Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2001. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley - Commissioner Gifford was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary u Minutes of April 5.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and voted on to approve the amended minutes of April 5, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes:. None Absent: Gifford Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 13, 2001. • Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 INDEX • SUBJECT: Newport Riverboat Restaurant Item No. 1 151 East Coast Highway Use Permit No. 3684 • Use Permit No. 3684 A request to permit outdoor dining in conjunction with the operation of an Continued to existing full- service restaurant /museum facility. The specific request includes: 05/03/2001 use of the bow -and stern decks for Saturday and Sunday brunch; use of the bow deck adjacent to the Texas room in conjunction with a specified number of annual special events and private parties, and no outdoor music is proposed. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has requested to continue this matter to May 3rd Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this matter as requested to May 3rd. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barker for Item No. 2 • The St. Clair Company, applicant) Use Permit No. 3684 500 Superior Avenue • Use Permit No. 3684 Planning Commission review of the landscape plan and sign program as required Continued to by the conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3684. 05103/2001 Staff requests that this item be continued to the Planning Commission hearing of May 3, 2001 in order to allow for the required public noticing of the proposed sign program which requires a Modification to the Zoning Code. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this matter as requested to May 3rd. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Michael Malamut, Vespa California, Inc. Item No. 3 2902 W. Coast Highway • UP2001 -008 A request to operate a retail establishment for the sales and minor service of Continued to • E City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 Vespa motor scooters. The minor services include; adjustments, cable changes. and the installation of various accessories. Vespa will keep less than 5 gallons of gas on site for test -drives of motor scooters. Motion was made by Commissioner Krandey to continue this matter as requested to May 3rd Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford fi fi fi SUBJECT: Senior Housing in the GEIF District • Adopt resolution of intent to revise Section 20.25.020 (GEIF District: Land Use Regulations) of the Zoning Code. A resolution of intent to amend Section 20.25.020 (GEIF District: Land Use Regulations) of the Zoning Code to allow senior citizen housing in the Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) District with a use • permit. Ms. Temple noted this is a housekeeping item. The General Plan has always provided for senior housing facilities in all districts with a use permit and that was not specified in the GEIF district, so staff is recommending that correction be made. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt resolution of intent to revise Section 20.25.020 (GEIF District: Land Use Regulations) of the Zoning Code. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Proposed Development Plan Review Procedures A proposed amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to establish procedures for development plan review. Senior Planner Patrick Alford recapped the staff report noting the changes from previous Commission discussion: • Appropriate thresholds. • • Language change to stress process is on quality rather than aesthetics. 3 INDEX 05/03/2001 Item No. 4 Resolution of Intent Approved Item No. 7 Discussion Item Only Continued to 05/17/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 INDEX • Additional language to make it clear that this does not impose a particular architectural or period style. Ms. Temple added that after reviewing the statutes and regulations, in order to establish a process allowing the City discretion to approve or impose conditions, it becomes a project as defined by CEQA. Therefore, it will be subject to review pursuant to it. However, in most cases, those projects that are fairly simple, and clearly would not have needed environmental review anyway, are more than likely going to be categorically exempt. It does create the possibility of raising a project to the level of needing a negative declaration or even a larger environmental report, although most such projects would probably have some other type of discretion attached to it that would trigger the CEQA review requirements. There may be some number of projects, over time, that may end up subject to review where they would not have ordinarily, we do not think that would be a significant number. Commissioner Kranzley proposed establishing a sub - committee of three Planning Commissioners to put together a background of why the Commission has taken up this topic. Then they would wrap up the items that staff has put together as far as how other cities have dealt with this issue as well as items brought up at this meeting. After the subcommittee has made a report, then have a joint study session with the City Council. It is not a good idea for the Planning Commission to put together a package, have a public hearing and • then pass it on to the City Council without getting an understanding if there is support from the City Council. The Planning Commission needs to have an understanding of what direction, if any, the City Council would have us go