Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 24 " file:// N: IApps1WEBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas 120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Commissioner Toerge was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 15, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 7, 2005. Minutes Approved SUBJECT: Moriarity Appeal of the Planning Director's Use Determination ITEM NO. 2 2128 Mesa Drive Appeal of Planning Appeal of the Planning Director's determination regarding the processing of grapes Director's Use and the retail sale of wine on a property within the RA (Residential Agriculture) zone. Determination Ms. Temple noted that staff is requesting that this item be removed from calendar. Removed from calendar Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as amended and remove the Moriarity Appeal from the calendar. " file:// N: IApps1WEBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas 120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 2 of 24 Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins None Toerge Zinc Cafe (PA2003 -225) I ITEM NO. 3 3222 East Coast Highway PA2003 -225 of Use Permit No. 2001 -040 that authorizes an eating and drinking) Approved ment with beer and wine service subject to operational limitations. srson Tucker noted this review is, a result of the last amendment to the regarding the hours of operation. s. Ung noted that a telephone call was received from a Ms. Pamela Fray, a ne sident, who asked if staff included the previous parking citations in the staff re id to be sure that the Commission is aware of the citations. She noted that this part of the staff report and has since been abated. is comment was opened. m Tucker asked about condition 36 requiring another review of thi� is this necessary? Eaton noted: . Primary reason for this review was to see how the operation worked with hours extended into the evening. e The hours have not been extended into the evening. . He asked if there was a way to provide a review six months after they do the evening hours, as he would be in favor of that. Temple noted: . The applicant has exercised portions of the use permit, so the use permit is force. e Staff would not be able to know if the evening hours were extended or not. Harp suggested bringing this item back for review, and noted another d be to change the condition. Tucker noted one of the conditions was problematic in terms Hawkins noted: . He is in favor of continuing condition 36 due to the waiver of 18 parking in connection with this permit. It is important to stay on top of the parking " file:// N:\ AppsIWEBDATAIinternet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04121/2005 Page 3 of 24 including deliveries. . He is concerned about the parking impacts. in Secretan, owner of Zinc Cafe, noted the following: . He is complying with the Use Permit, a few mistakes have been made, but the have been corrected. • At Commission inquiry of the delivery issue, he noted there was one truck that had been stuck in the adjacent parking lot. He went on to explain the maneuvering problems onto Coast Highway, noting how much easier it was for deliveries to be done in the alley. • He asked for the same delivery rights from the alley as other businesses had. airperson Tucker noted the lack of public participation on this item. Temple noted: . Staff had acknowledged on the original consideration that the City's rules permitted businesses some limited deliveries in alleys. • Staff would have no problem going back to that. • This condition could not be modified at this time, staff would need to be dire( to bring this item back for an actual amended condition. Campbell noted: • The original intent of that condition was to ensure that there are no deli) trucks parking on Coast Highway. • At the time of the original hearing, there was some concern expressed about delivery trucks in the alley. Cole: . The neighbors' concern was the hours of delivery and that was addressed in original condition, especially with the intent of evening hours of operation. . He asked when the deliveries were made. Secretan answered that most of the deliveries are made between 8:00 a.m. < m. There are no deliveries after 4:00 p.m., even if they did dinners there would evening deliveries. iirperson Tucker recommended having this item come back, and to leave it up applicant to work with staff in terms of modifying the condition regarding deliveri( to the fact that there is no other public testimony to the contrary. Commission inquiry, Mr. Secretan noted that following the original approval, " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn04- 21- 05.htm 06124/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 4 of 24 ation was opened during the evening hours. Following a trial period of six to e hs, we found the hours were not long enough, nor profitable enough, to do it. d to keep these hours open. He has read and understands the findings itions in the staff report. ,sioner Hawkins noted his concern of parking. Noting exhibit 6 of the si it says the employees are going to pay the parking tickets. What sort in /training/ other agreements do you have that require them to park as tt supposed to? Secretan answered this issue is discussed during the employee's training wt are hired. They are shown where to park, and they sign an agreement iowledge that they know what they are supposed to do and what >equences are if they don't. There was one instance where an employee hac a $200 parking ticket and since then there have been no problems. comment was closed. was made by Chairperson Tucker to accept this report and require a review McDaniel and Hawkins None Toerge None Birch Medical Office Center (PA2004 -257) ITEM NO.4 20162 Birch Street I PA2004 -257 :st for a use permit to allow the conversion of a portion of an existing general Approved building to medical office use. The existing building is approximately 32,27 e feet of which approximately 16,257 square feet are proposed for medical office Approval of a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is also irperson Tucker noted that the people out there who had property that -Ixed in, were under the assumption that the Planning Director would be the would deal with it as opposed to coming to the Planning Commission. Temple noted that the Municipal Code has a specific provision that when multi :)lications are involved, all applica ions are considered by the highest single er one application. The Planning Commission is higher than the Planning Director. ssioner Hawkins noted receipt of a letter received from the Santa Ana Heig who expressed some concern about the parking ratio. He asked staff s this issue. Ramirez noted he had spoken to Mr. Dayton and his desire to have the proje ed at the regulation that was in effect when the project came before tf emission. The Ordinance that