Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/2000. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7 :00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: All Commissioners were present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager Genia Garcia, Associate Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary NO Minutes of August 17, 2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of August 17, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 1, 2000. 40 Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 SUBJECT: Koll Office Site B GPA and PC Amendment • General Plan Amendment 97 -3(B), • Zoning Amendment 905, • Traffic Study No. 119, and • EIR No. 158. Review of a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to allow an additional 250,000 gross square feet of office use within Office Site B of the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community, providing for future construction of a ten -story office tower. Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood reported that in addition to the environmental information with the staff report, the one new piece of information since the last hearing is an addition to the PC text to address the Planning Commission's concern about the visual impacts from the parking structure. Additionally, there is a response to comments on the EIR and in particular the traffic impacts. She then introduced the following representatives of the City on this issue: • Larry Lawrence, the staff planner on the project; • Keeton Kreitzer, the preparer of the Environmental Impact Report • Wes Pringle, the traffic analysis • Terry Austin from Austin Faust Associates, which is the firm that did the traffic modeling Continuing, she noted a memorandum that was distributed from Robert Hawkins, the Chairman of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee. She noted that the usual practice would have been for EQAC to review the responses to comments before this hearing and make their recommendations on the EIR to the Planning Commission. However, due to the pace this project was moving, staff failed to send those responses to members of the EQAC sub - committee, so they have not had a chance to look at them. EQAC is requesting that this item be continued to allow time for review. Terry Austin, Austin Faust Associates, noted that he has been involved with the City's traffic modeling for ten years. He noted the following information to help evaluate the traffic data in this EIR; traffic modeling and things that can happen that are counter intuitive. • Modeling - historically has been a prediction of the average daily trips on different roadway links. Over time we have refined those procedures until today we are asked to look twenty years ahead and predict how many vehicles are turning left at a given intersection during the p.m. peak hour. We are asked to do this with a plus or minus 10 vehicles an hour, recognizing that if we counted that same intersection yesterday and today there is probably a difference of 100 vehicles an hour. Drivers do not always do the same things on consecutive days making it hard to bring that level of precision into the traffic modeling. What tends to happen as we refine our procedures, is that INDEX Item No. 1 GPA 97 -3(B) A 905 TS No. 119 EIR No. 158 Continued to 10/19/2000 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 the demand for data and accuracy always seems to be one step ahead. Counter intuitive - we all have our own perception while driving out there of what is out there and why it is happening. When you get traffic data from a traffic model that is counter intuitive, our natural reaction is to say that the model must be all messed up, no good and is useless because it is not doing the right thing. There are cases when traffic models do things that are counter intuitive. A first aspect is where a traffic model is making a realistic simulation of the real world, but it is not immediately intuitively obvious to us what is happening. The second is when the model is doing an imperfect simulation of the real world. There are certain limitations on what the science of the traffic modeling can do and it will sometimes come up with imperfect simulations of what drivers are doing out there. • Travel pattern changes over time - a traffic model looks twenty (20) years into the future. Typically, we look at a change in land use and how the world of traffic evolves over that twenty years either in relation to that project being there or not being there. What happens over that period of time, people change their traffic patterns in relation to that project versus not that project. Looking in a traffic report at the difference in traffic between with that project or without, why is there a reduction of traffic on that roadway even though you have a project versus a no project? The answer is that it is not a . reduction, traffic has increased on all the roadways differently if we have the project versus not having the project. So you get large increases on some roadways, smaller increase on others but when you compare the two twenty years from now, there will be a difference. Sometimes that difference is negative, it is not a reduction; it is just gone there on a different path over time. The model is trying to say, 'here is the world that we see at twenty years from now with this land use or without this land use'. The more difficult issue to deal with is the imperfect simulation of the real world. We are trying to predict twenty years ahead and tell you how many vehicles are fuming left at that intersection. We are doing this through mathematics and predicting human behavior. One of the things we know that people do when they drive is they're sensitive to the amount of traffic on a roadway. For example, the route you take from A to B at 5 a.m. on a Sunday morning may not be the same route that you take at 5 p.m. on a Friday. You understand when you might want to avoid an intersection. We try to get the model to do exactly the same thing. What we work with in the model is as we put traffic on a roadway, we try to make it sensitive to other traffic and it will move to a parallel road if it has to. This is where we get an example that is applicable to something like Koll /Conexant. Let's say we have the traffic model run with a certain project and we look at a certain roadway and we build the traffic up and it reaches a trigger point that says the parallel route is a little faster. I am going to shift some traffic over there, maybe 2 -3 %, perhaps 50-60 vehicles. It makes sense; this is what drivers would do. 40 Now we do the other traffic model run, perhaps have a smaller project, which INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 doesn't quite reach that trigger point. It doesn't shift those 50 vehicles over to the other route. What is the result? This run with a higher project actually has slightly less traffic on that roadway. On the parallel roadway, the difference is exaggerated. The higher project has much higher traffic because we have done that shift. The traffic model is doing its best to simulate the real world but it is not being able to do it perfectly. You will find that one of the counter intuitive things that will happen is related to these very small incremental changes in the routing that the traffic model will make versus what you might make as drivers. This is the most difficult part of traffic modeling to understand and deal with. We can do manual intervention, but we are reluctant to do that. It might make sense, but we are concerned that once we start that process, we no longer have a clean traffic model. We tend to round numbers up to tens when we do peak hour traffic volumes. The reason is that we try to discourage people from calculating ICU's to three decimal places when it would not be appropriate. It is a reminder that this is statistical data that should be used in a responsible manner. I would like to assure you that the model you have in the City is state of the art. We are in the forefront of traffic modeling; we keep up with all the latest procedures. The improvements that are yet to come will deal with some of these imperfections. We must recognize that there is a need for some judgement whenever you use traffic modeling data. We have to recognize the limitations and imperfections that it has and make those judgements accordingly. We prefer not to do the manual intervention, your staff understands the modeling. We need to be comfortable with the things that are counter intuitive, rather than playing with the numbers. Over time as we update the traffic model we hope that we can improve on these imperfections. Somehow drivers always seem to be much more clever than our traffic model at finding more devious routes and devious things to do that we are not able to predict. Commissioner Kranzley thanked Mr. Austin for his presentation. Continuing, he noted that this is a period of time where we see an unprecedented increase in public scrutiny of environmental impact reports and concerns with traffic. What I would suggest is, in the future when you or staff sees anomalies that look counter intuitive, that in the staff report or an environmental report, you walk us through it specifically. You look at the model all day long and understand that's what happens. However, if you could spell it out for us, it would help both the Planning Commissioners and the public. Mr. Faust agreed, stating this is an excellent suggestion. Chairperson Selich noted that the staff report makes reference to certain statements of overriding concerns that would have to be made. He asked that those be summarized. 