HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2004Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2004
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 25
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Daigle - Commissioner Eaton was excused, Ms. Daigle has been
appointed as a Councilperson and is no longer on the Planning
Commission, all other Commissioners were present.
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Robin Clauson, Acting City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
Cheryl Dunn, Department Assistant
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Mr. Dick England noted his concern on the way the Planning
Commission handles letters from the public. He noted that at a
None
previous public hearing, he had expressed a concern regarding the
letter he had sent had not been responded to. A senior planner had
indicated that it was his responsibility to respond to these letters. As
he has not received a response to this letter to date, he asked if it was
true that letters should be responded to or not? Chairperson Tucker
noted that on Environmental Impact Reports, letters raising issues
related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) types then
the letters have to be responded to. It is a possibility that the issue
raised in this letter are not covered under the physical impact to the
environment that all of CEQA covers. A brief discussion took place
on the legality and City policy and Council policy and staffs analysis
that answer questions and issues raised by the public.
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 17,
2004.
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 9,
2004.
Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approved the minutes
as amended.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Noes:
None
Absent:
Eaton
Abstain:
None
HEARING ITEMS
Page 2 of 25
ITEM NO. 1
Approved
SUBJECT: Balboa Theater (PA2004 -032) ITEM NO.2
707 East Balboa Boulevard PA2004 -032
Request for approval of a Use Permit for the Balboa Performing Arts Approved
Theater, a designated Landmark Building and permitted use, to allow
an increase in building height up to a maximum of 55 feet pursuant to
Section 20.65.070 of the Municipal Code.
Public comment was opened.
Carol Hoffman, representing the applicant, noted that they have they
have worked very hard to meet all the Balboa Design Guidelines.
They are very excited about the future of this theater and request
approval of this application.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Use Permit No.
2004 -003 to allow the Balboa Theater to increase in height up to a
maximum of 55 feet, subject to the findings and conditions of approval
within the draft resolution.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Noes:
None
Absent:
Eaton
Abstain:
None
file : //F:\Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
SUBJECT: Espinoza Condo Conversion and Tract Map (PA2004-
137)
329 Marguerite Avenue
The Condominium Conversion and Tentative Tract Map relate to the
conversion of an existing 7 unit apartment building to condominiums
for the purpose of individual sale. The Coastal Residential
Development permit Application relates to compliance with affordable
housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone.
Senior Planner Jim Campbell outlined the project, as described in the
staff report, noting the following:
■ Convert a 7 -unit apartment building to condominiums
. Applicant is renovating the interior. Painting and routine
maintenance are the only upgrades to the exterior
■ Although several nonconformities exist, the project can proceed,
as it complies with condo conversion provisions of the Municipal
Code
. Findings for the Tract Map can be made and are outlined in the
staff report.
■ An in -lieu fee, paid by the applicant to the City's Affordable
Housing Fund, would satisfy the requirements of the Coastal
Residential Development Permit application, as two
low /moderate households would be displaced
Commissioner Selich posed a question to the Acting City Attorney
regarding Section 66427.2 of the State Subdivision Map Act.
Ms. Clauson replied that she had not reviewed that section and could
not verify the statement related to that section in the staff report.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Selich and Mr. Campbell
regarding the supply of rental housing and the number of condo
conversions in Corona del Mar.
Commissioner McDaniel inquired about the two parking space
requirement, and he was told, by Director Temple, that the two- space-
per -unit standard dated back to the 1960's.
Commissioner Cole discussed the City's in -lieu fee with Mr. Campbell,
Page 3 of 25
ITEM NO. 3
PA2004 -137
Continued to
10107/2004
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
and it was indicated that a formal fee would eventually go before the
City Council to be established. Mr. Campbell also mentioned that the
proceeds would benefit the City's Affordable Housing Fund and not be
directed to any single project.
Maclovio Espinoza commented that he was doing the condo
conversion for the people and asked that it be approved.
Chairperson Tucker posed a question to David Graves, Civil Engineer
for the project, regarding exterior improvements.
Mr. Graves remarked that the owner had few plans to update exterior
other than paint and the addition of basic landscape and hardscape
improvements.
Chairperson Tucker opened the matter for public comment.
A member of the public stated that he planned to purchase one of the
condos.
Commissioner Selich expressed concern over the following:
. Adaptability of the building to condos, specifically:
. Parking concerns
. Impact to rental supply
. Exemption of Section 66427.2 of the Subdivision Map Act
He also recommended a continuance to obtain additional information
from staff.
Commissioner McDaniel echoed the concerns of Commissioner
Selich.
Further discussion ensued regarding the subdivision findings and
whether the proposed conversion was in the best interest of the City.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to
October 7, 2004.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Noes:
None
Absent:
Eaton
Abstain:
None
Page 4 of 25
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
SUBJECT: Gates Residence Appeal (PA2004 -208)
505 J Street
Appeal of the determination of compliance with the provisions of
Chapter 20.65 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (building Height)
by the Planning Director related to the approval of a plan revision for a
project at 505 J Street. The appeal contests the correctness of that
determination.