the City Council adopted, set up deadlines f ain projects and plan checks, and this was the one that met the requirement that a complete discretionary application at the time the Ordinance was adopted. Tt ing standards would be reviewed by using the old 1/250 parking ratio. "file:HN:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21 -05. htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 5 of 24 mmissioner Eaton asked staff if they ever re- notified the Santa Ana Heights PA Mr. Dayton who was representing them, that in fact this project was not going ;et the new standards.? Are they aware of that fact? Ramirez answered he had not spoken with the Santa Ana Heights e that time. comment was opened. i was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2004 -046 Study 2004 -006 subject to the findings and conditions of approval. None Toerge None EJECT: Newport Lexus (Wilson Automotive Group) (PA2004 -153) ITEM NO. 5 3091, 3931 & 3961 MacArthur Boulevard PA2004 -153 848 & 888 Dove Street Recommended t Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2004081004), General Plan for approval �ndment No. 2004 -004, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2004 -003, Use nit No. 2004 -026, Modification Permit No. 2005 -030, and Traffic Study No. 2004 to allow the redevelopment of an 8 acre site presently developed with office use a vehicle rental establishment as a new automobile dealership. Tucker noted the agenda for this item: . Presentation of the project by the applicant; . Staff report comments; . Questions of staff by the Commission; . Discussion of the Environmental Impact Report, the comments, and respons to comments and will be referred to as the Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR; • Comments before the public is invited to testify; • Public testimony; • Brought back to the Commission for questions of staff; • Internal discussion by the Commission; . A decision on whether to re- circulate the DEIR is necessary; and, . Vote. then noted that this item was seen at a Study Session at the end of last year, "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnO4-21-05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 6 of 24 have been some changes to the architecture. ;ey Griffin, project manager for Newport Lexus, stated that input has been rece i various entities. He made contact with the shopping center owner next to , the office building to the north of the site, and what would be the John L, ne Building, that is owned by Glenborough; however, unsuccessful in meeting owners of 901 Dove Street. Referring to an exhibit, he noted the following: . The biggest constraint on this site is a 60 foot wide storm drain easement tha cuts through the property, consequently the operation is split into two structures. . The easement is being used to queue cars onto the site with a distance of 300 feet, three lanes wide. . There are three entrances on Dove Street, one is an employee /deliv entrance, the main service entrance and a sales entrance with a request for entrance on MacArthur to serve the showroom building up front. . The showroom building is approximately 31,000 on the first floor with ai 10,000 feet on the second floor. He then noted the new car delivery service writer and show room. . The service building is the first floor service and the second floor is parking and rooftop. The rooftop is intended for inventory and e parking. . The height of the structure to the parapet is approximately 35 feet with the top the tower element about 20 feet above that. . He then reviewed on the exhibit how the site plan would work for cars /customer ingress /egress. . He noted a 30 foot landscape setback along Jamboree and MacArthur. Th proponents are asking for a modification to allow an encroachment, noting th; the City is planning on widening Jamboree Road. The proposed total landscap on Jamboree and MacArthur is more than exists today with the 30 foot setback. . On the Dove Street side, there is a ten foot landscape setback together with 30 foot building setback. The building encroaches with some exterior columi into the 30 foot setback by about 18 inches. . He noted a screen wall that is within the 30 foot setback. Wood clarified that the encroachment on Jamboree that was discussed is a Dachment into the landscape setback, not a building setback. Mr. Griffin agreed. iissioner Hawkins asked about a 'taking' of Jamboree for widening. Did dedication? ommissioner Cole asked what is the current access to the site and what will be new. am assuming the MacArthur access is new to the site versus the three that arf *oposed for Dove Street. "file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATAII nternetlP lnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 7 of 24 1. Griffin answered the site itself has the three curb cuts now. There are two in the Avis property, the curb cut on MacArthur is the only new point of access. erenced the exhibit for clarification purposes. n Tucker asked staff about that footage, is it now in public ownership or is it something that will it happen later? Edmonston answered: . The City Council has authorized the hiring of an engineering firm for documentation of the widening of the bridge on Jamboree Road over the Freeway. • Part of that widening is to have a fourth lane in each direction on Jamb Road and to make that work, it requires a widening. • On this property, the widening starts out at zero and angles to the west. • We did not anticipate requiring a dedication, but it is something that we evaluating a value for and credit against the Fair Share Fees. :ommissioner Hawkins, noting the proposed entrance driveway on MacArthur, w there also is a plan for exit on that same driveway? In Griffin answered correct, and it is part of the application. Ir. Jeff Carlisle, principal with Coast Architects, noted the building design *Referring to the exhibit, he noted the ceremonial entrance off MacAi highlighted by palm trees with enriched paving all the way to the front door landscape over 100 feet along this drive entrance. . Customer parking is at the front of the sales building that is laid with the paving. . Referring to the exhibit, he stated that on the Jamboree Road side, there is monument sign that is located at the intersection with landscape, waterf element, and turn - around area. . The sales building will be a friendly, warm and inviting structure with colonnade in front to bring down the scale of the building to a very 'hum; scale. . He noted a canopy area and fireplace used as a feature element for customer lounge area. . He noted that this is a 'three sided' site resulting in three front doors. . The car wash amenity is on the side that backs up to the commercial area. . The edges of the service building have a feature wall that is curvilinear to "file:HN:1Apps1W EBDATAI Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 