Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/1995COMMISSIONERS \15 10 � � I \P � lot R *11* I 4 M( A) Al 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: February 23, 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX esent * * * Chairman Gifford was excused. ( Commissioner Pomeroy arrived at 7:34 sent P.m) # ## EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Bob Burnham, City Attorney # ## William R Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner W. William Ward, Senior Planner Don Webb, Public Works Director ' Dee Edwards, Secretary # ## Minutes of Febagn 9 1995 MinuteE of 2/9 �ti.on * Motion was made and voted on to approve the February 9, ,es * * * * * 1995, Planning Commission Mmutes. MOTION CARRIED. )sent Public Comments: Public Comment No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. # ## /95 s COMMISSIONERS • 9� ��cT MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL Febmwy 23, 1995 CALL INDEX P_ oAWS of the Agenda7 Posting James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission of the Agenda Agenda was posted on Friday, February 17, 1995, in front of City Hall. Rfduest for Continuance• Request James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant, California to Cont. Restaurant Ent. requested that Item No. 1, Use Permit No. 3544, regarding Up3544 a take -out restaurant on property located at 1614 San Miguel Drive, be removed removed from calendar from calendar Use Permit No 3544 (Continued Public Hearing) item No.1 Request to permit the establishment of a take -out restaurant with incidental UP3544 seating and on -sale beer and wine on property located in the RSC-H District. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the Removed required off-street parking spaces. from Calendar LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 35 -1 (Resubdivision No. 284), located at 1614 San Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly corner of San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road, in the Harbor View Commercial Center, ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Califomia Restaurant Ent., Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant requested that this item be removed from calendar until an on -site parking demand could be reevaluated to include the anticipated expansion of Gelson's Market on ' -2- COMMISSIONERS 90� \$k 10 90 r L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .2 ROLL , INDEX CALL the property and the establishment of the subject Specialty Food Service Facility. Amendment No. 816 (Continued Public HearinQl Item No Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to A816 establish definitions for the terms 'beauty parlor" and "nail salon ", and to establish parking requirements for nail salons. Denied INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the subject Amendment was reviewed by the Economic Development Committee on February 9, 1995, and the Committee recommended that the City not adopt the proposed regulations. The Amendment was initiated by the City Council ' on October 24, 1994. There being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Director Hewicker provided background information pertaining to the proposed Amendment. He pointed out that former City Councilman Sansone expressed concerns that nail salons that were being established in Corona del Mar on East Coast Highway, were not providing sufficient employee and customer parking for their use. Therefore, an emergency Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on April 25, 1994, prohibiting the issuance of any permits for the expansion of or the establishment of a new retail personal service business. A second emergency Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on May 23, 1994, that permitted the expansion of or new personal service uses, provided that a more restrictive parking standard were established. The City Council requested that the Planning Department staff commence a study of the parking impacts of such uses and to report its findings to the City Council. He explained that the parking requirement is typically one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area; however, the Planning Department came up with -3- .2 COMMISSIONERS 9°c • iI n M s M o r MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL - --FFFU r res 3�;q, ty5pa INDEX the recommendation that if the City wanted to change the parking standards, the parking requirement be amended to one parking space for each 80 square feet of gross floor area for nail salons. Director Hewicker commented that the areas in the City where nail salons are a problem are in Corona del Mar and in the shopping center located at the comer of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. Director Hewicker indicated that the proposed Ordinance applies to specific commercial areas within the City, and if it is the desire of the Planning Commission or the City Council to expand the Ordinance, there would have to be further hearings to impose the same parking requirements to the other areas. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Director Hewicker explained that the proposed Ordinance would apply to only new uses, and existing uses would become legal nonconforming. Commissioner Adams concluded that the Ordinance would only apply to a small percentage of the nail salons in the City. COMMISSIONERS Ay Nc Ab 4 L CTI'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL es * * * * * Substitute motion was voted on to deny Amendment No. 816 (Resolution * No. 1381), Exhibit `B ". MOTION CARRIED. sent A. General Plan Amendment No. 94 -I(F) (Public Hearin el Item No.3 Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the GPA 94 -1F General Plan for Pacific View Memorial Park, adding clarifying language which specifies that the existing 50,000 square foot development cap shall UP351s include administrative offices, support facilities, mausoleums and garden SPR 69 crypts. Additional language is also proposed which specifies that all future mausoleum and garden crypt structures shall be constructed only within the Cont' d building envelopes authorized by the site plan approved in conjunction with to 3/9/95 Use Permit No. 3518 and provided further, that the building bulk or floor area shall not exceed that which was shown on the site plan presented to the City Council on March 28, 1994. The proposed amendment will also consider an increase in square footage of mausoleums and support facilities in excess of 50,000 square feet; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 3518 (Public Heariw Request to approve a master plan of development for the ultimate build -out of the Pacific View Memorial Park, located on property in the R-3-13 and Unclassified Districts. The proposal includes: the establishment of four additional building sites which will be developed with fixture community mausoleum and garden crypt