Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1999CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, and Kranzley Commissioner Hoglund arrived 10 minutes late Commissioner Gifford was excused Patricia L. Temple- Planning Director Robert Burnham - City Attorneywas present for Item No. 3 Robin Clauson, - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Niki Kallikounis- Planning Department Assistant Minutes of Study Session of April 22nd, and Regular Meetings of Mav 181h, and May 20,1999: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley, and voted on, to approve the Study Session minutes of April 22nd, and Regular Meetings of May 18th, and May 20,1999, Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None Public Comments None Postina of the Aaenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 4, 1999 0 Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 SUBJECT: Blockbuster Video Sign (Mark Frank, contact person) 3007 East Coast Highway (Confinuedfrom April 22, May 6, and May 20,1999) • Modification Permit No. 4879 Request to permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where the Code limits roof signs to the location of a business that is precluded by the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. At the request of the applicant, this item was continued to June 24, 1999. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None ss4 • SUBJECT: 21 Bay Island (Fletcher residence) Request to exceed the basic height limit to the maximum height limit for a part of a new single family dwelling to be constructed on Lot 21 of the Bay Island Club. At the request of staff, this item was continued to June 24, 1999. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None sss SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Ordinance s Amendment No. 864 Proposed amendments to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to provide that circulation system improvements required for a development are roughly proportional to that • project's impact, to modify the definition of feasible improvement, to INDEX Item No. 1 Modification Permit No. 4879 Continued to 6/24/99 Item No. 2 Continued to 6/24/99 Item No. 3 A 864 Recommended for Approval • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 establish a threshold for trattic impacts that require circulation system improvements, and to change the number of affirmative votes needed to override the provisions of the Ordinance to 5 /7ths of the members eligible to vote. Planning Director Temple informed that, as requested by the Planning Commission, staff had drafted changes to the original draft of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance consistent with the Commission's action at the last meeting. Ms. Temple noted that staff believes what is in the package is an accurate representation of the intent of the Planning Commission, although the purpose of this re- review is to insure that what is ultimately forwarded to the City Council reflects the desires of the Planning Commission. Ms. Temple stated that staff received a letter from an interested party expressing some concerns about the drafted language. In reviewing the concerns expressed in that letter, staff drafted some additional language for the definition of Feasible Improvement. Ms. Temple explained that this language is intended to allow continuation of the regular practice of the staff, as they review projects under the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to look at intersections in very precise detail; and to look for improvements in intersections, which can make the capacity of the • intersections better, perhaps without actually doing physical improvements. The types of improvements that have been done in the past are redesigned traffic signals, signal phasing, and redefining lane functions. These types of improvements have been very effective in making the intersection provide the greatest amount capacity in the areas where the greatest demand occurs. Staff would not want to define those types of improvements as unfeasible under the new language. Ms. Temple stated that staff is requesting the definition of feasible improvement be altered to include three different criteria. The new language would be number two and would read as follows: 2. Is an improvement not in the 5 year CIP which increases the capacity of on intersection, is not considered to be a master plan implementation improvement, and which reduces the ICU, OR And renumber item 2 to 3. Chairman Selich asked if the City Attorney and the City Traffic Engineer concur with the drafted language. The City Attorney, Robert Burnham and the City Traffic Engineer, Rich Edmonston both stated they agree with the drafted language. Commissioner Fuller referred to handwritten page 12 and asked if there should be a D at the top of the page. He also referred to handwritten page 8 and 6. Commissioner Fuller asked if those changes under 2 a, b and c on • 3 II: P7 f3 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 handwritten page 6 to be identical with the changes on handwritten page 8 a, b and c, which is not numbered? Mr. Burnham stated that the changes were intended to be the same. Commissioner Fuller noted that he did not see them as exactly the same. He also referred to handwritten page 8 and asked if the paragraph beginning with "Contributions..." should be c. Mr. Burnham agreed that it should. Commissioner Fuller referred back to handwritten page 8, item c, which states, "...any impacted but unimproved Critical Intersection:" and asked if the same wording should be identical on handwritten page 6, item c? Mr. Burnham agreed that the wording should be the same. Commissioner Fuller suggested that the wording be compared to be sure it is exactly the same. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff if the interested party's letter was Barry Eaton's letter? Ms. Temple responded that it was. Commissioner Kranzley asked if the language that staff drafted addresses the issue that Mr. Eaton took in paragraph 4. Ms. Temple responded that the drafted language is not intended to, in any way, address concerns related to the politicization of the Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Temple explained that it is intended to insure that staff can continue to look at intersection modification and improvements, which are not in Capital Improvement programs and make them TPO requirements. • Commissioner Kranzley asked if staff had any comments regarding the comments made in Mr. Eaton's letter about the additional number of intersections that could be included or not be included in the Capital Improvement Program that would be non - feasible? Ms. Temple explained that was what this drafted language is intended to provide for. For instance, because there was not an actual physical improvement identified in the Capital Improvement Program, there would still be an opportunity to look for further improvements in the context of the TPO and to make the requirements if they reduce the ICU. Commissioner Kranzley noted the word "vicinity" is used many times in the TPO, and is if there is an understanding of what "vicinity" means? Mr. Burnham stated that he did not take time to further define vicinity. Mr. Burnham noted that he thought Mr. Edmonston would say that there is some intersection improvements that may be on the same roadway but not really close to the impacted intersection that actually might help. Other improvements at intersections closer to the ones impacted might not help, depending upon the direction of travel, etc. Commissioner Kranzley asked if it would be up to the discretion of the Traffic Engineer to define what that means? Mr. Burnham said it would be up to the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council on review. Commissioner Kranzley referred, as an example, to Coast Highway and • Riverside. He noted that the Commission has a project that is coming up, 4 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 wncn is on Mar imersecTion, ana Tnere are no improvements in Tne ) -year Capital Improvement plan. Other intersections for potential improvements have been looked at up and down Coast Highway. How far do they have to go before they stop the search and go to an override? At what point do they stop? Mr. Burnham stated there is no specific criteria other than a finding must be made that the improvements in one or all of the three categories outweigh the impacts of the additional congestion at that intersection that cannot be improved. Commissioner Ashley referred to handwritten page 23, item 7, 'Issuance of Permits." Commissioner Ashley read the first paragraph under item 7, and item a ( "The improvement has been budgeted..., ") which suggests to Commissioner Ashley that it is a Capital Improvement project. Commissioner Ashley also referred to item c, "The Improvement is: (1) to be constructed by the Project proponent..." Commissioner Ashley asked if this contravenes some of the other things the Commission thought they were acting upon in amending the Traffic Phasing Ordinance? Mr. Burnham responded that this has become a part of the current administrative guidelines that have become a part of the Ordinance by incorporation. Mr. Burnham noted that it more accurate to apply this part of the appendix to projects, other than those where the improvement is by definition 48 months out. In other cases • where the impacts have been looked at one -year post occupancy, it has been the practice of the City, in issuing building permit for a project, to make sure that there is a level of certainty that the improvements, which have been assumed to be in place, will be in place. It is after the Commission has made their decision and after the project proponent comes forward with plans and specifications for building permits (maybe after Coastal Commission approval), then the Traffic Engineer makes the determination that those improvements that have been assumed to be in place or conditioned the project on will be in place one year after occupancy. Commissioner Ashley noted that it did not read like that. It says "...or funded..." if it is not already in place it is to be constructed or funded as a condition of the project approval. Commissioner Ashley stated that there might be nothing in the Capital Improvement plan to address the proposed improvements. Commissioner Ashley explained that his concern is that circulation and intersection improvements be in the Capital Improvement 5 -year plan. He noted that there are things that are should have already been funded or will be funded or part of the budget improvement. Commissioner Ashley stated that unless something has been budgeted or planned for the improvement, no building permit is to be issued for the project. Commissioner Ashley asked if anyone else reads it differently? Commissioner Tucker stated that he reads it slightly differently. He stated these are projects that are conditioned upon construction or funding, but the real question is in item 7a "The Improvement has been budgeted and • committed for construction by or on behalf of the City..." What does INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 "...committed..." mean at that point? Mr. Burnham stated that it has not been defined and that his sense is that it has been budgeted and the City has plans and specifications that it will approve and issue construction contracts during that fiscal year. Commissioner Tucker asked if it consistent with the feasible improvement in paragraph one that says, "...is identified as an improvement to be constructed... ?" Chairman Selich noted, in his experience doing projects as a developer, if it is not a