8 of 24 the edge of the building and compliments the colonnades. . The sales building has a repetitious column feel with recessed walls that n the architectural expression of an office building of the surrounding area as as the showroom. . He noted the location of the elevator, feature tower on the service building, s the entrance to the service on the ground floor that is shielded from the public a wall. . The openings on the service building are provided with mullions and are actual windows. . The entry and tower elements will have weathered copper roofs, and be guttered. The adjacent retail center has those same peaked roofs so proposal will be consistent with the adjacent buildings. . Referencing a materials board, he explained the textured stucco feature wall, crenellated feature on the colonnades that is also proposed on two walls, darker based color, the bronze glass, colored concrete, copper roof and ac pavers. . The service building is in the same finish as the sales building. . Noting the car wash location that is under cover within the building, he the stacking within the building. . The top of the towers on the adjacent retail building is similar to the height on that side of the building. . On the Dove Street side, the wall is proposed to be ten feet high so that with thf landscape in front, it will provide a foreground for the service building behind it. The walls are recessed so that the columns are expressed; and, the exit stai tower is done in bronze glass with a copper roof. . He then noted an outdoor customer waiting area with fireplace. . The last two columns on the showroom building go in about 18 inches into building setback. The landscaped area between these columns is back of building setback. . The entrance drive from MacArthur to the front door has a strong statement the entry element, copper roof and pedestrian features and enriched pavers. Selich asked: . You indicated that coming in off MacArthur you go up to the customer I with no cross traffic. I see two cross paths before you get to the entrance. . Those cars that are parked there, are those cars for sale? Carlisle answered there is one cross traffic lane, you have to look at the 'Tile:HN:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/2112005 Page 9 of 24 We closed up the one nearest MacArthur, that has been revised with ape plan that reflects the correction and those are all display cars. Hawkins asked: . Going to the service tum- around, is there any barrier that prevents cars towards MacArthur, in other words not completing the tum- around? Carlisle answered there is no physical barrier, the people that are driving aroun( t area are porters. Referencing the exhibit, he explained where the customer drop; his car for service and where they would go to pick up the loaner car and drive out. porter takes the car and goes into the service building or up to the second level o service building. Tucker noted: The plan that is before us, is this the same that each of us saw in our offices? Griffin answered yes, with the exception of the improvements that we made on ,e Street side. The plan that you originally saw did not have the copper roofs, )ss that was added to express the columns and also the glass and the roof as v irperson Tucker asked about the landscaping along that screen wall, is that of planting area between the sidewalk and the wall? Carlisle answered that it is ten feet from the property line and has parkway as person Tucker noted one of his suggestions would be to add some other types besides palms. It looks like there are some in there. Carlisle answered that podocarpus. as well as vines that will creep up the been added to the planting scheme. >ner Cole asked how the retaining wall will be landscaped along side. Griffin answered the retaining wall has not been touched in anticipation of the City ig it's improvements. Referencing the exhibit he noted where the 'taking' will start end. He then noted the exhibit on the north bound Jamboree side and discussed height of the towers on the shopping center and on this site. Carlisle added that the tower where the elevator is will be about 20 feet higher. nmissioner Selich asked about the spacing of the trees on Dove Street. Carlisle answered that the podocarpus and the palms are in groupings. The ocarpus were around 16 foot on center as the trees get pretty wide, so when ied they will be touching at the canopy width. The size is 36" and it will take about years for full maturity. If Canary Island pines were used, it would take about 12 -15'I rs for full maturity as they are much slower growing trees. "file: / /N:\AppsIWEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 10 of 24 oner Eaton noted an opposition letter received at the beginning of One of the questions raised was how will your delivery trucks operate? Carlisle answered that the truck delivery is off the street and on the site in i between the service building and the 10 foot wall on Dove Street. There is y drive 200 feet long where a transport truck can make a delivery. He will s to back up as there is a fire truck turning radius to accommodate the transr was then a discussion of the materials board. rson Tucker then asked staff to explain why each one of the action items except for the environmental impact report, which will be done at the end. Lepo with Hogle Ireland, contract planner for the City on this project, noted A General Plan Amendment would change the designation on the northerly f acres of this 8 acre site from the current Professional, Administrative Off designation to Retail and Service Commercial. Right now, a car dealersl would not be permitted in an Office Designation of the General Plan. This woi also change the way the numbers of allowable square footage that is present in the General Plan site. Now, there is a total of about 115,000 square feet allowable building area for this 8 acre site plus a 3 acre auto site. Staff h converted that 3 acre site into an allowable building area of approximate 24,000 square feet. The change to the General Plan would also include assignment of the building area for the 8 acre site of 139,000 square feet. T amount of footage the project is currently proposing is approximately 114,0 square feet. The zoning on this property is Planned Community (PC) as well as the adjoininc properties between Bristol and MacArthur, and Jamboree and Birch known a; the Newport Place Planned Community Text. Now the 8 acre site is split int< two pieces, the southerly portion is designated for auto center use and the northerly portion of 5 acres is designated for Professional Business office use. The change in the PC text would combine both into one designation of Genera Commercial. The related changes would be an increase in height for a portioi of the site. Now, the 3 acre southerly portion of the site has a 35 foot height limi applicable, an 8 story height