Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/1997r 1 L_J E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 egular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Adams, and Ashley - Commissioner Gifford was excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of September 18.1997: Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller and voted on to approve, as written, the October 9, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Ashley Noes: none Absent. Gifford Abstain: Adams Public Comments: none Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 17 1997 outside of City Hall. Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Windows on the Bay Restaurant (Scoff Shuttleworth, applicant) 2241 West Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3293 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend conditions of approval of an existing full service restaurant to change the operational characteristicsto allow: • the cessation of regular meal service prior to the closing of the restaurant and operation of the facility as a bar /nightclub with alcoholic beverage service as the principal purpose from that time until closing; • an increase in the permitted hours of operation of the restaurant and the outdoor dining area; • the retention of a service bar in the outdoor dining area; • a change to the type of permitted live entertainment which is currently limited to combos and mariachi bands; • the retention of a loudspeaker sound system in the outdoor dining area. Mrs. Wood, Assistant City Manager stated that at the September 181h • Planning Commission meeting on this matter, a number of questionswere raised and staff has done additional work. Staff has complied with the request for additional notification to Lido Island residents as well as noise measurements taken (during live entertainment) on Lido Island on Saturday nights. They all show that there is compliance with the Community Noise Ordinance. Resulting from continuing discussions with the applicant and the Police Department, staff is recommending some changes and conditions of approval from the original report. These recommendations are in areas of the hours of operation for outside dining, the outdoor service bar, the number of entertainers in the live entertainment area and the loudspeakerand paging system. At Commission inquiry regarding a live entertainment permit to address live entertainment, staff noted that the Municipal Code provisions for live entertainment permit is more of a ministerial than a discretionary action. Therefore staff believes it would be less appropriate to attach conditions to a live entertainment permit dealing with a number of entertainers than it is for the use permit. Therefore, it is included in Condition Number Seven. Mrs. Wood proceeded with the following staff recommended changes to condition 10: Strike the last sentence, starting with ....Upon evidence that noise generated by the .... as it is redundant and this matter is addressed in condition 11; condition 13: the last sentence starting with ....The approval will also allow the establishment, including. • INDEX Use Permit No. 3293 A Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 was opened. Detective Friaell of the Newport Beach Police Department, responding to questions raised by the Commission, stated that there has been no evidence that the bar on the patio has been licensed by the ABC following the September 18th Commission meeting. The applicant (Mr. Shuttleworth) went to the office of the ABC at Police Department direction and obtained a duplicate license for another bar. ABC was going to authorize the duplicate license for the bar on the patio but there appears to be a mix up in the paperwork as instead, a portable bar inside has been licensed and the bar on the patio has not been licensed yet. It is the applicant's responsibility to make sure that the outdoor bar is properly licensed (requirement of the state law). Responding to commission inquiry, Detective Friaell stated that with condition 28 in place which recommends the six, twelve and 24 month review, that at this time, the recommended hours are acceptable to the Police Department. Scott Shuttleworth, 1918 Holiday Road, applicant, at commission inquiry, stated he has read, understands and agrees to the conditions and findings in the report dated October 23rd. • Commissioner Adams asked about the outdoor bar having an ABC license. Mr. Shuttleworth, stated that there was an additional permit needed as noted by the officer of the ABC who did a walk through with himself and Detective Friaell. He has obtained that additional permit and is not aware of any non - compliance, but will check with ABC and take care of any discrepancies. Continuing, Mr. Shuttleworth stated that he has no intention to change the operation of the restaurant from the way it has been for the last three years. There has never been a paging system and there is no intention of adding one. There have been small speakers throughout the restaurant and on the patio that provide background music. There is no entertainment on the patio nor amplification of music on the patio from the entertainment inside. Concluding, he stated that he wants to bring the conditional use permit up to the level that the restaurant has been operating at when he found out it was not in compliance. Lynn Berris, 302 Via Lido Nord stated her concerns about this petition. During the first summer she lived there, Windows was in violation of the permit as they did have entertainment on the patio. She filed a few complaints about the noise. The way the restaurant has been operating with the last year is fine, the live entertainment is inside and there is little noise. She is concerned about the ability to have speakers • outside and wants some type of condition to control the sound of 3 U19 U City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 music. It was noted by Commission that Condition 10, "...that the speakers shall not be utilized in conjunction with the sound system of the live entertainment and shall be limited to pre- recorded music and paging of patrons only....... If the ambient noise does carry over, the City can shut them off. Commission also has the authority to review at various points of time with notification. Lynn Velasko, 310 Via Lido Nord commented that she is concerned about the noise emanating from speakers on the patio. At commission inquiry, she stated that within the last six to twelve months, she has not had any problem with noise coming from the restaurant. Commissioner Fuller stated that the speakers on the patio, if this application is approved, will be lowered to below the wall that is in place now. Public Comment was closed. Commissioner Adams stated that with 6, 12 and 24 month reviews, the • call ups would be in April and October of 1998 and October of 1999. If there are problems, we can expect those to come up when the weather gets warmer in the summer. April will not be a good indication of this and then it won't be heard until summer is over in October. He suggests modifying the review to be called up in July, 1998 and July, 1999. This will be a call up in 9 months and then 21 months, which then mean a call up in the midst of each summer. If there is a problem in the meantime, the residents need to call the Planning Department to let them know. Mrs. Wood recommended that the re- wording say in July of 1998 and in July of 1999, to insure review at the times the Commission desires. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to approve Use Permit No. 3293 (Amended) with the following modifications: Condition 10: Strike the last sentence, starting with ....lea evideae$ Condition 13: the last sentence starting with ....The approval will also allow the establishment, including. Condition 28: change review time to read: That this Use Permit shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission in July, 1998 and in July 1999. Without objection and one absent, the motion carried by acclamation. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 Findings: That the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for 'Recreational Marine Commercial' uses and a restaurant and bar /nightclubare permitted uses within this designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. That the proposal involves no physical improvements which will conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. The approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 3293 (Amended) to allow the business to operate as a bar /nightclub, to increase hours of operation, to change the type of entertainment, and to retain speakers in the outdoor dining area • will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, for the following reasons: • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial and nearby residential uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and this operation is similar to others in the area. • The control of noise can be achieved by the limitation on the location of the specific noise generating activities (live entertainment), the requirement that doors and windows remain closed, the limitations on the speaker system in the outdoor dining area and compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance. • The proposal will not add a new liquor license to an overconcentrated area, providing only for the operational change of an existing restaurantwith an existing alcoholic beverage license. • The increased parking demand resulting from the establishment operating as a bar /nightclub will be offset by the closing of the main dining areas of the facility when meal service ceases. • The crime rate in the Police Reporting District where this facility is located is only 4 %, above the Citywide average • and well below the level considered as significant in 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 State alcohol beverage regulations(120% of the Citywide average). The establishment will continue to operate principally as a full service restaurant and the bar /nightclub operation will occur on a limited basis based on the overall hours of operation of the facility. The operation as a bar /nightclub will be limited in scope since a large portion of the main dining areas will be closed when the regular food service closes. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all applicable previous conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3293 and its amendments shall remain in force (dated February 18, 1988, September 10, 1992 and April 8, 1993), except as noted below. • 3. That the hours of operation of the restaurant /bar shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. 4. That regular food service from the full- dinner menu shall be made available until 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday; and 12:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. When the regular food service ceases to be provided, the main dining rooms shall be closed to the public and not utilized. The final plan of the dining areas to be cordoned off and the method utilized shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Police Department. 5. That alcoholic beverage service within the facility shall cease at 1:00 a.m. daily, with the exception of those activities approved in conjunction with a special events permit. That the alcoholic beverage bar located in the outdoor dining area shall cease service at 1:00 a.m. daily and may not be approved for extended hours in conjunctionwith a special events permit. 6. A security plan shall be submitted and approved by the Police Department which shall include, but not be limited to, the provision of security personnel for the restaurant and its parking areas to provide security, crowd control, and to discourage loitering and to correct objectionable conditions that may • constitute a nuisance. That a security plan shall be submitted and 6 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 approved by the Police Department which shall include, but not be limited to, the provision of security guards for restaurant and parking lot security and crowd control purposes. That the live entertainment shall be limited to a maximum of 5 performers until 8:00 p.m. and 3 performers after 8:00 p.m. (total of musicians, vocalists, etc.) with amplified sound. The sound from such activity shall be confined to the interior of the restaurant and all doors and windows of the establishment shall remain closed during all performances, except when persons enter and leave by the main entrance of the facility. 8. That live entertainment in excess of the limitations of this approval (number of performers) may be approved by the Planning Director on a case -by -case basis taking into consideration such factors as: the time of day of the activity, the number and types of performers, and the location of the performance within the building. The Planning Director may, at his or her discretion, refer the matter to the Planning Commission for approval. 9. That the operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for • the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. interior exterior interio r exterior Measured at the property line of commercially zoned properly: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA Residential property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50dBA 10. That the existing speakers located in the outdoor dining area shall be relocated (below the line of the patio barrier /fence) to confine the noise to the patio area and shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and as stated in Condition of Approval No. 8 above. • Further, that the speakers shall not be utilized in conjunction with 7 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 • • the sound system of the live entertainment and shall be limited to pre- recorded music and paging of patrons only; and that the use of the speakers for paging shall cease at 10:00 p.m. daily. 11, That the applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the live entertainment to insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Planning Director. 12. That a Live Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Division, in accordance with procedures set forth in Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, shall be required to allow live entertainment as incidental and accessory to the primary use of the facility as a restaurant and as a bar /nightclub operation after regular meal service ceases in the restaurant. 13. That the approval is for the establishment of a restaurant type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose for the sale or service of food and beverages with sale and service of alcoholic beverages incidental to the food use during the specified restaurant hours of operation. The approval will also allow the 9XGlUdiR including the outdoor dining area, to operate as a bar /nightclub type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code after the specified restaurant hours of operation, with the principal purpose for the sale and service of alcoholic beverages with incidental food service. 14. That this approval shall not be construed as permission to allow concerts as defined by the Municipal Code, unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 15. That a special event permit issued by the Community Services Department and approved by the Police Department and the Planning Department shall be required for the following events or activities (Said special event permit shall be completed and submitted to the Community Services Department at least 30 days prior to the date of the event, unless other arrangements are made with the City departments, to allow adequate time INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 for the Police Department and other City departments to review the application and to impose additional conditions of approval): • any event or activity within the dining areas of the restaurant which is contemplated not to operate with the sale or service of food and beverages as the principal purpose during the specified restaurant hours (i.e., conversion of dining area to bar service area during restaurant hours) which utilizes a majority of the dining area of the facility. • any event or activity staged by an outside promoter or entity, where the restaurant owner or his employees or representatives shall be permitted to share in any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon money collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or sale of drinks. 16. That a maximum of 12 special event permits for events or activities operating outside of the above mentioned restaurant • and bar /nightclub operation shall be approved per calendar year. 17. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 18. That in conjunction with the Cafe Dance Permit, the final location of the dance floor shall be approved by the Building Department and the Fire Department to address occupancy and fire exiting requirements of the interior of the restaurant. 19. That a minimum of 140 parking spaces (one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of net public area) shall be provided and maintained on -site. 20. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer to determine compliance with the parking plan approved with the previous use permit if any alterations to the parking lot are made. 21. That the area outside of the restaurant establishment, including the public sidewalks or walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. • 22. That all trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters 9 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 stored in the trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from the view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 23. That the applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 24. That storage outside of the building shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure and existing storage structures. 25. That should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. . 26. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 27. That no temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 28. That this Use Permit shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission at its second meeting in July 1998 and July 1999, at which time the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit. 29. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 30. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. kRk SUBJECT: Bonita Canyon (The Irvine Company, Applicant) • General Plan Amendment 97 -2 • Amendment 865 • Development Agreement 11 Amendments to the General Plan, a prezone amendment, a Planned Community District development plan, and a development agreement for the Bonita Canyon area (formerly Harbor View North) to establish pre- annexation entitlements in association with the proposed detachment of this area from the City of Irvine and annexation to the City of Newport Beach. Ms. Temple stated the staff presentation will summarize the key issues associated with the Planning Commission consideration of this project. It has been structured to provide information in response to issues and questions raised by the members of the public in their correspondence • to the Planning Commission. Information provided in this presentation has been limited to those issue areas within the purview of the Planning Commission. Any issues raised in correspondence which is within the jurisdiction of the city council will be addressed when this proposal. is heard by that body. Under consideration as part of this request is a General Plan Amendment, a prezoning of property, the adoption of a Development Plan, and the approval of a Development Agreement. In each of these actions, the Planning Commission does not make a final determination, but its action is to make a recommendation to the City Council on these items. The Planning Commission does not make a recommendation nor take any action related to the decision on annexation. Its only role is to make recommendations on the land use and development scenario to be implemented if the area is annexed to the city. Therefore, the annexation and related fiscal issues are not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Additionally, issues related to schools are not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. This development has been approved by the City of Irvine, and will occur with or without annexation. The Planning Commission is considering what the land use entitlement should be if the area is incorporated into Newport Beach. 11 INDEX Item No. 2 GPA 97.2 A 865 DA No. 11 Recommended for Approval City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 The general plan and zoning provisions under consideration will entitle the property for the purposes of pre- annexation. Four subareas will be allocated a total of 1,521 residential dwelling units, a commercial area will be allocated 55,000 sq.ft. of development, 18.3 acres of public /semi - public use is allocated (used for a church) and 115.7 acres of open space will be provided. When compared to the entitlement granted by the City of Irvine, the primary difference is the residential density of that city's general plan and underlying zoning district, which allows up to 2,095 dwelling units in Planning Area 26A. There have been some comments regarding certain provisions of the development plan being less stringent than typical standards in the City of Newport Beach, in the areas of parking, setbacks, and height. In terms of parking for large -scale apartment projects, the City has regularly established parking requirements less than conventional zoning code requirements. This has been accomplished by determining an appropriate standard through a parking study and establishing a new parking ratio in the development plan. The City of Irvine's parking requirements, which are incorporated into the PC text, exceed the parking ratios established by the City of Newport Beach for projects of a • similar nature. In terms of setbacks, the City has no established minimum setback from roadways in residential districts. Setbacks can range from as small as 5 feet to as large as 35 feet or more. The city has approved roadway setbacks at the 10 foot level (Villa Point, Point del Mar). The development plan establishes a minimum setback of 15 feet from roadways. The proposed height limit of 50 feet is not without precedent in the City of Newport Beach. Most PC district areas are in the 32/50 foot height limitation district. Additionally, some residential areas are in the high rise designation. The Development Agreement is the document which sets forth the rights and responsibilities of the parties should annexation move forward. It contains several key features which should be noted. Specifically, the development agreement commits the property owner to additional development reductions and open space areas, including the area between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Road, and Freeway Reservation (north parcel). These changes will further reduce the residential entitlement by 131 units to 1,390. Total acreage for parks and open space will be increased to approximately 35 acres, or a ratio of 12.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Newport Beach's park dedication standard is 5 acres per 1,000 residents. • 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 The Development Agreement contains a provision to accept the existing traffic study pursuant to the city's traffic phasing ordinance. This provision is included due to the fact that a full traffic study was prepared as part of the EIR review process. That traffic study was conducted in a manner substantially similar to Newport Beach's traffic study procedures. The traffic study showed that there were two intersections which would have been considered impacted in an "interim" period. Those were the intersections at Mac Arthur and Bison and Mac Arthur and Ford Road. The traffic study requires as a mitigation measure an improvement to the Mac Arthur Bison intersection which reduces the impact to the threshold below significance. Staff has reviewed Newport Beach modeling data for these intersections. In the year 2005, which is a similar horizon to the interim period analyzed in the EIR, the ICU's are 0.73 for Mac Arthur at Bison, and 0.79 for Mac Arthur at Ford /Bonita Canyon, including this development. Were a new traffic study to be prepared, no mitigation would be required at either of these intersections. Additionally, as part of the process, The Irvine Company made a financial contribution to the City of Newport Beach to help fund improvements to mitigate long range traffic impacts at Jamboree Road and Bison and Jamboree Road and Ford Road which were indicated in the Newport Beach traffic model. The City has used these funds to implement an improvement at Jamboree Road and Bison, and will have sufficient funds to make further improvements at Jamboree and Ford Roads. It is also important to note that the long range traffic analysis shows all intersections in the area operating at level of service "D" or better in the City of Newport Beach, which meets our general plan goal for circulation system level of service. The only intersection ICU predicted above 0.90 in the long term is at University and Ridgeline Drive in the City of Irvine. In the review of this proposal the City of Newport Beach reviewed the certified final EIR prepared by the City of Irvine, and determined that, with minor technical corrections to information related to public services and schools, the existing document is adequate to serve the city's decision on pre- annexation zoning. This determination was based upon the following facts; • An EIR is an assessment of potential changes to the physical environment. Its purpose is not to assess economic or social changes, unless those changes would result in a significant degradation of the physical. environment. • • The project is entitled in the City of Irvine, and is currently under 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 construction. While some changes to the overall density would result from the approval of the General Plan, Zoning and Development Agreement, the overall effect is a reduction in the impacts identified in the EIR. • Newport Beach prepared an addendum with updated information related to public services and schools. The addendum does not identify any new significant environmental impacts. In addition to the report published by the Planning Department last Friday, staff has prepared and distributed to the Planning Commission a supplemental report which provides additional information on population projections, the park dedication requirements for the whole of Planning Area 26, and the need for a traffic signal to serve the apartment project on Mac Arthur Boulevard. Copies are available in the foyer of the council chambers. One of the comments received did point out an ambiguity in the language in the Planned Community Development Plan. In order to insure that there is no confusion regarding the number of dwelling units allowed, staff recommends that page 22, item E be altered to change the word "units" to "areas." This will insure that there is no confusion • regarding the ability to implement 2nd dwelling units, and that granny units, as provided for in state law, can be constructed only through the approval of a use permit as provided for on page 18 of the PCDP. On October 17th, one piece of correspondence was received and inadvertently not distributed to the Planning Commission. It is a letter which has an attached petition with 80 signatures from the Seawind Community which is an area of Harbor View. They are expressing support of the annexation. Ms. Temple then introduced Mr. Burnham to provide additional comments regarding legal issues associated with the development agreement and environmental review. City Attorney Bob Burnham commented on the written comments received by Mr. Arst and others that have highlighted certain issues related to both CEQA and the Development Agreement. One of the issues referenced by Mr. Arst is the failure of the City to assume lead agency status as provided by CEQA guidelines. That is appropriate and relevant when considering prezoning and when there has been no environmental document prepared. The City of Irvine was the appropriate lead agency when this project was first processed, as the project was to be developed totally within their jurisdiction. The provisions relative to lead agency status referred to by Mr. Arst are appropriate within that context, and, the City of Newport Beach, at this point in time, is responsible only for determining if any changes in the project create new significant effects that were not identified