Ms. Temple noted that the appellant has requested that this item be
continued to October 21, 2004. However, there is a possibility that
this item will be resolved and therefore will not be heard by the
Planning Commission.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to
October 21, 2004.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Noes:
None
Absent:
Eaton
Abstain:
None
x x x
SUBJECT: St. Mark Presbyterian Church (PA2003 -085)
2200 San Joaquin Hills Road
Proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space
(REDS) to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities
(GEIF); amend the Big Canyon Planned Community Text to include
the project site within it's boundaries, designate the site "Institutional
and Nature Preserve" and adopt Planned Community District
development regulations; Use Permit to allow the construction of a
new church complex with the main sanctuary building to exceed the
base 32 foot height limit; Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance; Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing 10.81 acre
parcel into three parcels. The total proposed square footage for all
structures is. approximately 34,000 square feet.
Gregg Ramirez noted two letters received tonight. Staff is also
submitting a condition of approval requiring an emergency access
road be installed along MacArthur Boulevard if the project proceeds.
He noted that the consultant who prepared the Environmental Impact
Report may come in late and will be available for questions. In the
meantime, staff is available to answer questions.
John Benner, member of St. Mark church noted the following:
Page 5 of 25
ITEM NO.4
PA2004 -208
Continued to
10/21/2004
ITEM NO.5
PA2003 -085
Approved
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
. The church has been in the community for over 40 years and is
presently located at the corner of Jamboree and East Bluff and
has a membership of 423.
. On a given Sunday, an average of 220 members attend service
and simultaneously run the Sunday School program for youth
and children that would have an average of 25 in attendance.
. The preschool has been operated for children ages 2 to 5,
Monday thru Friday with an enrollment of 68 and an average
daily attendance of 48 because some of the children do not go
all five days of the week.
. The vast majority of the students are from the community as
opposed to from our membership.
. Additionally, a counseling center is run from our church facility
that provides service to the community. Our facilities will be
available for community groups to use such as AA, and League
of Women Voters, associations, etc.
. The property will be developed in an environmentally sensitive
manner and we believe that our plans maintain and actually
enhance the open space character. A group within our church
involved with environmental issues has been involved with the
environmentally sensitive projects of this process. We have
done a number of environmental issues such as energy audits
converting landscape to xeriscape, etc., and have provided
forums for environmental education, which is a big part of the
church activities.
We look forward to developing this property in an
environmentally sensitive way and being a good neighbor in the
process.
Scott Barnard introduced Shelly Hyndman of Hyndman & Hyndman
Architects, who will be explaining the site plan on their PowerPoint
presentation:
Project design features - the project site is bound by MacArthur
Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road and Big Canyon on the
northeastern property lines.
Property designs were based on surrounding buildings around
the canyon feature and maintain the canyon feature as a
primary design element of the property.
The existing grades along San Joaquin and MacArthur are at
about 250 feet in elevation. Most of the site will be cut an
Page 6 of 25
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
average 8 to 12 feet down so that the new buildings will be sunk
into the property with landscape buffers varying from 50 to 64
feet wide along the perimeters to shield the structures from
surrounding views.
Richard Katzmaier of Katzmaier, Newall, Curb, landscape architect
noted the following:
. Referring to the exhibit, noted that one portion of the site will be
1.67 acres and is intended to go to the Big Canyon Country club
and will remain as it is today.
. The next section noted is a portion of the canyon that will be
retained as a natural habitat space and is about 1.3 acres,
which is 15% of the entire 10.81 acres.
. The remaining portion of 2.58 acres is the portion that is
landscaped with ornamental landscaping with native species.
. The three elements, Big Canyon portion, the canyon that will be
preserved and the new landscaping within the campus totals
5.58 acres, which is 62% of the entire 10.81 acres.
. There is 2.72 acres that is parking plaza and sidewalk with 3/4
of an acre with nine buildings on the campus.
. The existing roadway at MacArthur is currently owned in fee by
the Irvine Company but is encumbered by easements with the
State, City and County for the existing road improvements out
there today with one exception. A small piece of 1.76 is
proposed deceleration/acceleration lanes.
. Of the 9.05 acres, 62% of it is landscaping in some form.
Shelley Hyndman continued:
. The buildings proposed for the property are smaller scale
elements being sensitive to the neighborhood residential
properties.
• The sanctuary is approximately 10,500 square feet.
• The fellowship hall is approximately 7,400 square feet.
• The administration building is 4,000 square feet.
• There are also several preschool buildings clustered into very
small elements.
Page 7 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
All the buildings have rooflines that are extremely low varying
from 15 feet to 28 feet, and the church has low roofs and most
of it is side areas with one ridge line at the center that is 45 feet.
Mr. Katzmaier added:
. There are three zones of landscaping for the proposed project.
There is the perimeter zone along MacArthur and San Joaquin.
The landscape is a combination of plant material that has been
selected working with The Irvine Company and Edison. There is
a master plan for the streetscape along MacArthur that is
comprised of evergreen pines and under the power lines the
plant material is primarily native and can be maintained easily.
Along San Joaquin there is some eucalyptus in an effort to
blend what Big Canyon has further up the street.