facilities; one building site for the future construction of family mausoleums facilities; the construction of a fixture maintenance building, a future garage and sales facilities; and the location of future road construction as part of the interior vehicular circulation of the park. The proposal also includes a request to permit the continued use of a temporary building to be used in conjunction with the continuing sales activities. AND ' -5- COMMISSIONERS •9��`i��yc`' 09 9p � FL0 O r 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX C Site Plan Review No. 69 Public Hearing) Request to establish grade on each of the proposed mausoleum and garden crypt building sites within the Pacific View Memorial Park property. LOCATION: Portions of Block 96 and 97, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3500 Pacific View Drive, at the southeasterly terminus of Pacific View Drive, adjacent to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. ZONES: R -3 -B and U APPLICANT: Pacific View Memorial Park, Glendale OWNER: Pierce Brothers, Houston, Texas ' James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the numerous documents that were distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the subject public hearing. Director Hewicker stated that staff was prepared to show slides to the Planning Commission regarding the subject site, the adjoining Big Canyon Reservoir, and cemeteries in Brea, Lake Forest., and El Toro. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the existing 50,000 square feet, Director Hewicker explained that in 1988 when the City went through a comprehensive amendment to the General Plan it involved every parcel in the City. The idea was to balance the Land Use Element of the General Plan with the Circulation Element of the General Plan so as to make them internally consistent. The study consisted of reviewing the existing development, what the circulation system could support in terms of future entitlement, and to bring the two Elements together. Director Hewicker stated that not every property owner in the City was notified of the process. In reference to Pacific View Memorial Park, he stated that aerial photographs were taken of the property and the footprints of the buildings were scaler) off the square footage of development was calculated not taking into consideration the use of the buildings, the square footage was totaled, and additional square footage 10 -6- COMMISSIONERS • 9 i�� 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX was added so as to bring the total to 50,000 square feet. When subsequent applications were applied for by Pacific View Memorial Park, it came to staff's attention that the square footage of the existing development did not reflect what was on the ground. There were substantial areas under eaves of roofs in front of the crypt walls, and those spaces had previously been counted as square footage. Staff attempted to measure the physical size of the existing buildings to arrive at the actual square footage. When Pacific View Memorial Park originally requested the Sunset Court addition and submitted plans showing a build -out condition, it was determined that the applicant would exceed the 50,000 square feet that was specified in the General Plan. A question arose between the Planning Department staff and the City Attorney's Office. The discussion was if the pent» tted 50,000 square feet only included just the administrative portions of Pacific View Memorial Park, or if it also included the mausoleum structures. Inasmuch as there was no distinction in the General Plan as to what the 50,000 square feet pertained to the ultimate decision was that the 50,000 square feet included the administrative buildings, crypt walls, and mausoleum structures. Therefore, it was necessary for Pacific View Memorial Park to ' initiate a General Plan Amendment so as to build -out the property. Director Hewicker fiuther stated that it was a hypothetical question if Pacific View Memorial Park would have been given more than 50,000 square feet during the General Plan public hearings. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams regarding the construction of the existing mausoleums, Director Hewicker replied that when Pacific Yew Memorial Park requested construction of a mausoleum in 1978 the homeowners objected to the City, and they went to Court to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order. After negotiations between the homeowners and the cemetery, the Temporary Restraining Order was lifted, and construction of the mausoleum was completed. Director Hewicker stated that he became involved with the current project when the applicant started construction of Phase I, Sunset Court, two years ago. At that time he questioned if the expansion conformed with the use permit that had been approved by the County of Orange in 1958, because to date there is no use permit that has been reviewed and approved by the City. Director Hewicker stated that he questioned the additional setback that Pacific View Memorial Park was proposing for Sunset Court inasmuch as it would be 68 feet closer to the residential lots in Spyglass Hill than the previous -7 COMMISSIONERS • ��9$i9��L90 4 4 MINUTES CrIY OF NEWPORT BEACH U-1------ " / MC ROLL CALL INDEX mausoleum construction. Following discussions between the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Planning Department, and Pacific View Memorial Park representatives, a building permit was issued stipulating that the applicant would be allowed to build Phase I construction of Sunset Court on the condition that the applicant would file for a new or amended use permit to indicate the build -out of Pacific View Memorial Park and to allow an opportunity for the City, the adjoining homeowners, and the applicant to have a common plan whereby all of the parties would know what would be developed. Director Hewicker concurred with Commissioner Adams that it was the City's position at that time that Phase I of Sunset Court was not an increase in intensification over the current General Plan. Director Hewicker explained that at the present time there is approximately 10,000 square feet of additional entitlement remaining under the existing 50,000 square foot maximum. Director Hewicker stated that there is no question as to what currently exists and what the applicant is entitled to construct under the General Plan; however, there is a question as to how the location of the buildings might conform with the plan that was originally approved in 1958 by the County of Orange Planning ' Department and the Board of Supervisors, and the plans that were transmitted to the City by the County at the time the property was annexed to the City. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Director Hewicker explained that the City has jurisdiction over the issuance of any building permit on the property. Director Hewicker further replied that the applicant is required to come to the City with plans indicating where the proposed buildings would be constructed, and staff would determine if the plans are in substantial conformance with the plans that were approved in 1958. In response to comments by Commissioner Brown, Bob Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the City Attorney's Office addressed the issues relative to whether the construction of mausoleum space would be an intensification of a nonconforming use, whether the County issued use permit is valid, and whether the floor area limits in the General Plan are applicable to mausoleums. Mr. Burnham determined that there are a number of complex legal issues that can only be resolved by the Courts. Pacific View Memorial Park has reserved all of its rights to contest the ' -8 COMMISSIONERS T • F�99 ��'9p y 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T MINUTES ,n„e ROLL CALL , INDEX application of floor area limits in the General Plan or the need. to issue a new use permit. The City has also reserved its rights to require Pacific View Memorial Park to obtain a new use pennit before construction of any new entitlements. The issue before the Planning Commission is not legal affect of what has happened in the past, but if it is appropriate to amend the General Plan under the circumstances, whether the project proposed by Pacific View Memorial Park should be approved pursuant to a use permit malting the standard findings that are required by the Planning Commission, and the approval of a site plan review. He recommended that the Planning Commission focus on the planning issues, and not so much on the legal issues as to what Pacific View Memorial Park is or is not entitled to do because those issues are open questions. Commissioner Adams stated that he previously met and discussed the issue on February 18th at the home of Mr. Don Olson and Mr. Leonard Fish, property owners, and Commissioner Di Sano. On February 15th he met with Director Hewicker, Senior Planner Bill Ward, Chairman Gifford and Commissioner Kranzley on the site. On February 21st he met with Mr. ' David Neish, the applicant's representative. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown, Director Hewicker explained that a recorded easement of 125 feet deep measured from the common property line along the easterly line of Pacific View Memorial Park restricts the elevation of any building, fence, wall, or landscaping, not to exceed an elevation of 430 feet above mean sea level. Acting Chairman Ridgeway addressed the General Plan that was modified in 1988 to conform the Land Use Element with the Circulation Element, and he asked how staff reviewed the Circulation Element as it applied to Pacific View Memorial Park. Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, explained that the City did not have building records to detemvne the floor area of the existing facility, and there was no discussion at the staff level at that time as to whether mausoleums were considered to be buildings in terms of the land use limitation being established.. The primary purpose of the 1988 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Update was to establish floor area limits and intensity for all commercial properties in the City in order to establish a correlation between the Land Use Element and Circulation Element. The Governmental, Educational, Institutional 4 4 COMMISSIONERS o�\RPR-�O§ 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL ' INDEX Facilities, including the subject cemetery, there was much less attention in terms of level of detail because traffic generation was attributed by acreage or other rates not tied to building square footage.. When originally reviewing the consistency of the proposed project with the provisions of the Land Use Element, the Planning Department determined that mausoleums were not the types of buildings that the City was attempting to regulate because they are not traffic- generating uses. It would be the market area of the cemetery and the death rate of the population that would establish traffic generation and not the number of buildings that exist on the site. However, upon reviewing the data, it was clear that staff counted mausoleum structures in what they estimated to be the floor area at the time, and on that basis and since building intensity is an issue in terms of the General Plan, the City Attorney determined that the mausoleums should be included in the 50,000 square foot limit. Ms. Temple concluded that there is an issue of building mass and bulk in addition to traffic generation that the Land Use Element of the General Plan is attempting to address. Acting Chaimnan Ridgeway stated that there is no correlation to the 50,000 square feet and the impact that it would have on the City's circulation system. Ms. Temple stated that there was no direct study of cemeteries, and there was no review of how the floor area affected traffic generation at the subject cemetery, and because the General Plan addresses building mass and bulk the need to amend the General Plan is important in the subject consideration. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams regarding the development chart that was distributed to the Planning Commission, Director Hewicker explained how the square footage of the mausoleum structures were calculated. Director Hewicker further explained that the mausoleum strictures that contain six levels are counted once, and in some cases a seventh space is provided below the floor level. The mausoleum structures that have two stories are counted twice, and all of the flmmily mausoleums are counted once. Director Hewicker showed slides of the existing Pacific View Memorial Park and where construction is proposed for future development. He reviewed the existing and proposed landscaping, and the drainage channel. Slides were taken from or near the properties of Messrs. Fish, March, and Wolf residences indicating the proposed setback areas in relation to Pacific 1 -10- COMMISSIONERS • 9��9�9��6`�0 4 I0Tii\iy1TD?.� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL , INDEX View Memorial Park. In response to questions posed by the Commission during the presentation, Director Hewicker replied that the family mausoleum shown was three feet high from the ground to the top of the structure; that if an 85 foot high building would be constructed in Block Area "A" it would block the view of the Big Canyon Reservoir but it would still maintain the views of the bay, the ocean, and the night lights of Newport Center, and Fashion Island. The ground level of the Sunset Court mausoleum stands approximately 100 feet above sea level, the structure is approximately 16 feet 3 inches high, it lies below the yard level of the homes in Spyglass Hill, and it extends from 68 feet further back than any other mausoleum structure that had been constructed on the property. Pacific View Memorial Park modified the method that they were using to install bronze plaques on the mausoleum so as to keep the noise at a low level, and the electronic lift that is used to lift caskets into place is virtually silent. Director Hewicker showed slides of the cemeteries in Lake Forest, Brea, El Toro, and the proximity of those cemeteries to the adjacent residential areas. ' Commissioner Di Sano and Commissioner Pomeroy explained the use permit process and the advantages of a Master Plan. The Commissioners compared the subject application with the procedures that were required by the City when Hoag Memorial Hospital processed their Master Plan. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano and Acting Chain= Ridgeway, Mr. Burnham replied that if there were no use pemrit granted or if a use permit were granted and the applicant chose not to accept the conditions of approval and proceeded with their development plan, then it is very possible that the City would initiate legal action. Commissioner Adams pointed out that the applicant is on notice that additional construction beyond the floor area limit stipulated in the General Plan would require a use permit. Mr. Burnham stated that the applicant has taken the position that a use permit is not required inasmuch as they are able to develop under the County use permit or that further construction of mausoleums does not constitute an expansion of nonconforming use. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. David Neish, San Juan Capistrano, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he presented a slide show of -11- COMMISSIONERS �i9y X99 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the proposed expansion of the cemetery, the background and history of Pacific View Memorial Park, the Master Plan revisions that have occurred during the past year, and the planned details for the Master Plan. He said that Pacific View Memorial Park was developed on a 45 acre site, and it employs 70 fill] time persons. In 1958, a use permit was approved by the County of Orange to begin the development of Pacific View Memorial Park. The first mausoleum was completed in 1960 in Palm Court. In 1971, 95 acres were sold back to The Irvine Company for the Spyglass Hill development and a single restriction was agreed upon between the land sale with The Irvine Company to establish a strip of land 125 feet in width and to parallel Spyglass Hill. No building or vegetation on cemetery property within the 125 foot strip would be allowed to penetrate the 430 foot contour level above sea level. In 1973, the cemetery property was annexed into Newport Beach, and in 1978 the City declared the cemetery development was lawful under the existing use permit that was previously approved by the County Board of Supervisors. At that time, it was understood that Pacific View Memorial Park would be built out over a period of 30 years to 40 years. In 1978, additional mausoleum structures ' were built in the Palm Court area, and in 1988 the City amended the General Plan. No distinction was made at that time between support facilities and mausoleum structures, and the cemetery owner was not notified at that time of the 50,000 square foot limitation that was placed on Pacific View Memorial Park. In 1992, the current owner took occupancy and began to have discussions with the City, and an agreement was signed between the City and Pacific View Memorial Park, provided the applicant the ability to apply for a new or an amended use permit, The City agreed not to restrict or prohibit Pacific View Memorial Park's right to use property dedicated for cemetery purposes. In 1994, the permit application was filed for the build -out of Pacific View Memorial Park. Subsequently, the application led to the formation of the Ad Hoc Conrrnittee by the City Council in order for the Committee to discuss Master Plan development. Mme committee meetings were held by the Ad Hoc Committee since March, 1994, and many modifications were incorporated into the subject Pacific View Memorial Park plan. Pacific View Memorial Park primarily serves Newport Beach and Corona del Mar residents, and he referred to the few cemeteries that are located between Huntington Beach and the County line in San -12- COMMISSIONERS %11\\1Pi1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX Clemente. There are no other mausoleums in South County except for Pacific View Memorial Park. Approximately 95 percent of the crypts at Pacific View Memorial Park are pre - purchased and the largest number of reservations are made by Newport Beach and Corona del Mar residents. Today's society prefers above - ground interment unlike 20 years ago, and the cemetery is attempting to provide a number of alternatives for the public. The Ad Hoc Committee was formed to discuss the Pacific View Memorial Park Master Plan. Revisions were made to the Master Plan where the fiunily mausoleums were eliminated from three areas of the Pacific View Memorial Park and concentrated into one area along San Joaquin Hills Road. The length of the proposed mausoleum in Area I V' was reduced by approximately 50 percem, and mausoleums were eliminated in Areas "F' and " '. Two mausoleums were reduced in square footage and relocated to the far southeastern perimeter of Pacific View Memorial Park. There was a minimum 30 foot landscape buffer zone that was agreed by Pacific COMMISSIONERS • 9��9�,��F90 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL TF ' INDEX be constructed to service the new mausoleum. Area `B" is adjacent to the administrative offices, and a new garage, sales office, and maintenance building are proposed, for a total of 8,100 square feet. The existing temporary building will be removed from the site within 24 months. Area "C" is near the maintenance area where a single level mausoleum is proposed which would screen the view of the maintenance area Area "D" is located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road, and the 23 small family mausoleum structures that are proposed would not exceed a maximum total area of 8,976 square feet. Area "E" is adjacent to Spyglass hills South, and three one -story mausoleums are proposed, for a total of 8,400 square feet. The structures would maintain an average roof height of 23 feet, and they would be `tucked' into the adjacent slopes to minimize visibility. Area 'T' is the location of the existing mausoleum, and it is feasible that two additional family mausoleum could be developed in the front area of the building where they would not be visible by the adjacent residents. Area "G' is in the northern Spyglass Hills North area where a garden crypt wall of 750 feet long is proposed to be `tucked' into the slope to eliminate its visibility. Approximately 12,000 square feet of mausoleum ' space, and five individual pairs of mausoleum totaling 13,200 square feet are proposed in this area. In conclusion, Mr. Neish stated that Pacific View Memorial Park provides a service to the City, and to the entire coastal area. Pacific View Memorial Park made a good faith effort to reach a compromise, and it is their opinion that the square foot limit did not include mausoleums when the General Plan was amended in 1988. Pacific View Memorial Park sold the property for the Spyglass I1dl development, with only one restriction, and that was to not penetrate the view plain with any building or landscaping. After the build -out the proposed project will have a Floor Area Ratio of .07 percent which is the lowest in the City. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway regarding the Site Plan, Mr. Neish explained that the dotted building sites located on the site plan are specific locations that are proposed at the present time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Mr. Neish replied that approximately 26,000 people are buried at Pacific View Memorial Park. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the cash flow ' -14- COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FPFfIY a9 ')Z roof ROLL CALL INDEX projections would be based on the ultimate build -out of the estimated burials. Mr. Neish stated that there are approximately 8,000 additional lots that have been sold and are not occupied, and 800 burials per year are proposed based on the demographics of the area. Commissioner Adams asked what the percentage was between the cremations and not cremated of the 26,000 people. He pointed out that the figures are important because of the space requirements. 1W Nfiichael Green, Clark and Green Associates, Landscape Architects, 3070 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Green addressed the changes that have taken place in recent years with respect to cemetery needs and desires of the public, and as a result, the product mix has changed because of the changing market conditions. He stated that a maximum number of square footage has been planned; however, the exact number of interments that would occur is difficult to project. In summary, Mr. Green stated that the total number of interments over the entire life of Pacific View Memorial Park would be ' approximately 65,000 to 70,000 people with the build -out, and without the build -out there would be approximately 55,000 people. Mr. Green explained that cremations would not be included in the aforementioned numbers inasmuch as cremation is a number that is constantly changing and they take up very little space. Commissioner Adams stated that the issues are land use and the impacts of the use on the site, and that impact of the use on the site is proportional to the number of burials that would take place over a period of time. The impacts of a cremation burial could be significant. He stated that the numbers of the existing capacity of burials and cremations, and what is being proposed are very important. Mr. Green replied that it would be difficult to provide numbers inasmuch as each piece of ground would have to be considered either for cremated interments or for land burials, and the market conditions are constantly changing. Commissioner Adams expressed the importance of the activities expected under the proposed scenario in terms of how many burials there would be per year. Following a discussion between Mr. Green and Commissioner Adams with respect to the proposed impact of uses, W. Green stated that the issue of intensity of use in the cemetery is a non -issue based on the projected life of the cemetery, and based on current statistics there would not be an increase in traffic or visitations. ' -15- 4 4 COMMISSIONERS �oc�� 9�2 X09 v 9 ��O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T MINUTES Mo 1nnc ROLL CALL ' INDEX In response to comments by Commissioner Kranzley with respect to the projections that Service Corp. had concerning projected cash flow, 1W Green replied that the applicant considers the 800 interments to be constant, and because of changing market conditions they anticipate an increase in cash flow through other methodology. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Green replied that his firm has been involved with a portion of designs for three other cemeteries, and that his comments were based on discussions he had with the applicant and from previous knowledge of the other cemeteries. Mr. Green further replied that the design criteria was to increase the density of interments in the cemetery. The request to provide the number of bodies of interment as opposed to cremations could be provided by the applicant. He pointed out that the history of the cemetery during the past 36 years indicates that there has not been a significant increase or use of the cemetery by the public that has created significant traffic or parking problems. Mr. Green replied that the setback of Sunset Court to be approximately 30 feet to 35 feet, and the closest measurement for Palm ' Court to the property line is 90 feet. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Mr. Green replied that he did not design Sunset Court. In reference to the aforementioned 90 foot setback, Mr. Green explained that the roadway that extends to Spyglass Hill was extended when Palm Court was built with the intent that interments would occur within the 90 foot setback area. Mr. Green further replied that he was a designer of Rose Hills Memorial Cemetery, and the cemetery has significant views and .residences surrounding the property. Mr. Green explained that the plan proposes to pull back the mausoleums towards the slope so the structures would not impact views. Acting Chairman Ridgeway asked how the sensitivity to a home that close to a burial site without benefit of a wall could be addressed? Mr. Green replied that the crypt wall is 16 feet deep, and adding a 30 foot setback to the back of the crypt wall would be 46 feet to where any activity would occur, and the wall would be below grade with a mass of masonry structure that would block sound and other activity from the residents. With appropriately placed landscaping there would be significant screening of the mausoleums. -16- COMMISSIONERS 9A�c� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX The Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m, and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. Acting Chairman Ridgeway stated that he previously met with Mr. Don Olson and Mr. Leonard Fish in his office. He also previously met with Mr. David Neish. Mr. Paul Hitzelberger, 11 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission as a property owner who resides adjacent to Pacific View Memorial Park and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee. He opposed Pacific View Memorial Park's request to increase their land use inasmuch as it would dramatically change the character of Pacific View Memorial Park from a park to an eastern-style cemetery. He stated that members of the Ad Hoc