in. I am willing to volunteer for this committee and propose that Chairperson Selich and Vice Chairman Tucker join me. Commissioner Kiser noted that he had made a number of comments and suggestions to the proposed development plan review procedures, and that some did not get incorporated in the draft and some did. The ones that didn't, I would like to deal with as they are important and if other Commissioners have the same things, I think I would like to do something with the draft tonight. I don't see this as an emergency like the bluff top issue; it should have a lot of thought. I think it would be rather difficult to get a document tonight that would be right because what we have still needs quite a bit of work. Commissioner Kranzley noted that all the ideas submitted and even those that might not have made the staff report, it would be important to note. Plus, if we do have a joint session with the City Council, I would assume we would all speak. There are going to be issues that each of us will have. It will be a good dialogue, a good next step as opposed to putting it on the agenda and move it on up. Chairperson Selich noted that given the fact the we are all having our own difficulties coming to grasp with this issue, before we go much further with it agreed to having a joint meeting and interchange with the Council to see how • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 much support there is for the whole concept before the Planning Commission spends a lot more time working on it. The second thing of course is the concern I have that is if I was on the Council and not in favor of something like this, I don't think I would be too pleased if the Planning Commission had gone through and held public hearings and all of a sudden shoved an ordinance in front of me with public hearing and people speaking in favor of or opposition to and not really having much background, nor having part in initiating the process. Commissioner Agalanian suggested that one of the subcommittee members should be one of the newer members of the Commission. Following discussion, it was determined that Commissioner Kiser would be the third member and take Chairperson Selich's place. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the subcommittee concept as well as the joint study session with the City Council for their input. He stated he would like to go through the Section entitled Projects Requiring a Development Plan. Chairperson Selich then stated that he would ask all of the Commissioners to state their points on any of the issues. • Commissioner McDaniel said he had asked staff for an indication of how many projects would go over the proposed threshold; and an idea as to what the Commission is looking at and what it would encompass. Mr. Alford noted the following: • Volume of projects that might go through this process - looking at the building activity report for fiscal year 1999 -2000, during that period 213 building permits were issued for residential projects. Of these, 187 were single families, 21 were duplexes and 5 were multi - family dwellings of three units or more. • If the proposed threshold was established at three or more dwelling units, then five permits would go through this process. • These five permits total 513 dwelling units, which leads me to believe that the majority of them were for the apartment project in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which the Planning Commission did not review. • A survey of a different type, January 2000 to date, found only one triplex that was issued in that time period. • Best estimate would be less than two or three residential projects that would meet the residential threshold a year. • Non - residential projects were searched by new commercial projects from January 2000 to date; there were three projects that appear to meet the non - residential threshold and were, the 459 Old Newport Boulevard development project, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission for other applications; the Balboa Bay Club, which was seen through the . review of the actual planned community; and Temple Bat Yahm, which was seen through a use permit. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 INDEX 0 Commissioner McDaniel stated that his point is that if the Planning Commission is going through a lot of work and has only one or two projects, is it worth the time investment? What is the scope; how big is it and do we need to change the threshold? He stated his concern of having a project reach this threshold and comes for review, and if we don't give them some guidelines there will be a lot of effort going to waste trying to meet our guidelines. We need to give them some guidelines. If we do give them some guidelines, everything will look exactly the some because once we get one across then everything else that we do will look exactly the same. I am sure there are methods to get around it, but these are some of the issues that concern me. I am also concerned that we are leaving it to a Planning Director who has the authority to waive it. So I am concerned about once it meets this threshold, what we need to do to really look at it. Commissioner Kiser asked how the comments are going to be dealt with. Chairperson Selich answered he is making a list to see what the concerns are. Commissioner ducker asked if we should be doing this at all as stated by Commissioner McDaniel. Chairperson Selich noted that his understanding is that every use permit, • variance, etc., whatever comes before the Commission is subject to the development review procedures. Mr. Alford was only pointing out those that are not currently. Commissioner McDaniel restated his question. When