There is the internal zone that is around the parking and the
buildings. Within the interior areas there will be California
natives around the buildings, oak and sycamore trees and
flowering natives. The reason for the native plantings is to cut
down on the fertilizer and water runoff. Having worked with
natives a number of years, we can reduce both those elements
of water and fertilizer and be better neighbors to downstream
runoff, which goes ultimately to Newport Bay.
There is a native canyon area. Within the natural area there is
an abundance of coastal sage scrub. There obviously will be
construction around the edges and our goal is to reestablish the
coastal sage scrub in this area and extend it back to around the
sanctuary. There will also be heavy evergreen screening so
that as neighbors to Big Canyon, we will be providing screening
so that we don't become a neighbor with large buildings next to
the golf course.
. Referencing the exhibit he then noted the water drainage areas
that take the water from the site and enters down into a natural
area.
. There are berms along the perimeter. Section A by San
Joaquin, the cars are screened from parking so it will be quite a
bit lower. There will be planting of evergreen and shrubs.
. Section B at the intersection has a large lawn area as required
by The Irvine Company, mirrors presently what is going on at
Rogers Garden, Newport Center and the apartments.
. Section D at the connector between the two campuses with cars
on MacArthur up and the bridge way sloping will have a green
Page 8 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
wall with plantings.
. Looking into the natural area you will see the sanctuary.
. Section E in the upper area by the children's facility has a little
bit of berm with the use of excess soils from the site and will
have native planting.
. The campus is small and is intended to be user friendly and a
comfortable place.
. There is adequate screening and sound walls behind buildings
in the children's area so that any activity and noise is contained
within that cluster of buildings.
. The church encourages people to come in through outreach
programs. There is a nature facility with descriptive information
around the site and a small amphitheater at the edge of the
natural area that is part of the church programs.
Kelly Nolan, of Nolan Consulting, civil engineer of the project, noted
he has been involved with the grading, utilities and drainage design:
. The project is part of the Big Canyon Watershed.
. The main stream for Big Canyon actually runs to the north of the
property.
. Our site has a canyon that is a tributary to the main stream and
our project plus the off site flow is coming through the project
about 5% of what is the main stream in terms of flow
comparisons. Our site itself is about 1% of the total confluence.
. We have prepared a Water Quality Management Plan in
accordance with the City's requirements and as a result we
intend to implement three types of Best Management Practices
(BMP).
. The first source control BMP is educating the owners and
tenants about what their responsibilities are with this BMP
implementation. The source control amounts to custodianship
of the site or maintenance of the site including litter control,
maintaining trash receptacles, maintaining the infrastructure.
. The second type is the site design BMP. That includes the use
of landscape areas around the site and preserving natural areas
such as the canyon and controlling runoff with detention basins
and the use of slope erosion control measures such as where
we discharge into the canyon.
Page 9 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
The third type is the treatment control BMP. We are utilizing two
types, landscape swales in combination with infiltration
trenches, two in the parking lot and one in the campus. The
second type of treatment control is the catch basin inserts at
three locations. Once the runoff has made its way down to the
low points and through the landscape swales it will eventually
get to the catch basins inserts where during the low flow events
water is filtered through the catch basin system and goes out
through the canyon. He discussed a cut away of the landscape
swale.
The catch basin with the percolation filter inside would be sized
to handle the appropriate design flow so that it would enter the
unit before it would fill out and over top in a large storm event.
. It then goes down into a solid pipe down into the canyon where
it would discharge through the slope protection system.
Through the landscaping scheme the rock slope protection at
the outlet point would be augmented by native materials to fit in
with the existing canyon features.
Scott Barnard speaking for the applicant, continued the presentation:
St. Mark has applied to get a LEED Certification for the project
and has been registered. The certification comes from different
categories that are scored such as sustainable site planning,
water quality, energy efficiency, materials and uses of resources
and air quality.
Gregg Ramirez gave a briefing on the series of application:
The application includes a request for a General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from
Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Government,
Educational and Institutional Facilities;
A Planned Community Amendment to identify the subject parcel
as part of Big Canyon Planned Community, the site is currently
zoned PC but there are no PC regulations that govern the site,
that will include development regulations that will specify how
many square feet are allowed on the project site in this case it
will be 34,000 with the typical development regulations found in
the Zoning Code;
A Use Permit to obtain approval for the development and
operation of a religious institution which include all the buildings
and uses on site as covered within the applicant's previous
presentation; there is a Use Permit for the actual church
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm
Page 10 of 25
6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
buildings or portions of them to exceed the height limit that is
governed under the Exceptions to Height Limits Chapter in the
Zoning Code that specifically allows religious institutions to
apply for a use permit to exceed the height. That is limited to
the buildings that are actually used for religious services.
A Parcel Map is a request for the subdivision of the property
which is a little over ten acres and includes three parcels. One
of which is existing MacArthur Boulevard right of way, one of
which is the site that will be transferred over to the Big Canyon
Country Club and become part of the golf course, and the
largest site (7.3 acres) is proposed for the church development;
A Traffic Study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance;
. And, a review pursuant to CEOA.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern regarding the run off.
There are three areas for collection. It will come off the hardscape of
the property and instead of flowing down the canyon, it will go to
these three places, through the filters and then go into a pipe that will
take it to the canyon. I am concerned about what happens at the end
of the pipe. What is happening to those three collector pipes that are
now concentrating the water flow.? How will that water be
accommodated?