Committee have requested that Pacific View Memorial Park provide information concerning need, capacity, and cremations as opposed to interments. He stated that the proposed site plan that was addressed by the applicants during the subject public hearing had not been previously COMMISSIONERS 0 ry9` ��90 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX foot setback would have a significant negative impact on the daily enjoyment of the property owners. He recommended that the existing buffer be maintained. The recent mausoleum construction started at 7:15 a.m., 30 feet from the homeowners' property, and it has had a substantial impact on adjacent land use. He stated that a 500 percent increase of mausoleums up to 32 feet high would impact the residents daily. Mr. ffitzelberger commented that the recent construction was not softened by landscaping or screening, and all of the vegetation was removed by the cemetery. He requested an on -site outline of the proposed buildings, and to install poles at the extremities indicating the proposed height. Mr. Ffitzelberger concluded that the City would not gain anything from the expansion inasmuch as the revenues would be going to Texas, and a reduced image and reduced tax revenue would go to the City. In response to previous comments regarding Floor Area Ratio, W. Witzelberger responded that the concerns are the location and height of the proposed structures. Commissioner Adams requested a clarification of the aforementioned ' petition that states there would be 110,600 additional square feet of mausoleum, however, the table provided by staff indicates there would be 79,040 square feet of community mausoleum, 8,976 square feet of family mausoleum and 3,024 square feet of other building sites in accordance with Condition No. 2, Exhibits "A" . Director Hewicker replied that the 8,976 square feet and 3,024 square feet reflect the square footage of the allowable family mausoleum. Bill Ward, Senior Planner, stated that 110,600 square feet reflects all of the mausoleum development in Pacific View Memorial Park, including existing and proposed buildings. Commissioner Adams stated that the validity of the petition is related to the accuracy of the statement that people sign, and the square footage indicated in the petition is higher than the table distributed to the Planning Commission Mr. Karl Wolf, 17 Carmel Bay, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the public notice indicates a development of 110,600 square feet, and the petition states an increase of 500 percent. He explained the formula that was used to arrive at the aforementioned figures. -18- COMMISSIONERS • �F�9y�o99 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �_ ------ innc ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Dave March, I Twin Lakes Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that they have been residents for 9 years, and prior . to purchasing the property he contacted Pacific View Memorial Park to find out how the cemetery would impact their homes. Mr. March was informed by the previous owners of Pacific View Memorial Park that the build -out would be over a 30 to 40 year period and the area adjacent to Spyglass Dill would be the last to be developed. Mr. March stated that he planted landscaping and irrigation so as to enhance the landscaping from his home. Mr. March described the pictures taken from his home and adjacent homes and the numerous views of the cemetery . In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. March replied that the previous owners of Pacific View Memorial Park did not inform him that the property adjacent to their homes would be used for internments at a later date. I& March rebuked Mr. Green's aforementioned comments regarding the road that extended to Spyglass FO. Mr. March stated that the worst case scenario when he purchased his home was to maintain the 100 foot buffer and landscaping between Pacific View Memorial Park and his home. Mr. March expressed the homeowners' concerns regarding the ' maintenance of the existing landscaping on Pacific View Memorial Park's property, and the roofs of mausoleums that can be seen from their homes. He pointed out that a 30 foot setback adjacent to his home would be difficult to buffer, and the residents would also be impacted by the noise of the backhoe equipment. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Mr. March explained that the proposed 30 foot setback adjacent to his home would be used for ground internments. Mr. David Hayward, Certified Appraisal Company, 17291 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that in August, 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee contacted him regarding the subject property, and in 1994 he was hired to appraise 10 residential properties on the ridge adjacent to the cemetery.. He said that Spyglass hill properties range from $440,000 to $1,000,008. He said that he was hired to determine the appraised value effective the week of December 20, 1994, and then to estimate if there would be a decline with the proposed expansion by the cemetery. He surveyed all of the cemeteries in Southern California, and during the survey he inquired if there was any expansion and was there any additional building and if there would be a "yes" answer he would survey any of the surrounding homes in the area to see if there • -19- COMMISSIONERS • A ��y�� 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX was any decline in the building or expansion of the cemetery. He stated that the survey ranged from zero to 15 percent. The projected decline in Spyglass Hill is estimated to be between 10 to 25 percent because of the unique location. This is considered an economic obsolescence caused by the change in land use inasmuch as Pacific View Memorial Park is proposing to change the land use and therefore, it is affecting the value of the homes. When utilizing the market approach, it would decline in value because of design and appeal, and design and appeal is defined as anything that would change the properties' attractiveness to purchasers in general or otherwise alter its marketability. If the proposed plan would be approved, the appeal of the adjacent properties would decline, therefore, the homes' value would decline. He located homes on a map indicating where there would be a decline in value. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hayward concurred that the appraisals were based on the 30 foot wide buffer, and he was not asked to provide an appraisal of a 100 foot wide buffer. ' In response to questions posed by Commissioner Brown, Mr. Hayward replied that he would be able to provide documentation concerning the comments that were written on the appraisal forms. In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Hayward replied that he is not an MAI Appraiser. He further replied that the Tarantello and Associates appraisal is more of a statistical survey prior to the fact. He appraised the properties and then he determined the decline if the subject plan is approved. Mr. Hayward stated that he did comparables on each appraisal report. Acting Chairman Ridgeway and Mr. Hayward discussed the method that Mr. Hayward used to determine the appraised values. Commissioner Brown requested that Mr. Hayward provide the Planning Commission with the data of the other locations that he used to make his decisions. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the build -out would occur over a 30 to 40 year period of time. Mr. Hayward replied that he determined if the proposed expansion would be approved what would happen to the adjacent properties. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that if there was no construction in the area, and if there would not be construction in the ' -20- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V -U MINUTES �11 ,mac ROLL CALL INDEX area within five to ten years, what impact would that have on property values? Commissioner Pomeroy commented that Mr. Hayward took the worst case scenario as if the project were built out now at with a 30 foot wide buffer. Mr. Hayward stated that is what the property owners requested. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hayward, Acting Chairman Ridgeway recommended that Mr. Hayward provide the requested information prior to the March 9, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Rocky Tarantello, Tarantello and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the type . of analysis to properly evaluate what potential impact might be forthcoming as a consequence of any type of major development is not necessarily an appraisal of individual parcels, nor is it possible to review external parcels that are separate from the site specific issues that deal with a particular parcel. He stated that it is difficult to isolate what one particular impact would be, therefore, the impact studies are very site specific to isolate the physical characteristics and they try to do a pre and ' post -test analysis so the impact can capture what the market perceives. He said that an area is identified that is most likely to be impacted, or a primary zone, and his firm tries to isolate another area that would not be primarily impacted but would be subject to the same general conditions, and in the subject study, Tarantello and Associates considered a .4 mile a primary impact area, and a I mile secondary impact area. Then they considered the price trends before the announcement of the potential impact and what happened after the announcement of the potential impact to see what extent, if any, the market place is trying to internalize the information. He said that all of the data that was available was utilized, including every recorded deed off of the County record that was available through the data -quick service and every sale of residences that was compiled by the multiple listing service to come up with the total data base. It would be impossible to determine what the real impact would be on a post - construction basis, but the firm can measure what the impact is on the pre and post announcement basis. The study indicates that there is no statistical significant difference in price trends either in the primary area or outside the primary area. The market place behaved as if the proposed expansion had not happened. He said that the difference in list and sale prices were actually more favorable to current sellers in the .4 mile area in -21- COMMISSIONERS �9f � X90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r MINUTES nos l not ROLL CALL I INDEX the post - announcement period, and they also found in the post - announcement period prices fell a little less than they did outside the area. He concluded that he did not know what the long -term total impact of the expansion would be, but at least thus far, the market place does not perceive any difference in value. He stated that the study was not an individual property appraisal as much as it was a value impact analysis from Pacific View Memorial Park to out one mile over a period of approximately two years. Mr. Hitzelberger stated that property owners have to provide a disclosure regarding the proposed expansion, and that was not taken into account by Mr. Tarantello. The cemetery did not inform the property owners of how long it would take to build -out the cemetery and that is why the 30 to 40 year expansion was not considered by Mr. Hayward. He said that the property owners provided an appraisal plus a projection based on the proposed plan. COMMISSIONERS %155 F*or CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ,-_I. MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX negative affect on the values of the adjoining properties. Mr. Wolf opposed the results of the foregoing Tarantello and Associates appraisal inasmuch as there was not a significant announcement to the property owners and there was no indication that the expansion was certain. He stated that if the proposed building sites would be lowered by at least five feet, it would enhance the view from the adjoining properties. The property owners have proposed a compromise of 44,000 square feet of mausoleum space in Area "A "; however, the cemetery's response was to increase the number of mausoleums from six to over 50 mausoleums and to move the mausoleums up to 30 feet from the homes. He requested that the Planning Commission support Exhibit "C ", the findings and conditions as proposed by the homeowners. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Wolf discussed the feasibility of lowering and widening the proposed mausoleums to allow the cemetery the same amount of internment space. Mr. Wolf stated that the mausoleums should be lowered without any expansion, and he opposed any buildings on the COMMISSIONERS •9.A�cT T Fiy9� 099 r MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Adams requested that the applicant provide a plan indicating the existing grade on the cross- sections. Acting Chairman Ridgeway stated that the Planning Commission would strongly consider landscaping in Pacific View Memorial Park. Mr. Phil Carney, 4 Little River Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission In response to a question posed by Mr. Carney regarding the aforementioned public announcement, Mr. Tarantello reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that over a period of 45 days in early 1994 there were several events that took place that constituted placing the information into the public domain. He referred to the public notice, the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, and the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Tanantello considered that time to be a point where the information became a part of the public domain, and when data of the total number of transactions was compiled to the present. He assumed that the purpose of offering the information into the public domain ' is so the public would be aware of the potential impacts. Mr. Eddie Allen, 21 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he met with the previous owners of Pacific View Memorial Park in December, 1992, concerning the future development of the cemetery, and the General Manager of the cemetery explained the future buildup of the property from a table model that was on display. The General Manager stated that no mausoleums would be constructed in front of Mr. Allen's property, and Mr. Allen recommended that W. Bauer, the General Manager, be contacted concerning his comments to the property owners and he also asked where is the model of the future development that was shown to the future property owners. Mr. Allen stated that the view from his home consists of a beautiful green memorial park, and the mausoleums would distort the entire view and reduce the value of the property. 