budgeted project through the City's budget and it is something he is doing as a developer, the traditional interpretation in being committed is to post a bond. Then you have your bond and the agreement and you are committed. Mr. Burnham noted that is covered in letter c. Commissioner Ashley thought that there should be a paragraph d connected to number 7 and should be related to the fact that there are no improvements for a critical intersection that have either been planned, identified, funded, etc.. He said if the project proposed is considered by the Council to be acceptable, then a building permit could be issued. Commissioner Ashley felt that the way it reads now is unclear. He stated if it is arbitrary then that would be difficult. • Commissioner Tucker referred to Mr. Eaton's letter, the third paragraph, and the first sentence. Commissioner Tucker referred to the revised paragraph definition and noted there are feasible improvements in one of two things, referring to paragraph one, which has already been discussed, and paragraph two, "That is consistent with any amendment(s) to the Circulation Element initiated and approved in conjunction with Approval of the Project,..." Commissioner Tucker asked if that would take care of Mr. Eaton's comments. In other words, it does not necessarily need to be in the Capital Improvement budget to be an improvement if it is included in a project approval? Mr. Burnham said that is correct. Ms. Temple said that not all intersection improvements that are not in the Capital Improvement Program require Circulation Element amendment because it may be just a minor adjustment. For clarification, Commissioner Tucker asked with staff's language as well, it covers that situation, where it does not need to be a part of the Capital Improvement Program to be a feasible improvement. Ms. Temple agreed. Mr. Burnham noted that Commissioner Tucker was pointing out that if there were a project that was identified during the traffic analysis that would correct or mitigate the impact of the intersection that was not in the 5 -year plan, that improvement can be initiated in conjunction with the project. Then it becomes a feasible improvement by definition. Mr. Burnham agreed that they needed the third category of improvement and they do have some flexibility in identifying circulation system improvements that would mitigate the impact of the projects that are not locked into the 5 -year plan. Mr. Burnham noted they have the ability to do that as the project is being • processed. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Mr. Edmonston added that it specifically addresses Mr. Eaton's concerns. The six locations that were previously identified are all Master Plan implementation improvements. They are, by the new suggested paragraph are dealt with directly. Chairman Selich asked what would be the procedure in the future in amending Appendix A? He asked if it would still be part of the Council policy and not part of the Ordinance? Ms. Temple stated it is part of the Ordinance by incorporation. Commission Tucker asked if new language would be needed to state the Ordinance prevails in an inconsistency between the Ordinance and Appendix? Mr. Burnham stated, during the course of administering this, if they discover an inconsistency between the Ordinance and the Appendix, we would bring the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ashley asked if it would take a 5/7 vote. Mr. Burnham responded the vote would be 4. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the impact of CEQA on the theoretical project at Riverside and Coast Highway. We have made the adjustments in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance non - feasible improvements, the project would probably require an Environmental Impact Report and there would be • impacts on that intersection, which would be addressed in the EIR. Commissioner Kranzley asked if CEQA would require improvements to that intersection? Ms. Temple responded that CEQA would be one mechanism through which to impose a mitigation measure. That could include improvements. If the mitigation measure was not considered feasible, and there was a remaining significant environmental effect as a result of it, then that would have to be found in the EIR, and a statement of overriding considerations would have to be adopted in conjunction with certification of the EIR. Commissioner Kranzley asked that basically, we would be overriding CEQA? Mr. Burnham stated we would be complying with CEQA by adopting a statement of override for all of the significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mr. Burnham clarified that you have to adopt all feasible mitigation measures but reject mitigation measures as infeasible if they cannot be accomplished within a reasonable period of time given a number of considerations. Public comment was opened. Chairman Selich reminded everyone that the Planning Commission approved the Traffic Phasing Ordinance at the last meeting. Tonight the Commission was hearing testimony regarding the changes that Mr. Burnham made to the Ordinance in relationship to the removal to exempt intersections, and the changes to the definition on feasible improvement. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Philip Bettencourt spoke on behalf of the Building Industry Association. Do not celebrate the Planning Commission's adoption of the TPO TPO falls short of rules originally established by the business industry No exempt intersection list ➢ No separate standard of traffic service for the airport area. ➢ No pooling of intersections for intersection averaging ➢ No relief from the 300 trips threshold that requires a traffic study ➢ No one is completely satisfied with the outcome Mr. Bettencourt said they salute the Planning Commission and staff for an absolutely marvelous job of deboning the Ordinance and addressing as many of the individualized issues that is humanly possible. Mr. Bettencourt addressed the environmental activists and residents who are fearful that making these modest repairs to the Ordinance somehow undermines the City's ability to deal with traffic. He asked them to remember the powerful tools that continue to be available to City government. • General Plan • . Zoning Code Specific Plan • Planned Community regulations • Floor area ratio standards • height restrictions • parking restrictions • CEQA environmental standards • the carrot and stick of development agreements • fair share fee mechanism that is in place, which has not once during these hearings shown to be inadequate • under some circumstances Coastal Commission controls • the City government has controls over the benefit assessment district Mr. Bettencourt stated they feel the community is well in hand with current regulations. They think this process may slow the entitlement arms race but the City has not been disarmed by any measure regardless of what the Commission does here this evening. Mr. Bettencourt urged the matter to move forward before the City Council. Alan Beek Mr. Beek addressed the question of feasible improvement, mixed in with the question of making exempt intersections pay. Mr. Beek noted that it only takes twelve words struck out of the draft last time to make exempt intersections pay like the feasible improvements. Mr. Beek noted if a bad • Ordinance is going to be passed, it should at least be clearly written without INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 errors in it. Mr. Beek had a list of 14 typographical and drafting errors in the ordinance and presented a copy to the Commissioners and Mr. Burnham. Commissioner Ashley referred to the revised TPO wherein there are no exempt intersections, there is no longer a situation that the Council cannot order a project builder to fund the improvement of a critical intersection within the vicinity of the project where such improvements are necessary. Commissioner Ashley noted that, in the previous draft, there was the strong likelihood that if someone were building a project adjacent to a critical intersection, where no feasible improvement were to be made and no plans to have it made, the builder would not have to pay any money for funding improvements made at a critical intersection. Commissioner Ashley noted that does not exist any longer and asked Mr. Beek why is there still such great concern? Mr. Beek acknowledged that problem has been fixed. Mr. Beek expressed what is extremely distressing to him is that the concept of feasible improvement is still in the TPO. Mr. Beek stated that he does appreciate all the time given to him by the Commission and staff. He stated that they have been gracious, generous of their time and courteous. Mr. Beek stated that the Chairman has held magnificent public hearings. Mr. Beek noted that he just could not believe • the Commission would have done the things they were doing if they knew what they were doing. Mr. Beek expressed his dilemma that either he did not manage to make clear to the Commission what they were doing or he is mistaken in his judgement of them. Mr. Beek expressed that he is very unhappy over what has happened and plans to express his disappointment to the City Council. Mr. Burnham expressed that he had received correspondence and telephone calls from Mr. Beek complaining about the concept of exempt intersection and recommending consistently over a 90-day period that the concept of exempt intersection be deleted from the Ordinance. Mr. Burnham noted that he was having difficulty, after the concept has been deleted from the Ordinance, understanding why Mr. Beek now considers that to be an inappropriate decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Burnham also noted that the Planning Commission considered and wanted new language on the issue of feasible improvements but tightening up the language about what you would have to find to override the impact at critical intersections that could not be improved. Mr. Burnham stated that his understanding of Mr. Beek's position was that he did not like the ability to approve a project where there was an impacted intersection, which could not be mitigated. Mr. Burnham stated that the language of the proposed TPO is better than the language of the existing TPO. Mr. Burnham expressed that it is hard for him to understand and deal with Mr. Beek's positions • because they seem to change. Mr. Beek responded that he did not want INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 projects built, which put traffic into intersections that are congested or gridlocked. Mr. Beek acknowledged that it is true that the existing TPO had been modified has the feasible improvement concept in it and permits that to happen. Mr. Beek said that concept should be taken out. Mr. Burnham asked Mr. Beek that, although he did not like the concept, if he thought the current language is better than the existing TPO. Mr. Beek agreed with that. Chairman Selich commented that this Commission approved this Ordinance at the last meeting. He stated that, in the normal course of events, they approve an Ordinance, and the final drafting takes place between what the Commission does that night and before it goes to Council. In this instance, the Commission felt it was important enough that they wanted it to go the Council in a normal time frame, but come back to the Commission so they could have one last look at the wording. Chairman Selich explained that this is not something that they normally do but felt this was important enough issue to do it. Mr. Burnham noted that given the fact that there has been a lot testimony, discussion and study of the Circulation element and how the TPO relates to the Circulation