Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 21 "file:HN:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - All present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Catherine Wolcott, Contract City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager George Berger, Program Manager Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on June 3, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 19, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as corrected. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Barry Saywitz Residence (PA2005 -085) ITEM NO. 2 5005 River Avenue PA2005 -085 ppeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Condominium Conversion No. 2005 Continued to 04, Parcel Map 2005 -021 and Modification Permit No. 2005 -042. The applications 06/23/2005 "file:HN:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 2 of 21 would authorize the conversion of an existing duplex into a two -unit condominium complex allowing individual sale of each unit. Also included in the application is a request for a modification to the Zoning Code to allow the installation of a partition wall to establish two single -car garage parking spaces with substandard width. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next hearing on June 23rd to allow him time to work with his architect and structural engineer. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to June 23, 2005. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: The Patina Group (Orange County Museum of Art) PA2005 -086 ITEM NO. 3 850 San Clemente Drive PA2005 -086 Request for approval of a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance Approved ABO) to permit the sale and service of beer and wine for on -site consumption at an existing cafe located within the Orange County Museum of Art. The cafe is a permitted accessory use to the museum. Public comment was opened. At Commissioner Hawkins' inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the use permit runs with the land. Approval of the use permit is not issued to any individual applicant, it becomes a part of the property right for the property and the property owner. If the operator leaves, the property owner would then have the opportunity to seek a new operator who would be willing to operate under the same conditions of approval. Alex Woo, staff member of the American Liquor License Board, at Commission inquiry, noted that they have read and agree to all the conditions and findings in the staff report. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Use Permit 2005 -017 subject to he findings and conditions of approval included in the staff report. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Eddie V's Wildfish Restaurant (PA2005 -036) ITEM NO.4 1370 Bison Avenue PA2005 -036 Approval for the operation of a new restaurant and to allow the restaurant to operate Approved with a Type "47" On -Sale General Eating Place license, pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) Ordinance license. " file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 3 of 21 osalinh Ung, Associate Planner, referenced correspondence from Mr. Lewis Jacks' presenting Islands Restaurant. He expressed his concern with the parking at tl inter, mainly during the weekday lunch hours. The Irvine Company, in response is letter, forwarded a response to staff dated June 9th clarifying the concerns ai sues raised by Mr. Jackson. As a result of these concerns, the applicant is proposii valet parking management plan to resolve any potential parking shortfall during thi )urs of operation. Because of the timing, the applicant is asking that this requireme a condition of approval, therefore, staff has proposed a revised resolution for tl ommission to consider if they approve the application tonight with that condition. hairperson Tucker noted that this project was part of the Bonita Canyon area tF as annexed from the City of Irvine into the City of Newport Beach. He asked staff view the zoning that was inherited and what authority the Commission has to de ith the parking issue. Temple stated: . This area came to us as a detachment of municipal area from the City of and annexed to the City of Newport Beach. . The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine were working on regularization of boundaries upon the completion of State Route 73, The San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. . The site had been fully entitled with general plan zoning, environmental and approval by the City of Irvine. . The principal property owner, The Irvine Company, was willing to agree to detachment and annexation upon the approval by the City of an Annexation Development Agreement. . There were several items critical to the property owner in terms of this parti( issue, a commitment to utilize the zoning and development standards of the of Irvine, under which the project had been entitled such as height Iii setbacks and parking requirements. . The zoning adopted was a new Planned Community Text written to be consist( with the City of Irvine's Zoning Code and the 'in place' approvals. For tl particular use, the requirement was 1 parking space for every 75 square feet gross -floor area for restaurant plus 1 parking space for every 100 square feet 'fast food' restaurant, and theh a normal retail requirement. . The Planning Commission reviewed the site plan for this project and a group Permit for several of the smaller eating and drinking establishments within center. . The City of Irvine's parking codes require a substantial number of spaces rr than what our Code would have required under the circumstances, even with high number of restaurants in the center. . The project was approved by the City with the relative proportions of restar, the group use permit for the smaller establishments and the overall site plan. "fileJM:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 4 of 21 . At the time of submission of building permits, The Irvine Company requested modification to the development plan, that was reviewed by the Plannii Commission, that actually added an additional parking pool beyond what was the original approval, in an area that was previously shown as landscaping. . The project has a fairly significant amount of spaces beyond our requirements. . Staff understands that weekday parking during lunch can be evenings less so. . In this case, we are committed by our Development Agreement not to change development standards. son Tucker affirmed that the applicant has the right to ask for the space to restaurant purposes and was answered, yes. Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added: . This is a use permit, and is not just limited to ABO. If there are aspects of the floor plan that would lead the Commission to conc that the operational characteristics that are not able to be addressed by conditions of approval, then modifications can be requested of the applicant. . Additionally, if the operating conditions suggested by staff are not adequate, Commission can modify those. immissioner Cole noted his concern of the current traffic causing safety problems s adjacent streets as noted in Mr. Jackson's letter. He asked if there is any eviden that. Edmonston, answered that he is not aware of any safety problems nor has he Fed by the Police Department of any safety problems. >mmissioner Hawkins inquired about lease- restrictions regarding parking as noted letter from The Irvine Company. He also noted that in the current resolution th no finding similar to number 3 proposed on page 10 of the staff report. He propo; insert that as one of the findings of the resolution. followed on modifying the resolution based on the lease restrictions. Michael Cho, attorney representing the applicant, noted the following: Has been working diligently with staff on this application regarding the operations and the parking issue that has come up relative to the center. . The lease provides that the tenant has the ability to utilize a valet service on there is no requirement that they have to. It is the desire of Eddie V's to utilize those services because it is a high end fi dining establishment and cater to a much higher average ticket price than any the others. The clientele that comes to a restaurant of this type desire a "file: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 5 of 21 expect valet services. . This valet plan would be able to provide additional parking beyond what is currently. . The center meets all code requirements for parking. There are 474 spa provided; under the Code there are only 453 that are required, leaving a space surplus. . The lease provides that Eddie V's is only to operate in the evening, from 5 closing. Concerns relative to the lunch hour are not going to relate to us. . We have proposed that prior to an issuance of a C of O (Certificate Occupancy) we work with the traffic engineer for a valet or parking managem plan that meets their requirement. There is nothing formalized yet, but it is burden of the tenant and The Irvine Company to work on something prior to t C of O being approved. nissioner Hawkins asked that the applicant would have no problem with lion regarding a parking management program. He was answered they u no problem. person Tucker noted that the floor plan seems to have two rather significant opportunities, one in the restaurant and one in the patio. He noted that this is ;st concern in an area that is parking challenged. Cho stated that the restaurant was designed with a central bar that becomes t ergy to the restaurant. There is quite a bit of dining that occurs in the bar a Inge area. It is not the intention of the client to turn this into the 'happening k ene'. It is not part of their business model and not part of what they do in their thr ier locations. The scene will settle down. The parking study done at the request a city was an informal study and focuses on a two -hour time period where there m the greatest impact to the center, 6 to 8 p.m. on a Friday. At the time the study w ne, there was a total of 90 spaces for the entire center. Staff determined ficiency of 9 spaces for that one hour period. In working with staff to get proved valet parking plan in place, using valet services in certain areas gains tho spaces, but, the center meets parking. The center is a success. Any restrictio cause there may be challenged parking, the best corrector of that is actually t 3rket itself rather than some sort of intervention of parking beyond the scope quired parking. 3irperson Tucker noted that the project does meet the Code; however, with tF punt of bar area and a requirement for a use permit, that sets up a situation I ulation. Certainly a parking management plan of some variety is going to be :essity at least with what is on the floor plan. Cho, at Commission inquiry, noted that the added conditions and findings iptable to the applicant and that representatives of The Irvine Company v ent to answer questions on the center itself. comment was opened. "file:HN:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 6 of 21 Ingan, Senior Vice President of Development for The Irvine Company, noted: • The center is parked at 9 per 1,000 square feet. • Success of the tenants and convenience to customers is important. • There are seasonal peaks at the center. • The parking peak referred to earlier is only one hour during a Friday night ; may not meet that peak on every Friday night. • To unduly restrict a lease for the vacant space for a use that it was intended this short period is not appropriate. • It can be challenging during the lunch hour, but it is the customer's choice. . We have instituted employee parking programs with a valet approach to get efficient parking that has helped to ameliorate the situation. . The parking management plan that we have suggested, would help that as well. It will give customers a choice and help the other tenants. . At Commission inquiry, he noted that all the food uses are open during evening hours; and, of those tenants, none of them operate with a par management plan. The employee parking is behind Pei Wei on the MacAi Boulevard side as well as a section by Eddie V's at the corner of Bison MacArthur Boulevards. Frost, General Manager of Islands Restaurant at 1380 Bison, noted . He has been on site for 20 months and has worked with the other tenants issues. . The parking is not with Wildfish, the issue is the parking problem throughout center. . If the peak was only one hour, we would all be out of business. . Under the current situation of parking, it will not work to grow any of businesses. . The valet parking is being done for