HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/2006Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2006
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 34
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl0- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn -
Il were present.
STAFF PRESENT:
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner
Gaylene Olson, Department Assistant
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
Cheryl Hodge of Hodge and Associates, City Contract Planner
Bill Cunningham of Lawrence and Associates, City Contract Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 29, 2006.
CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 21, 2006.
ITEM NO. 1
Approved
Commissioner Hawkins made a correction.
Ayes:
Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
Henn
ITEM NO.2
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 17, 2005
Approved
Ayes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge
Noes:
None
[Absent:
None
Abstain:
Peotter and Henn
Page 1 of 34
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl0- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/2006/mnl 0- 05- 06.htm
Page 2 of 34
06/23/2008
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485)
ITEM NO. 3
2920 Newport Boulevard
The Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub
Continued to
pursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City
October 19, 2006
in 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received severs
complaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will
valuate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the condition
under which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission
may require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions of
approval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary
and revocation of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time.
Staff requests to continue this item to October 19, 2006.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the consent calends
as modified.
Ayes:
Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: Big Canyon Country Club
ITEM NO.4
1 Big Canyon Drive
PA2006 -160
General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable gross Floor area
Recommended
allocated to the Country Club by 10,000 square feet.
for Approval
Commissioner Toerge asked what the boundaries of Statistical Area L2 are and
hat was the development contributed to the prior General Plan Amendment
003 -002.
Ms. Temple answered that L2 is surrounded by San Joaquin Hills Road,
Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The other amendment
within that statistical area was St. Mark's Presbyterian Church.
Mr. Larry Tucker, speaking on behalf of the County Club, requested the
Commission approve this application.
Public comment was opened.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 2006 -06 to the City Council by adopting the resolution
contained in the staff report.
Ayes:
Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
SUBJECT: Housing Element Review
ITEM NO. 5
Recommended
The Annual Housing Element Implementation Report is being provided to th
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/2006/mnl 0- 05- 06.htm
Page 2 of 34
06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
Commission for review.
ndon Nichols, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
. An annual report, required by the California Government Code, is prepared
for submission to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) and the Governors Office of Planning and Research
(OPR).
. This reports outlines the goals and policies of the existing Housing
Element and the City's progress towards meeting those goals.
. The report typically is part of a larger report that analyzes the City's
General Plan; however, since the City is in the midst of the General Plan
update, the entire report is not required.
. The status of the General Plan update does not exempt the City from
preparing the Housing Element section on an annual basis.
. The Housing Element Implementation Report has been prepared
review prior to submission to the OPR and HCD.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward this report to the
City Council for their final approval.
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
sioner Eaton asked about goals 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 referencing the City
of updating its in -lieu fee and affordable housing ordinance. It had been
ad by staff last year to drop that reference because we had converted to
idual affordable housing implementation plan. Is this language still
Nichols answered that currently the Housing In -lieu Ordinance study is on
d pending the outcome of the General Plan update. However, during the past
al year the City has been operating under the existing Housing Element and
re was some work done on the Ordinance and the In -lieu Housing Fee Study.
stated, the purpose of the report is to analyze the progress the City has made
yards achieving the current Housing Element goals during the past fiscal year.
at is the reason it still exists in the report.
Eaton suggested changing the wording to, 'The City has been
process.'
,ion was made by Commissioner Eaton to approve and forward the Annual
ising Element Implementation Report to the City Council for final review with
suggested change.
missioner Henn asked about Goal 2.1.1. He asked what the result of the
recent vacancy rate survey is.
Nichols noted he is still getting the information through the mail on the
mt report and will email it to the Commissioners.
for Approval
Page 3 of 34
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
Temple noted the survey is done quarterly and the last report was below
None
None
Newport Bay Marina formerly known as the Bridgeport Mixed Use
Development
2300 Newport Boulevard
Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Modification Permit and Vesting Tentative Tr.
vlap to allow the construction of a mixed -use development on a 2.4 acre s
ocated north of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Bouleva
Fhe project consists of the demolition of all structures on site and I
wnstruction of approximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and
]welling units (condominiums). Eleven three -story buildings are planned to
>uilt over a subterranean parking garage. The reconstruction/reconfiguration
he existing bulkhead, boatways and docks is also planned. The Site PI
Review application would authorize the entire project and the Vesting Tentat
Fract map would permit a subdivision map to allow for the residential units to
ndividually sold. The Use Permit would establish a building height limit of up
35 feet and the Modification Permit would allow portions of the propos
wildings to encroach within the 5 -foot front yard setback. Finally, considerati
A a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2003071144) including mitigati
erson Cole noted the applicant will make a presentation followed by a
and then questions by the Commission.
,arol McDermott of Government Solutions, representing Newport Bay Mai
ntroduoed her staff and then made a PowerPoint presentation highlighting
. The project is now named Newport Bay Marina.
. Computer generated model done to scale is as realistic a picture of
the project will be.
Entitlement request includes approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract
that allows the sale of the residential parcels on the mixed use site. A
Permit to allow 35 foot height on a portion of the site; a Modification P
for the front yard setback; and a Site Plan review for the mixed
development of the residential and commercial uses including
renovated marina. The Environmental Impact Report is being prese
by the City's consultant and staff as well.
Community outreach efforts - they have met with the Central Newpor
Community Association representatives on the 28th of September.
Included in your packet is a letter that was sent during the review perioc
on the EIR. We met with those representatives and they have sent <
revised letter that has narrowed those issues, many of which can be easily
addressed. We invited all property owners within a 500 foot radius to a
meeting earlier this week. We did not have a very good turn out, but all o
them were notified according to the latest ownership roles on the Count
Assessor's list. We met with adjacent business owners and have a Iette
ITEM NO. 6
PA2001 -210
Continued to
November 2,
2006
Page 4 of 34
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 5 of 34
of support from the South Coast Shipyard that is immediately to the south
of this project.
. Project overview including setting, site plan and architecture. The pro
site is 2.4 acres and is located on Newport Boulevard. She then noted
site plan and the surrounding businesses.
. The mixed use development is 36,000 of retail /commercial uses, currentli
there is 40,000 square feet of retail and office and boat sale uses on tht
property. There are proposed 27 residential units and a 19 slip marina.
Also proposed is subterranean parking to serve visitor, retail and offic(
needs, as well as some evening activities for surrounding uses.
. She referred to the site plan and noted the placement of the pier
McFadden Square portion of the Cannery Village McFadden Sc
Specific Plan.
. The 28th Street marina project is a mixed use that was approved y4
ago. Property to the north is a small mixed use development with Kar
and Woody's Wharf restaurants. The subject property begins where
Johnston Yacht Sales is located and ends where the Crab Cooker be!
on the Newport Boulevard frontage. Further views were noted along 2
Street; Arcade Street fronted by the project as well; and, the cur
shipyard is immediately to the south of the project. Simulated views v
then presented from the 485 foot water front section.
Existing conditions - 44,000 square feet of existing mixed uses
commercial office and retail shops. There is an existing commerc
marina with an extended slipway that has been used variously. V
consider this a 19 slip marina. There is associated parking scatter
along the site at grade level; there is very limited public access. Views
the water are blocked by parking, trees and boats. Public access is limit
by trees and out of code types of improvements.
A visual site tour was shown noting entrances to the location. Since
this site has become used for office uses and a variety of
commercial uses.
. There are two slipways on the site.
The existing marina is old and does not meet current code or me
specifications. There are a variety of circumstances along the buW
that have led to drainage directly into the harbor. Part of the Water Qu
Plan is to assure that there is no direct water run off into the bay. TI
will be a Water Quality Management Plan to address this. The ma
requires a complete renovation of docks, bulk heads and pump
facilities. The slipway that has been covered for a number of years
been used to launch boats. Boat repair was done on the top of
covered slip way, which will be eliminated in return for a widened
enhanced slipway as part of the major access to the water.
