The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/18/2000• r� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 +Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: All Present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford. Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Genia Garcia, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of April 13 and April 20,2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of April 13, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Kranzley, McDaniel Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of April 20, 2000. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: McDaniel Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May S, 2000. Minutes Approved Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT. Navai Resi, 1201 Kings Road (Continued from the 4/13/00 meeting) • Variance No. 1237 Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 9 feet. Commissioner Kiser asked what could be built without any variance, and what the height and setbacks of the proposed structure would be. Mr. Campbell, Senior Planner explained that the existing setback proposed is 12- feet, the setback requirement is a minimum of 10 -feet. The addition could be pulled 2 feet closer to Kings Road without the need for a variance. The existing structure is currently 4 feet below the 24 -foot height limit (flat roof) at the addition's closest point to Kings Road. The addition could be 10 1/2 feet wider in keeping with the setback requirements. The vertical encroachment as revised is up to a maximum of 9 -feet high away from Kings Road. Jim Naval, 1201 Kings Road, applicant explained that he had been told by the ® real estate agents when he purchased this home that most people who had asked for a variance, had been granted one by the City. He stated that he then purchased the house based on that information. As this house has only two bedrooms, he worked with an architect who also told him that there should be no problem getting a variance because many had been granted in that neighborhood. He noted that he submitted the architectural plans to the City and that a meeting was held. He pulled the papers for a variance that would allow him to add one master bedroom and bathroom. Since the Planning Commission meeting of April 13th, he has had his architect re -draw his plans to scale down the original project. The architect could not do anything except make it 1 -foot lower, so that we are under 10 -feet. The lower level could not go towards Coast Highway, as it would be too noisy. 1 talked to my neighbors and they all approve these plans, as they are less massive and save views and are much shorter than the alternative. Referencing the staff report, he noted that several variances have been approved on Kings Road. The Balboa Bay Club has also requested and received a variance for heights, including a cupola. This variance alters the view from my home as well as others. Denial of my variance could be viewed as unequal treatment. My building would enhance Kings Road and if I don't build it, unfortunately the result is going to be something very unpleasant, boxy, higher, bigger and more massive and won't do anybody any good. I would appreciate it if I can get this variance approved so that I can be proud of what I can do. Dr. Nicholas Yaruw, 1210 Kings Road stated that he opposes this variance. The applicant's property is on the south side of Kings Road and is on a hill. Looking at those properties, you find that most homeowners have extended mulfi -level • V 1237 Denied INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 1 S, 2000 closer to Pacific Coast Highway down the slope. The applicant could easily do that. I think that what should be done is to extend one of the two levels, he would not need a variance and would not have to worry about the Balboa Bay Club blocking his view. If the applicant gets his way, he will block my view and everyone else's on the north side of the street. Ali Malisoda, Huntington Beach real estate broker spoke as the buying broker for the applicant. He noted that when they found this property, an investigation was done to see if the house could be expanded. It looked like other homeowners had similar or bigger variances. Based on that information, we felt the applicant would be able to get a variance for his expansion plans. I knew how critical it was. This application seems to be for a smaller variance and should be looked at as it is reasonable and enhances the property. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley noted for the record that he had listened to the tape and read the minutes of the previous meeting, as he was not in attendance. Continuing, he stated that every variance that is either approved or denied is done so on a case by case basis. No variance sets precedence, especially on Kings Road. The hillside on Kings road is dramatically different as you go up and is down the road. I visited the site to see what the impacts would be and it is difficult to see. I would like to suggest that story poles be erected to see the impact of this addition. Commissioner Ashley asked if this variance was approved and the construction completed, if a new homeowner wanted to make an addition to the front of the house, is there any reason that could be denied? Ms. Clauson answered that if there is nothing in the approvals that would restrict this floor plan, then yes, there would be nothing to restrict a new home owner from coming back and building more onto the property. It does go to the issue that the need for a variance is as the topography requires, and not on the benefit of the design of the project. The code is set up and is what is acceptable in the neighborhood and that is how the zoning has been set for that property as to height, setbacks and is what is allowed to be built. The whole point of a variance is that it is necessary. In this case, it would be necessary because of the topography, not necessary because the real zoning code could create a worse view impact. Commissioner Kiser asked about condition 5, regarding public improvements. Mr. Edmonston answered that this is a standard condition that is placed on all projects normally for a house addition there would not be any improvements unless for instance, the sidewalk out front was severely deteriorated or something of that nature. This condition provides that the applicant could bond for it and 40 proceed with construction. z INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Commissioner Ashley stated he is concerned about a "double whammy'. In this instance, I think that a subsequent buyer could add on to the front portion of the house that would bring it up to the existing code standards so that would be a second loss to the people on the north side of Kings Road. If this variance is approved it would allow the applicant to exceed code standards to get an enlarged facility of his choice. Ms. Clauson added that the zoning is set up as being acceptable. That is what the community relies upon and that is the reason why you only have a variance when there is a need for it. Commissioner Kiser noted that it would not have to be a new properly owner who would make this improvement, but this owner with a subsequent set of plans could come on the heels of this, as well. Commissioner Tucker noted that it was irrelevant who was going to live in the additional room, it seems that every variance we have is for the sake of somebody's mother. It is not important to us. We have a series of findings that we have to make in order to justify the variance. One of the findings is a weighing of the hardship on the applicant versus impacts on surrounding neighbors. What I • had suggested at the last meeting was that you come back with a plan that did as much as you could possibly do to reduce the impacts. As I understand the staff report, you basically lowered the house by a foot; you didn't move it closer to Kings Road or any of the other design considerations that were suggested. The topography for this properly is difficult. If a variance request comes before us that doesn't involve straight down hill topography the Planning Commission almost always denies. Hearing about all the variances that the Planning Commission granted, this really isn't true. The one suggestion that I had at the last meeting was that you bring your architect with you tonight, did you do that? He was answered, no. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker said that there is no way to ask the architect if there was a way to further minimize the impacts, so I have a lot of concerns about this variance. It should be to achieve the applicant's purpose, but yet to impact the neighbors as little as possible, and I don't have a great deal of comfort that has happened without having the opportunity to probe that with the architect. Commissioner Kiser asked if it was possible to condition the property so that if this variance was granted, further building could not be built towards Kings Road and in the extra 10 and 1/2 feet that we have in width that could be built under the current zoning? Ms. Clauson answered no. If the variance is based upon the design, that is this design is worse than what could be built under the original zoning, then that is not the appropriate basis for the variance. To condition it on not allowing them to build what they are allowed to build in compliance with zoning, there is no • mechanism. d INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Commissioner Ashley noted that a variance is not necessary for this property. The applicant can go ahead and live within the existing building and zoning regulations and expand his house to have the amount of space he would like to have for this family by building fully on the lot as would be appropriate by adding another level. We would be putting ourselves in some kind of difficulty if we were to approve this variance and at a later date see that somebody could come back and add to the house within the existing code standards. They could have a larger house that would be more deprivational to the interest of the people living on the north side of Kings Road. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to deny Variance No. 1237 for the findings listed in Exhibit B, as well as for the finding stated above. Commissioner Tucker noted that he would be supportive of a variance if the impacts were minimized, I am not inclined to support this variance, but if the applicant wanted to continue this process to go back and do some further re- design. I believe that with a little bit of effort the conditions for a variance could be there, but I don't think that the applicant has hied very hard at this point. • Chairperson Selich noted his agreement with comments adding that the Commission gave some strong direction to the applicant last time and it was not complied with and a very half- hearted effort was put forth. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kronzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: McDaniel EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR Variance No. 1237 FINDINGS: That the granting of a variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and would be considered a grant of special privilege because: The property owner could design an addition that does not extend over the slope, which could meet the permitted height requirements. • The existing structure could be redesigned on the lower levels to S INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 • • provide for the expansion of the living area and not impact the street side elevation of the home and minimize the need for the variance on the street side of the structure. Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography have been able to construct new dwellings, or remodel existing dwellings, within the allowable height limit without the approval of a variance for height or maintain the single story element along the street side. The requested Variance is of a greater magnitude than previously approved by the City on lots with similar topography. Approval of this variance based upon consideration of the design, which to an extent limits the blocking of neighbors' views, is not a valid finding of approval of a variance application. A future addition could be designed In full compliance with the Zoning Code, which would restrict views and thereby eliminate the design features used as the basis for approval of the variance. Approval of the variance request coupled with potential future additions built in compliance with the Zoning Code would be detrimental to Kings Road. srs SUBJECT: Prudential California Realty 3301 East Coast Highway • Modification Permit No. 5059 Review of Modification No. 5059, relative to the proposed sign program for a multi- tenant building. Chairperson Selich noted that he called up this item to the Planning Commission after approval by the Modification Committee. His reasons for the appeal was concern of the erected signs and that the signs had been constructed and installed prior to the Modifications hearing. The signs are not very high quality and the applicant is asking for an exception to the Sign Regulations. It is my opinion that what we are trying to do in Corona del Mar is upgrade the business district. When exceptions are granted, then we should look for higher quality signs on these buildings. Ms. Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner noted that when this sign program was brought to the Modifications Committee, discussion was held that offered suggestions. Changes were proposed resulting from that discussion. We conditioned the signage so that the committee would have the opportunity to review the sign design at a later date. Since the committee made these findings, the applicant has made several changes as outlined in the staff report. The INDEX Item No. 2 M 5059 Continued to June 22nd • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 changes went from a white Plexiglas background to a more opaque cream color to cut down on the amount of brightness in the background. We discussed changing the sign from a "can" sign to a cut out channel letter style. There are electrical logistics involved that precluded that option. Also, discussed at the committee meeting were the graphics and the lighting. Commissioner Gifford noted that at previous meetings there has been some considerable discussion on roof signs, and what constitute a roof sign. At a most recent discussion, the configuration of the building was very similar to the one here. I would like to have staff's input on this as a roof sign in relation to past discussions. Mrs. Garcia stated that this particular roof has a parapet type in the front, which is considered the wall of the building. The roof is actually behind that and this portion of the wall sticks up above the roof behind it. By definition, it is a wall sign because this portion of the parapet is part of the wall. Commissioner Gifford stated that this mansard type roof is always going to be part of a wall and part of the roof. With Blockbuster, we were dealing with a situation where the parapet extended above the flat roof and it was considered to be a roof. How is that situation different from this one? • Mrs. Garcia answered that in this case, the mansard does not extend above the wall. The flat roof portion is at the top of the mansard and does not sit down below on some lower elevation. Chairperson Selich asked if the face of the structure on the mansard is an extension of the wall? If you were to look at it in a cross section and project the framing of the wall straight up, would this be on the some plane as the framing of the wall? Mrs. Garcia answered that the architect would have to answer that as this building has recently been remodeled. Chairperson Selich noted that if this were to be considered an extension of the wall then it would have to be on the same plane as the wall. He asked for an explanation of what the modification or exception is for. Is it for the one additional sign for the Realty Office, does it also include the clock? In the staff report, it is mentioned that the barbershop is going to be taken over by the realty office and therefore the sign over the barbershop is not going to be necessary. Is that correct? Mrs. Garcia answered that the clock is an additional wall sign. It is a logo and is considered a sign. There is a brief description in the staff report. There will be one less sign on the building. The applicant has stated that he plans on putting one Prudential sign that will straddle that tenant space that will be combined with the • corner. At the writing of the report, I had just received the information that the 7 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 barbershop had given notice. The applicant had not submitted subsequent plans. Chairperson Selich clarified that the sign area is calculated on the area inside the "can ". He was answered that the sign area dimension on the plan was calculated on the graphic of the letters. Chairperson Selich asked what the permitted sign area is and if it is calculated based on the rectangle of the letters and not the "can'. Mrs. Garcia answered the calculations are based on the letters and that each tenant is allowed 200 square feet for his or her sign. Commissioner Ashley noted condition 5 that all tenants of the building have uniform signs in terms of colors and graphics. When would they have to come up with a standardized sign? Mrs. Garcia answered that condition was included to assure that if another tenant came in, their signs would not be of a different theme to what is currently proposed. Chairperson Selich added that if we approve this modification, it would only • affect the signs we are approving, how would we have any control or assurance that any other sign(s) on this building will follow in this design theme. Mrs. Garcia answered that when we approve a modification, a sign program includes all signage on site. If they would deviate from that, the application would have to go back to the Modifications Committee. Commissioner Tucker asked if the realty shop changes and becomes smaller and they reduce the size of their space by giving back the former barbershop space, is there anything precluding the signage? If one of the trade -offs on this application is that now there is a need for one less sign, but there is no assurance that this will be forever. Mrs. Garcia answered that theoretically the building could be cut up into six tenants. Each tenant would be permitted a sign by code. The Modifications Committee had approved an additional sign for the corner tenant only. If the number of signs change then the application would go back to the Modifications Committee for further review. Commissioner Tucker commented that in shopping centers, we wouldn't probably give a variance to a request for additional signs, the Blockbuster application was a special circumstance in terms of its size and location, but not numbers. Mrs. Garcia noted that it is common in many shopping centers where the end • tenant usually wants a wall sign on the street as well as on the front of the A 11:1174 1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 building. Chairperson Selich noted that his concern of the sign is quality. If they want to do 'can' signs, then it can be done to meet the sign code. If they want an exception to the sign code, then we should look to a higher quality sign. The 'can' does not meet those criteria. Commissioner Kiser stated that he drives by the intersection where this tenant's building is located. How big a factor of Coast Highway turning was it in suggesting that it is necessary for the additional signage? Mrs. Garcia answered that in making the finding, staff looked at the two -way traffic along Coast Highway. There are many commercial buildings that are perpendicular to Coast Highway and have a side street where we may not approve a wall side except that the street does take a turn at Marguerite. As you go east on Coast Highway, traffic stops there and it is a focal point. Staff felt that the sign on the wall would be seen, not necessarily the front of the building. Coming from the other direction, traffic would see the sign on the front and not on the side street. Mrs. Wood added that the top of the mansard is not higher than the Hat roof, so • this would not be considered a roof sign. It is at an angle, lanced from the curbside. (she distributed graphics of the clock to the Commission) Mrs. Garcia read the definition of a wall sign from the Code as, any sign attached to, erected against, or painted upon the wall of a building or structure, the face of which is in a single plane parallel to the plane of the wall. The definition of a roof sign, a sign erected upon or above a roof or a building or structure. Public comment was opened. Larry Pappas, 924 Scots Street, San Diego, architect spoke representing Prudential California Realty. He noted that the dormers are not accessible in order to install electrical for channel lettering. What we have proposed instead is a box -like sign, with neutral background so that at night we can create halo lettering that is similar to backlit channel lettering. The roof is roughly b inches below the top of the mansard, clearly the roof is well above the level of the signs and the sign is parallel but not in line with the face of the wall. The clock, which has been removed and we are trying to find the right materials for it. Originally it was imitation brass which will be replaced with brass and place more of a reveal on it. I have an example of the light box prepared by the sign company; (He lit the sign for the Commission to observe). In explaining the sign, he noted that the background would be a gray (presented paint chip). Mrs. Wood noted that background was to be cream, not gray. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Commissioner Gifford noted that the clock sign is on a 45- degree angle. The purpose of the additional wall sign was to give exposure from the side street. If there were an option to angle the clock for purpose of a business identification sign or for a clock and if that is the location that can be seen from both streets, we would not need to approve an additional business sign. Mr. Pappas answered that the clock was never intended to be signage at all. We had always seen the building as signed from both Marguerite and Coast Highway. The clock is essentially more of a community element; it became a logo as well somewhere along the line. However, the nature of the tower element, it is not big enough to support a sign. The clock is roughly three feet square. Chairperson Selich noted that Ms Garcia stated that you are now proposing to remove the barbershop element and have only two signs on the Coast Highway frontage. Is this correct? Mr. Pappas answered yes, that is his understanding. However, with contraction that could very well become another space. The way those dormers are constructed on the copper roof, the whole roof would have to be re- coppered in order to remove a dormer. I am not sure that the landlord would want to do • that, it will probably remain with no sign on it. We should probably come up with a design for that dormer face, whether it is a pseudo type glass window or something else to create some meaning to that dormer without having to remove it from the roof. At Commission inquiry about electrical service via the dormers for channel lettering, Mr. Pappas noted that when the building was built and the roof was sheathed, the engineer required no openings on the roof for shear purposes. Therefore we do not have access behind the main frame of the mansard in order to access the false framing of the dormer. It is a totally concealed space and the electricians have told us they can not get back up there to do it. This is what the contractors and signage people have told us. Commissioner Tucker asked where the power source was for the signage that is being proposed? He was answered that it is not a matter of getting power to the sign, the power is there. In order to hook these signs up with channel letters, each one requires a point to point connection. You can't get up there to wire all of these without having the space in which to do it. The sign people said they could not get up there to do it. Chairperson Selich asked why these signs were put up prior to having the Modification Committee approval? It appears to me that all of the constraints that we are talking about, all those options were foreclosed. You seem to have thought they were going to be channel letters when you designed the structure, but yet these 'cans' were all pre - fobbed and obviously the whole thing was designed to accept them and they were all installed prior to even having the 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Mr. Pappas answered that they had assumed that was going to be permissible. Commissioner Ashley asked staff if these signs were in conformance to the sign code in terms of size and was answered, yes. Chairperson Selich noted that it is his understanding that the additional sign on one of the frontages on the comer use and the clock, those two elements make it subject to the modification. It is not the area. Ms. Clauson read the definition of a sign as, 'any device, fixture or figure, placard or structure that uses any color, form, graphic, illumination, gestures, symbol or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of or identify the purpose of a person or entity or to communicate information of any kind to the public'. In the past, the Commission has looked at a sign versus an architectural feature or design feature of a building and made a decision on whether this clock would be one or the other. Chairperson Selich asked if the Commission is not in agreement with the proposal, would you be willing to go for a continuance and try and work with staff for • something more compatible with what we may want. The Commission will be giving direction to staff to use as a guide. To which Mr. Pappas answered yes, and that the intent is to make the sign neutral and passive. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to continue this item for thirty days (June 22). The applicant will work with staff to find a feasible way to put channel letters up and come back with a complete proposal so we see exactly what we are getting in terms of color and design, and how the barbershop sign will be treated for a change in tenancy. Commissioner Gifford also asked for information on the framing of the building, roofline and parapet. Commissioner Kiser noted his opposition that the Modifications Committee approval of the clock as an aesthetic improvement to the street corner. He feels that the logo of the Prudential rock was horrid. I am against that third sign for the corner tenant. If a clock is to be approved and put up there, then it should have no identification, logo that would be used as a third sign for that tenant. Chairperson Selich noted that he would be amenable to looking at a logo, if it works, then leave it on. If it didn't work, then it should be removed. Straw vote on considering the clock with a logo as a third sign for the corner tenant: 40 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Commissioner Tucker - no script or logo on clock Commissioner Kranzley - no script or logo on clock Commissioner Gifford - no script or logo or trade coloring on clock Chairperson Selich - no script or logo on clock Chairperson Selich noted with the four votes, the logo was out. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, and Tucker Noes: Absent: None ..: SUBJECT: Sage Restaurant (Richard Mead, applicant) 2531 Eastbluff Drive • Use Permit No. 1640 Amended (III) A request to upgrade the existing Alcoholic Beverage Outlet approval to allow for the sale of general alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption (Type 47 License). • Commissioner Kiser recused himself from deliberation on this matter as he represents one of the owners of the Sage Restaurant. Senior Planner Campbell noted that several letters of support have been received and distributed for review. One letter from an attorney representing the restaurant asked that the Commission consider the restaurant staying open on New Year's Eve until 2:00 a.m. This is the only request for a change in the hours of operation. Public comment was opened. Michael Chow, 3991 MacArthur Boulevard, representing the Sage Restaurant stated that the applicant understands and agrees to the findings and conditions as proposed. The operational characteristics of the restaurant are not going to change. They are asking for an upgrade of license privileges. In terms of what happened this last year with New Year's Eve, we thought this would be an opportune time to ask for an exception of the hours for that one evening for the year. Rich Mead, chef and owner of the restaurant is here to answer any questions of the Commission. (he presented a handout to the Commission) Commissioner Kranzley stated that in the staff report states that there is no live entertainment currently, you would like to maintain that ability to have live entertainment. • Mr. Chow answered that we would like to maintain that ability in the event 12 INDEX Item No. 3 UP 1640 A (III) Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 someone would like to have a private party it would be nice to have the option of live entertainment. In terms of regularly scheduled entertainment, that is not within the operation characteristics of the restaurant. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff if the restaurant could go in for a Special Events Permit and have live entertainment for a specific private party? He stated that he was in favor of the additional alcohol use, but not if the live entertainment was going to stay in tact. Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood answered that yes, the applicant could come to the City for a Special Events Permit. Mr. Chow added that while the applicant can go to the city and request a special events permit on a case by case basis, if you remove the element from this application, ABC will review the conditions. If entertainment were prohibited, they would then in turn license the restaurant prohibiting entertainment. There is no mechanism where the applicant can go to both the City and the ABC and ask the ABC for permission to provide live entertainment. Once it is prohibited in the CUP conditions, it will be prohibited in the license conditions and the applicant would have no opportunity to have entertainment, even though there is a mechanism within the City. • Chairperson Selich explained that what is suggested is that the applicant may be able to have it on a special event permit basis. The applicant would be permitted, but he would have to get a permit each time. This would not be a prohibition. Commissioner Tucker asked about the condition regarding a specific bar area designed for the service of alcoholic beverages without food service, is there not a bar area that just has seats. Mr. Chow answered that from the patron side of the bar, it does look like a bar. Operationally, from the other side of the bar, it is fixed up with counter space on the backside where the server would be. It therefore, does not act in the same capacity as a purpose built bar. Patrons could sit there and have a drink, but it is not purpose built for that. Commissioner Tucker asked if this bullet condition (page 9) was needed? He was answered that if the Commission is uncomfortable with that, because there are several other reasons why the findings could be made already listed, there would be no harm in eliminating it. Commissioner Tucker then suggested that this be eliminated. Barry Eaton, 727 Bellis Street, President of the East Bluff Homeowners Association asked if the live entertainment would be restricted to within the confines of the • building, as opposed to the patio? 13 ]:17 #1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Chairperson Selich answered that would be correct. Richard Cooling, 425 Vista Trucha asked for limits of decibel readings on the live entertainment so that it does not come into the neighborhood? Chairperson Selich answered that will be taken care of during the deliberation. Commissioner Kranzley stated that it would be helpful to have a map of the reporting districts included in staff reports where alcohol beverage service is being deliberated. I need to get a clarification of the answers regarding the noise limitations and decibels of the live entertainment. Mr. Campbell answered that there is one condition that limits the entertainment to the interior of the restaurant. There is a standard condition, which specifies compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Gifford offered that the existing conditions be amended so that live entertainment is permitted subject to a Special Events Permit. At Commission inquiry, staff answered that the live entertainment permits can be • limited. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 1640 Amended (III) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A allowing this restaurant to close at 2:00 a.m. on New Year's Eve and live entertainment is allowed with Special Event Permits, which shall be limited to ten per year. Ayes: McDaniel, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Recused: Kiser EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 1640 Amended (III) Use Permit No. 1640 Amended Findings The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage sales and service is considered a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with the General Plan. is 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The project meets the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for an upgrade to the existing alcohol license for an existing restaurant and the existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) and will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of desired beverages in a restaurant setting. • • The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting district in which the project is proposed is only slightly higher (2.4%) than the percentage citywide. • There are residences, a school, and park and recreation facilities in the general vicinity of the project site, but none that directly abut the restaurant, nor are any residential units directly adjacent to, or in close proximity of the outdoor patio area. A service drive and /or public street separates the restaurant from the closest residence or recreational area. The main entry of the restaurant is oriented towards the common parking area for the center and away from the recreational areas to the west. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses, since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts. • No live entertainment is currently offered, but is conditioned accordingly based on a previous use permit approval. • Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the sale and service of alcoholic beverages and noise. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing restaurant use, which serves the residential and commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area. . • The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 the facility as a restaurant. Bee.ea, ✓e the .e5tG11FGR* MARS RAt hG'Oe a heir weei speGifiGGIly i ri'rticm The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. • All applicable conditions of approval of the previous UP 1640 and UP 1640 Amended shall remain in effect as follows: a) A minimum of one parking space per each 50 square feet of net public area shall be provided. b) The net public area shall not exceed 1,450 square feet for outdoor dining and 1,250 square feet for interior dining. • c) All employees shall be required to park on site. d) Live entertainment shall be subject to the approval of a Special Events Permit and the issuance of permits shall be limited to 10 events per year. e) Live entertainment be confined to the interior of the restaurant and shall not be performed in the outdoor dining area. In the event live entertainment is performed, the sound shall be confined to the inside of the restaurant only and during any live entertainment, all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed at all times, except when entering or exiting the main entrance. f) No outdoor loudspeakers or paging systems shall be permitted. 2. The approval is only for an upgrade to the existing alcohol license to a Type 47 license as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose for the sale of food and beverages. 3. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be a Type 47 license that permits general alcoholic beverages to be sold and consumed on -site. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. 4. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. S. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or leasing company. b. On -sale alcoholic beverage service shall be allowed in the interior of the restaurant and the outdoor dining area as currently permitted by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 7. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 8. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. 9. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 10. The hours of operation shall be limited between 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, except the restaurant may be open and serve alcoholic beverages hill 2:00 a.m. on New Year's Eve. U. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 12. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 13. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. Standard Requirements 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 4. The facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. Public Improvement may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 7. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. • 8. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. 9 The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 10 This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 11 The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: • 18 RIAD t • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Properties located on the bluff side of Pacific Drive, from 2205 Pacific Drive to the prolongation of the line west of Begonia Avenue at 2329 Pacific Drive Amendment to front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive Amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front yard setback of 10 feet for the dwellings and 19 feet for the garages from the newly established property lines of • properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the west side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way; amend Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula) of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Kiser recused himself from deliberation on this matter due to a conflict of interest. Associate Planner Genia Garcia noted that letters had been received late this afternoon and were distributed tonight. The letters note the primary concern of view obstruction and retaining the openness of the sfreetscape. Public comment was opened. Bill Edwards, architect of Planet Design, 503 Femleaf stated that he had been working with the City of Newport Beach facilitating the abandonment of the unused southerly portion of Pacific Drive right -of -way. He noted his support of this application stating the following: • This 80 -foot wide right -of -way was originally dedicated to the Pacific Electric railway line. • This use was never realized and by default remained with the excess width. Parcels were subsequently created on the flat somewhat elevated north side of what became Pacific Drive. • After Bayside Drive was later dedicated, the remaining steeply sloped area 19 IG114�4 Item No. 4 A 899 Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 1 OPM Between the hours of 7:00AM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Properly 4WA 55dBA 40dBA 5OdBA Residential Property located withinl00 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 6OdBA 45dBA 5OdBA Mixed Use Properly 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA SUBJECT: 13 Properties located on the bluff side of Pacific Drive, from 2205 Pacific Drive to the prolongation of the line west of Begonia Avenue at 2329 Pacific Drive Amendment to front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive Amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front yard setback of 10 feet for the dwellings and 19 feet for the garages from the newly established property lines of • properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the west side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way; amend Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula) of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Kiser recused himself from deliberation on this matter due to a conflict of interest. Associate Planner Genia Garcia noted that letters had been received late this afternoon and were distributed tonight. The letters note the primary concern of view obstruction and retaining the openness of the sfreetscape. Public comment was opened. Bill Edwards, architect of Planet Design, 503 Femleaf stated that he had been working with the City of Newport Beach facilitating the abandonment of the unused southerly portion of Pacific Drive right -of -way. He noted his support of this application stating the following: • This 80 -foot wide right -of -way was originally dedicated to the Pacific Electric railway line. • This use was never realized and by default remained with the excess width. Parcels were subsequently created on the flat somewhat elevated north side of what became Pacific Drive. • After Bayside Drive was later dedicated, the remaining steeply sloped area 19 IG114�4 Item No. 4 A 899 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 in between was divided to create the residential lots on the southerly side of Pacific Drive. • Typical right -of -way in Corona del Mar is 50 feet. • Significant excess width has become a significant disadvantage to most of the subject property owners on the southerly side of Pacific Drive. • Pacific Drive is only two blocks long and is virtually one way for half of its length due to the one way Avocado Avenue outlet to the west. • Similar unused portions of excess rights of way in other areas of the City have been vacated over the years. • Many of the southerly Pacific Drive property owners were not aware that they did not own part of the front yards and driveway approaches. • Most of the front yard improvements done in this area are in violation of the encroachment regulations. • What is being proposed is a reduction of 20 feet, which will meet the new Code standard of 60 feet minimum overall. That would be 10 feet wider than the typical Corona del Mar street. • The setback restriction is more than ample with front yards at 10 feet and garages at 19 feet for all on -site guests parking without blocking the sidewalks. • Additional building opportunities are well deserved in light of the challenges of the steeply sloped lots. • • Precedence has been set with a partial vacation of residences that use a portion of southerly side of Pacific Drive at the east end at Begonia. • On the west end of Pacific this past year, the unused portion of a block of Avocado was also abandoned. Smith Baken, 2315 Pacific Drive stated that improvements should be the aim of any municipality. The question is, are you trying to improve lovely Pacific Drive, if not, what is going on? Are there taxes that can be made from the extra land available for building on the south side of Pacific Drive? When we remodeled our home, we stayed within our boundaries. We have a front yard that compliments the rest of the street. If you want to improve Pacific Drive, remove the utility poles and put those services under ground. Jack Poucher, 2204 Waterfront Drive stated he owns a lot on the east end and that his lot is not impacted by the proposed vacation. He is in support of the vacation for similar reasons stated by Mr. Edwards. John Davidson, 2320 Pacific Drive stated that he enjoys the openness of the street especially as he has no view of the ocean, which has been lost due to construction. I do not want to see an encroachment into the street. One of the great things about Pacific Drive is the width of the street. The portion of the street to the west that is a one -way street is because it is more like a dead end with an alley like extension of Avocado. We get all the traffic up Acacia, and