we distill this out, we have projects that are three or more units, projects that are 50 %, etc., how many would fall into that category that would need to be reviewed? That was my question. Just to get a sense of what the dynamics was of this whole process, had no idea until I asked today and it seems like it is a fairly small number, is that correct? How many are we going to have to deal with, or, are we looking at in the future something that is significant that we do not have from the post? Is there something that we don't know about that the statistics that we do have will show us because there are things that we think are coming and we need to be prepared for it? Chairperson Selich noted that it was his understanding that this would apply to all discretionary projects that come before the Planning Commission already. Is that correct or not correct? It says projects subject to CEQA, so that means anything that we have reviewed would require this development plan review. Ms. Temple stated that any project that would require a mitigated negative declaration, or an EIR, would also be subject to development plan review if there were no other permit involved. That does not happen very often. The principle one that I can think of would be certain kinds of grading permits that would require CEQA review, but do not require Planning Commission review • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 because there is no other discretionary permit other than a grading permit. Chairperson Selich stated that he understood staff to say those were things in addition to what we already review and that we would be reviewing. I was assuming that all of the use permits that we viewed in the last year would have gone through this process in addition to what he spoke of. Mr. Alford noted that he looked at the building permit activity within specified time periods and looked for projects that would meet this requirement. In other words, if they were to come to the counter and apply for that building permit, we would tell them they need a development plan if this was in effect. I would point out that some of these projects did come before the Commission because they had other discretionary actions that required Commission actions. Chairperson Selich noted several projects that were not listed that under his impression would go through development plan review: Jiffy Lube, Newport Technology Center and projects like those. Mr. Alford answered they did not-apply for building permits during those time periods he had mentioned. Jiffy Lube required a use permit so that would go before the Commission but as far as it size, no, it would not meet these • thresholds. Ms. Temple stated that generally speaking the thresholds being discussed, most of the projects that would qualify that are non - residential projects, probably require some other type of discretionary permit. So, this would impose another review and set of criteria to look at a project, site plan, and other means and standards against which to judge it. It would not necessarily add to their burden byway of processing. Chairperson Selich stated that Commissioner McDaniel's point that he was looking for was how many projects is this going to affect? The answer that Mr. Alford gave seemed to indicate it was very few projects and in fact that is not the case, it would be a lot of projects we review will have this requirement on them. Ms. Temple answered yes. Commissioner Tucker stated there is the question out there, is the majority still interested in pursuing this idea? Commissioner McDaniel stated he wanted to be sure that the Commission was not putting more burden on people who are trying to do projects that normally will be caught through other processes. If this singles out some people to do something extra that is above and beyond what we caught normally, I am not • for it. INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 INDEX Commissioner Kiser stated that he had a difficult time deciding that he believes that development plan review is something that we should have. By the same token and because of the concern expressed by Commissioner McDaniel, we need to look at this very closely to be sure that it is a good document before we pass it on. Even if there are only three projects a year in the entire City that this would apply to, and we can keep from having three sore thumbs in the collective analysis in the City at the end of that year, I think we should still put a lot of work in this and get something on the books. Commissioner Agajanian stated he was in support of the procedure and that ultimately it will prove beneficial. He noted that he has concerns with the Standards section; there needs to be guidelines in place. However, I am worried about imposing a style, etc. but I am in favor of this procedure. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern about the procedure and that unless there are some guidelines, the Commission is going to make qualitative decisions that will vary from Commission to Commission and Director to Director. We are placing individual taste on buildings. I also agree with Commissioner Kiser that there needs to be something in place, but I am in favor more of a guideline approach rather than a review approach. Commissioner Tucker stated that the development plan review process is very typical in other jurisdictions and it has been his experience that it is not over- reaching. It really is used as a quality control for design and materials. It is not to be confused with design review, which is what Laguna Beach has. What is needed is a section to call out more particularly what this process is not. Continuing, he reminded