The marina will be reconfigured to make it more efficient. It will allow
handicap access in two locations from the 10 -foot public walkway I
exists across the front of the property. It allows for the expansion
widening of the existing slipway. It will allow for the replacement of
existing bulkhead. This construction will be done with all the t
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 6 of 34
management practices in the industry and under the auspices of the
Harbor Resources Division as well as the Department of Public Works.
The abandoned and covered existing boat slipway will be filled. This wil
allow for increased access and some boat berthing, enhanced bay view:
and recreational activities for small boats to pick up and drop off people.
Referring to the site plan, she then noted Building A with proposed retai
on the ground floor and residential on the second and third floors. Buildinc
B has retail on the ground floor on Newport Boulevard, office on the
second floor and residential on the third floor with parking underneath thi;
building in garages. Building C is an office /retail building and is two stories
approximately the same height as the rest of the buildings but with highe
floor plates. Buildings D thru K are a combination of residential and retai
and retail parking spaces are available as well as garage parking fo
residential. Parking is individual with landscaping surrounding them.
. Most of the residential units have either balconies or other private
spaces as demonstrated in exhibits contained in the packet.
. The conceptual landscape plan has landscape between each of
buildings so that in the 10 -foot walkway, there was room for a 6 foot c
access way and also allows for landscape planters as well as benches
seating to enhance the visitor access and experience to the water..
. Public access is along either side of the slipway with
everywhere we can.
. There is an existing recorded easement that will cover a more extei
area, as relayed by the referenced presentation. She noted
surrounding buildings and bridge and how they relate to the
enhancements. The bridge will not impede the views and will be
elevation change.
. She noted an illustration on how the area will function with
for seating areas and pedestrian access to the water.
. Public access is reached from Newport Boulevard via the plaza area with
walkways on either side and via a paseo, an easement between the office
building and Building D to the boardwalk from the Arcade Street.
Stairways and elevators will allow convenient public access to the water.
• Woody's Wharf has no public access.
. The 28th Street marina has a ten foot walkway.
. Small electric boats will have some access through the slip up to
bridge at low tide.
. Vehicular access to the project site will be from 22nd Street or
Newport Boulevard. There are left turns and stop signs to direct the
flow. Discussion followed on additional street lighting and veh
access via ingress and egress for separate parking areas.
. The elevator shaft and public access were viewed.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas/2006 /nml0- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
. Deck level parking provided by carports and garages, delivery parking
visitor parking at deck level, which is different from the parking at
subterranean level, retail and residential parking and exits out to
streets were noted on the presentation.
*Subterranean parking functions through two way circulation in
directions.
. Trash enclosure details have not been finalized but there are a number
locations that are feasible and it will be worked out during the tral
department review of the circulation plan. She noted a few possit
locations on the site plan.
• Parking includes 2 spaces per 27 dwelling units, including 39 garages
the deck level, 15 carports at the deck level, 14 guest spaces, 10 of wh
are at the deck level and 4 on the parking level. The retail office is park
at one stall per 250 square feet consisting of deck level carports so tl
the owner /operators or employees of small retail shops less than 1,0
square feet, will have convenient parking to their stores while custom(
are given a nice level of parking of 135 spaces. There will be a parki
company operating the structure to assure that the parking is us
appropriately and is managed and does not create circulation problei
onto the street.
. The marina is parked at .8 stall per slip resulting in 15 stalls in the parkins
level as well as the necessary showers required for a commercial marina..
This ratio has been determined to work both by the Planning Departmen
and the Harbor Resources Division. The total parking is 226 spaces pei
the Code.
As a developer we want to assure that there is adequate parking and
Codes here on parking are valid and have been tested; therefore, we
comfortable that there is adequate parking.
In this location, which is clearly related to McFadden Square, there i;
historic theme that should be re- created by using turn of the can
architecture. Materials suggested such as ceramic tile stone, brick
brass would fit the image. Looking where 21 Ocean Front is, you see
feeling of what we are going to try to address with our designs with
roofs, awnings, windows, brick facade and separation of treatments.
then presented a color and materials board while presenting views of
area.
Looking at the view simulations, she noted setbacks of the buildings
balconies and two and three story heights to provide a variety of bui
configurations.
She then noted and discussed the floor plans of the buildings
associated assigned parking, retail /office spaces, elevator shafts and
units.
. She ended the presentation with a video rendering and a copy of the
of support received from the operator of the Shipyard.
Cunningham, Contract Planner representing staff, noted:
Page 7 of 34
M
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
The Land Use Element, current and past, designates the property
marine related commercial with residential on the upper floors.
The Harbor and Bay Element denotes water related and water fron
access and public spaces and non - conflict with surrounding land uses.
Staff notes Building C provides a buffer for the shipyard to the south.
Given the policies and goals in the Element, the reconstruction of the
seawall, the boat slips, new pump out facilities, and public access that the
project is consistent with this Element.
The project was presented to the Harbor Commission in May of 2003.
Commission recommended denial of the project; however, staff cont
to feel the project is consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element c
General Plan.
The project is located in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Spey
Plan #6 and is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial
residential uses allowed above the first floor. The first floor
subterranean commercial parking therefore, the first floor on the d
level used for residential can be consistent with the City's plan.
Coastal Land Use Plan regulations and language are almost identical r
the McFadden Square Specific Plan and reiterate the use
recreational /marine commercial with residential above the first level.
noted in the staff report the various policies relating the public access
enhancement of biological resources and have discussed in detail how
10 foot pedestrian easement being provided along the Bay Front
through the property, as well as the enhancement of the various mai
related uses in deteriorated condition now, will be re- built.
The project is consistent with the Specific Plan #6 development standa
with the exception of height and front yard setback, which are two of
discretionary items before the Commission tonight. In terms of height,
Specific Plan calls for a 26 foot height limit; however, it does allow
height can be exceeded up to 35 feet with a Use Permit, which is pai
this application. The number of mandatory findings can be made, nar
the physical and visual access provided by the easements along the w
front and through the property and from the public streets, the public
gain access to the property.
The proposed view easement will result in an increased view
through the property, the upper floors are set back and
considerable wall articulation in the project, and is consistent
design theme and materials recommended by Specific Plan #6, c:
with other development within the vicinity and does not result in it
overall FAR then otherwise permitted. The maximum FAR i
decreased over that which is permitted.
A Modification Permit for the front setback, in terms of findings,
columns that are being provided along up to property line in order
provide safety for the outward swinging doors of the commercial on
first floor level along Newport Boulevard, in reality the actual storefro
themselves are setback 2 1/2 to 4 feet from the front property line. l
upper floors of the project are set back. The project is in line with the Ci
Cooker, which is adjacent, and is similar to other development in
McFadden Square that go up to the front property line.
Page 8 of 34
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 9 of 34
. Another issue is if this project had been located on an interior lot, tl
would be a 5 foot front setback but no rear yard setback. This pror
being located on the bay front is required under the CLUP and the Spe
Plan to provide for at least a 6 foot setback along the water front and
project is proposing a 10 foot setback along the bay front.
. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map is to allow the sale of residential units
condominiums and in staffs opinion all the required findings for granting
tentative tract map can be found for this project.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) initial study was done
February 22, 2005 and at that time the findings were made that an E
would be required for this project. The Technical Studies were done for
of the pertinent measures that led to that finding, particularly noted are t
biology, traffic, and cultural historical resources and those are contained
the EIR.
During the comment period there had been discussion on traffic.
traffic analysis for the project was done in terms of the TPO analysis
resulted in a slight decrease in the a.m. peak and a slight increase in
p.m. peak overall. All of the intersections studied did not exceed the
threshold with the exception of Newport Boulevard at Via Lido.
accordance with the TPO, an ICU analysis was done and that partic
intersection remains at LOS A during the p.m. peak.
In terms of the historical analyses, under the State and Federal criteria fo
evaluating the historical significance of buildings and sites, it is noted of al
those criteria the one that stands out is that any building that exceeds 5(
years in age would automatically throw it into that category and we have t(
make a statement of overriding considerations. In accordance with the
study, the consultant determined that the mitigation measures a,,
presented and included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, as well w
the conditions of approval plus the statement of overriding consideration:
will be done for that particular aspect of the project, as well as all the othe
mitigation aspects of the project that can be mitigated to an acceptabl(
level.
The EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse on July 19, 2006 for the
day review period. During that period and after, the consultant recall
five comment letters. The comment letters and responses to the lett
are included in the staff report.
Three documents have been distributed today: the Errata to the I
Environmental Report, the Statement of Findings and Facts, and
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program. In all three, revisions
included by strikeout and underline.
. Staff feels all the mandatory findings for the Site Plan, Use P
Modification Permit and Tentative Tract Map can be made.
then noted the following changes:
• Section 4 of the Resolution for the EIR, adding ".....Mitigation Moni
and Reporting Program......
• In the second Resolution for the project itself, page 3 under Site
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 10 of 34
Review, the second finding, staff recommends it be amended to read, "
The proposed eleven buildings are consistent with the development
standards of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan with the
exception of building height and front yard setback. In addition a
Modification Permit for reduction of front yard setback has been
requested and findings supporting the reduction are made herein
below. Their height and bulk is comparable to other structures located in
the vicinity.
In the conditions of approval on page 8 of the Resolution condition 5,
should read, "In lieu of the requirement of 20 %..."
. Page 15 under Mitigation Measures - Geology and Soils, part c,
the word 'partially'.
. Page 17, Mitigation Measure 61, change the word missed to "mixed'.
. Page 18, add condition 65 to add a mandatory notification program for
future buyers of the condominium users regarding the adjacent shipyard
and restaurants in the area.
. We inadvertently left out a condition related to traffic, so condition 66
needs to be added. "As currently proposed, left turn access to project
driveways along Newport Boulevard is prohibited The project shall
consist of a four foot wide raised median along Newport Boulevard to
prevent left turn access into and out of the site or other improvement
acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer.
Peotter asked about the prohibition of left turn access and the
ian.
. Edmonston noted this condition applies to the southerly driveway. The
rtherly driveway with the upper deck would still have the left turn. The problem
the roadway narrows and there is no room for a car to stop and be in a
Karate left turn lane for the access to the subterranean garage. We looked at
raiding a wider median; however, any further widening impacts the public
rkina lot across the street
-rson Cole asked to start the Commission discussion on the land use and
issues.
Cole asked:
The land use conflict between residential marine and industrial uses and
particularly the Harbor Commission concern of the adjacent boat yards.
Cunningham answered:
Building C (office building) in our estimate provides a buffer between the
future residential uses and the shipyard.
. The restaurants may not provide a nuisance but they could change the use
characteristics in the future. Therefore, staff added the new condition
relative to the disclosure to address that concern.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl O- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 11 of 34
. The project has not changed substantially since the first presentation
made to the Harbor Commission in May of 2003. We would assume
would continue to have the same recommendations today.
missioner Eaton asked the applicant if they would present this plan to
or Commission.
Is. McDermott answered that if the Commission directs this, it would be do
owever, their thoughts were that in terms of the issues that were addressed
ie Harbor Commission we did not think there would any changes on the p
iat would change their position. We believe we have provided a marina, wh
consistent with the goals of the Harbor Element. The Harbor Commiss
rea of purview relates only up to the bulkhead and we have done everyth
eyond the bulkhead to address those concerns. We have protected
hipyard with appropriate location of an office building that will protect
midential, and we think basically there is a difference between planning vie
f mixed use and Harbor Commission views of mixed use. We were not sure
ifference could be addressed any further.
Campbell added the project has not changed since the original plan. TI
)or Commission makeup has not changed and they felt quite strongly that
simply the residential land use in proximity to the South Coast Shipyard, It
rport Harbor Shipyard and the Balboa Shipyard and the restaurants. I doi
a change in their position, even though the project is subtly different. Tf
)or Commission recommendation is that this is an incompatible land use ar
consistent with the Harbor Element of the General Plan. Building C do(
ride a buffer to the adjacent shipyard and the project will incorporate sour
nuation with construction techniques.
rperson Cole noted that the Planning staff believes this project is
the General Plan given the buffer.
Campbell answered the Harbor Commission made a recommendation to
ming Commission and it is the Planning Commission to detern
3istency with the Harbor and Bay Element. The Harbor Commission is
Ived with the permitting process. The only thing they would be reviewin
Harbor Permit for the new marina. That would be considered by the Hai
ources Manager and would only go to the Harbor Commission on appeal.
Eaton asked:
. An issue raised by the Central Newport Homeowners Association is
marina parking, particularly if there are charter boats.
• Are there any charter boats now and will it continue, and what about the
parking?
• What about joint use parking?
McDermott answered:
• There is a small boat charter that does six - packs, where they take out four
fishermen at a time. It is a very small operation. The boats are not
necessarily docked there and parking is included on site. We believe that
parking is adequate.
http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mni 0- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 12 of 34
. There are no slips large enough to accommodate large charters,
Hornblower and others can not be served and we don't intend to s(
them.
. Parking is adequate and because the party boats and charter boats do
fit, there should not be any incompatibility.
Campbell added that the parking arrangements for charters are reviewed b)
Harbor Resources Department. Parking for charters is required at 1 space
every 3 passengers and that also includes crews. A large charter boat is no
,essarily going to work on this site. Off site parking arrangements are
:sible, but in review of that future permit we would have to take into
sideration existing land uses and hours and days of operation. There is ar
iortunity for shared parking arrangements depending upon the nature of the
ire use if a parking waiver is sought for a restaurant. That would be brough
vard to the Planning Commission, but that is not before you tonight.
cussion continued.
over Toerge, referring to page 11 in the staff report, noted t
parking for fishing vessels is noted as a parking stall for every
including crew members. So the use on site today would not
Campbell noted the .8 is for the entire marina and is for the boat owners t(
and use their slips and does not account for commercial activities at all.
Harbor Resources and the Planning Department will review and ensure tha
quate parking is provided through a Marine Activities Permit. Tha
lication is not before us. However, the small charter boat operation is no
:)mmodated after this project is implemented. Through a separate permi
:ess that parking will be addressed at a later date.
iissioner Toerge noted the .8 is the standard for privately owned vessels.
is the standard for a commercial marina?
Campbell answered it would depend on the nature and type of charters
ild be presented. Discussion continued.
Temple noted:
Parking is provided for individual homeowners' private docks, which
presumed to be the on -site parking for the residential use, and
commercial marina such as the Irvine Company Marina, which is not us
for commercial activities vessels they are used for privately owned
rentals forjust individuals. That is what the .8 addresses.
Once you move to a commercial activity either within a commercial
or any place in the harbor, then we assess those parking arrang
through the Marine Activities Permit.
>mmissioner Toerge asked who has the right to use the slips? Are they
be for the residents or not?
McDermott answered there will be designated parking within the parkins
ture that will relate directly to the marina. To the extent that the smal
:er is occupying a retail space, they also have spaces connected with tha
operation. One of the things staff can do as part of that business license is
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl0- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 13 of 34
evaluate how much space they have and how much parking they have con
t of the total allocated to that retail space as well as whether or not the t
p that they have connected with their operation in combination will
aluated in the parking allocated to that use. The boat slips will not
ocated only to the residential.
continued on the responsibility of the small charter business.
r. Campbell discussed the differences between privately owned vessel
id commercial activity parking in the marina.
Henn asked if party boats could be prohibited from using
iff answered we are looking at land use entitlements for a development
i the permitting beyond the bulkhead will be done by a separate
tivities Permit and whatever activities occur is a separate permit that is
the Harbor Resources Director.
oner Henn asked for further clarification of charter boats as it relates
parking in this facility.
followed.
nmissioner Hawkins noted the land use part is for 19 slips. Can we
use of party boats?
answered they will get the information.
missioner McDaniel noted his concern of the parking and the conditions
permits that will follow. This is a major concern he had relayed to thl
cant. We need to consider what business will be in there and how mucl
ng is adequate for these commercial uses as well as for the residentia
. It looks now that it is under parked as presented with the residentie
ation as opposed to any commercial application that might take place there.