element, there are projections of significant congestion in the airport area at build -out. That is largely a function, if you look at circulation, . of regional traffic trips of origin and destination outside the City of Newport Beach. If you look at the Circulation element currently, there is not one intersection in the City that achieves level of service D due to City traffic. There are problems in the airport area due to regional traffic at build -out, assuming there is a build -out scenario. Mr. Burnham noted that within the residential section, even at build -out, there are relatively few intersections that function or predicted to function at levels above LOS D, and to a limited extent above 0.90. Commissioner Kranzley noted, as a point for clarification, under the exempt intersection concept, the only way it could go through the level of service D, if we made the politically incorrect mitigation, was to go back to the override. We did have a ceiling on the concept of an intersection where we had an improvement but did not want to make an improvement beyond just going and overriding the TPO. There was a kind of band between the old LOD D versus what would be LOS D if we made the improvement. In essence, if they did not override the TPO they could never have an intersection go through LOS D if that improvement was made and we have lost that ceiling with the new language. Commissioner Tucker stated that he was not sure if that is correct. Public comment was closed. Chairman Selich advised that the motion would be to accept revised • Ordinance language as drafted by staff and adopt Resolution No. 1500 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 recommending approval of the revisions to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to the City Council subject to the proposed revisions that have been discussed in section 7, Commissioner Fuller's changes and any other typographical errors that may have been missed. Commissioner Tucker made the above motion. Commissioner Kranzley commented that he had been struggling with exempt versus non - feasible improvements for the last several weeks and is opposed to the new language and believes that it is "head in the sand" planning but felt it was time to move this issue to the City Council. Commissioner Fuller asked if Caltrans has an easement on Coast Highway, and that they could widen Coast Highway? Mr. Edmonston responded that the City has been requiring dedication of either lease -hold or fee interest for an additional twelve feet on the inland side, over the years when the opportunity has presented itself. It only represents a small portion of the area that would be needed to do the entire widening. The City does have a little more in the area immediately around Riverside and Tustin but there would still have to be additional right -of -way acquired. • Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None Chairman Selich thanked Mr. Bettencourt, Mr. Beek, SPON and the business for their participation. It was very helpful to the Commission for them to articulate their issues and work with the Commission on the matrix. EZZ] SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 99 -2 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. 4881 Birch Street (Plaza de Cafes): A proposal to change the development allocation for this site to allow the demolition of an existing food court and allow the construction of a 161 room extended stay hotel. B. 4699 Jamboree Road (Far East National Bank): A proposal to increase the development allocation for this site to allow an approximate 24,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing office building with a related parking structure. • INDEX Item No. 4 General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 Recommend to City Council for initiation. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 C. 1514 West Balboa Boulevard (Edison Electrical Sub - station): A proposal to change the General Plan Land Use Element and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to re- designate the parcel from Governmental, Education and Institutional Facilities to Two - Family Residential. D. Lot 10, Tract 14839 (Granville Drive Office Sited A proposal to increase the development allocation for this site from 5,000 sq. ft. to 8,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Tucker asked if anyone knew who the present owner of GPA 99 -2(D) would be. Commissioner Tucker expressed some concern of there possibly being a conflict of interest for him. Planning Director Temple did not have the name of the company. Assistant City Attorney, Robin Clauson stated that tonight's vote would be for initiation purposes only. Chairman Selich asked staff to research who the owner might be of D. Commissioner Ashley expressed surprise at the Granville Drive office proposal of an increase to 3,000 square feet, proposed office building in the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Ashley asked how that materialized? Chairman Selich also referred to the increase of 200 square feet in Design Plaza. Ms. Temple explained when the General Plan was re- written in 1988, two • techniques were used to establish commercial intensity. One is Floor Area Ratio, which was applied to older commercial districts. The other is Specific Floor Area Limits, which were generally to larger scale development in Newport Center, Koll Company and Newport Place. Ms. Temple noted that it does create some problems when relatively small requests require a full -scale evaluation under a General Plan. One of the goals of the City in the comprehensive plan in the Newport Center is to try and devise a better way of establishing how to process these smaller requests. We have considered a more appropriate permit level such as a site plan review, a use permit or some other fashion. At