everyone that there was a 415,000 square foot project that came to the City and if they had not asked for a height allowance that required a use permit, the Commission would not have had an opportunity to see what that would look like. A project of that size could have been a poorly done project for site planning and design. As it is, they hired a great architect and did a fine design. We were fortunate and are fortunate quite often in the City because the location merits spending the money to do a good job. He expressed his interest in seeing that the Planning Commission have some ability to at least look at a building articulation without saying go and change the design, but be able to ask for further articulation and the types of materials that are going to be used so that it comes across as a quality project. Continuing, he stated that it is a trade off and doesn't see it abused in other jurisdictions as he is in the profession of doing neighborhood shopping centers. Comments he receives are on a plain facing building and for additional articulation, etc. He then stated that he was not interested in design review. In conclusion, he stated he was not a fan of guidelines because you do end up with sameness. He would rather make it clear what this process is not and let the architects and property owners figure out what they want the projects to look like. He wants to keep the Planning Commission level of review really modest. Chairperson Selich, agreeing with the previous comments, stated that this is not • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 design review, he considers it as a development plan review. It is a process that other cities throughout Southern California use, Newport Beach is out of step to not have it and is so for behind the times. As a developer for twenty - one years and having done over 20,000 units and many use permits on shopping centers, apartment complexes and industrial buildings, has never once in that entire time had one staff member, Planning Commission, Councilmember or Board of Supervisors member ever tell what architectural style to use. It is exactly like Commission Tucker says, they may come up with concerns of the design work done on the rear elevations if there is a highway or view corridor. There will be comments on how the rear architectural elevation could be enhanced or a commercial building that backs up onto an arterial freeway. He has never had anyone tell what architectural style to use. It is such a normal part of the process that he is amazed that the Commission is having such a difficult time dealing with it, it is not unusual and not a big deal as long as the Commission does it this way and not get into a Laguna Beach style design review. Commissioner Kiser stated that some of the benefit of the varied backgrounds on the Commission is because some of us have not done anything like this. We need to get educated on this and your comments are helpful to me and I am sure to others. • Commissioner Kranzley noted that in regards to development guidelines as opposed to review, in my vision they would not be specific guidelines regarding types of materials. They would be guidelines regarding light, air, articulation, placement with landscaping, etc. and would be extremely general and not specific. One of the goals I have is exactly not to have sameness. What if a developer came in and said he was going to build a project out of cinder block and corrugated steel. A Commission might look at that and say that is not good quality, yet, two blocks down there is a new art gallery that I would be proud to have next to my house. It is an extremely well designed building of corrugated steel and cinder block. So, when we start talking about quality of materials, I get concerned about the fact that there is a lot of innovation in architecture right now that we could be dictating quality materials, and eliminate other types of good design in Newport Beach. These are the qualitative words that I see in the plan that we are reviewing that concern me, not necessarily about this Commission, but about future Commissions that we could eliminate some really wonderful designs because somebody does not like cinder block. Chairperson Selich stated that one of the advantages of something like this is that by having developers submit, as part of their application, the color and materials board the architecture becomes conceptually part of the approval. We don't get seduced by someone coming in and making a presentation saying this is what he /she is going to build and there is no teeth to it. They go off and build something completely different, which I can tell you I have seen a • couple of times while on this Commission. It is like an insurance policy that the development proposals put before us that they actually do get built as they INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 are proposed and approved. Commissioner Kiser noted the following issues on the development plan draft: • Under Purpose B. - strikeout, '.....while maintaining architectural diversity and innovation'. I don't want to see this go the other way or used by future Commissions to say that we want to maintain architectural diversity and innovation in every project that comes up, meaning if there is a spanish style or stuccoed building next to the proposed project and someone would come and say wait, our purpose in 'B" is to maintain diversity. I think there is an end to the attractiveness to diversity at some point. • Under Projects Requiring A Development Plan 2 - delete the exception because it shows the development plan not required for non - residential involving additions that don't exceed 50% of the