City Attorney Harp added that it does not have parking for
even though it has a commercial designation.
;sioner Eaton asked at what point restaurants require extra
the standard 1 for 250 requirement.
Campbell noted the Zoning Code classifies restaurants in a variety
gory. He went on to explain the differences noting that the small
3urant, with limiting seating of 6, is parked at the same rate a retail or ofl
is, which the project is designed for.
:ommissioner Toerge asked staff to outline the differences in the allowable
)r regular commercial project versus a recreation marine project. How are
ifferent?
Campbell answered:
. Retail and office uses are both permitted.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 14 of 34
• Within the RMC zone there is a requirement that 40% of the site ac
be devoted to what is known as marine related uses. Most of
requirement is satisfied by the marina itself.
. The 40% is calculated on the project area or site, which also inclu
submerged lands. The area devoted to the marina, including the part
for the marina, which is in the garage, is tabulated. If that is 40% of
entire project site, then they may indeed satisfy that requirement.
• It is the entire lot area times 40% is the target goal.
. If the area that is devoted to the marina, which includes the subme
land, boat slips and parking areas is totaled and meets that standard,
they would satisfy the requirement. There would be no need to
further restriction of commercial occupancy.
mmissioner Toerge asked how the residential development on the site
that equation? If 60% of the site is residential and 40% is marine
nmercial, it seems you have a disconnect.
Campbell answered the standard is based on the lot area and is a simple
elation. 40% of the lot area is a numeric number we are trying to achieve.
marina and parking is included in that. If it does not satisfy it on its own
i we would be looking at the floor area of the commercial tenants to achieve
40 %. Once that 40% is achieved, you can have other office uses that are
marine related.
immissioner Toerge noted that should have been explained during
meral Plan update process as he had no idea that lands under the w
ould qualify for the marine commercial component for these retail opportun
it the Planning Commission will be reviewing. I don't know if
immissioners knew that and it seems very confusing and illogical as it rel
promoting marine related commercial in the building, not just on the water.
s. Temple noted the zoning regulations in place for residential mixed use a
creational marine commercial areas are implemented from the existing La
se Element via the Zoning Code. These are the development standar
weloped shortly after 1988. If the General Plan continues forward there will
further zoning implementation effort and the Commission and City Council
at time can refine the actual zoning regulations that would implement the
)licies. They don't have to be the same as they are today.
;ommissioner Toerge noted that he was comfortable with that and express(
is hope that this would be brought up at that time. He went on to say th
ssuming the marina occupies 40% of the land area, that there is no re
ifference in marine related commercial retail, they can do whatever they we
:) long as the other planning requirements are adhered to in terms of hours
peration, parking, etc.
airperson Cole clarified that the site is located in Sub Area 6 in McFadi
uare and under the current Land Use Element of the General Plan it provi,
i allows for recreation marine commercial designation which does allow
;idential mixed use. The proposed General Plan designation is MUW2, wt
Mixed Use Water that also allows for residential development. Is I
;urate? Staff stated yes.
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /nm10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 15 of 34
,loner Hawkins asked if the only rational of the Harbor Commission i
that residential was not going to be compatible with the operation of
s. Was that the only rational or was there something else?
Campbell answered that the South Coast Shipyard, which is directly to the
th, used to lease a portion of the site where they actually stored boats an(
some repair on boats. The crane would haul boats out of the water.
nston's Boat Sales was there as well. At that time, the Harbor Commissior
the loss of those uses occurring and that was a serious concern. Since tha
ew, South Coast Shipyard no longer leases the space, the crane is gone anc
happened due to economical conditions and was not a result of thi:
)osed project. The only land use that is otherwise marine related is the
nson Yacht Sales occurring on the northern part of the site.
missioner Hawkins asked if they have an opportunity to condition
:ct to say that the commercial uses over and above the 40 %, assuming
parking associated with those constitute the requirement for marine rel-,
, do we have an opportunity to further condition this project so that ano
Jive portion of the commercial is conditioned as marine related to assist
or Commission in its review and hope for adoption of the project?
r. Campbell answered no.
rson Cole asked the Commission if there were any concerns that th
would not be consistent with either the existing or proposed Gener
Toerge noted he sees no benefit referring this back to the
mmissioner Eaton noted he wanted to see if the revised project would ch<
it opinion; however it is within our purview to determine whether or not
isistent. Whichever way the Harbor Commission went, it would not imp
our ability to make that determination.
stant City Attorney Harp clarified the Harbor Commission is there to a
Planning Commission in these matters, but you are not bound by
missioner Hawkins noted this is an important site and the project is a b
than the earlier proposed project. He stated he would like to have
fit of a consultation from the Harbor Commission.
nmissioner Toerge noted that we are not going to get to the point
roving this matter tonight. It would be appropriate for us to express c
corns and allow the applicant to ask questions of us. It is not appropriate
age in a solution tonight but rather to come back at a later date in order
an approval. He then noted:
On site circulation - Where do you propose delivery trucks, trash tru
postal trucks, and moving trucks service the commercial and r
activities on the site? He noted he is not prepared to approve a site
unless this is understood and designed. It is a critical component as
project is tightly developed.
McDermott referring to the site plan answered:
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 16 of 34
. The route of the trash pick up for residential was high lighted.
. A trash facility serving the office building will be used by the jani
service bringing out the trash and emptying it into the bins, which are
emptied out by the trash trucks.
• In a commercial operation a special pick up can be done by smaller tr
that can go into the parking structures and into the trash enclosure to
up the trash.
• The trash management of a mixed use project is handled differently than
is on a single use project so we will have a couple of different types
contracts to accommodate residential and commercial trash both of whic
can be accommodated by the existing circulation.
. She noted that the residential trash cans will be located within the
and or garages.
. All other types of trucks will access in the same fashion. There is
delivery space located on the site plan.
Eaton asked about the size of the trucks.
McKently, project architect, noted:
. The garage has a minimum of a two bay clearance to get in and will be
restricting element under the units.
. A typical van will be allowed to enter and because of divided access
the slipway, we are providing 87 all the way across.
. The idea was that the larger scale commercial delivery would happen
traveling up and across and backing into the loading stalls on grade
back to Building C.
. The restaurant uses will be minimal so the amount of garbage other
from residential units will be fairly limited.
• There is only one large loading space being provided.
ntinuing, Commissioner Toerge opined that the property is under -served f(
t kind of use especially if there is more than one truck at a time particular
ving the large office building. He noted that there seems to be no deck lev
-king for Building A. All the parking for this building is subterranean, which
;stion the appropriateness of. Referencing the simulated views, he noted h
rcern of the circulation regarding ingress /egress and turning capabilities. H
:ed to view the underground garage layout. He noted the access reference
emergency only has yellow gates across it. Why is that?
McKently noted the intent of the deck level parking was not to be restrictive
to provide access for the residential parking in the small commercial bay;
er the residential on the bay side. We tried to create a simple segregation o
commercial from the residential parking by putting the commercial parkins
'n below for the most part and the residential parking above. The residentia
ass and exit would be from the north end. He then explained the course o
http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 17 of 34
continued on the size, width, parking, circulation and placement
and residential parking. Also discussed was the primary use
shortness of queue and orientation of ingress and egress off 22
Eaton asked if there was an intent to gate the deck.
McDermott discussed their intent to provide some sort of mechanism
allow exit only;
ussion continued on the two opportunities to access the site, volumes
c, the separation of commercial and residential to the greatest exti
;ible, the design of access if required to have two -way access at the easte
of the deck, signage of deck, potential re- design and security of control.
McDermott noted that a Parking Management Plan will be provided to
the parking.
issioner Eaton asked how the people coming from Balboa
access this site.
Campbell described a couple of scenarios.
McDermott offered another possibility.
Foust, Principal of Austin Foust and Associates, noted the following
rer to Commission's questions.:
. The trip demand in the morning you can anticipate 20 to 35 cars will
coming in to this project in the morning peak period.
