Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/2001CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. • is ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranbey- Commissioner Gifford was excused, all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of May 17.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker, and voted on, to approve the amended minutes of May 17, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 1, 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 SUBJECT: Orange County Council, Boy 1931 W. Coast Highway (Continued from 05- 03 -01) Use Permit No. 3681 A Use Permit for the expansion of the Boy Scouts of America Sea Base facility. The existing Sea Base consists of 9,943 square feet of office space, classrooms, storage, and a duty house that is located on 1.18 acres fronting Newport Harbor. The project involves the demolition of the existing 1,785 square foot duty house and a 490 square foot storage area. The new construction includes a two -story building for an office /classroom sailing building (8,092 sq. ft.) and a two -story rowing building (6,500 sq. ft.). The total building area will be increased from 9,943 square feet to a total of 22,060 square feet. Senior Planner James Campbell noted a correction to the view analysis in the staff report. He noted that the distance between the buildings is actually 248 feet where the buildings impinge the view. The resulting view obstruction would be a 43% diminishment of view and with the staff recommended alternatives in the present report moving the building to the west, it would be a 38% reduction in view. With the more dramatic design change as suggested, it would be a 19% reduction in view. • Public comment was opened. Mr. David Janes, 121 Harbor Island Road introduced the architect of the project and asked him to speak on behalf of the Boy Scouts. Mr. Larry Frapwell, Hill Partnership at 114 22nd Street, architect for the project noted the following: • Elevations - revised elevations address concerns raised at the last meeting with respect to the articulation of the building facing Coast Highway. We have attempted to do that through the articulation of the windows and the addition of an additional trellis and entry element. • Public views and building placements - subsequent to the previous meeting, we had continued to review the placement of the buildings on site and in contention is the 32 -foot separation for the proposed sailing building and the existing building. That space serves to allow access both physically and visually from the existing building to the Bay for use by the Scouts and the public. It was designed to function as a space for gathering /drop off. We do not support staff's recommendation to reduce the separation to 20 feet, we would suggest shifting the building approximately 5 feet west, reducing the space between the buildings to 27 feet. • Roof materials - proposed material is a galvanized metal finish and is similar in finish to the existing building and similar to a number of nearby commercial buildings. They are a good example of low reflective quality roof material after it has been exposed to the elements and to • weathering. 2 INDEX Item No. 1 Use Permit No. 3681 Approved . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 In conclusion, he noted that the project supports and enhances the public access to and use of the Bay. The project provides open and accessible space for both the Boy Scouts and public use for recreation and educational opportunities. We believe we have maintained a significant view corridor from Coast Highway. Herb Brownell, 1950 West Coast Highway across from the Sea Base. I have been there for over fifty years and have gradually seen the views cut. I wrote a letter to you regarding this issue. I am for scouting but I question the excessive expansion to accommodate other ancillary uses. I also am curious why the central building could not have been turned 90 degrees which would give a view over the top of the parking. As it is, it builds a fence over the view. Scott Brownell, 1950 West Coast Highway noted his support of the Sea Scout base. He asked why the two proposed structures are being kept separate. Why do they need to be separate? Looking at the proposed uses by the Chapman University and scouts, it will not happen at the same time. Therefore, you could combine the buildings and that would allow for a preservation of 80 to 90% public views. We are the only one directly impacted by the views as we are directly across the street. However, you have a mandate to maintain and protect public views to the Bay. • Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser asked Mr. Frapwell about the possibility of a ridgeline put in the roof on the new building. It would reduce the height by at least 5 feet. After reviewing the plans, I wonder if that is feasible? Public comment was opened. Mr. Frapwell answered that it is the intent to keep the low slope roof with a low plate height. We are well within the underlying zoning requirements for the site. There is no reason structurally that a ridge beam could not be put in there. It would mean additional expense in a redesign and the actual structural costs; it also might add to the construction costs. Chairperson Selich asked about the 248 feet between the buildings on site. Was the applicant ever requested to adhere to that and keep it as an open window? Staff answered no. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the demand specifications used to dimension the new building to the site. Mr. Janes answered that the Sea Base services three major clientele, scout youth, non -scout youth and adults. Last year we had nearly 28,000 people during the course of the year use some aspect of the Sea Base. As part of our plan, it is our 40 intention to expand the use of the Bay to a larger number of citizens of Orange 3 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 County. Currently we have three classrooms. When there are summer programs, the scouts are trained in the parking lots used as classrooms and that is not very satisfactory. We want to increase the classrooms and we want to increase the storage. As good citizens, we thought we ought to create proper storage inside, so a number of building areas are relegated to storage. On the site outside, we have rowing shells for Chapman College and they have been resident for some period of time. They use it at times that are complementary to scout use; we hope to store those shells inside. The college has been very gracious in committing to supporting our project in actual monies. Commissioner Agajanian asked, in the desire to expand the level of service at the site, is there some kind of break point for the facility size? Is there a level where you ended up with this size of a building, or could a smaller building or incremental approach be taken at this point? Mr. Janes answered that the programs we want to run on behalf of these three categories of people who use the base are expanding. When we finished our analysis of how to best use the base for the greatest good, that size of building was developed. With the types of programs intended for use, it will probably double the use of the base. The site could not handle more use. The biggest demand for use is by the schools. When children come in now, they are parked on Coast Highway and discharged to come into the base. That is very • unsatisfactory. Part of the plan was to tear down a building so that we can have two driveways accessing our property. A small building would limit the use of the site. We want to provide the greatest access by the greatest amount of citizens in the area. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley verified with the applicant that he would agree to a condition that would prohibit the movement of heavy construction equipment during peak a.m. and p.m. hours. Commissioner Tucker noted that the changes to the north elevation alleviate his concerns about what the back of the building would look like facing Coast Highway. He appreciates that the applicant is proposing to move the building west by 5 feet. It is a concern that blockage will occur, but the applicant did prepare a brief study of what it would look like if the building was re -oriented and I don't think the site plan functions quite as well. They are going to accommodate as many people as possible to enjoy the Bay. It is not a perfect solution, but it works. I would like to make a couple of changes. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the Negative Declaration and Use Permit No. 3681 with the findings and conditions attached in Exhibit 1 with the following changes: Condition of approval for Use Permit No. 3681 to read, 'Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan dated May • 3, 2001 and the Sailing and Rowing and existing building elevations dated May 4 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 15, 2001.' It was agreed to leave the word substantial in the sentence. Condition 19 shall have added, 'dying or dead plant material shall be replaced and bare spots shall be filled in with landscape materials.' Add condition that would limit heavy equipment during construction from coming on the site during peak a.m. (between 7 and 9) and p.m. hours (between 4 and 6). Ms. Wood added that the additional language regarding heavy equipment was to be added to condition 29. Commission to agreed this. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the motion. He noted that he has looked at the project and stated it is an excellent use of the location. However, he is concerned about the loss of the view shed adding that there is a trade -off between the additional intensity of use on the site and the taking away of public view shed. Commission Tucker added to condition one that the applicant indicated they were willing to move the building over 5 feet to the west, so the elevations we are talking about for the Sailing Building would show a 27 foot separation instead of a 32 feet separation. • Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford EXHIBIT "NO. 1" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3681 Mitigated Negative Declaration A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findinas: 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. Mitigation Measures adopted as Conditions of Approval: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the Planning Department that illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services, Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach • Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare, which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 4. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: (a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) (b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and (c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. 5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will . comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction 6 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 activities. 6. The project applicant shall . comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). During grading activities, a qualified archeologist /paleontologist shall be present to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archeologist /paleontologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. The cost of a recovery program shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. 8. Prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive provisions of AB952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 9. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10). is 10. The project's design and construction shall incorporate the recommendations in the geotechnical report dated March 22, 2000 prepared by Leighton and Associates. 11. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. 12. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall submit design plans to the City's Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that identified hazardous waste and /or hazardous materials are stored, handled and disposed of in compliance with state and federal guidelines, and as directed by the City's Fire Department. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval. The SWPPP shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill . prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, 7 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. 14. The project applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. 15. The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays or holidays. 16. Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of existing buildings), a construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which includes the construction staging and parking area, haul route, truck hauling operations, • construction traffic flagmen, and construction warning /directional signage. 17. Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of any existing buildings), final design of on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. Additionally, site access driveways shall be designed to meet sight distance requirements subject to review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. Landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. 18. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) for the site access driveways along the frontage of West Coast Highway. The existing drive approach shall be reconstructed and the new drive approach constructed to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards along the West Coast Highway frontage. 19. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a parking management plan to the Traffic Engineer for review and approval to ensure that adequate parking is available for participants, staff and special events at the Boy Scouts of America Sea Base facility. The parking management plan shall address bus parking and shall also describe the methods to be used to prevent traffic from stacking out onto West Coast Highway. . 20. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall R INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. 21. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department confirming availability of utility services to and from the site. B. Use Permit No. 3681: Findinas: The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designates the site for "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities' land use; and the proposed institutional facility is consistent within this designation. 2 The approval of Use Permit No. 3681 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 further, the use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Therefore, the proposed project will not be detrimental to surrounding properties for the following reasons: • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code, the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan and Design Framework. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed uses. • A Sea Base Parking Management Plan has been approved that will increase the efficiency of the site circulation and ensure that adequate parking is available for participants, staff, and attendees of special events. • 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. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation on the site is being provided with the proposed project. • No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. Conditions of Approval: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan dated May 3, 2001, and the Sailing and Rowing and existing building elevations dated May 15, 2001, except as noted below. The Sailing and Rowing building shall be moved rive feet further to the west. 9 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 2. A minimum of 40 parking spaces shall be provided on site. 3. The applicant shall submit revised plans to the Planning Department that indicate the minimum 10 -foot setback from the bulkhead line for the second floor deck and supporting columns on the water side 4. A detailed parking plan shall be submitted for approval by the Traffic Engineer. 5. The Sea Base Parking Management Plan shall be implemented during all operation of the facility and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director on an annual basis on the anniversary date of final occupancy. The Parking Management Plan shall include an annual reporting of class scheduling, car -pool incentive programs, van services, and staffing levels, as outlined in the approved Sea Base Parking Management Plan. 6. Construction workers shall park their vehicles and all equipment on site at all times. 7. All employees and visitors of the facility shall park either on site or off -site in • accordance with the Parking Management Plan. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. 9. All deliveries and storage shall be restricted to the site and shall not utilize any public rights -of -way. 10. Intersections of the private drives and West Coast Highway shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls, and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 11. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 12. The drive approaches along West Coast Highway shall be reconstructed to meet handicap standards and any displaced or deteriorated sections of curb, gutter or sidewalk along the Superior Avenue and Dana Road frontages shall be replaced, all under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. • 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 13. Public access easements, both vertical and horizontal, a minimum of 6 feet in width shall be provided from West Coast Highway to the bay and across the bay frontage of the site. The easements shall be recorded with County Recorder's Office prior to the sale of the lot to a private interest. 14. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct site hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments for approval. 16. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study (including groundwater data) to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments. The study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program subdrain system if deemed necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. 17. On -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system, or a fossil filter system, or other system of equal effectiveness designed to filter and clean on -site drainage to meet water quality standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the NPDES requirements shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay and shall be approved by the Public Works, General Services and Building Departments. 18. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall be approved by the General Services Department, the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. Prior to occupancy of the buildings, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 19. The landscaping shall be regularly maintained and shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Dying or dead plant material shall be replaced and bare spots shag be filled in with landscape materials. 20. The proposed project shall be approved by the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 0 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 21. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. Standard Requirements 22. The project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 23. All mechanical equipment, including rooftop mechanical equipment, shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building materials and noise associated with the equipment shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance. 24. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. • 25. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 26. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 27. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 28. Each building shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 29. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department for the removal of all construction materials, excavated dirt and debris from the site. During constructfon, heavy equipment will not come on to or exit the site during peak a.m. (between 7 and 9) and p.m. (between 4 and 6) hours. • 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 30. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 31. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 32. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and related structures shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 33. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. The mitigation measures identified in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of Use Permit No. 3681, are required as part of and incorporated herein as a condition of approval and shall be implemented and completed prior to final occupancy of any building for the proposed use. SUBJECT: Newport Riverboat Restaurant 151 East Coast Highway (Continued from 05- 17 -01) • Use Permit No. 3684 A request to permit outdoor dining in conjunction with the operation of an existing full- service restaurant /museum facility. The specific request includes; use of the bow and stern decks for Saturday and Sunday brunch; use of the bow deck adjacent to the Texas room in conjunction with a specified number of annual special events and private parties, and no outdoor music is proposed. Public comment was opened. Mr. Anthony Pesci, 19 Skygate, Aliso Viejo, at Commission inquiry, stated he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of Use Permit No. 3684. Steve Sheldon, 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 410, Costa Mesa, attorney is 13 INDEX Item No. 2 Use Permit No. 3684 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 representing various homeowners on Linda Isle regarding this project. He stated that after the City Council had remanded this matter back to the Planning Commission, he had an opportunity to work with the applicant to work out issues that the homeowners had with this application. He stated that the following items have been discussed with the applicant and asked that these be incorporated: • Condition 4 regarding ropes to be used at all times to prohibit activity on the bow deck and signed with, 'no entry' as well as when there is activity on the third floor of the boat. • An additional condition regarding signage over the