Mr. Nolan answered that at the collection points there is a low flow
treatment that filters the water before it goes into the pipes below. In
a larger storm, there are three detention basins on site. The runoff
when it reaches its peak in a developed condition, the discharge into
the canyon does not exceed the existing condition. The velocities are
also attenuated by the use of energy dissipaters such as rocks at the
discharge points. Riprap will also be used to dissipate the energy of
the flow of the water into the canyon.
Commissioner McDaniel questioned that you are comfortable that
there will be no damage to the canyon during a heavy storm down
stream caused by runoff from this project? He was answered yes.
Referring to the presentation, Mr. Nolan pointed out the discharge
points with impact basins. The design of the rocks is for removing the
energy of water flow. The rate of flow discharging from the canyon is
no greater than the existing use. That is what the detention basins
are doing, they are holding it back and letting it out at a rate that does
not exceed the existing rate. There is an increase due to the paved
areas but that is retained on site and then over a period of time is
drained through the piping.
Page 11 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
Chairperson Tucker asked how much coastal sage scrub from what is
out there today is going to be removed in total when the project is
completed.
Mr. Katzmaier answered there is some being removed around the
sanctuary and over to the left there is a canyon that is presently
existing, part of which gets filled in. Some of that coastal sage is
going to be removed but what we are going to do on the left side of
the canyon, we are replanting where coastal sage scrub does not
presently exist and are adding it back in. In our calculations we feel
we are in balance by the additional materials. There is some areas
that are denuded right now that will be replanted as well.
Chairperson Tucker noted that it would be helpful if between now and
the time this matter ends up at the City Council you would file a letter
with the City just for the record that shows what the net affect of the
project will be after the project is completed.
Kevin Shannon, Project Manager of Michael Brandman Associates
noted that in round numbers the amount of coastal sage scrub is
about 1.96 acres currently and after removal will be about 1.38 acres.
There will be a transition top of the slope and blending with existing
coastal sage scrub.
Chairperson Tucker asked about a program or at least an application
for a grant for a water quality improvement down where the Big
Canyon Creek ends up at Newport Bay. Is this additional water that is
going downstream have an additional impact on that plan, or does
that plan account for the additional water? I see this mentioned in the
City Manager's newsletter about every six months or so. He was told
this is a Dave Kiff question.
Continuing, he asked about the maintenance program for the filters in
the catch basins. Is that something that will be part of your program?
Mr. Katzmaier answered yes it is the rear section of the Water Quality
Management Program. I believe the replacement period is annually
and the recommendation is that a contract with the manufacturer for
this program be implemented between the church and the
manufacturer.
Ms. Temple added that if lack of maintenance involved in any
discharge beyond what is permitted, then our Code and Water Quality
Enforcement people would step in and commence enforcement.
Chairperson Tucker noted that on the plans there were alternative
heights for where the cross is going to be located. One was 51 feet
and one was 56 feet, what is the applicant asking for?
Page 12 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLMShared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
Shell Hyndman answered that the applicant is asking for flexibility on
that point and would like the opportunity to developing that tower
height either way. That tower occupies about a 13 by 13 footprint on
the property. At Commission inquiry, she answered that the applicant
does not have a problem if the Commission designates the height at
51 feet.
Chairperson Tucker noted that on the MacArthur entry and exit point,
he is concerned about the safety. If a mistake is made by a driver the
likelihood of a high speed accident and therefore a serious injury or
death is much greater in my opinion than on the San Joaquin Hills
Road side, where I think the speeds would be typically less. I know
staff is going to look at the site distance issues, in the EIR and traffic
studies say the project works without the MacArthur entry and exit
point. Could staff give us an overview of this situation.
Mr. Rich Edmonston noted that staff and the traffic consultant looked
at that location. Is it an ideal set up, no, but it is reasonable. If all the
access is concentrated on San Joaquin Hills Road then there is just
that much more of a concentration at that point versus having two
access points allow traffic coming south on MacArthur to enter the site
without having to make that right onto San Joaquin and then
decelerate then turn directly in to the property. On balance we looked
at distancing the driveway from the intersection, and we felt that it was
doable. There is no guarantee, but we felt it was reasonable.
Chairperson Tucker asked if it was something where we could see
operationally where the one point works on San Joaquin and then
have the applicant come back if the applicant and staff feel it is not an
optimal situation and need to try the MacArthur entry and exit point.
Is it something where we could defer it and see if it is going to be
needed?
Mr. Edmonston answered that from the City's perspective, we could.
If that is not to be a full access, we want some sort of emergency
access for the fire department in that area anyway. The difference
would be if the applicant is willing to spend the money to put in the
deceleration lane and all the rest of the features associated with a full
driveway that would be required for emergency access. We do
anticipate one way or another that there will be some access although
it would be gated if it was just for fire access.
Chairperson Tucker then noted that dropping off children for pre-
school, every parent drives and parks their cars and then walk the
children in. There are fifteen parking spaces and that doesn't seem to
be near enough when you have a maximum potential for 112
students. I am concerned where those cars are going to go when
they all arrive at five minutes to nine to drop the kids off. I see a
stacking problem.