themselves, and if one of my guests is to park there, I may lose that guest, that is a big concern to me. . If you put another 150 cars in that center, I do not know where they are going park. . I want to see a parking plan put in place, before we move forward because have been working on this for a long time. . I have my crew doing the employee parking stacking but it is not being " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 7 of 21 by the Irvine Company to make sure that it gets done, and that is a concern. When you add this next restaurant, we are going to have the same situation. are asking for a plan to move forward. rperson Tucker noted, it is not a question of putting in a restaurant, they can in. They have the approvals already for that, there is nothing we can do al We are looking to try to make this use as good as it possibly can. Frost noted he wants to be a good neighbor and asks for a plan to address sts for the center, not just Wildfish. Ung noted as of now the condition is drafted only for the applicant. on Tucker asked if this would allow the plan to have to deal with the center or just this particular operator? Harp answered it deals with just this particular operator. Edmonston noted that this is a large pool of parking and to carve out a portion 1 only for this tenant then it would obviously impact other uses and probably Islas mtaurant more because they are next door. Any sort of plan that is going to spared is going to need to be a dynamic plan if it is going to address the center. ` uld approve any plan for the restaurant, but maybe create problems for others. I t sure with this single use permit, how that gets resolved. ussion followed on the use of a valet parking plan with the Islands represent how it would impact the other tenants; conditioning this applicant with a valet 1 bined efforts of The Irvine Company and the center tenants; and, not saddling cant with the requirement to mitigate a whole center parking problem. rperson Tucker noted it is not the tenants, it is the landlord who will be able to off. There are issues that need to be addressed and The Irvine Company :ssional landlord and should come up with a plan that works for everybody. d Hoover, owner of the Panera Bread Cafe, noted that the parking has become urce of concern and appreciates the sensitivity of The Irvine Company to this issue. e valet parking for the employees has not been enforced the way it should. We ree that the concept that is coming in is good for the center, but we want to see a in that is going to work to alleviate that parking issue. Fishman, Regional Manager of Islands Restaurant added that the bigg ige that has been felt is the amount of required employee parking, which 150 spaces at peak times. We have proposed utilizing some off site for c (ees so that guests could use the entire center for parking. We look forward a plan, not some promise of a plan. Ingan added: . The enforcement of the parking plan is incumbent upon our merchants. . We would be willing to work with a plan that results in success for all the tenants. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Harp added another option that if the applicant is willing to work with the otl >erty owners in the development of the management plan and they are willing then they could solicit their input to whatever plan is developed and that could sidered by the Traffic Engineer. >mmissioner Toerge answered that is what he is asking, if they could participate in not in the process done by staff, then he wouldn't be supportive of it with tK ndition. He would support that other tenants be involved. The other tenants ai :re as part of the public opposing this now and they may not oppose it if the plan >rkable. If the plan can be assembled and is workable, the other tenants might sho and support it and then we are all good neighbors and we have done a good job. )mmissioner McDaniel noted his concern holding this applicant up based on rking management plan. There is a problem out there, but it is not the responsibil the applicant. rperson Tucker then suggested a review on how parking is working with a par )gement plan in place and then at that point, the neighboring business owners forward and let their thoughts be known. Right now, we would be holding up cant who I am assuming is ready to go with tenant improvements. followed on the timing and methodology of a parking management plan. i Tucker asked for a straw vote on the issue of a review. Hawkins - bring back for a review. McDaniel, - bring back for a review. Hawkins - bring back for a review. Eaton - supports a review. Cole - supports a review noting this is a landlord /tenant issue. nissioner Toerge - support a one year review adding that the other a forum here to be sure that the plan works. rperson Tucker suggested that the plan be presented by the property owner to ning businesses so that their input is included. Harp added that condition 37 will include a requirement that they comply during rs of operation with the approved plan. was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2005 4 -036) subject to the findings and conditions with the addition requested sioner Hawkins and a condition that the matter comes back for review by Commission within a year of the date of opening, and with the sugges by the Assistant City Attorney. Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins None Page 9 of 21 "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 8 of 21 . He would hate to have this applicant slowed down for this issue as it is part of landlord's responsibility to ameliorate. . We are taking a limited time frame and we will come up with a plan that works. . As a landlord, we want our tenants to be successful. Commission inquiry, Mr. Ingan added that this plan would address the new irs as well as any problems during the evening hours. r Hawkins asked can we condition this application with a plan for the entire center? Staff answered, no. Temple added that the use permit approved for all the smaller restaurants as of package really addresses the center's scope of operation in a better fashion ald the property owner's efforts be unsuccessful, that would be a more approp ;on Tucker noted we don't have the ability to re- review anything that compli parking code. The only issue that gives us the opportunity to