double doors from the Texas room to the bow deck stating, 'emergency exit only' and 'doors to remain closed during business hours'. • No music allowed outside during special events even with Special Event Permits along with no activity on the bow deck. This is distinguished from the December to January timeframe when the applicant puts a tarp /tent up and has activity on the bow deck. • Limit the temporary use permit to January 30, 2002. Mr. Sheldon clarified that when the Texas room is being used, if it is less than 60 people, the canvas does not go up. When the canvas is up, the ropes automatically go up as well. When the canvas does not go up, we would like to have the ropes also go up to prohibit activity on the bow deck. Staff agreed that these additional items pose no problems. Mr. Sheldon noted that the Special Event Permit allows for a canvas to be put up and a buffet table to be put up, but not for tables to be put outside for dining activity. We want to be sure that the activity allowed during the Christmas holiday, tables and parties outside, is not extended to the Special Event Permit aspect, which is during the non - holiday time. Commissioner Kiser noted that condition 27 has to deal with live entertainment to be confined to the interior of the restaurant. Condition 7 allows music permitted within the interior of the Texas Deck. Is this to do with the restaurant downstairs, or the enclosed portion of the Texas Deck? Mr. Sheldon answered that there is no live entertainment allowed on the Texas Deck and the language of condition 27 applies to the restaurant downstairs. Following a brief discussion, it was decided to add language to condition 7, '...Any music or live entertainment ...' and to condition 27, '....and amplified music. Mr. Sheldon added that condition 7 should be modified so that no music or live entertainment shall be permitted on either the bow or stern decks. Wayne Egeleston, Executive Director of Newport Harbor Nautical Museum at 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach isPlanning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 151 East Coast Highway noted his endorsement of the proposal as written. He added that there never was any intent to have music on either the stern deck or the bow deck even with a Special Events Permit. We agree that ropes should be put from the building to the railing to encourage people to go to the stern deck for smoking, etc. We agree to a temporary use if the Planning Commission desires. We ask that condition 22 be clarified to refer to Texas Deck without a Special Events Permit. In conclusion, he noted that the neighbors and he have worked very hard on this application. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the additional restriction on condition 27 is not something he would support. As a member of an organization that uses the restaurant, a microphone system is necessary to hear what is going on. Even with the windows open that do not face the narrowest portion of the channel, a speaker's voice on a microphone is not going to impact the neighbors. I concur about the live entertainment issue. Mr. Sheldon noted the support of the applicant's request for dancing in condition 22 and recognized the spirit of compromise on working out the issues. Mr. Pesci noted his agreement to all the suggestions made. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked why a separate use permit was not done for the upper decks? He was answered that from a departmental operation standpoint it is best to amend the existing use permit. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Use Permit No. 3684 with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 1 with the following changes: • Add suggested condition on roping off the upper deck area. • Add a condition on signing the doors to be closed. • Condition 22 be modified to refer to Texas Deck only. • Add a condition on the Special Events Permit that there be no music or activity permitted on the bow or stern decks. • The Use Permit come back to the Planning Commission for review 01/30/2002 for only those conditions related to the operations of the bow and stern deck. Commissioner Kiser noted that condition 18 should be stricken as it duplicates condition 2. The approved site plan and floor plan was'attached to a previous staff report and has not changed. Condition 7 add, or five entertainment. Condition 26 add, and amplified music. The maker of the motion accepted these amendments to the motion. 0 15 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Gifford EXHIBIT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3684 Findings: 2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designates the site for "Recreation and Marine Commercial" land use; and the existing restaurant is a permitted use within this designation. 3. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3684, 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 would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: a. The proposed use of the 'Texas Deck" and exterior deck area is limited and controlled to reduce general activity, noise and lighting by the conditions of approval. These conditions and restrictions should mitigate adverse impacts to nearby residences. b. The existing on -site parking and circulation system is adequate to accommodate the proposed exterior areas and are not located so as to result in a reduction of existing parking spaces. c. The proposal will not add a new liquor license to an over - concentrated area, providing only for the operational change of an existing restaurant with an existing alcoholic beverage license. d. 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. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 0 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 2. All conditions of Use Permit No. 3551 shall remain in effect, except as related to the use of the third level. 3. Use of the exterior bow deck shall be limited to the erection and use of a buffet table when a function inside "the Texas Deck" exceeds 60 people. No table service shall be permitted whatsoever on the exterior bow deck except as permitted during the Holiday Event Period (December IIt through and January 5th of each year). Service of food and beverages, table service and seating may be permitted on the exterior stern deck. 4. When an event requires the erection of a buffet table on the exterior bow deck, a 6 -foot high canvas visual barrier shall be erected and maintained a in a semicircular manner around the buffet table between the buffet table area and nearby residences. Restaurant management shall make reasonable efforts to keep the exterior doors of the'Texas Deck" (third floor banquet room) closed after the service of food is completed. Appropriate signs will be placed indicating that bar service (if provided) or table seating (if provided) is located on the exterior stern deck. A rope shall be placed at the canvas openings to direct customers to stern and away from bow area. The location of the canvas screen, ropes shall be subject to the review and prior approval by the by the Fire Department. Under no circumstances shall the canvas screen or ropes restrict fire safety or exiting requirements as • determined by the Fire Department. The canvas screen shall be made of a fire resistive material approved by the Fire Department. 5. The erection and use of a bar or the service of beverages, including alcoholic beverages, shall be prohibited on the bow deck. The erection and use of a bar or the service of beverages, including alcoholic beverages, may be permitted on stern deck (nearest the highway). 