existing floor area. It seems to me that if we choose 10,000 square feet as our threshold, if you have a large development and they are going to add 10,000 square feet on MacArthur Boulevard or a major thorofore, I don't see why that should be treated differently from project generally. • Under Projects Requiring A Development Plan B - Cumulative development instead of within any 12 -month period possible using a longer period, even 60 months. You could certainly beat these by having a new annual project every year to get underneath the minimums. • Under Standards D and E - I proposed to delete both item D because of a concern that someone could use the environmentally sensitive area unless it is a defined term. If it is undefined, but says that they shall be preserved and protected, there is no room for movement. Since it is under the standards, it could make for a strong position for someone or their counsel to argue that something is environmentally sensitive. Item E, the some thing 'No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard....' There are potential liquefaction areas and various possible geologic hazards that come up on the reports that are required in transfers of real estate. I would be concerned that 'E' would be used by anyone who is on a sloped lot for instance. • Under Standard I - I would delete the last three words, '...and sensitive resources'. • Under Standards K and L - In the some thought pattern for archaeological and historical resources, are we talking about historical that are on a national registry? Certain kinds of rocks that people think are pretty would I suppose be an archaeological resource if there was a skeleton of an ancient bug in it. These are standards and I think that would be a very important place to go for someone to make a case of this, K and L should be deleted. Standard L has to do with, '...shall not have a significant adverse effect on residences'. Non - residential development next to residential areas is always going to have an adverse effect, significant or not significant is open to interpretation. I think that anyone who puts a residence next to a non - residentially zoned area does have to keep in mind that there will be some 10 INDEX • • L J . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 potentially significant impacts there. • Under Limits on Review - delete the middle sentence to clean up the standard language so that this is not used in a way that it is not intended. Under the Expiration, Time Extension Section B - At the end of the first sentence, '....for a period or periods not to exceed 3 years, add the word, cumulatively, to make it clear. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the previous comments adding his concern about the distinction between quality and style. It has been indicated that we are interested in quality and not interested inr imposing any kind of a style. I have a difficulty knowing where those boundaries are. Referring to the Standards section he stated that we have no real standards to go by when we talk about aesthetic quality, high quality, environmentally sensitive, functional aspect, physical compatible, extent feasible, and significant adverse. All of these are qualitative measures that any of us on the Commission can differ upon without any real basis upon which to make that judgement. My first concern with regards to the standards, if we feel that the Commissioners on this panel can exercise their independent judgement on these standards, then I feel comfortable with going ahead with this. What don't feel comfortable with is the advice that we are going to give the • applicant. I don't think the applicant will have the benefit of that choice and so my concern is until we get some clarification of what these are, I would be hard pressed to use them as the basis for my judgement as a Commissioner. The second point with regards to the standards has to do with the mildly conflicting edge, i.e., item C says, 'development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection...'. My question is, how does that work in relation to a by right envelope that a property owner might have? Are we going to be prepared to go in there and say this site line needs to be preserved even though it cuts through your building envelope? This is a major issue of concern to me and I see potential here for reasonable people to disagree. Item G is the second example, where we talk about functional aspects of site development. It is clear in my mind what we mean, but how does that work with the aesthetic argument that we are looking for aesthetic qualities? What happens if we want aesthetics and the applicant wants functional, how do we reconcile these two seemingly potentially conflicting standards? I think these need to be straightened out. I think we need them, but we need to be clear that the purpose of this is that we really want to catch that big fish who is just trying to cram something awful into the City. We need something that will allow us to put this development plan review to those projects without bothering a lot of other applicants that might not matter one way or the other. I support this, but we have a lot of work to do on it. Chairperson Selich noted his general comments. He stated that after having numerous discussions with the City Attorney's office, he would not be in favor of having a process that would subject projects that are not currently subjected • to CEQA, become subject to it. I think it would be too convenient in a lot of things such as 'neighborhood spats' over a design issue to boil into a CEQA II INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 INDEX issue. That bothers me. I don't