Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/2006Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 28 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn Commissioner Henn was excused, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Marina Marrelli, Assistant Planner Gaylene Olson, Department Assistant Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS %fter stepping down from the dais, Mr. Hawkins addressed his support of the General Plan Measure V and encouraged all others to sign up in support of the General Plan and Measure V. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 13, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 5, 2006. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: Henn Abstain: None k +x OBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) ITEM NO. 2 2920 Newport Boulevard The Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub Continued to November 16, pursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City in 2006 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received several complaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will valuate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the conditions 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. Page 1 of 28 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 requests to continue this item to November 16, 2006. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the consent calendar imissioner Hawkins requested that this item be placed at the end of ida on November 16, 2006 because he will be recusing himself from voting item. Eaton, Peotter, None Henn Code Amendment 2006 -006 Marine Charter Land Use and Parking Regulations Title 17 (Harbor Regulations) and Title 20 (Zoning Code for the Municipal Code be amended to revise land use regulations and vents for marine charters. Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: . The purpose of this amendment is to establish a single regulatory for marine charters. . The amendment would give the Planning Director authority to apprc temporary parking for land uses requiring Marine Activity Permits (MAPS). . Would require the Harbor Resource Manger to submit MAP applications the Planning Department and the Public Works Department for review. . Would establish a new land use classification called Entertainment Excursion Services, which would be the marine charter activities. . Would allow the entertainment and excursion service uses to be permitted by right, in all of our base commercial districts including the correspondinc commercial districts in the Specific Plan districts. . Revises the off -site parking section in Title 20 to reflect these changes. Cole asked for questions from the Commissioners. Toerge asked the following: . If the Harbor Commission reviewed this action. . If we will view Title 17 before it goes to City Council. Alford answered as follows: . The Harbor Commission would be reviewing changes to Title 17 and d think they had done so yet. PA2006 -194 Recommended for Approval Page 2 of 28 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P]nAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 . This has been presented to the Commissioners for informational purpo: and they could make a recommendation but was not required by the code. issioner Toerge clarified his question as the whole Title 17 and not just Alford answered he believed Commissioner Toerge was referring to a sepal andment that is a reorganization of Title 17 and is being reviewed by the Hai nmission. It is not required to go to the Planning Commission, but will ctly to the City Council once the Harbor Commission makes tl imissioner Toerge asked what the Harbor Commission's schedule was to or if they had already heard it. Alford said they had heard it and had completed their review, but there outstanding issue dealing with signs and they may pass that issue onto Council. ssioner Toerge questioned who he should address if he had concerns; Commission or the City Council. Alford said ultimately it would be the City Council. McDaniel questioned the following in the staff report: . If the Planning Director makes a decision, it could be appealed to Planning Commission. . If the Harbor Resources Manager makes a action, it's appealed to Harbor Commission. ssioner McDaniel felt the Planning Commission should have the ability those actions. Alford pointed out these were two separate issues: . The Harbor Resources Manager is dealing with the actual Marine Activit Permit and that can be appealed to the Harbor Commission and could turn be appealed to the City Council. . The other issue is dealing with a very small aspect of the review, that is Planning Director's approval of off -site parking. Any action by the Plann Director can be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Plann Commission does not currently review MAPS and that is not proposed to changed as part of this amendment. Hawkins had the following concerns and questions: . Because of the off -site parking requirements and the Planning Din approves them, he wasn't sure that this division still wouldn't go to the Council. . Would these approvals be directed to the Planning Director by referral http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn 10- 19- 06.htm Page 3 of 28 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 the Harbor Resources Manager? . Does it go to the Planning Department regardless if there is a parki waiver? Concerned that the adjacent property owners would not have notification any proposed off -site parking and they may have some concerns over t use of the off -site parcel. Alford answered • Currently it is optional, but part of this amendment would require the Harbor Resources Manager to submit the request to the Planning Director and the Public Works Department to review for consistency with all applicable applications. • It goes to the Planning Department regardless; if there is proposed off -site parking as part of the application, the Planning Director would have the authority to approve that off -site parking. • Currently it requires a use permit, to be noticed, and a public hearing be held before the Planning Commission. • There is no notification proposed for the off -site approval nor is there one for the MAP, so it is a legitimate concern. 'The major difference, unlike the current approval of a use permit for off -site parking, is it will not run with the land. MAPS are for a limited period and I cannot exceed one year. There would be a greater opportunity to solve any potential conflicts that the off -site parking may create. Temple added that for these types of activities, these sites are almost never a single use. Typically these operations arei for 1 to 2 times a week , maybe / 1 to 2 times a month, for 2 to 3 hours a day; These are not constant activities any one parcel. The process is intended to• recognize these types of shared king arrangements are the historic way parking has been provided for these s. The improvement to the process is to have; the Planning Department review parking site proposed be use, review our records and make sure there aren't srs competing for the use of that same shared parking arrangement. It actually uld end up being a better circumstance where we can verify that an appropriate punt of parking is actually available at the time it is needed for these operations. missioner Hawkins asked if the Planning Department's review would the parking was not over subscribed to a particular parcel. Temple answered yes. Hawkins questioned if it is currently a use permit issue for r. Alford answered yes. >ioner Hawkins continued, so the Harbor Resources Division :d concern about the need for a use permit at that point because they something they think is legitimate and beneficial to the community and Department or the Planning Commission may have other thoughts. http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn 10- 19- 06.htm Page 4 of 28 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 5 of 28 Alford answered yes. He added