discuss tl n is the operational characteristics as opposed to a Pasta Bravo or , all those other operations are pretty much the same. Temple agreed, for this use permit you are dealing with the operations. If tl emission wants to have a specific condition of approval requiring the parkii agement plan for the center, that is the most comprehensive approval we have :h such a condition on. This is clearly not the right way to do that. We have al commitment from the property owner that they are going to continue to try ai ess this problem with or without a condition. I don't think attaching a parking requirement on this use permit is appropriate. >erson Tucker noted his agreement and asked if the Commission has the right back and look at everything. Temple answered that there was a site plan review. rson Tucker noted that The Irvine Company wants to keep their We will not be able to add anything special on this. mmissioner Toerge asked what the process is for other tenants to participate in nulation of a parking management plan. He clarified that it is to participate in nulation of the plan, not the actual parking arrangements themselves. Should itinue this item until we have a parking management plan that can then be reviel all the tenants in an open meeting? This way all these people can come and it works, or it doesn't. Temple noted that the Commission could deny this application without prejudii tell the property owner they would not be willing to take up the use permit until the ement a plan that causes these people not to testify when this item is heard. St sd that we don't have a condition on a parking plan and that you can only impose iition on an application as you actually approve it. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 10 of 21 None aster Development Corporation (MDC) ITEM NO. 5 4200 Von Karman Avenue I PA2004 -231 General Plan Amendment to Statistical Area L4 (Koll Center Newport Office Site B ) Continue to f the Land Use Element to increase the maximum allowable gross office area by 07/07/2005 ,750 square feet, and a Planned Community Text Amendment in Professional and usiness Office Site B by 1,367 net square feet in order to replace an existing one tory 1,330 square feet office building with a 3,080 square foot office building. hairperson Tucker noted this item has two issues identified, one is related to par id the other is a change to the General Plan to conform the General Plan with u as been built, and that would result in a reduction of footage. That item, in )inion, has nothing to do with the Master Development office expansion proposal suggest that we table that item and let it come forward separately so we are Iking about something that is not an issue between the applicant and those invo the Koll Center. It is really a staff clean up item. The application has questions ave come up and the Commission will limit the discussion to what is before us. Temple noted that there has not yet been an agreement between the two property ers related to the ability to make changes to the parking area, which is not part o applicant's parcel. Because this is a General Plan and Zoning action we are ale to attach conditions of approval. Therefore, if we approve the General Plan an( ing Amendments we will be creating additional entitlement. If they are unable tc eve whatever agreement is necessary for the additional parking that is require( that square footage is available in that block pool and can be implemented b) :r parties. That is not a major concern of staff, but if it is a concern of the emission for this approval, then you should continue this until the agreemen irding the parking lot improvements is agreed to between the two owners. fever, we would not issue a building permit for the addition without approving the auacy of parking. person Tucker noted that if the General Plan was approved then anyone in could use that footage if the applicant did not, it is not just attached to Temple answered yes, it's an office site vehicle center, so anybody could use it. e is no agreement regarding the additional parking, that square footage stays ;e Site B and anyone who could prove that they had sufficient parking to supp additional square footage could implement it. Temple added that in Koll Center Newport a high number of office and oth lings are on what is called postage stamp lots that provide sufficient land for tl ling and whatever Building Code setbacks are required. Most of the parking ed by Koll Center and is managed on a pool basis. The applicant has to find a to add 5 additional parking spaces and they do not yet have an agreement wi Company for access to the pool. erson Tucker asked if the parking for the entire Office Site B is exactly at Are there more or less spaces than required? "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 11 of 21 Temple answered we do not have the full records as to the precise number ing spaces in the pool. The need for an additional 5 spaces is based on 1 ease that is proposed. ommissioner Hawkins queried that if we approve the General Plan Amendment and e applicant is unsuccessful in getting their parking, we will not have a parking waiver, is that the applicant will not be able to implement the plan, is that correct? Temple answered yes, we would not issue the Building Permit without knowii sufficient parking is being provided. The entitlement would still be there. emission inquiry, she noted that parking for Koll Center Newport is based on 1al office pool /sliding scale that is based on square footage. Because this is Lion to a pool of development square footage in excess of 375,000 square feet, tl irement is 1 parking space for 300 square feet. McDonald, applicant, noted the following: • He has been operating his business for over ten years at this site and purche the property 20 months ago with the intent to add 1,300 square feet to building. • He made an informal presentation to the Koll Center (declarant) in November they responded as well as other submittals in full detail. It is his intent to get approval. . The complex is over a million square feet. He and his partner are the owners a postage stamp lot along with 20 other small and large building owners. . The parking lot is a sprawling legal lot that has thousands of parking stalls. . Staff, over a number of years, has