Page 13 of 25
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning CornnllSSion\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
Mr. Edmonston answered that is correct. One of the things
discussed, is there is a parking lot not terribly distant from that school
entrance. We have noted that around the City, private schools such
as this have a great deal more control over their parents than the
public schools do because they have the threat of throwing the family
out of the school. We tend to have a much greater problems with
public schools than with private schools.
Commissioner Toerge noted that on the MacArthur access point for
the acceleration lane that goes southbound, the design shows that it
forces the cars to merge into the path of travel of the traffic before
they are allowed to veer right to make a right onto San Joaquin Hills
Rd. Is there any reason why that acceleration lane can't just line up
with the right hand turn lane onto San Joaquin Hills Rd.? Are there
any studies that suggest a longer deceleration lane might be safer?
Mr. Edmonston answered that there is no reason it can't, again it was
felt that if it was made longer people might stay in there longer and
not realize until the last minute they were in a lane that is going to
make a right turn and that might not be where they wanted to go.
They could be blended together. There are some issues with the
large Edison power pole line and that if you try to extend the roadway
you would run into some problems with the pole line falls in relation to
the curb on MacArthur.
Commission Toerge asked why there is not an acceleration lane on
the San Joaquin exit? If the MacArthur exit is eliminated then all of
the traffic will be leaving that location and it seems you would want to
have an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin Hills exit. Is the project
going to be phased and if so, what is the phasing plan on the building
and parking lot constructions?
Gregg Ramirez answered that basically the entire project will be
constructed in the first phase except for the fourth pre - school building,
the expansion building and the parking lot that is adjacent to the
expansion building. There is proposed condition #20 relating to the
number of parking spaces. There are approximately 200 spaces that
will be installed with phase one that include the 15 spaces in front of
the pre - school. That condition would give the Planning Director the
authority to require the additional 37 spaces in front of the expansion
building to be installed at any time if there is a parking demand
problem. We could re -word a condition or re -craft a condition along
the lines of if there is a problem with circulation with respect to the
pick up and drop off of the pre - school students that we can require
those 37 parking spaces be installed sooner.
Commissioner Toerge noted he would be in favor of the expansion
building parking be built in the first phase due to the narrow roadway
and safety concerns.
Page 14 of 25
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Comn]ission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
Chairperson Tucker then noted that tonight we are going to receive
testimony from anybody who wants to talk about this item. However,
if you are going to talk about the Environmental Impact Report then
you will need to talk in terms of technical comments on a technical
document. As I have indicated earlier the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines prohibit us from considering argument,
speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is
clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence that is not credible.
Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions
predicated upon facts or expert opinions supported by facts. We have
an Environmental Impact Report that we invite comments on and we
have received a lot of very good written comments and staff has
responded to those comments. You are also invited to make any
other comments you would like to make on the project or the
appropriateness of the project which proposes the conversion of
recreational environmental open space to a church and pre - school
use.
Public comment was opened.
Craig Borstein, co -owner of the apartment complex property directly
northwest of this property noted the following:
. They have no fundamental objection to the church occupying
the land.
. However, they are very concerned with the location of the
buildings on the property related to their property line and the
lack of mitigation measures associated with the location of the
sanctuary and the outdoor play area.
. The main sanctuary has an outdoor play area next to it that is 55
feet from the nearest residential structure.
. The main sanctuary is planned at 40 feet in height and because
the subject property is at a higher elevation than our property,
the five foot setback that is being proposed is all slope.
Therefore, it is almost impossible to shield the 40 foot structure
with the slope and a five foot setback.
The outdoor play area is right next to the sanctuary that is
located 5 feet from the property line. There will be too much
noise.
In November of 2003 he had written a letter to the Planning
Department indicating these concerns and suggested solutions
and has spoken with John Brenner.
. They have looked at and reviewed the EIR where it became
Page 15 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
obvious that their concerns were not addressed.
We had suggested in our letter that this outdoor play area have
a setback of 15 feet instead of 5 feet so that mature landscaping
could be placed to shield the structure and outdoor play area
from the residential property.
The driveway on San Joaquin Hills Road is right on the property
line and we suggest moving it back ten feet towards MacArthur.
It is a nine acre property, seven acres of the property is useable
and the structures are 35,000 square feet. In other words, 1/7
of the property is being used for structures. It seems a
reasonable solution to set it back 15 feet to be a good neighbor
and to shield the noise impacts and the potential pollution
impacts.
Mr. Bernie Rome, resident of Newport Beach, noted the following:
. Traffic is a problem that has yet to be resolved. There are a lot
of cars that come into Newport Center.
. Is it possible to come south down MacArthur Boulevard passing
San Joaquin Hill Road and make another entry into Newport
Center, say at the bus stop. That would alleviate a lot of the
weaving on San Joaquin Hill Road as we have had a number of
accidents.
. This Commission and Council must recognize the traffic
problems in this vicinity, including those from special events at
Fashion Island.
. The Church will be hosting other events such as the AA, etc.
and that traffic is not counted.
