using for two years. I talked to the Police Department and they had one complaint called in on their file and that was prior to starting two years ago. I don't know who has called the police, but they have not called me and I am the fellow who can make a change immediately. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Shurley noted: • The double door system would be a problem. • The stern deck is not used much as it does not facilitate the banquet room. It is only a small area and can not accommodate a large group. • Closing at 8 p.m. for weddings would be fine. Commissioner Tucker noted that the use of the outdoor dining is a temporary use. My sense is that there is not a noise problem with the wall, although I wish you would consider having that a little higher. I would suggest that we extend that temporary permit for another six months, you go ahead and put up the Plexiglas, you reaffirm your noise statistics to see if it actually ends up working and we will look at it six months from now. What that would do would give you time to work with your noise consultant who would perhaps advise you on the height of the Plexiglas and when you come back to us, we will have some data that wasn't taken during the winter and we can reach a conclusion. Mr. Shurley agreed. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of putting all the restrictions on this application, when all the noise is not his. The highway noise with diesel trucks and • motorcycles is very loud and how can you make the distinction? INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Mrs. Wood answered this is true. What the noise consultant found is that the ambient traffic noise was often as loud or louder as what was coming from the restaurant. He has told us that there are some kinds of noise, such as speech, that are more offensive to human beings and that was the reason to suggest the additional S dBA penalty that is being proposed. I heard from the testimony that it is not just music that the neighbors have heard, but conversations of the patrons. Chairperson Selich noted his concern that the noise study was done during the winter and not the summer when the deck is used a lot more. Also, that it was done with a tent over it and the consultant used subjective analysis to come to a conclusion. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked about parking. When it was operating as a restaurant it was required 148 parking spaces. Now, it is required 94 spaces, 44 for the museum and 50 for the Riverboat Restaurant. There is a total of 310 parking spaces on the site and when you add in the marina office you have 274 spaces, so you are not using up the entire 310 spaces for the uses. If you take the 94 from the 148 you are still 18 spaces short. How does this parking work and who owns • the lot and did they give away their right to the 148 spaces in the event they wanted to turn back to a restaurant in total in case the museum ever left? Mr. Campbell noted that the parking is not assigned to any one particular use in the table as noted in the staff report. We wanted to make sure that if it was expanded to have more seating area there that the site had enough to support everything that is there. That is the purpose of the analysis, it has nothing to do with assignment of the actual spaces. Mr. Shuriey added that The Irvine Company owns the parking lot. Mama Gina's and the Yankee Tavern are a fair distance away from us so they do not use our parking area hardly at all. There is a tremendous amount of spots that are not filled. There is an upper parking lot as well where the police are nightly. The arrangement with the parking is that the Museum has a lease with The Irvine Company on the parking lot. I don't know how many spaces they actually have. Mr. Glasgow added that when we bought the boat, we got the land through a lease with the Irvine Company, both the upper and lower lots and we share some of that with the marina that is right next to us. That is all exclusively ours, but we have never filled up the parking except with the Endeavor function and have more than ample parking for any museum function and the restaurant. We control the parking. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of this application with the additional condition that after 8 p -.m. for the operation of the bow area at any event at which there was loud entertainment or amplified sound would not be permitted. • It seems that if this was throughout the week and on weekends, it would allow INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 special events throughout the day and weekends and yet would also solve the problem of the swinging door if that bow area was not allowed to be occupied at any time other than the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the application with it coming back for review at a later time. 1 am happy with the Plexiglas wall, I don't think the double doors will fit, and I agree to the restriction on the hours. Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement with Commissioner Tuckers suggestion. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to extend the Planning Directors approval through August 15, 2001 and add the condition that the minimum six - foot Plexiglas be installed and continue this item to the first meeting after August 15th. Chairperson Selich asked if the motion could include that a noise analysis be done during the summer months. (To be added to the motion.) Mrs. Wood suggested that this be brought back to the first meeting in August so that Mr. Shurley would not be operating unlawfully after August 15th. (To be added to the motion.) Commissioner Tucker said his motion included that the outdoor dining shall stay 7:30 p.m. daily until the Plexiglas is installed and then the hours can be extended to staff recommended hours. The applicant agreed. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Schulien Building Parking Lot 711 Begonia Avenue • Use Permit No. 460 (Amended) A request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of a commercial parking lot on a properly located in the R -2 district, to amend the hours of operation to 6:OOAM to I l:OOPM, where the current conditions limit the hours to 7:30AM to 6:OOPM only. Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood reported that staff has received a letter from the applicant withdrawing this application. Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect on the project noted that he had been contacted • late this evening by a member of City staff who had asked him to ask for a .11 ii7 VA Item 2 Use Permit No. 460 A Continued to 03/08/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 continuation in lieu of the withdrawal. Apparently some members of City staff have some ideas and wanted to sit down to find an alternate solution rather than withdraw the application. I asked my client and with your permission, instead of a withdrawal I would like to ask for a continuation to March 8th, Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting on March 8th_ Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Fluter Mixed Use Project (Sterns Architecture) 2410 Newport Boulevard • Site Plan Review No. 79 • Use Permit No. 3685 • Variance No. 1239 A request to construct a mixed use building with 2,000 square feet of commercial space and 2 residential units. The Use Permit would allow the project with a reduced commercial FAR of 0.20 where 0.25 is required. The Variance would • allow a minor reduction in landscape area within the required front yard setback area abutting Newport Boulevard. Mr. Campbell noted an additional condition as requested by the applicant. He wanted the condition to require a disclosure statement for any commercial or residential leases that would identify the abutting land uses. Commissioner Tucker asked where the requirement for the trellis and additional street trees that were identified in the staff report? Public comment was opened. Russ Fluter, 2025 West Balboa Blvd., stated that the two loft residences are designed to be unique urban spaces compatible with the neighbors. If the Commission were to reconsider this issue and allow it to go forward, it will be an asset to the community. The neighbors are supportive of the project. I am in agreement with the suggested findings and conditions of approval. Commissioner Gifford, referring to Condition 12, asked for language to be inserted, 'including landscaping installed on Newport Boulevard in connection with this project: Mr. Fluter agreed adding that was his intent also. Lee Sterns, 1100 South Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, architect spoke about the architecture. Referencing the exhibit on the wall he noted that this is a courtyard scheme, with the building on the bay and on the street to create a better street edge putting the cars within the courtyard. The cars are 10 INDEX Item 3 Site Plan Review 79 Use Permit 3685 Variance 1239 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 bracketed with the building. The trellis is on the revised drawings. The revised drawings reflect the overhang on the front commercial space as a trellis. The architecture reflects a bridging between McFadden Square and Cannery Village. He then described the types of materials to be used on site. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted that with the changes made by the owner on increasing the commercial area, and restriction on the one area for boat sale use he is in support of this application. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich for approval of Site Plan Review No. 70, Use Permit No. 3685 and Variance No. 1239 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 3 with the added condition by staff and the change in Condition 12. Commissioner Tucker noted that the trellis is part of the revised plans, but there is nothing that requires landscaping on the trellis so we would need that in the condition, would we not? Mr. Campbell noted that there is no condition for landscaping for the trellis. We can add to Condition 11 as well as one that states that the applicant shall • donate to the City two additional street trees (not palms) above the minimum number pursuant to the Municipal Code. This was acceptable to Mr. Fluter. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Exhibit No. 3 Findings and Conditions of Approval Site Plan Review No. 79, Use Permit No. 3685 8 Variance No. 1239 FINDINGS Site Plan Review The site is flat, paved with asphalt and gravel with no trees or shrubs, no unique natural landforms or coastal bluffs or other environmental resources, and therefore, the proposed project will not significantly impact significant resources. The site is not within a designated Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA). The site is flat, paved with asphalt and gravel with no trees or shrubs, no unique natural landforms or coastal bluffs or other environmental resources, and the development project does not require significant alteration of the site and is therefore compatible with the site. • 2. The site is designated for Recreational Marine Commercial (RMC) uses by 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 the General Plan and is located within McFadden Square area. The RMC designation was applied to waterfront commercial areas where the City wishes to preserve and encourage uses which facilitate marine commercial uses and a visitor serving orientation. The General Plan permits residential uses on the second floor above permitted commercial uses in the McFadden Square area, and the project is provides residential uses on the second floor above permitted commercial uses, therefore the project is consistent with the General Plan. Although the introduction of new residential uses to the area could have an impact upon the preservation of the abutting boatyard and operation of the adjacent restaurant, residents of the facility will be afforded full disclosure of abutting uses before occupancy. Although expansion the adjacent boatyard would be precluded with the proposed project, the Balboa Boat Yard has been in operation for many years and its expansion is a private consideration and has not been sought. The proposed project will not preclude the continued operation of the boatyard. 3. The site is on the border between the Cannery Village and McFadden Square area and is located in the designated McFadden Square area which extends to 261h Street. The proposed project does include the use sandblasted and burnished concrete block which reflects an image of permanence and strength identified as a thematic element of the McFadden Square area. Although the overall architectural theme of the project is not reminiscent of the turn of the century era exhibited in the central McFadden Square area near the Newport Pier, the architectural flavor and design of the project is closely associated with the maritime theme fostered by the Cannery Village area. The project uses galvanized metal exterior finishes for walls, roofs and window awnings. Exposed steel beams and metal canopies accent the architecture. Modest use of stucco offsets the use of sandblasted concrete with metal lintels for exterior wall finishes. Although the architect has not included specific nautical elements, the overall architectural theme meets the guidelines of the Cannery Village architectural theme and therefore, the project is consistent with the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. 4. Surrounding uses are varied including marine uses, restaurants, visitor serving commercial and mixed -use developments. The project is a continuation of the mixed -use development concept prevalent in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square area especially to the north of the project site. The immediate abutting sites are a boat yard and a restaurant, which have the potential to cause nuisances to residents of the project. Although the introduction of new residential uses to the area could have an impact upon the preservation of the abutting boatyard and operation of the adjacent restaurant, residents of the facility will be afforded full disclosure of abutting uses before occupancy. No outdoor living spaces are provided with the project, which will assist in reducing potential conflicts. The boatyard is a daytime use and the project will be required to incorporate construction techniques that attenuate exterior noise sources 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 INDEX accordance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. 5. The development of the site will block the limited view to the bay from Newport Boulevard which is not designated as a Scenic Highway or Drive. No public parks are in located the vicinity that the project would impact views from. Although the project site provides the only glimpse of the bay from Newport Boulevard on the block, 261h street is approximately 75 feet to the north and provides a similar glimpse of the bay from the public right of way. 6. The site is located close to the Newport Inglewood fault zone and severe ground shaking at the project site might be experienced in a major event. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant must submit a comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the Building Department for review and approval. All applicable City and State building codes and seismic design guidelines will be applied through the issuance of a building permit, and therefore the proposed project will be sufficiently protected. 7. The proposed project does not have outdoor living areas and the City noise ordinance requires that interior noise levels must comply with the 45 CNEL or less standard. The applicant will be required to submit an acoustic study prior to occupancy of the residences that documents that interior noise levels meet this standard. 8. The parking lot as presently designed meets applicable requirements for reasonable and safe operations based upon the review of Planning, Public Works and Building Departments. Subtle alterations may be necessary to ensure adequate disabled access. The Zoning Code requires a 6-foot wide horizontal easement that is parallel to the bay and a vertical easement perpendicular to the bay from Newport Boulevard to the bay to be recorded. A recorded "offer to dedicate" the easement in lieu of actually establishing the easement is consistent with Coastal Commission guidelines and is satisfactory in this case due to the nature of the project and its location. Access from the site to the north or south along the bay is blocked and is not likely to be provided in the near future. The adjacent boatyard to the north cannot physically provide a safe connection to 261h street further to the north and the Hooter's Restaurant building provides no setback from the bulkhead. When the abutting uses redevelop, horizontal connections will be feasible and in the case of the Balboa Boatyard, a connection to a public street will effectively eliminate the need for the vertical easement on the subject property. Lastly, the project provides a residential component and security of the site is necessary. 10. Electrical and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans and approval of the project is based upon an understanding that these devices be either located underground or concealed. Additionally, trash storage 13 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 areas are not specifically delineated with the project and approval of the project is based upon an understanding that the areas will be either accommodated within the commercial spaces and residential garages, or within screened enclosures, and they will not be visible to the public except for trash- pickup. 11. No known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the nature of the site as a disturbed and partially filled site. 12. There are no abutting residential districts, and therefore the proposed project will not likely have a significant effect upon residences in the area. Use Permit 1. The proposed commercial space is 2000 square feet and is 25.5% of the total project square footage. This amount of area is not insignificant to the overall project. 2. That the proposed commercial spaces are large enough to accommodate viable businesses. The bayside suite is 1,000 square feet in area and can • accommodate a small commercial venture. The location on the bay does not favor retail uses due to its lack of visibility to Newport Boulevard, but the suite is large enough to facilitate several offices. The streetside suite is 1,000 square feet and can accommodate a small business. The size of the suite would tend to favor a small office use, but due to the good visibility of the suite from Newport Boulevard, a small retail business is very possible. Strict compliance with the minimum commercial standard for a mixed use project would increase the parking requirement, and the increased commercial area and parking would most likely require a parking garage placing residences and possibly commercial space above. This design scenario would not be conducive to providing viable commercial spaces due to its potential separation from the ground or decreased visibility. The increase commercial space would also come at the expense of one or both residential units due to need for additional space to accommodate both increased commercial space and parking. 3. The site is designated for Recreational Marine Commercial uses by the General Plan. This designation was applied to waterfront commercial areas where the City wishes to preserve and encourage uses which facilitate marine commercial uses and a visitor serving orientation. Although residential uses are not addressed within the description of the RMC designation, the Canary Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan permits residential uses on the second floor above permitted commercial uses, and therefore the use is consistent with the General Plan. Although the introduction of new residential uses to the area could have an impact upon the preservation of the abutting boatyard and operation of the adjacent 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 restaurant, residents of the facility will be afforded full disclosure of abutting uses before occupancy. Although expansion the adjacent boatyard would be precluded with the proposed project, the Balboa Boat Yard has been in operation for many years and its expansion is a private consideration and has not been sought. The proposed project will not preclude the continued operation of the boatyard. Therefore, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. Variance 1. The reduced landscape percentage is necessary in order to provide minimum required vehicular access and disabled access to the site. The site is 50 feet wide and has no alley access typical of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Area. Without alley access to provide vehicle access from the rear or other site access from private property, access for vehicles and the disabled is must be through the front yard. This access requires a minimum of 29 feet in width which is 587a of the required front yard of this 50 -foot wide site. Strict application of the 507o required front yard landscaping standard would either eliminate complying disable access to the site from the sidewalk or create a substandard vehicular driveway which increases hazards. Safe vehicular access and minimum complying disabled access are higher priorities than the additional 20 square feet of landscaping which would be otherwise be required. Therefore, strict application of the landscaping and access standards in this case given the width and location of the property deprive the property owner of the privilege of developing his property in a manner consistent with other properties under the identical zoning classification. The project has an increased front building setback which increases the landscape area in front of the building although the increased area beyond the required setback cannot be used to technically meet the standard. The increased area will provide equal area to what would be required if 50% of the required yard were landscaped. Therefore, the project and variance approval meets the legislative intent of the code which is to ensure that adequate landscaping along the street is provided, and not constitute a grant of special privilege. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This Site Plan Review No. 79, Use Permit No. 3685 and Variance No. 1239 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations dates February 8, 2001, except as noted • 15 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 below. 3. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. The minimum elevation of the finished floor for project buildings shall be 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 Mean Sea Level). 7. The bayside structure is required to be protected with an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system subject to the review and approval of the Newport Beach Fire Department. 8. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and public streets. 9. The enclosed garages shall available for the exclusive use of the residential uses. No conversion of the garage spaces to other use shall be permitted. The open parking spaces shall be available for the exclusive use of the commercial businesses and customers while those commercial businesses are open for business. 10. The commercial spaces within the project shall not be converted or used for residential purposes. 11. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. The landscape plan shall include climbing vines to be trained to the trellis located on the street elevation of the streetside unit. • 16 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 12. All landscape materials Including landscaping installed on Newport Boulevard in connection with this project and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 13. The boat slips bayward if property shall only be used in conjunction with the proposed residential dwelling units. Commercial use of the boat slips is prohibited. 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall record an irrevocable offer to dedicate a 6 -foot wide public access easement along the entire water frontage of the property and though the property to Newport Boulevard. The irrevocable offer to dedicate the assess easement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Newport Beach City Attorney and Coastal Commission prior to recordation. 15. The project must comply with the interior and exterior noise standards for residential uses of the Noise Ordinance. The interior noise standard is 45dBA • between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:00PM and 40dBA between the hours of 10:OOPM and 7:OOAM. The exterior noise level standard is 55dBA between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:00PM and 50dBA between the hours of 10:OOPM and 7:OOAM. An acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these standards of the Noise Ordinance. This acoustic study shall be performed and submitted to the City Planning Department prior to occupancy of the project. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable standards, additional mitigation shall be required which may include the installation of sound wall in a location established by the acoustic study and subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 16. Each residential unit and each commercial 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. 17. Intersections of the private drive and Newport Boulevard shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, 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. 18. A condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay sides of the property shall be made by a civil or structural engineer prior to issuance of . any grading permits, and that the bulkhead be repaired in conformance 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Marine Department. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSQ. 19. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 20. 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. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Newport Boulevard right -of -way. 21. Curbs, gutter and sidewalk shall be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. All construction within the public right -of -way be subject to further review by the Public Works Department, An Encroachment Agreement shall be executed for all non - standard improvements approved to be constructed within the public right -of -way. • 22. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 23. A drainage 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 a grading permit. 24. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. 25. The applicant shall provide wheel stops or other approved protective barrier methods as necessary within the parking facility. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers subject to the approval of the Public Works Department or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 26. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the site. 27. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 1101. 28. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform • Building Code, including State Disabled Access requirements, unless 18 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 otherwise approved by the Building Department. 29. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 30. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is physically infeasible. 31. The residential units shall be constructed with heightened sound attenuation techniques beyond normal construction standards and said techniques shall be subject to the review and approval by the Building and Planning Department. The residential units shall be provided air conditioning units. 32. The applicant or property owner shall include a disclosure statement within any commercial or residential lease that identifies abutting land uses and the potential negative issues associated with them. The disclosure statement shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director before use. is 32. The applicant shall donate 2 additional street frees in addition to the minimum number required pursuant to the Municipal Code. Said frees shag be planted in the general area in accordance with General Services requirements. SUBJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton) 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive • Amendment No. 909 • Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13 A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes. Commissioner Kiser stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest as he represents an owner of property near the subject properly. Mr. Campbell then made a slide presentation of the site, noting: • Block faces Bayside Drive where it has been developed as a park. • Site is accessed from a public driveway from Bayside Drive to serve four properties. • Guest parking areas for four properties. • Landscaping in general area. • Landscaping to be removed. 19 INDEX Item 4 A 909 LLA 2000 -13 Continued to 02/22/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 • Goldenrod footbridge. • Buildings to be removed. • Placement of a future retaining wall necessary to support the driveway. • Hill slope up above with existing alley. Views from Goldenrod. Commissioner Tucker asked if the alley between Fernleaf and Goldenrod goes all the way down to the public driveway, is that all public? He was answered that the alley extends all the way to Bayside Drive where the small guest parking area is and that whole area is public. The entire Bayside park as well as that driveway is in the public right of way. Chairperson Selich clarified that although the right of way is landscaped and is called Bayside park, it is not dedicated parkland, it is actually street right of way. It is a wide parkway area that is being used for landscape and park purposes but is not dedicated for that purpose. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson answered that is correct. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the accessibility of the parcel from the point of the public driveway to the units and how it was done. Are there no other • access points to this property or are they just given easements? Mr. Campbell answered that there is no agreement or easement over this area, it is public right of way. Transportation /Development Services Manager Rich Edmonton added that this proposal would extend essentially the three lots there shown on the map, which were created in similar fashion many decades ago. This is similar to other areas along Bayside Drive that have driveways parallel that go back in to service typically one or two property units. The parking area may have been constructed in the late 50's before the time when the City had the level of regulations and an active Encroachment Permit Agreement process like we have today. It is street right of way and not unlike the typical single family residences where you have a driveway and probably the first ten feet of it back from the curb is in the public right of way. It is a different configuration but a similar concept. The City does not maintain those areas; they are treated like the portion of the individual property owner's driveway in a similar situation or in a more conventional neighborhood where that first ten feet is in the right of way and theirs to maintain. Commissioner Agajanian, referring to page 4 of the staff report, noted that declaring the lot non - buildable and prohibiting its development may constitute a taking requiring just compensation. He asked how this affects our decision tonight. • Ms. Clauson answered that if it is a lot created pursuant to the Subdivision Map 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February B, 2001 Act at a time when it existed and the City takes a regulatory action and prevents it from being built then the property owner may have an argument that it was a taking. I don't know if I conclude that it was, but the property owner would have a good argument to that effect. If the lot line adjustment was not approved, I don't know what the result would be on the buildability of the second lot. The upper lot does not have full development; it only has an encroachment from the adjoining lot to it. The second lot does not have any individual separate structure on it that has access from any viewpoint. The question that would rise in my mind as to the second lot would be the accessibility to it. It would be a legal lot with no access to it, but there is access to it on paper through the subdivision map from Goldenrod. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that if we don't do the lot line adjustment, it could be deemed a taking. If we do a merger, would it be a taking? Ms. Clauson answered that if the Commission does not approve the lot line adjustment, then the property owner would have to try to figure out how to access that second lot. If there wasn't a way to access that second lot, then they may be able to have an argument that there is a taking there, because there is no access from any of the streets. I am not concluding that there would be a taking, but there is a subdivision that provides that Goldenrod comes down and Bayview goes across; they are both streets. It is designed to have an improved street in front of it and to have access. There have been circumstances in other cities that property owners have made the allegation that property owners have abutters rights to have access to a street. If they were to make an argument that the action the City is taking has prevented them from having access to the street, they may have an argument. Chairperson Selich noted that there are many lots in Corona del Mar that only have pedestrian access to the streets, most of the vehicular access is off an alley. Ms. Clauson stated that the alley access qualifies as public access. Discussion continued on the design of the project map and the issue of access to the properly. Chairperson Selich noted he had asked the Assistant City Attorney for an opinion as to whether the Planning Commission could put a condition on this application and through the Encroachment Permit stating that the Planning Commission would have architectural and site plan review of the two lots that would be created under the lot line adjustment as well as the lot at 405 Goldenrod. She informed me that in her opinion this could not be done. He asked her to explain. Ms. Clauson answered that the lot line adjustment has restrictions under the Subdivision Map Act. The Map Act specifically exempts lot line adjustments and has a provision that says the local advisory agencies shall not impose conditions or exactions on the lot line adjustment approval except to conform to local • zoning and building ordinances. Based upon that and case law that has 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 interpreted this section, I don't believe that since the City does not already have local zoning and building ordinances that require site plan review for this project that we would be able to impose it as a condition of the lot line adjustment. The other issue that I looked at was the amendment to the Districting Map for the setbacks for a site plan review. The problem is that is a legislative act and you can't condition a legislative act on the approval because if they don't comply with it you can't take back the legislative act. Public comment was opened. Eric Welton, 2855 East Coast Highway applicant noted that he is open to any questions. He noted he has a geologist to explain issues as needed. Andrew Goetz, architect for the project noted: • Looked at altemative accesses for the second parcel, could have applied to extend the alleyway in back of Goldenrod with a very large excavation and make a right hand turn into the second lot. This did not seem to be an aesthetically good choice, or a practical choice. • The planned project will eventually become condominiums and perhaps there may be some contingencies that could be tied into the subdivision of the condos and hence enforcing specific plan relative to that issue. • Have a set of plans for this project. • Lisa Salisbury Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive spoke in opposition to this project noting the following while distributing some photos: • Geotechnical soils stability issues. Bedrock that we are built on is the same as Femleaf Avenue. • Inspector at my home less than 60 days ago reported major slippage and subsidence from the bedrock on which her home is built. Drilling caissons into the bedrock will compromise it. • Impact of what is being done in the neighborhood has not been addressed by the project manager or the City. • Architectural integrity - Rex Brandt designed and built these homes. Perhaps there is some architectural integrity that they can not be demolished. • Removal of ten mature trees - would this lead to soils and stability issues that could contaminate the problem? • Current bedrock issues with the removal of mature tree roots might cause lateral damage to my property. • Demonstrate the accuracy of the staff report. There are two areas in which this lot line adjustment does not meet procedural requirements in Chapter 19. 1 can show you that to enforce the lot line adjustment as a City we have to look at Chapter 20; there are two areas that have not been met. • This will invite litigation and problems when the Code is not complied with to the letter. . At Commissioner inquiry she noted that her lot is the first lot that fronts Bayside 22 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Drive next to Femleof Avenue. Commissioner Tucker asked if she had an existing slippage problem. She answered yes. Continuing he noted that problem continues whether this project goes forward or not. The property designed by Rex Brandt is not recognized on our historical register and we, as a body can not decide to become a Historical Society. Susan Carol, 2710 Bayside Drive owner for the past fifteen years spoke in opposition to this application. She distributed photos and noted: • Tranquil setting overlooking Bayside park. • Soils issues prior to her purchasing her home have required her to maintain the various slopes by planting trees, specific vegetation choices using moisture control and other geotechnical means for stabilization. • The proposed project does not address these soil issues. • The proposed project also does not address parking, maintenance, landscape, trees and the offer of insurance to be provided to each of the homeowners on the street. • Plans have been withheld to the last moment because the applicant does not want to make any commitments. • No master plan has been made available. • Now, there are plans to put a driveway and parapet over my bedroom window. • • 1 ask that you continue this matter so that we can all see the complete picture as to impacts on safety, soil erosion, slope stability, removal of trees, parking and access. Chris Taylor, land use and community development consultant with Harris Taylor Management at 315 West 3rd St., Santa Ana spoke representing Bill and Harriet Harris who own 2706 Bayside Drive. He stated that there is an inability to get the complete picture on this application. He then distributed a copy of a letter regarding access to the information on file. There is an argument that the lot line adjustment could be ministerial and understanding that the zoning code amendment for the district map could have some precedent for establishing set backs there. We do not have an adverse reason to keep some quality development in that area but we do have a major encroachment agreement here that does need significant public review. The historic kind of resistance we have seen to provide the information or documentation is taken as adversarial and I am not sure that is necessary if given more time. There are some conflicts within the staff report that need to be pointed out, we have 11 guest spaces currently but we have an increase of bedroom count pursuant to this application that is over 50% for this area of guest parking. This particular condition is unique to the area of Bayside Drive. Most of these access points only service two units, in this case we serve more than two and talking about greatly expanding it down a very narrow access way. In the staff report, this is identified as occurring at the base of a steep slope and has previously been lot line adjusted for topography and building and that you need to make a determination that this lot line • adjustment can be made without the need for public involvement. I don't think 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 you can make that finding. You have the resulting legal lots presently built upon and you have some illegal lots with houses crossing lot lines in the current condition. You have identified that there is not access and a steep slope condition that could create the value of that slope condition to be very slight. Commissioner Tucker asked Mr. Taylor: • Parking spaces referred to are in the public right of way? - Answered, correct. • Those spaces are for lot owners in that particular area? - Answered, correct. • Wouldn't the owner of the lot (Rex Brandt Trust) have the same claim to the parking spaces as the other owners? Is the complaint that some of the other owners will have less public parking spaces? - Answered, we will have about 64% of today's parking ratio when this unit count is built out. • Building across lot lines, wouldn't this resubdivision and demolition solve that problem? - Answered, you need to make findings that existing lots comply and are legally built and the future ones are too. There is nothing built on one lot unless you consider an illegal structure crossing the lot line on it. You can't make the finding that is necessary that the project as described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. They are built in an illegal configuration currently. That makes this staff report in error, and you are basing your decision making on that. . Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that the plan that we have looks like there can be some parallel spaces put in that parking area, but I don't know what the count will end up being. The staff report indicates that they don't need any permits for the 405 Goldenrod address. A developer will come in and do it all at the same time. When you tear down the existing structure it is no longer built illegally, it is gone. Chris Cushman, 2700 Bayside noted his opposition to this application. He stated that he purchased his home with the parklands as a key component of that purchase. This application before you tonight, roughly 2,000 square feet of what I consider park land to be replaced or destroyed is more than 10% of the immediate view in front of my house. I consider that a significant impact. The request that we are asking for this evening is for continued discussions on alternatives. A relocation of the driveway access to the top of Goldenrod near the walkway, I think you might find less destruction for the overall neighborhood. The visibility might be impacted by fewer than by those who drive up and down Bayside park and those who enjoy that parkland. Those are considerations that we have not heard from the developer or his architect and I think we should consider alternatives at this point. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Cushman noted that he heard and understood that this is dedicated street right of way and not dedicated parkland. Eric Welton noted the following in rebuttal: • 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Letter of support contradicts the assertion that there has been no effort on my part to communicate. Trees to be removed - the Fire Department has requested that one be removed to facilitate their vehicular access. • Landscape plan would be one of the conditions that are to be approved. If the neighbors would like to give input on it, I would be happy to consider any suggestions they might have. • Extending Goldenrod as an alternative method of access I don't think would be feasible. We did examine extending the current alleyway from down below to the interior lot, however, in my first meeting with Ms. Carol she indicated her desire to retain the encroachments that abut her property that she uses for entry stairs as well as landscaping to enhance her property. To accommodate her, we tried to work around other alternatives. If we were to go in and extend that alley it would be an unsightly tall retaining wall up to 27 feet. Parking issues - on my count we are removing two legal guest spots and replacing with three with a net gain of one. If you examine all of the off street parking available to any of the flower streets, we come up with the same number of guest parking spots under the proposed arrangement as would be available for developing a 30 foot lot on a normal street elsewhere in Corona del Mar. 1 feel that there has been adequate communication. All my documents • have been available for public review during the last few months in the course of their development. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Welton answered that he is not in accord with a continuance on this matter as proposed by the opposing speakers. Their assertion that they have not had access to the exhibits posted on the wall or the soils report that was prepared and ready January 22nd is not correct. Chairperson Selich noted that we have no way of knowing what type of communication has taken place before an item actually gets to us. In many instances we have a continuance to give the project proponent and the neighbors a chance to meet and discuss the project. How would you be or would you be harmed if there were a continuance? Mr. Welton answered that he would be substantially harmed by virtue of some forfeitable deposit money and a very substantial sum that has already been released to the seller who has given me an extension of time that would elapse prior to any subsequent meeting from tonight. There is a great amount of money that would be at risk. Commissioner Gifford noted that even if we were to vote in favor of this project tonight, there would still be an appeal to the City Council possible. How does that fit with your timeline of expiration of your extension? Mr. Welton answered that had been taken into account and in fact is another • forum in which the opponents can voice their objections. Between now and 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 then I would hope to be able to satisfy their concerns. I don't take kindly to the notion of having them participate in the refining of design elements. Commissioner Gifford clarified that when you say this is a crucial deadline for you, you're actually saying based on the time for appeal or when it could come before the City Council that is really the expiration of your deadline. Is this correct? She was answered, yes. Ms. Wood clarified that this application would automatically be forwarded to City Council because of the amendment to the Districting Map. Commissioner Tucker asked if the applicant went forward with the existing lot configuration and came up with an alternative alley access route into the property, that wouldn't require him to come to us for a District Map change or a lot line adjustment would it? Yet most of the concerns that the people who oppose the project have voiced would still befall them anyway, would they not? Mr. Campbell answered that if alternative access was provided and there was no need for the amendment or the lot line adjustment, the project would not be here. At Commissioner inquiry, he agreed that the project would still happen and all the things that the people have complained about would still occur. Presently there is a 15 -foot setback off Goldenrod that would apply. If the • applicant designed a project that complied with all the zoning requirements, he would not be here. Mr. Welton added that he could design a project that would only necessitate the removal of Ms. Carol's alley encroachments and scoop out those stairs and plantings that form her front yard. I am not sure it would be economically feasible, but it is an alternative. We were trying to be accommodating and skipping that as an alternative. At Commission inquiry, he had his architect note on the Exhibit where the added parking spaces would be. Commissioner Tucker asked about the soils stability issues raised. The staff report indicates a soils report had been prepared and then reviewed by staff. It states that the site is not prone to liquefaction and site grading can be performed with current conventional techniques. Does that mean the soils problem on the adjoining properties really pertain to problems with the original grading of those properties? It seems to indicate that this property can be properly graded using regular techniques. Mr. Campbell answered that the report is for the project site and does not make any inferences of any soil conditions on adjacent properties. Mr. Welton added that his geologist is here tonight and can answer any questions. The adjacent properties were built without a retaining wall in between them and therein lies the source of the slippage. Chairperson Selich noted that the geology is an engineering problem and we 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 have qualified geologists; this does not get into discretionary aspects. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern about cutting away the area; I would like to know what would happen. Chairperson Selich asked the geologist to come forward to give a dissertation on the effect grading of the proposed project would have on the adjacent properties to the west. Todd Alsio, Stata Tech, geologist stated the following: • Performed an investigation on the subject property two months ago. • Site can be developed using standard construction techniques. • If the alley extension is done, they may have to drill some caissons to get into the bedrock. • The geologic conditions sometimes change from one site to the next. • The problems that the other properties are experiencing are probably from some poor grading or construction techniques that were done when they were constructed. • Work on this project will be carefully observed and documented. • The trees to be removed are down on the flat portion of the site where the parking lot is going to be extended. • Anything that is going to be done will not affect any of these properties. • Mr. Edmonston commented that in the last fifteen years, when various projects have created access areas through the Bayside right of way open space, they have not included any parking in those areas. We have tried to maximize those areas and maintain them as open space. This site is still a little different as those other properties front an approved and improved public street where there was parking. In this case, there is not an adjacent approved public street so it would be up to the Commission to weigh in on that topic, if you choose. At Commissioner inquiry he answered that the parkway between the curb edge of Bayside Drive and the front of this property is public property. Referencing page 2 of the staff report, on the vicinity map he pointed out the area that lies within the Bayside Drive right of way that is developed as an open space with turf, trees and asphalt pathway. The whole area is dedicated for street and highway purposes and the City has not to date had a need to actually improve its full width. In order to add open space and improve the area for the community, it has been developed over the years as what would appear to be more of a linear park. However, it all lies within the public street public right of way and is an extension of a public street. Commissioner Agajanian clarified that the way the lots are currently configured, the access off Bayside provides direct access to the lower parcel. If we approve the re- alignment of those parcels, then the parcel to the right would not have access to Bayside. We are extending that parking area to provide access to that newly created lot, is that correct? Mr. Edmonston answered yes; we would consider it a driveway that is being 27 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 extended through that newly created parcel. Ms. Clauson added that the street right of way is there, so we are requiring the property owner to provide that access. The street right of way is there; it is just not improved. The condition of the lot line is to have the property owner provide it. We would need to allow for a provision of access to the street. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker noted that we have two lots that exist today that are in a configuration that don't really fit. The applicant's proposal is two lots that do fit. I have heard all issues of the opponents, but when all is said and done, it is not going to change the character of the project; it's two lots that are going to be re- oriented in different directions. The parking issues seem to be taken care of and quite frankly I would like to see more 59 by 60 -foot lots instead of 30 by 118 lots. It will end up with different architecture or different architectural character than a long skinny lot. The proposal seems to make sense. I don't know what really is the situation with the neighbors' geology, but it is clear from the testimony from the geologist that this particular project is not going to create a problem. I think it is also nice that Mrs. Carol's encroachment into a public alley way can continue to be there as it is a nice softening effect in that area. All things considered, 1 think this is a sensible project and proposal and I am going to support it. • Commissioner Kranzley noted that when we have had issues where the neighbors are in such conflict as we have tonight, we have provided at least a period of time where we have asked them to get together for some resolution. I am not convinced that a continuance for a couple of weeks wouldn't be a good idea. Let the neighbors get together and figure out if there is some meeting ground. If there is none, than it can be brought back for a resolution. • Commissioner Gifford asked if the lots remained the way they are now, does the City have an obligation to extend the alley to provide access to the inferior lot? Ms. Clauson answered she did not know what the City would have to do. I know the properly owner would look at how he was going to access the interior lot. We would have to look at his proposals and somehow some sort of accommodation would have to be made so that he could get access to it. I don't know if it would be to extend Goldenrod as suggested on the interior next to Ms. Carol's property or maybe from the top, extending a portion. I don't know if it is possible or not. We can't have a legal parcel with no access. Chairperson Selich asked if the City's ultimate protection in that situation is if the applicant or property owner insists on that access, the City could merge that lot with 405 Goldenrod, which has access. Ms. Clauson answered that the City can go through the merger process as long as the property is owned by the same owner(s), which it is. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement of the idea that these two lots facing Bayside become more interesting lots. Also, this particular configuration provides an easy solution to the issue of access to the property. I appreciate it involves the removal of some trees that are there simply because there has been no development up to this point. They are not there by right. Because we can't control this through a site plan review nor the architecture, any agreement that is arrived at between the developer and the neighbors based on further discussion is something that we will not be able to guarantee the implementation of. I am inclined to approve this project based on it being the best solution among ones that are not very pleasing to the people who live there but ones that involve recognition that we have two legal parcels there, and we are going to wind up with two legal parcels there if we were to approve this. Commissioner Agajanian clarified that our choice tonight is approval, continuance or a denial based on the fact that the proposed lot line adjustment does not conform to the City's zoning or building ordinances. Ms. Clauson answered I don't know if anything has been established in the staff report but you could direct looking further into making sure the project conforms if you have some doubt as to whether the staff report addresses all the City zoning and building regulations. • Commissioner McDaniel supported a continuance as he Is having difficulty really understanding what the project is going to be when it is done. I was hoping for a better understanding, but I am having a difficulty recommending something that I don't understand. I think the applicant would be better off spending time to provide that. Chairperson Selich stated that 59 by 60 -foot loots are terribly awkward size lots and invariably end up with variances and deviations from standards. I agree with the premise that it is better to get more interest on Bayside Drive. My inclination is to support the project if we could have architectural and site plan review not only on these two lots but on the lot next door to make sure they fit together properly. This is a beautiful area of Corona del Mar. I know from looking at the drawings presented, there has been sensitivity taken in the project design. My major concern is, without being able to tie the architecture and site plan to it, we are just giving an open checkbook to whomever owns the property to do whatever they want. There is no guarantee that will happen, an offer could come in tomorrow to sell the property for an increased price and they could decide to take it. We could then be faced with two property owners on two 59 by 60 -foot lots coming in most likely asking for a variance of some type. I am not saying the applicant would do that, but looking at it legally that is where we would be if we approved it without any controls on it. There are other alternatives; all four lots are owned by the same property owner who has the option to do a lot line adjustment on three of the lots instead of two and create three rectangular lots similar to the ones that exist between the alley and Femleaf now. I understand there are some topographic restraints on Goldenrod that . make that a more difficult site to build upon but it is feasible. It is also feasible to 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 cut the alley into the slope and provide access as it is presently configured. This really is not our only alternative. The solution that the applicant has come up with is the best solution but without being able to tie the architecture and site planning to the lot I really have a problem with it. Ms. Clauson added that there is an option of a merger. Commissioner Agajanian noted that he supports a continuance to find another solution for the lots involved. Mr. Welton noted that he had examined all the options available to him for this project. He stated that he would bear the brunt of the additional expense and risk retaining control. The downside is that I may not be able to retain control of the property and you may have someone else to deal with and an entirely different set of criteria for developing the property. That may or may not be a good thing. I will assume the burden of a two week continuance during which time I will work with the neighbors. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 22nd Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Recused: Kiser * *s SUBJECT: Cafe II Farro (Domenico Maurici, applicant) 11 l 21st Place • Use Permit No. 3690 A request to upgrade an existing alcohol license to permit the sale of general alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption (Type 47 License) in conjunction with an existing restaurant. No physical changes to the establishment are proposed and no change in hours of operation is requested. Public comment was opened. Domenico Maurici, applicant at 111 21A Street stated that he is requesting an upgrade to his liquor license at the request of his patrons. At Commission inquiry, he stated he would like to retain the late hour of 1:30 a.m. as his closing time. He added that the majority of his business is food related (80%); there is no bar in his restaurant and he only wants to serve cocktails at the tables. Mr. Campbell noted that there are no regulations on the restaurant as it is legal and non - conforming and it has no use permit. The hours on the outdoor patio during the summer hours are regulated to 1:30 a.m. closing. • 30 INDEX Item 5 UP 3690 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Commissioner McDaniel asked how effective is the ability to control the sale of hard liquor after 11:00 p.m., is there any way to police that? Staff answered that would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Maurici stated he had been working hard to promote the late hours for his business and has a lot of patrons who come after 10:00 p.m, for a late meal. We have lots of tourists especially Europeans who like to eat late. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley stated his support for the restaurant and the owner is very responsible, however, the permit runs with the land and this is in District 15 that is the worst District in the City for alcohol related crimes. Commissioner Gifford stated that the liquor licenses that have led to the problems in District 15 are those for bars and nightclubs. However, because any adjustment to the use permit runs with the premises and not the individual operator and given that it is in the middle of a large number of bars, I am going to vote against extending this use permit. Captain rim Newman stated that there have been no problems at this particular location. The area this restaurant is in is the busiest area in the City for calls for service and tourist impacts. There is a correlation between the lateness of hour and the level of alcohol related problems that we experience at the Police Department. Whether this particular establishment based on its previous history is going to contribute to that is difficult to predict. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the application noting that it seems unfair that this particular applicant has to pay for the sins of others. There are lots of bars in the area and I share the concerns about the use permit and perhaps we can tie the sale of liquor in with the sale of a meal. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern with the alcohol issues. There is no bar in this facility and so I am inclined to support the application. If a subsequent owner comes in and wants to change the restaurant and put in a bar, is there any recourse? Mr. Campbell noted Condition 6 talks about not operating a bar and Condition 1 stipulates development has to be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan and Floor Plan. We would be able to use these findings and conditions to evaluate a future configuration. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of this application with the hours listed in Condition 15. Commissioner Kiser noted his support because this is an owner who has run a truly restaurant operation. I would like input on what the suggested hours would do to • the operation. 31 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Mr. Maurici answered he wants the late hours for the diners and for any special holiday events. Closing at 11:00 p.m. would not be agreeable. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Use Permit 3690 with a revision to Condition 14 that the hours of operation of the establishment and the outdoor patio will be limited to 11:00 a.m. to midnight daily. Chairperson Selich noted that the floor plan locks this thing into being a restaurant. He suggested verbiage in Condition 1 after 'substantial conformance to the site plan'. 