amended the Planned Community text tc all these buildings built within Koll Center. This is not the first time a building been built or re- built. . Koll Company owns the parking lot. . There is a set of CC and R's that control what goes on in the Center such as setbacks and parking. . We all as owners, enjoy common area rights, full beneficial rights and interest rights to every parking stall in the center. . What our CC and R's say is a private matter between two parties. . The CC and R's clearly state what a building site owner can do with reference landscape and parking. As an owner I can do that, providing I am only modifyi my development area, which is appurtenant to the site area that I own. We ha an agreement in place, which is the CC and R's document. . Staff noted that we would be required to get the declarant's approval before City allows a building permit on site. "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 12 of 21 . We are adding five stalls on our site plan located against the building. . We are maintaining the harmony of the footprint and glass scheme of building; we are adding a second story on it, and are upgrading a small bull that was built in 1974. . We have a small impact of 1,000 against 1,000,000 square feet, not it the traffic, and are within the development standards of the Koll Community text. . We have talked with Koll and intend to get their approval, and if we don't then will fail to pull a building permit. . He then noted his correspondence with Koll and asked that this General issue be solved. nmissioner Cole asked where the parking stalls were and was referred to :re the stalls were closer to the building. He then asked if the applicant q1 requirement of 5 parking stalls? McDonald added there will be a small amount of people in the building, anywhi ueen 8 to 10 and they have 16 parking stalls that are required. He does stion the Code, he is stating that the use of his building is light and not as heavy t the Code requires. imissioner Hawkins asked if the proposed additional parking is not on a parcel own or control. Is that right? McDonald answered that we do not have the legal ownership of it, but all own iin the Koll Center Newport have the undivided interest of the free and unfettei of all parking and all landscaping on that lot. The fact that the ownership is h er the declarant's name is a twist to what is normally an association purview ch all owners would own a percentage of that big sprawling lot. In this case, e a perpetual easement for all landscape and use of the parking area. The CC s define that we can modify that area as it relates to our development if approved City of Newport Beach. ssioner Hawkins noted his concern if the Commission entitled the add footage and the applicant is unsuccessful in getting the agreement, that s remains and someone else may be able to utilize it. comment was opened. rol Hoffman of Government Solutions representing Koll Company noted that Kol mpany prefers to have this parking issue resolved before the Planning Commissior es action. Koll Company has concerns about the square footage adjustment in the �neral Plan and if this is separate we can understand what it means as well as the nifications, and what the staff research was with the building permits. The applican s sent a letter requesting approval from the Koll Company, which they are not read) provide. I am hopeful that something that can be worked out, but we are not in e sition to guarantee that the applicant would have that available parking at this point. e then asked that this matter be continued so that this issue could be resolved. She "file:HN:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 13 of 21 that the square footage does not harm the Koll Company interest. iirperson Tucker noted that if we grant that approval, the square footage is ou e and the applicant can't go use the footage until the parking issue is resolved. Wf a stayed out of the middle of private matters and that is still our preference. ause of the Greenlight issue we may need to look at things in connection witl sting of rights when effectively two parties within one statistical area are fightini ut the same footage. In this particular case, you have one that is fighting for 1,750 ;h is a tiny increase and the increase inures to the statistical area. I am not seeini basis of not allowing it to go forward if staff says the applicant needs to have thf sing evidenced in some fashion in order to get a building permit. srol Hoffman noted that Koll Company had not heard of this item on tonil tenda. It was surprise information and Koll Company was caught unawares. Th situation that they thought would be best resolved privately and separately from ,tion that the Planning Commission takes. Tucker noted this is a legislative act that goes onto the Council. imissioner Selich noted that the objection of Koll Company was that 1,750 sqL was going to be taken away from the 40,000 square feet, but you said the 1, added to the Koll Center so that means Koll goes up by 1,750 square feet, is Temple answered that we would be increasing the City's General Plan entitleme Office Site B in that Statistical Division L4 by the 1,750 square feet. What Ko er was referring to was that once approved that is considered a prior amendm( suant to Charter Section 423. We keep a table that carries 80% of any approv neral Plan Amendments for each statistical division in the cumulative table that A for 10 years so that a subsequent amendment after this would not have a 1 000 square feet to stay under the voting threshold for square footage, it would 1750 square feet times 80% and that 40,000 would be reduced by that amount next amendment that came through the City's process. We have not approved a neral Plan Amendments in Koll Center; however, the 40,000 square feet has be ded by a couple of smaller General Plan Amendments that have occurred wort Place. >ioner Eaton ascertained that there was no timing of a potential the Koll Company and the applicant. iirman Tucker noted that the Commission is looking at a particular building and stion for us is the General Plan Amendment consistent with our policies and I ti answer is yes. Nothing is static and the concern about this interfering with is Koll Company has, it doesn't interfere at all. Koll is still going to