. There is a small piece of land that is 'no -man' land and I would
urge that the applicant or the seller of the land (The Irvine
Company) be required to landscape that piece of land.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Toerge, referring to page 2.2, stated one of the project
design features PDF5 suggests the use of deep earth tones and
building colors that compliment and blend in with the natural color
tones of the canyon. Yet, it appears from the renderings on the
screen and in the packet that the buildings are white. That doesn't
seem to be consistent or in keeping with PDF5.
Mr. Scott Barnard answered that the color board is the accurate
Page 16 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
depiction of the types of colors to be used. The artists rendering of
white is wrong.
Commissioner Cole noted that a view corridor was referenced in the
EIR from MacArthur Boulevard to the canyon feature. Is there a
particular view corridor as referenced in PDF7 in the EIR?
Mr. Katzmaier answered by pulling up the presentation depicting the
view corridor between MacArthur and the access road. The Irvine
Company wanted screening of the sanctuary; however, there will still
be a small view.
Chairperson Tucker then reviewed the letter presented by Dr.
Vandersloot and noted the objections and the mitigation measures in
place, the Bonita Canyon Sports Park in the surrounding area,
topography of the site and the amount of parkland along MacArthur
Boulevard.
Ms. Clauson noted that this property isn't currently recreation and
open space. It is currently undeveloped privately owned property that
is zoned for recreation and open space.
Chairperson Tucker then noted that the response to comments states
that the City asked for a noise study be prepared and an analysis was
done that determined that the noise from the project would not exceed
the noise levels that are allowed. It complies with the noise
requirements. Moving the project ten feet away and planting mature
materials, yes there will be a slope, but I am not sure what moving an
extra ten feet in will accomplish. Certainly on moving the access point
ten feet further to the east, it may be good for the apartment project,
but I don't think it is good for traffic, especially given the location. Mr.
Rome's comments on how the City does its traffic study, does the trip
generation rates and the surrounding land uses include special events
to which he refers?
Mr. Edmonston answered that special events go through their own
process. Our traffic studies compare typical day traffic, morning and
evening peak periods with and without the project. There is no
specific criteria for evaluating weekend traffic which is when most of
the special events occur. On large special events, the applicant is
required to pay for all types of traffic controls and overtime police
officers, etc. to help ensure the event is carried off safely. Those
requirements extend to off site locations as well.
Continuing, Chairperson Tucker noted that as far as the landscape
strip, it is not before us today and is not part of this project area. We
do not have the authority and the landscaping of that 'no mans' land is
not tied to this project. I agree it should be dealt with but this is
beyond the plan.
Page 17 of 25
file : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlPlanning Commission\PC MinuteslPrior Years1200410923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
Ms. Temple noted that on page A1.413 there is a line that depicts a
retaining wall. If the area in question commences immediately north
to the retaining wall then at least a portion of or perhaps all of that
area is part of the parcel map that would go to the Big Canyon
Country Club. If that is the case, as property owner they would
obviously take on all the responsibilities and rights of the property and
would perhaps improve that area with landscaping. However, I do
believe that it would very unconventional to place a landscaping
requirement on a Parcel Map. It is a parcel for transfer.
Chairperson Tucker noted that we don't seem to have all the facts
and indicated Mr. Rome could talk to the City Council about this
matter when this is heard.
Ms. Temple added that we can provide that information and have it
available for the Council if you act tonight, or for the Commission at
the next meeting.
Commissioner Toerge noted he sees two issues:
. The landscape in the area north of the parcel being conveyed to
St. Mark there appears to be landscape between the street and
the road that is going to Big Canyon. Is that currently
landscaped and maintained now? If it is not, I would like to
include that it should be and done by either Big Canyon or the
Parcel Map might be adjusted so that the property is in St. Mark
property and they would do it.
Ms. Temple noted that there was a many party agreement associated
with the construction of the retaining /sound wall that was a
requirement of the widening of MacArthur Boulevard. We are not
sure who the obligated party is, but one of them is.
Commissioner Selich noted that it would be appropriate as part of this
project to require a landscape plan for the area between the wall and
the street and make sure it is maintained in the future either by the
church or the country club or whoever ends up with the property. As
far as the 'no man' land off site, there is nothing we can do about that.
Commissioner Cole asked about the no project alternative allowed
development alternative that wasn't really addressed in the staff
report and summary. I am assuming it was rejected because it did
not meet the project objectives.
Ms. Temple answered that the California Environmental Quality Act
does require us to look at no project and no development
alternatives. We did provide one alternative which would be
development compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
designation. One of the points of evaluation for a higher level of
Page 18 of 25
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
consideration of one of the alternatives is that it meets the project
objectives, and obviously that did not meet the objective of the project
applicant because they would not be able to construct the church.
Despite that and what the Environmental Impact Report says what we
have before us is a General Plan Amendment within which the City
has the full discretion to approve or deny. If the City, for whatever
reason, thinks this should not be changed to Governmental,
Educational and Institutional Facilities designation and consistent
zoning then you have the right to deny it.
Mr. Kevin Shannon of Michael Brandman Associates added that in
addition to what could be proposed for Recreation Facilities, there is
no project application or proponent associated with that.