limit applies under the current PC text for thf northerly 5 acres. With the amendment of the PC text, the total overall heigh limit would be 55 feet for the entire site plus a provision that would allow for al extension of that clock tower on the northeast corner of the parking structure. The applicant has indicated they would like to add an additional story in th( future. rperson Tucker asked what uses would be allowed on this site as a matter of the PC amendment is completed? c Lepo answered any use that would be permitted, retail uses whether it be in retal �rvices, restaurant, stores, anything like that in addition to the automobile center. iey could do a shopping center there some day if they decided it wasn't going to b4 car dealership within the allowable building area that is allocated for that space. HE " file: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 11 of 24 ad that the applicant would not have to come back for site plan approval under text. nmissioner Selich asked why the Planned Community text is being amended r are asking for a Modification Permit for the setbacks. Why wouldn't you just setbacks up in the Planned Community text to accommodate the project and e the Modification Permit? Lepo answered that was a discussion on how that would be accommodated. " ament has put a restraint on the amount of development that could occur here i wouldn't find on other parcels in the PC area, so in recognition of the three str Cages and the uniqueness of this particular parcel within the Newport PI, coed Community, were the reasons why that should not apply across the board. ier Selich asked why not set the setbacks on this site in the Text rather than doing the Modification Permit. . Temple added staff decided on this approach because the modification is into back that is defined as special landscape street and staff felt for the overall heal the Planned Community that we did not want to erode the concept of speci dscape street without some special review by some body at some level, which as nd alone modification would be heard by the Zoning Administrator. In the case setback on Dove, the building setback is 30 feet, and if we reduce it by 18 inch( n the whole of the building could come forward 18 inches, and we felt that beir e to control the amount of building within that area through the discretiona �cess was a preferred route because the City would be in a position to limit it, luce it, should a different request come forward. rson Tucker noted that if there was subsequent re- development of this modification would go away wouldn't it, if the building was scrapped? PC text setbacks would apply on the re- development. Temple answered yes, if it was a totally new building. nissioner Eaton stated it appears that you are proposing to amend the PC text the height of permitted monuments signs and that would apply to the entire f Was there not a way to allow somewhat higher monument signs on tl :rty without allowing them through the entire area? David Lepo answered yes, through the Modification process as well. The de plan will be submitted at a later date for staff review and issuance of Modificat nit at the staff level. The monument sign could be included, it was put in there sideration to see it was acceptable throughout the Planned Community. Mr. Lepo noted that there are two components of the Use Permit: The proposed revision to the PC text requires a use permit to allow for automobile dealership. The use permit is a way to ensure that the design of facility at this particular site is appropriate for the existing improvements in area to assure compatibility with specific consideration of access to the site, ( and design of the buildings, aesthetics such as lighting, and noise. ' file: / /N:1Apps1W EBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 12 of 24 A Use Permit is also required for the proposed sale of alcohol beverages and the City's ordinance. Complimentary service of wine and beer are proposed a falls within the purview of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and license would be required for on -site consumption. Specific conditions a included in the resolution to address this issue. McDaniel asked if there were other dealerships that have beer Temple answered that they have more coffee type bars, and if there were wine, it would have required an ABO license. ig, Mr. Lepo added that there are circular display pads that are proposed into the setbacks at MacArthur, Jamboree and Dove and then noted t on the Traffic Study and the Environmental document: A study was conducted for this particular facility per the City's Traffic Phasir Ordinance (TPO) requirements. With the reduced size of the facility at 114,01 square feet plus or minus, the only TPO impact occurs at Irvine Avenue ar Mesa Drive. Under the TPO, there is an impact if the additional traffic results a decrease in a Level of Service (LOS) to an unacceptable level, or makes currently unacceptable level worse. With the re- striping and improvemer indicated as mitigation measure at the Irvine Avenue /Mesa Drive intersectio the service level is brought back to what it was prior to the addition of traffic, there is no TPO impact after the mitigation measure. There were areas that were not analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report. At the preparation of the Initial Study it was determined, based on evidence it the record at that time, that there would be no impacts and would require nc analysis of Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Minera Resources, Public Services, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise Recreation, Utilities /Service Systems, Geology /Soils, and Population/Housing. Potential impacts were studied in the areas of Aesthetics/Land Use, Hydrology Water Quality and Storm Water, Transportation/Traffic, and Air Quality. Mitigation Measures proposed with this project reduced the level of significan impacts in each of those four areas to a less than a significant level. At the request of the Chairperson, he then reviewed the items where there was significant impact identified and the mitigation measure that took care of tht impact as listed in the staff report. Tucker noted the Photometric Study needs to be consistent with nmissioner Selich asked if condition 32 that deals with lighting, was similar to City has on the Fletcher Jones project? Wood answered that this condition is much more detailed and restrictive was the original mitigation measure and condition of approval on Fle Hawkins asked about the aesthetics impact and pr the General Plan Amendment and the PC text will allow for a "file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 13 of 24 :e. All the graphics we have seen tonight, the majority of the buildings are that 54 feet, it is only the towers and elevators, etc. Are there any graK ig the additional story on the