in the • previous EIR or increases the severity of those impacts. Staff has 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 determined that neither of those conditions exist. There are a number of contentions made by Mr. Arst relative to the Development Agreement. The key statements made in his letter represent misconceptions about what the Development Agreement is, certain key provisions of the Development Agreement and the consequences of those provisions. Mr. Arst has indicated that the Development Agreement creates some risk on the part of the City to assume the cost of infrastructure construction or maintenance. There is a provision in the Development Agreement that says that we have determined there is no deficiency in our ability to serve the Bonita Canyon area with. public services or public facilities. That is not a provision that incurs any risk on the part of the City. Mr. Arst has also indicated that he believes that the Development Agreement is useless or meaningless because the developer can terminate provisions if it finds that the development is economically infeasible. As members of the Commission know, a Development Agreement provides protection to the land owner against changes in land use regulations adopted by the City. Developers are reluctant to terminate any agreement which provides them protection against changes in land use regulations. • There is also a statement in the correspondence that the Development Agreement creates provisions which require the taxpayers to pay for EIR mitigation measures. That is simply an untrue statement, there is no provision that creates any such obligation. Another statement in Mr. Arst's letter is that the Development Agreement somehow creates a new taxing agency with broad powers to tax everyone in Newport Beach. The Development Agreement does indicate that the City Council will consider requests of the Irvine Company to create a community facilities district and the City Council can not refuse that request unless it has good cause. The community facilities district will allow assessments to be imposed only on Bonita Canyon, although proceeds of those assessments could be used to fund improvements elsewhere in the City. Some of that money can be used to fund improvements in Eastbluff area. Staff thinks the Development Agreement should be amended to clarify what bond counsel and financial interest lawyers already know. That is, the community facilities district provisions of the Development Agreement only allow assessments on Bonita Canyon property. They do not give the ability to tax residents of Newport Beach or other property in Newport Beach. A provision will be added to Section 5.1 that makes it clear that assessments that will be imposed will only be imposed on the Bonita Canyon property. There is also a typographical error that Mr. Arst pointed out and one provision that lacks a date which will be inserted before the matter goes to City Council. 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 Commissioner Ridgeway asked for clarification of the statement regarding the right of termination by the developer. It was inferred that no developer would in fact exercise their right of termination because they have vested rights under the Development Agreement and they relinquish those if they terminate. Do they have the unilateral right to terminate? Mr. Burnham answered that they do not have the unilateral right. They have the right, under certain conditions relative to economic feasibility of the project, to terminate if state or federal laws interfere with their ability to implement the project. Those provisions are typically found in Development Agreements. The reason developers typically do not rely on these provisions as Commission indicated, the development agreement vests their rights to proceed with the development as outlined in the attachments. If the development agreement is terminated by the developer, the City has the right to modify those zoning documents to reduce density, change entitlement, impose other conditions, including restrictions on height or setbacks. Therefore, it is unlikely the developer would exercise the option to terminate the agreement given the fact that there are significant downside risks to do so. • Commissioner Ridgeway asked what impact would termination have on a CFD? Mr. Burnham answered that termination of the Development Agreement would have no impact on the CFD. There are provisions in the agreement that give lenders the right to assume the rights and obligations of the developerunder the financing documents that may be in place at the time. The lenders would have the right to "cure" if there was a default in the performance by the property owner. Mrs. Wood added, regarding termination, the Development Agreement does provide that if the landowner should exercise the right to terminate, that the landowner would still be responsible for mitigation required for any of the development that has occurred up to the point of termination. Additionally, there are provisions for the City and the landowner to meet and confer to reach agreement on these issues. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if the mass grading and model homes are built and they elect to terminate, do they still have the obligation to construct the improvements at MacArthur and Bonita Canyon, MacArthur /Bison, Jamboree /Ford and Jamboree /Bison. Would those obligations still be required? Mr. Burnham answered that he was not sure of the phasing of those improvements, but those mitigations are to be in place before the bulk of • 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 the development proceeds. There is also a provision for modifying the plan approved by the City of Irvine to provide for open space and those documents will by in place early in the process as well. So the developer would have proceeded with much of the mitigation prior to constructing the bulk of the units. CommissionerAdams asked about the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). If the developer proposes any land uses changes other than what is outlined in the Agreement,would they be required to adhere to the TPO? He was answered that once the area is annexed, any change that resulted in an increase of 300 average daily trips or more would require a traffic study under the TPO. Ms. Temple added that the two interim intersection impacts are both on MacArthur Boulevard, and while they show a mitigation measure based on the City of Irvine's traffic model, were we using the City of Newport Beach's traffic model it would not require mitigation because our predicted ICU's are below 0.9, they are actually both below 0.8. Additionally, as a result of looking at our predicted impacts on future conditions along Jamboree, TIC has contributed to the improvement at Jamboree /Bison which has recently been accomplished. The Public • Works Department believes we have sufficient funds to address the long term capacity issues at Jamboree and Ford. An EIR mitigation measure is only applied to the intersection at MacArthur and Bison and involves a restriping improvement to create a third left turn lane in the west bound direction from Bison (no curb widening). At the intersection MacArthur and Ford /Bonita Canyon, the City of Irvine's threshold level to require an improvement is higher, so going from the 1.0 to 1.01 didn't require a mitigation requirement in that City. However, given the fact the City of Newport Beach's modeling shows that intersection with the project would function below .8 ICU, an improvement would not be required. CommissionerSelich asked about the dwelling unit entitlement. Planning Area 26 as approved in the City of Irvine has approximately 2,800 units. Planning Area 26A has 2,095 units. With the Development Agreement, entitlement is reduced to 1,390. Is the difference between 1,390 and 2,095 gone completely? Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Fuller requested clarification of the boundaries of Sub -area 6, as the southerly boundary being Bonita Canyon where the map looks like Ford Road. He then noted a change to the reference of BC Area 6 (Statistical Area M6) in item 6 should read .....Ford Road and BC Area 3 to the south, ...In Sub -area 4, there is 26.8 acre site reserved, 23.4 for school /park site and is the rest for the church? Ms. Temple stated that the open space does include areas between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon. Sub -area 6 goes to Ford Road. There is • 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 an area to the east which the City of Irvine is currently processing a use permit for a day -care facility, and there is a proposal on another portion of Area 4 to have a church constructed which would be northeast of Prairie Road. This particular area within the PC text has alternate uses of a church or day care facility are allowed with a Use Permit. Before opening Public Comment, Chairperson Kranzley stated the ground rules for public testimony: a. Three minutes per speaker. b. We will hear testimony on issues that are under the Commission review this evening, those being planning issues. c. We will not hear testimony on school issues and fiscal issues. d. Try not to have repetitious testimony Following a brief discussion between Commission and the City Attorney regarding not hearing school issues, Mr. Burnham stated that the traffic impact associated with the school issue certainly is appropriate for testimony tonight. The environmental document does consider the proposal's affect or need for new or altered government services on schools. So if limited