Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2004Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 20 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Cole were present. STAFF PRESENT: Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Cheryl Dunn, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 8, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October T, 2004. ITEM NO. 7 Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as Approved amended. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Cole Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Page 2 of 20 file : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlPlanning COnm ission1PC MinuteslPrior Years1200411021.htm 6/26/2008 HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Gates Residence Appeal (PA2004 -208) ITEM NO. 2 505 J Street PA2004 -208 Chapter 20.65 of the Newport Beach Municipal Appeal of the determination Continued to of compliance with the provisions of Code (Building Height) by the Planning 11/04/04 Director related to the approval of a plan revision for a project at 505 J Street. The appeal contests the correctness of that determination. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to November 18th. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to continue this item to November 4th. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Cole Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: SUBJECT: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan District ITEM NO.3 Code Amendment Code Amendment Amend Chapter 20.44 (Specific Plan District #7 - Santa Ana Heights) to be consistent with Chapter 20.85 (Accessory Dwelling Units). Continued to 11/18/04 Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to November 18th. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Cole Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: SUBJECT: Sweeney Residence Appeal (PA2004 -206) ITEM NO. 4 401 -403 Heliotrope Avenue PA2004 -206 Appeal of the Planning Director's determination of grade for the purpose of Continued to measuring structure height. 11/04/04 Chairperson Tucker reported that the matter had been continued twice. file : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlPlanning COnm ission1PC MinuteslPrior Years1200411021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Jim Campbell, the project planner, indicated that the applicant had requested the previous continuances due to additional information received. Staff has not received any additional information, thus far. Chairperson Tucker asked the applicant to explain why he feels that the portion of the City's Code addressing establishment of grade would not apply to this case ... stating "in cases where retaining walls have been constructed or filled surfaces have been used for the purpose of measuring ... determining height prior to October 12, 1972, the finished grade established in conjunction with the filled condition shall be used for the measurement of height" does not apply to the Sweeney Residence. Bill Edwards, architect of Planet Design, introduced Chris Brandon, also of Planet Design, to address the Code issues. Mr. Ed Sweeney, applicant, described his project and the City process. Chairperson Tucker explained that the Commission's job is to interpret and apply the Code. Discussion ensued between Mr. Sweeney and Chairperson Tucker on grounds for appeal. Chris Brandon, project designer, presented arguments on existing grade. He stated that the home was constructed in 1960. He presented the position of the applicant that the finished grade was established in conjunction with the filled condition prior to its 1960 construction. The argument is that the ground as it exists today does not resemble what was used at the time the development was built in the 60's to determine height. Data suggests that it was a gentle slope from the top of the slope down towards Bayside. Chairperson Tucker remarked that it appears that it was a finished pad elevation. Discussion ensued on whether the ground was cut and /or filled. Chairperson Tucker requested staff to report on whether or not the subject area was built upon fill. Mr. Campbell stated that the geotechnical report prepared and submitted indicates that there is fill on at least a portion of the site. A 1939 aerial photograph indicates a very deep hole in the property. The belief is that it may have been an excavated borrow site and later filled in with different material, per geotechnical soils analysis. Prior to Page 3 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 construction, the home was built on existing grade as it appears on the site plan, with an approved variance. Staff was lead to the conclusion that a filled surface was used to develop the project site. Chairperson Tucker requested clarification on application of the Code language as it applies to this project and whether the property will be treated as a filled surface. Mr. Campbell reported that staff believes that the site plan used for the variance reflects that the property was cut and filled many years prior to development, and that the site plan replicates the current grade. Staff believes that the site was developed based upon current grade and that grade is what should be used today, even if it is a product of both a cut and a fill. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Selich and Mr. Campbell on the interpretation of the word "fill ". Commissioner Selich conveyed the possibility of using the word "fill" to reflect either the replacement after excavation or added soil on the existing surface. Mr. Campbell restated the Staffs finding that, in either case, the surface was considered filled. Mr. Brandon presented arguments on both sides of the Code interpretation and questioned whether a repair or replacement of soil denotes a fill. Todd Halseal, Certified Engineering Geologist and project consultant for the applicant, reported that based upon his review of aerial photographs, other projects along Bayside Drive, and experience, we've come to the conclusion that in the past there was a more gentle slope that came down from the site above down to Bayside Drive. Aerial photos reveal the following: . Probable slope failure A borrow pit exists on the site with 20 -23 feet of fill along Bayside Drive for the greenbelt area The existing site appears to be cut back down and the current pool area extended to create the pad that exists today Cathy Frantzen, project manager, described the process of creating the photos and a topographic map of the site. She stated that RBF was retained to most accurately substantiate what the natural state of the project site would have been at the time of initial development. Commissioner Selich requested clarification on the topographic map included in the packets that were distributed. Page 4 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Discussion ensued regarding the original state of the site and the various cuts and fills over the years since development. Chairperson Tucker remarked on the interpretation of the word "fill" and the natural grade of the project site. Commissioner Cole addressed Mr. Halseal regarding the type of the soil observed through substancial exploratory borings at the site. Mr. Halseal conceded that there was no determination as to when the fill was placed. He added that bedrock was found at the edge of the north of the property. Mr. Edwards, project architect, reported a partial foundation failure which necessitated pressure grounding, based upon fill. Commissioner Selich requested clarification from staff on the original condition of grade as it appears on the 1960 topographic map and how it applies to measuring height today. Mr. Campbell concluded that the existing grade in 1960 may have been used to establish height and that the developer may have carried out unsupervised grading prior to construction, since no permits were recorded. Mr. Campbell directed the Commissioners to a reference in the staff report of a photograph at a Coco's restaurant depicting a steep topography prior to any excavation, circa 1929 to 1931. He added that there may have been later cuts in the late 1930's to create a borrow pit. Commissioner Cole requested the applicant to establish hardship. Mr. Sweeney stated that if the request were denied, approximately half of the existing lot would be lost, deemed unbuildable. Chairperson Tucker discussed the difficulties of the follwoing determinations: ■ Natural grade . Threshold issue of the definition of "fill" Commissioner Selich referred to the Code section involving a filled condition. He determined that filling to create a pad differs from filling back to natural grade or beyond. Discussion ensued on grade determination and Code interpretation. Page 5 of 20 file : //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Commissioner Toerge expressed concern over the grade determination and non project - specific approval which might allow the applicant to redesign the project, increasing height, or to construct another fourplex on the site. Commissioner Selich requested staff to review the Code and previous discussions and minutes. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to November 4, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Cole Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Zotovich Fence (PA2004 -183) 4621 Perham Road Appeal of the Modifications Committee decision to require a 5 -foot, 6- inch high wrought iron pool protection fence with a 6 foot high gate, proposed to be located within the 30 foot front yard setback adjacent to Camden Drive, to be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the property line. The applicant requests approval to allow the pool protection fence to be constructed on the property line. The pool protection fence is required by the Building Code for a proposed spa. Commissioner Cole recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Staff Planner Gregg Ramirez confirmed that the Commission received the correspondence from the Cameo Shores Homeowners Association. Steve Zotovich, applicant, introduced himself, as well as Bill Caskey, the project architect. He described the process of review in his homeowners' community and mentioned that neither the board nor his neighbors had any complaints or issues with the placement of the fence. A discussion ensued regarding the Modifications Committee's reason for requiring the 5 -foot setback. Commissioner Selich indicated that the 5-6 foot landscape area within the public right -of -way is maintained by the homeowner, rather than the homeowners association, and that the area on surrounding properties is landscaped all the way to the curb. There is no need for Page 6 of 20 ITEM NO. 5 PA2004 -183 Approved file: //F:lUsers\PLNISharedlPlanning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\200411021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 a sidewalk, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to deny the applicant's request. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to overturn the Modification Committee's decision and uphold the applicant's appeal. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Noes: McDaniel Absent: None Abstain: Cole Tucker, and Selich SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265) 600 St. Andrews Road Page 7 of 20 Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use Permit for the replacement and construction of additional buildings and a below grade parking garage. The General Plan Amendment involves an increase in the maximum allowable building area with no change to the existing land use designation. The Zone Change would change the zoning district from R -2 & R -1 to GEIF to be consistent with the existing General Plan, Land Use Element designation. The Use Permit involves the alteration of existing buildings, replacement of the existing fellowship hall and classroom building and the construction of a new multi - purpose gymnasium and youth center. Chairperson Tucker opened the discussion by stating that the sole purpose of tonight's hearing is to review for adequacy the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for St. Andrews, including proposed mitigation measures, comments and responses to comments which have been provided to the Commission. Should the Commission find that the FEIR adequately addresses the potential impacts to the environment of the construction of the project, the Commission will recommend Council to certify the FEIR. If not, the Commission will make a different recommendation to the Council. Certification of the FEIR does not constitute approval of the project. Rather, it merely signifies that the FEIR adequately summarizes the effects that the project would have on the environment after mitigation measures are implemented. I would like the administrative record to demonstrate that a discussion of the issues took place at the Commission level, and that we understood the consequences of the project before us for consideration. I intend for us to demonstrate that understanding by discussing substantive issues raised in the EIR, the public's written ITEM NO. 6 PA2002 -265 Continued to 11/18/04 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \102 Lhtm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 comments to the EIR, responses to comments, as well as credible and relevant verbal comments from the public at this hearing. The foregoing will provide the basis for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council, and as required by CEQA, based upon substantial evidence in the record. I have worked up a list of issues to be discussed. These are the issues which I believe are most substantive, and therefore, most worthy of discussion at this hearing. The list is based upon comments received on the EIR. Please keep in mind that not every impact is a "significant impact'. The EIR addresses what is significant, and what is not, and how one knows. Some of the effects are judged on empirical data, such as traffic and noise, and some of them are judgment calls such as land use compatibility. Substantial evidence is defined by CEQA and does not include personal opinions not supported by fact, no matter how heartfelt. The Planning Commission is bound by CEQA to disregard argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion and other evidence which is not credible. After we review the issues list as it may be supplemented by the Commission, we will take public testimony. Each speaker may raise EIR - related issues which the speaker believes merits further discussion. Finally, we will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the Commission to provide any comments a Commissioner has on the list of issues, or otherwise. After that, we will consider whether recirculation is necessary. I apologize, in advance, for what I expect will be a rather formal proceeding. However, if the FEIR is certified and thereafter challenged in court, the administrative record will include an actual, verbatim transcript of our hearing. So I want the record to be complete and to demonstrate that the Commission understands our responsibilities under CEQA, and that we considered all substantial evidence that was presented to us before we reached our decision. Thanks to the diligence of our staff and consultants and the sophistication of the commenting public, I believe that we and the public will easily be able to understand the consequences of the project. That is the goal of our hearing. According to the CEQA guidelines: The basic purposes of CEQA are to: Inform governmental decision makers and the public about.the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities; to identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measure when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; to disclose to the public the reasons file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm Page 8 of 20 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 why a governmental agency approved the project and the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper but to compel government, at all levels, to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR but rather adequacy, completeness and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument of oppression, and delay of social, economic or recreational development or advancement. An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision makers and the public, generally, of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify proper ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. In reviewing draft EIR's, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document and identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment, and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional, specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible and why factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentators. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers as long as a good faith effort of full disclosure is made in the EIR. Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement amongst experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement amongst experts. The courts have looked not for adequacy, completeness and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or Page 9 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts. Evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by physical changes in the environment, is not substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Chairperson Tucker identified the following environmental issues to be discussed, based upon comments received: . Traffic . Noise • Parking • Land use compatibility • Construction period impacts • Safety of parking structure • Air quality during construction Chairperson Tucker stated that the Commission would discuss these issues and what they perceived in the comments, and responses to comments, to be areas requiring further discussion. He asked the City's traffic engineer to discuss the concept of the Standard of Significance when discussing traffic in an EIR context. TRAFFIC Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, reported that the City's standard has been to observe signalized intersections, evaluating the level of service by performing a calculation known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). The City has set a threshold that if the calculation falls below .91, that is acceptable. If the project causes the calculation to reach or exceed .91, the impact would be deemed significant. Chairperson Tucker inquired about the City's evaluation of residential streets not covered in the traffic study for St. Andrews. Mr. Edmonston reported that the City does not have criteria for establishing a threshold of significance, as it is a subjective matter. Rather, an environmental or livability capacity, typically considered in the range of 1500 -2000 cars per day (weekday) is used by the City. When this number is exceeded, it creates a livability impact rather file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Comrnission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \102 Lhtm Page 10 of 20 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Page 11 of 20 than traffic impact. Chairperson Tucker requested clarification from Mr. Edmonston on whether or not a City Ordinance exists to define that number as an acceptable service level. Mr. Edmonston remarked that none exists. Mr. Edmonston explained the trip generation rate as it pertains to church facilities in the City. He noted that the City can either use sanctuary seating or intended use as the basis for this finding. Commissioner Cole referred to some of the comments in the response mentioning that the traffic studies at the impacted intersections had not occurred on Sundays. Mr. Edmonston responded that the City's streets experience the highest traffic volume on weekdays, and therefore the intersection traffic counts apply to those peak periods. Additionally, the middle and high schools do not operate on weekends. Mr. Edmonston added that the City does not have an established threshold of significance pertaining to weekend traffic. Commissioner Eaton inquired about several recommended mitigation measures in the DER dealing with traffic and parking. He posed a question to Staff as to whether they should be merely recommended or required and incorporated as conditions of approval, and recommended that they be mandatory conditions. Mr. Campbell responded that Staff agrees with the recommended mitigation measures, mostly dealing with proper parking management traffic control to improve the compatibility of the project. If it is the Commission's desire to make the recommendations mandatory, all of these measures will be translated into conditions of approval for the project. Chairperson Tucker pointed out that the traffic management plan recommended the removal of the Clay Street entry and exit points due to the construction of the proposed parking wall. The parking wall is designed to dissuade guests from using street parking. He asked for Staffs recommendation on this issue. Mr. Edmonston concurred with the report that traffic flow could be accommodated by the other driveways and streets. However, the Fire Department has expressed concern that they at least be given emergency access to Clay Street. Discussion ensued regarding pedestrian and emergency access points along the proposed wall along Clay Street. Staff and file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Chairperson Tucker concurred on the necessity of an exit gate that would provide egress for pedestrians and emergency access for the Fire Department, per the Fire Department's request. Discussion ensued regarding an item in the traffic management plan suggesting one -way lot- loading with entry-only access off of St. Andrews and exit -only access to 15th Street. The options will be explored by Staff. Discussion ensued regarding EIR and Traffic Study indicating fifteen - minute impacts in the mornings and afternoons, reaching a service level of E or F at the unsignalized intersection of 15th Street and Irvine Boulevard. Staff concluded that the data was provided by the consultant for informational purposes and that City has no criteria for evaluating impacts at four - way - stop - controlled intersections. NOISE Mr. Campbell explained that the threshold of significance for a noise impact is a condition that would exceed the City's Community Noise Ordinance, contained in Title 10 of the Municipal Code, relating to operational constraints as well as construction. The Code regulates hours of construction limited to daytime hours, and prohibits evening and early morning noise - generating activity. There are also weekend restrictions. Further, the Code has no noise restrictions during daytime hours. Compliance with the Community Noise