service garage? Lepo answered, no. Temple clarified that the height limit is not being raised. Basically, there is :d height limit for the current auto center site in the PC. The height limit for portion of the site is 8 stories with no numeric limit. Staff is establishing a st< ht limit for this site and it will be in the PC text. rperson Tucker asked if the applicant decides he wants to add to this building at date, what will the Planning Commission or staff see? Lepo answered they would be subject to the Use Permit provisions. The Planni nmission will see the revised plans, because that is expanding premises subject Use Permit. Lepo continued, under the Land Use category: Consideration of inconsistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, requirement was that the applicant submit an applicant that includes a Gen Plan amendment and a PC text amendment. Potential inconsistency with Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 and Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan - plans submitted to the FAA and to the ALUC; the plans were approved. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water - impact of violating any water qua standards or waste discharge requirements, degrade groundwater quality cumulative impacts to surface water quality. Mitigation measures are that applicant will send a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Cor Board and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; and have approved Water Quality Management Plan prior to grading permit. Commission inquiry, he added that the new permits from the Water Control C and require inspection and code enforcement efforts to check filters intenance of materials. Mr. Lepo noted: Air Quality - impacts would potentially happen during construction phase. facility is small in terms of operational impacts. He then reviewed the mitic measures included in the staff report. Transportation/Traffic - potential impact of transportation /traffic could caL deterioration to an unacceptable Level of Service of ICU of 0.01 or more e that is under the TPO. Proposed mitigation was to re- stripe westboL approach at Irvine Ave. and Mesa Drive to provide one left -turn lane, one shat through /left lane, and one right -tum land, and require signal modifications implement split -phase operation on east -west approaches as required to sati the TPO requirements. These mitigation measures are for the full project "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas12005 \mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 14 of 24 originally proposed for the full 130,000 square -foot project. There is a provisi for providing a triple left turn pocket at the west bound approach at Jamboree MacArthur Boulevard and improved east bound approach by providing a foul thru lane per the TPO and CEQA. Once the project was reduced to 117,0( that impact goes away and no mitigation is required. This project is down 114,000 square feet. airperson Tucker noted that it appears that on a cumulative basis there are nificant impacts to other intersections. At 130,000 square feet those impacts mitigated, but at 117,000 square feet there is nothing that has to be done. Lepo answered that at the 130,000 square feet project level, that is correct, impacts. However, at 117,000 square feet there are no impacts to rsection at Jamboree /MacArthur. Eaton noted: He is concerned about the amount of traffic exiting from MacArthur across traffic to get into the left -turn lane at Jamboree. . Are there other ways to try and minimize that amount of exiting traffic? Edmonston answered that he is not aware of any discussions and has ,wed any on -site signage proposal which might assist people to exit onto the C et side and go onto Bowsprit, as an option. He noted that he was on site du hour to observe this driveway function and noted when there were gaps n there was a back up. He concluded that there is not a constant flow of tr in his opinion there are enough gaps within each traffic cycle to accommodate ement. At Commission inquiry, he noted it would be helpful to have on• age directing people to exit the Dove Street driveway. , Commissioner Eaton asked: . The letter of opposition received questions whether the amount of traffic at Qi Street was looked at and whether that intersection might now require a signal. Edmonston answered in the initial study, it was not looked at, the City focused signalized intersections in the area. The consultant did counts today in both . and p.m. peak periods, made tabulations in terms of level of function with proj is added and evaluated it if it would meet the traffic signal-warrants of peak h ic. He then gave an overview of what the consultant observed as well as ervations concluding there is no warrant for a signal at the intersection. Ciandella with Kimley Horn and Associates, noted the following: . Tested the peak hour warrant at that intersection, both morning and evenii existing and adding the project traffic. It does not meet the warrant in any those four cases. She was there again this evening and did not see a queue of even five cc southbound. It is a four -way stop that assigns the responsibility of the right way that is followed to the motorists. " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 15 of 24 mmissioner Eaton asked about the parking and storage differences. Is there a v assure that we don't have a condition where the number of vehicles parked red on the site exceeds the availability on site? Is there a way to assure that th I be enough parking in the future if an additional story is built on the project? Lepo answered that is subject to a use permit so a condition could be added -ess that. Typically, you would wait until someone complains. Then, with the u nit, you have the opportunity to request that the applicant come before t. emission to review the terms of the Use Permit and could add a condition Edmonston noted that it was his understanding that the deck would be needed itional inventory, not active parking purposes. Perhaps the applicant could cls for you. Wilson of Wilson Automotive Group, noted the following: Additional parking deck - this facility is being over built to start with and anticipate adding another deck for ten years, maybe never. It will be engin for another deck, so that we don' have cars parked all over. ) mmissioner Hawkins asked, if we eliminate an exit on MacArthur, does that significant impact on other intersections in connection with Dove, etc.? Ciandella answered: The adjustment that was done from the original traffic study to the revised figui that you have, the assumption was made that traffic wants to go where it want it is just a matter of how it gets out of the site. The primary change would be you went out at Dove Street instead of MacArthur, you could make your way L to Bowsprit and make a right. Edmonston added that the