6. The use of either the bow or stern exterior decks shall be prohibited between 10:00PM and 10:00AM daily. No music or live entertainment shall be permitted on either the bow or stem ex#erieF decks and shat! not be permitted with a Special Event Permit. Music is only permitted within the interior of the'Texas Deck" provided it is non - amplified. Any music or live entertainment and the use of a microphone (with amplification) within the Texas Deck premises shall cease at 8:30PM, Sunday through Thursday and 10:00PM Friday and Saturday. No more than 25 events per year shall have music except during the Holiday Event Period. 8. During the Holiday Event Period, the exterior bow deck may be used for table service, food and beverage service and banquets. The hours of operation of events on the exterior bow deck shall be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. A tent with vinyl or canvas siding or similar canopy may be erected upon the deck provided it meets with the prior approval of the Fire 0 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach isPlanning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Department. INDEX 9. No amplified music, outside paging system or speaker system is permitted on any exterior area of the project site at any time. 10. No exterior lighting is permitted on the third level bow deck area. Exterior lighting of the stern deck is permitted provided that no glare is generated that effects nearby residential properties. Lighting shall be subject to the prior approval of the Planning Director and lighting may be modified, reduced or eliminated to ensure that excessive light or glare affecting surrounding properties is minimized. 11. A Live Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Division, in accordance With procedures set forth in Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, shall be required to allow live entertainment as incidental and accessory to the primary use of the facility as a restaurant. 12. A Special Event Permit, issued by the Community Services Department and approved by the Police Department and Planning Department, shall be required for any activity or event outside the normal operating characteristics of the Riverboat Restaurant, Nautical Museum or inconsistent with this use permit. A Special Event Permit application shall be completed and submitted to the Community Services Department at least 30 days prior to the date of any event to allow adequate time for review of the application and to impose additional conditions of approval if necessary. 13. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from the view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 14. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors, which may include the provision of fully self- contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 15. Storage outside of the facility shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure and existing storage structures. 16. For Special Event activities, coverings shall be limited to the use of umbrellas, retractable awnings, or Fire Department approved temporary tents, with a minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet measured from the floor of the dining area to the lowest portion of the shade structure. The use of solid, permanent roof coverings or patio covers shall be prohibited. 18 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 17. All employees shall park within the parking areas provided on site. 18. Should problems arise with regard to noise associated with the outdoor deck areas, the Planning Director reserves the right to require the elimination of any use of exterior deck areas that contribute to the noise problems or complaints. 19. 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 the leasing company. 20. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the live entertainment or the outdoor dining activities to insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Planning Director. 21. Dancing shall be prohibited on exterior deck areas and may be permitted ith "R the "R494l. Gf the h :'414 iR GOF�URGfi9R Y#h 9 C..eei d E-yentq PAR;* within the Texas Deck only. is 22. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 23. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 24. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Newport Beach Municipal Code, Building Department and Public Works Department requirements. 25. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 26. The live entertainment and amplified music shall be confined to the interior of the restaurant and all doors and windows of the establishment shall remain closed during all performances, except when persons enter and leave by the main entrance of the facility or to the outdoor dining area. 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 that provides, in part, that the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods. • 19 INDEX 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7.2001 Measured at the property line of Commercially zoned property: Measured at the property line of Residentially zoned Drooertv: Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 65 dBA Dr. :: Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 60 dBA 50 dBA 27. 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. 28. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 29. A sign shall be installed within the Texas Deck over the door to the bow deck that reads, "Emergency Doors Only, Doors to Remain Closed During Regular Business Hours." 30. Access to the third level bow deck shall be restricted during the use of the Texas Deck. A theater style rope shall be placed at the southern end of Texas Deck between the safety railing and the exterior wall of the Texas Deck. A sign on the rope that faces north shall be installed that reads, "No Access." In no event shall the ropes restrict fire safety or exiting requirements as determined by the Fire Department. 31. This Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission by January 30, 2002 regarding the use of the entire third level of the Pride of Newport and the effectiveness of the operational restrictions and conditions of approval. SUBJECT: Koll Office Site B GPA and PC Amendment MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road (Continued from 4 -5 -01) • General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (B) • Amendment No. 905 • Traffic Study No. 119 • Environmental Impact Report No. 158 • Development Agreement No. 16 Review of a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to allow an additional 250,000 gross square feet of office use within Office Site B of the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community. The amendments will provide for the construction of a ten -story office tower. 