to traffic impacts relative to schools and the extent to which there may be new or altered government services (fire, police, • etc.) relative to schools, testimony could be heard. The addendum does describe the changes to the project that is being considered in part tonight. One of those is that the project has been modified so that there will be no students going to Anderson School. Carol Hoffman, representing The Irvine Company (TIC), spoke to the Commission about this application. TIC has been involved with this property and the City of Newport Beach for quite some time. At the time that Ford Road was going to be realigned resulting from circumstances related to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, TIC was involved with the homeowners in Harbor View Community in an effort to help them address their concerns about traffic in this area. Working with the association and the Transportation Corridor Agency to get the road realigned in order to move the traffic impact away from the Harbor View Community resulted in a change TIC's ability to plan the land uses in Village 26. By creating the "banana ", it severed a significant piece of property from the entire development area in a way which would ultimately change the land uses and the way it could be incorporated into the full body of the community. Discussions were entered with the City of Irvine because the property has always been in Irvine, with the knowledge that there had to be a careful look at how the community .would be planned. The development process was continued in Irvine fully anticipating that the development would occur in Irvine. Numerous meetings were held with the homeowners associations within the area in an effort to explain the development process in Irvine. During the environmental review stage, the impacts of the development were fully • 18 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 analyzed and traffic studies were conducted based on the City of Newport Beach and Irvine traffic models. Because the EIR examined 26 .A, B and C and that included two school districts covering that property, the EIR analyzed the school impact in three differentways. 1. if the entire project was in Irvine Unified School District 2. if the entire project was in Newport Mesa School District 3. if it remained split between the two districts as was the case at the time the EIR was presented As Irvine made its decision about those approvals, many public hearings were held and attended by citizens from Newport Beach and Irvine. During the time of the analysis, discussions were held between the two school districts as to whether there was any interest in changing the boundaries of those districts. It was told very clearly to TIC and all parties involved that the Irvine Unified School Districtwished to make no changes in the boundary. That left part of 26 B and C in Newport-Mesa that would be part of an extension of Newport Ridge and it meant that the boundaries would remain as they were shown. As a result, TIC proceeded with the development plans, completed a mitigation agreement with the Irvine Unified School District and with grading of the property. While there has been a lot of question about how all this happened and why the time frame is short, it should be noted that TIC is • responding to several public agencies requests that were not convenient, not sought by nor anticipated by TIC given the fact that construction is under way. As a result, it is TIC's goal to respond to the requests of Newport-Mesa School District and Irvine Unified School District to conduct a boundary change. It is consistent with TIC's objective, as master planner and community developers, that it makes the most sense for the land development to have the boundaries between the city and school district be co-terminus. For those technical and public policy reasons, TIC finds itself the applicant for General Plan Amendment. TIC appreciates the fact that the General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement and Zoning Amendment are being considered together. While the zoning provides for a maximum number of units the Development Agreement itself creates some further limits. As a result, the actual build -out, if annexed by the City of Newport Beach would be less than Irvine's approval and less than the maximum indicated in the zoning. She continued pointing out that the Development Agreement provides assurances and protection to TIC and Newport Beach because it makes very clear what TIC's responsibilities are and what the City can expect under the very unusual circumstances of annexing a development that is already under construction. TIC feels that the environmental analysis that was done in the Irvine was a very comprehensive, certified and legally defensible environmental document and that the addendum approach that has been utilized is legally defensible, adequate and appropriate. TIC has paid mitigation fees to the City of Newport Beach to mitigate impacts shown up in those analyses. Regarding the improvements, all of • the improvements required of this project are either complete or have 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 been bonded for, thereby guaranteeing the completion of those improvements. Responding to community concerns and a desire to work cooperatively with adjacent communities, TIC recognizes the issues presented, agrees to a reduction in units, agrees to an increase in active parks and have agreed to provide funding for those parks. TIC is offering to do all the improvements on the "banana" parcel in advance of what might have been the case in other developments. TIC will also improve the 7.4 acre park which will have facilities with adult level activities and providing a balance of community amenities both for the Bonita Canyon development as well as all the citizens of Newport Beach. Continuing to address the school housing of the Bonita Canyon students and to do the "right thing" for the children, TIC respectively requests that the Planning Commission forward this with a positive recommendation to the City Council. Concluding, she stated that a team of TIC staff members who have been working on this project are available for questions and requested the right of response upon the completion of public hearing testimony in the event there were questions that needed clarification for the record. Commissioner Adams asked why a fifty foot maximum height limit was needed and was answered that in the apartment project there is a • variety of building heights in the way the project was designed. There are significant topographic variances on the property, that slopes down considerably towards the north end and apartments are built over some of the parking. Developers in the single family housing, while not building totally to the 50 ft height limit, were keeping the consistent standards that were approved in Irvine. Builders have already designed the homes, and the plans are on file with the City of Irvine. Several of the builders have design features which are in the 40 ft range. Ms. Hoffman continued stating that at City staff's request, TIC will take the plans that are already on file in Irvine and bring them to Newport Beach to be evaluated by the Planning Department for purposes of understanding the difference between the definitions of height limits in Irvine and Newport Beach. Commissioner Adams stated that he is comfortable with the height in the high density apartment component as the topography will mask the height. However, he is not comfortablewith this in the single family area. He asked staff if there were any options. The Commission could consider to address this issue. Ms. Temple answered that this particular issue is being discussed with TIC. Staff will look at the plans to try to identify a lower height limit that would be able to be utilized in conjunction with the City's definition of average roof heights which is not used in the City of Irvine. We can look at these • and perhaps suggest some changes to Council if appropriate. 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 Commissioner Fuller then clarified the issue of parks with Ms. Hoffman to be: A. 7.4 acre park will be fully improved by the developer as part of the development cost • option to light the park if requested by the City • includes adult size ball field, soccer field, basketball courts, parking and restrooms • maintenance of the park will ultimately be by the City • takes public access of Bison • park is located closest to Bison and adjacent to apartment area to the north and down into the canyon area B. 4.8 acre park at the comer of Harbor View and Bonita Canyon • park is west of and adjacent to Buffalo • will remain unfinished • available for improvement if at some point in the future the City has in lieu park fees that can be applied for improvements to this site C. 14.5 acre open space • located between Buffalo and Prairie, Bonita Canyon and Ford • Road • will be purchased by the Mello Roos District • reserved as a school site • improved for recreational uses • improvements to be done by the City of Newport Beach • 2.5 Million Dollars will be used for these improvements • maintenancewill be by City of Newport Beach D. Small private park • located within the portion of the gated community • maintained by the homeowners association Ms. Hoffman, referencing the exhibit on the wall, continued her presentation by showing the locations of all the parks that were being discussed. She indicated that the landscaping along MacArthur will be done at a high level of quality. The commercial site will be similar to Newport