'There will be no service bar or other bar area outside of what is shown on the site plan ". With this floor plan it is definitely a restaurant and not a bar. Secondly, in addressing the hours of operation it is one of the places where you can get a late dinner. I understand the applicant's concern that people who come from other countries look for a restaurant that serves meals late in the evening. I have no problem with the late hours. Commissioner Gifford noted her concern of Condition 4 regarding 'sustained complaints'. The language is vague, what is a sustained complaint? Also, I want to be sure that we are in our legal rights on Conditions 9 and 16 to be enforced. Ms. Clauson answered that if the Commission doesn't see a relation to the approval for the sale of alcohol then they would not be sustained. It is a part of a control of the noise emanating from the property and if there is a connection between the sale of alcohol and noise and the additional noise that can be generated by loudspeakers. Continuing, Commissioner Gifford noted it is appealing to be able to get a meal past 10:00 p.m. Given the suggestions that we nail down that any bar can not be more extensive than what is on the plans, if we understand this is a food establishment, that negates controlling the hours. My request is to eliminate Condition 4. Mr. Campbell added that the word 'sustained' is a police term that means confirmed. It clarifies the validity of the complaint. Commissioner Kiser stated that he wants Condition 4 to stay but will change the word 'sustained' to 'confirmed'. Condition 1 shall be amended to add, 'shall not contain a liquor service bar with seating and can not be expanded beyond what is shown on the approved floor plan'. Captain Newman added that the ABC generally extends the hours of operation past whatever time you establish because they realize that individuals might need a period of time to finish the consumption of beverages. We have used language to provide for a special amount of events for holidays. I believe that it all comes down to the quality of the operator as to whether 32 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 there is an increase in alcohol related police service calls. A straw vote of the hours was to maintain the existing hours of operation. Commissioner Kiser amended his motion to maintain the existing hours of operation 1:30 a.m. closing May through August and 12:30 a.m. closing September through April. Following a brief discussion on the seating arrangements on the site plan and substantial conformance, it was concluded that the total seating inside and outside is 76 inside and 12 outside. However, the number of seats is not something that is regulated by zoning. It is regulated for building occupancy and fire code purposes. Zoning looks at net public area. The floor plan tells you that there is dining in one area and a service bar in another area and defines areas for wine storage and service /bussing. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: Kranzley 0 Findings: LJ EXHIBIT NO.2 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 3690 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage sales and service is considered a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The project meets the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for an upgrade to the existing alcohol license for an existing restaurant and the existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) and will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: 33 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 a. The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts. b. The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of desired beverages in a restaurant setting. c. The proposed use is a continuation of the existing restaurant use, which serves the residential and commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area. d. Although crime rates are higher than the citywide average and percentage of alcohol - related arrests is significant, the upgraded license is not anticipated to generate increased crime as the facility is operated as a restaurant and not a bar or nightclub. e. Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the sale and service of alcoholic beverages. f. The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of the facility as a restaurant. • g. The establishment will provide regular food service from the full menu at all times the facility is open. h. No live entertainment is permitted. i Hours of operation limitations have been imposed. Conditions: The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan dated February 8, 2001 except as noted below and shall not contain a liquor service bar with seating and can not be expanded beyond what is shown on the approved Boor plan. The interior dining area shall be limited to the approved floor plan and any increase in the net public area dining area shall be subject to prior approval of a use permit. 2. All conditions of approval of Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76 shall remain in full force and effect. Where there is a conflict between the conditions of approval of this Use Permit and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76, the conditions of Use Permit No. 3690 shall prevail. 3. This use permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental • to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or 34 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 4. In addition to any other grounds provided for herein, three or more sdstained confirmed complaints within a 12 month period received by the Newport Beach Police Department regarding disturbances which have been caused by patrons, staff or entertainment at the site will be grounds for revocation proceeding. 5. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. 6. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless the Planning Commission first approves a use permit. 7. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be full alcohol service for on -site consumption only and only in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. The sale for off -site consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited. Any change in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. 8. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 9. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 10. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 11. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 12. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the restaurant facility to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance. 13. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to 35 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 0 discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. If the operator fails to discourage or correct nuisances, the Planning Commission may review, modify or revoke this use permit in accordance with Chapter 20.96 of the Zoning Code. 44: The hours of operation of the eating and drinking establishment and the outdoor patio shall be limited between 11 AM te 11 PM Gleily I1 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. May through August and 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. September through April. This stgetiq ,hall supeFeede the iimite -tie of n.. o 15. A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 16. The exterior of the restaurant and alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 17. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times that the restaurant establishment is open for business. 18. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of these conditions within 180 days of the effective date of this Use Permit. 19. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. 20. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner /operator or leasing company. 36 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 21. This Use Permit shall be terminated if the operation is no longer maintained as a 'bona fide public eating place" as defined by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 22. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. 23. 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. 24. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the . ambient noise level is higher: SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2001 -1 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. Park MacArthur - 3901 MacArthur Boulevard: A proposal to increase the development allocation for Professional and Business Office Site 3A, and to change the land use designation (from Retail and Service Commercial to Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial) and establish a development allocation for Auto Center Site 1B of the Newport Place Planned Community. The two properties would be combined into a single site, and the total development allocation would be increased by approximately 225,000 square feet (± 400,000 square feet total), to allow construction of two 128 foot high, eight story office buildings with associated surface parking areas and a parking structure. B. Our Lady Queen of Anaels Catholic Church - 2046 and 2100 Mar Vista Drive: A proposal to increase the development allocation for two existing church properties by 24,000 square feet for the combined properties, to allow for the construction of a new church, and the expansion of an existing elementary school. 0 37 INDEX Rem 6 GPA 2001 -001 Recommended to City Council • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February B, 2001 C. St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road: A proposal to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, and establish a development limit of approximately 20,000 square feet, to allow the construction of a new church complex, including sanctuary, administrative facilities, pre - school /day care, fellowship hall, and miscellaneous uses. Ms. Wood noted that for Item C. St. Mark Presbyterian Church, the development limit requested is 39,200 square feet. She also noted that she had a conversation with Patricia Krone who lives on Amigos Way. She could not be here this evening, but wanted to convey her concern about the expansion of Our Lady Queen of Angels particularly the traffic impacts from the school expansion. Public comment was opened for Item A Park MacArthur. Barry Eaton, 727 Bellis Street spoke as a member of EQAC noting that Item A is the third really large project that you will have in the vicinity of MacArthur and Jamboree. I would hope this time you would encourage staff that when the environmental documentation is done that instead of recommending a • statement of overriding considerations for adverse impacts on that intersection that they require the project to participate in the long -range project that the City Council has requested the OCTA funding for. That is the long -range project to widen Jamboree through MacArthur across the 73 Freeway. Commissioner Tucker noted that the City is in the process of updating the General Plan and one of the areas of significance is what is going to happen in the airport area. This project would probably do best to dovetail into the decisions of what will happen in that area. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend to the City Council initiation of General Plan Amendment 20001 -1 A, Park MacArthur at 3901 MacArthur Boulevard to amend Newport Beach General Plan. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Abstain: Agajanian Chairperson Selich stated that for the next two items, the Planning Commission is not voting for or against either of these amendments tonight. It is only to vote to initiate the process. Periodically we go through general plan amendment requests and our position in the past has been that unless the request has no merit whatsoever, that it should be allowed to move ahead. The applicants are allowed to proceed and develop their environmental documentation and have • the impacts of their proposal analyzed before our making a decision on it. 38 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Public comment was opened for Item B, Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the ownership of the two properties hasn't changed yet, but Our Lady Queen of Angels is the applicant with the agreement of St. Mark's for the portion they own. Public comment was opened. Monsignor Bill McLaughlin, pastor of Our Lady Queen of Angels applicant noted that the parish has existed since 1961 serving 451 families. The parish has grown to 4500 families residing in Newport Beach and Newport Coast. We are a church of increasing numbers with approximately 80 different ministries. Our present church holds 870 people and is inadequate in size. With a general plan amendment we would hope to build a church to hold 1225 people. We have seismic and safety issues that have been addressed by the Bishop and if we don't build a new church we will have to address them in the near future for the present church building. We are here to ask for your support of this initiation. Barry Eaton noted that there are two large homeowners association within the vicinity of St. Mark. As president of the Eastbluff Homeowners Association directly . across the street we look forward to working with representatives of the Queen of Angels to identify and resolve any issues that might affect our homeowners. • Jan Vandersloot, noted that the SPON group has discussed this proposal. I ask if these two items should not be considered as one initiation as they are linked. One does not happen unless the other happens. Instead of 22,000 square feet versus 39, 500 square feet you may have 51,000 square feet of expansion. Chairperson Selich answered that each general plan initiation stands on its own. Although there is a land swap here, St. Mark's could just as easily sell the land to Our Lady Queen of Angels and find a site elsewhere. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted his concern to the project proponents that the expansion of the school will have an impact on an already congested traffic situation. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend to the City Council initiation of General Plan Amendment 20001 -1 B, Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church at 2047 and 2100 Mar Vista Drive to amend the Newport Beach General Plan. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianion, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Abstain: None 39 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Public comment was opened for Item C, St. Mark's Presbyterian Church. Mary Urashima, spoke representing St. Mark Presbyterian Church. She clarified that his initiation of the general plan is not contingent on the approval of Our Lady Queen of Angels. She delivered a letter from John Dean, Orange County Superintendent of Schools requesting support of this initiation. The conceptual plans that were provided show the usages and ministries of the church. The Church does not want to move far away because it could change the sense of community and lose membership. This particular site meets the requirements of still being close to their current site and presents them with new opportunities to fulfill their mission. We recognize the Big Canyon Country Club, residents and associations who have created a peaceful environment and we are willing to work with them as we proceed through refinement of this project. Pastor Gary Collins spoke in support of this application noting that this church has been in the community for 40 years. When we considered the proposal from Our Lady, we realized that this opportunity allows us to do more for our community and parishioners. Public comment was opened. Jan Vandersloot noted his concern of the loss of open space. This space is • zoned for environmental, recreational open space and the request is to turn it into one that has entitlement. If this were The Irvine Company coming before you asking for this initiation, you would be requiring replacement of open space. Now, The Irvine Company owns the property and is letting St. Mark's be its agent for this property. I ask that you require an Environmental Impact Report and ask for a replacement of open space to be provided by the Irvine Company as part of this deal. This is a complicated matter where one church is moving into another church and that church will move over into what is now open space. If the Irvine Company came and asked for development on open space, you might look at it more critically. I ask that you look at it with this critical point of view when it comes back to you. Bernie Rome, 3 Pinehurst, president of and speaking for the Big Canyon Master Association that represents 489 residential units noted: • No land in Newport Beach has been set aside for religious projects. • Traffic concerns with exits and entrances on MacArthur Boulevard. • Current difficult situation with people making turns into Newport Center. • Be sure that all of the affected neighbors get a change to work with St. Mark's people. • Big Canyon Country Club is landlocked and has no place to go for parking nor does Big Canyon itself. Commissioner Tucker clarified that this property will become part of the Big Canyon Planned Community. Provisions regarding this property will be added to that planned community text. Under the PC district, the purpose is to provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as 40 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment that can result from large scale community planning. It is incumbent upon the St. Mark's proponents to have their project tie in with the rest of the planned community that is already on the ground. They need to work together to make sure there are no reasonable objections as for as compatibility is concerned. There may be a requirement for an environmental impact report at the very least there will be traffic studies on it. All those issues will have to be addressed. Barry Eaton as an active member of St. Mark's noted that St. mark's is very willing to meet with the Big Canyon people and is in support of this application. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support but he is concerned about the open space. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend to the City Council initiation of General Plan Amendment 20001 -1 C, St, Mark Presbyterian Church at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road to amend the Newport Beach General Plan. Commissioner Gifford noted she would not support this initiation because of the designation of open space on the site to be used for this project. There are • many places in Newport Beach that are designated for development, but very few for open space. Many of these areas designated as open space and even given to the City for that purpose have since been developed. Chairperson Selich noted that his concerns have been somewhat allayed with the site plan that was included with the packet. However, he still has some serious reservations about the access issues on this project. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: Gifford SUBJECT: Proposed Development Plan Review Procedures Initiation of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to establish procedures for development plan review. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 22nd. He also requested some additional information on examples of design guidelines for other cities such as LoJoIla, Santa Barbara, Palo Alto, Claremont, Carmel and Laguna Beach. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None • ,,. 41 INDEX Item 7 PA 2001- 001 /GPI2001- 001 Continued to 02/22/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the last meeting of the Council the appeal of the revocation for the Use Permit for the Buzz and the Use Permit for Starbucks were continued to the upcoming meeting on February 13th. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - none. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern with traffic on Pacific View at Marguerite with three schools coming and going at the some time. Mr. Edmonston commented that currently students from Newport Coast have been attending Lincoln School. There is a new school set to open for them and that will divert some of that traffic. We have worked with Harbor Day School to provide a drop off area on San Joaquin Hills Rod so that they would not have to enter into that whole area. We have brought up the possibility that if the opening of Newport Coast Elementary School does not resolve that problem, the only thing we could do is try to work with the schools to spread their start time more. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Kranzley asked to re- visit the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance when other project priorities allow time. f.) Status report on Planning Commission request - Mr. Edmonton will continue his presentation of SARX to next week. 2001 Planners Institute in Monterey will be held March 21 n through March 23rd and the City will pay the registration for those who are interested. g.) Project status - no comments. h.) Requests for excused absences - .Commissioner Kiser asked to be excused from the meeting on February 22nd; Commissioners Kranzley and Gifford asked to be excused from the meeting on March 22nd. ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 42 INDEX Adjournment