20 11111 Item No. 3 GPA 97 -3(B) A No. 905 TS No. 119 EIR No. 158 DA No. 16 Recommended for approval to City Council 40 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Chairperson Selich noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to negotiate a development agreement with the City, which has been going on since September 2000. We have had a number of hearings and study sessions on this project and have thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and other related documents. We are picking up where we left off about a year ago with the applicant now having a Development Agreement before us. Mr. Larry Lawrence, consultant for the City, gave a brief summary on the Development Agreement and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Development Agreement is attached to the staff report and provides certain benefits to the City to mitigate the impacts of the project. These requirements could not be imposed on the project absent such an Agreement. An example of the benefits include • The payment by the developer to the City of traffic mitigation fee of $8 per square foot of additional entitlement. (2 million dollars to fund long - range traffic improvements to intersections and roadways impacted by the project). In return for that, the developer gains a vested right to develop the property under the General Plan and Zoning Amendments without future reduction of intensity and with no future increases in project fees or land dedication requirements. • The Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant unavoidable impacts in air quality and traffic at intersections at MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road and Jamboree /Campus Drive. These are cumulative impacts that are increased by the project that are significant and unavoidable. If the project is approved, a draft statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and attached to the staff report. The statement identifies certain benefits of the project, which can be deemed to override those unavoidable impacts. Per State law, this statement must be included as part of any approval of the project. Because of the significant project benefits, staff has prepared a draft Commission resolution recommending approval of the project. Because of impacts, staff has also prepared a resolution recommending denial. Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 9 of the staff report, asked about the grade separation and the significant costs. Mr. Edmonston answered that there were two potential mitigation measures identified. The grade separation, which staff had a preliminary design performed and rough estimates in the 15 to 20 million - dollar range, was the project that was considered infeasible due to costs. The second alternate mitigation that was identified was adding a fourth southbound lane on Jamboree from East or North of the MacArthur intersection continuing south over the freeway and ending at Bristol Street south. The fourth lane would be added and continue south on Jamboree over the 73 Freeway dropping at • Bristol South. We have applied for funds from OCTA to do more detailed 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 preliminary engineering and environmental planning. Those funds would not be received until the fiscal year 2004 -2005. With the pending General Plan update we will analyze that before that time, but currently this is the schedule. Ms. Temple added that she had received a query on how the approval of this project could potentially impact the processing of the Conexant project with its accompanying EIR and Traffic Study. The approval of a significant project of this nature would affect the potential future processing of Conexant because the environmental setting will have changed because of the approval. Additionally, the age of the analysis in the documents has gotten to the point where updating and bringing them up to whatever time frame the project starts to move would be required. Staff believes it is likely that the EIR would need to be re- drafted, not totally, but probably the traffic study itself would need to be updated to current data and certainly a new cumulative impact analysis would have to be done for that project, which would include this project as a reasonably foreseeable future project. That would then require a recirculation of the EIR and a new review period. Getting this project out in front of potential consideration of Conexant will change the situation for their processing. Public comment was opened. . Tim Strader, 3801 Inlet Isle, partner of the Koll Center, the owner of this particular property. One other thing has happened since September of last year and that is the passage of the Greenlight Initiative and the adoption of Greenlight Guidelines by the City Council. We have attempted through the Development Agreement to respond to the issues raised by this Initiative to provide additional fees to the City in the amount of 2 million dollars plus $112,000 for a planning study in the airport area and another $60,000 for a fire station in the airport area. In addition to the fees that were originally contemplated by the City, our fees will be in excess of 3.8 million dollars to assist the City in ameliorating whatever problems exist. The other point I would make is the traffic at the airport is a regional issue that involves other cities and will involve the necessity of the City of Newport Beach taking a leading role to identify the solutions. Again, this 2 million dollars will give the City this opportunity. We believe this project will be a solution to the traffic issues at the airport, because if the project is not approved, the City would not get the 2 million dollars that it can use towards a solution. He then referred to a three - dimensional model for review by the Planning Commission and noted that the architect, Mr. Pat Allen was present to answer any questions. He stated that he has reviewed the staff report and the Development Agreement and is in agreement with them. Barry Eaton, 727 Bells Street spoke as the Chairman of the Koll sub - committee of EQAC. You have a copy of our comments in writing. I noted that we have consistently participated in the environmental process for this project commenting on the NOP and EIR and responses to our comments. A couple • of new comments we would like to make on the recent Development 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Agreement are: • Reversal of order of Conexant and Koll Center - the burden now falls on the Conexant project to look at those cumulative impacts that were to have been addressed by Koll Center. • The Koll Development Agreement becomes the precedent setting agreement. The traffic fee set and agreed to by the City specifies $8 a square foot instead of $10 as set by the Conexant project. There is no public record why that changed. • The EIR for Koll stated that if the fire station on the airport closed, that would be a significant impact. That station has closed. The City has opened its own fire station at Santa Ana Heights and yet the City's position with regard to Conexant was that their contribution ought to be $500,000. That has been reduced to $60,000 for Koll, which even taking into account the difference in the size of the projects is still a 76% reduction. We think this ought to be established in the record why that happened. • The EIR did note a temporary but significant impact, which was the dislocation of the existing parking when the construction is under way. That can be up to 700 parking spaces. The Mitigation provided stated it would provide an interim parking plan and we do not think that meets the requirements of CEQA. The Commission ought to have some say on how this problem is to be solved. . Chairperson Selich, noting that he had worked on the Development Agreement committee, answered that the $10 a square foot for Conexant was a staged fee over time in the future. It was never resolved as to what it was going to be, they were looking at 60 months and we were looking at 24 months to pay that fee. The $8 a foot was arrived at by