North Center. Mr. Ken Coulter, Senior Vice President TIC stated that the landscaping on the Caltrans piece of land on MacArthur on the 50 ft set back will be similar to the landscaping along Bonita. (Referencing the exhibit, he showed the wetlands area and where the landscaping will be placed.) The Caltrans area is approximately 7 acres and has not been used for any type of mitigation. Eric Cahn, resident of Seawind commented that not enough focus is being put on the important issues. Schools and parks are part of the 21 .IIk17� M • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 problems and solutions. The issue should not be whether to annex or not, we need to know the full impact on traffic and finance before a decision is made. Details and answers should be given on the following: a. mitigation measures are suppose to offset the negative impact on transportation facilities- no measures are noted in the exhibit b. waiver of traffic ordinance - full mitigation of traffic according to City of Newport Beach requirements. c. granting exceptions to traffic phasing ordinance without a traffic study or EIR d. amount of additional trips in the general areas in the future - how are we to be impacted e. intersections in the area will be at level of service of E, full capacitywith intolerable delays f. building standards are asked to be waived before residences are built - why not build to Newport's standards Don Harvey, 2039 Port Weybridge, on behalf of SPON, P. O. Box 102, Balboa Island spoke on the following issues: a. disagrees with setting aside the EIR process - we in Newport • Beach would like an opportunity to comment b. disagrees with setting aside the TPO - needs something to look at c. requests that Commission and Council respond to these objections CommissionerSelich stated he received the letter from SPON earlier in the day. After reading it and seeing the comments on the EIR he looked at the comments on the EIR that were submitted to the City of Irvine. He asked Mr. Harvey why SPON did not respond to that. The City of Newport Beach along with all the homeowners associations and various organizations were noticed. Mr. Harvey answered that neither SPON nor he were noticed and requests that it be done. It was ascertained by Commission that all nearby homeowner associations, various organizationswithin the City and the City of Newport Beach were noticed about the EIR circulated by the City of Irvine. Michael Bigi, 2639 Blackthorn spoke on behalf of the Eastbluff Association, opposing this annexation as it now stands. The main concern is the quality of life with regards to the excessive traffic. Residents are not able to leave their driveways at the current traffic levels and with the additional traffic that this annexation will bring, it will have more of an adverse impact. He continued by reading a letter addressed to the Planning Commission from the Eastbluff Homeowners Association that outline the following issues: • 99 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 Eastbluff community already experiences a non - resident pass through traffic problem and will worsen as a result of the annexation due to traffic generated by the newly opened elementary and high schools; the City has not undertaken any study to determine impact to Eastbluff as a result of annexation. b. Proposes that the Development Agreement and Annexation Plan be amended as appropriate to contain provisions for the potential increase in traffic volumes, traffic mitigation measures to be implemented and maintained as required to avoid the use of Eastbluff residential streets as a thoroughfare between new residential areas and schools, churches, etc.; and towards this end, TIC shall agree to contribute up to $100,000 towards the implementation of any traffic mitigation steps required for the Eastbluff community. Jill Money, 1842 Port Barmouth spoke as the President of the Anderson Elementary School PTA. The concerns that had been expressed by the PTA members have been addressed through concessions by TIC. As a result, the PTA Executive Board unanimously voted to support for the annexation of Parcel 26A. They also support the allocation and development of the open space. They do not want to risk the loss of the Mello -Roos monies that would follow the new students to the schools. They do not want to risk losing the open space, nor losing the athletic fields and playgrounds. They do not want the few people who are voicing concern over this issue to ruin the opportunity given to the schools and to the City in this matter. She concluded by stating they do not want to lose parcel 26A to Irvine and asks that the Commission annex the land to Newport Beach. John Dellagrotta, 1939 Port Bishop Place spoke as President of the Newport Beach Little League. He expressed support for this application stating that the opportunity is available to use the active open space that is proposed to allow every child in Newport Beach the opportunityto play. If this development proceeds in the City of Irvine, the Newport Beach Little League will not have access to those fields. This is the right proposal for youth sports for the residents and for all of Newport Beach. He concluded asking for the Planning Commission support. Martha Fluor, 2425 Santiago Drive, spoke as President of the Newport - Mesa Unified School District Board of Education. The Newport Mesa Unified School District unanimously supports this plan for annexation to the City of Newport Beach because it is important to the school district. This project provides substantial benefits to Newport Mesa: 1. operational revenues of up to 2.4 Million Dollars annually 2. modernization fund of up to 5.8 Million Dollars will be provided • with this agreement with TIC for existing schools in the Corona 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 del Mar zone With the re- opening of the Eastbluff school, we will cut down on the number of trips going in and out of that school because currently those students in the Eastbluff community are being transported either by parents or bus to Lincoln School. A number of students will be able to walk to school when their neighborhood school is reopened. Kim Powell, 1936 Port Seabourne Way spoke in support of the application. She stated that initially she was opposed the first proposal for annexation. She expressed her thanks to public officials who addressed the concerns. Concluding, she introduced a signed petition supporting the current annexation which will be presented to the City Council meeting. She asks for approval of this application. Marc Franklin, 1942 Port Albans Place spoke in opposition to this application. He stated that there has been no reduction in density; no school and no shopping facility provided. Mary Ann Scott, 1957 Port Weybridge spoke as Vice President of the Parents Group of Corona del Mar High School in support of this application. There are tremendous benefits to this plan, a 14 acre park and improvements. There is substantial reduction in density and as a result substantial reduction in traffic and substantial increase in open space. Concluding, she stated that fire and police services should be located in logical geographical boundarieswhich would be the toll road. Allen Murray, 2330 Port Lerwick Place expressed the following concerns: • the area reserved for a school site and what the lighting impact will be; • traffic issues; • possible construction of a berm on the Bonita Canyon Road border to act as sound mitigation and it could also serve as a seating area for the sports fields; and • requirements of developers to inform the buyers of potential problem of coyotes and other wildlife. Patrick Digiacomo, President of Harbor View Community Associations Phase I stated that his community is the closest to this project and therefore the community most impacted by this development. Most of the concerns of the members of the association have been addressed by TIC in the form of compromises and believes this application is a major victory for the children, City and community. The Harbor View Board of Directors through a vote unanimously approve the annexation of Bonita Canyon. Mike Waite, 901 Chestnut Place spoke as regional commissioner of the AYSO. There are 1605 children playing soccer in this community east of 24 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 the bay. He spoke in favor of this annexation for the opportunity to have the additional fields and asks Commission to support this endeavor. Carl Collier, 1912 Port Weybridge spoke in support of this application due to the cash infusion into the school system and preservation of 15 acres open space. Michael Morris, 1843 Port Tiffin Circle spoke in opposition to this application stating his concerns of density, not enough public input and debate on this annexation issue. This is a short term fix for schools; 1 100 apartments would not have been approved in Newport Beach, no other single project has its signal along MacArthur, why not a right turn in, right turn out, instead. Phil Arst, 2601 Lighthouse Lane, spoke as chairman of the Community Associations Alliance in opposition to this application for the following reasons: • want a 9 months continuance • 66% increase in commercial buildout shown in the Land Use Element versus 122% increase in the TPO report, how much commercial buildout is needed • a balanced community • cumulative impact of multiple annexations needs to be studied • cumulative impact of massive commercial development needs to be planned and studied • severability clause • why has the City of Newport Beach assumed responsibility and risk for