assert the s< ition that the applicant does not have a right to do anything on that property. looking at the applicant's request. The City's vested interest in it is if its par )erly. It is a little more office space in a giant office area and the applicant's 1 cs it properly. Whether he can actually use those spaces is something that he Koll Company will resolve. Hoffman noted that the hope was for a continuance so that there might be lution between the two parties. "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\20051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 nan Tucker noted that it is going to be an addition of 1,750 square feet. is not going to change 30 days from now. in Bentrot of Master Development noted that we have been implementing this our building expansion since 2004. Since we were going to pay for these pa Is and enhance the building, we were perplexed at Koll's response. I am not i they feel they can come to a solution within 30 days when they have already I over 6 months to do it. comment was closed. immissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the two parties not coming to some agreement. He noted his support of continuing this item for 30 days to allow rties to come to some sort of arrangement. Hawkins noted his support of a continuance. nmissioner Selich noted this is a minor General Plan Amendment and to c >Ived with an agreement between two parties, he is reluctant. If we approve t feral Plan Amendment and the parking was not worked out then it would not go it :ct and the square footage would be there for someone else to use. He is inclined long with the applicant now but if it does came back after 30 days without Bement then he would go along with the applicant at that point. hairperson Tucker noted he does not have confidence that since this has been go i for 6 months that it would get worked out in 30 days. He sees no harm to do eneral Plan Amendment of 1,750 square feet and it doesn't need the Commission referee. He stated he would move the item and let it go on to the City Council wh ey would have their 30 days. Toerge noted his support of a continuance. 'nissioner Cole noted that the applicant has gone through the proper process and complied with what they were supposed to do. It is a modest increase not change the use. Koll Company has a veto on this relative to parking, so some leverage. Granting the General Plan Amendment does not hurt the Dany. I am in favor of voting on the project now. ssioner Eaton noted his support of a continuance as the Council likes to seed cleared up. ;on Tucker noted that this item should be voted on tonight and approve the motion. imissioner Hawkins noted that there are efforts in that area. My hope in the 30 d low is that Koll Company does not wait to see what additional uses are up there planning process with Roma. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins inue this item to July T 2005. yes: Eaton, Toerge, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: Tucker and Cole bsent: None bstain: None Page 14 of 21 "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 15 of 21 Traffic and Environmental Analysis of General Plan Update Land Use ITEM NO. 6 Tucker noted this item is a continuation of materials presented on Mays Discussion Item 9th. Wood stated that the presentation tonight would be an overview of the traffic , :ring details of trip generation as well as the model runs of the minimum imum alternatives. erson Tucker noted that at some point we are going to come up with a proje >tion for what it is we are going to study; we will come up with alternatives for tl tives analyses for the General Plan EIR. He asked if that project description to have a traffic study that is particularly tailored to the specific proje >tion that we have. . Wood answered it will once the project description is approved. What we king at from here on, you will received the traffic and environmental informs ight, the City Council will receive it Tuesday night. On Saturday, June 25th we h all day public workshop that will present the same info to the public and we will their input. Then we have two Saturday sessions planned with the General I visory Committee on July 16th and July 23rd. In preparation for those meetings, intent between staff and the consultant team to convert all these alternatives the information that we have received on their impacts and how people feel al �m into a preferred land use plan. airperson Tucker noted staff confirmed that the preferred land use plan would h own traffic study to analyze the environmental impacts of the preferred land n. The traffic information we have tonight gives us background information on :rnatives that will assist us in terms of the preferred land use plan that is ultimz Wood answered yes. nmissioner Toerge noted the definition of ICU (intersection) is confusing ar gested that the definition on page 1 -6 of the report be made more clear. He state as he had read this definition it appeared that with an ICU of .86, does that mean take me 50 minutes to get through the intersection? This definition as I read it . Waters said it means that 86% of the capacity to move cars through ;rsection during the course of the hour is being utilized by the traffic that is proje J that the hour is the timeframe for which the analysis is conducted. He addec would work with staff on that definition to make it more clear. Waters continued noting this is the second report as part of the General F ate analysis. The reports establish the existing traffic conditions within the then moving forward to the future, the types of traffic conditions that may ;ipated in light of the City's currently adopted Land Use Element, Circula nent and then the input forthcoming from the City's Visioning process and then eral Plan Advisory Committee recommendations regarding alternatives to " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 16 of 21 ed as modified by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He ther presentation including current conditions and future growth per the existinc Plan and the minimum and maximum alternatives developed by GPAC. Mr explained that the alternatives analysis assumed a constrained roadway which does not include improvements such as the 19th Street bridge i of 55 Freeway and widening of Pacific Coast