that it was also the nature of the MAP. T is not meant for a long duration. It is somewhat flexible with it's time limits. permit runs with the land. issioner Eaton had some questions and concerns: . Is there any history on how many charter operations there are now, many have off -site parking and how frequently do the operate? Concerned that many of the charter operations, particularly dt Christmas, operate at night; therefore, the parking lot used for ofl parking is presumably used by an office that does not operate at nigh then converts the parking from day parking to night parking for the ch, boat patrons. This changes the character of the lot and do we have history on this issue. o. Temple said she didn't have an actual accounting on these numbers, but tt s been happening for many years in and around the harbor. These parkii •angements have been happening with very little checking and zero knowledl the Planning Department or consultation with us. We know it to be happenii d historically is how these people have found parking. If they can't find parkii their patrons, they have perhaps gone outside of Newport Beach and chart sed them in and this is seen often along Mariners Mile. This just provides portunity for actual review of the availability of the parking, which has ppened in the past. missioner Eaton asked since there are no records, do we have any sense much charter business is at night verses day or weekends. Temple answered as follows: Day time charter operations focused principally during the summer and weekends; in the summer may be harbor tour excursions; on the weekei large numbers of weddings. Evening operations tend to operate like other entertainment venues in around the harbor especially during the holidays, but the tend to be foci at the late week and weekends. missioner Eaton stated even though these are annual permits, he felt the Id be noticing to the adjacent property owners because of the potential Sing the character of the off -site parking lots. Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Eaton and asked if these permits. Alford said it varies but cannot exceed 12 months. He didn't have a ikdown on how manv are less than 12 months. Temple said the first 6 applications were for 6 months. Hawkins asked: What is the availability for the Planning Commission, Harbor Commissio Harbor Resources Manager or Planning Director to review a permit after http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /nmI O- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 has been issued and there is a problem with parking. . Is busing people from another parking area part of the permit. Temple answered as follows: . The MAPS will specify where and how the parking will be provided. If th cease to provide that parking if something changes, they will not be meeti the conditions of the permit and it can be cancelled or they would have apply for a new one with a revised arrangement. . If we discover what we determined to be okay and is not adequate re< hasn't been thought through 100% and can be discussed before going Council. . One of the real beauties of this process is because it is not a land use perr and it's more like a license, we don't have to issue the permit again if there an issue that we don't have an effective way to deal with in the short term the duration can be a much shorter term. Revoking a use permit is a ve lengthy process and very seldom comes to a successful conclusion. . They have to tell us exactly how the patrons will be getting to the venue. they are busing them in, they will need to show us how they will safely pa load and unload these people because there have been problems alo Coast Highway. We hope this process will give us a little more ability handle and control those problems. mmissioner Toerge stated he is also in agreement that the property ov ng noticed. He asked Mr. Alford if the Title 17 document will come to the mmittee again for comments. Alford answered said the changes to Title 17 are moving along separately frc LCP certification process. There has been a subcommittee at the Harb nmission that have been reviewing the document and making minor change stly removing antiquated language. It is essentially the same document that tl Certification Committee had been reviewing and is now moving along as arate amendment Toerge asked Mr. Alford is he is handling that process. r. Alford answered he is assisting and it has been in the hands of Toerge said he will get with Mr. Alford after the meeting to make ments. blic comment was opened. blic comment was closed. Cole asked Commissioner Eaton what radius he proposed for property owners. imissioner Eaton answered just the adjacent property owners rather than or 500 foot radius. http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn 10- 19- 06.httn Page 6 of 28 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Cole asked Ms. Temple if that was practical and could be done. Temple answered it lengthens the process by approximately 21/2 weeks, ides preparing the notices, and mailing them 10 days in advance. Cole asked if that would be problematic. s. Temple answered the longer you add to the process of a permit that is only year does place some burden on the applicant due to time constraints As far aff, it is just another process that may increase the fees. One alternative t ay be considered is to determine if there is a consensus of the Commission t Duld like to see the City Council take that point on directly. As we transmit t nendment to the City Council, we can show them what changes that would me r the process of analyzing it with Harbor Resources. mmissioner McDaniel said he was a little concerned with the noticing, bu :ause of the short duration of these permits he feels the best notification wouk to have the event take place, the neighbors would then know what is going or i be able to bring any complaints to us before another permit is issued. If h nes to us first, we noticed it and approve it, it may be something that goes alone i the land and be there for a long time and certainly could be objectionable. 3 noticing is for something that is permanent and is to bureaucratic an( ssioner Peotter agreed with Commissioner McDaniel. He asked Staff in office building were they're using this parking, is it usually limited to 's of hours they are allowed to use the parking lot. Temple said currently there is no process. They would tells us what hours th Id be having their charters and the MAP would have those hours as mmissioner Peotter asked typically most office operations are from 8 to 5 restrictions in most office zoning to run 24/7 if the wanted to. Temple said if a project came forward and the Commission decided to limit s of operation of parking, based on public testimony or other consideratic is part of purpose of the review. If there is a limit on the use of the park couldn't point to it and use it for their off -site parking. mmissioner Toerge thinks the suggestion made by Ms. Temple earlier to r > a Council initiated proposed amendment and we send it to them but iff look at the ramifications and present alternatives of a noticing program them make the decision. Hawkins asked what led to this amendment. Ir. Alford said the MAP section was adopted recently and the Harbor Resource ivision is starting to process those applications and is now faced with th r Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge in the proposal, bu s that there is a notice provision for the Planning Director': of the off -site parking and let the City Council do what the will with it. some discussion Chairman Cole asked for a split motion or combined motion. Page 7 of 28 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 2 Motions were made by Commissioner Peotter- • First Motion - Recommend to the City Council approval of recommended changes per Staffs recommendation by adopting Amendment No. 2006 -006. • Second Motion - Recommend adjacent land owners be notified prior to hearing, similar to CEQA. nmissioner Eaton pointed out that these two motions