all infrastructure maintenance without testing or warranty • taxing authority in CFD of Joint Powers Authority Mr. Burnham answered about the taxing authority comments that he was going to propose modificationsto both sections that make it clear what is implicit in the CFD and that is that the assessment is to apply to Bonita Canyon. Cindy Dillion, 7 Bodega Bay Drive spoke in support of this application. She stated that this development will occur and can not be stopped for an in depth study that some people would like to see happen. But this is now, TIC is ambivalent whether this goes to Irvine or Newport Beach and, for the reasons that you have heard, fully supports the annexation of Bonita Canyon. As a part of Irvine, we get nothing but the traffic and the density, this will give us control. The following additional people expressed support for the annexation for similar reasons previously expressed: 0 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 Kathryn O'Hara, 1960 Port Albans Place Carol Gaetano, 1824 Port Westbourne Place John Packer, Port Weybridge Dan Hatch, 1936 Port Ashleigh - recommends light be removed from MacArthur. The following people expressed opposition /concernto the annexation: Scott McCarter, 1807 Port Stanhope Circle - • process has been too rushed; • what happens if site does become a school site, what happens to the fields; • 50 feet for a height limit is too excessive in a residential area; • 7.4 acre park is in a Swale, what happens if there is a flood - who repairs; • why not leave the TPO in if the EIR has been amended. George Piggott, 1949 Port Claridge Place • what will the apartment project look like -there are no renderings • why waive TPO if project complies • commercial site is not large enough and has topographical problems • Mary Venturini, 1960 Port Cardigan spoke of her concerns of traffic and water quality issues of man -made pollutants going into the watershed of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Tom Naughton, 1700 Port Margate stated his concern with noise from MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Carol Hoffman,TIC concludedwith the following: • height limit - TIC agrees to a 40 foot height limit on the single family residential area • density on the school site and lack of units - in Irvine it is a proposed school site, but if school district chooses to not build a school, TIC reserves the right to residential density according the zoning regulations • ball fields in the 14 acre area reserved for a school, will remain even if the classrooms are built, as the classroom buildings would use only a portion of the sight • commercial area at Bison and MacArthur- will be fully developed at that site • the Development Agreement (DA) and its reference to the TPO - TIC has mitigated traffic impact on this project to more than Newport Beach standards. The DA does not waive the TPO but finds that TIC has complied with the TPO and is consistent with those required with the TPO. • Public Comment was closed. 26 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 Ms. Temple then answered the questions brought up during public comment and clarified other issues raised by Commission as follows: • why no mitigation measures provided - EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission and has been made available to the Public. A complete list is contained in the EIR Section 8 and are available in the Planning Department. • what does the lack of a TPO or waiver mean to Planning Area 26 B and C - Currently we are only addressing the entitlement issues in the 26A - no waiver is being done to those other areas. • did the EIR analyze no school in 26A - The original zoning entitlement in the EIR assumed residential development in that area and the density was 18 units per acre. • why 66% increase in commercial development contained in the General Plan resolution- That chart is taken directly out of the existing Land Use Element but has been changed to add the 55,000 square feet commercial entitlement within this planning area - this growth is currently anticipated in the existing General Plan which was adopted in 1988. • why not amend the EIR to include a TPO report if other addendum • amendments to the document can be made - This could be done, but staff felt that in reviewing the information there was sufficient information available to provide the Commission with the information in terms of the project's relationship to our existing traffic ordinance analytical procedures. • what is the appearance of the apartment project- Staff has not seen any elevations, there will be full information and we will keep a watch to assure that our concerns are met (application requests are being sent to the City from Irvine). • if the plan does not have a current Traffic study under our own provisions, how can we provide for future mitigation if level service standards change - Once the city reviews a traffic study and approves a project, there is no mechanism for revisiting that project if something else happens that would change the circumstance in the intersection, the City would look to its other tools to implement traffic improvements. • regarding traffic from the parks - The City has not conducted any analysis specifically for that, there is a trail connection beneath the roadway which would facilitate that flow. • regarding impact to bay water quality - The EIR did contain a full hydrology and water quality study and required mitigation measures similar to what the City of Newport Beach requires and additionally the NPDES requirements would also impose additional requirements on any new development. • Eastbluff traffic - There are six specific actions that will be discussed at • the Public Works City Council Committee meeting in November to 27 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 move those considerations forward. • is this development large enough to populate the school site without bringing students in from other places - The addendum EIR tables 4 and 5 give student generation rates and indicates K - 6, 180 students and grades 7 - 12,202 for school attendance. • specific development on the "banana" parcel park site - Decisions about lighting and berming would be handled by Parks and Recreation Departmentof the city and will involve the community. • does a traffic signal on MacArthur between Bonita and Ford hinder traffic flow - This is a reasonable spacing of. the signal and is reasonable due to the physical constraints on site. • what about flood damage to the improved park - Responsibility of repairs would be the City's. • 2,095 units is for the entire area being considered tonight - Density has been achieved through reduction and elimination of acreage from the residentially available areas through the Development Agreement namely the area referred to as the "banana" where the park /school site will be and elimination of units in the freeway reservation east /north parcel. • utilities - Water and sewer will be provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District, however discussions will be ongoing to possibly have the City • of Newport Beach provide these services. Ms. Temple, at commission inquiry, then discussed and clarified the terms, freeway reservation north and freeway reservation south. She also noted that the City of Irvine is soliciting staff comments on applications and will coordinate submittal times. The new height limit proposed by TIC will be established within Sub areas 2, 3 and 4 of the Planned Community. Staff will also attempt to incorporate our types of requirements to assure that we do not have any severely objectionable height issues in the high density areas. Motion was made by Commissioner Adams to recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 97 -2, Amendment 865 and Development Agreement 11 with the following modifications: 1. maximum height be 40 feet in single family residential 2. Development Agreement require the applicant to furnish City of Newport Beach copies of applicationsfor review and comment 3. changes to Section 5.1 and 5.4 that would clarify the fact that assessments imposed through the CFD would only be imposed to Bonita Canyon property and adding the date June 30, 1998 in Section 3.7 4. correction to the area description in the General Plan Resolution - 8ealte Genyra ford Road in item 6. BC Area 6 5. word change on page 22 of the Planned Community Development Plan in "e ", ..baits to area.' • 28 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 Commissioner Fuller stated that he had concerns with this application and has observed the pluses and minuses: the TPO and the EIR and the fact that we are moving so fast, the water and sewer service, landscaping, 1,100 apartments, the 50 foot height limit although now it is 10 ft. less of a concern, the apartment access to Bonita as well as the signal on MacArthur. He also noted that, 1,390 is less than 2,095, so there are advantages in density reduction, open space is certainly favorable with the freeway reservation /north which means that 34 home$ won't be built and less cars driven. I was never happy with the transferability of dwelling units that was in the prior proposal which is now eliminated. I am also appreciative of the ten year reservation of the school site if we need it, that banana area I was concerned about if developed as residential would be a lot of cars off of Ford Road. The additional ball fields will be used by soccer and baseball according to the testimony tonight. There was reference originally to this project as the Harbor View North Project which caused problems in the Port