Highway thru Mariners Mile. . Level of Service (LOS) at 64 intersections. . For each alternative, he discussed Model Trip generation. presented a deficient intersection summary, comparing the number of would not meet the City's standard in each alternative. Ily, Mr. Walters indicated that the report identifies additional mitigation could bring all intersections to City standards. owing the presentation, additional discussion occurred as questions or concerns Commissioners were raised: . A clearer ICU definition to make it easier to understand. . List minor improvements deemed likely to occur or not occur as part of analysis. . Why separate out the minimum that does not include the General Plan. . Superior Street congestion under maximum and free flow under minimum. . Traffic from Banning Ranch with the requirement of making its own improvements and mitigation measures. . Analysis conducted with planned General Plan improvements other than the major ones discussed but without looking for mitigation such as spot widening extra turn lanes, the types of conditions that would be placed on development; as they came forward for approval. • The lack of inclusion of Corona del Mar on the subarea list for Coast Highway. • Shoulder season modeling calibration based on nine months of the year. • Coastal trip generation rates versus non Coastal trip generation rates. • Validation of model assumptions against actual counts and to the extent doesn't match up, then look for reasons and what will match it up. . Mixed use internal capture rate in the City. Use of residential, commercial office development elements resulting in the low end of 10% trip reduction be that could be expected. That 10% adjustment was applied to only those a that were thought to have critical mass, such as the airport area and the Nev Center, but not in West Newport Industrial. " file: / /N:lApps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/2512008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 17 of 21 . How to consider alternatives for Banning Ranch entitlement and the consequences. . Reduction of traffic by downsizing entitlement. . Reduction of development in areas through change from R2 to R1. . Potential residential added into the airport area. . Assumptions of passenger airport traffic either in or out of peak hours. maximum passenger levels were used for the calculations. . Comparisons of other jurisdictions acceptance of various levels of service. . Separation of Deficient Intersection Summary into subareas to make it easier understand. . Referring to page 59, Table 2 -11, the a.m. trips under option 2 seem low and consultant will look into it. Tescher, referencing handwritten page 228, noted the generali2 rental impacts comparative summary. The charts on page 232 show ve change in electricity, solid waste, wastewater, water, and number On pages 234 and 235 is an air quality impact matrix noting the perc or decrease in air pollutant generation under each land use alternative. response to Commissioner Hawkins' question, Mr. Waters then named the it applied the mixed use adjustments. comment was opened and then closed. Wood then noted the schedule for the upcoming meetings of ;T: Comprehensive Sign Code Update and Sign Design Guideline ITEM NO.7 (PA2005 -091) I PA2005 -091 ie Amendment No. 2005 -005 to amend Municipal Code Chapter 20.67 related to Continued to i standards applicable to all signs on a citywide basis with the exception of the 07/07/2005 Nport Coast and Ridge Planned Communities, and where sign regulations are no .renced in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area and all other commercially ied Planned Communities. The Balboa Sign Overlay and Mariner's Mile sign ulations will be repealed by these proposed regulations, and their provisions will be )rporated into the proposed ordinance. A Sign Design Guidelines Manual is also to considered, in order to supplement the new sign code and establish criteria for the ation of well- designed signs and further the intent and purpose of the sign code. Berger, Community and Economic Development Manager, noted that staff I comments from Commissioner Eaton and Chairperson Tucker that in the revisions. Pflugrath with RBF Consulting, noted the following issues: " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 18 of 21 height - suggestion of 36" maximum on building signs. mmissioner Eaton noted that this applies to linear commercial strips, is that too hig most of the store fronts are close to the roadways? Berger answered that there are a quite a few that are farther setback, i. e., the :rtson Shopping Center on 32nd Street. That type of center needs the ability for and if relief from this requirement is requested, either a Comprehensive Sigr Aram or the Modification Permit processes are available. irperson Tucker noted his concern of a tall building with only a 36" letter. It is one size fits all process. Discussion followed on modification findings. nprehensive Sign Program does not apply to the Planned Communities. for - Strengthened definitional precision between commercial and e related to murals. Signs - states that 50% of shed area is allowed for message. pensive Sign Program - 30% increase in building sign area and /or a in overall height of freestanding signs to be allowed. signs - One set of standards for sign regulations, as well as Space Zones - The illumination standards in the proposed code mer Eaton noted he does not agree that the retail shopping center should be applied to church signs and others in GEIF. They're not the Pflugrath noted that the overall sign size has been reduced down to 1.5 square fee sign area for each lineal foot of building and a cap of no sign larger than 75 squad it. So, perhaps Mr. Eaton's concern would be addressed by the overall reduction. wever, we will distinguish between commercially zoned property and GEIF zone( wtization - The list of uses would be roof signs, pole signs, signs with sign over 75 square feet outside of Planned Community districts; and, cabinet , non - opaque message panels. Commission inquiry, Mr. Berger noted that staff is comfortable with these categ they are reasonable to do and are ones that are fairly easy to spot and add d, these are the types of signs that will most likely be going away as busine ange. A lot of these signs