Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/2000• is i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: All Present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Daniel Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Genia Garcia, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Commissioner Ashley received a plaque from City staff and the Plannin Commission in recognition of his work for the past four years service. Minutes of June 8. 2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of June 8, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Gifford Public Comments: Commissioner Ashley, on behalf of the Planning Commission and staff commended Chairperson Selich for his documentary presented to the Cit Council regarding the Newport Dunes deliberation by the Planning Commission. Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 16, 2000. INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 SUBJECT: Prudential California Realty 3301 East Coast Highway • Modification Permit No. 5059 A review of Modification No. 5059, approved by the Modification Committee on March 29, 2000, related to the requirement for approval of the design criteria for the proposed signs for a multi- tenant building. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the conditions of approval were attached to the previous staff report dated May 4th. Public comment was opened. Bob Doman, Director of Operations for Prudential California Realty, apologized to the Commission for his absence at the last meeting. He noted they have worked hard to come up with a sign solution and erected mock -ups this week. He expressed his concern with the halo look of the sign and had asked that the Commissioners see the mock -up. The electric box will be coppered so that it represents a continuation of the dormer, also, they are concerned that the deli has a similar concept and lettering. Question that arose about the other dormer for the barbershop, we will be coming up with a look that will finish it off to match the building. Chairperson Selich thanked Mr. Doman for working with the Commission to make a better signed building. Continuing, he asked staff if the conditions cover the design of the sign as the mock -up sign that is in place now. Ms. Garcia answered that the condition states to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. There were no specifics to the type of lettering and an additional condition regarding the dormer over the barbershop needs to be added. Ms. Temple noted that if the sign in the mock -up includes adding the copper surrounding of the sign, if staff is given that specific direction, then we can make sure that happens that way. We can craft a condition that specifically limits those materials. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Doman answered that he had no problem with encasing the sign boxes in copper and integrating them into the dormers as that would complete the look of the building. Mr. Doman noted that there may be a future tenant for the barbershop unit. We would be open that the signage program for the building would be consistent. Commissioner Gifford stated that the barbershop unit would have a look that would be consistent with the look of the building, whether a false window, etc. I would feel comfortable with a condition that was specific how it would look. •Irl97�:1 Item No. 1 Modification Permit No. 5059 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 Mr. Doman answered that he will be bringing their architect in to look at the project once the decisions of the Planning Commission are made. We did quite a bit of effort to support the deli. One of the considerations is that once we do the electric box with halo signage, you are looking at almost $3,500- $4,000 that is quite a bit. We feel that from the company side we would like to see the lettering the same, but the deli may not be able to afford to have it lit. I would like that flexibility. We want to have the building look right, but because the deli is such a small business, I want the Commission to be aware of this. Commissioner Kiser asked about the sign drawing in the staff report noting that it appears to have 5 inch deep channel letters on the sign. What I saw last night I believe was quite a bit thinner than that. It appears that we need a new submittal of the sign drawing. This would allow for an approval on the correct sign submittal. Mr. Doman answered that the current rendering is incorrect and that he will present to staff another rendering with the correct measurements. Public comment was closed. • Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to uphold the determination of Modification Permit No. 5059 adding the following conditions: • The clock be approved as installed with no logo on the face of the clock. • The Prudential Realty signs be approved as halo lit signs per the mock -up. • The plan dated 4/13/2000 be revised to reflect the halo lighting concept. • The sign over Gary's Deli can have the option to be lit or not as long as the unlit sign has the final appearance similar as the unlit condition to the Prudential California Realty sign. • The dormer over the barbershop be heated in an architecturally compatible manner with the rest of the building, subject to the review by the Planning Director. If and when it is ever utilized as a separate space and sign, it can be halo lit sign similar to the Prudential Realty or an unlit sign would have the daytime appearance similar to the unlit Prudential Realty sign. • All the sign cans are to be sheathed in copper and integrated architecturally with the dormers. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None r1 U INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification No. 5059 Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail Service Commercial' use and the existing commercial structure is consistent with this designation. The sign structures are accessory to the primary use. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I I (Accessory Structures). 3. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: • The subject property is occupied by a multi- tenant building with the major tenant occupying a space that fronts on two streets and requires additional signage for business identification. The subject property is located at the comer of East Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue where the public street makes a turn and additional signage is necessary in order to identify the business. 4. The modification to the Zoning Code, as proposed will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use for the following reason: • The additional signs are located on the wall of the commercial structure and one of the additional signs is a logo /clock sign at the comer of the building. • The sign backgrounds wills are to be painted an off -white opaque color that allow the illumination through the cutout letters and graphics, instead of lighting the entire background. • The halo effect behind the cutout letters will be softer in appearance more aesthetically pleasing than if the entire signs were backlit. • Only one sign will be located on the Marguerite Avenue side of the • building. LI1* u City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 5. The proposed signs will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties because: • The signs are located at the street sides of the subject property. 6. The proposed signs will not obstruct views from adjoining residential and commercial properties because: There is no view from this location. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department to include sign design criteria to be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All signs located over the public right of way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit /agreement if required. 4. A building permit shall be obtained for the proposed signs. 5. All signs for the multi- tenant building shall be uniform in color, graphics, and illumination to insure a consistency in signage for the building. 6. Each tenant shall have one wall sign on the East Coast Highway side of the building and the corner tenant is permitted one additional sign on the Marguerite Avenue side of the building. 7. The Planning Commission may add to, or modify conditions of approval to this Modification Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of the Modification Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Modification, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general 8. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9 The clock be approved as Installed with no logo on the face of the clock. 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 10 The Prudential Realty signs be approved as halo lit signs per the mock -up. 11 The plan dated 411312000 be revised to reflect the halo lighting concept 12 The sign over Gary's Deli can have the option to be lit or not as long as the unlit sign has the final appearance similar as the unlit condition to the Prudential California Realty sign. 13 The dormer over the barbershop be treated in an architecturally compatible manner with the rest of the building, subject to the review by the Planning Director. If and when it is ever ufilized as a separate space and sign, it can be halo lit sign similar to the Prudential Realty or an until sign would have the daytime appearance similar to the unlit Prudential Realty sign. 14 All the sign cons are to be sheathed in copper and integrated architecturally with the dormers. SUBJECT: Sea Island Subdivision (Luna Planning & Architecture) Southeast corner of Jamboree Road and Ford Road • General Plan Amendment No. 99 -1(D) and Amendment No. 990. • Resubdivision No. 1083. Request to permit a subdivision within an existing condominium development, for the construction of three new attached residential units. The project requires the approval of: A General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment to increase the total number of units permitted within residential area 1 of the Big Canyon Planned Community to accommodate the construction of the proposed 3 new units. A resubdivision application to subdivive the existing parcel creating 3 new residential condominium units. Commissioner Kranzley stated that this parcel is a 20,000 square feet of tennis court and passive open landscape area. He asked what the total amount of passive and open area in the development was. Referring to the table on page 7, Mr. Campbell answered that about 337* of the site would be devoted to landscaping. Commissioner Tucker asked what the lot was designated as when the original subdivision was done and if it was a lettered lot. He was answered that it was not a lettered lot and that it was a one4ot subdivision. It was noted for open space and tennis court. There was no specific prohibition to future development of the site. INDEX Item No. 2 UP 3676 Continued to September 7, 2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 Commissioner Kranzley added that in the future when there are agenda items similar to this, he requests that a copy of the PC text be included in the staff report. Chairperson Selich noted that on page 7 of the staff report, it states that staff believes that the precedent established is nominal as approval is partly based upon the need for the project which is to raise money for the Sea Island Community to make repairs and prolong the useful life of the development, etc. Is that the stated purpose for this thing and were you presented with what these repairs would be, how much money they expect to raise, etc.? Did they give you a dollar figure? Mr. Campbell answered that the stated purpose is within the application. He has seen photographs of some of the deteriorated conditions that are primarily due to drainage in the underground garages and the like. The applicant has further information as evidence to show the type of repairs that they want to make. I do not have specific information about the financing of it and whether or not this is going to cover all the costs or not. I did not request that information. Commissioner Kiser asked if there would be another curb cut and an additional • driveway entrance onto Jamboree as part of the project? He was answered that there will be no additional curb cuts or access to Jamboree. The access to the proposed division will be a private driveway on private property. There are no proposed changes to the access points or improvements. The additional three units do not increase the traffic to warrant any mitigation measures. Public comment was opened. More Luna, Luna Planning and Architecture, 31681 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano spoke on behalf of the applicant, Sea Island Association, noting the following: • Project was developed in 1970's by the Irvine Company. • Tennis courts and open space areas were not a requirement at that time. • Project has undergone severe maintenance conditions caused by roof problems, drainage problems, stucco problems, and planters draining into the subterranean garage. • Units vary in size from 1100 square feet to 1900 square feet and are 2 -3 bedroom units. • Based on a prospective done last year, units listed for sale range in price from $250,000 to $350,000. (a low price for this area) • Reason for the low prices is that the association fees are considerably high. The current charge is $420 /month, which does not begin to repair what is required. • The application for the General Plan Amendment did not include a cost for maintenance costs. • A letter from an independent contracting firm suggests that a possibility of INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 developing three units on open space that is hardly utilized by any of the homeowners, in order to generate the funds necessary to conduct the repairs that would upgrade these units and possibly lower these monthly association dues. It would make it more viable for sales. Innovative solutions to the problems there. She then presented a portfolio of pictures depicting problems that the homeowners have had to deal with particularly to the underground garage that is also the foundation for a great number of units. The project is designed so that some of the units toward Ford Road are stand -alone units with garages nearby. The bulk of the problems have been with the units that are above the garages along Jamboree. These units have become difficult to rent and to sell. Commission asked the following: • Is the association professionally managed - yes. • Is there a reserve set aside for repairs and maintenance - yes, but there are not sufficient reserves to pay for these kinds of repairs. Commissioner Tucker stated his concern with taking open area when an association needs money and selling it. This could set precedence. Ms. Luna answered that she is not advocating this but that is why this process does exist, to allow the decision - makers to look at an issue on an individual basis and to judge it. As indicated by staff, we comply with all standards except that the development plan that was passed for this project in the 70's arbitrarily limited this project to 83 units. It did require a certain amount of area for landscape and open space. The existing open space for the entire project, which is 7.11 acres, totals 2.4 acres. The new proposed tract total is .46 acres and the loss of open space is less than 2017o of the open space for the entire tract of 7.11 acres. Commissioner McDaniel asked how long these conditions have been going on and was answered that the problems have been going on for a number of years. Commissioner Kiser asked about the $420 /month, does that include utilities or property taxes? Ms. Luna deferred. Commissioner Ashley asked about the market values and if the high association fees reduce the market value of the units. Ms. Luna noted it is the intention of the association to convert the tennis courts to three lots, sell those three developed lots and use the proceeds of those sales to repair the maintenance and drainage problems. This has been voted on by a majority of the homeowners. An amendment to the CC and R's was passed by 75 %. The intent is to lower the association fees to the greatest degree possible. A vast amount of the homeowners have lived there for a considerable amount of • time and want an opportunity to sell their property at what would be considered INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 a reasonable price. In the past there have been a certain amount of lawsuits with the original builders and contractors of this development. The long -term solution is expensive and I am not sure what it involves, but this will give them the funds to be able to do that. Commissioner Gifford asked about the prior litigation and if it was brought by the association and what was done with the proceeds. Ms. Luna deferred. Commissioner Tucker asked if another complex of tennis courts up the road is part of this association. Ms. Luna answered that this is a different association. Chairperson Selich asked if there was an estimate how much revenue will be raised from the development and sales of the three lots. Ms. Luna deferred. Doug Fletcher, 83 Sea Island Drive stated the following: • Redress occurred prior to ten years ago and the association agreed that they would not sue McClain again for anything. • 10 years ago there was a major soils subsidence problem resulting in two units sinking and cost $450,000 to fix and wiped out the reserve fund. • Within the last 10 years we have attempted to build the reserves back up and we are almost at 50% of what the reserves should be. • We are now faced with underground garages that have gas pipes coming through the concrete that are leaking and causing fire hazards. Couple that with electrical problems, we are facing a major problem with keeping the maintenance of these units up. • We have had three or four assessments over the past years and we are faced with an increasing problem of a deteriorating concrete subterranean garage system that is going to nickel and dime us to death. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Fletcher answered: • Association is professionally managed. • Reserve study is done once a year as part of the annual budgeting process. • The sale of the units will be used to seal the water from coming into the garages. We hope to start fixing these problems and also to get into a preventative maintenance program. Commissioner Ashley noted that the applicant is asking for a general plan amendment for an increase of three units over what is entitled to under the current regulations. Additionally, it would eliminate open space in the residential project. If we are to say yes, we have to have a real understanding what this would accomplish. Commissioner Kiser stated that because the staff report did not include details on the reasons for the desire to build and sell these units and did not give us any sense of the probability of success of this venture, it is difficult to make a decision without a lot of facts. While we are not the management company, there is an INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 important issue that is one of precedence. To allow this to be done in a situation that might be replicated in other communities, as easily for budget shortfalls would be very bad precedence to set. Open space is very important and whether or not the tennis courts are utilized right now, I don't see this as an important factor. More information is needed to assure that the monies received would fix the problem in a way that is more permanent than preventative maintenance. We would be just doing a stop gap measure that may not work. Commissioner McDaniel asked how long the problem had been going on. He was answered that the deterioration of the infrastructure has been progressively worse over the post ten years. The gas lines are leaking in between the structures and are causing major safety hazards. The sale of the additional units will allow us to be able to do the remediation that needs to be done to take care of the problem. The fees are $420 /month and are used for normal operating monies and to fund the reserves to do the shingles and roofs. Commissioner Gifford noted that the City does not want to begin to do anything like setting a policy or precedence to have infill projects everywhere that there are developments with open space. I would look at this one way if it was a unique situation that was caused by some acts of God related to winter storms and things that affected your complex uniquely. To that end, our questions have to do with how to separate as to the extent that is the case as opposed to simply not taking another recourse. I gather at the time of the settlement you had knowledge of these other problems years ago. Mr. Fletcher answered that the association settled with McClain about 15 years ago for $10,000 and signed an agreement that stated we could not sue in the future. Commissioner Gifford continuing noted that to segregate whether that was a bad decision to settle for that amount or the association has not managed well or acted on things early enough which are problems that could occur in any association as opposed to something that is unique about the circumstances of this association. To the extent that the Commission can have some sense that it wasn't just a bad decision to settle for that amount of $10,000 or that the $450,000 that was spent was spent on addressing this problem and not others and also the idea that the association is going into the development business. You will have your own potential for liability from the units that you sell. I assume you will have a contract with the builders that indemnifies you but what is that worth, is it bonded? A lot of questions relate to whether this issue is truly unique to your situation and whether indeed it will solve the problem. Or, if we simply had approved this and given up and allowed you to exceed the allowable density in the project, only to find that it did not solve the problems because you have the new unit owners suing you for the problems they thought were going to be fixed, etc. • Marie Luna, 31861 Camino Capistrano stated that following the line of 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 questioning, in conference with associations members, asked for a continuance to allow an opportunity to have an economic analysis done for presentation to the Commission with back up materials. Additionally, they would look at the possibility of a noise study for the tennis courts. The applicants do not believe that the tennis courts qualify as a recreational facility due to the noise caused by Jamboree Road. If this development were to be developed today, it would not meet the noise requirements. More importantly, the issues brought up regarding the economics and the management of the association, we would like to put something together and bring that information back for your consideration. Commissioner Gifford stated that would be helpful. I would join Commissioner Kiser and say that the tennis court as a tennis court is not an issue. It could be lots of other kinds of open space, so whether the association chooses to keep it as a tennis court or something else is not an important issue it is just open space for whatever it might be. Commissioner Kiser asked if there are any lawsuits pending or potential cause of actions that could be brought against others for recouping some of these funds? Are the repairs just the water - leaking problem, or is there any kind of subsidence problem and to what extent the proceeds of the sale will go towards fixing all the problems. Ms. Luna stated she would respond when they come back at the next meeting. They will have an independent contractor look at the site and make recommendations on repairs and costs. Commissioner Kranzley noted his similar experience as a board member of an association. He asked to hear from the management company. Generally when reserve studies are done, graphs are prepared depicting needed repairs; timing of reserves and meeting the financial responsibility of those repairs. If they have been managing this association for a number of years, then they would have historical data as well. I am disturbed by the fact that the reserves would have reached zero at some point in time. I understand assessments and need to understand dues increases, etc. I am concerned about the cannibalization of open space in a dense PC that may set precedence. Commissioner Tucker noted that he is sympathetic to the problems inherent to a condominium ownership. Unfortunately, it is not a unique situation and I am bothered about taking open area in a residential project. There is a certain amount of open area, no matter how the association ends up being short and nobody wants to pay assessments and the fortuity of having some excess land in your situation, maybe it is not being used. There are lots of condominium associations in the City that have extensive green belt areas and how do we make that distinction? Do we start allowing that to happen? In my association, we have had slope failures and other issues, are we going to sell our parks? You have to look at it and say at what point do the owners who have entered into a condominium arrangement have to bear the burden versus passing along to 11 `II.Ip7�/ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 