assumption now is that if the exit is allowed, about 200/ the cars, or 40 -42 cars, would make that move in the peak hours. Some woulc rke the left turn onto Jamboree, the others would get onto MacArthur and gc ough, 40 cars would be added to one or more of the driveways on Dove Street. ere is capacity in the intersections to handle that traffic. oner Hawkins, noting the supplemental information, the response 2 -5 was amended in connection with the alternative analysis. Tucker asked for a review of the alternative analysis. David Lepo gave a brief overview of the analysis as presented in the staff :ing to a reduced project alternative and a no project alternative. iairperson Tucker noted that staffs comments on the EIR were fairly comprehen terms of those items where there were issues identified. He asked if there was ner questions in terms of this report that the Commission had. imissioner Hawkins clarified that the Commission had received a comment on this afternoon. " file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 16 of 24 Arperson Tucker noted he would be asking staff to respond to that comment le Neen now and the Council meeting. It is a comment letter that is late, but it we appropriate to respond. He then stated the responsibility of the Commission item and what would be expected during public testimony on the FOR for CE comment was opened. Biram, manager of 901 Dove Street, speaking on behalf of the owner of 901 et, noted the following: . The EIR process has been flawed in their opinion. These flaws have be pointed out in a letter presented to the Planning Commission at the beginning this meeting from his attorney. . He stated he had received notice of this hearing on the 11th of this month only saw the Draft EIR last week. . No contact had been received from the developer of the project to discuss impacts of this project with him. . He noted that he had spoken with the owners of 1000 Quail, 1001 Dove, 1 Dove and 1151 Dove, 1201 Dove, none of whom had received notice of hearing or previous publication of the DER. . The greatest flaw of this EIR is the complete omission of traffic studies on and Quail Street. . There are three driveways indicated on the plan, all of which are off D Street. The report estimates that traffic in the area will increase by 3,200 ti per day, most of which will enter in off Dove Street. How can the DER ign this? This additional traffic will exacerbate an already hazardous street during peak times it is difficult to pull out of the parking lots on Dove Street. . No mention of any traffic flow considerations on Quail and Dove is made in DEIR; which in my opinion is a violation of the law. . The construction of a dealership in this location will have a serious impact on our property as it will change the character of the neighborh a rather quiet professional office area to a busy commercial area. . My tenants will now look out onto a sea of cars unless the project has screening and buffers. • Noise from loud speakers will affect the area. • Parking may become impacted in the future if the dealer starts to recei incentives to stock more vehicles, which may force employees to park off site neighboring lots. . The retail sites behind the project are already impacted and they are renting parking spaces from me. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\20051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 17 of 24 He concluded by asking the Commission to recognize the flaws in the DER send it back to staff for additional work to address the issues and delay a on this matter for 90 days in order for the neighbors to engage their consultants to address these concerns. Matthews, counsel to Mr. Biram, noted the following: . He has not seen the supplemental traffic report. . He objects to the notion of people drinking and driving. . The Traffic Study does not seem to address the double blind curve as proceed down Dove Street towards Bristol before they get to the project loc+ . A comments letter had been distributed, and they have never received a from the City. . Matters that have been brought up tonight, he obviously does not have time prepare any response to. iairperson Tucker noted that CEQA has a series of time frames and noti tuirements. This Lexus dealership has not been a secret and everyone in the re late community was saying how lucky the property owner was that thing was goii be bought at that price. It is not like you had no forewarning, it was out there if y actually in the real estate business. Your clients would have known it was c :re, why they didn't get more actively involved and check with the City and folk , that is what real estate people do. It is hard for me to go with the concept ti- body knew and this was just a giant surprise. You may not have been notiff ymore than what is required by law, which is basically a publication, that is wh ate Law requires. We go through this process all the time and we hear from sor ople that they say they are not notified, but I know in a lot of environmen currents, especially in the residential community we get stacks of things from all tl ighbors with all the comments they have. 1 have asked staff to go ahead ai ;pond to your letter, but it would really be unfair to the applicant who has been s process and has followed the rules to grant a 90 day delay. I would not suppi s unless somebody told me the notice was deficient in the first place. I am not su w we respond to something that was given to us on the day of the meeting, it Matthews noted that your Planning Commission rules allow submission of action letter at the actual meeting and that is what we have done. He noted 1 applicant never scheduled a meeting in order to get specific information on tra gn, etc. to have an adequate opportunity to formulate objections, to I sultants we deem necessary and to try to work with them to identify sc )ation measures. irperson Tucker noted that the legal process is disclosing what the poter acts are of a proposed project on one's property. Matthews noted stated for the record, that the notice that was given was " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 18 of 24 ;hairperson Tucker stated that as far as the letter is concerned, giving it to ;ommission on the last day may be something that you allowed to do, certainly } re allowed to do it. We won't be in a position to have as meaningful a discussion Fe could have had we had the letter five days before the meeting, where as chairn would have said to the staff, let's go through and try to figure out what the answ re to these things because the whole process is public disclosure. It is to allow ublic to see that the decision makers actually understand the nature of the impact ie environment of the decision that they are about to make. For us, we are not ertifying body, we are going to take what we have today, make a conclusion E and it along to