they horse shoe back around the park by Begonia and then find the beach. I have no complaints about not having an ocean view. But I do enjoy the openness of that • street. If these proposed changes are approved, there will be an encroachment 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 into the right-of-way. (he presented and explained a drawn plan depicting some of the potential hazards of ingress and egress). At Commission inquiry, he stated that he understands that the curb to curb width will not change. Kitty Westover, 2301 Pacific Drive noted the charm of Pacific Drive and that it will be lost if it is -made possible to build closer to the street. The street will be impacted and will be the same as all other narrow streets of Corona del Mar. Don Corbett, 2316 Pacific Drive noted that there was a house built recently that does not impose on the neighborhood. It was constructed with all the amenities under the existing conditions. There is another home towards Bayside a home that is being constructed west of Carnation; the house is within 5 feet of the street. Those people will back out of their garage and run over people. I am afraid that will happen here on Pacific Drive. The last three homes built within the last few years were able to build under the existing conditions. There are probably another ten houses that will not change, so I don't know whom this will benefit. The change can only possibly benefit one or two people. I ask you to deny this. Suzie Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive stated that there is a majority of Pacific Drive homeowners here tonight that are in opposition to this. We don't know if the • pieces of property we are being offered are to be taxed. Is it free? Somebody needs to clarify what is to be achieved if this piece of property is granted. Most of the residents now there, have done their remodeling and are quite happy with what they have. Who is really benefiting from all of this? This could be a double whammy if these homes are put on the market and re -sold, and the new people coming in have the right to bring these houses closer to the sidewalk and encroach and go higher because they are on a bigger building pad. It will create a lot of havoc. Most of the garages are used for live -ins or maids or for storage, which leaves cars on the street because there is no place to park. Ken Jorski, 2228 Pacific Drive suggested that a possible solution would be that the land that is being given would not be buildable. Some type of restriction could be built into the gift of land saying that the addition space can not be calculated into the building allowance. I would be impacted by a couple of properties due to my house situation. Harry Jackals, 419 Begonia stated he was alarmed by the setback change to 10 feet. One of the charms of Corona del Mar is the many gardens. I don't see how this reduction will lend it self to that. There is only so much buildable space, I built within the restrictions and I am satisfied with that. I did not come up here to try and get some extra square footage. I am concerned with the ambience of Pacific Drive and Corona del Mar in general. Doug Lax, 2224 Pacific Drive read the following letter into the record. My property is located on the north side of the street within the same block as the • Bettingens. I am here tonight to express my extreme opposition to any such 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 amendment. Although I have not had ample notice to investigate the full implications of said amendment, I am sure of one thing; It will not be beneficial to me and may be grossly unfair and injurious to the other homeowners on the inland side of Pacific Drive. When I purchased my properly five years ago I had every reason to expect the City would uphold my rights as a property owner. Thus far the City has sorely disappointed me and I am now experiencing financial harm due the city's preferential treatment of the Bettingens and other abusers of the system. I do not expect the City to impose any harsh new restrictions on the bluffside residents, but I do expect and hereby request that you maintain the setbacks and easements, which were clearly in place at the time we all purchased our properties. Since my home is currently listed for sale, I am keenly aware of the value of a view and the buyers' perception of the degree of obstruction. The Bettingens' proposed remodel and the variances the city has granted them have already cost me dearly in the marketability of my home. This proposal is injuring me further by its very existence. Should the Commission rule to approve this amendment we can all be assured of a protracted legal battle due to the resolve of the inland residents. I urge you all to take a stand against the type of pandering and preferential treatment, which infects so many levels of our government today. The privileges of a few should never interfere with the rights of others. It is my perception that the Bettingens and their architect Mr. Edwards have asked for for too many favors of the City and the other fine residents of • Pacific Drive. I have a letter dated May 20, 1999 from Mr. Edwards where he initiated this entire transaction. This had nothing to do with Mr. Edwards helping the City; this is a selfish act. It has everything to do with the fact that he has a client who has requested that this be done. It is dishonest and deceitful of them to propose it in this manner. Michael Mann, 2304 Pacific Drive agreed with the previous comments about who is being represented here. I would like to know how many people on the ocean side of Pacific Drive have actually contacted Mr. Edwards and give him permission to represent them in this endeavor. I do not understand the initiative of this. Chairperson Selich stated that Mr. Edwards represents the Bettingens as far as he knows. The Planning Commission decided that because we do this in other areas of the city where there are street vacations, that we would initiate the zoning changes. We have done this in other areas of the City where there have been excess right -of -way. Ms. Wood noted that the abandonment of the right -of way is an action that will be considered by the City Council on June 13th. The Planning Commission action is with respect to the zoning amendment, which would change the front setback. Jerry Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive noted that the change of the setbacks would have varying effects on the homes. Some of the homes can be brought out to • 10 feet from the street and some of the homes will be set back. We will end up 22 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 with a zig zag of homes instead of just a straight open area that we have now. The original letter sent by Mr. Edwards to Don Webb stated that Mr. Edwards represented several homeowners who were in favor of this. This is the deceit that is going on, as I don't believe that Mr. Edwards ever represented multiple property owners on that street. Nancy Neen, 2220 Pacific Drive stated that she is opposed to these changes. Christy Bettingen, 2215 Pacific Drive noted that Pacific Drive is unique. Referencing an exhibit on the wall, explained the right -of -way to be abandoned and the homes that currently encroach into that right -of -way now. This abandonment would essentially put all of these homes in conformity. She then noted the height standards that could be built to and what the current heights are. The abandonment has no bearing on height. At Commission inquiry, she noted that Mr. Edwards represents Jack Pouch, Bettingens, Al Ross, Chris Street and several others. There have been no letters of support from these people, but she will obtain them. Steven McNash, 2319 Pacific Drive stated his approval of this abandonment as he intends to remove his garage and enlarge his home. • Barbara Feinberg, 2316 Pacific Drive stated that she has a small view of the bay and stated that she does not support any changes to the street, as it is a charming area. If Mr. McNash builds sideways into his lot, he will completely eliminate my ocean view, so I am completely opposed to this plan. Open space is one of the most important things we have. Having more rooms and things is not as wonderful as having open space. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked about: • Consideration of price for the relinquishment of right -of -way and whether taxes would need to be paid. - Ms. Clauson answered that the abandonment procedures the City has done in the past. I don't recall that we have ever charged a fee for an abandonment of a right -of -way. Once it is abandoned, the City no longer has an ownership interest, which in this case is an easement in the property, so it would revert to the underlying property owner. That would be an adjustment of the lot line and would pay property taxes on it. • What is the necessity for the Planning Commission to move on the zoning adjustment in advance of the City Council considering the abandonment? - Staff answered that the change to the setback can not take place unless the abandonment takes place. The setback needs to be amended and is currently five feet from the existing property line. If the abandonment is approved, the setback would be changed to 10 feet from the existing property line. • 23 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Staff added that the abandonment could go forward without the zoning amendment. Traditionally, this is the way it has been handled in the past. If there is an adjustment to the zoning boundaries, they may be done concurrently with the abandonment. Broad Street actually abandoned first. An abandonment without action would mean that the underlying property owner would own to the abandonment. However, there would not be any type of property line in the zoning regulations. The setback would still be from the property line as designed in the City's Districting Maps. Chairperson Selich asked staff it the reason that the setbacks are being adjusted is because it affects the calculation of buildable area. I tend to agree with a lot of the comments made about the setbacks, I think the street is nice the way it is. I would hate to see the setbacks be adjusted. I don't have a problem with the property going back to the adjacent property owners who would be able to continue to maintain and use the property as they have in the past. I would be in favor of maintaining the setbacks where they are. My understanding is that the reason for it is where the setback line affects the calculation of the buildable area. Is there a way to set the zoning on these properties that the building setbacks would remain where they are now. For example, it they are ten feet from the existing right -of -way and we change the right -of -way and now it becomes twenty feet away, that the existing setback line stays where it is. It • would just be a different number that still provides a mechanism that the normal setback would be used for calculation of buildable area. Is there a way that could be done? Staff answered yes. Commissioner Kranzley noted that this solution would satisfy everyone. I would love to maintain the look of that street as