conflict, since the ion recommends approval per Staffs recommendations which doesn't in( second motion. ssioner Peotter asked for a vote on the second motion and if it it in the first motion. Cole asked if there was a consensus on the notice provision. Hawkins wanted a clarification if the notice was for the issue. was a consensus on the notice provision for off -site parking. Temple wanted a little more clarification by asking: • Would we present the notice saying "with the analysis as an alternative consideration ". . Or say, "The Planning Commission has recommended that you enact notice requirement ". an Cole said he thought the initial recommendation would be with Staff came up with something problematic. Peotter wanted to be on record that he opposed and that is why he wanted the separate voting. Cole asked Commissioner Peotter what is his recommendation. simplified by Commissioner Peotter to move Staffs recommendation. bstitute Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend S ommendation with the suggestion to study and offer to the City Council :rnative for noticing the adjacent property owners to the parking. Cole asked if there was further discussion on the substitute motion. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to make ant to notice the adjacent property owners in connection with the Planr consideration of the off -site parking. Substitute Motion was then voted on. Page 8 of 28 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Noes: Peotter, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge Excused: Henn Second Substitute Motion failed. Chairperson Cole asked Commissioner Toerge to re -state the first substitute motion. Substitute Motion was then voted on. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge Noes: None Excused: Henn w � x ITEM NO.4 SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -005 PA2006 -198 Group Residential Facilities Recommended Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended for Approval to revise regulations relating to Group Residential Facilities? Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: • This amendment is intended to address the ongoing code enforcemen problem with single - family houses being operated as boarding house or in some cases as multi - family residential. • This amendment deals with the addition of a new land use classification under the heading of Group Residential, which covers boarding and rooming houses. `Boarding or Rooming Houses" would be defined as any dwelling unit where more than one room is rented under more than one written or oral rental agreement. If it meets this definition, then it is defined as a Boarding House, which is currently under the Group Residential heading and it is no permitted in our residential zones. Group Residential is currently limited to our Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) District and only when associated with an educational or medical institution. • Corresponding amendment to the definition of "single house keeping unit' to make sure the land use classification definition and the definition of "single house keeping unit' are consistent. Commissioner Eaton said he had sent an email questioning why the limit was only ne and not two. He received a reply stating that City Attorney had insisted that it be one. He pointed out that he had read an article in the newspaper addressing a imilar ordinance in the City of Orange and their limit was two. He would like to know why we choose one rather than two. Mr. Harp, Assistant City Attorney, wanted to clarify that City Attorney Robin Clauson was very insistent upon this and he had not had the opportunity to discus her reasoning behind this, but pointed out that Mr. Alford had discussed this with her. Mr. Alford said they had discussed 3 or more, but with that many there could be potential a situation of 3 separate housing keeping units operating under what hould be a single - family dwelling. The intent is to keep this as tight as possible s e are limiting the single - family zones to a residence that is operated as a singl housing keeping unit. Commissioner Eaton asked if we are talking about the limit on the number of rental rooms with the constraints of a single housing unit. Page 9 of 28 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /nm10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 10 of 28 •. Alford said the issue is not the number of people living as a single housing eping unit under one single rental agreement. The problem arises when people renting out rooms to individuals that are not sharing responsibilities of what our finition of a single housing keeping unit is. The effects to the neighborhood is en in the parking, noise, etc. )mmissioner Eaton said then a lessee of a home couldn't sublet a separate droom to another tenant even though they where operating as a single housing eping unit. Alford answered yes, they met the definition of 2 or more. The only option )uld be for them to amend the current rental agreement so both parties were der the same lease. iairman Cole asked what would be the difference, in the City's perspective, if me owner wanted to rent out a room and or a sub - lesser wanted to rent out a )m. The impact to the community would be the same as far as parking, noise, Alford answered the impact would be the same, but the scenario met the finition of 2 or more and would prohibit that type of arrangement in the sidential zones. iairman Cole wanted to know the genesis of this amendment. He knew it was ly Council initiated, but did code enforcement have any input into this. Alford said there were a number of discussions with the City Attorney office d Code Enforcement on how to address the problem of illegal dwelling units and forcement. Reviewing the rental agreements would give us the evidence needed take the appropriate Code Enforcement action. )mmissioner Toerge said he couldn't support this amendment as written. Felt i is unfair and almost discriminatory. He gave a scenario of living in a rented use and not being able to have a friend stay with him for a few months because would be in violation of this code. )mmissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge and had the following >ughts: . Was 2 too few; no parking related issues, etc. . 5 or 6 may become a Boarding House, which would be problematic. • Where do we set the bar? . 3 or fewer may be better. . How would you inspect verbal agreements for enforcement purposes? )mmissioner McDaniel spoke of a duplex that was rented out, but throughout the ar various people lived there and was sure they didn't sign a new rental reement with each move -in. How would we enforce that scenario? Alford answered if they were all operating under a single rental agreement, are is an implied shared responsibility for maintaining a single house keeping http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 11 of 28 (unit. The problem is people renting out multiply rooms in a house to a number o people and the owner doesn't live there. If you set the limit at 2 or more you ma have 3 rooms or dwelling units operating within a single - family house. II comment was opened. r. George Schroeder, landlord and real estate broker, wanted to state that % as basically in agreement with Staffs recommendations. He pointed out tt ✓ery lease agreement he has drawn up has a clause that the lessee can not st ase. All one would need to do is call up his landlord and add a person's name e existing agreement for the time period that person may be staying. When t ided person leaves, they would revert back to the original lease. He also ask this code amendment would apply to Balboa Island. Alford answered it is City -wide. Harp wanted to know if the intent was not to allow anyone to sub -lease v owners to rent a room to one person? Alford said it wasn't so much the intent, but the consequence of this it can be a problem to a lessor and not to the owner. comment was closed. Toerge again stated he could not support this amendment iissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge and asked if this will to the City Council. Alford said it would go to the Council, unless it was turned down by I .nning Commission it would not automatically go to Council but would have appealed. Harp recommended to move this on to the City Council and then City Attoi ison could address any concerns the Planning Commission may have with Hawkins believes this is a numbers problem. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to recommend adoption of lent 2006 -005 to the City Council with the modifications to strike under section" 20.03.030 and under section 20.05.030 (B) strike None Henn ns, PA2006 -211 IBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007 Day Care Regulations Continued to November 16, ould Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended 2006 revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and )se for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards? http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: This amendment was initiated to address the concern over the concentration of day care centers in the residential neighborhoods. • There is a State preemption on local land use controls that allow smaller c care center in residential districts by right, but also allow certain options the City which include limiting them to day care center for children and require a none discretionary permit for that use. The proposed amendment would allow the City to avail itself of the optic that are presented under the State preemption and would change our la use classifications to break up our Day Care Limited land use classificati with 2 new subgroups: the Large Family Child Care Homes for nine (9) fourteen (14) children and the Small Family Child Care Homes for eight or fewer children. • We would revise the land use schedules for the residential districts. We are proposing a set of standards for day care facilities for children wt would be added to Chapter 20.60. There are provisions for licensing, crit for child care provider's residence, standards dealing with separa requirements set at 500 feet, requirement for drop - off /pick -up area to identified and approve by the Traffic Engineer, and a noise provision would limit operation to a maximum of fourteen (14) hours for each between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and outdoor activities betw the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. ,nissioner Eaton had a question on the map that shows existing family homes and how many of them were the Large Family Child Care Homes. Alford said the breakdown was not available from the sources the compiled from. immissioner Eaton had sent an email earlier asking why we had not utilized 1 tion, which the State gives, of requiring off- street parking for the larger faciliti 9 to 14 children. He said Mr. Alford had responded to his email, that would >blematic in the areas where the primary access was an alley and they may i able to provide off - street parking. Commissioner Eaton wonder if we want t ger facilities in areas as dense as Balboa Island or Corona del Mar where y ly have 3 -foot side yards and alley access and were these appropriate places ve that many children one facility. Alford pointed out that the following: These are single- family zones and we would have to open them up the State preemption. . We could require a non - discretionary permit, but we could not exclude entirely. Most communities in California have dealt with the parking issue adopting standards requiring a drop - off /pick -up area only and some h more detail on the type of streets this is allowed. http: / /www. city .newpoii- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn 10- 19- 06.htm Page 12 of 28 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 13 of 28 . We have adopted a similar standard that would be a problem in areas wh the driveways are not fronting the street and the off - street parking accessed from an alley. . We opted for the recommendation that a drop- off /pick -up area be and approved by the Traffic Engineer. Eaton asked where would the drop - off /pick -up sites be for Alford said most likely it would be in the street in front of the residence. ier Eaton asked if that would require the cooperation of the City a public street zone. Alford answered it wouldn't be solely designated for that purpose, but a showed where children could be safely dropped -off and picked -up. iissioner Eaton pointed out the possibility of double parking in a nt when picking -up children in the late afternoon at a time when the area I up quickly. r. Alford suggested hearing from Public Works on this issue since they will viewinq it. >ioner Eaton feels it would be a problem having 9 to 14 children unit with a 3 -foot setbacks in a high density area. r. Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager, noted Agreed that the intent was to create a safe area for children to be . The implementation required would be a marking on a curb with a time -limit basis, etc. . What happens in you have 9 to 14 children and 2 or 3 cars show up a c you would have the same problem even if you mark a spot in an area was easy to get in and out of, because it would more than likely be ma for one car. sioner Eaton said that adds to his feelings that perhaps these not be encouraged in these densely populated areas. iissioner Hawkins was also concerned with the larger facilities and the parking. Perhaps a parking requirement is needed to regulate areas wl larger facilities are not suited. :)mmissioner Peotter asked what the staff requirements are for the large day care cilities. r. Alford answered it varies depending on the number and ages of the children. ie State law regulates this. :)mmissioner Peotter posed this question because the off - street parking could b http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl0- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 14 of 28 Igeared towards the number of staff and not just for a drop- off /pick -up area. Alford said most require 2 spaces that can be provided in the driveway. imunities have required that cars cannot back out into the street if the s is in excess of 35 MPH. One community has required a space for each rider in addition to the drop- off /pick -up. missioner Peotter asked if the State requires a certain amount of space for day care facilities; exterior and interior space. That would tend to limit that are practical for these facilities. Alford said there are certain limits and is part of the licensing. We are limited • Concentration issues. • Traffic control. • Parking • Noise • Fire Codes • Building Codes -end that we are not permitted to additional regulations. nmissioner Peotter asked if the 500 -foot setback is used by most other cities. Alford said yes most have been a 300 or 500 foot separation. nmissioner Peotter asked if two neighbors had day care facilities and made ingement to share play areas, that would not be permitted under the proposal. Alford said that was correct. With the intent under State law and what we are ig to do, is to make sure they're safe for the smaller facilities. If they go into a ar facility they will be forced to go through the normal use permit process. ther concern is this happening in a two- family area, the R -1.5 District, R -< rict, or Multi - Family District, where you might have multiple dwelling units on a le property and have the large facilities with 28 or higher children on one lot. ch is one of the major reasons behind this amendment. Peotter asked what the use permit fee will be for the 3. Temple said we would charge are normal fee for processing the permit, based on the amount of time we spend handling it. Peotter asked if it would be less than a Zoning Administrator fee. . Temple said the Planning Director use permits are delegated to the Zo ministrator. They are approved by him, the fees are modified based on erent processing and noticing requirements and this has proved to be cient by using one person. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P1nAgendas/2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 15 of 28 Harp suggested the option of tying the parking requirement to the number the facility. . Alford felt they could draft something if given the direction on the intent to wide some type of parking for staff and give some consideration that staff is the - ident of the dwelling unit and could use their normal off - street parking luirement for that purpose. blic comment was opened. Anjah Shaidaie asked the following: . Does the processing fee goes directly to the salary of the people working on processing the permit? . Are there a fines for any parking violations of these facilities or not having permit to run the facility and where do these fines go? Temple answered: The processing fee is both the cost of the Staff who process and handle permit and the postage costs and cost for notification in the newspaper. All the existing Large Family Day Care facilities, should this regulation k adopted, would be considered legal and non - conforming and they cou continue their operations. If a new facility applied to the State, we wou have notified the State of our regulations and they would contact us befo issuing a license to make sure all of the local regulations where compliance. comment was closed. missioner Eaton said he would like to see a continuance in order to get information from Staff on the following: . What are the State requirements that may have a de -facto effect in terms allowing the larger facilities in the more intensely developed areas; are the State requirement for play areas? By looking at the map, we do have existing facilities in these intense areas; 2 in the R -2 Zone and 1 in the R -1 Zone. . Would like Staff to give more information on how other cities are hand this and what type of parking requirement they have come up with so might see it. Lion made by Commissioner Peotter to approve with Staffs recomm, I an addition, under E4, requiring on -site parking based on State uirements, which will be reviewed by the City Engineer. nmissioner Hawkins said he wasn't sure he could support the motion. ited clarification if it is on -site parking for the employees. He also had conc the drop -off issues, with respect to the large facilities, and would like to ommodations for drop -off of the children and parking associated with the c http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 stant City Attorney Harp said this item is not as critical as other items can be brought back at a later date. Cole asked if there was a timing urgency from the City on this item. Temple answered no and due to the nature of these questions it would ;r to continue this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to continue this item 16. 2006. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Peotter Noes: None Excused: Henn ECT: Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182) 2300 West Coast Highway 3 applicant requests the approval of a 19 room expansion of a 64 room exi: tel. The two -story addition is fully compliant with applicable standards and located at the rear of the existing two -story motel building. Marrelli, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: e This is an existing motel. . The proposal is to add 19 guestrooms to the existing 64 rooms, for a total 83. e There will be on -site parking as required by the Zoning Code. . Staff feels they have met or can meet all the findings for the Use Permit, e for the compliance with the Mariner's Mile Design Framework which required by the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. rice White, from Government Solutions and on behalf or Holiday Inn re a PowerPoint presentation noting the following: . Showed an aerial view of the project site, pointing out other business's offices in the area. . History of Site - approved in 1987 as a 53 -room motel; remodel approved March 2002 which included the elimination of a restaurant, to add 11 gu( rooms and remodel the exterior to enclose the balconies. . Current Use - 64 -rooms with a .5 FAR; the General Plan and the M, Mile Specific Plan designate the site as Retail Service Commercial SP5); Coastal Land Use Plan as General Commercial (GC). . Now Requesting - Amend existing Conditional Use Permit to allow additional 19 guest rooms (12 on the ground floor and 7 on the sec floor); building height would be consistent with the existing structure -21 7 inches. e Proposed Use - 83 room motel, 83 parking spaces and .7 FAR. PA2006 -182 Continued to November 2, 2006 Page 16 of 28 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 17 of 28 . The new addition is in the rear of the property. . Showed views of a single room and a suite. . Low Season - January through April and October through December; H Season - May through September - these are consistent with the rest Newport Beach's guest service uses. . Occupancy runs at 77% in low season; 85% in high season. . Proposal is consistent with policies in the Coastal LUP - policy 2.3.3, 2.3.3 -1 and policy 2.3.3 -2. . Meets with a number of goals and objectives in the Coastal LUP. . Project complies with requirements of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan, terms of the architecture, colors and materials, landscape and lighting. . Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework - feels this project promote enhancement of Mainer's Mile as a tourism site; coher streetscapes; architecture and site planning are sensitive to des framework; colors and materials - 90% neutral color and 10% darker lighter trim. . Community outreach and visioning for General Plan Update - Revitalizatii of Mariner's Mile top priority;70% of the community surveyed were in favor promoting tourism and visitor and business travel to Newport Beach; tt project addresses those. nmissioner Eaton asked if Ms. White would have an objection to provide r of a dedication of a common driveway easement across their property fi municipal parking lot, to serve their lot and properties to the east if the Ci ly determined that was a desirable goal. White answered she didn't think they would object and was agreeable McDaniel asked: . Where the staff would park if there are 83 rooms and 83 parking spaces? If they averaged 77% capacity off - season, and averaged 85% ca normally, how often are they full? White answered as follows: . That is what the code requires and given the way most hotels operate, are rarely at 100% capacity. Given the way the shifts function and not i room is rented every night, there is a buffer. . About 30 days out of the year they are full. oner McDaniel said he assumed those days were 4th of July, etc., whe else wants that parking spot and will cause everyone trouble. This was http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 18 of 28 ,blem for him airman Cole asked Ms. White if the roof material proposed is matching the sting roof and would there be any objections to a darker color, if the mmission so desired. . White asked if he meant a paint treatment and right now the color matches the 'king lot. She would be opened to the suggestion. mmissioner Hawkins questioned if the rental rates on the double rooms were same as the rental rates on the single rooms. White said the rates shown in the presentation were the average rates for the ison, therefore the double rooms would be more than the single rooms. mmissioner Hawkins addressed his concerns on the character of the suites and it configuration. olic comment was opened. blic comment was closed. airman Cole had the following question on the FAR comment in the staff report: . On the new proposed General Plan, if it is approved the way the un weighted FAR is calculated, this project would actually exceed the proposed .5 FAR and could Staff clarify this calculation. Temple responded to the question stating the FAR calculation is a calculation t measures the gross floor area of the building verses the square footage of the which means under .5 you can have .5 or 1/2 the square foot of building for :ry square foot of lot and under .7, which