1W Allen rebuked the number of interments that Mr. Green presented to the Planning Commission during his presentation. Mr. Allen emphasized that the homeowners' compromise would be if the mausoleums would be constructed adjacent to the Big Canyon Reservoir, and the cemetery has never made a compromise in Area «G„ -24- COMMISSIONERS � � %oll 0 *6* CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX Mr. H. Ross Miller, 1627 Bay Cliff Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, and he was a past president of the Spyglass Ridge Community Association. He said that in addition to the Spyglass Hill residential area that Seaview and Spyglass Ridge are also adjacent to the cemetery . He compared the corporate size of the owners of Pacific View Memorial Park, Service Corp, Inc., with the number of property owners adjacent to Pacific View Memorial Park who are opposing the expansion of the cemetery. W. Miller reviewed the five options that the Planning Commission has in making their final decision, including an EIR, and he concluded that the Spyglass Ridge homeowners would prefer that the Planning Commission either deny the expansion, or approve Exhibit "C" as suggested by the homeowners, or Exhibit `B" which would retain the 50,000 square foot limitation, and a full EIR The Negative Declaration by the City is invalid and inadequate because the expansion would change the aesthetics and environment of the entire eastern residential section of the City. He described the mitigation in the Negative Declaration as weak with respect 4 COMMISSIONERS < ill %4m< �0 *k CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T_L MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX unless it is a part of the disclosure. Ms. Miller addressed Mr. Hayward's testimony, and she asked if there was a great expansion in other cemeteries in Southern California and if so, is there a need for the proposed buildup? Ms. Claire Schwan, 75 Montecito, President of Spyglass Hill Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. She pointed out that over the years the residents have worked very harmoniously with the cemetery because the cemetery has worked harmoniously with the residents, and she requested that the cemetery make a compromise with the homeowners by retaining the park atmosphere. Mrs. JoEllen Allen, 21 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. She addressed W. Tarantello's testimony regarding his appraisal research, and she stated from her studies and experiences that the public does not pay attention to published public notices; however, .the public becomes aware of issues through election campaigns, or from their neighbors. Mrs. Allen concluded that if the appraisal was based on ' responses to the public notices, it was a flawed appraisal. Ms. Caroline Miller, 19 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that prior to remodeling her home in 1992, that the previous manager of Pacific View Memorial Park informed her that there would be no more mausoleums than what were currently being built. Ms. Miller stated that at the same time when she came to the City with her plans, she was informed that no more mausoleums would be allowed. As a result of the comments expressed by the cemetery and the City her home was remodeled. Her home is within six feet of the cemetery as a result of the cemetery removing dirt from the slope, and she expressed her concerns that the expansion would impact the residents quality of life. Ms. Sandy Fix, 11 Skysail Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that when Spyglass Hill was developed there was a buffer zone, and there was only a height restriction when the cemetery sold the property to Spyglass Hill. She addressed the landscaping that was planted behind the front row of Spyglass Hill from Monterey Circle to Broadmoor Seaview. Ms. Fix referred to a letter that she submitted from John Vbert, President and General Manager of Pacific View Memorial Park, dated June 16, 1975, addressed to Mr. William Burke, 1 Carmel Bay -26- COMMISSIONERS Mot Aye Ab: 14 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL Febiumy 23, INDEX Drive. The letter assured Mr. Burke that the cemetery had no intention of burying bodies adjacent to his home, or that they had no intention of utilizing the property next to any other home in Spyglass Hill for burial services. Commissioner Pomeroy opposed the proposed 30 foot wide buffer zone, and he said that he would recommend a change or adjustment in that area He suggested that the cemetery come up with a compromise that would make the residents happy and still allow preservation of property rights. Acting Chairman Ridgeway also objected to the 30 foot wide setback, and the sensitivities to that issue are extreme. He said that someone has to compromise, and that he had previously informed the applicant that a 30 foot wide buffer is not adequate. Commissioner Kranzley concurred. He addressed the Ad Hoc Committee meetings, and the conversations subsequent to the Ad Hoc meetings. He determined that the current course leads to court, and he opined that it f would be tragic to have a Judge make the decision on the neighborhood. It is imperative that the parties involved `blink' a little bit because it is imperative to have some type of compromise. Commissioner Di Sano concurred with the previous statements regarding compromise. He said that a compromise has to be made somewhere between Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "C ". To have an outsider make the decision would be a poor way to plan the community. :ion * Commissioner Brown made a motion to continue General Plan ?s * * * * * * Amendment No. 94- I(F), Use Permit No. 3518, and Site Plan Review No. sent * 69 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1995. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * *r ADJOURNMENT: 12:00 midnight *ss GAROLD ADAMS, SECRETARY NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ' -27-