Council and ask that this letter also be answered. The Council ierefore have the ability to then see all the record. That is about all we can do at t oint, at least as far as I am concerned because it would be unfair to ask the applic > sit around and wait for 90 days. The comment period under CEQA is only 45 da ght away you are doubling what the law requires, assuming you just got not Matthews stated it does not have to be 90 days, 45 would be fine. Jerson Tucker noted that the only time you have would be between now the City Council hears this item. He asked staff when that would be. Temple answered, assuming you recommend this for approval tonight, this be heard on May 10, 2005 by the City Council. nmissioner Hawkins noted in connection to CEQA timelines, the Environments pact Report is released for comment which opens a window for public comment. asked if this property had been posted. Lepo noted that the comment period ended January 12th of this year. The date notice would have been on or about November 29th, 2004 that the Notice ilability of the EIR and the Notice of Completion went out. I don't have my filf tonight, so I can not verify if this property owner did, or did not, receive a notice. Campbell answered that the property was posted ten days in advance of ting with 4 public hearing notices at various locations on site. mmissioner Hawkins noted that the comments have received a substantial :ension of time since the written comment closed in January. We are now hearing it late April and we are considering the Objector's comments. There has been a istantial extension already granted, and there will be another opportunity at the uncil meeting for a hearing process at which time you may submit additional Campbell added that there was a notice sent to 901 Dove Street, Suite 270 and the mailing list. m Tucker asked staff, in terms of the information discussed tonight, enough to require re- circulation of the DEIR? Lepo answered that this does not change the conclusions of the DEIR or tht ysis. This supplemental information was provided as a courtesy based or 3tions from members of the Planning Commission separate from the EIR analysis. "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 19 of 24 comment was closed. McDaniel noted his concern of a wine bar. Wilson answered that the idea of the wine bar is more of a custon commodation rather than an on -going wine service. We've heard seve mments about it tonight and perhaps it is not such a good idea. The ABC said c; d wine don't mix. The idea was to have a regulated wine service and was to )re like a Club Lexus in the lounge with the fireplace and big screen televisions. meone is there waiting to buy or pick up a car or have a meeting the wine servi uld be available. We are looking for a food bar for our customers and employe well. If you say it is a bad idea, we can take it out of the plan. It is the smallest p the facility and not much of the application so taking it out isn't going to change i nd about being a Lexus dealer in Newport Beach. missioner McDaniel noted that he had no objection to a champagne ing and those kinds of things for a new model year, but to have someone can go there to drink is a bad idea. I think the community might have the nmissioner Hawkins noted for the special events would be a permitted event so not actually allowing any dealership to open up a wine event for one day. We be a permitted activity? >. Temple answered that the types of activities that Mr. Wilson described wot her be considered part of normal operation, or if they reach the threshold of c ecial event permit ordinance, then they may require a special event permit from t :y. The ABC regulates catering operations and usually the caterers who come ve the appropriate permits to cover the operations so that the dealer doesn't ne deal with the ABC to conduct these events. comment was re- opened. Fred Fellows, with Glenborough Realty Trust, owner of 895 Dove Street t this project, noted: . The MacArthur entrance is good from the standpoint that it takes a lot of traffic off Dove and Quail. Anytime we can reduce some of that traffic it wt be helpful to our tenants. He brought up the issue of test drives. He suggested that the dealer cor test drives outside the small area of Dove and Quail and make them on E heading north and then around on MacArthur. Due to cross traffic and signs, there could be a safety issue. Wilson, noted: . All dealerships have a prescribed test drive route. The salesman drives the car off the lot to show the prospective everything works. " file: / /N:Wpps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04121/2005 Page 20 of 24 . Our prescribed route for this dealership would be right out onto MacArthur to Jamboree, then right to Bristol and then up to the 73 freeway. They come down MacArthur and into the dealership. We look for the right in and out to facilitate our test drives. comment was closed. Cole asked if there were any responses from the City of Irvine on Or. Lepo answered that response to comments reflects the input from the City rvine. There were some issues about construction routing and Mr. Edmonston i work with the City of Irvine on the mitigation measures that were modified and revis o reflect those concerns. missioner Hawkins asked if the City of Irvine had an opportunity to review information on this project. Lepo answered that information for tonight's meeting was sent to the ;on in the City of Irvine for their review. rperson Tucker asked for a conclusion of the Commission regarding culation of the EIR. Does anybody believe it is necessary? He was answer He then noted the issues brought up during the meeting: . The signs done by a PC text change, or a later sign modification; . The wine bar; . Some type of notification to traffic leaving the site regarding north bound on Jamboree; . Potential condition not to park off the site, which would be primarily and . The route of test drives. Selich noted: . On the landscape plan, the use of 36" box for podocarpus on Dove Street is reflected. . He suggested at least 5 gallon minimum for the shrubs, to be specified on landscape plan to complement the 36" box trees. *Condition 18 - suggested that the sign plan come back to the Commission for review. a brief discussion it was decided to bring the sign plan back to in for review. was made by Commissioner Selich to recommend that the City Council "file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATAII ntemet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 21 of 24 Newport Lexus Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2004081004), and )rove General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -004, Planned Community Tex tendment No. 2004 -003, Use Permit No. 2004 -026, Modification Permit No. 2005 ), and Traffic Study No. 2004 -003 for the Newport Lexus Automobile Dealership k2004 -153) with