this is proposed, it would be .7 square t or 117 of a square foot of building for each square foot of land. airman Cole said he was confused because under the old code the weighted R was .35 and asked if the maximum .75 was used to calculated that. . Temple said it has to do with the Zoning Measures that were enacted by finance to implement the 1988 Land Use Element, which allowed a concep led "flexible floor area ratios ". For lower traffic generating land uses, a highe Jble floor area ratio was permitted up to .75. For the purpose of calculating the )r area, the code established a weighting system that would reflect those flexible )r area ratios. airman Cole asked, for this project, if the maximum ratio for hotel use was used. . Temple answered yes, because it is one of the lowest traffic generating land :s. sirman Cole then asked if the new General Plan was approved, and this project s brought back to the Planning Commission subsequent to that, this would no in compliance with the FAR. Temple said that was correct http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /nmlO- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 airman Cole asked what was the purpose for the new FAR for this area, feral Plan, and why we did away with the flexible FAR which in effect re FAR in this area. Temple answered, that provision of the Code that reflects the existing Element is fraught with administrative issues; it doesn't work well and it uced the effects hoped for. Once a building is built, there is no eft ns of controlling conversions. Since the overall FAR is .5, under the e: , we have had very few applications to go to the maximum FAR. It n maintaining. missioner Eaton pointed out if Measure V is adopted and that Land lent is in place in November, the Ordinance that reflects the FAR variable some additional time to change, making a period of time where the Ordina General Plan are not consistent. That may be the time, if this projec :)ved, that they would seek to get permits. He questioned which of th J this project be consistent with. Temple said she and the City Attorney were discussing this issue earlier tod J there doesn't seem to be an exact answer. Should the General Plan opted in November, an interim ordinance which would decide these issu uld be worked on prior to other related zoning changes. The City Council coi isider provisions that would allow projects in plan check and projects approv the Planning Commission to proceed under the old Code and we can have all se decisions made, we would have the guidance for when this project woi sk it's building permit, and we would know exactly what the desire of the Cour s and we would have that adopted by way of an ordinance. nissioner Eaton then asked if she meant that the process issues with first before the FARs. Temple answered it would be when compliance with the General Plan woi required as opposed to when a prior approval would be allowed to continue completion. It's more a grandfathering question. is tha tHawkins asked Ms. Temple if when he asked the applican about the possibility of converting the suite rooms into individu the conversion issue that she was reflecting as having < difficulty with or is that change is something you could easily track. Temple answered that it's not easy to track without a building permit, tinly if they got the appropriate permits it's very easy to track. The diffi d be if the hotel went out of business and the building was to be use( use that did not require building permits. We wouldn't necessarily know i going on unless it was reported or there was a complaint. Toerge had the following question: Would like Mr. Edmonston to explain the dynamics of the offer of dedi in the back of the property and the Traffic Engineer's comments of not supportive of cutting this in there. How do we address, if we did in fact call for this offer of dedication a was ultimately manifested at a future date, the fact that it looks like the way for it to be designed would be to loose parking places. Now we v have less then 83 parking spaces. Page 19 of 28 http ;Hwww.city.newport- beach. ca .us /P]nAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Edmonston said regarding the second part of the question we may we •ify with the applicant if they truly are able to provide the 83 spaces if there easement across the entire property. Regarding the first part of the que: current Public Works Department opposition to requiring this is based iple of factors: The primary factor is the parking lot was designed as a parking lot. T main part was a land locked parcel owned by Cal Trans and the City had negotiate with the multiple property owners, located between Tustin Aven and the main lot, to acquire that access and we bought just enough to see as a driveway, not a street. The aisles within the parking lot don't line t the main aisle doesn't line up with the aisle at the northern end of the lot. really isn't conducive to considerable through traffic. The lots that it do cross do have access because that was part of the negotiation to obtain t right -of -way to put it in. In addition, at one time the City did have a stu done on possibly extending Avon Street through those properties and it not have a lot of support at the time. Presently that concept is not reflect in any planning documents, the General Plan, the Circulation Element, any other document. If the Commission wanted to protect that as a fUtl eventuality then the offer of dedication would be the most appropriate % because it doesn't necessarily restrict the use of the property, if in fact t City decided not to pursue it. missioner Toerge expressed.his concerns as follows: . The applicant would have a hardship with a building that is under parked. Regarding Commissioner's McDaniel's comments, he agreed another example of taking the development entitlement up to it limit. He thought the reason the new General Plan eliminated tt FAR was because it was considered unfeasible they could get looks like this got there. . It is our Code and we do not have the right to opine on it, but we right to change the Code and that's probably what we should do. He thinks we should have more discussion on the offer of dedication how it may work and what happens if they loose parking places. . As a Planner our responsibility is to look forward, and the bene overall community in allowing some access to be taken off the rear. issioner Toerge brought up the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan and Strategi and Design Framework and how is applies to this project and the following: . If you add 25% floor area or 2500 square feet, which ever is less and case it is 2500 square feet, that a development plan review is required. . The application of this Specific Plan needs to come into place. . Because there is no discussion in the staff report about signs, even they may be adequate and conforming, there is no way to determine in full compliance as did the applicant in this study. . It is stated in the staff report that the design and the colors of the building http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /P]nAgendas /2006 /mn 10- 19- 06.htm Page 20 of 28 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 21 of 28 not neutral. So how can it be consistent with the intent of this plan. colors aren't bad, but they don't conform to the plan. . There is a very clear requirement in the Specific Plan that all the designs the development plan review require a 5 -sided building. . We need to review the roof, but we have no plans on the roof. . Looking down on the project from Cliff Drive, the project looks like what are trying to avoid. . It's not terrible looking, but the rooftop equipment is not screened from it's painted grey. . There seems to be no attempt to address the 5 -sided review and to scree the rooftop equipment from visibility from Cliff Drive and from our view park. )missioner Toerge then stated he is not ready to support this motion or th ication, believing they haven't fully gone through the plan and address the: iirements in the staff report. He doesn't have a problem the project but how been processed and how it has been presented tonight. He would like to se item continued and would like to see the following: . A roof plan Besides painting the rooftop, the rooftop equipment need to be and a plan on how that will be done. . A discussion on how the signs comply with the Specific Plan and the Framework. Harp wanted to address the original requirement for the offer of dedication. fight the applicant had informed Commissioner Eaton that they could design ,ing without loosing any parking with the offer of dedication. s. White said there are a number of scenarios they could look at but didn't k that was possible, so if parking is a priority they would rather for go the offer mp the parking as is. Harp said as far as the rights go, related to this and the fact the General Plan change things where this project would not fall within the General Plan, they do have a vested right until they pull the building permit and start construction, jus , ause we approve it tonight. This creates an interesting issue. missioner McDaniel wanted clarification on how we calculated that the ng spaces are adequate when there are 83 guest rooms and the staff ne somewhere. rman Cole said that is the Code, one parking space per guest room. Temple confirmed that was the Code and we have never had a problem that inadequate. missioner McDaniel then asked if they operate at 100% for 30 days of and most of the time they operate at 77% and maybe 85 %, where is the r http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P]nAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 22 of 28 the expansion. He has a problem giving up parking spaces for the 30 days :sn't see the need for the addition where we have to give up anything. 'its the max. >sioner Hawkins supports Commissioner Toerge motion, if there was to continue. He had concerns with the Framework Plan, the colors, ft cs, how narrow it seems because it is longer and thinks it needs to be ad further. rman Cole asked if he was suggesting the design should be changed? Hawkins just questioned that it looked narrow and wanted imissioner Peotter wasn't sure what the advantage would be to continue and felt the applicant should have the opportunity to get it approved be General Plan is approved, whether is it vested or not. He discussed )us concerns that were made tonight as follows: . The architecture isn't that big of a concern. . Had no problem with any conditions regarding the roof, i.e.; paint, the equipment, etc. . If we decide to require the easement, spaces will be gained where there existing landscaping, and didn't feel there would be any loss of spaces. didn't think there was an issue that couldn't be conditioned and agreed to the applicant a shot at the .7 FAR. He urged for some kind of consensus Id be conditioned and approved. imissioner Eaton suggested they get a cleaner project to be able to all the issue and continue this item until November 2, 2006. i Cole wanted to address the comment that it was felt that Staff di( issues in detail that pertained to the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan a Vision and Design Framework and asked Staff is they could comment Is. Marrelli said she had gone over this project with Mr. Jim Campbell, Se lanner, and who wrote the framework. It was their consensus that given Kisting conditions and what was proposed, for all intents and purposes it met asics for the framework. It may not have met every single bullet point, but ovi fit in the grand scheme. iairman Cole felt the applicant deserved a hearing on this, and we give them ection on the specific areas addressed tonight. If we can't come to nsensus, then we should continue this item. He gave his opinion on ti lowing issue: Regarding the easement, if it is a legal irrevocable right for the City request an easement sometime in the future, the parking can be address time. Right now the parking for the application is sufficient. . If the City wanted the easement dedicated in the future, then the City http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 23 of 28 in effect have to provide additional parking somewhere, if not in the lot and was this a correct statement. r. Harp believed that was correct. If it was used for egress and ingress at area, the change would have to be made to the parking lot and those laces would have to be replace at some other location. r. Edmonston concurred with this and the comment about the landscape area e corner and if an aisle went straight through, and if the City was comfortable :leting the landscape, it could be converted into additional parking of 2 or •. Harp said additionally there would need to be substantial upgrades because i primarily designed for a parking lot and may have to put in a parking structure. sere are a lot of issues to look at and it would be good to secure that right if thel willing to voluntarily dedicate it to the City. further discussion it was asked of Commissioner Toerge to be specific he was requiring. Toerge requested the following: . A 5 -sided review . A roof plan . Screen the rooftop equipment that is now existing or specify it is removed. . Wants the staff report to address that this project complies with sign criteri the Design Framework and if it doesn't comply why it doesn't and where doesn't. . Has an issue the staff report states the colors are clearly not neutral how that is acceptable even though there are consist with the plan. Harp states that the roof plan that was submitted by the applicant does ening and the removal of the equipment. White stated that the roof plan that was submitted shows the existing 3 ui be screened and that is currently in plan check with the 10 room additions 1 Iding permits are being pulled on. The balance of the roof is clear Apment. One of the conditions on the previous application, which approved room addition, was to screen that equipment. )mmissioner Hawkins questioned Staff if the screening condition was part of avious application for the 10 rooms and did that go to the Planning Commis: was it was a decision made by the Planning Director. Temple said is was the Planning Commission. Hawkins then asked that the Planning Commission then already had Aunity to review the screening of the facilities. Temple she didn't remember if it was discussed or not, but yes they had http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl0- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 to discuss it. Harp said the Planning age, rooftop equipment, pment being added. Commission did look at these issues, as etc. back in 2002 and there is no new nissioner McDaniel said it is his understanding that if this projects and if the General Plan is approved, that it wouldn't qualify. Temple said it wouldn't be consistent with the new FARs, but as part of smentation program we will be adopting ordinances that can include iance to address these interim project issues, particularly as it relates dfathering. We don't know whether the City Council would grandfather a p ning Commission action or not, but they can do that through tl ementation Plan. They are not fully vested until they receive the build iit, and if the City Council doesn't approve an interim ordinance, then oval from the Planning Commission would not be valid. If the City Council ide a grandfathering provision for prior approvals, then this project would ved to proceed under the rules as the exist today. Cole asked if someone was drafting some potential language easement while we they were talking. Harp asked for direction and they could draft something. missioner Eaton asked if the design framework was in place when the reviewed in 2002. Temple believed it was. missioner Hawkins had some concerns on the offer of dedication ment and asked Mr. Edmonston the following: The City spent a lot of time and effort in gaining access to Tustin Avenue the municipal lot. Edmonston said that was correct. missioner Hawkins continued: There is a development which is the second one