Ordinance is discussed in the noise section of the EIR. Discussion ensued regarding the possible noise reduction from children's activities moving from the outside play area to the gymnasium, upon project completion. Keeton Kreitzer, project consultant and principle author of the EIR, participated in the discussion. PARKING Discussion began regarding church activities that will be taken off site during construction, thereby reducing parking demand during that time. Additionally, Staff indicated that the parking demands had not changed with the project's reduction in size, as the parking demand relates to the sanctuary's capacity, rather than the size of the expansion and that the reduction impacts storage area rather than programatic space. Commissioner Eaton reintroduced discussion on the pedestrian access through the parking wall along Clay Street and into the parking structure. He, along with Chairperson Tucker, expressed concern over the numerous pedestrian access points that the Fire Department had requested. Page 12 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \102Lhtm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Page 13 of 20 Mr. Campbell stated that the Fire Department requires access and that the parking structure is not presently designed to accommodate fire equipment, resulting in the need for alternate emergency access. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Mr. Kreitzer explained the CEQA threshold related to this issues: The consultant looks at the relationship of the project to all relevant plans and programs that have been adopted by the City, regional or state agencies that have application to a particular project. There are significance criteria or threshold identified in the EIR that relate to consistency of the plans with land use designation, zoning and other City policies or programs. Each relevant policy has been identified as it pertains to the General Plan to distinguish compliance or noncompliance of those policies and procedures. The relationship of the proposed use to the existing land use is identified through: . Intensity of development . Adjacent Uses . Building Heights Commissioner Eaton mentioned the land use policy that talks about "modest growth" and recommended that Staff and the Commission explore this further. Chairperson Tucker remarked that questions have been raised in regards to: . Length of time for construction . Number of trips for debris and dirt removal He inquired whether any independent data had been gathered by the consultant or whether all of the studies had been conducted by the applicant. Mr. Kreitzer conveyed that the findings were based upon the estimated 50,000 cubic yards of earth material to be removed, as stated by the applicant. He then deferred to Matt Jones, preparer of the air quality analysis. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Mr. Jones, consultant for the noise and air quality technical reports, stated that the inforrnation provided by the applicant was used to determine the daily emission rate as it applies to the rate of construction. Since the threshold of significance is based on the daily emission total, the worst case condition for air and noise is having the activity condensed to the smallest period of time possible. By extending the construction period, there are fewer pollutants emitted each day. The threshold used is from the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA handbook, based upon a daily emission rates derived from federal conformity requirements. Mr. Jones discussed vehicular emission factors based upon type vehicle and fuel usage. Discussion ensued regarding: . Amount of debris removal . Ability to move the volume of debris . Number of trips required Emissions are based upon how far the trucks must travel to dispose of the dirt. Mr. Jones reiterated that the longer the construction takes, the smaller the impact is on air quality. Commissioners McDaniels and Toerge questioned the volume of soil removal and the ability to complete the process within the time constraints, if there are any. Mr. Campbell indicated that the scheduled construction for the project has been slated for Summer 2005, if approved. Staff did a simple calculation of the number of yards, hours per day, yards per truck, etc., and found that the proposed schedule can be met with approximately 60 trucks per day. Staff felt the assumptions were achievable. Chairperson Tucker recommended that if an agreement were reached between the District and the Church, that any construction at St. Andrews be deferred until the high school lot construction had been completed. SAFETY OF PARKING STRUCTURE Mr. Campbell remarked that the EIR includes recommended measures of safety for the parking structure. Staff has had discussion with the Police Department and awaits a memorandum in the coming week. However, in previous conversations, the Police Department Crime Prevention Specialist has never expressed concern about having a parking structure there if it were adequately designed, lit and provides adequate security measures. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1021.htm Page 14 of 20 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING THE ElR Commissioner Cole referenced an agreement between Lighthouse Coastal Community Church and the applicant regarding where the employees would park during construction. Mr. Campbell referenced Exhibit 6 of the construction management plan under parking indicating a letter stating that St. Andrews would have the ability to park 40 cars at the Lighthouse property during the week. The intent of the applicant is to shuttle their staff from the off site parking area during construction. Weekend parking would not be available to the applicant. Commissioner Eaton asked the applicant to address the issue of parking availability versus parking need, referring to the number of part and full -time employees. Commissioner Toerge requested the applicant to explain the offsite parking needs and times and how they compare to the actual schedules of the parking agreements, as mentioned in the traffic management plan during construction phase. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Laura Dietz, who served on the EQAC subcommittee for the project, expressed concerns on the safety issues of the children in the parking area at both the ingress and egress as well as supervision responsibilities of both the parents and the facility. Brian Brooks, Cliffhaven resident and president of the association, presented Don Krotee for the Newport Heights Improvement Association. Mr. Krotee referred to a letter dated July 16, 2004 that was submitted to the City. There was no response to this letter which claimed that the following items were inadequately addressed in a previous response letter of April 12, 2004: . Sensitive receptors, air quality and respiratory disease . Offsite parking and distance from the facility . Determination of sanctuary capacity as opposed to proposed use Since the letter came in after the EIR comment period had concluded, an additional response in not mandatory. However, Mr. Campbell agreed to locate the letter and respond to the comments, should the Commission request a response. Page 15 of 20 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Discussion ensued regarding the parking requirements. Mr. Campbell reiterated that the parking requirement is based upon the largest assembly area, rather than the entire project site. At most times, the main sanctuary is the largest assembly room, so staff applies that as the point of peak parking demand. This method is valid when there is not significant occupancy of other buildings at a given site. Chairperson Tucker and Commissioner McDaniel requested clarification on the parking need versus the parking requirement as it relates to the project. They mentioned multiple uses on which parking might be based, rather than solely on the main sanctuary. Mr. Jones addressed the issue of sensitive receptors. He stated that the emissions threshold was used to address air quality impacts, with the residences in the area treated as sensitive receptors. It was determined that the air emissions levels fell below the CEQA threshold. Serine Ciandella of Kimley -Horn, preparer of the Traffic and Parking Analyses for the EIR, reported that the data collected included on- street parking all the way down to Clay Street on St. Andrews, as well as all of the streets reaching down to St. Andrews. It was determined, based upon observations, that the church service did not fill all of the streets down to Cliff Drive. Commissioner Eaton referenced the revised tables from the Parking Analysis which identified the Newport Harbor High School parking lot, also referred to as the 15th Street parking lot. He noted a discrepancy between the total parking capacity of 150 spaces, as indicated in the City's Parking Analysis, and the applicant's report which indicated a supply of 252 spaces. Ms. Ciandella discerned that the 252 spaces, referenced in the applicant's report, was a more accurate total when both the north and south ends of the lot were considered. The City's report used only the south end of the lot for the analysis, concluding that a structure separating the two portions reduced visibility of the north end of the lot, making it less likely to be utilized. It was also determined that the 150 spaces in the south end of the lot provides ample parking for the church, based upon the observed use of the lot by church attendees. Discussion continued to determine which groups were utilizing the parking areas near the site: High school students, residents, and church employees. Mr. Campbell indicated that the parking application contained within the parking management plan is not a valid permit. The current permit from the school district to the church allowing the use of the parking lot on Sundays from 7am to noon, as well as specific dates Page 16 of 20 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 and holidays, from August 8, 2004 through July 31, 2005. The district issues such permits only on an annual basis. Chairperson Tucker requested the applicant respond to the following questions: . Proposed uses of the church during construction . Temporary employee parking Philip Bettencourt, development consultant for St. Andrews, introduced Ken Williams, building committee chairman for St. Andrews. Mr. Williams conveyed the intention to continue the use of the main sanctuary, chapel and administration building, as well as the education building adjacent to the sanctuary, during construction. Schools and education programs, as well as childcare, will be relocated offsite for the following reasons: . Protect children from construction hazards ■ Significantly reduce staff requirement for parking Commissioner Toerge requested hours of service. Mr. Williams reported that services were held at the following times: ■ Wednesday - 6:30 p.m. . Saturday - 5:30 p.m. . Sunday - 8:30 a.m., 10:15 a.m. Commissioner Toerge questioned service times as compared to allowable usage time of the offsite, school parking area. He also identified multiple, concurrent uses in addition to the main sanctuary, based upon the use and needs assessment. Commissioner Eaton requested data on teenaged students attending the church, who drive. Mr. Williams claimed that no data was available. Commissioner Eaton identified a discrepancy between the construction management