much as possible. If we increase the bulk of that buildable area it would be down the slopes and would not be intrusive into the view planes of the residences, especially on the other side of the street. The Bettingens could build higher on the front of the house. I wonder if we could maintain the nature and ambience of the street by allowing building down the slope so that it would not be impactful. Maybe we could limit the height at street level. Chairperson Selich noted he was not in favor of that, this is only the abandonment of the street and if we keep the setbacks as exactly the way we are, we are not changing the status quo on the upper end of the lots. I would not be in favor of putting increased restrictions there. Commissioner Ashley asked staff: • The current pavement width on Pacific Drive - it is currently thirty feet. • Curb side parking width on each side - seven to eight feet. • Two lanes are seven feet wide each - yes Commissioner Ashley noted that this is the problem in Corona del Mar. Here, the City has the opportunity to increase the width of the street so that you wouldn't 40 have the hazards of two -way traffic having to stop to let cars pass. Instead of 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 making an opportunity to widen the street by eight feet, you are willing to vacate some forty feet of the street. I wouldn't go along with this at all. Why did the City want to abandon this? Mr. Edmonton answered that other than trying to work with the property owners, there is no other pro- active effort on the City's part that he is aware of. The one thing that makes this street a little different is at the westerly end of the street is Avocado Avenue, which is one -way away from Pacific Drive. The only two -way traffic on the street would be residents leaving their property and heading east towards Begonia. Commissioner Ashley noted his agreement with the comments made by the Chairperson regarding the houses on the south side extending towards the street into the area being vacated by the City. I don't know why the City is vacating it, nor if the people on the south side would be willing to accept responsibility of ownership of property that they could not build into. All they can do is pay additional taxes for it. Commissioner Gifford noted that she is not clear on the proposal to adjust setbacks, which is not possible if the City has all the interest in the land. We would be moving the setback into what the City owns now. The abandonment would • have to come first. If the abandonment does not take place, instead of a five - foot setback people, most people will have a ten -foot setback from their same existing property line they have now. U Ms. Wood noted that the Commission's action is a recommendation, not the adoption of the amendment. The two would be concurrent at the City Council. Continuing, Commissioner Gifford stated that we have now from the curb on the south side, ten -feet of what would be maintained as public right -of -way. Additionally there is another ten feet that would have to be maintained for utilities. The lot line may be adjusted to within ten feet of the curb, but it would be subject to an easement for utilities. What is being proposed is the building setback would coincide with the width of that easement. Chairperson Selich stated the decision is to abandon the street or not. Mr. Edmonton is correct, that the City Council has traditionally been in favor of these kinds of abandonment if there is strong support for it. Quite frankly, I have not seen it here tonight. I think it is possible for us to make a recommendation because it is a recommendation on the zoning if the City Council does decide to go ahead with the abandonment, then the recommendation would be for their consideration. Even though the issue before the Council may be the abandonment, the setbacks are going to enter the issue as well. Since the abandonment is scheduled for the City Council, it would be in the City's best interest to make a recommendation on what we think the proper setback should be. 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Motion was made by Chairperson Selich that we recommend to City Council that if they go ahead and abandon the right -of -way then the zoning setbacks should be adjusted as follows: • The setbacks shall remain in place, as they are with the exception that there shall be ten -foot setback solely for the purpose of calculation of buildable area. Is there anything wrong with this? Ms. Wood answered that it appears that the setback varies from lot to lot. We might have to set each one individually on the Districting Map. Chairperson Selich stated that the idea is to maintain the status quo. If that is what is needed, then so be it. He clarified that the Commission has no recommending authority on the abandonment that is solely a Council decision. This way, the City Council will have something to consider in the way of setbacks on this issue. Commissioner Tucker clarified the motion. What the consequence would be is where the setbacks would fall today without the abandonment is where they could start to build with the abandonment. For purposes of floor area ratio it would be a ten -foot setback from the new property line. The consequences • would be that the profile of the house for those who live across Pacific Drive would be the same because the height limitation would stay the same because where the building could start would be the same. They could be bigger as they go down the hill; you might end up with more square footage on the downside. Ayes: Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Recused: Kiser Chairperson Selich explained that the Commission is not voting on the abandonment. What we have said here is, if the City Council approves the request to abandon the right -of -way our recommendation is that the all of the existing setbacks as they are presently, will remain in place on Pacific Drive. There will be no change to the existing setbacks. However, there will be a separate setback that will be established for the purposes only of calculating the buildable area of the lot. Physically, if this is approved, there will be no change in the street. The setback for the purpose of calculating buildable area will be ten feet. • 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3F • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement General Plan Amendment No. 96 -31', Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office /lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Senior Planner Campbell noted this application would involve the demolition of one large building and replacing it with two new high rise towers. He noted a change to the proposed Planned Community text is the need to amend • building footprint limit. The applicant proposed a limit of 141,500 square feet for a building less than four stories and this is amended to now be 200,000 square feet. The reason for this change is that the 141,500 square feet limit is basically the size of the existing building and they propose to add on. The EIR was done and pointed out air quality, noise and traffic impacts. There are mitigation measures proposed for these impacts, although some impacts remain significant and unavoidable. The consultant who prepared the EIR is here to answer any questions. The fiscal analysis should read a total of net revenue increase of an estimated 1,140, 200. Public comment was opened. Rich Bluth, Director of Facilities for Conexant made a presentation noting the following: • Conexant spun off from Rockwell, January 1, 1999. • Industry is experiencing a growth rate of almost 30%. • We are about a 2.2 billion - dollar company at this point in time. • Five primary businesses dedicated to five different facets of the communication business (cell phone, internet infrastructure, internet access through the PC, convergence of media and computer, and imaging). Largest facility is in Newport Beach. Proposed expansion construction will start with the parking structures; manufacturing building; additional office tower, and then the research and development tower. • 27 INDEX Item No. 5 GPA No. 96 -31' A 898 EIR No. 159 TS No. 110 DA • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 1 S, 2000 • Existing site is built out at 440,000 square feet and the proposed expansion will be for 566,000 square feet. • Parking is based on a growth of 2700 people, 1100 will be shift workers. • Project has a number of architectural aspects that address massing on Jamboree. The aesthetics of the parking structures will be appointed to keep it pleasing. • Traffic - Conexant analysis was based on a building occupancy of 20% greater than standard ITE office rates. (210 square feet per occupant) • Trip generation rates used in study are higher than multi- tenant office. • Worse case scenario was assumed for the case of the analysis. Two intersections identified (MacArthur /Jamboree and Irvine /Mesa) in the short-range analysis; mitigations have been identified for those with fair share fees of approximately $650,000. • Revenue - Conexant is number three in the City based on property tax for revenue. Net contribution just under one million dollars. Incremental revenue will add 1.1 million dollars to the City. • Industry is growing at a strong rate. This is our world headquarters. Robert Hawkins, Chairman of Environmental Quality Affairs Committee noted the following: • Rendering in staff report should be included in the EIR as part of the • project description. • Water quality and run -off. Conexant maintains that it goes into a closed basin, which has no discharge. What happens when basin fills up? Officials from Irvine Company indicate that there is some discharge. • EIR failed to incorporate portions of various reports, i.e., noise report. Chairperson Selich asked if there was any reason why these renderings could not be included in the final EIR? Staff answered no. Dr. Mark Sudall, consultant working with PCR, Services Corporation stated that his expertise is in water quality and the wetlands. He was asked to evaluate the basin to find an outlet to the structure. He walked the entire basin and did not find an outlet. He then called the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Board and talked to representatives of the EPA to talk about the basin and possible discharge. Additionally, there was no evidence of water rising up the side of the basin, therefore, I did not see anyway the water could get out of it. The basin is large enough to hold approximately 5 -Acre feet of water. It does not look like water has left the basin; it is not filling up with sediment or vegetation. The water is evaporating. At Commission inquiry, he answered that he would have to check the calculations of the runoff when this project is at full build out. Lauren Jue with PCR, stated that in comparing the existing and proposed site plans, there is not a significant difference in the run off, we believe it will be is about the same amount that is running off into this drainage area. We did not 28 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 do direct calculations relating to the quantity. Chairperson Selich