net present value of the far end of the Conexant timing; we far exceed in net present dollars with what we are getting from Koll. It is a more advantageous amount of money for us because it is a one -time payment fee. In terms of the fire station fee, that was still somewhat a moving target in the negotiations. I don't think we ever finally resolved from the negotiating committee's standpoint, the final fee for Conexant. Commissioner Tucker, noting that he also had worked on the Development Agreement committee, added that on the fire fee it wasn't that Koll was paying too little; it was that Conexant had offered a lot more as part of its incentive. The Koll number is probably closer. On the development fee it was a duty of Koll to pay it all, while under the agreement with Conexant it was predicated upon the City adopting a program by the airport that had an actual fee amount; in order to adopt the program we had to figure out what the improvements were going to be and do it within a time frame. We wanted it to be a five -year time frame; Conexant wanted a three -year time frame. We felt it could not be done within three years and whether we could get it done at all was in question. Therefore, the $10 fee may never have been paid. The Koll arrangement was for less, but when they pull a building permit, • whether or not we ever did adopt a program, the money would be due and 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 the City would have it for future purposes. I was personally strongly in favor of cash now, rather than cash later. The real issue is what Koll is offering to pay is a fair amount and what Conexant was offering to pay was further incentive. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker noted that during the meeting of September 7}h, 2000 in the minutes he had asked about getting more specificity in the project documents concerning the design of the parking structure at Jamboree /MacArthur. The response to his comment from Mr. Lawrence then was, 'That we were still at a non - project specific level and this had to do with some wording in the PC text. The plans you see are conceptual; we have added provisions requiring mitigation of the structures. We could probably add a sentence that would say that the parking structure would have to substantially follow the existing surface grade that is out there now.' I see the PC text includes this in the fourth bullet. Mr. Lawrence added that there is an added sentence that states that new parking structures in that Site shall be submitted by the developer to the Planning Commission for discretionary review and approval. Commissioner Tucker indicated that satisfied his concern at the earlier hearing. . He then noted that we went through this project in detail. We did not find a basis at that time for a State of Overriding Considerations for a couple of traffic impacts. The applicant has come back and negotiated a Development Agreement and is offering to put up a substantial amount of money to address these issues. I feel at this point that the applicant has carried the burden to attract my vote. I have never had a problem with the project; it was just that the project needed to help remedy any of its impacts. They have done that so I will make a motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker that the Planning Commission adopt: Resolution No. 1530 recommending City Council approval of Traffic Study No. 119, and Resolution No. 1531 recommending City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 158; Resolution No. 1532, recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 97 -3(B), Zoning Amendment 905, and Development Agreement No. 16. PC text page 3, delete the word, 'discretionary'. Commissioner Kranzley commended both Chairperson Selich and Commissioner Tucker on the work they did to get the Development Agreement done. It was significant and important to the City of Newport Beach. Chairperson Selich noted that in the Mitigation Measures we are requiring the • developer to make some significant pro -rata contributions to traffic 24 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 improvements to the City of Irvine. Has the City of Irvine ever required one of their developers to make improvements on streets they are impacting in Newport Beach? Ms. Temple answered that when the City of Irvine approved the Bonita Canyon Planned Community project, they did contribute to the improvement at Jamboree /Bison Road intersection. It was approximately $15,000 to $20,000. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Coastal Bluff Development Policy (Approved & forwarded to City Council from 04 -05 -01 Planning Commission Meeting) (Referred back to Planning Commission for further review and revision from 04 -24 -01 City Council Meeting) . Amendment No. 908 Consideration of several options to implement coastal bluff development • regulations and procedures with the intent to implement the policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Ms. Temple noted that this staff report is presented as a discussion document with no suggested action at this time. Staff is looking for guidance from the Planning Commission whether or how to proceed with this item. Chairperson Selich stated that the Planning Commission recommended a zoning amendment to the City Council. The City Council did not feel comfortable moving ahead with that amendment. They felt that the houses under consideration were not enough of a threat to move this through quickly without going back and carefully determining some criteria and they referred it back to the Planning Commission for additional discussion and study. This is not a public hearing on the Zoning Amendment; it is a Planning Commission discussion on the criteria that staff has presented for us on various ways to analyze this. We are not going to be taking any action on this tonight. I would say that my feeling on this after reading the staff report is that it is an issue that we have pointed out to the City Council that we have ourselves a conflict between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. What comes first, and how do we get this resolved? We can do it one of two ways. We can form a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to deal with this and do further analysis. The other way to deal with it is to incorporate it into the General Plan study that we are doing right now. We have a major effort underway and it would be my preference to deal with it through the General Plan and the amendment to the Coastal Plan and try to get this policy and criteria clarified through that process. There would probably be • more discussion than if we just did it through a Planning Commission 25 INDEX Rem No. 4 Amendment No. 908 Referred to General Plan Update Committee for study • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 subcommittee. I am open to hearing comments from the Commission and then we can open it up for comments from the public. Commissioner Kranzley noted that he shares a seat on the General Plan committee and concurs with the previous statement that this is best taken up by that committee. Commissioner Tucker noted his appreciation of the work done by staff. It does not appear that you can do both things, preserve the bluffs and still have the property rights position. As I stated at the meeting of April 5th, the Planning Commission is not part of the City that sets policy. The Planning Commission follows the policies set by the City Council. I too support