40 Larry Lawrence, City's consultant stated that the EIR identified a number of INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 impacts that are significant and not considered mitigatable to a level of insignificance. One of those is traffic at the identified intersections of Jamboree /Campus and Jamboree /MacArthur, because the additional study on the grade - separated improvement did not seem feasible. The other one is air quality because of the cumulative impacts of any major development. We have not developed the statement of overriding considerations in consideration of what the Planning Commission's recommendations will be to the City Council. Mr. Edmonston added that in the Traffic Study the City had a study done to see what it would take to build a grade separation at the intersection of Jamboree /MacArthur. Another issue was an additional lane on Jamboree that would continue over the 73 Freeway and that would require the widening of the existing bridge structure. Neither of these have been identified as specific mitigation measures because it is still early in the review and not formally looked at or adopted by the City Council as part of the General Plan. Commissioner Tucker asked about the problem traffic areas identified as the long -range traffic problems. As I understand it, the long range means the existing traffic plus the project plus the County numbers for 2020 plus our General Plan buildout. Cumulative in some jurisdictions is not defined as nearly that cumulative. Where did our definition come from? • Mr. Edmonston answered that in this case the cumulative is based on the General Plan level analysis so it does look at the build out of the City's General Plan. Because we are more developed than the rest of the County, we have traditionally assumed that our build out would occur in about a twenty -year time frame.' The data from the County that has been available to date has been based on just a twenty -year projection. Therefore, we are looking at 2020 from the County and full buildout of the existing General Plan plus build out of the proposed project. Where it came from I don't know the exact origins, but it has been that way for a long time. It is a methodology that the previous Councils have used when looking at both major and minor General Plan amendments. It was used under the CIOSA development proposal, and used back in 1988 when the last overall review of the Land Use and Circulation Elements were considered. It has been used consistently quite a while. I don't know of any specific policy that addresses it. Commissioner Tucker noted that in some jurisdictions, the cumulative is the existing traffic, plus project, plus projects that have been proposed. I wonder why our definition is so different. Under the CEQA guidelines it is within the purview of something that could be defined as cumulative, but I was just wondering if the lead agency ever bothered to define what cumulative meant. Continuing, he noted that staff had not prepared a statement of overriding considerations. Under guideline Section 150938, a statement of overriding considerations, if there is one that is going to be adopted, has to be supported • by substantial evidence in the record. Are we going to be hearing that from staff INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 or the applicant? Mr. Lawrence answered that it would have to come from staff and we have not given that yet. Chairperson Selich noted that in going through these documents, he had discussions with staff. The way our City has approached the statement of overriding considerations, the Planning Commission approves the resolution with the reference to the statement of overriding concerns, but they are developed between the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing. The Council will adopt them relying on the facts that are presented at the hearing to prepare those. Mrs. Wood answered that was the same procedure followed for the recent consideration for the Dunes Resort Hotel. We relied on facts that were in the staff report, facts brought up at the public hearing, comments that the Planning Commissioners had made and then the statement was prepared in time for the Council meeting. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Selich asked the applicant to address the issue of a Development Agreement, why they do or do not wish to do one as well as to present any evidence to the Commission to support making a finding of overriding consideration on the three items identified in the EIR. Tim Strader, 3801 Inlet Isle, partner in Koll Center Newport, the owner of the property that is the subject of this hearing. We have provided the Commission with information at previous hearings. I am taken aback by the request of the EQAC for a continuance because we have been processing this application since 1997. This has been professionally studied by staff and people who had the opportunity to review the EIR on information specifically applicable to this project. Under CEQA we are involved in a fact - finding process. As a decision - maker, the Commission looks at all the information and comments presented and you weigh them and come up with a decision. I am opposed to a continuance for two weeks because I will be out of the country. I believe the EQAC people can adopt additional comments and send them on to the Council if the Commission decides to make a decision tonight. On the issue of a development agreement, our project is different than the Conexant project. We have used a development agreement when we had major projects that were going to be developed over a period of time. If this was a master plan of vacant land over a five -year period then we would want a development agreement because of all the uncertainties. In this particular case, we are an infill project. It is a single building. If we do get approved, our plan is to immediately have the plans drawn by the architect and go to development because the market demand is out there. From the standpoint of doing a development agreement, it is not something that we ever approach on a single building development project. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 The Conexant project is to go over a period of five years and provide opportunities to house employees as their business grows in the area. Looking at all the information in the EIR and the comments, you will see that our project is doing a lot of mitigation. We are happy to do that mitigation because there are things that can be done to improve the city streets. It has been difficult for us to look at the worse case analysis of the traffic model because we are not necessarily in agreement that the intersection of Campus /Jamboree can not be mitigated. We think it can be with an additional right turn lane on Campus toward the university. It is stated in the university's EIR that before any development occurs, they must go to the City of Irvine and they must mitigate whatever traffic will be generated. I think that some mitigation will occur at that intersection, but again, how do you present that when you are using a traffic model that has information in it that talks about a certain definition of what is cumulative. Over a twenty year period I have seen lots of things happen that were never predicted. This is not an exact science and the traffic model is a tool to be used by the planners to analyze the impacts of the project. We have brought an exhibit because of the concern about what the parking structure at the intersection of Jamboree /MacArthur would look like. (Distributed exhibits) Pat Allen, project architect 1230 Devon Lane referencing the exhibit on the wall noted the current site /parking condition and the proposed site /parking condition at MacArthur Blvd. And Jamboree Road. The exhibit showed the cross section with one level built underground. Mr. Strader noted that they are happy to assist in reducing the visual impact of the parking structures. He then gave a history of the proposed project. He then noted that from the standpoint of the statement of overriding concerns, there is a myth that office buildings do not pay for themselves. A fiscal analysis impact has been prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman, dated August 14th, which states that this project will provide the City $51,878 every year. Additionally, projected one -time fees and charges after build out will amount to $596,750. If we are to have a true balanced City with residential, retail, industrial and office /commercial there has to be a place in the City where you can build an office building. This particular project is on the easterly boundary of the City in the airport area, surrounded by the Cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa and the County. The Irvine Business Complex, a 4,000 -acre piece of property in the City of Irvine, surrounds that particular area. I made a presentation to the City Council at a study session two weeks ago. I pointed out that we are essentially a small part of the regional traffic issues that occur around the airport. The City of Irvine as opposed to the City of Newport Beach uses a level of service E in the Irvine Business Complex. In Newport Beach, we use a level of service D. The difference between those two levels of service is approximately a l0% increase. The intersections during peak hours can carry 10% more traffic if you utilize that level of service. We can not ask you to look at this and change it to level of service E; however, if you did many of these problems might go away. In the City of Irvine there are projects being approved with a level of service E that impact the traffic on the intersections specifically Jamboree /Campus and Jamboree /MacArthur. There is going to be growth in INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 the County, State and City of Newport Beach. There must be a place for people to locate their businesses and a place where jobs can be brought into the City. I believe that a couple of statements of overriding concerns would be the economic benefits presented by this project, and the balanced plan in the General Plan of Newport Beach to have a place where businesses can locate and jobs can be created in the City. We understand that we have to live with the process as we find it and are prepared to do that. We are