this point in time, the Land Use Element is written fairly with a high level of precision on a parcel by parcel basis. When the applicant requested the original General Plan Amendment to establish the office site, the applicant requested 5,000 square feet and the City approved 5,000 square feet. Chairman Selich made the observation that sometimes the General Plan is more specific than the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Ashley noted that we are aware of the fact that whenever you live under high voltage towers there is a real possibility of contracting some cancerous conditions. Commissioner Ashley asked if there is any danger to public health being immediately adjacent to the Southern California Edison electrical sub - station. Commissioner Ashley expressed that he did not need an answer at this time but would like this matter to be addressed when the matter comes before the Commission after the items have been initiated. • Commissioner Tucker asked regarding the Far East National Bank, how close to 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Jamboree is the curb cut for that facility off of Campus? Commissioner Tucker noted that it is a very congested intersection and is concerned about 24,000 square feet right at the intersection. Commissioner Fuller stated he went through there today, and the curb cut would be on the west side of the property line, and there is another curb cut than enters into Jamboree, which would be near the south line of the property line. As you go through from Campus onto the property, take a right to the left go through and exit onto Jamboree. Commissioner Tucker asked if that is a shared access. Commissioner Fuller responded that it is not. Chairman Selich commented on the Granville property, have they sent staff a preliminary site plan? Ms. Temple responded that they have not, but Mr. Ficker has discussed the project and portrayed it as an interest increasing the entitlement for the purpose of allowing for subterranean parking so that, at the surface, the rest of the site would be heavily landscaped. Chairman Selich commented that there seems to be a setback standard that has been set on Newport Center Drive and he had a hard time visioning a structure that would adhere to that. Chairman Selich stated that this is a principle adhered to in the past at Newport Center of turning the buildings to Newport Center Drive so that part of it is encroaching and part is not. • Chairman Selich said he would be concerned about whatever they are coming up with. Commissioner Kranzley commented that he works across from Farallon Drive in the Cal -Fed building and feels there are some very serious parking issues in that building that are beginning to overflow onto Farallon Drive and Granville Drive. Commissioner Kranzley expressed if this project moves forward, he would be particularly interested in this matter being addressed. Commissioner Fuller asked staff regarding the food court, if it is an extended hotel similar to the one approved not long ago? Ms. Temple commented that particular project is not very similar to the Holtz Executive Village. The type of floor plans seen so far show a project that has much smaller rooms, there not any suites, no food service or any meeting rooms. The only convenience for patrons would be laundry facilities and vending machines. Chairman Selich commented it sounds more like a single room occupancy facility, which is not a hotel. Ms. Temple stated the business has an eighty- percent occupancy for less than 30 -days. Chairman Selich asked what the cut -off is for the Transit OccupancyTax? Ms. Temple responded 30 -days. Commissioner Fuller expressed his concern is about parking. Ms. Temple stated that this particular company plans for a higher parking ratio, 1.1 to 1.2 spaces per room. The City's hotel standard is A per room, and the motel standard is 1 per room. Ms. Temple commented that the company seems to be • understanding of their clientele and operation. 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Commissioner Kranzley commented on the project at Granville and said he is particularly interested in access because there are some serious issues about traffic going into and out of the Tennis and Country Club, going into the bank, going into the Granville project, near misses, etc. Ms. Temple noted she thought they would take access on Granville. Commissioner Ashley expressed concern that the Commission would be initiating a General Plan Amendment something like the Birch Street extended stay lodge before they will get around to updating the Airport Center General Plan. Commissioner Ashley asked if they were going to postpone working on the Airport General Plan for almost a year? Ms. Temple responded that she did not know what the exact time frame is, but the City Council, in the upcoming budget, has established a capital project to do a Specific Plan in the airport area. Commissioner Ashley asked if it would precede the Newport Center update. Ms. Temple said that Newport Center would go forward. Chairman Selich commented that at the joint meeting with the City Council, the Council was clear to allow the Commission latitude to move in the direction we were going but no projectswould be held up. Commissioner Hoglund commented that ESA, in their letter, operates 337 similar • hotel facilities in the United States. He asked if there are any locally? Ms. Temple stated there are some but does not know their location. Commissioner Hoglund commented regarding the Far East National bank letter that it indicates they want to add square footage to the property and they calculate the parking ratio. He noted in their letter that, although the parking ratio sounds small, it will not be of significance because they do not use much parking and neither does their potential tenant. Commissioner Hoglund