want to give up and say that we would only review projects in the City that are subject to CEQA as they exist now, because we have holes. Two of the holes for example are the Shores Apartment project, if they had not come in for the type of condominium plan they had, they would have been able to go through without any discretionary review. We have that shopping center that is going in on the Speedway restaurant property that is going to go through without any discretionary review. Typically in other communities in Southern California, projects of this scale and scope go through a use permit or some process. I would look at maybe doing a two-fold thing that we would make this ordinance applicable only to projects subject to CEQA and then we go back and take a look at where we are requiring use permit or not requiring use permit and maybe fill those holes rather than going down and trying to specify exactly the number of units and square footage. Maybe take a more generalized approach to it. I would not support subjecting a lot of these things to CEQA that are not subject to CEQA now just to get a development plan out of them. The other comment I would make is on the standards. The level of detail in the standards section does not bother me. I don't think we should get any more definitive than that and the level of detail, if you read our Zoning Ordinance you can find other areas where the standards are no more in detail. One example is the Site Plan Review Overlay standard, they are pretty much on the same level of detail and there are other areas. I would not be in favor of going into more detail. However, Commissioner Agajanian, I can see some merit to reviewing how some of this is worded. I was concerned also about Item C because this whole view issue becomes a big point with people and I would not want to end up having a development plan review process becoming a vehicle through which people get up here and start debating these view issues, that is not the purpose of it. Concluding, he stated that he took notes and found nothing that he disagrees with on Commissioner Kiser's comments. Commissioner Tucker stated his support of the Chairman's position. He added that there are two choices: either not have a development plan review for those projects, or we can change the thresholds to the point where the project is fair game. I am struggling with the smallness of the projects that trip this development plan review, especially on the residential end. We have had a situation that came to us and was also contentious at the Council concerning the Rex Brandt Trust property. That was four buildings, each with two units that would have been subjected to a development plan review but the neighbors would have used that CEQA aspect to bludgeon the poor guy on that type of project. It may be that staff had come to the conclusion that it would have had a categorical exemption, I wonder if it is big enough to go through a development plan review or is it small enough not to have any consequences. We are almost defining a standard by which something is going to be subject to a review. I have a problem with that. I propose the way to handle it is just to move up the thresholds to where we really have something that we ought to be looking at. I guess for something like the large -scale project that comes along, I would not have a real problem with somebody being subject to CEQA, but these five units, 10,000 square foot projects I would. I also think that it would 12 n U • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 be helpful for the items that come before us on a discretionary approval that we actually specifically have some development plan review rights. The Jiffy Lube took us 15 minutes to approve and 2 hours to hide it. The City Attorney mentioned at that time that maybe we got a little bit beyond where we should have been in terms of what we were supposed to be looking of under a use permit. It would be helpful to have the development plan review certainly for those items that are already going to be subject to CEQA. As far as specific language I would throw it open for conversation about the size of the projects. The exception language was a little confusing to me in 20.92.020. Chairperson Selich asked if the Commission could give their input on the threshold issue because it is a big issue in terms of things. Commissioner Kiser asked if the concern is our passing with a specific limit like 5,000 would that then mean it would become a discretionary review of the project? And because of that, would it throw the project into requiring CEQA? Chairman Selich answered yes. If there is any discretionary action involved, they become subject to CEQA. In my experience, the cities that have development plan review tie it together with another discretionary action. Typically if there is not a discretionary action involved, they do not have a • development plan review attached to it. What we are proposing here is to go beyond that and have the development plan review on applications that are not currently discretionary applications. That is the difference. Commissioner Tucker relayed that, the reason when this topic first came up I raised this point is because I have lived this point. I have a site that I am attempting to develop in San Diego County that has been zoned and general planned for 22 years. All I needed was a site plan review by the local group of advisors to the Board of Supervisors in the unincorporated territory. I presented my plans, went through the design review and got a unanimous vote, but I had people who lived near the project and were opposed to the project. Because I had discretionary approval, CEQA