. In the afternoon it will be about 40 trips coming in.
. Outbound in the p.m. peak because it is commercial related, we
about 60 trips.
. The highest number in the peak period is 60 in the p.m. going out.
. Figure about 30 -40 arrivals in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
. The directionality, because of the residential, is different compared
today. In total trips for this site, the morning is about two less. In i
afternoon there is about 28 -30 more trips generated by this project th
exists there today.
. He then discussed the queue lines for the northerly and soutt
driveways as well as the counts that have been taken there and
amount of cars that can be handled.
. Peak hour in the afternoon for this project is 5 -6 o'clock in the evening.
Toerge noted that is the time when a lot of beach traffic is
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 18 of 34
the peninsula.
>ioner Henn noted that as a resident of the Peninsula he is
;d with the traffic during the non - summer months; however, during
traffic will back up and it will be a problem for the residents.
Foust opinioned that with regard to the position of the Crab Cooker and f
:h the traffic backed up into the Arcade area it is a big issue that ad(
is to 22nd Street would compound the situation. He supports the idea
ping it as an egress only on the southerly end.
immissioner Toerge proposed that the Parking Management Plan become p;
the application so that the Commission can review it. It is an integral part
s project and needs to be reviewed concurrently with the site plan in order
to gain any kind of confidence that the circulation is going to work.
nissioner Hawkins asked about the straightway onto 22nd St. Has
a thought of signalizing that area to allow for the traffic directions?
Edmonston answered no. There is a signal at 21 st Street, a very short
y and may cause problems in this intersection.
was noted that copies of the Errata and other materials were on the table.
comment was opened.
>I Wichman, local resident, noted she supports the project. She noted
of the peninsula has more obsolete buildings than other areas in the
this development improves the area.
Rubian, owner of the Crab Cooker and local resident, noted he is
of this project; however, he has some concerns He thanked 1
ssion for the work they were doing.
ht Griffith, representing Mr. Rubian, noted:
. While in support of the project, the way the southerly driveway is a
it is problematic. He distributed some pictures of the traffic gridlock.
. The southerly drive should be one way.
. The existing layout works, but it is not perfect.
. They are concerned about the construction noise and asked for a 4 p.
work stoppage.
. During demolition, Building B that abuts the Crab Cooker on a zero wal
common wall may necessitate the closure of that restaurant area. The]
are looking for some help for alternates.
missioner McDaniel noted that parking is a major concern. Citing traffic
ing problems in the area, he noted that truck delivery and valet parking wil
Hill, property owner across this project site, noted:
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/P]nAgendas /2006 /nml0- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 19 of 34
. This area needs improvement as it is an aging area.
. There is tremendous economic opportunity for the City and for the area
both the land use and harbor as well.
. There is no view of the harbor today.
. This project will enhance the local property values.
. He does not believe there is a traffic problem except during the su
months.
. Traffic problems relate to beach and bar use and do not relate to retail
normal restaurant use.
. We do not have a parking problem as the parking problem relates
beach use.
. If you look at the summertime when you can not find a place to park,
local business can not handle anymore business than they do. If you
at the wintertime when the local business could handle much n
business there are places to park where you would like.
. The parking is not related to the projects, the parking issue is related to
beach.
. He urged consideration of this project and to allow it to move forward.
:e Dove, Vice Chairman of the Central Newport Beach Comn
iciation, noted their concerns with the responses to comments to their
rding the EIR:
. Comment 4.1 - the response doesn't address the loss of view.
. Comment 4.3 - the response doesn't address the loss of view or the
blockage by the bridge of the view corridor with the waterway.
. Comment 4.4 - Says see answer 3 -15 and 3 -16; but those are
responses and are not construction mitigation measures.
. Comment 4.5 - doesn't address referring the historic resource to the
Arts and Cultural Commission, which is charged by the City with his
review.
. Comment 4.5 - references 3 -15 and 3 -16 and does not answer
quality mitigation.
. Comment 4.7 - gives an answer related to the construction activity t
does not address the year round concerns and especially the summ
concerns we have, nor emergency response when there is total gridlock.
. Comment 4.8 - references 3 -25 and 3 -31 which are totally irrelevant to
transportation question.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
. She then suggested that the business owners and employees should
prohibited from purchasing parking passes.
Saventi, business owner and partner in Woody's Wharf, noted:
. Project redevelopment does need to be done on that site.
. Residential is not the best use as this site today is 100% commercial
will go to 2/3 residential if this plan was to be approved.
. There are restaurants at either end of this proposed project who h
customers and his restaurant stays open later than the Crab Cooker as
are open until 2:00 a.m. We have customers going to their cars
smoking on the side of the building.
. In the proposed plan there is no buffer between the condos that a
proposed and our restaurant, so I can see future problems there. This is
problem for us.
. The setbacks that are proposed being taken away, the site line to
property and restaurant will be taken away by doing that and this is
issue for us.
. There are going to be parking problems as you have already discussed.
. If you put a condo up on a second or third story next to a restaurant,
behind the Crab Cooker 100 feet away and see if you can smell the
it's like having a barbecue all day. Our vents run continuously.
. Without any mitigation for those kinds of things, we are going to
problems here. There is no buffer on our side of the proposed project.
. This is the first we have talked or seen this proposal so we have not
included in any outreach program during this process.
. At Commission inquiry, he added that they have live entertainment
amplified music. We have this entertainment five nights a week.
arson Cole noted that this area is currently zoned for residential, are
for some sort of buffer?
r. Saventi answered yes, at a minimum as the site today has no residential.
in only see problems when residential is placed there. The shipyard closes
p.m. He stated that getting into this project and five years from now a reside
sitting in his living room and complains that it is like sitting next to a barbed
,cause the vents go day and night. I don't want to have noise problems. TI
awport Beach Brewing Company is getting ready to limit their hours becau:
e residential that just moved in next door to them. This is an issue and o
isiness has been there for over 40 years. Me and my partners support o
milies with this business. This is a big issue for us.
Pappas, partner of Woody's Wharf and local resident, noted:
. Strongly opposes the residential portion of the project.
http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us /PinAgendas /2006 /nm I 0- 05- 06.htm
Page 20 of 34
06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 21 of 34
. Supports the commercial side even though there is going to be
disruption for 2 or 3 years during the construction phases.
. His concern is whether residential and restaurants can co- exist.
. The Cannery about ten years ago lost their entertainment permit and thei
closing time changed from 2 a.m. to 10 p.m. all due to the high rise
condos.
. Newport Brewery is fighting for their life. You can't have a restaurant cl
at 10:00 p.m. from 1:00 a.m. and exist and be able to support their fami
because of the loss of time.
. It is very expensive owning a business down here as you lease t
property and then lose three hours of business that impacts the revenue.
. Windows and Studio Cafe had the same problem with the loss of
which impacted their revenues.
. Their biggest fear is that a year or two down the road they will be
the Commission.
. The restaurant has been in business for over 40 years and when tf
bought it they were asked not to make any changes, which they haven't.
. He noted that what is being referred to as the northern access into
project as proposed won't work.
. They are very busy on Sunday afternoons and do a lot of brunches
does the Kantina. He has a hard time getting into his restaurant especial
during the summertime and this new access will block their driveway ar
cause backups to his customers.
. The Kantina also exits through our parking lot, which will create noise
at night. We will have additional noise and whatever we can to keep
noise at a minimum we will do, but we have a lot of issues that can ul
potential nearby residents.
Stewart, owner of South Coast Shipyard for the last 27 years, noted:
. This proposed project and the process are good
. He is on his facility 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. five to six days a week.
. This area as it is now is dangerous at night, attracts vagrants and can
stay like it is today.
. As the Shipyard owner, he supports this project.
Anthony, a tenant of South Studio, noted:
. After seeing the presentation tonight, this is something that will be
benefit to the community.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 22 of 34
R. Dilding, local property owner, noted:
. His concern with condition 36 regarding on -site parking. It should ac
these concerns in the whole area. As a member of the State Public
Commission representing specialty contractors for the past 24 years.