down, going tc Huntington Beach, that has access to the municipal lot as an exit from parking. Edmonston said that was correct if he was referring to the :ion. That was negotiated because the City needed a place to n it was initially constructed it had a tiger teeth to make it an was opened to be a two -way access. Hawkins continued: Jack Shriml drain the lot. exit only, an( . If we are going to take access off the City lot from this parcel and that are easterly, what is the benefit to the City lot? . Aren't there going to be roadway improvements to the City lot for that Page 24 of 28 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlaAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 25 of 28 1 to implement that offer of dedication? Edmonston said this really hasn't been studied as to exactly how it would e and it would depend on how much further the access is extended, and wt anticipated increase in traffic would be. As it was mentioned, it is designed ammodate parking lot traffic not necessarily a lot more traffic. No plan h n prepared, but how wide is the easement going to be. If it is the standard , which is wide enough to accommodate two -way traffic, that is, probably t :h the easement will be. Without a plan it there isn't a lot of detail right now. Hawkins continued: . Concerned with the intersection at Tustin and the traffic into the Heights. How does this project comply with the Specific Plan if we taking out and landscaping? Cole didn't think that was what they were doing, but were asking for agreement. Harp answered that if they want to make a voluntary offer of that would be the appropriate way of doing it. ssioner Hawkins said he had a discussion with Ms. White earlier on th He felt that this access easement across the municipal lot is alrea( J in the project, because Public Works was recommending a denial of th of this project. So what is really before us. airman Cole asked Mr. Edmonston if it was denied based on what was given Planning Commission. Edmonston said that at least from the Public Works Department it's not s ich it is a denial, but more that they were not in a position to approve the nnection at this time, because it does entail the loss of spaces in the City to d that would more than likely have to be mitigated somehow and there is no pla do it. There is no General Plan, Circulation Element, no other specific plan tN Its for it. n Cole then asked, without that easement if Public Works would a have with the plan as submitted. r. Harp answered the project that is being approved. is without the easement a project in the future would do all the analyses that Commissioner Hawkins Aina for. . Edmonston said the project as initially submitted did not include easement, :rely include a connection to the City parking lot and that in turn would lead loss of parking spaces. Those spaces that would be lost are currently lease the US Postal Service and we would have to relocate their spaces. It did n lude the easement. The project without a connection is satisfactory to tt blic Works Department and to the Fire Department. Temple said in their discussions with the applicant on this issue, we la owing that connection with the loss of spaces, would raise the concerns of )astal Commission, as this project would go to them, and that is why we war specifically say that we were not approving the connection to the lot. This we http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 26 of 28 allowed them to revise the site plan to eliminate it, so when it got to the al Commission this applicant and the City would not have to be involved in < >sion of lost public parking in the Coastal Zone. Cole asked why are we showing the connection? >. Temple said we didn't ask them to revise the plan. The plans are revised tue of the condition of approval that says they can't have it. Due to all the issu at Mr. Edmonston pointed out, we felt a condition to that, via the connection future, was a bit premature and felt a voluntary offer of dedication of some s crossing in the future was better. Cole asked how the Commission felt about this. Eaton noted the following: . He had pushed to try and get an enhancement of the traffic flow thro Mariner's Mile, generally on the Del Mare project, and was not supported. . If Measure V losses and if Measure X carries it will be on the in traffic flow on Mariner's Mile. . We really need to look at every opportunity we have to enhance the tra flow on Mariner's Mile and that's the public benefit that could conceiva result from an easement across this property that serves the properties the east. . That will have to be a project that would have to be studied by the City, look at all these questions and figured if the answers make since and becomes a worthwhile project. . This is the opportunity to secure the offer of dedication to enable that to proceed, should the City's studies find it a worthwhile project. . He was in favor of the voluntary easement agreement that was offered now. rtlon made by Commissioner Toerge to continue Development Plan 2006 -001 November 2, 2006 with the request that Staff and applicant include in the staf )ort, a discussion on signs and how it conforms to the Specific Plan, a 5 -sidec )f plan, an elevation drawing of the rooftop equipment and how it will be -eened, and a discussion on the offer of dedication and how it might work. )mmissioner Hawkins wanted to have conditions number 15 and 19 referent the offer of dedication. Number 19 will need to be revised to be more clear as iat vehicular access onto or off the municipal lot in the future. Both the nditions need to be revised in line of Commissioner Toerge's concern. Toerge said he will amend his motion accordingly. >ioner McDaniel was in support of this motion. Would like to see that Plan was complied with in this project. mmissioner Peotter asked if it made any difference if it was approved tonight November 2, 2006. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 27 of 28 Mr. Harp said it really didn't make any difference if it was tonight or on November 2006. Since they probably couldn't pull a building permit and start construction, they wouldn't be able to vest anyway. Everything will be contingent upon wha happens with the implementation, the ordinances that are adopted, the Genera Plan and how these interim projects are addressed. White said they have to go to Coastal Commission anyway. ssioner Peotter asked if there was a specific area in this project, as today, that was a concern of not conforming to the Specific Plan. rman Cole pointed out the areas that Commissioner Toerge had outlined to address. was some further discussion on the conditions outlined by Chairman Cole asked for a vote on the motion. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge Noes: Peotter Excused: Henn a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple stated there was various amendment: related to the Koll Center in Newport project that were approved by Cit} Council. There was the amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan for the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community regardinc the prohibition of new residential subdivisions and that was approved. Those both will come back for their final reading on October 24, 2006. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Development Committee - None C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local C Committee - Commissioner Toerge said there was no meeting and no meeting has been scheduled. d. _Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioners discussed a date certain to revie the Planning Commission rules. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a agenda for action and staff report - none f. Project status - Ms. Temple said there was no date set for the Ch Party and we need to find a venue. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 28 of 28 g. Requests for excused absences - None ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn10- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008