the findings and conditions as recommended in the staff report and modified. airperson Tucker noted: • His agreement about the sign change as a modification, not a PC text change. The rest of the Commission agreed. • The wine bar - following a brief discussion, it was determined that at this time i would be best to delete it. . Sign(s) on site to suggest to traffic not to move north on Jamboree. Edmonston noted a sign indicating that traffic heading northbound Jamboree Dove Street and Bowsprit. ;sioner Eaton suggested staff negotiate with the applicant to some way and satisfy the intent. The Commission agreed. airperson Tucker asked the maker of the motion to include that concept in tion, deletion of the wine bar, the sign as a modification permit, delete the PC ange, as well as the Sign Plan being reviewed by the Commission; and a con& impose on the applicant to assure that his employees are parking on site, the ve route as indicated by the applicant, the 36" box for the podocarpus trees ve and the 5 gallon on the shrubs on Dove Street. The maker of the mo Mr. Dave Wilson noted his agreement with the modified conditions and withdrew th aoolication for the wine bar. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: Toerge Abstain: None t 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road I PA2003 -085 iew of proposed changes to the Saint Mark Presbyterian Church project �rmination of substantial conformance with plans approved as part of Use Pe 2003 -015. Eaton recused himself from deliberation of this item. airperson Tucker noted this item had been approved a few months ago. Staff put the agenda due to changes made by the applicant since that approval. sioner McDaniel noted that he has no concerns on the changes or pl , he felt it should be noticed so that people in the area would have " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 22 of 24 to come forward and speak. irperson Tucker noted it was noticed in the Daily Pilot this morning and item did not have to go through a 'noticing requirement'. Cole asked about the berms increasing in size. Ramirez noted that the applicant's representative is here and has prepared Point presentation to outline the changes noted in the staff report, if tl ssion wishes to see it. The architect and the grading engineer are also here any questions as well. i Tucker then poled the Commission if substantial conformance without any further presentation. iissioner Hawkins noted he had spoken with Mr. Ramirez yesterday ai red the plans. He noted ambiguities and areas of concerns. He then asked had been addressed. Ramirez answered that he had spoken with the applicant regarding erns. The architect can review them. ner Hawkins clarified that he noted a change in the height of the cross a possible alternative placement. It may be that no one else has tt person Tucker noted that this comes down to whether the changes to the pl tantially conform to what we have approved. The ambiguities in the plan and t >oled minor issues, I expect staff to address as part of the refinement of the fii Staff felt uncomfortable, primarily with the elevation changes in the grades in areas, and that is why they brought it to our attention. If it hadn't been for th would not have brought it back. I am of the mind that it doesn't need us to ling further on it, it really is a staff finding and I would refer it back to staff to fi tantial conformance. McDaniel - after reviewing the changes, I think they are in Selich - I agree. Cole - I agree. Orperson Tucker noted that Commissioner Hawkins has made his comments f and they can be sure that they are implemented. He suggested that this larded to staff for substantial conformance determination as they have shown changes. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to refer this matter to staff to McDaniel and Hawkins None t: Toerge n: Eaton " file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn04- 21- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted: Appointments to the Ad Committee for Revisions to the Zone Code, current Planning Commissioners appointed, Michael Toerge, Barry Eaton and Ed Selich as a public mei amendments to the Housing Element and a Code Amendment regarding Ele) Datum reference point contained in the Code. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Develop Committee - Ms. Wood noted that there was a very interesting presentation someone from the OCTA on their attempts to extend Measure M and what are doing to prepare for that and why the existing measure was successful. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Upd Committee Commissioner Eaton reported there are four meetings scheduled the end of the month and in to May. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - Commissioner Selich noted they reviewed the bluff setbacks and public access. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted the ch in item 1 that specifies the first hearing on the Sign Code will be at the meeting on May 5, 2005, She added that there were two public workshops in on the Sign Code and 10,000 notices had been mailed. Project status — Ms. Temple noted the Local Coastal Program Committee review the Implementation Plan for public access and restarted on the coastal bli question that had quite difficult discussions surrounding it and with new informati provided by staff, I believe that the committee now is reasonably comfortable tF our staff is on the right track and can come up with revisions that would I workable and fair and provide the intent. The package will be completed ai reviewed prior to giving it to Coastal for their initial review. The schedule for tl Coastal hearing is in June and they are planning on giving us everything within tl timeframes that they suggested with the exception of the original comments the Land Use Plan from their legal staff. Those will come to us right before th staff report is released. I think there will be things there that we need to address. airperson Tucker noted a letter he had received from the Newport Mesa Sc District dated April 18th that has to do with St. Andrews. He noted a copy been sent to Ms. Temple and asked that a copy be given to the Commission. nmissioner Hawkins gave a brief overview of the Planners Conference of League of Cities that he and Commissioner Cole attended in mid April. He st it was an educational process: he was able to attend many of the seminars Page 23 of 24 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ' file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAI InternetlPlnAgendas 120051mn04- 21 -05. htm 06/24/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 24 of 24 with many planners and commissioners from other cities. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole asked to be excused the meeting of May 5th. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnO4-21-05.htm 06/24/2008