Realizing the urgency and complexity of construction particularly refers
this project as a redevelopment or infill project. Condition 51, provides
a full traffic management control plan to be submitted. This project ti
grading and demolition could be started before you get involved in maki
a final decision as a developer in who they are going to use
subcontractors, etc.
A provision should be made that they can have a second filing so tht
once they get in, they can come back with a refined plan. I don't thin
there is a structural engineer involved at this time and what is going to b
the actual construction materials, they may end up with a batch plant It
bring onto site for concrete.
. Things have changed from what it used to be. The biggest problem in
construction industry we deal with is that we are a nuisance; however,
end results benefit everyone.
. These people are a couple of years off in putting this together and tt
may change. They may line up sites today and submit this plan, they
be gone when the time comes.
rperson Cole asked that these suggestions be given to staff.
iig Morrisette, local resident and board member of the Central Newport Beach
neowners Association, noted:
• The response for re- development of that area is positive.
• There are a lot of good features to this plan.
• Summertime traffic is the problem as it backs up from 15th Street all the
way up the peninsula.
. If the counts were made off season, the traffic counts are not valid.
)lic comment was closed.
nmissioner Hawkins asked about the additive traffic during the summer, was
studied?
1r. Foust answered that the project traffic in the summertime and the projec
affic in the wintertime is not a great deal different. The figures given earlier o
0 to 40 more cars coming and making the left turn in, that is fairly constant.
'art of these are residents (27) and the rest are commercial and does no
uctuate that much. The volume on Newport Boulevard fluctuates betweer
(inter and summer. The numbers of this project are relatively constant, so wher
told you the left turns, it will be same whether it is winter or summer. We take
ie peak hour period as being a one hour period. For the 4 fifteen intervals tha
re the highest during the morning period from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and the
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PhiAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 23 of 34
srnoon is from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Again the 4 fifteen minute intervals that
i longest turns out 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the afternoon and 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a
the morning. That is a one hour period we are talking about. Discuss
McDermott, representing the applicant, noted:
. We met with the property owner of Woody's and apologize for not mee
with the operators. We were not aware there was a distinction and t
we just found out he recently sold the operation versus the land. We
talk with the operators soon.
. We talked to the owner about doing extensive glazing and
attenuation along that wall and intensifying noise mitigation that will
on that end unit.
We are set back more than 10 feet from the bulkhead and have a little
of setback from the right of way. There is some advantage from a nc
standpoint and we will be talking to staff about it.
. The height of the project in contrast to what would be allowed on
having separated the buildings into the harbor frontage and the
frontage and with the deck in between, there is quite a bit of sepal
between the buildings. The intensity of the development is a lot less
what is permitted by Code. We are asking for up to 35 feet but
devised a variety of ways to meet the findings for the height limit.
. Regarding the primary entrance to the deck, hopefully the Commission
give direction how you want it handled.
missioner McDaniel asked how deliveries to Building A, are made to
sections. It looks as the only pass through goes down into the parking
comes back up.
McDermott answered that all the businesses along Balboa Boulevard
r deliveries from the front. Deliveries usually occur in non -peak hours. l
arking in front to allow deliveries. Given the size of the retail spaces,
not be the demand for large deliveries.
McKently, architect for the project, referring to the site plan noted
rent ramp access for use by delivery services. There would have to be a
3n of the site to create a delivery or loading zone area for Building A.
issioner McDaniel noted the parking problems with no pass through to t
He noted that this is a major problem especially during the summertime.
continued.
-nissioner Toerge, noted we are trying to balance the benefits of this pi
how it will be viable to the community and existing businesses
ibors. He then asked:
What is the width of the pedestrian walkway? - Ms. McDermott answere
they are offering a ten foot easement and within that 10 feet there will be
feet clear. There is 4 feet to be used for landscape and benches. The
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
feet is the dimension Public Works has asked for.
What was allowed at 919 Bayside by Council? - Ms. McDermott answ
it was allowed an 8 foot easement with no room for benches within
easement. Along the side at Promontory Bay, there was 10 foot easer
with six foot clear. Along the frontage on Balboa Island, there was 8
and there was no distinction between whether to allow landscaping or
but it was understood to be 6 foot clear.
. As this relates to the vertical and the easement, is that going to I
required to be handicapped accessible? - Mr. Campbell answered th
there is going to be an elevator.
McKently, referring to the site plan, added that the elevator is double sided.
ntinuing, Commissioner Toerge asked about the floor plans for the resident
ts. The units are hard to identify along with the parking. He then asked abc
:cific items on the layout and the parking.
McKently, referring to the floor plans explained the plans and noted the iter
the diagram and garages and elevators.
Toerge discussed:
. The number of bedrooms including the 4 on the ground level is 80.
. He disagrees with the interpretation that the deck level is someh
construed to be the second floor and is allowed to have residential on it.
. He opined that the purpose of the Code was to put the ground floor
as retail /commercial, so he won't be supporting any residential on
floor.
. He asked to see a Parking Management Plan, how the distribution
parking is going to be restricted, accessed, controlled, how non - reside
and non guests, non patrons, and non customers are going to be restric
from using this. The Parking Management Plan should be part of i
review and is critical for this project to have this because of the der
project and tight allocation of parking.
. With no street parking in this development and recognizing there are or
14 guest parking spaces but with 80 bedrooms and all the other parking
the parking structure being allocated to the retail and commercial uses,
we have the authority or right to demand more parking for the resident
units?
>. Temple answered that if it is above and beyond what the Code
then no.
City Attorney Harp agreed.
Commissioner Toerge discussed:
. Size of parking spaces in the ground floor area, some are 9 and 8. Is
by design? Are there areas where 8 1/2 feet wide would work?
http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/2006 /mn 10- 05- 06.htm
Page 24 of 34
06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 25 of 34
Mr. McKently answered stalls closer to columns or walls are wider as required by�
Code. He doesn't believe there are 8 112 feet wide stalls. II
missioner Toerge continued:
. There is a location in there that is 60 feet wide with 7 cars parking
there, that seems narrow to me.
. My concern, as it relates to trash enclosures and Parking Managemi
Plan, because this project is so tight on parking and is at the minimum
the Code, if there is a dimensional correction after Planning approval
may lose some parking.
. I want to confirm how that happens should it occur.
. What determines if this is not in substantial conformance to come back
the Planning Commission?
Campbell answered that in that respect the project is not finally designed
�r staff reviews it some of the dimensions may shift. We have a condition
uires review by the Traffic Engineer that all parking spaces and maneuve
es meet our code and standards. If the parking garage loses spaces, t
applicant will have to lose square footage in the project. That is how
:hanism works and that is at the plan check stage. With a loss of 4 part
ices that means there is 1,000 square feet of commercial building losl
ild depend on how the applicant chooses to reduce the square footage.
Toerge continued:
. He does not see a nexus between the requirement to provide the
in the back and the requirement for setback. There are two s
issues.
. I can not make the finding based on what I see today that there
unusual circumstances that compel this property to not put a five
setback in the front.
. The argument aligning with the Crab Cooker is a weak argument as it is
small building and is 50 years old and likely will be there for a long time.
. /)sing that same argument (referring to the site plan) there is not a
until you get further down the Boulevard.
. I do not support this argument at all, and the five foot setback is required.
. As it relates to building height, I do not agree with staffs conclusions
all. I don't see any 35 foot tall buildings in the area. Three stories is
abrupt scale change. I think 35 feet in this area will be an abrupt sG
change and I don't agree to the findings to support a 35 foot height.
. He asked if any bulk calculations had been done. Mr. Campbell ansm
the project meets the requirement for building bulk within the Zoning C
which is presented in the staff report. The applicant prepared a volun
analysis and is contained in the staff report. He continued by giving a
overview.
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 26 of 34
. The design features need to be at both ends of this project to act as
buffer between the residential components and restaurant and shipya
facilities.
. He stated he was concerned about the construction schedule,
restriction on summertime weekend use of truck traffic in this area hat
debris or materials to the site, where the construction workers will park
other applications of projects of this magnitude. We need a par
program for construction parking to review with this application as well.