Streets but that is now eliminated and I applaud that. We have the school capacity and when you look at this field and the topography and geography, to me, this makes sense that it be in Newport Beach, so, I am going to support the motion. Commissioner Selich stated that the reality is, the project is approved and • it is going to be there. If you look at the geographic constraints with UCI and the corridor that separates it from the City of Irvine, the reality is, it should have always been a part of Newport Beach and should have been planned as a part of Newport Beach. After it is developed, all the impacts will come to the City of Newport Beach. There are a lot of unanswered questions that have come before us tonight, things we normally get the answers to and analyze, but when you look at the deal on the table, add the pluses and minuses together, what we are getting is more than enough benefits that we should go ahead and support and move ahead with it. Commissioner Ashley, supporting the motion, commented that there are unique planning issues involved on this site and the way the development is being approved through a Planned Community District Development is the appropriate way to handle this complex piece of property. The different land uses are rationally allocated. The San Joaquin Hills Corridor is a sensible and natural feature for demarcating the municipal boundary between Irvine and Newport Beach. The amount of open space that is incorporated in this plan is very generous and therefore very useful to this community just as so many people have testified tonight. The overall density and intensity of use does not overload the municipal systems acceptable level of tolerance. Chairperson Kranzley added that he appreciates the work that was done in the community and is supportive of the motion. 0 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 With one absence, acclamation. SUBJECT: carried by Hard Rock Cafe (Ryan MacAfee, applicant) 451 Newport Center Drive • Use Permit No. 3615 Request a change in the operational characteristics of an existing full service restaurant to allow: • the facility to provide live entertainment • the cessation of regular meal service prior to the closing of the restaurant and operation of the facility as a bar /nightclub with alcoholic beverage service as the principal purpose from that time until closing At applicant's request, this item is continued to November 61h. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to November 6th. • With one absence, the motion carried by acclamation. SUBJECT: Houston's Restaurant (Joseph Coriaty,) 850 Avocado Avenue (a portion of the Corona del Mar Plaza Complex) • Use Permit No. 3616 A request to approve a use permit to allow the construction of an 8,630 square foot, single -story full- service outdoor restaurant with bar, patio dining and related off - street parking in Corona del Mar Plaza. The operational characteristics of the proposed facility included in the use permit are as follows: • provision of alcoholic beverage service; • limited live entertainment (a piano with occasional vocalist) in the bar; a request to waive restaurant development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; the approval of outdoor dining in excess of that allowed by the City's accessory outdoor dining provisions. At applicant's request, this item is continued to November 20, 1997. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to • 30 Item No. 3 UP No. 3615 Continued to 11/06/97 Item No. 4 UP No. 3616 Continued to 11/20/97 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 November 20th. With one absence, the motion carried by acclamation. SUBJECT: J. B. Collins (on behalf of J. B. Collins /807 Lido Partners LLC) 1812 East Balboa Boulevard « Resubdivision No. 1029 Planning Commission consideration of an appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee which approved a request to resubdivide two adjoining parcels of land into 4 parcels for single - family detached residential developmentwith an exception to the minimum lot width and area requirements. Applicant has requested that this item be continued. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to • November 20th. With one absence, the motion carried by acclamation. SUBJECT: Bay Island (Bay Island Club, applicant) • Use Permit 3618 A planned residential development use permit to establish land use and property development regulations for the Bay Island community. Ms. Temple noted that there were additional requirements as noted in the resolution of adoption relating to fire and water service. The applicant's representative Mr. Ficker and Fire Marshall Dennis Locker have been working to refine the provisions that are contained in Section 1.5.8 Public Safety Improvements within the resolution as follows: 1. Require that all new structures permitted for construction on Bay Island must be fully automatic fire sprinklered in conformance with the requirements specified by the Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department. 2. Require that all existing structures must be retrofitted with automatic fire sprinklers in conformance with the requirements specified by the Newport Beach Fire and Marine department when the valuation of any permit for construction or alteration exceeds $50,000 in a one - 31 INDEX Item No. 5 Resub No. 1029 Continued to 11/20/97 Item No. 6 Use Permit No. 3618 Recommended for approval City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 year period. 3. Fire sprinkler system for each residential dwelling shall be installed on the dwelling units domestic water line. It shall be installed ahead of the pressure regulator so that fire sprinkler system will be pressurized when the six -inch fire main is pressurized. 4. Require that the applicant provide the City with a hold harmless letter indemnifying the City from damage due to contamination should the Fire and Marine department use the current system. It is known that Bay Island is a unique and unusual development within Newport Beach with no vehicular access and is one of the oldest habitated areas. It has an older infrastructure and is quite difficult to serve from a fire service standpoint. At Commission inquiry about the floor area ratio, Ms. Temple stated that the existing PRD was designed to reflect the more contemporary development on the island. The PRD document establishes a mapping of building sites without actually subdividing the island into lots. The floor area ratio is a recognition that these are essentially footprints with a modest amount of allocated front and rear yard patio space and are not conventional lots. They do not take into account the great amount • of common open space on the island that is useful for all of the residents, so in this case a higher floor area ratio was considered warranted and reflective of the existing development. Commissioner Fuller asked for clarification that there are twenty -five buildable sites counting the caretaker site, what would happen if one of the houses that takes up two lots is demolished in the future, we require that two parking spaces be provided for each lot. Where would the additional parking spaces be if the parking structure only contains 48 cars? Public Comment was opened. Mr. Bill Ficker, 1127 Granville, consulting architect and planner for the Bay Island stated that they have been working with staff for a year to integrate Bay Island with the new zoning of Newport Beach. The decision was made that it should be a Planned Residential Development (PRD). It is a unique piece of land with unique ownership. He has read the report and it reflects accurately what we were trying to achieve with the zoning for Bay Island. It reflects consistency of use that is existing. Answering the parking question posed, that may well be a restriction in the future if Bay Island can not find a place for two other parking places they may not be able to develop that lot or they may have to do away with the caretaker's unit. (Referencing the exhibit on the wall, he referred to two lots that are open space and not building sites). They concur and agree with the items brought up and urges the 32 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1997 Commission to recommend approval of this PRD. Public Comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend to the City Council approval of Use Permit 3618 with the modifications suggested. With one absence, the motion carried by acclamation. ••• ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - none b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding the approval of Outdoor Dining Permits, Planning Director's Use Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permits - An Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit was issued for 2100 West Ocean Front; a Lot Line Adjustment was approved for 3141 -3147 East Coast • Highway; Modifications were issued and a Resubdivision was approved for 3016 Breakers Drive. b -1.) Temporary Use: Gelson's Market, located at 1660 San Miguel Drive (comer of Pacific View Drive and San Miguel Drive, behind the market): • Discussion of a Temporary Use Permit to allow the placement of a 320 sq.ft. storage trailer and a 200 sq.ft. office trailer for a period of 90 days. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none 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 - none f.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Ashley is excused from November 6th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 p.m. THOMAS ASHLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 33 Additional Business INDEX