more density in the community. I am willing to listen, but I want to make sure that you understand. Ms. Luna answered that they will take a closer look at that open space area located at the end of the project versus being spread throughout the project. Few people benefit from its existence. It would be different if this open space was equitably dispersed. In looking at the site plan we have identified pockets of open space that might be more evenly distributed. Commissioner McDaniel noted that if you are saying that because of the noise from Jamboree Road, this is not a good place to have a tennis court, you need to tell me why it is a good place to sleep. This is to be answered when the applicant comes back. Commissioner Ashley noted the contradiction between comments made by Ms. Luna and Mr. Fletcher. The discrepancy was the need for the new houses to be created and sold was to help reduce the $420 association fee because it was not only impacting the value of the units, but also impairing sales. Mr. Fletcher then stated that the $420 /month fee has not really been going towards repairs of the deterioration of the roof over the garage for the last ten years, that is something now that they are just now attending to because of the danger. I hope that the next time that your arguments be direct and not from a marketing point of view. Dan Purcell, 3 Canyon Lane, Corona del Mar commended Commissioner Tucker on his direct response to the applicant. Commissioner Gifford stated that barring some act of God, that it is not something that may warrant approval. People need to be direct with the applicants if there may be no way this is going to be approved. The applicant will spend a couple of months doing an economic study of how they are going to justify these few homes and offset all their problems. Is the Planning Commission going to put in a control board at condo units all over town and begin controlling the boards, the management companies and the construction companies? I just can't see how the Planning Commission can get into this. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich stated that on page 7 of the staff report, 'the staff believes that the precedent established is nominal as approval is partly based upon the need for the project, which is a need to raise money for the Sea Island repairs. I really have a hard time accepting the concept of going back into these condominium projects and taking open space and converting it into developable property to meet these financial needs. There is certainly the precedence setting nature of a decision like this as I don't believe that we have done anything like this before in the City that I am aware of. I can see it becoming a problem all over. My association has a couple of parks and not a lot of kids anymore and one of the parks is out of the way and not used. We can't 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 get money out of our homeowners to do anything, and I can see word of this getting out and the bright idea coming up to take that park and cut it up into a couple of lots to raise a few million dollars. There are ramifications here that we need to seriously consider. There is a sense coming from the Commission that you need to be aware of in deciding how much money to spend. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to September 7th, Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Parker Stansbury, LLC., applicant • GPA 99 -2 (C) • Amendment 904 A request to change the General Plan and Zoning designation o the subject property from Government, Education, and Institutional (GEIF) to Two Family Residential (R -2). Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to July 6m. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None + ++ SUBJECT: Billy's At The Beach, The Chart House (Gordon Barienbrock, applicant) 2751 and 2801 West Coast Hwy. • Use Permit No. 3674 • Outdoor Dining Permit No. 67 • Outdoor Dining Permit No. 68 • Off -site Parking Agreement Request to add accessory outdoor dining to two existing full service restaurants, a 768 sq. ft. outdoor dining area for the existing Chart House Restaurant and a 515 sq. ft. outdoor dining area with a 220 square foot service area, for the existing Billy's At The Beach restaurant. A use permit is required for Billy's At The Beach because the proposed area of the outdoor dining area will exceed the permitted 25% of the net public area of the interior of the restaurant. The proposal includes a request to approve an off -site parking agreement for one . additional required parking space for the dining area and for the elimination of 13 Item No. 3 GPA 99 -2 (C) A 904 Continued to July 6th Item No. 4 UP No. 3674 ODP No. 67 ODP No. 68 Off -site Parking Agreement Continued to July 6th City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 one on -site parking space and relocation to the off -site lot. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to July 6th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Balboa Inn Expansion 105 Main Street • Use Permit No. 3661 • Negative Declaration A request for a Use Permit to construct a two- and three -story building for 11 new guest rooms for the Balboa Inn, 2060 sq. ft, of retail space and a partially open parking garage with 20 tandem parking spaces. The use permit application also includes consideration of an exception to the maximum allowable floor area and basic allowable building height. Mr. Campbell noted a letter that was received from a property owner adjacent to the project. (copies were distributed) The Peninsula Point Association phoned the Planning Director and relayed their position that they are not in support of the additional floor area portion of the use permit. Commissioner Kranzley noted for the public record that there were two sets of plans included in the packet. The staff report states that we are adding 11 new guestrooms and 20 additional parking spaces. However, the project description for the Environmental analysis talks about 14 rooms and 22 spaces. There are plans that reflect that design and then there are plans that reflect a different design. Fortunately, I was able to reach the project architect who was willing to straighten this out for me. You might help the public understand why we have two sets of plans and two sets of information. The second thing is that I would like to see the total number of rooms in the project so that we can see the total parking requirement. We need a general overview of the project. Mr. Campbell answered that there is one set of plans attached to the environmental document that was prepared several months ago based on a larger project. These plans indicate a 14 -foom expansion. The project went through a substantial redesign in March resulting in a second set of plans depicting 11 rooms with 2000 square feet of retail space. The Negative Declaration was based on the prior project and we believe that analysis if we had recirculated the Negative Declaration would not result in any substantial change in the conclusions. The subsequent amended plans should be inserted into that document as well as the exhibit for the Planning Commission to 41 consider for the application. The existing hotel has 34 rooms as well as 14 INDEX Item No. 5 Use Permit No. 3661 Negative Declaration Continued to July 20th . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 commercial spaces that face Main Street along with a restaurant. Staff did not go through an analysis specific to those, as they are part of an older application. We can pull some information forward if you desire for the next meeting. Commissioner Gifford noted that with a total of 45 rooms then, how would the whole property be parked relative to the normal requirement? Mr. Campbell answered that the project as proposed provides parking for the expansion plus an excess of 8 spaces. Those 8 spaces do not fulfill the entire parking requirement of the Balboa Inn with 34 rooms, that would be 17 parking spaces and they also have retail as well. The 8 spaces are not going to meet the minimum code requirement for the Inn. Commissioner Gifford stated then that the presently provided parking is 0, is this correct? She was answered yes. Chairperson Selich asked about the operation of the tandem stall and if they were to be valet parked, or are the guests pulling in to park themselves? How is this going to work? Mr. Campbell answered that the applicant is proposing to have a tandem attendant - parking situation that would be exhibited in a traffic plan reviewed by the traffic engineer. Chairperson Selich asked about the site plan where it shows the special paving going underneath the bridge from the courtyard into the existing inn across to the similarly paved area in the parking stalls. Is that public right of way there and do they have to get encroachment permits for that? We have two elevations, the south and east. Were other elevations submitted and not given to us? Mr. Campbell answered that the applicant is proposing some enhanced paving, the material selection will be reviewed by the Public Works Department for durability and safety. There would be permits required. There will be standard sidewalk concrete on the ocean front walk and around the perimeter of the project. These are the only two elevations that were submitted. Chairperson Selich noted that looking at what would be the north elevation, which would be the building facing the public walkway, is that a solid wall along there? Assuming there was no landscaping and you were walking down that walkway, would you be able to look through and see the cars? On the south elevation that appears to be some kind of grill work, is the some treatment going to be on the other side or a solid wall? What about the spaces marked one and two, is there any wall going to be there? Mr. Campbell recounted that there will be a covered arcade fronting the retail 15 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 space and an open staircase that goes to the second floor. There will be an open garden court, so there will not be solid walls along there. The open garden court will have views into the parking area and then as you progress further west aside from support columns underneath the bridge, there would not be a solid wall across there. The architect is here and can explain some of the ideas of how that wall might look. There may be a support structure for the bridge approximately at the end of where space 2 is, and there may be a small fence as well between the landscaping in the public right of way and the parking area. This will be open. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the valet parking verbiage requesting that it be stronger. Ms. Temple noted that the valet parking plan needs to be provided for in terms of someone at the hotel having the responsibility of moving cars around virtually 24 hours a day. I agree that condition needs to be added. Continuing, Commissioner Kranzley noted that regarding the bridge, is that an easement with the City, how does this work? If the bridge collapsed and someone was injured, wouldn't that potentially be a liability to the City? • Ms. Temple noted that there may not be an actual easement granted by the City for the bridge. The hotel and bridge structure have been there for many years before people thought of having that type of requirement. Certainly the City can, through this process, look at various things that may be necessary in order to maintain the bridge and I suppose could even require that the bridge be removed. To the extent that the bridge is continued and maintained, it would be in the City's best interest to create whatever legal instrument is most appropriate in order to hold the City harmless from any liability. Commissioner Gifford asked with respect to the bridge being perhaps constructed prior to having requirements, there has never been the ability to simply use public property for private purposes without some kind of an easement other than prescriptively, has there? I am not aware of anything unique about our City to allow this. Ms. Temple answered that to the extent to delve into how that bridge got established, we have not done the research back into the 30's. We would ask for time to do that before speculating on whether it was done or not done appropriately at that time. We need to find if there are any records on the bridge construction. Commissioner Gifford noted that the reason this is of interest is that the applicant is asking for a use permit that has a number of things that would exceed their entitlement on that property and to the extent that they may not have the right to this bridge as things stand now, I would like to understand that. 16 `11,1171 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 Commissioner Tucker noted that he would like to see all of the elevations. He asked if any changes were proposed to the existing facility? Mr. Campbell noted that there are no changes proposed to the existing inn or the existing bridge. The bridge will stay in place, the staircase down from the bridge will be removed and the existing bridge will be tied into the existing structure. The applicant is proposing that the bridge be part of the handicap accessibility of the new expanded inn. There is an elevator in the older inn and so this particular bridge would act as handicap accessibility to the second level and will become an integral part of the building code compliance. The bridge does need to remain there if we were to find the structure compliant with the building code. Commissioner Tucker added that, or they may need to put in an elevator in the new project. I can see why the developer would want to leave the bridge there. How do you get to those parking spaces? Is the access through the City parking lot? Do you go down underneath? Mr. Campbell answered that the parking area will be accessed off from the exit drive to the Balboa Pier parking lot, located in the bottom of the drawing • attached to the staff report. It is partially open and partially covered and is at grade. Commissioner Gifford noted her confusion with the landscaping. There is a garden element within the property boundaries called the garden court. I saw a reference to an 8% landscape requirement, but I know that all of the landscaping with the exception of the garden court is in the public right of way. In terms of percentages, what is the actual percentage that is on the private properly site? Mr. Campbell answered that it does meet the 87o requirement with the landscaping in and of itself. We actually allow hardscape to take up some of that space as well. Commissioner Gifford asked if he meant the hardscape within the garage and enhanced hardscape adjacent to the garden court. The concept is that the 400 square feet or whatever the number is, is exclusively the garden court and meets the 8% requirement? She was answered yes. Chairperson Selich asked staff if this area had been looked at for maneuverability. For example, space 12 and 19 if they were accessible. Mr. Edmonston answered that these spaces with a valet operation would be backed into and would therefore be useable. . Chairperson Selich asked with the shortage of parking in this area, what is the 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 purpose of the garden court and what is the value of this versus the possibility of having at least 4 more parking spaces in that area? Mr. Campbell answered that this meets two objectives of the Central Balboa Specific Plan that requires some articulation in the building and provides open space along with greenery (8% landscaping). If that were to be removed, we would need to then take a look at the fact that the project would not meet the 8% requirement. We could consider that through the alternative design requirements of the Balboa area, but staff felt that amenity provides a nice open area for the ocean front walk. Chairperson Selich answered, well we are waiving everything else in the book on this, did you make an evaluation? I don't see this as a mandatory thing. If you look at the what the value is of having four additional parking spaces versus having open space or waiving the open space and finding other ways to get building articulations. Did you look at this at all? Do you have any thoughts? Mr. Campbell stated that parking is a valuable commodity in this area. Staff felt that the articulation of the building was important as well. There are some existing planters in the public right of way that provide a significant amount of landscaping around the project. It could be re- worked for parking. Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood noted two spaces rather than four would be all that you could get there because space 13 is handicap. Chairperson Selich asked if the hotel owns this parcel of land. Do we have any other parcels along the oceanfront walk on the other side of the walk that are either developed or zoned or subdivided in a manner similar to this? Ms. Temple answered, yes and that it is developed with a pool and kiosk, bicycle rental shop and a small food service establishment. The general plan land use designation and zoning designation are commercial. There are other lots that can be developed. At the time the subdivisions occurred in the very early days, there were lots established oceanward of the oceanfront boardwalk. Most of them are actually still zoned for R -1 although the general plan land use element shows them as open space. However, a number of them are privately owned. Most of these properties are extremely small, some as small as 30 x 30 feet. Although we have received some queries in the past from the owners questioning the development rights in regards to them, and have provided copies of the original deeds that were recorded in about 1906- 1908. The deeds actually set a property line as the mean high tide line. We have not completed the research needed regarding the fact that the mean high tide line at the time was extremely close to the boardwalk or within 10-20 feet. Now, there is several hundred feet of beach in front of these lots, so we may very well be dealing with a possibility of residential development oceanward of the boardwalk. In the mid 1960's the City Council undertook a 18 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 program and embarked on acquiring as many of those properties as possible. The City now owns probably on the order of 70% of them. It has not been a high priority recently, but if someone were to come in and get a building permit for one of these lots, the City may consider a new program to acquire the balance. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that the remaining lots are scattered and may be adjacent to others the City owns in the eastern part of the Balboa Peninsula area. The City acquired the lots as they came available and there was a willing seller. Public comment was opened. Ron Boers, representing Balboa Inn noted the following: • Balboa Village Plan addresses the nature of paving materials and public improvements. • Referencing an exhibit explained the orientation of the proposed project in relation to the Balboa Pier and village with their proposed changes. • Peninsula Park within the village is the only green space in the area and is proposed to be enhanced to allow outdoor amphitheater for musical performances. • Aware of the visibility of the inn for the area. • Balboa Inn is a landmark that adds to the eclectic character of the village with Moorish overtones and Mediterranean styled roof. • The proposed addition will be compatible with the existing landmark structure. • He noted on the exhibit the courtyard, public easement with planter area along pier parking lot and a planting area in front of the hotel. • Balboa improvement proposal is to enhance the paving throughout oceanfront walk as well as all of Main Street. The idea of the enhanced paving for the project is another front door to the hotel. • Trees will be in place that allow for a garden atmosphere on the second floor as well. • Hotel has an arcade treatment with arches and heavy columns that will be continued along Main Street and along the proposed development. • The ability to see the parking lot from the walkway will be obscured by the landscaping. • For security reasons, there may be a need for a wrought iron or decorative fencing. The other elevations were not provided as they would mirror what is depicted in the two elevations presented in the report. • There are benefits to the public as well as the hotel. A continuation of the public arcade with outdoor seating that is covered and will be open to the general public to sit and look out. • Articulation of the building mass in the previous proposal would have provided a view of solid rooms. This new proposal is two residentially • scaled buildings. The area in- between the structures become an open 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 space view corridor and provide a space for a sundeck to replace the pool and recreation area now on the ground level. • Garden plays into the characteristics of the second floor space as a visual amenity. • The trade off to shortening the building and breaking it into two masses is to propose four additional rooms as a third floor. Some of the buildings will be massed as two-story and three -story. The higher building portions are set as for away as possible of the existing hotel and other improvements. • Referencing the elevations he noted the articulation of the building with a ground floor arcade, balcony edge, window lines, arches and awnings. • The hotel viewed from the beach has a profile of a two story wing and a three story wing with two towers separated by sundeck and spa and parking treated with a decorative metal work between the columns. Commissioner Kranzley noted he met with Mr. Boers earlier to discuss the project. He discussed the walkway screening and the use of landscaping for the parking. He asked if a wall can be used next to parking space nos. 13 and 14 and could look similar to an arch. I just don't want to look in there and see cars. The plans that we have show the walkway from the hotel into the parking space as fairly wide. I am encouraged by the fact this appears to be the start of seeing people make the capital commitment to Balboa Village. Since we are creating potential greater FAR then if we can provide screening of cars then I would like to see that in this project. Commissioner Tucker noted his problem visualizing the project. The floor plans for the second and third floor facade look as if it was up and down, we don't have any sections that show whether there is any relief. Mr. Boers noted that there are balconies furnished on all the rooms. Additionally there is an 8 -toot recess that creates a shade and shadow pattern on all the walls. There are window openings with awnings and planter boxes off the walls. The walls are vertical. Each of the corner rooms has a balcony so that the walls wrap around as depicted in the floor plans. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that he is trying to understand what this project would look like. The use permit process allows us to look at what the building will look like. If the use permit is to be granted, we need to be comfortable knowing what the project will look like, as well as the quality of the architecture. You mentioned planting large trees next to the city sidewalks is that going to be feasible without having root problems coming up and is that a realistic landscape palette? Mr. Boers answered that there is a design team working on the selection of landscape materials throughout the village. The landscape materials selected by that team will be used for this project. The treatment of landscaping along oceanfront is one of the priority areas being addressed. • 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 Commissioner Tucker asked about the arcade element on the east elevation and if it was going to look exactly like the existing hotel. Are there setbacks on the project? Are there any plans? I like what 1 am hearing, but I am not sure I am able to interpret that on the plans. Mr. Boers answered that the intent is to replicate the heavy columns and arches in the same style with the same kind of detail that presently exists on the hotel. Referencing the exhibit, he explained the arcade is recessed nine feet and the columns are on the property line. The retail frontage will be recessed approximately nine feet. Rooms on the second floor are recessed approximately six feet from the arcade line. The corner balconies recess the walls again. The third floor is an in and out treatment. The floor plan represents the balcony wall. The third floor actually goes out over some of the balconies on the second floor. Chairperson Selich agreed that there should be elevations for all four sides as well as getting something to give a better understanding as to what is going on. He asked about the bridge construction. The bridge seems incongruous with the rest of the design of the proposed project. What about the railings? Looking at the south elevation, there are two gates, how are they going to operate? What about public access? • Mr. Baers answered that he had no information on the bridge. The original hotel had been constructed in the 1930's, they did not put the pool in at that time, and the bridge