asked assuming if the quantities are similar, is it within the best management practices to allow this situation to continue? He was answered that the applicant will incorporate into the design of their project, best management practices, both structural and non - structural. They will be in compliance with NPDES permit requirements, which are listed in the draft EIR. Chairperson Selich then requested calculations in the EIR to see if the basin can accept increased run off from the project and to assure that this project will not aggravate the situation beyond its present level. Commissioner Tucker stated that the Water Quality Control Board presented a letter where they ask for similar types of conditions on the project. I don't see where there will be a material increase. Hopefully, the suggestion would cover increases that were not material. Barry Eaton, also representing EQAC noted that the Irvine Company owns the basin and this is the last parcel transferred under the CIOSA Agreement. The City has more than a passing interest in that basin. The Irvine Company tells us that there is an outlet that runs into San Diego Creek, which is protected • wetland. Our concern was not the extra flow, but the fact that six layers of parking garage would add extra motor fuels, etc. as part of the flow. Continuing, he noted the following traffic concems that were not adequately answered in the responses to comments: • Traffic generation and parking was based on daytime shifts. There are five shifts altogether. Those may under represent future population, which is supposed to triple. We have never been told the breakdown of the shifts. • Regarding the revised traffic study - quite a difference which intersections became impacted between the first study and the second study. This was done due to substantial changes in base traffic counts between 1997 and 1999. Why were there such dramatic changes at Jamboree /MacArthur and Campus /Irvine and Bristol south? • Most of new employees are to be research and development. • Significant allocation to Jamboree /MacArthur, the TPO analysis should have included some of the intersections on MacArthur and Jamboree south of the freeway. No intersections were included other than Bristol South and Jamboree. Request that the TPO analysis to include at least a few of the intersections down Jamboree and MacArthur. • We think the EIR does not meet the CEQA requirements. The cumulative impacts have to include those projects, which have been underway. Dunes fits that category and it is not included in the cumulative analysis. • In the long -range analysis, it shows less traffic on Jamboree with the • project than without even though 5% of the total 2,700 new employees 29 `IIILI.7�:1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 is assigned to Jamboree. Jamboree and MacArthur is a Congestion Management Plan intersection. The City has to stay consistent with these standards on those intersections. The original traffic study calculated Conexant's fair share of the required improvements at that intersection at 48 %. The revised traffic study which used the TPO calculations show it as 25 %. Is that consistent with the Congestion Management Plan? The revised traffic study looked at mitigation at the several intersections that were affected that were not included in the first study. Commissioner Tucker noted the distribution and the TPO requiring the minimum of 5 %. The original traffic study showed only 1% on Jamboree and MacArthur and 101/o on Irvine. What is our concern about an expansion by the airport if it really does not affect the neighborhoods? What I am focusing on is the effect on where people live as opposed to out in the business area of the airport. The changes based on the different traffic counts at a different time are kind of off. Are you suggesting we should count again? Mr. Eaton answered that he does not know the answer. You normally don't see a 100% difference in two years. On the one leg of MacArthur and Jamboree it went up 100% in the morning and down 50% in the afternoon. The counts were • done differently, one by staff and one by consultant. Whether that makes the difference, I have no idea. Commissioner Tucker commented on the traffic model. There was a page in the new traffic study that talks about traffic modeling where they just don't overlay or add on to with a project. They re- distribute, that comes up with a totally different result that can not be matched up with anything. That is the uniqueness of the model, they are incomprehensible most of the time. The one issue on the basin is it seems that when a parking structure is added in place of a parking lot, you might end up with less pollutants as the only floor that is exposed to water is the top floor. This is the one that usually gets the least occupied. Why do you think adding more cars in a parking structure will create a situation where there will be more pollutants? Mr. Eaton answered because they get washed down. Chairperson Selich noted the first point of traffic study is based on the assumption of the shifts. If they were to change, then the validity of the traffic study could change, is this correct? Mr. Edmonston answered that there are two aspects. The rates do incorporate the shifts and when they were projected out, a straight office use was considered a worst case. The traffic study does include an analysis of a regular office and trip rate per person is more conservative for a regular office building. By using these office characteristics, we have done a worst case analysis that • would supercede any future changes in shifts. 30 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Mr. Eaton noted that EQAC is pointing out that it was not adjusted for the shifts. It was based on the employees who left the complex primarily from shift one and excluded all the other shifts. We do not know the extent of the problem because we have never been told the ratio of employees on the other shifts compared to shift one. Compared to the general office rate, it is more conservative because the proposal for 2700 employees is a dense population on the amount of square footage projected. At Commission inquiry, he added that more analysis should be done on the prospect that most of the new employees would be on shift one, whether that would affect the number or not. The ITE number is based on a curve of studies done nationwide, which show that the larger an office project is, the lower the generation is per employee. This should be done as a check against the analysis already done. Mr. Edmonston stated that it is being suggested to use the ITE average rate rather than the curve. Again, the consultant asked which way we ought to look at it, and I reviewed what was in the trip generation. I felt the equation was better suited to a project of this size. In fact an argument could be made based on a project of 566,000 square feet, really, it is a growth of a project from 400,000 to one million. This puts you further out onto the curve, where the trip rate would be less based upon the equation. We used the equation and a is conservative approach to using that equation. We can do an analysis based on the ITE rate. Mr. Eaton clarified that what staff could do was ask the consultant to look at the current percentage of the main shift employees where they based the projection numbers. As well as the percentage estimate to be of the main shift if they actually grew with the new 2700 employees. This would show why the percentages were so far apart based on the existing base number if still valid. Mr. Edmonston clarified that another way of saying this is that you would like a fuller explanation of shifts on the trip generation, how it was measured and how it impacts than the projection. He was answered yes. Chairperson Selich noted the second point was on the dramatic changes of the intersections. Mr. Edmonston answered that doing counts since the TPO was adopted twenty years ago, every time counts were done by either staff or consultants, there are some intersections that come up as anomalies. In the case of Jamboree and MacArthur, we did re -count the morning and it came back consistent with the original count. We tried to evaluate these counts. There is no count at the other intersection mentioned. We do try to provide some quality control and we will be doing our annual counts in the next couple of weeks and I have asked that these be re- counted. Numbers do change and sometimes it is hard to figure out which is the better number. In some cases, we have re- counted • an intersection two or three times in a year. It is hard to get numbers that 31 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 stabilize. There are certainly some daily variations. Mr. Eaton added that if additional counts were done, then obviously all the calculations would have to be re -done. I don't know if it is worth doing all that work over again. Commissioner Kranzley asked when the toll road opened and what impacts it would have on the traffic counts. Could that have an effect on the counts? Chairperson Selich noted the third point of the other intersections on Jamboree /MacArthur. Mr. Edmonston stated that typically for the TPO analysis, he pre - selects the intersections for the consultant to look at. We look to see that we extended for enough from the project. In this case, there was a 500% change, (a change from 1% to 5%). It might be argued that it should have been rounded to 0 rather than up to 5. I have not had a chance to do more than a cursory look at MacArthur /Bison, which is the next intersection down and the project numbers were less than 1 %. On the Jamboree /East Bluff North intersection, in one period they were less than 1% and in the other they were over the 1 %, threshold, but I did not have an opportunity to run an actual detail calculation to see if the ICU would have changed. Those are things we can do. The fourth point was on the cumulative impacts, in particular the Dunes. Mr. Edmonton explained that there were three analysis in the report. The TPO has committed projects and included the Dunes based on the 1998 Development Agreement. This is a larger project than what has been approved by the Planning Commission recently. In terms of the Dunes approval, the number went down in total generation and that would be true in the model as well. The Dunes by itself should not lead to anything that is not accounted for in both the TPO and the long range traffic study. The third analysis is a table that shows the cumulative intersection impacts of the reasonably foreseeable projects, and in the case of Conexant we have only Pacific Life and the Newport Country Club. By the time we re -did the traffic study, the Irvine Company and the Teachers' Credit Union had withdrawn from the project. That is the cumulative numbers, which is not the numbers that we based the mitigation upon. The cumulative is less than what we have in the traffic study. Commissioner Kranzley noted that in the March 2000 Traffic study there is a committed project list. It includes Hoag Hospital but does not include Banning Ranch. In the staff report, page 16, it talks about the traffic study