prepared to do all the mitigation. Even though we may disagree with some of the assumptions that are utilized in the study, we believe it is a very valuable tool that should be used by the decision -maker and it is for you to make the decision whether it is appropriate to have an office building in the city out in the airport area based on all the facts in the EIR. We have brought a three dimensional model that shows how the parking structures would relate to the new office building. Commissioner Tucker asked about the fiscal impact analysis. He asked how the fiscal benefits of this project would be any different than five 50,000 square foot buildings built elsewhere in the airport area? Mr. Strader answered that the reason this occurs is because this is an infill project. Essentially all the services are being provided by the City, there are no incremental services being provided. The City is providing those services today i and will continue to provide them tomorrow. There will not be an additional cost °1 to the City if another building is built there whereas if you build five buildings in another area of the City that was vacant, you would have additional City services that would need to be provided. Commissioner Tucker noted that the five 50,000 square foot buildings would also be in fill buildings. Commissioner Tucker asked the architect to confirm that the visual feel of the project at Jamboree /MacArthur is going to end up being the same throughout the length of the parking structure although this structure covers one place in the profile. People driving along MacArthur who see the meandering landscape and mature trees will continue to see that. Mr. Allen answered that was correct. The profile shown here will occur the whole length of the fall in elevation and parallel the existing parking lot. Commissioner Tucker noted that he does not see defined in the conditions how this two -story structure will look. We have provisions that whatever you can see looks nice, but there is nothing in a condition that says the profile that the applicant has provided is going to be the profile the structure will have. Is that something we can include in a design feature in the PC text? Mr. Lawrence answered that in exhibit ZA -1, which is the actual wording of the PC text amendment we have tried to address design issues to the degree we can at this level. We are still at a non - project specific level; the plans you see are INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 conceptual. We have added provisions requiring mitigation of the structure. We could probably add an additional sentence or two that would say that the parking structure nearest Jamboree /MacArthur would have to substantially follow the existing surface grade that is out there now. Commissioner Tucker requested that the staff do so Commissioner Gifford noted that in the staff report the fact that we are talking about a possible grade separation at Jamboree /MacArthur if it turned out to be a mitigation would that be part of your responsibility? Mr. Strader answered that they would be happy to pay their fair share of that mitigation measure. Public comment was closed Chairperson Selich commented that this is a good project and would be a great benefit to the City; however, we have a timing issue. There is planning that needs to be done in the airport area. We know the Land Use and Circulation Bement are out of balance out there, there is roughly some 600,000 square feet under the existing General Plan left to be built. There are a number of intersections in the Circulation Element that do not support the square footage in the existing General Plan. Reference has been made that LOS E would solve a lot of problems, that is true it would help, but looking at the Circulation Element many if not all those intersections are actually being projected to run out at LOS F in the long range projection. To me, to approve a General Plan amendment out there right now without having a Circulation Plan, makes this imbalance worse. I could support this project if the applicant was proposing a Development Agreement as we have been discussing with Conexant and that is not the case. Therefore I can not support the project. In addition to looking at the long range impacts there is the TPO problem and there is a lot of property with remaining General Plan entitlement left to develop that is not developed. If we approve this project, we essentially suck up their TPO capacity with this project and so they do not have the ability to use their existing entitlement. Again, this relates back to having more circulation improvements in the area. We are looking at this at a General Plan level, which is really a policy level. It is not something that we have to make findings of fact like we do on Variances and Conditional Use Permits, etc. This is a policy as to what we want to do out there. To me, to allow additional square footage to occur in this area without having something that insures that we are going to have circulation improvements connected to the project, I do not see how we can do it now. If there was a plan developed for that area with circulation improvements on the plan and we had some kind of fee program set up that would be very easy to deal with. We don't have that right now. I would be willing to support the project if we had a development agreement and there was a fee made to the City to take care of circulation improvements in the future to a plan that would be developed. I could support it because I do think it is a good project, but given the way it has been presented, I don't feel that way. This INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 will affect anything in the airport area that anybody brings to us in terms of a General Plan amendment. It gets to be a value judgement on these amendments. If someone came in with 2500 square feet, you could probably support doing it; 25,000 square feet maybe; 250,000 square feet is pretty tough to support adding that much square footage with the imbalance we have in the circulation system. Looking at it from the environmental impact and traffic specifically we have two intersections that we would have to make statements of overriding concerns on. Again, I can not find to certify the EIR with those statements of overriding concerns unless there was a Development Agreement that had a traffic fee like we are proposing on Conexont associated with it. That would provide the justification for making the statement of overriding concerns, but I don't think that the evidence presented by the applicant or by anybody in the public hearings is substantial enough to make the statement of overriding concerns from an environmental standpoint. The Development Agreement would from the General Plan standpoint as well as the EIR standpoint in being able to collect a fee from this project that would go into a fund for future circulation improvements in this area that would be required and developed as part of a future planning effort. It is a timing issue and we get good projects that come into the City and maybe the state of planning in an area is not ready for the project yet and that is the purpose of a Development Agreement. It allows the developer to move ahead with the project, the City gets certain benefits from the Agreement and is able to go on with the planning and the developer is able to go ahead and do his project. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to deny the General Plan and Zoning Amendments to increase the maximum allowable building square footage in Office Site B of the Koll center Newport Planned Community. (GPA 97 -3 (B) and Zoning Amendment 905 in accordance with Resolution 1524 as amended on paragraph five to read, 'Whereas, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address the environmental impacts of the subject amendment, which EIR was reviewed by the Planning Commission. I am not proposing to take any action on the EIR to approve it, as we do not have to approve an EIR to deny a project. I would make the same finding on the Traffic Study. I did confer with the City Attorney on the procedure for doing this and I was advised that would be the proper way to do it, if we take this action I am proposing. Basically, we would not approve either one of those resolutions and only approve the resolution denying the project. I will open this up to discussion by any Commissioner. Commissioner McDaniel stated his support of the motion. Commissioner Kiser clarified with staff that the applicant stated he would be happy to participate in any fair share fee for grade separation at Jamboree /MacArthur. If there is no Development Agreement, how would that • be carried out? 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Ms. Wood answered that it could not be without a Development Agreement. Commissioner Agajanian stated his support of the motion. Commissioner Gifford supported the motion. Commissioner Kranzley supported the motion stating he could not support a statement of overriding consideration. I understand there is an additional $52,000 of annual revenue to the City, but when you take out the entitled fees that the applicant would have to pay if he built out to his entitlement it is really only a difference of about $23,000 a year. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the motion. He questioned if this is a type of motion where we could add to deny it without prejudice or is it something that is not legally doable with the General Plan Amendment? The reason I ask that is I agree that there needs to be places in town to put office buildings, better the airport than some other locations. The project might find its way back to us at some point and I don't know if this would make any difference or not in terms of timing. • Mr. Strader stated that if there is going to be a denial of the project, he asked for a continuance in order to negotiate some type of a Development Agreement with the City. If that is something that seven members of the Planning Commission tell me is a condition to getting approval then that is something I would like to talk to the City about. We have been here for three years and have spent over $250,000 in getting to this point. I would like an opportunity to negotiate in good faith with the City. Chairman Selich stated he does not have any problem with a continuance for negotiating a development agreement, nor did any other of the Commissioners. Motion was withdrawn. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to October 19, 2000. He also asked for additional information from staff on the MacArthur /Jamboree grade separation. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Cowan Duplex (Jay Cowan, applicant) 3030 Breakers Drive • Variance No. 1236 • Modification No. 5049 4DRequest to construct a new 6800 square foot duplex, which exceeds the 24- 11 INDEX Item No. 2 Variance No. 1236 Modification No. 5049 Continued to • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 foot height limitation by up to 15 feet. Also included is a modification to authorize a 16 -foot high retaining wall located in the required side yard to exceed the maximum wall height of 6 feet. Mr. Campbell, Senior Planner noted correspondence received distributed to the Planning Commission. He then presented slides taken of the property noting: • Four levels - first level is the garage, the second level is one unit, the third and fourth levels are the second unit. • Parking conforms to the code with four garage spaces. • Does not exceed curb height at Ocean Boulevard. • Exceeds the 24/2 8-height limit by 16 feet. • 16 foot retaining wall. • Grading of the entire lot is needed. • Adjacent property locations and views. Views from the beach. Vegetation will be removed when the site is graded. • Structure height, mass and rooflines were explained. Concluding, he noted the General Plan policy that addresses the minimization of alterations to a coastal bluff. As noted, the entire site will need to be graded with a 16 -foot retaining wall and 2,000 cubic yards of soil that need to be exported. In this particular area the bluff alteration, if it was to be approved, would be similar to the bluff alteration of the other properties. The impact of public views is an issue of concern to the neighbors and setting precedent. The top of the roof is approximately ten feet below Ocean Boulevard, looking from the top through will block the view to the beach parking lot as presently designed. Staff has informed the applicant that there are alternatives to the project that could minimize the intrusion of the structure above the 24 -foot height limit. The entire fourth level is accessory and could be eliminated or pulled back closer to the bluff; the clear height of the ceilings could also be reduced. Staff is recommending that the project be denied or the applicant be directed to re- design the project due to the issues of height, the slight impact to public view and alteration of the bluff. Public comment was opened. Jay Cowan 3030 Breakers Drive owner /applicant of the proposed project stated that he wants to tear down the present place and build a new one. The middle section will be our house and a daughter will occupy the other rentable unit. The fourth floor is a game room and is needed because we do not have a yard. This auxiliary game room will be used by the grandchildren with ping -pong table, pool table and basketball hoop. I am proposing a structure similar in height to my neighbor on the western side. The view to the front will not be limited by my proposed structure. The property slopes east to west and north to south down hill. Because of this difficult topography I took the centerline and designed the project. I am cutting 16 feet on one side. My obstruction does not restrict anyone. This should be an acceptable proposal and should not be considered a 12 INDEX 10/05/2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 precedent. The game room, as I have shown, is the highest portion of the project and will be beneficial to me and offensive to no one. Chairperson Selich noted that staff has made a recommendation that the applicant re- design the project to either comply with the height limit or reduce the extent of the height encroachment. Is that something you are interested in pursuing or are you interested in the Commission making a decision tonight to either approve or deny? Mr. Cowan answered he would like an approval of the project and if there is c possibility a re- design could meet with everyone's approval I would like to do this. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern of the vaulted ceilings on the fourth floor because that is a significant part of the variance. Could you look at lowering the ceiling and pushing it back to make it as least obtrusive as possible? Variances on a number of streets and particular Ocean Boulevard are extremely sensitive items. Mr. Cowan noted that it is possible to move the fourth floor back into the hill keeping as much height as possible. Commissioner Agaianian noted his concern of the public view from Ocean Boulevard, as it would be detrimental. The landscaping is going to be removed? Mr. Cowan answered that if you stand on Ocean Boulevard, you could look out over his property and see part of the parking lot and all of the beach and ocean. The landscaping will be removed. Commissioner Tucker noted that the variance responsibility that we have is to make four specific findings. I am having a hard time understanding why you need a variance or you need one to the extent that you are asking for the variance. It is not my opinion how it will impact your neighbors as much as the four findings that need to be made. The Planning Commission tries to be consistent with everyone who comes before us. We need to have a comfort level that we gave a variance to someone who really had a difficult property to work with and did not have much without the variance. This is a different situation than giving someone their dream house and having a lot of variances along the way. Before I would be able to support a variance, I would need to know that there is a definite need. A fourteen -foot clear height as a variance need is pretty extraordinary in this locale. Chairperson Selich noted that a majority of the Commission would prefer that you go back and work with staff to re- design this to comply with the height limits or at least be assured that there is a minimal encroachment and that we can make the findings that Commission Tucker referred to. The applicant agreed to this. Kelly Sandor, 430 Redlands Ave. thanked the Commission for their deliberation 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 and due diligence. He noted his opposition to height variances. Kerry Ward 126 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa son of the property owner to the east stated that the 16 -foot retaining wall would reduce the sun that enters the back yard of his mother's property. He is in opposition to this variance. Philip Larson, son of the property owners to the west. He stated that the height of the homes on either side of the subject property was built in a different time with a different set of rules. This proposed project could be re- designed to conform to the height restrictions. The trees noted in the slide presentation are city trees located on city property. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to continue this item to October 51h. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None • SUBJECT: Evenson Residence (Andrew Goetz, Architect) 3235 Ocean Boulevard • Variance No. 1230 • Modification No. 5126 Request to permit the construction of a single family residence where portions of the structure exceed the maximum allowable height limit in the 24/28 foot Height Limitation Zone by approximately 11 feet, on a property located in the R -1 District. The height of the proposed dwelling also exceeds the height of the top of curb elevation on Ocean Boulevard by approximately 2 feet. Additionally, the project includes a request to construct a 14 -foot high retaining wall and bridges to a proposed one -car garage and residence entry within the required, 10 -foot front yard setback. The height of these structures exceeds the maximum height for structures encroaching within the front yard, which is 3 feet. Mr. Campbell discussed a brief slide presentation of the project noting: • a single family residence • proposed to have six levels from top to bottom • proposed to have nine bedrooms and a variety of other spaces • 12,300 square feet • parking garage for five with additional guest parking up on top is proposed • exceeds the height at the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2 feet • exceeds the 24 -28 height limit by 11 feet at one point, which is the tower element that runs from the bottom all the way to the top • entire site will need to be graded to accommodate the proposed structure • • access is to be taken off from Breakers Drive at the bottom with two garages 14 INDEX Item No. 3 Variance No. 1230 Modification No. 5126 Denied . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 and a carport • retaining wall will be in the front of the project • slides presented depicted the surrounding areas and neighbors • existing residence will be removed • bluff alteration to be done with no remnant of the bluff to remain in this particular case • this will be the first house in the area that would actually step all the way from the top to the bottom and take access from both streets • other residences are perched at the top • Impact to public view is more significant Concluding, Mr. Campbell noted that this property could be re- designed to meet the height limit by removal of a level or reducing the height of the levels to meet the curb height limit. Staff is recommending this variance be denied. The intent of the Ordinance as properties are re- developed is to have them comply to the height limitations at the curb, which is not what the applicant is requesting. The elevator encroachment at the bluff portion of the residence is 13 feet wide. Several letters from the neighbors along with a petition have been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Kranzley asked when geologists look at the grading and economists look at the booming economy, there seems to be a possibility that a number of people will be coming forward with more grading on that bluff. The individual lot impacts with grading do they accumulate doing that type of grading and at what point in time do we start to degrade the entire bluff? Mr. Campbell answered that Building and Safety evaluate each project with engineers involved in the creation of the grading /shoring plans. The technology for building has come a long way. The cumulative impact in my opinion would be visually, what would be perceived from the ocean side. Chairperson Selich asked if the applicant was to re- design the structure so that he did not encroach into any of the height limits and need a variance; there would be a substantial modification to the bluff. At that point is it a ministerial project that is reviewed by the Building Department, is there any environmental documentation that moves it into a discretionary area? Or is it something that anyone under the existing zoning if they decide to adhere to the height limitations are free to cut into that bluff and modify it as much as they want to within the building regulations irrespective of what our Coastal Plan says? Mr. Campbell answered that if they re- design the project and meet the height limitations it would be considered a ministerial project. If we believe it to be inconsistent with the Land Use policies that could provide us justification to possibly deny the project. We are not on as strong footing as if we had an ordinance on the books, but the Planning Director could deny the project. Chairperson Selich noted that this has to be either ministerial or discretionary 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 and not in between. Ether we are obligated to approve it or not. Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney added that as long as the applicant complied with the requirements it would be a ministerial act and the permits would be issued to allow the construction. Chairperson Selich stated that in both applications reference Policy D, what good is that bluff policy if someone can come in and just cut the bluff up? Ms. Wood answered that in reading both the General Plan and the Coastal Plan on bluff alteration they have standards that apply to subdivisions; that is where the policy would have the most applicability and the most use to the City. However, since it is in the General Plan it is the City's policy and adopted by the City Council, it is there to be considered in this case and should probably also be considered as part of the Coastal Development Permit that will be required for the structure as well. The Coastal Development Permit is issued by the Coastal Commission. We would need to issue an approval in concept before it goes to the Coastal Commission and there would be an opportunity for a comment on how it does or does not comply with the policies in our Local Coastal Program. • Public comment was opened. Andrew Goetz, architect for the project presented an exhibit noting that the variance is for exceeding the curb height elevation and to get access to the upper level. The curb height elevation is achieved by the garage access on the upper level. The City has driveway grades, which give an 8 -foot high garage door off Ocean Boulevard with a 1 and 12 pitch roof that ends up at 2 feet above curb height. Referencing the exhibit he explained the existing and proposed rooflines. The proposal is a reduction of 23% of the surface area of the existing roof. The second justification is for a garage off Breakers. The location of the property is closer to the oceanfront. There are two other houses that maintain garages off Breakers Drive and during periods of storms, those garages flood. Having a garage off Ocean Boulevard is also for safety. That particular house has been there since 1947 and this is a reasonable use of the property. There have been 11 variances granted on Ocean Boulevard on 41 parcels. It is not inappropriate for us to ask for a variance since it is only about 25 square feet. Looking at the overall project, we could add to it without being forced to tear down the existing roof. There could be some concessions made for the overall height of the house. Commissioner Kranzley commented that the height limit with regard to the curb height was put in place in 1972 for exactly what we are talking about here tonight, for new construction. Public comment was opened. m INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Lynn McAllister, 218 Goldenrod noted her opposition to exceeding the height requirements, trying to put too much into Old Corona del Mar. I was reading item 4 on page 15 of the staff report that states, ' the land use element policy D, although the proposed project will disrupt the coastal bluff to an extent that little remnants of the bluff will remain, the project is consistent with this policy due to the fact that the bluff is not in its natural state due to past construction and the removal of native vegetation'. There are new ordinances now that are trying to protect our area. It seems to me that because a prior law allowed changes to that property in 1947, why should we now suffer in the year 2000 by cutting more of that bluff away? How much can they cut into that bluff and how much can they take away? I am concerned about the bluff as well as the height. The obvious issue is that you will see an elevator shaft as you pull into our beach at Marguerite and Ocean. I don't think that is something that we particularly want to see. I hope you will keep Old Corona del Mar charming as it was meant to be. Opal Kissinger, 3300 Ocean Boulevard stated that she is across from the subject property. Our view has been minimized with the current project. Now that new construction is to be done, now is the time to correct this infraction. The height limit should be adhered to without any exception. Any impingement of our views from the street side is to be considered detrimental to the enjoyment of • our property and I hope that it will not lower our property values. I find that the Land Use Element Policy D states that if a variance is allowed, it should not permit view blockage and there should not be a missed opportunity to improve a view. I hope you consider that this is an opportunity to improve my view. We are adamantly opposed to any variance or modification that would exceed the allowable height limit. I ask that you consider our appeal. Pat Troutman, 3701 Seaview stated that the bluffs need to be protected. We need to consider where we are going from here. I walk daily and see changes. Houses go out over the rocks, which block public views. Many people beyond our community value our views, so anything you can do to extend /retain that vista would be greatly appreciated. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to deny approval of Variance No. 1230 and Modification No. 5126 in accordance with the findings in Exhibit 3. This project has no merit whatsoever. It is violating the curb height and there is no necessity for needing a variance when there is this much alteration and new construction going on. I am concerned about the fact that the applicant could go back and cut more into the bluff and lower that whole structure, lowering the encroachment under the curb. It would meet all the requirements for ministerial approval on the project. On the application before us I would just move for denial. Commissioner Gifford noted that the requirement is that we make certain 17 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 findings that are clearly articulated in the staff report and I do not see any basis whatsoever that those can be made on this project Commissioner Tucker noted that an applicant can ask anything they want of us. We don't have to approve anything, but we can be asked. Additionally, the way our views protection works is really only for public views, there is no private view protection. In this particular case, the applicant has quite a few ways to design this without coming to us for a variance. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 1230 AND MODIFICATION NO. 5126 FINDINGS: 1. Variance No. 1230 will not preserve public views from Ocean Boulevard in accordance with the General Plan, Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policy which requires public view preservation. Section • 20.65.060 of the Zoning Code establishes that the height of new construction may not exceed the elevation of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard nor the 24 /28- height limit pursuant to Section 20.65.040. This section permits existing nonconforming structures to remain and be altered only in accordance with the Municipal Code, but new and replacement construction must comply with applicable height restrictions. The proposed project does not meet the intent of the height restrictions, which is to preserve public views from Ocean Boulevard. 