. We should review this in a public hearing format prior to certifying the
as opposed to leaving it to staff approval at some later date.
Henn noted:
. He is concerned about the construction management and would like to
the plan in a public hearing format.
. He would like to see how the landscape softens the building mass.
. He asked about the view corridor and the elevation changes from
street.
McKently answered:
. The street elevation is approximately +8 and the deck level is assumed
be at +11.
. The intention is not to have the bridge higher than that and it will
transparent railings.
Eaton asked:
. Why are some parking spaces in garages and some in carports?
Campbell answered it has to do with the floor area limitation for resit
is which is .75. If they were enclosed it would be gross floor area and it
counted against the residential square footage. The carports that are cc
three sides do not count as floor area.
Eaton noted:
. He could not make a finding that the garage is the first floor for i
purposes of non - residential. To make the findings of consistency, 1
residential has to rise above the deck level and not be on the deck level.
. He agrees leaving the southerly access as exit only based upon the
consultant's advice.
. Both the Parking Management Plan and the Construction Mane
Plan should be brought to the Commission and preferably now in
of the project and be a part of the overall approval process.
. The units next to Woody's Wharf need to be protected and buffered
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006hnn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 27 of 34
noise and nuisance factors. He agrees to the added condition abou
noticing to potential homeowners.
. Agrees to the issue of the setback on Newport Boulevard and has
heard good reasons as to why it should not be provided.
. This project is symbolic of what will happen in the mixed use areas as
as building heights are concerned. The trend in the future will see more
this kind of project with a high floor area and intensity and therefore y
will be seeing more 35 foot high buildings.
. Question of a delivery area next to Building A, having only one space
so far away from Building A is not enough. Maybe a loading zone can
provided, somewhere or another. You are going to need a loading sp:
for Building A.
. Never got missing page 16, so that needs to be provided.
• On what basis was it reported that 22nd, 23rd and 28th Streets were
operating at an acceptable Level of Service, the response referred to
Traffic Engineer.
• The most important issue to me is the first floor /second floor residential.
nmissioner Henn noted:
• Encourage the applicant to find solutions to the questions and concerns
that have been brought up.
• He favors a re- development of this property that works.
nmissioner Hawkins noted:
• The current use is not the best use of the project site.
• The commercial parking does not work.
• The circulation needs to be enhanced.
• 22nd Street provides an opportunity that should be looked at.
• The video was impressive and helpful; however, it showed the Duffy boats
going out of slip 19 and I am not sure how it will work if you have day use
transport moving easterly of the slip. How will that work?
. Condition 64 addresses some of the concern raised by the owners
Woody's Wharf but more needs to be done.
McDaniel noted:
. This appears to be a condo project that has retail and commercial
to it.
. Some of the detail of retail and commercial requirements were overlooked.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach.ca.usiPIr Agendas/2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 28 of 34
. We have identified things such as access, trash enclosures, etc.
. Parking is a major concern Not knowing what the applications are for the
other buildings, with the slips we are already under parked so it appears.
What is planned on going in there and what parking will be required an(
will there be space for it?
. It is difficult to give up parking spaces and this future requirement needs
be included in order to make businesses viable. We have used all t
space available for the buildings and requirement for future needs to
done.
. 35 foot building with one story buildings on either side will stand out. If t
makes it viable, I am not against it totally, but it would be nice if some
the buildings were pushed back.
. We may need a deed restriction to identify potential nuisances.
rperson Cole noted the consensus that a development of this site
able. There are concerns from the neighbors, Commissioners and
c on certain areas. He noted the following:
. Prohibiting party boats from using slips. -Staff will get back on this.
• Restriction of large restaurant use on bay front because of the additional
parking load.
• Additional parking has been brought up by several people.
• Site plan that includes trash enclosures and delivery/postal circulation.
• Revised subterranean circulation plan/flow and deck circulation flow as
well.
. The Arcade entrance as exit only. - Staff to discuss.
. Condition of multiple parking attendants as part of Parking
Plan.
. Construction Parking Management Plan part of the approval process.
McDermott noted her concern of the Construction Management Plan <
king Management Plan is whether we can do it in the time they have.
ed that they have to be in substantial conformance. She then elaborated
potential problems. Discussion continued.
nmissioner Toerge noted he wants to see a plan and if that has to
nged then it is brought back at some future date on a deferred basis. The
is have been available prior to approval of an EIR in the past and certainly
most recent project for Our Lady Queen of Angels. He noted his concern
roving a project without those opportunities in place. I learned tonight tt
might be charging to park there. That was not on the plans nor mentioned
staff report. This project appears premature as the Errata is lacking and t
is aren't accurate in terms of emergency and regular vehicle access. I
http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl0- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before
t the project.
nmissioner Peotter noted this is a great project and will be an improvement
neighborhood. There are concerns that need to be addressed. F
ressed concerns previously expressed. He noted the Construction Plan do,
need to come back to the Commission. The Parking Management Plan
necessary as the applicant meets the required parking and is providing
essary parking on site simultaneously. It is an extra burden placed on tl
licant. The problems of this project are technical in nature and can I
ked out. He noted the Commission should not be designing the project ai
applicant has put a lot of money into it.
tirperson Cole asked if that plan can be brought back to the Commission at
r date for approval, which would have to be required before the project we
lard. Is there a way to get some of the issues in a report form? It might t
much to have this all completed prior to us approving this project.
Temple answered that the Public Works Department has asked for the
!s of plans and information if they deemed it was necessary in the context
ing a building permit. They are required as a plan check correction in t
i check process by projects of size that don't need to come to the Planni
emission. The Planning Department has added the reference to need!
�e things when the Public Works would want one and we use it to put t
icant on notice that they need to be prepared to produce them when they a
(ing more detailed permits. It has been a recent experience that t
fining Commission wishes to review things that have traditionally been t
,iew of the City's Traffic Engineer. If it is critical to make a finding that
act is compatible for the neighborhood for the construction period, you e
in your rights and authority to ask for it. It is the Commission's call. Giv
issues raised with this project, for the short term construction it may lead
iitions that help identify issues that are atypical, things we might ask
act to do. In terms of the day to day operation for the long term we ha
rd issues that may lead you to go into more detail specifics such as tra
ups, deliveries, etc. In this case, 1 don't think it is out of order to ask 1
,e things if you deem it necessary. She would ask for a full plan.
I. Edmonston added that there were projects that had these kinds of condition:
d the projects were in critical areas of the City such as Mariners Mile and or
peninsula and most commonly when they involve significant amounts o
cavation. Public Works focus has primarily been on public safety and the
pact of projects with ten dump trucks show up and they have to be here before
construction starts and that creates a parking problem. We focus on those
.ues, where contractor employees park so as not to create problems witt
joining properties. The areas that the Council and Commission have weighec
are more environmental impacts where they have limited the amount of truct
)s during the summer months. Certainly you can have a plan that has some o
)se key limitations or concerns in it and staff can flush it out from there.
ferent contractors approach this differently and may not be the contractor they
tually work with so it will change, but you have a starting point.
Cole noted that we can review the reports up front.
Ir. Edmonston noted it would be good to have
;ommission to review recognizing that staff car
irection you want to see the project goes to.
some level of report
take it as guidance
Page 29 of 34
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 30 of 34
)mmissioner Henn noted that the parking will have to solve itself because o
a zoning regulations. He does not feel it needs to be seen in totality up front.
)wever, the Construction Management Plan needs to be laid out in detail as
a construction will be over a period of three years. Once you get into it with a
ntractor you may have to come back for some revisions but that initial efforl
II ferret out key issues.
s. Temple asked about short term parking as it relates to construction and the
nstruction vehicles, both of contract workers and heavy equipment delivery.
iat is what I call a construction parking plan. The second is the obvious
irking Management plan which is the long term thing. I just heard that there is
:erest in how the project is going to be constructed with demolition and
nstruction at that time of the year when there is more capacity on the road or
ss adverse affect on traffic congestion and that certain other types o
instruction may not create so many demands on the roadway and might be
ire appropriately placed in the summertime as opposed to winter time. Is this
mact?