will take care of themselves before the 15 iortization period ends. Harp noted that the if the Commission wishes to amortize out signs over 36 ", that in the resolution and that needs to be added to the resolution. Tucker noted there are not many of those signs. He is thinking of "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06109/2005 Page 19 of 21 that are along the main corridors Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard /Bal yard. Most of those buildings are old and shoved up against the street for part. Maybe we ought to look at the amortization along those two corridors. I a brief discussion it was proposed to remove the reference to outside Community districts. thy Wolcott, Contract City Attorney noted that staff had addressed the issue of lity to establish an amortization for certain areas with the sign law specialist. led that it is an untested area and thought this could be done if you have a ratio setting those areas aside such as historic district or a tourist area. rson Tucker answered that we would have to do something like a . He was answered yes. That would be tough to loop that into the sign so we will leave it as it is now. mmissioner Cole questioned that at the end of the 15 year period, what happens t sign is not removed, particularly if there is an economic reason to keep it? Is the appeal process for the owner? Are there findings? ff answered it becomes an illegal sign. The owner could apply for a modification exception in order to keep the sign; however, It would be dangerous to get i ncial hardship qualifications. missioner McDaniel noted that the bottom line is that we are trying to get rid signs. If there is a hardship, you need a smaller sign. We want to get rid of 1 signs and we are using the.15 years to get over the hardship. Pflugrath noted overall you really erode the whole process by creating loophc City of Dana Point had a similar program and at the end they got all the s n; they had 15 years to amortize the signs and the State says 15 years is a fiber for the lifespan and value of a sign. It is a long and just time. Signs Program - Criteria has been strengthened to require that Heri at least 35 years old, and not simply be a unique sign with character value. Berger noted the list included in the staff report, and that the ages are still to bE termined. Additionally, there is another list of a few signs for consideration that hav< be researched. The owner and operator of the Crab Cooker has asked that all thf ns on his building be considered part of the Heritage Sign Program. Although thf ,titution is of note, it is not our estimation that not all the signs are of historic note. e one on top of the roof is, but not the rest. >sioner McDaniel agreed and noted that a neon crab is not necessarily event. It is old, but it is not significantly historic. ommissioner Hawkins noted that this is a Sign Ordinance, not something that crea safe harbor for virtually every sign on an old building. With respect to the list of sig noted that although the Rusty Pelican and Zodiac signs may ultimately qualify ;ritage signs, he did not at this time believe that they should be included in the list. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 20 of 21 Berger explained the initial take on those signs noting that this list is only ence and staff would welcome any additional input. Wood noted her support of the Zodiac sign prior to the latest painting on it. Temple noted that the Rusty Pelican sign is probably just barely 35 years old. Berger noted that Rusty Pelican sign is indicative of the maritime sort of 'seaf culture' that Mariners Mile is all about. At least that is what people think of it so much cars and boats, but the sport fishing fleet and sea food restaurants like. Also, we've subsequently found out that the Dory Fishing Fleet sign is I 1 35 years old, and the grizzled guy in the boat is a fairly new addition. We r up taking that off the list. response to Commission questioning, Cathy Wolcott added that the City Attome Tice would not like to have the list of the original signs in the ordinance. It should separate document that follows closely. Pflugrath noted that is a work in progress. He noted he had suggested Anthoi e Repair roof - mounted sign, but it may not make it because it is not old enough. . Temple stated that sign had been re- located from Via Lido, so the sign itself older. followed on some other potential signs. - no change. definitions - no change. Program - no change. Signs -no change. Clause -no change. on City property - City is exempt from its own sign regulations. Signs - prohibit on private property. The City Attorney's office is working an and update regulation of A -frame signs on public property. value versus replacement costs - lower to 20% of replacement cost. I of Abandoned Signs - no change. process - remove from page 56. Pry construction signs - one sign per street frontage for 90 days. with 'future tenant' signs. 7 program - apply to signs installed under Mariners Mile Specific and the Balboa Overlay Sign Overlay Sign Regulations - amortiz ' file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn06- 09 -05. htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 21 of 21 and removal of certain types of nonconforming signs and extension of nonconforming status. Realtor signs - no change. Talking signs - to be discussed at the next meeting. Following this discussion, the Commission directed staff to make the change discussed: for when a non - conforming sign needs to be approved under the Comprehensive Sign Program as the property is being remodeled, what sign standards should apply to GEIF land uses, to prohibit A -frame signs, and to add a time limit on he display of the temporary construction signs. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to July 7, 2005. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a) City Council Follow -up - none provided. b) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee - none. e) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - none. i) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole asked to be excused from meeting on June 23rd. and Chairperson Tucker will be excused on July 21 st. ADJOURNMENT: 11:25 p.m. ADJOURNMENT JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn06- 09- 05.htm 06/25/2008