Chairperson Tucker noted that comment about the traffic analysis not
covering a built out condition, in the response to comments and traffic
study it is clear that the build out analysis accumulative long term
analysis was done. Under the City's traffic ordinances typical traffic
methodology, all these studies are done based upon a level of
service analysis that allows for a certain level of congestion as
acceptable. Our traffic studies are done in great detail because we
have a Traffic Phasing Ordinance so they really are scrutinized.
While the addition of traffic in a.m. and p.m. peak changes the traffic
situation where this project is located, it doesn't change it to the extent
based upon the technical analysis that we have that causes it to go
beyond what is acceptable. It may not be deemed desirable by some
people but there is going to be some level of congestion that is
allowed.
Continuing he noted we had another letter opposing the project
stating the project was not wanted by the people. There were only
two people from Big Canyon who wrote letters. Canyon Hills
Community Association wrote a letter that said while it had some
concerns they stated that they are not opposed to the church, school
use. We have had church projects with opposition that filled this room
and the foyer and down the steps, continuing through several
meetings. This project is not nearly like those projects.
Continuing, the next phase in the environmental review is the decision
if we have heard anything tonight that would lead us to believe the
EIR needs to be modified in any substantial way and recirculated. No
one on the Commission felt this was necessary. He noted that the
issues have been addressed in the EIR and that there have been
sophisticated comments on the EIR. The primary purpose of the EIR
is to make sure the decision makers understand the nature of the
project so that when they make the decision they actually understand
what the consequences are to the environment of the project. In this
case it is a relatively simple project and easy to understand what will
happen if the is project were to be developed. There is no reason to
Page 19 of 25
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
re- circulate the EIR.
Commissioner Selich noted:
On the MacArthur acceleration /deceleration lane in the
entrance, in the total evaluation of the project, it makes more
sense to have two means of ingress and egress to this project. I
support the solution that has been presented and I would not
support trying to merge the acceleration lane out of the project
into the deceleration lane going to San Joaquin Hills Road.
I agree with the concern of the parking and would be amenable
to requiring that some of the parking in front of the expansion
building be provided as part of the pre - school so there is
sufficient parking. I don't believe that you will find people
parking on the other side of the canyon area and walking back
to the pre - school. Perhaps going in and doing a portion of the
parking to provide overflow parking for the pre - school is
warranted.
Commissioner Toerge noted:
. Looking at the Site plan A1.4B it appears the power pole is at
least 60 to 80 feet north of the start of the current deceleration
lane.
. My suggestion is to extend the deceleration lane on MacArthur
Boulevard to 200 feet or more in length as feasible with the
limitation of the power pole.
. Elimination of the requirement that the accelerating cars out of
MacArthur have to flow into the traffic before they turn right.
. There should be some form of acceleration lane out of San
Joaquin Hills exit as it makes no sense why there isn't. You will
have a lot of cars pouring out of that exit.
. The tower feature of the sanctuary should be held at 51 feet.
. I agree that maybe half or more of the parking for the expansion
building be included in the initial phase to accommodate the pre-
school.
. Some requirement be included in the conditions to clear up this
issue of landscape north of the parcel being conveyed to the
Church and that area be landscaped and someone be made
responsible for it.
Chairperson reiterated:
Page 20 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
. The extension to the extent that it is feasible;
have that lane be basically continued as an acceleration lane
out onto MacArthur that doesn't have to get back into the third
lane of MacArthur and then cut back over to a right turn on to
San Joaquin Hills Road,
. you want an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin Hills Rd exit.
Mr. Edmonston noted that:
The deceleration lane on MacArthur, we have always been
concerned_ that we wanted the driveway as far away from the
intersection as we could and to condition a developer with
acquiring a right of way from another owner is something we
generally try to avoid as it puts them in an uncertain position.
That would also apply to the acceleration lane on San Joaquin
Hills Road but in addition there are other unsignalized accesses
to San Joaquin Hills road, particularly out of the Newport Center
side that have greater traffic using them that do not have
acceleration lanes. As far as I am aware we don't typically put
in acceleration lanes based upon a particular situation. Here the
concern was for providing the one on MacArthur as you come
out of the driveway and try to get up to speed because there
already is a right turn only lane and that is a different conflict you
would have on San Joaquin Hills Rd where there is a straight
through lane.
As far as the continuation of the acceleration lane on MacArthur
to tie into the right turn lane, I would not be opposed to that.
The proposed one is better, but either is acceptable.
Commissioner Toerge then discussed the possibility of changing the
property line to accommodate a longer lane; acquisition of right of
way, constraints and safety.
Chairperson Tucker noted he did not see the need to have an
acceleration lane on the San Joaquin Hills Road side, especially with
two access points. The wall is important to the community and to the
Big Canyon Country Club, so it has to stay there. For safety
purposes, if the deceleration lane on MacArthur Boulevard was
extended, I agree that we can put a condition on the St. Mark project,
as it is to accommodate St. Mark and they should pay for it. The
issue with the lengthening of the fourth lane if it is okay with the
engineering department that is okay with me. If it turns out to be a
problem, the City can modify that.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted that the City has few
Page 21 of 25
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
acceleration lanes from private property like this. Following debates
with our consultants the decision was that it would help people with
the design that is shown to accelerate and get up to some speed
before they had to start moving over into southbound Macarthur
through traffic. We don't have any adopted design criteria for
acceleration and deceleration lanes. and we don't have very many of
them but usually longer is better.