might have been a later addition. He answered that they may be able to enhance the bridge to bring it in character with the rest of the hotel. The gates during the hours when the attendant is there will be left open and then be rolled shut in the evening when there is not a lot of traffic. Someone will open them when a customer needs to retrieve a car. The public circulation pattern is the same as it is today. Chairperson Selich noted again that it would be helpful to have some additional detail along with the elevations of the north and west side. Even with your descriptions, I am not sure of what it will look like along the ocean walk as well as from the public parking area to the west. Commissioner Ashley noted the following: • Why is there a 90 degree comer at the boardwalk - treatment at the corner across Main Street is a square corner with a fluted recess underneath to the doorways that go into the corner retail space. We are proposing to replicate that detail. • Tandem stalls 1, 2, 13 and 15 could be decoratively screened to make it more attractive. • Have you had any complaints from your neighbors, as some of their views might be restricted due to the extension of the hotel? - Mr. Campbell answered that he has met with several property owners who • have expressed concerns in that regard. 21 111111 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 Commissioner McDaniel noted: • You have proposed a new beautiful building, are you going to do anything to the old one - the old building has been undergoing an upgrade program for the past few years including exterior and interior. • Is there a demand for these additional rooms - the addition of eleven ocean view rooms greatly enhances the viability of this property within the village. Commissioner Kiser noted: • Looking at the garage from the south elevation with a metal separation, is landscaping planned - along the frontage there is a ten - foot planter area. • Does the ability to put in landscaping require any kind of vacation of the street in front - discussion followed on the proposal of the BPPAC design committee on the re-do of the pier parking lot, timing of proposed changes, funding, design advisor, timing of approvals, and construction of first phase starting in 2001. • Specific plans for valet parking - no detail parking management plan for valet service, but because it is tandem parking, it has to be all attendant parking. There are no specific conditions for employee . parking. The inn had purchased a number of annual permits for employee parking in the city lot. • Story poles or string lines erected to see what the project would look like - Mr. Campbell answered that is up to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Wood added that a parking management plan had been done for the peninsula. One of the recommendations from that was to establish an employee parking area where they would be given special stickers so they could park all day. We were not able to find a location that was satisfactory to the residents and to the employees so that ended up not being one of the recommendations that were adopted. Commissioner Gifford noted: • Outdoor patio on the east side, will that allow public access - yes, the patio will be accessed by steps at either end of the arcade plus a handicap ramp. The patio will have chairs and tables for public use. There is no intent to manage it in conjunction with an indoor retail space, as the problem with food service is increasing the parking requirement. • If it is not tied into any food service, and the patio is just for the people to come and eat their lunch, there will be a real problem with litter. Who will be responsible for cleaning? Has this been addressed? - these outdoor eating spaces are a public amenity. As far as the Use Permit application goes, this is as far as the thinking went in terms of what is categorized as hotel related retail; no full sit down restaurant, some • retail establishment with a food service bar for take out and the arcade 22 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 outside would be considered as a public resource shared by customers supporting this establishment. Commissioner Gifford asked staff for clarification that there are 8 extra parking spaces given that the parking is discreet to this parcel. What square footage of the food service would require only 8 parking spaces? Ms. Temple answered that for regular eating and drinking establishments as defined by Code it would be more likely a full service small -scale land use class. That classification has a dual parking requirement of either 1 space for every three seats (allowing 24) or, 1 space for every 75 square feet of net public area (allowing 600 hundred square feet of net public area). Commissioner Kranzley asked Mr. Baers to outline the footprint that is by right buildable along with setbacks, etc. Conditions 6 and 7 refer to landscaping and I wonder if there should be specific reference to maintaining public property landscaping. Mr. Baers answered that the parcel is 55 feet on the west property line, and 135 feet long. The proposal is to build a structure that is approximately 105 feet long and leave the rest open for parking. • Mr. Campbell answered that the conditions talk about on -site and adjacent off -site planting areas and those are incorporated in the plans. Condition 7 goes into the fact that they will be maintaining those areas, so we felt that would cover both the public and private areas. Ms. Temple added that the landscaping installed in the public rights of way require an encroachment agreement within which a specific requirement for maintenance will also be included. Kathleen Smith, 600 East Oceanfront as a long time resident noted her impressions with the deliberations by the Planning Commission. On this project, she is amazed that more residents are not concerned about it. She noted the staff report that states the project will not impact the enjoyment of the area. The plans look wonderful and if you are sitting out at Ruby's, it will be a wonderful view. However, if you are sitting at my house, it is not a wonderful view no matter how pretty that building is. The way the property is maintained to this point is not especially pleasing. I have lived there for ten years, and that property is not pleasing to look at. I don't think people come to Newport or Balboa to look at pretty buildings. I do think it important to improve the landscaping and paving, but nobody has asked how the residents feel. The numbers of people who will come and stay at the hotel pale next to the numbers of people who come and walk that boardwalk and look at the view and appreciate the area. People come all over to look at it and it is a shame this project got this far along without hearing other opponents. • 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 Diane Williams, 600 East Oceanfront (between Washington and Palm) noted that she has spent her life savings on this condominium with a full view of the ocean. Now I have property that will be blocked almost 75% by this proposed project. The hotel is beautiful, but I have made an investment. I ask if this proposed project will set precedence, is there another oceanfront lot that we are not aware of? It will severely damage and reduce the quality of my life. At Commission inquiry, located her condominium on the exhibit. Dave Bechok, 600 East Oceanfront verified a photograph taken by staff from his balcony. He noted that it was difficult to convey what the impact of this development would be on himself and his neighbors in the condominium complex. As a new homeowner he too noted that this would be devastating to his view of Dana Point, out towards Balboa Park. To me when you are talking about putting three stories of concrete next to the park area does not seem congruent to what is in the area. Looking at the analysis done by staff it says the building applied for will not under circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property. As you can see from looking at that photo it will impact me and 24 other homeowners in my building quite substantially. None of us have been talked to about this proposal, and all I found was a small • sign that was posted in February. Page 7 talks about the increased building height resulting in more public visual open space and views, I am not an architect but I do not understand how three stories creates more public visual open space. There have been several