done in March 2000- including Banning Ranch. I am confused. Mr. Edmonston answered that the difference is that Banning Ranch is in the is cumulative run based on the latest project. There is Banning Ranch in the long - 32 it, IDI • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 range model, but it is not in the TPO because it is not an actual approved project. Mr. Eaton added that the cumulative run was done for information purposes only, there was no analysis or mitigation measures done. The point on the Dunes was that the numbers are down, but the numbers in the original Dunes study did not show 507o all the way up Jamboree, where the new one does. That is why we thought Jamboree was affected. The cumulative table showed three of the four intersections on Jamboree south of Bristol as over the threshold. Something is triggering them over the threshold, we hoped you would ask to find out whether it was a combination of the Dunes and Conexant. Chairperson Selich asked that be checked into. Mr. Edmonston answered that he would have to go back to the model consultant. The long range analysis had the old Dunes in it and so for the model standpoint, the model used its own distribution rather than the 50% that was based on the TPO manual distribution. Mrs. Wood added that on the cumulative run, that it includes all the reasonably • foreseeable projects that we had applications for. Those numbers do not reflect any mitigation measures that would have been later applied to these projects to mitigate their traffic impacts. Mr. Edmonston, at Commission inquiry, noted that the long -range model assumes build out of the highway system in the city in terms of through lanes and turn lanes as best we can imagine they would be many years out. It also assumes build out of all the projects that are approved under the General Plan. In this case this project adds that 566,000, then there is an additional column that identifies that additional mitigation is needed, then we start looking at whether there are improvements above and beyond what we currently envision in the General Plan that could be constructed. It is in the cumulative run that we have added the Banning Ranch, Dunes, and the Koll projects. Much like in this project, there are additional mitigations that could be done that help mitigate the project. That same thing might be true for these other projects that are out there and yet to come before you. The sixth point was on the Congestion Management Plan and whether it is consistent with the 49% versus the 25% under the TPO analysis for the Fair Share fees. Mr. Edmonston answered that under the Congestion Management Plan an impact is defined for an intersection that is at LOS F or worse as this intersection was identified in the long range. In order for the project impact, the increase must be .10 (ten times what the City's threshold is). Based on the CMP • guidelines, there is no mitigation required at that intersection because this 33 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 project does not meet their significance criteria. Chairperson Selich thanked the EQAC members for their work and presentation. Public comment was opened. Ted Windham, 7349 White Oak Ridge, Orange stated that he is an employee in a nearby 8,000 square foot building by Conexant. He noted concerns in terms of building height, natural light blockage, vibrations and odors. His major concern is the mitigation measures of the extra traffic and the ingress and egress of the parking structures. Referencing the exhibit, he noted that he did not know how people were to gain access to Birch or Campus going north. He asked that the Commission take a serious look at the traffic. Doug Stucker, Public Affairs Director of Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce presented a resolution in support of this application noting that Conexant has been a tremendous community leader. Mike Noonan, 11313 Via Quinto as Vice President of the Orange County Business Council stated his support for this application. Our opportunity in Orange • County is to take businesses like Conexant and allow them to grow. It will be good for Newport Beach and for the Orange County economy. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked if there was additional information needed for the next meeting for staff to work on? Commissioner Tucker - no Commissioner Kranzley - no Commissioner Gifford - no Commissioner Ashley - clarify points brought up by Mr. Eaton and how this project will actually result in less traffic in surrounding intersections; and access off Birch to the parking structures. Commissioner Kiser - existing signage Commissioner McDaniel - no Chairperson Selich - no Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to the next meeting. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None • 34 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort 101 North Bayside Drive and 1131 Back Bay Drive • Development Agreement No. 12 Review of Development Agreement No. 12, attachments to Resolution 1519, and revisions to the Planned Community Development Plan for consistency with the final actions of Planning Commission on April 20, 2000, for the Newport Dunes Resort. Chairperson Selich asked for concerns of staff submittals: Commissioner Tucker - review guidelines were all incorporated into the document. Another iteration of the Development Agreement is considerably different than the one that we approved. That doesn't surprise me, but I didn't want to re -read the thing. (changes to the minutes were made regarding the indemnity, carve out, sole negligence, fraud) The Commission asked that the quality of construction issue come back to the Planning Commission. On the DA I suggest that we approve it based upon the last iteration we reviewed at • the last meeting plus the changes we included in the minutes and any other changes the City Attorney desires or deems appropriate between now and the time it is adopted by the council. Ms. Clauson noted that the discussion on the carve out and the language that the City Attorney has placed in there. The reasoning behind the gross negligence is there are provisions of law and case law that talk about losing an indemnification provision when you purport or can be argued to purport to require someone to indemnity you for your own negligence. Gross negligence is one of those provisions that the City Attorney is concerned about. Commissioner Tucker noted that the point in Section 5.2 is inconsistent with the design guidelines in terms of the Planning Commission being the one to decide if the final precise plan is consistent. There is a mechanism for the Planning Director and the City Manager, which needs to conform to intention of the Commission that this item come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kranzley noted that he had nothing to change in either the minutes or the conditions. Commissioner Gifford concurred with Commissioner Tucker's approach regarding the Development Agreement in its new format. Chairperson Selich stated he had nothing to add. • 35 INDEX Item No. 6 Newport Dunes DA No. 12 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Commissioner Ashley noted an amendment to the minutes as well as the following changes to the development Agreement: Page 22 of the DA regarding water quality, everything indicated that the operative date, not the effective date was to be used for the date of payments. • Page 23, Section 6.4 regarding marine education, the lessee contribution shall be dated within sixty days after the operative date. • Page 26, they have the operative paying 104 million dollars, it should be 10 million dollars. Commissioner Ashley will then forward to the City Attorney, stylistic changes he wishes to be made. Commissioner Kiser noted a change in the minutes regarding Condition 21 on page 52, which should read, ' ..mechanical equipment shall be located..: He then proceeded to talk about the wording on E -1 PC District Plan requirement changes. That particular paragraph only addresses the 65' height limit at the 5% and did not detail what would be on the third floor spaces that were still above the 38'. 1 was satisfied after talking with Mr. Gleason that in the Site Plan; we had a document that would detail that sufficiently. After looking at the plans that I was referred to that the Commissioners got were almost impossible to read. I would like to get the Site Plan to show what proportions and general percentages that we worked with through the various Power Point presentations from the applicant as being above certain height limits. I would like to be able to see that information presented in a more understandable manner in text rather than on the very small plans. Chairperson Selich asked if what is being said is that you can not read the plans because they are too small? He was answered yes. Mr. Alford added that what is attached to the report is a reduced version. There is a full set of scale plans that are in the project file in the Planning Department. In addition, some of the percentages presented in the previous hearings are part of the public records and can be used as part of the representation of what the project will actually be broken down in percentages of height. They are all consistent with each other. Commissioner McDaniel had nothing to add. Chairperson Selich deemed that the review was complete. He commented that the Mayor has requested that the Chairman make a 30- minute presentation at the Council meeting. This presentation will be circulated amongst the Commissioners for their review and comments will be welcomed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: • 36 INDEX Additional Business 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated that the Council has had ongoing discussions on a General Plan update. Staff has been directed to come back with a resolution appointing a committee to make recommendations on how to go about this including the public outreach, defining the scope of what the GP update might be. We will also be recommending that this committee carry on and monitor the update if the Council authorizes it. The committee is proposed to be comprised of three Councilmembers, three Planning Commissioners and one representative each from EQAC, EDC and the Aviation Committee. The Mayor will be naming the Council and Commissioner representatives Tuesday night. Chairperson Selich proposed that Commissioners Kranzley and Gifford and himself as they worked on the General Plan in the Newport Center. Chairperson Selich will contact the Commissioners. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. d.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford asked to be excused from the June 8th meeting. Commissioner Tucker noted that he might be late for that meeting. Commissioner Ashley then noted that he would not be seeking a re- appointment to the Commission. His last official meeting will be June 22nd. Chairperson Selich stated that he was sorry to hear that Commissioner Aslhey was not going to continue on the Commission. You will be sorely missed. ADJOURNMENT: 11:40 p.m. LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 37 11:1113 Adjournment