2. The granting of a variance to allow portions of the new construction to exceed the 24/28 height limit and top of curb limit is not warranted by special circumstances for the preservation of substantial property rights of the applicant. The size and design of the proposed residence causes the need to exceed the height limits rather than the physical site constraints. Although the site has steep slopes, a smaller residence can be proposed that could possibly exceed 10,000 square feet in area while meeting the height requirements and creating a residence of compatible character with the area. 3. The proposed project is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy D and The Local Coastal Program policies that state minimal disruption of the coastal bluff is the policy of the city and that alteration of the coastal bluff should be minimized. This policy promotes designs that take into account the topography and other site constraints. The proposed project will require the grading of the entire site and significant exportation of soil • for the construction of the subterranean levels and retaining walls. This 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 design does not limit the grading and disruption of the coastal bluff and the resulting construction will leave little remnants of the underlying coastal bluff. SUBJECT: Mariners Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework • A No. 906 • Modification No. 5126 Ms. Wood noted that for the past few years, we have been working on ways to improve Mariners Mile. This started with the Business and Citizens' Advisory Committee on which former Commissioner Fuller sat. That group produced a series of broad recommendations for actions that the City should consider taking. Following up on that, we retained City Lights Design Alliance to develop this strategic plan and design framework for us. Along the way as we've been refining this plan and looking at the best way to implement it we did a lot of community outreach especially with the business community that owns the property there. I know that the Commission has sometimes been frustrated that we have not had enough guidance in looking at some of the projects along Mariners Mile, especially when they involve use permits. What we are trying to • achieve here is to put a policy document and a strategic vision and the design framework in place to provide the general guidance for staff and Commission. We want to amend the code so that there is a requirement for review of new projects against these guidelines. Some of the things that are most important such as the sign regulations have actually been written into the code. Some of the other things just reference back to the design framework so that gives us a chance for a little more design flexibility. One of the things that is interesting about this project is that the time we have spent working with the property and business owners on Mariners Mile, they have really helped in developing these regulations. Commissioner Kiser recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Keenan Smith, architect and urban designer of City Lights Design Alliance, stated he has been working with the City since 1997 as principal director of the strategic vision and design framework. He introduced LeAnne Kirby, co- author of the report. He noted that this proposal is about change as evident in Mariners Mile. The Council initiated the first moratorium on development in Mariners Mile in 1996 in response to evidence of change in this area. The changes have been both positive and negative. We were not charged to do design guidelines for the area but, as our work progressed and we reviewed more than a dozen projects that came forward, we assisted the City in a design review and assistance program. There emerged a very strong need to have some tools that deal with shaping the development and character of Mariners Mile. As it evolves, we really have a split document that we have prepared. One part is strategic vision that attempts to articulate and cast a broad vision for the future of Mariners Mile. It is 19 INDEX Item No. 4 A. No. 906 Continued to September 21, 2000 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 rather comprehensive and I hope that you find it thoughtful. The second part of it is the design framework, which really are the pieces to build upon. He then presented exhibits and an aerial map on the wall. He noted that the design framework focused on four main areas: • Planning and urban design • Landscape and Architecture • Signage • Parking From a planning and urban design standpoint we began looking at the physical features of the mile with an attempt to understand how we might reinforce a sense of place. We find that Mariners Mile is pretty easily defined from the Back Bay bridge to the Arches bridge; the Lido Channel is the waterfront and the bluffs provide a physical backdrop for the area. What that does is to reinforce a sense of place in the design features of Mariners Mile. The entrance features at the Arches bridge and Dover Drive are principal ideas of the plan that involve some signage elements on the Arches bridge. The development of a new logo system that would re -occur throughout the system would reinforce the sense of place with some additional visual features such as signal flags on the Back Bay bridge. • Secondly, we have an idea about Mariners Village, the area that could be best described to provide a heart or core between Tustin and Riverside Drives. It is a place where traffic is brought to a halt and a place where pedestrians can easily cross Pacific Coast Highway. It is a place where we can create the possibility of a real mixed -use pedestrian place, a retail village. The existing street pattern within Avon, Tustin, Riverside and Coast Highway provide a framework for this village to occur. With respect to urban design, the idea of creating a heart.or core for the place, a grounding area for this district, would be this Mariners Village idea. Thirdly, from an urban and design standpoint, we have the idea of the waterfront that is clearly what Mariners Mile has that no other piece of strip commercial area in the county has. It has the waterfront and the highway as definable features of Mariners Mile. Many of the properties along Mariners Mile are private properties. There is very little sense of public communication with the waterfront as you drive down Pacific Coast Highway or access to the water. The ability to go along the water is very difficult. As a concept we wish to reinforce the sense of place by proposing the incremental building of a public, vibrant waterfront along the Lido Channel. The landscape along Mariners Mile is piecemeal at present with pieces and fragments of palms and hedges. As we examine that landscape, it is more on private land than public. We find the opportunity to begin to pull this area together from a visual and coherent standpoint. Our proposal involves the planting of palms and hedges along private properties on Mariners Mile. This is already beginning to occur and we have been successful in some of our design assistance efforts. We feel that architecture is so broad in terms of the buildings • ranging from the car dealership to McDonald's to private office buildings that a sense of continuity and visual coherence could not be created except through 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 this landscape idea. Landscaping should be enhanced along Mariners Mile and we have proposed some very specific guidelines in the sections pertaining to that to allow it to happen. Other kinds of landscape that could occur on private property include the parking lots, which we suggest have shade trees planted as other cities do. Other landscape features include dealing with entry features at Dover Drive and at the Arches bridge. Early on we were successful in influencing the landscape that occurred when that bridge was renovated at 55 and SRI. Visual coherence and clutter in the Mariners Mile area is due to the signage that occurs along the private businesses. Every business needs and has its right to identify itself and bring in its customers. Our survey shows that a large portion of the signs in that area do not in fact meet the current City Ordinance. Our signage approach is through a three -step process: • Enforcing the existing signage ordinances along the Mile. • Institution of some design suggestions on how to make the necessary signage that businesses need more attractive and visually consistent. • Institute a program of thematic signs such as the enhance signs on either end of the district and directional signs to help visitors find their way around the Mile. We felt that because of the wide range of building typologies in Mariners Mile, it • would be very difficult if not impossible to impose any kind of architecture theme. We essentially rejected that approach and are trying to work with applicants in design review and in a design assistance mode to get better architecture. We have instituted in the guidelines a series of admonitions about neutral color, a palette of consistent materials, and rules about lighting. Basically, just make the new architecture on the Mile more respectful and conscious of its context. The entire district is viewed from the top as well as its sides, so those kinds of guidelines are included in our recommendations. The last major category is parking, which is really a cooperative system. It is hard to look at a district like Mariners Mile on a comprehensive basis and not deal with parking. The extent to which we deal with it is detailed in the last section of the report. It suggests the creation of a Mariners Mile parking district, which would share parking between areas where there is more supply. For example, on the inland side, the City has rather large parking lots behind the Village area. Already we are seeing private agreements that are beginning to share some of that parking supply and the creation of a district wide parking agreement would help enhance that. We feel that there could be some review of the on -site parking requirement in specific areas. We have some ideas about sharing some valet stations. There are several restaurants in the area all running their own valet services. We suggest the examination of having a district wide valet parking system. There are some thoughts about that in our report. In conclusion, he noted that there are not a lot of bricks and banners that occur • in this plan. What we have attempted to do is to be comprehensive and thoughtful about the various elements that make up this place and try to bring 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 our best ideas forward to create a document that will indeed create a positive image