wanted to caution about making decisions based on that. Commissioner Hoglund asked when someone comes to the City for a General Plan Amendment, does the City ask for a fee for all of the staff time that is involved in doing the work ? Ms. Temple responded not at the initiation stage phase. If they choose to pursue the General Plan Amendment, the City charges the single highest fee. As in the case of a major General Plan Amendment, that fee is just over $10,000.00. Ms. Temple explained that the City's fee structure is intended to recover 100 percent of staff cost. Commissioner Tucker commented that he is assuming that someone like For East National Bank is told what our parking requirements are but when it gets to the point of the actual General Plan Amendment and whatever it is they are actually doing, they have to comply with all of our codes, not withstanding what they may have written in their letter. Ms. Temple agreed. Commissioner Tucker stated then the Commission would get something back that has been . complied with the codes. Do they know that? Ms. Temple responded that the 14 1116743 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 code also includes provisions to modify or waive parking requirements. What happens in the actual plan review process, a parking study is conducted based on the nature of the physical building being built. Commissioner Tucker asked if the applicant know there is a standard? Ms. Temple stated they know what the parking requirements are. Chairman Selich commented on the Edison request and said he was on the borderline of just rejecting it. He stated the situation is that there are three lots that have never been merged together as a parcel and by virtue of the underlying subdivision staying in place, they are able to spin this property off. Chairman Selich feels it is a blight on the Peninsula and Edison would be better advised to reconfigure some of their re- locatable facilities on the site such as moving the wall back and do some landscaping rather than just selling the property off and leaving it like it is. Chairman Selich said he would go ahead and vote for initiating the amendment but would request that staff proceed with discussions with Edison and they might withdraw it and look at doing something better on the property. Commissioner Fuller asked if it is possible to have Edison place some of the electrical equipment in a subterranean location as a condition? Chairman Selich stated that is something staff could discusswith Edison. Public comment was opened. David Gouchy- Far East Bank- Mr. Gouchy stated he would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission. He commented that the applicant does know the City's parking requirements. Mr. Gouchy expressed theywould like to add a second story and provide a parking structure that meets the parking requirements. Commissioner Tucker asked if it would be general office space? Mr. Gouchy responded that the second story addition will be used as World Premier Investments' headquarters. Commissioner Ashley asked about the proposed retail space on the first floor. Mr. Gouchy responded that the General Plan allows that, and the bank wishes to reduce the size of their occupancy and are looking at some type of small retail facility but has not yet been decided. Public comment closed. Commissioner Ashley moved that the amendments to the General Plan be initiated, and the staff be directed to proceed with preparation of any necessary environmental documents, and to schedule a public hearing for the • Commission to act upon these matters on the General Plan Amendment 99 -2. 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Commissioner Kranzley as a point of order suggested to take the Amendments one at a time. Chairman Selich stated he was going to suggest taking them all at one motion unless someone was going to vote nay on an item. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he was not going to vote nay on them but wanted to be sure staff understood that he is in agreement with everything that Chairman Selich said about item C (Edison Electrical Substation). Commissioner Kranzley also commented on D (Granville Drive Office Site) and has reservations about how they will put it together. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Gifford Abstain: None rya ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Planning Director regarding City Council actions related to planning - The Planning Director • reported that the City Council approved the Service Station Ordinance. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairman Selich reviewed the various activities and sub - committees of the EDC, explaining the specific issue areas of each. C.) Matters which a Planning Commissionerwould like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting: Fuller: Requested the staff return with an analysis of commercial parking requirements. Hoglund: Requested information on the proliferation of large tents on commercial properties such as the Newport Dunes. Selich: Requested staff to prepared a report on the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Code regarding the merger of parcels, including an analysis of the consistency of the City's Code with the Map Act, and what issues are associatedwith a program to merge parcels. d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report: Selich: Requested staff to bring forward the following changes to the • Zoning Code: 16 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 • Landscaping requirements in commercial districts • Site Plan Review for multi - family development • A limitation on the size of signs e.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Fuller asked to be excused from the June 24th meeting. s +: ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 17 INDEX Adjournment