applies. They have taken that and had me do traffic studies, archeological studies, biology studies, noise studies and air quality studies; all because I had a site plan review. None of these studies have anything to do with the design of my site, which is all the site plan was to look at to make sure that I did not have trucks pulling out at the wrong place and the internal circulation and what it physically looked like. Yet, I am now mired in problems that are unrelated really to what the review is all about. That is the way CEQA works, if you have any discretionary approval, the whole weight of the law hits you as if you had a land use discretionary approval. Even though the land use may not be subject to question at all, that is the inherent unfairness of it. That should not happen here, so to the extent that CEQA will apply to projects that are not that big, it is not right. That would be the situation with the Rex Brandt Trust. At some point, is it fair for us to say if a project is big enough, even though it might not otherwise be subject to CEQA, • should we, in order to get the development plan review in place, consider then requiring those projects be subject to CEQA? For instance, on the Newport 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 INDEX Technology Center, if they had come in at the 32 feet and did not ask for any discretionary reviews, it would not have been a project under CEQA and they would not have had to answer our questions on traffic studies or any other issues. At what point does a project become so large that even though it might have by right entitlement, is it fair to ask it go through the CEQA analysis? Commissioner Kranzley noted that one of the Commission's concerns on the Brandt Trust was that we did not have any design oversight on that project. So, on the one hand I understand Commissioner Tucker's concern but I think the majority of the members on this Commission would have liked to have had some hand in what that project would have looked like. Chairperson Selich noted that the portions we were concerned about were the ones that were under discretionary review and under this section, project subject to CEQA, we would have development review on the buildings on the lots that were subject to the lot line adjustment. Commissioner McDaniel stated that many of his concerns have been addressed. He expressed another concern about putting something in place that gives an adversary an opportunity to use that against the proponent or project and raises the costs, time frames, many things that would normally be very valuable to us. I would like to support something, however, I would like to raise the bar. If we can get to look at things that really matter and don't get in • the way of many people and don't cause spats with neighbors and such, I can be much more supportive of it. Commissioner Kiser agreed with the previous comments. Commissioner Agajanion noted his concern with the triggering sizes, as our interest is really the large project, not the small project. I like the idea of having this kind'of control in an overlay district, it would have been good. I like the Commission approach, just leave this for the CEQA and then some very high threshold to apply to other large projects so that we can have some control over. Chairperson Selich restated his position that it only apply to projects subject to CEQA and in conjunction with this to go back and take a look at plugging the obvious holes where we need discretionary approvals such as apartment sites and neighborhood shopping centers like the old Speedway restaurant site. I understand Commissioner Tucker's point on large projects like Newport Technology Center and I would be open to have some kind of threshold on large projects like that although I am not sure how I would set it. Maybe the sub - committee could make a recommendation on that. Commissioner Kranzley noted his agreement on the threshold comments of the previous speaker. Commissioner Tucker noted his confusion about the D overlay district, as being 14 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 something that requires a development plan. He then cited 20.92.020 C asking if there were things in the D district that don't necessarily require the some type of review? Why is that D overlay in there? Mr. Alford answered that the D overlay would be applied to areas where you specifically want all types of projects to. go through that process. The other section mentioned recognizes that there might be a specific plan, overlay district, or Planned Community district that might establish a higher or lower threshold that might be considered more appropriate. This chapter is a citywide standard that could be raised or lowered on specific geographic areas through one of these other types of plans. Commissioner Tucker asked if a project is within a D overlay district and it comes in and is a project that also has signs on it, does that mean that it is subject to the development plan review just by virtue of the fact that it has got signs that are subject to the development overlay district just for signs? Mr. Alford answered that this was done basically for an example. Another example is the Mariner's Mile and may be a better example because there was a separate set of standards that were established that would not apply citywide. • Commissioner Tucker, referencing 20.92.020, noted that it says the development plans shall be required for the following projects. Number 5 says projects within a D overlay district. Letter C language needs to be clarified to make it more understandable. Mr. Alford noted that the basic intent is that we might want to have a district similar to what we have now. We have a site plan overlay district that when applied to a specific area requires that process. The best example of course, being the bluff development review process that you just recently saw. It recognizes that there are other vehicles out there that might establish a set of design criteria or thresholds and that would supersede anything in that chapter as far as the type of review and the projects that would be subject to that type of review. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that we could discuss the language in the sub - committee process and bring something back to the Commission. The other item of interest, he noted, was at what point does the development plan review process come back to the Planning Commission. Of course, if we change this for the CEQA issues, I am not exactly sure how this will tie in. But this point 20.92.030 A has 50,000 square foot floor area before it gets to the Planning Commission, which seems that a 45,000 foot building would be a pretty good size building, especially if it is sitting on Coast Highway. What do the other Commissioners think in terms of that coming to the Commission? Is the 50,000 square foot threshold level something that everyone wants? Do we have the • right to call up any bigger items? 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 INDEX Staff answered yes, the Commission has the right to call up bigger projects. Commissioner McDaniel asked if 40,000 was the Greenlight number? Maybe use that number to keep it consistent. Chairperson Selich stated that if we take the approach that we make this applicable to discretionary applications, that becomes a moot issue because the reviewing authority will be whoever the reviewing authority is for that particular application. If it is a Planning Director's Use Permit it stays there, unless appealed on up. If it is a Modification, it stays there unless appealed on up, or a Planning Commission issue, we takes care of it. If we take that approach, that seems to be something that falls out here unless we come up with some special criteria on square footage. I think where this ends up falling, it would kind of depend on what the sub - committee may come up with. Commissioner Tucker noted that L in 20.92.040 seems out of place and he would like to see it deleted as well. Everything else seems to be kind of a design standard or design goal and this one happens to be a land use conflict and seems out of place and does not belong there. Chairperson Selich noted that the Commission has come to consensus on two major issues, whether we want to proceed or not, and generally the thresholds. It seems the rest of the issues can be dealt with on the sub - committee level and . I am sure with Commissioners Tucker and Kiser being attorneys, alternatives will be appropriately picked. I think, however, that there is merit in Commissioner Kranzley's suggestion that we have a study session with Council on this and not necessarily have this completely developed by the Planning Commission. The Council may have other thoughts on this and for the newer Commissioners, we have had study sessions in the past on issues that were major policy changes where we did get feedback from the Council that made our job easier. We had an understanding of where the limits were. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to form a subcommittee to meet and bring this item back to the Planning Commission May 171h for review and then schedule a joint study session with the Council. Commissioner Tucker asked if we find out what the Council is thinking on this item now, or would it be more appropriate and helpful to have a little bit of a work product that shows them the general direction we ore going. This is going to be attached in a staff report and maybe we should have something that is a little bit tighter. It was agreed to have the sub - committee meet first and bring back to the Planning Commission and then to schedule a joint study session with the City Council. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonion, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None 16 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 Absent: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: INDEX Additional Business a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the last meeting of April 10th, the Council: approved the Rex Brandt project; had a discussion of transferring control of Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar from CalTrans to the City in conjunction with the Corona del Mar Vision 2004 plan and adopted a resolution requesting that transfer; approved the recommendations from the General Plan Update Committee and are working on requests for qualifications for consultants for the technical studies and for the update itself. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich stated that there was no meeting this month. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. • d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. e.) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. f.) Status report on Planning Commission requests - no new items to report. g.) Project status - At Commission request, Ms. Temple noted that the Banning Ranch developers are listening to what is happening to all of the projects in the Coastal Zone statewide and seeing what the implications are to this project. They continue to work with resources agencies to come up with a plan to garner sufficient support in light of the Coastal Commission's recent actions. h.) Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 8:05 p.m. Adjournment STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 17