for Mariners Mile. Commissioner Kranzley noted that this was a great job and has a tremendous amount of vision. I commend the work, and I think that the committee members ought to be listed. The one concern I have is having a Tustin type' retail center there, which I don't think would add to the ambience of what we are trying to do. Will there be some type of criteria? Mr. Smith answered that with respect to the Village, there are few property owners in the area that would be the most affected. The other word is re- development but one could imagine having two or three of those individual owners approaching it from a developer point of view. That may be something we could address. We see the village as having great promise; the bones are there. To articulate how it could or should happen is beyond the scope of a broad framework. The framework is the structure upon which you build. We have some work to do yet on specifics in the village. Commissioner Kranzley then brought up the issue of parking and pooled valet. There was no mention of an electric trolley that might alleviate some of the problems. The most exciting idea in this proposal is the bayfront walk, which • would be an incredible change in the mile. We have been successful in hiding the bay. Mr. Smith noted that public transportation is not broadly embraced here and in Orange County. It is easy to see we are in the realm of private automobiles here. That is not to denounce or say that we should not look at some sort of private system of moving people around, but it occurred to us that valeting in Newport Beach is about as natural as walking around in flip flops. We thought we could consolidate some of the valet stations and eliminate the dashing across Coast Highway in the pitch dark. We could look at some sort of shuffle system, but the distances are not really that great unless you are thinking about running people up and down the mile. I might question the supply and demand for that. Newport Beach has some great examples of public walks along the waterfront. Specifically, the greatest one is the beach walk and the second is along the peninsula and the third is along Balboa Island. There is in fact a precedent for having public walkways that are shared by both the public and private. Unfortunately along Mariners Mile this is rarely the case. There are beachheads for this kind of an idea. They are principally at the two public properties on the mile, the Orange Coast Sailing Center and the Sea Scouts, which is County owned land. At the other end at Bistro 201 marina, it is a quasi - public entity that owns that area and this would be another logical point. Ms. Wood added that one of the things provided for in the proposed code changes is review of new development. While it is not design review to a particular theme, we do say that design should respect their surroundings and • the architecture and site plans shall be found compatible with surrounding 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 properties. I think that kind of language does help you from getting something that is out of proportion and out of scale to the rest of the area. Commissioner Tucker noted that on page 28 there is a sign that appears to be fairly out there. I think the public entry signs ought to set the tone. The back lit, halo look is something that I like. I prefer to see something like that and it would update the area as opposed to bold channel letters. The shopping center issue adding daily trips will be tough. It will entail a sense of intensification when the reality is what is proposed is something that is local service. People are not going to have to drive elsewhere. On the parking lot trees, is the proposal to do them by way of diamonds in the lot so there is no loss of parking spaces? Mr. Smith stated that the trees are to be planted to provide shade in the parking lot without subtracting any parking. Commissioner Tucker asked how is this program going to be implemented? We did have a project down there that was not unanimously viewed here on the Planning Commission, the Jiffy Lube project. We were attempting to spend a lot of time to make this more compatible with what you are talking about. We did that because it was a use permit so we had discretionary approval and we took the opportunity to delve into design issues. What do you view as the most • effective way to actually take it from a document with a lot of neat ideas to one where the City has some ability to influence it? Mr. Smith answered that the overlay district and the amendments to the specific plan that exists for Mariners Mile will be the tools. Staff has excerpted some of the more salient features of the design framework and put them into standards. They have created a development review process as a way to have these things happen. Commissioner Tucker asked for a discussion on how widely known and understood this enforcement approach, suggestions contained in the staff report and proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance is amongst the owners. Mr. Smith answered that they have been working on a monthly basis with the Mariners Mile Business Owners Association, which is a group of concerned and interested property owners. They have been with us to help shape this document that is before you. The business owners and the principal landowners on the Mile are very aware of what the implications of this document are. Ms. Wood added that a community workshop forum was held on a Sunday offernoon that was widely noticed to both the residential and business communities. An extensive noticing for tonight's meeting was done as well. We are going to re- notice since at the last meeting with the Business Owner's Association it was decided to add one additional property, Lower Castaways. That would extend the radius for the notice so that is the reason why we are suggesting that you continue this to the next meeting to allow us to get that 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 notice out. We have made a lot of effort to get the word out. Commissioner Tucker stated he did not know it was out there until Councilmember Glover brought it to his attention a couple of weeks ago. I think this is an area that has a lot of possibilities. It is a challenge because there is a regional road that makes it difficult to tie both sides of the street together. I think what is being proposed is terrific, the way it is being proposed is something that I support. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the bayfront walk, how is it defined and how will it move forward? Mr. Smith answered that this is a recommendation in the design framework project. Mr. Campbell added that presently on the books there are requirements that 10- foot easements be dedicated for public access along the bay as well as access from the highway to the bay. These easements are required when new projects come in. We have added a notation in one of the tables to an existing requirement. If a project was to be increased by 255/o of its gross floor area or • 2500 square feet, whichever is less, that is when this requirement would kick in. The only project on hand now is the Sea Scout Base improvements that is on a public piece of property and will be open anyway. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the proposed sign ordinance and how it differs from the one in place now. Staff answered it will be substantially altered. In the proposed Code, we have several graphical images that give prototypes for pole signs, multi tenant and single tenant monolithic signs. Those came out of the design framework as recommendations. Working with the business groups, we took those recommendations and basically wrote a code to implement. It does differ and will limit the area size of the sign in relation to the overall sign height. We have added proportionality to the sign design concept that we are trying to put forward. We are changing how wall signs are looked at and stipulating how and where they are to be located. We put in an amortization provision so that the non - conforming signs would have to be removed in fifteen years or unless it were to be modified in some manner, relocated or redevelopment of the property would occur, then it would have to come into conformance. We added a heritage review procedure where these non- conforming signs could come and be evaluated by the Planning Commission to see if they would be worth keeping. There is the due process provision that we put into this as well. We debated with the consultant and business group about the creative sign issue. We wanted to look at the heritage review and steer away from a creative review and this is what the business group decided they wanted to follow. The permitted uses of the specific plan as well as the commercial properties that will be in this new overlay, which extends to the Back • Bay, would remain the same. There is no change to permitted uses or the building height requirements. 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Commissioner Agajonian then talked about requiring hedges to cover equipment. Is that a requirement for somebody looking for approval or is it just a guideline? Ms. Wood added that the landscape materials that are called out specifically and required are the hedge and the palm treatment. For the rest of the landscaping the framework provides a plant palette to choose from. At Commission inquiry, she noted that this document is written and proposed as code, the two code sections are the overlay district and amendment to the specific plan. The strategic vision and design framework document is something that we recommend be adopted by resolution as a policy document. Mr. Campbell added that there is a statement in the design framework about the marine incentive uses. The business group wanted that to be evaluated and possibly discontinued. That element is on page 38 as a policy to be considered. We did not carry that forward in the implementing ordinances, so the ordinances will not change the existing requirements. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the water access. There does not seem to • be space to park a little Duffy. Mr. Smith answered that the design framework does not talk about water access but it could be some kind of reciprocal kind of arrangement. This is a good point, there was some thought given to water taxis, etc. but it seemed we were stretching beyond the purview of our study to fry to design routes, etc. The access would be a definite enhancement and improvement. Ms. Wood added that there is a Harbor Committee that is proposing a General Plan Element. Are you referring to public dinghy docks? She was answered, yes. Public comment was opened. Kelly Sandor, 430 Redlands Avenue stated he was thrilled with this document. I am familiar with a village atmosphere and I believe that this area is suited for this same concept. What needs to be addressed is the intersection of Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway. The sidewalk has gotten so narrow on the bay side; it is a bad spot to stand particularly on a weekend evening. The signage program is terrific and you need to make an effort to enforce it because some signs are too bright. It is an elegant area, keep it going in that direction. Dan Purcell, 3 Canyon Lane stated this is an excellent concept. He noted that maybe having more of an expansive wood pier going out some 20-30 feet would be nice. You would be able to put out some benches and would be incredible around that whole area. is Jim Parker, 2633 West Coast Highway stated that he knows he is on the mailing list 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 because he got the blue card about four days ago, but knew nothing about this whole issue. I have had this property since 1980. My question is how come I did not know about this? He was answered that if you received the notice for this meeting, you should have received a notice for the workshop. Chairperson Selich stated that this item would be continued, so the speaker will have time to review the proposal and come back for comments then. Jack Mau, owner of the China Palace stated he too did not know about this concept nor was he aware of any business association. Mark Murrell, 24309 West Coast Highway stated he was one of the co -chairs with Dan Daniels and Ned McKuen. They had worked at least a year on this concept and through the City put out a public notice for a workshop and everybody was noticed. The exhibits presented tonight were at that workshop for everybody to review. I have not heard any negative comments about what we have been working on the last year. It is a vision for Mariners Mile to make it better; it is not a plan for high rise development, nor a plan for a mega development. It is recognition of a very unique strip of land that has extreme constraints and it's a vision on how to make it better. It is landscape continuity with a bougainvillea • planting along the bluff, hedge and palm trees. It is signage control. It is concepts such as a boardwalk and shared parking. It is vision and an overlay that puts requirements on the business owners who will be spending monies to enhance their properties. We were not aware that this is being continued for two weeks. We had talked at the last committee meeting about including the Lower Castaways property. I would suggest tonight that we pull that property back out if that requires additional noticing, there are other board members here who could talk about that as well. We want this in front of the City Council, it is not a major item, and there are no complaints. The economy is good and now is the time to adopt something that puts some requirements on people that own property down there to make the area better. That is what this is about. Ms. Wood stated that at the last Business Owners meeting she was directed to include the Lower Castaways and continue this item and do the re- noticing that was necessary. Doris Sandor, 430 Redlands noted her concern about the Banning Ranch development and Bolsa Chico. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kron7Jey asked about what can be done to exclude the Lower Castaways and if an action can be taken tonight. Ms. Wood answered that the mailed notice had not gone out yet, however, it • had been sent to the newspaper. You could take action tonight, however staff had not prepared a draft resolution. Commission can take action without a 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 resolution, as the only required finding is consistency with the General Plan. Commissioner McDaniel added that the only negative we heard tonight was that some people did not get noticed. So if someone wants to talk about this, we are not giving them an opportunity if we don't continue this item. Discussion on this matter resulted in a straw vote taken whether to continue or move this item. Continue - Tucker, Gifford, McDaniel Move - Kranzley, Selich, Agajanian Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item pursuant to the recommendation in the staff report to September 21 si. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Recused: Kiser sax SUBJECT: Sea Island Subdivision Southeast comer of Jamboree Road and Ford Road • GPA No. 99 -1 (D) • A No. 990 • Resubdivision No. 1083 Request to permit a subdivision within an existing condominium development and 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. The applicant has withdrawn the applications and therefore, no further action is required. asa SUBJECT: Shore Landing 900 Sea Lane Review of proposed landscape plan for the development of a 90 unit attached and detached residential condominium project, as required by the Conditions • of Approval of Tentative Tract map. No. 15829, Modification No. 5002, and a 27 INDEX Item No. 5 Withdrawn by applicant Item No. 6 Shore Landing Discussion Item Only • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ms. Garcia stated that the landscape architect has prepared a brief overview of the landscape plan for the Commission review. The requirement is that the landscape plan is reviewed prior to the issuance of a first building permit for the project and they are close to getting their first permit. Chairperson Selich asked if the information received was sufficient. He stated that no additional information was needed that this was a good plan and well thought out. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve the Shores Landscaping Plan. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: • a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the meeting of August 22nd the potential development of Marina Park proposals were received, staff was given direction to work with Sutherland Tolla Hospitality, which has proposed a 156 room, luxury, five star resort hotel, on an exclusive negotiating agreement; Council is concerned about how the American Legion would be accommodated With this development. There will be more information provided on the tidelands boundary and impacts of closing the mobile home parks before a decision on reuse is made b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Ms. Wood announced that the EQAC and the EDC will be holding a forum on the two ballot Measures S and T to be held on September 18th at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Chairperson Selich noted his concern about the house on Ocean Blvd., and how terrible it would be to start taking coastal bluff lots and have houses going all the way from the bottom to the top. It is okay to have them from the bottom up or top down, but not to go the whole way. With the direction of the economy and the value of real estate the whole area could go that way. I don't know how to deal with this tonight, but somehow I would like to see that we make some kind of recommendation to the City Council that some kind of urgency ordinance be adopted to give the City time to work out some kind of permanent solution. • 28 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 Ms. Wood stated a concern with the Brown Act, as this discussion is not actually on the agenda. A motion to add a discussion of bluff retention in this area generally to this agenda is necessary because the need arose after the agenda was published. You can vote on that and then adopt the motion. Commissioner McDaniel added that you mentioned single family, there are some R -2 lots. He was answered that it should be all lots. Discussion continued on: • Timing • Policy • Need for preparation of a Negative Declaration • Brown Act concerns • Need to add this discussion to tonight's agenda Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to add the discussion of an emergency ordinance on the bluff lots on bluffside of Ocean Boulevard to tonight's agenda. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None • Chairperson Selich then re- stated his previous motion that this Commission recommends to City Council that an urgency ordinance be adopted for all the lots on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. All dwellings are to be subject to a review of a conditional use permit pending a study and a permanent solution dealing with the degradation of bluff issues. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Commissioner Tucker asked that this item be put on the next agenda in case what we have done has not been done in the proper manner. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff to review the Fritz Duda letter regarding the Bay Island project. This is to be added to the next agenda. Commissioner Gifford asked about signage on public improvements such as bridges and how authorization for that comes about. d.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford stated she would not be at the October 19th meeting. 40 ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 P.M. 29 INDEX Adjournment • 40 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2000 STEVEN KISER , SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 30 INDEX