plan, allowing construction workers to park on site, and the EIR, requiring the workers to park off site and shuttle in. Page 17 of 20 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Mr. Williams stated that the project contractor has agreed to locate adequate parking for its employees in areas excluding public streets. He did not oppose incorporating this parking agreement into a condition of approval. Commissioner McDaniel expressed concern over parking requirements related to the sanctuary use versus the parking needs for the entire site and all of its services and activities. Mr. Williams reported ongoing discussion with neighboring residents regarding occupancy restrictions. The results of the discussion will be converted into parking requirements for the entire church facility. Public hearing was closed. All Commissioners agreed that the Draft EIR did not require substantial changes or recirculation. Chairperson Tucker explained that the goal of CEQA is to demonstrate consequences of the project, if the project is built. The EIR is a disclosure document to analyze the issues and impacts of the project. This discussion has served its purpose in proceeding toward the more significant decision to be made at a subsequent hearing: Can this project be compatibly incorporated into the neighborhood ■ Can this project do more good than harm Discussion ensued on the Modest Growth Policy of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Staff directed the Commissioners to table 4.1 in the EIR, providing a mini analysis. The Policy allowing modest growth is tied to circulation impacts, and one can conclude that modest growth is growth that doesn't over burden the circulation system. Commissioner Eaton expressed several concerns about the project: . Further reduction of the project to near the 18,000 square foot mark requested by neighbors is needed. ■ Traffic issues, circulation problems and lack of access to major highways is of concern. . Parking and the possibility of increasing the number of spaces from 250 to 400 onsite spaces in addition to possible increases in high school parking. ■ Operational restrictions /conditions to ensure compatibility of the Page 18 of 20 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 project. Commissioner Cole echoed Commissioner Eaton's concerns on parking and traffic issues, and added that the multiple, concurrent uses raised issues on the parking demands. Commissioner Toerge also remarked on the conflict of multiple, concurrent uses and increased parking needs. He further expressed his commitment to improving the situation that currently exists. Commissioner McDaniel agreed with Commissioner Toerge's concerns and commented on the applicant's need to locate additional, offsite parking. He acknowledged the need for expansion, as evidenced in the surrounding neighborhood, and added that the project could be a positive addition to the community. Commissioner Selich addressed the needs assessment and the possibility of further reducing the square footage of the project. Chairperson Tucker expressed the following issues: . Mandatory agreement for an increase in school parking and its use by the applicant . A wall along Clay Street to discourage street parking . Prevention of overuse of the facility through operational conditions Discussion ensued regarding onsite and offsite parking issues, demands, needs and uses. Commissioners Selich and Tucker expressed the need to have the masonry wall along Clay Street that would discourage parking on Clay Street and asked that staff explore with the Fire Department alternatives related to fire access and the ability to provide the wall. Commissioner Tucker reiterated that the church should interface with neighbors to jointly come up with operational conditions of approval. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue the item to November 18, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Cole Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Page 19 of 20 fil e : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlPlanning Commission\PC MinuteslPrior Years1200411021.hhn 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2004 Page 20 of 20 None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mr. Campbell reported that the St. Mark's Presbyterian Church project was approved. Additionally, the Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report was presented to Council and it will appear on a future agenda for the Planning Commission. The condominium conversion for 329 Marguerite that was approved at the last Planning Commission hearing was called for review by the Mayor and will be heard on November 9, 2004. b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted the committee's review of the latest draft of the new sign ordinance. He mentioned that the most significant change reduced the sign area of a typical commercial structure by nearly 68 percent. The Commission expressed a desire to receive the report and draft ordinance earlier than typical reports. Mr. Campbell indicated that the current draft is available at the City's website and he explained how to access it. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - A motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to reconsider the continuation of the Gates matter since there will be a meeting on November 4, 2004. The motion unanimously carried. A second motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to continue the Gates matter to November 4, 2004. The motion unanimously carried. f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. g. Project status - none. h. Request for excused absences - none. 10:49 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1021.htm 6/26/2008