Discussion continued on possibility, length of lane, power pole
replacement costs, etc.
Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval
of the General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002, Planned Community
Text Amendment No. 2003 -001, Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic
Study No. 2004 -004, Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 and certification the
Environmental Impact Report to the City Council with the following
modifications to the conditions listed in the draft resolution:
. Extend the deceleration lane on MacArthur leading into the
secondary access driveway as long as feasible without the
necessity to move or modify the large Edison power poles.
. Extend the acceleration lane to merge in a linear fashion with
the deceleration lane for the right hand turn from southbound
MacArthur to westbound San Joaquin Hills Road.
. The sanctuary tower height is limited to 51 feet.
. That a minimum of one half or more of the parking, if required by
the Public Works Department, adjacent to the expansion
building be built with the initial phase of the development.
. That there is some form of surety that the property between the
sound wall and MacArthur be continuously landscaped.
Ms. Wood noted that when the sound wall was built there are a
number of parties involved in the funding and construction and the
installation of the landscaping. 1 believe that as part of that project
responsibilities were assigned. I am concerned that if we put a
condition on this project it might be in conflict with some other
agreements that were reached when the wall was installed.
Commissioner Selich noted this is one parcel that is now being split
so the Commission has the ability to place a condition on this project
and the parties to that agreement can figure out how to deal with it. If
it becomes impossible to implement, the applicant can always come
back and seek an amendment to the condition.
Ms. Clauson noted another option is that more information may come
Page 22 of 25
file : //F:1UserslPLNlShared\Planning Commission\PC MinuteslPrior Years1200410923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
up between now and the time this goes to City Council we can make
some recommendations to the City Council.
Commissioner Toerge agreed to this recommendation.
Commissioner Selich noted he does not agree with the
deceleration /acceleration lane recommended on MacArthur as it is not
necessary.
Following a brief discussion Commissioner Toerge modified his
motion to eliminate the acceleration /deceleration lane merger for the
right hand turn from s/b MacArthur to w/b San Joaquin Hills Road. He
also included the proposed added condition 59, 'Prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, an emergency access road with a rolled
curb and surface capable of supporting fire department apparatus
shall be provided at or near the location of the proposed MacArthur
access point shown on the approved plans. the final design shall be
subject to the review and approval by the Fire department, Public
Works Department t and Planning Department. (This condition is only
applicable in the event that the MacArthur Boulevard Access is not
constructed.)'
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
None
Eaton
None
SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002-
265)
600 St. Andrews Road
Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use
Permit for the replacement and construction of additional buildings
and a below grade parking garage. The General Plan Amendment
involves an increase to the maximum allowable building area with no
change to the existing land use designation. the Zone Change would
change the zoning district from R -2 & R -1 to GEIF to be consistent
with the existing General Plan, Land Use element Designation. The
Use permit involves the alteration of existing buildings, replacement of
the existing fellowship hall and classroom building and the
construction of a new multi - purpose gymnasium and youth center.
The Use Permit also considers setting the maximum allowable
building height of 40 feet of the two proposed buildings.
Ms. Temple noted that applicant has requested that this item be
Page 23 of 25
ITEM NO.6
PA2002 -265
Continue to
10/21/2004
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
continued to October 21, 2004.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to
October 21, 2004.
Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes: Daigle
Absent: None
Abstain: None
None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the following items:
Revisions to Appeal and Call for Review Procedures
Amendment was approved
Newly revised Zoning Amendment for Group Living Uses was
reintroduced and will receive its second reading next Tuesday
(9128/04).
Loss of Planning Commissioner Daigle to City Council -
Appointment of the committee to consider applications will be
made, and the application period will run through mid - October
b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee -
Commissioner Selich mentioned a meeting on City's Grease
Trap Ordinance
c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the
General Plan Update Committee - none.
Commissioner Tucker for Sharon Wood: Land Use Alternatives
still planned for November?
Ms. Wood stated that she planned to bring the Land Use
Alternatives to the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) on
November 8, 2004, along with additional information from the
consultant. She remarked on the importance of providing an
ample range of alternatives, for consideration by GPUC, prior to
testing them with the Traffic and Fiscal models.
d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to
Page 24 of 25
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
report on at a subsequent meeting -
Commissioner Toerge inquired about the proposed use for the
Chili's site on Coast Highway
Ms. Temple responded that it is a medical office building.
Chairperson Tucker asked about the parking ratio for the site.
Ms. Wood replied that the applicant had met the parking
requirements.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a
future agenda for action and staff report - none.
f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests -
Ms. Temple reported the following:
California Coastal Commission had, on September 10, 2004,
extended consideration of the City's Local Coastal Plan for a
period of one year.
AB2702, Second Units Statute, is on the Governor's desk but
has not yet been addressed.
g. Project status -
Chairperson Tucker asked for project status on St. Andrews'
Church Expansion.
Ms. Temple reported that no revised plans had been received.
Chairperson Tucker requested feedback on the Banning Ranch
Tour.
Ms. Temple discussed details of Tour and Meeting.
h. Request for excused absences -
Page 25 of 25
ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT
JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \0923.htm 6/26/2008