)mmissioner Henn noted that the construction parking issue is subsumed
thin the construction management plan and is not a separate issue. I think
a construction phasing as well as the construction management plan are
:egral issues.
iairperson Cole asked for a consensus on having a construction managemen
an for the next hearing:
)mmissioner Eaton agreed to at least a conceptual construction and parking
anagement plan. He noted the Errata sheet still has a lot of items that say will
provided. They need to be provided before we can approve the EIR.
)mmissioner Hawkins noted the plans need to be as concrete as possible s
can see what the needs are, what is on the ground today, and the
citations.
)mmissioner McDaniel noted this project is at ground zero and will have a
ajor impact on what happens on the peninsula. The more we know as opposed
guessing, the better. If we know and stipulate as many issues as possible that
the goal. He asked for comprehensive plans.
)mmissioner Toerge noted it is the responsibility of the Commission to discus
sse matters especially in these areas of redevelopment in established
sidential and commercial areas. We need the comprehensive plans.
)mmissioner Peotter noted it is a complicated plan that is being asked for and
go beyond conceptual is unreasonable. The applicant doesn't even know if he
is a project or not and now you are asking him to spend several thousands o
,Ilars in putting together a plan in order to get that approval. Conceptually he
ay find property at Hoag to stage those trucks and park construction workers or
may be in Costa Mesa somewhere. Where that's at is going to depend on
rich plan it is.
iairperson Cole then asked about a full or conceptual parking plan.
)mmissioner Henn noted he had not realized the engineering had not been
,ne on this project. Until that is done, it would be difficult to come up with a
tailed parking management plan. He is okay with conceptual.
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /nin10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 31 of 34
Cole agreed.
Toerge noted he would like a detailed plan.
Edmonston noted this is the first that he heard about the project ha)
idant parking. You need a place for a booth, a cashiering system or sc
r way. We haven't looked at this and there is concerns of backing
king and movement out. These are things we would have typically have
c engineer analyze that we didn't do because it was never pointed out
would be part of the project. The applicant should provide a complete F
present it to staff with enough lead time so that we can analyze it as th
be space lost. There are considerable repercussions from this aspect.
rol McDermott asked if once the parking garage is constructed first and ther
the construction traffic is in the parking structure, is that the way to handle it?
iviously once we have a parking structure we want to be able to use it.
Edmonston stated that would be a reasonable phase of the project
cling the construction parking on site is the best place.
Toerge agreed.
Temple noted this is true as it applies to the onsite construction workers.
Public Works will still be concerned about construction deliveries anc
ing in the rights of ways and all of those things. Those stay constan
ighout the whole of the construction of the project.
Cole then continued his wrap up of public and Comm
. A condition that residents or boat owners are not allowed city passes.
am not sure that is something we can enforce. Staff will address.
. Some type of buffer from Woody's, sound attenuation or some re- design
setback that addresses the nature of a bar that is opened late w
entertainment and being adjacent to residential.
. The changes in conditions 36 and 51.
. The reduction in the size of the project because of the traffic concerns.
. Providing a new loading /delivery area in Building A.
. Don't allow the deck level to be defined as the second level,
there will be no residential allowed on this level.
gioner Eaton noted the Commission can not set the precedent
the deck level, which is really the ground level, to be the second floor.
Toerge agreed.
Henn agreed.
Cole continued with the list:
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/P]nAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 32 of 34
. Addressing the need for more parking or at least a clear understanding
where parking will be located.
. Requiring a 5 foot setback in front was brought up.
imissioner Toerge noted these findings were changed about a year ago.
first finding you have to make is, the granting of the application is necessary
to the practical difficulties associated with the property and that the stric,
ication of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent
the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. I can't make that finding.
Henn noted he feels less strongly about that issue.
Cole suggested the applicant come back with more information.
sioner Hawkins noted there are four people concerned about the
and believe there is room to accommodate the 5 foot setback with some
)ing treatment that will soften the front edge on Newport Boulevard.
Cole continued with the list:
. Building height - the need for 35 feet. Have a staggered affect.
Eaton noted he is okay with the height.
Hawkins agreed with the height and the view corridor.
Cole agreed.
nmissioner Toerge noted finding 4 is mandatory finding, the increased
ding height would not result in an undesirable or abrupt scale relationship
ig created between the structure and existing developments or public
ces. You have a parking lot on one side and a one story building on the
;r side. There are no other three story buildings other than the one mixed
project that was developed at 28th Street. Further it says, particular
ntion shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal
vertical dimensions. When you build square buildings you are giving no
ntion to bulk, it is a bulk square building. At the very least, the height above
standard height restriction, should be staggered in some way to reduce the
and to minimize the abrupt scale relationships being created between the
cture and a one story building and a parking lot on the other side of the
ding. It is very clear to me.
Cole continued:
. Notice verification and CCR's.
Temple noted staff can propose a condition regarding the CCR's. She will
er with the City Attorney's office.
)mmissioner Hawkins noted there are avenues to accommodate the concerns
Woody Wharrs.
oner McDaniel noted he is not comfortable with the 35 foot high
He is not in favor of a three story building.
http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006
Toerge asked for a study of the building heights in the
ity.
s. Temple cautioned that two story does not mean compliance with a 26
:fight limit. There are a lot of 35 foot high buildings that are two story but
e not on this side of Newport Boulevard though. They are mostly in
cFadden Square area. We will gather the requested information.
McDermott noted that the metal buildings on the project site are currently
high.
ner Toerge noted he had mentioned that but they are not on
and are setback and do not appear abrupt.
mmissioner Henn noted there is a mix of issues for which there should be
ution. This project is one of compromise because it is an infill. We have
, some flexibility for the final solution. The fact that it does go higher provide
the fact that it does provide open space for the project. On the other hand,
gave up some setback and we are able to stagger the buildings away fro
Nport Boulevard and still make it work, maybe that is okay too. I don't knoi
applicant needs to take these concerns that have been expressed and see
v can craft a solution that will work.
irperson Cole agreed and noted a more detailed landscape plan is needed.
perspective is that this is an overall project that has a great potential bu
are a lot of moving parts and is going to look at it in totality with all the
rent areas in the next presentation. You have heard our concerns an(
;fully you can come up with something that works for all parties.
;ioner Toerge asked about the bridge width. He asked if there
about pedestrians using it or should there be a walkway provided
Edmonston noted that his staff will look at it.
was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to
ns,
Peotter
Henn
NESS
a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple stated that a study on our interna
review processes, particularly plan check, development review anc
interdepartmental coordination report was presented to the Council. We
will be assessing the highest priorities and will be putting forth a plan tc
implement. In association with that there was a discussion on staffinc
needs in Planning. Sober Living by the Sea has been in process and have
now agreed and found a location in Costa Mesa to hold their large meetinc
activities which takes them out of the Villa Way location. That large roon
will be divided and used for small conference rooms and office space.
Discussion continued. The appeal for Vista Tramonto was denied.
b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the
Page 33 of 34
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 34 of 34
Development Committee - Commissioner Henn noted they ha
completed the first draft of the Strategic Plan for Economic Sustainability
It will be discussed and proposed at a study session for the City Council. I
c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the
Coastal Committee - no meeting.
Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at
subsequent meeting - Commissioner Hawkins asked about the Zonin!
Committee. Ms. Temple noted this project will be part of th
implementation of the General Plan. Discussion continued
Commissioner McDaniel noted he would like matters come before th
Planning Commission that they can vote on. Referring to the Marin,
project, he noted the Errata sheet was not ready, they ended up re
designing the project, this project was and has a long way to go, and h
would like to see total projects so that we can vote. Discussion continued.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future
agenda for action and staff report - none.
f. Project status - none.
g. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Henn asked to b
excused from the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 P.M. JADJOURNMENTI
ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 05- 06.htm 06/23/2008