questions raised by Commission as to the elevations and certainly I have those same concerns. All of you have strolled up and down the boardwalk and when you are walking along the side, you will be looking at three stories of concrete, not open space. Balboa Park is next door. How can you say that the increase building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing development or public spaces? On page 8, the deviations from the specific plan district regulations that otherwise would apply are justified by compensating benefits, who is being compensated other than the folks who own Balboa Inn? I appreciate your time. Commissioner Tucker commented that anybody could come forward with a proposal they want to make with respect to their property. It goes through staff analysis and comes to us. The first thing we try to do is understand the exact nature of the project and that is what all our questions are about. We try to understand exactly what the proponent is suggesting. We then hear public testimony to get a feel for what the people in the neighborhood feel, their issues and their thoughts on the staff report. Ultimately, we make a decision; some are harder than others that weigh competing interests. That is the process, Vic Sherreitt, 704 East Oceanfront the closest neighbor to Balboa Inn. I have • talked to staff. He noted that this project is injurious to other property owners as 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 well as their general welfare. To have the only one story building on the ocean side of the boardwalk and to change that to a three -story structure that is unheard of. Nobody knew anything about this. As the closest neighbors, this proposed project would be detrimental to our peace, comfort and welfare. We are only 28 feet away from this building that is proposed to be three stories high. That will block out that entire view. As people walk down the boardwalk, they will be going through a three -story and four -story area. People are not interested in going through corridors. What happens when you get requests for granting variances and modifications to exceed height limits? The parking requirement is one space for each two rooms. There is a great deal of retail in the area; is there enough parking? Valet parking will be difficult. I have not talked to one person in the neighborhood who is for this project. It is too big, too high, parking is inadequate, does not fit area scheme, people do not like it and most of all it does not meet your requirements for criteria for a use permit. Mr. Baers noted a letter of support for this project from the Balboa Performing Arts Foundation. Tom Hyams, president of the Central Newport Beach Community Association presented a March 2000 newsletter in which there was an article on the new owners of the Balbao Inn and their proposed expansion to the property. The • article goes on to detail that the swimming pool and kiosk are located across the boardwalk; major changes are planned with a two story hotel with an addition of 11 hotel rooms and a pool above street parking. The project is on hold at the Planning Department. Central Newport Beach Community Association opposes any construction on the beach, but the plot in question is private property. Mr. Hyans stated this newsletter went out to businesses and homeowners between the two piers in March and he has not received a negative comment back about this proposal. Just so you know that there was information that went out about this. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich said he would like to see this item continued to be able to evaluate the impacts on the properties brought to our attention this evening and to get some additional details on the building architecture. I would like to review the two missing elevations. Ms. Temple noted that the research on the bridge and oceanward lots would take longer than one week. Commissioner Gifford supporting the idea of a continuance, noted the following: • The structure that is there now, although not attractive, does create a sense of openness with the rounded kiosk and views at different angles. • The storage facility that goes lot line to lot line as depicted going up • three stories would create an inner court for the hotel and will create a 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 very enclosed space for that portion of the boardwalk. Are there any restrictions on the property at the present time either through a previous use permit or public easements? What would be the effect of tying the bridge into this use? Do we need to legitimize the bridge assuming that it is not? Would this create a change in parking requirement for the present building? The City had at one time the policy of acquiring the land that is oceanward of the boardwalk. The idea of potentially trading the piece of property that is on the ocean side of the boardwalk to entitlement to say a fourth story that would be the full footprint of the hotel is intriguing. Any kind of trade or exchange possible, I would like to see us pursue before we come to tackling this plan and its merits or lack of merits. Commissioner Kiser noted: • Supports a continuance. • Need to see more plans. • Sensitive area for building height and floor area ratio. Chairperson Selich noted: • Interested in seeing an analysis of the height and bulk of what could be built by right versus this proposal. . • What additional benefit would this bring to the area? Commissioner McDaniel noted that he is having trouble taking away somebody's views. I recognize that you have the right to build, but I need to take a look at what will be an enhancement. I am struck with the ambience of what is there now, such as the openness. • Commissioners Kranzley and Tucker agreed with previous statements. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to July 20th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None ••• SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 (F) • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement M. INDEX Item No. 6 GPA 96 -3(F) A 898 EIR No. 159 TS No. 110 DA • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office /lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned CommunityChairperson Selich asked staff for a brief summary of what an initiation is and what it is not for the benefit of the newest Commissioners. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to July 6th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: . a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated at the meeting of June 13th, Council introduced and passed on first reading the ordinance establishing front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive and took action on the abandonment of the extra street right of way there; had the first public hearing on the Newport Dunes Resort with a report given by Chairperson Selich. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kranzley asked about the increased sight distances on Balboa Boulevard on the comers that was to result from the BPPAC recommendations. Mr. Edmonton answered that he would get back with a report. Chairperson Selich asked about more sophisticated audiovisual presentations. In Huntington Beach, we had slides and pictures that were taken by staff and used as part of the report presentations. I think that on the Balboa Inn presentation this would have been extremely helpful. You can get a digital camera and use power point presentations. Ms. Temple noted that this is something that the Planning staff would be willing to do and that all it would mean is probably another 5 minutes for a staff presentation. Commissioner Gifford asked staff to check into the City Council policy for acquiring property on the oceanside of the boardwalk and whether we 27 INDEX Continued to July 6th Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2000 • 0 can do trades for greater entitlement in exchange as opposed to an outright purchase for condemnation. Ms. Temple stated that she would include this information in the staff report and additional background information. The Planning Commission discussed aspects of the staff reports and requested that a discussion of the substance of staff reports be placed on a future agenda. d.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Kiser asked to be excused from July 7th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 P.M. LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 28 INDEX Adjournment