having it addressed in the General Plan update context because there are three City Council members on that committee. For the people who are concerned about the bluffs, applications have to go through the Coastal Commission, which also has a policy concerning bluffs. The issue is not going to go unaddressed. With respect to variance requests that come to this Commission, we do at that point get involved in using our discretion and there is a policy. We compare the variance request against the policies in the City's General Plan. I concur with the suggestion of the Chairman. Chairperson Selich stated that he watched the tape of the City Council meeting. • After watching the tape, the distinct impression that I got was that the so- called projects that we thought were critical and put this conflict in jeopardy to the point that it ought to be resolved, that the City Council did not share that opinion. They felt those projects should go to the Coastal Commission. The City Council wants to take a slower deliberate approach to this and come up with criteria. It is not to say it was important or not, they felt we did not have to rush this to deal with those particular applications that were going through. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Agajanian noted that he has reviewed the material and is willing to carry on the discussion as he has a number of points. If the consensus is to put this into the General Plan update committee or into a sub - committee, I will not bring them up tonight. I will leave it to the Chairman. Commissioner Kiser noted that this issue is of some urgency. I too watched the tape of the City Council meeting. There is a fairly strong consensus to not have any overlay as we proposed. I would like to spend some time on this and send something better to the Council for their consideration but I think it would be a waste of time. I agree that we should send this to the General Plan update committee. Commissioner McDaniel noted that if we are directed to, we should take on some of these issues, but I don't believe this evening it is appropriate. Chairperson Selich noted that the Commission will refer this issue to the General Plan update committee for incorporation into their studies. Any comments the • public may have may be better served being addressed through the City's 26 INDEX iiij City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 General Plan process than here tonight. Public comment was opened. Mr. Bob Wynn, 1601 Dove Street stated he has read the staff report especially listing the priorities and considering criteria. I think that there should be a high priority to the public view aspect. I would like to see the view plane that is currently in existence on Ocean Boulevard extended around Carnation to the extent of Seaview Drive. To do that by reducing the roof height to the curb level, you will probably have to permit additional 'cascading' down the bluff for property owners to build. The public view from the top is more valuable than a view from the ocean or the beach looking up on the bluffs. With respect to the Coastal Commission's desire to preserve the bluffs, I believe that if regulations were adopted imposing a curb top height on Carnation, I think it may be possible. As a trade off, the Coastal Commission may give up a preservation of the bluff at that area for a public view as we now have on Ocean Boulevard. Jay Cowan, Breakers Drive stated he has read the report. He noted that there is an area at least ten miles of bluffs, cliffs and slopes. When you take over Newport Coast, you will be adding another ten miles of bluffs. This is private property you are talking about and by reducing the buildable area, you reduce the value of the property. How do you measure the property on the bluff? This would need to • be clarified; how high is a story, we need clarification. Ken Moore, 210 Carnation noted that staff has done a great job in the staff report. I am disappointed that this is going to be relegated to more committee work. I wish you would re -think this. I live directly across the street from the Carnation bluff and we are still trying to figure out how it changed from R -2 to Multi- Family. The 200 block of Carnation is a new G -3 policy street. G -3 deals exclusively with public views and there are only five of these designations in the City of Newport Beach. The City allowed us to remove all parkway trees, which blocked views. The City is going to require sidewalks across the street. The message sent by the City is to adhere to Chapter 20.55 of the Municipal Code. I wish you would take this under consideration tonight. Robert Wachlea of Corona del Mar noted his appreciation of the efforts made so far by the Planning Commission. Time is of the essence unless there is a moratorium enacted on construction on the Ocean Boulevard bluff, which is my primary interest. He then noted several opinions about the size and quantity of buildings in his neighborhood. He thanked the Commission for their efforts on the public's behalf. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to refer the staff report presented this evening to the City's General Plan Advisory Committee with the recommendation that these issues be incorporated into the upcoming General • Plan study with the end result a clarification of what the City's bluff top policy 27 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 and implementation measures would be. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Kronzley, Tucker Abstain: Kiser Noes: None Absent: Gifford ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Mrs. Wood noted that at the City Council meeting of May 22nd, there was a report on the entitlement status of the Newport Village site, Council has initiated a General Plan Amendment and amendment to the Newport Village Planned Community District Regulations to allow for a passive view park and improvements for a park and library parking. 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.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. e.) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Chairperson Selich noted that the report titled, 'State of the City and Key Choices' is being reviewed. It will be put out as a document for the visioning process and the state of the City, planning issues and how they are presented as key choices in terms of tourism, traffic, intersections, etc. f.) Status report on Planning Commission requests - an updated chart notes that item 3, the business owner is submitting an application for a modification permit for the replacement of the roof sign; item 7, PROP has recommended the removal of the ficus trees on Main Street and a new tree designation of 'Coral Gum' will go the PB and R Commission on July 3rd; item 10 we can report the sign survey is 90% complete and are starting a wait list for the incentive program to amortize the signs pending approval by the City Council. We are doing a pilot program with the Portofino Beach Hotel and Renato restaurant, which is funded at $6500. Staff is preparing the guidelines for the amortization program to commence in July 2001. g.) Project status - none. • h.) Requests for excused absences - none and it was determined that the 28 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 meeting on July 5m Will be held as everyone is planning on being in attendance. ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 p.m. STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION E • 29 INDEX Adjournment