HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/2004Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
December 9, 2004
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Hawkins - Commissioner Cole arrived at 4:06 and Commissioner
Selich arrived at 4:20; all others were present.
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager
Robin Clauson, Acting City Attorney
Richard Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
Marina Marrelli, Assistant Planner
Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on December 3, 2004.
STUDY SESSION
ITEM NO.1
4:00 P. M.
PA2004 -153
SUBJECT: Newport Lexus (PA2004 -153)
Discussion Item
3901, 3931, 3961 MacArthur Boulevard, 848, 888
Dove Street
Preliminary review of conceptual building plans for a proposed
Newport Lexus automobile dealership.
Ms. Wood noted that a contract project planner had been hired by the
City; he is David Lepo from the firm of Hogle Ireland Associates.
David Lepo noted that the applicant will be doing the presentation and
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
that they want to hear the comments from the Planning Commission
on the building designs in order to prepare for tentative April public
meetings.
Casey Griffin, representing the Wilson Automotive Group and project
manager, noted the following:
. Brochure distributed to the Planning Commission on the car
designs.
. Described the intent and ideals for the proposed project.
. General site overview at Jamboree and MacArthur.
. Site is approximately 8 acres comprised of a 3 acre parcel
occupied by Avis and a 5 acre parcel occupied by Platt
College.
. He then noted a storm drain that crosses the properties.
Mr. Jeff Carlisle, Principal with the Architectural Firm of Carlisle,
Coatsworth Architects, speaking for the applicant, noted the following
while making a PowerPoint presentation:
. The showroom building and the service building locations on
site.
. The easement running through the property.
. The entry drives /accesses onto the site from MacArthur and
Dove Streets, frontages and on -site circulation with customer
parking /stacking as well as new car parking.
. The fire truck diameter turning radii allowing full access on site.
. The buildings will present four frontages.
. A low wall that encroaches into the landscape area will
accommodate new car displays.
. 251 square feet additional landscape is being provided on site,
more than what is required with the 30 foot setback.
. Elevations of the parking structure from Jamboree Road; one
story element of wall in front of the structure housing the ramp
allowing access to the second floor.
. The buildings of different heights and masses are being
Page 2 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 3 of 56
balanced by low walls. Within the buildings will be elevators for
the parking structure, and display car areas that will be seen
from the streets on the corner.
. The off -set of the buildings is up to 29 feet.
There will be a fireplace in the customer lounge that is at the
end of the showroom and fronts the major corner of MacArthur
Boulevard and Jamboree Street. There is another interior
fireplace located in the entryway in the new purchase lounge
area.
. He then noted the canopy across the service drive that spans
from one side to the other with no columns due to the
easement.
. The top of one of the building elements is 80 feet tall, with
others being 56 feet, 74 feet and 49.
. He then noted the outlines of the various buildings, exit stair
tower, elevator tower, display areas and stone walls at the front
as seen from all frontages.
. The first floor of the showroom building has 30,000 feet and the
second floor has 7,000 feet.
. The roof elements are 360 degrees around the site.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood noted that the Planned Community
Development Plan Amendment does not allow for architectural review
by the Planning Commission; however, the Planned Community Text
will deal with the allowed signage.
Chairperson Tucker asked about the materials on the parking
structure, the visibility of signs /logos, the stacking for the service
entry/stacking comparisons and the elevation differential between
Jamboree and where the flat pad will be for the service building.
Mr. Carlisle noted it will be a poured in place concrete structure. On
the Dove Street side, it will be painted concrete. At certain points
from the highway, the logo will be visible. The Bristol Street side is
higher and the signage will be more visible. The applicant did not
provide a materials /colors board. The stacking for this dealership is
three times that of Fletcher Jones. It is proposed to be three lanes in
and two lanes out with a free lane in between that is expected to be
open. At anytime there is a crunch, only one lane is needed for
egress and so one of those can be used for stacking purpose.
Referring to the presentation, he noted the difference between the
point at the freeway to the next door property line.
file : //F: \USers\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6126/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Commissioner Toerge inquired:
. Is there a proposed exit on MacArthur, or is it entrance only?
. He would like to see a sectional drawing from the center line of
Jamboree through the tower and the five -level parking structure
as well as maybe a diagonal through the intersection.
. On one of the site plans there is a proposed sign on a retaining
wall at the corner. He questioned the elevation that appeared
out of balance to him.
. He then asked for a discussion on the decision to encroach into
the setback on the s/westerly corner of the showroom.
. Referring to the site plan, he noted it would be helpful to lay out
the current setback from Jamboree and MacArthur in order to
facilitate seeing where the parking encroaches into the setback
area and how it balances out.
. He then asked about the driveway to the wash racks and the
driveway approach.
Mr. Carlisle answered:
. It will be right turn only due to the median. Traffic is proposing a
right in and right out only.
. The drawings will be furnished as requested.
. There is about a 7 to 8 feet separation from the pad to the
sidewalk. Referring to the presentation view, he explained the
views.
. Referring to the presentation, he noted the need for certain
functions on the floor plan at certain points. The access point
determined the location of the front door and created some
unusual cross patterns. The site is definitely three sided and
almost four sided. There are acute angles within the parking
area, which makes it difficult to maneuver on site and we
thought it was important as you come in off MacArthur to see
the entry drive. We need the length for the fire department turn
around as well as the turn around for vehicles, therefore, that
building can not get closer than what we propose. The
encroachment is twelve to fourteen feet into the landscaped
area. He then discussed the proposed heights of the buildings.
He discussed the outer treatments and elements of the
buildings and how they meld together and where they face.
Page 4 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
He then noted the setback lines depicted in the presentation
and where the encroachments are proposed to be.
. He discussed the entry driveways, approaches to the site and
accesses.
Discussion ensued regarding one story and two story elements; depth
of the coverage between Dove and Jamboree; draft EIR based on
larger plan than what has been proposed; square footages of ground
floor and upper floor; various architectural features; landscape
elements; inventory requirements; placement of display vehicles;
weaving lanes from Bowsprit Drive; massing and potential widening
of Jamboree Road and a proposed encroachment into the Jamboree
Road landscaped setback.
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Land Use Alternatives
Review land use alternatives for further study in the General Plan
update.
Chairperson Tucker asked if land uses needed to be in a specific
location shown or if they could be moved to another location in the
planning area? What if you move something from a planning area
into a different traffic analysis zones (TAZ)? How will that affect the
technical analysis?
Mrs. Wood answered that we have that flexibility and is a later round
of refinement for the Land Use Plan because at this point, all that is
being done with the land use alternatives is running them through the
traffic model and fiscal impact model and through environmental
analysis so that we can see what the impacts will be so that
adjustments can be made later. The kind of changes you are
referring to are minor within an area. In the overall scheme, it should
be fine.
Continuing, Chairperson Tucker asked about:
. Possibility of density transfers and accumulation of lands.
Mrs. Wood answered that there are provisions for using land use
entitlements that are not specifically not on your parcel of land but is
within the statistical area and that requires the approval of the
Planning Commission. It is used judiciously and in small amounts
because there is no transfer of development rights program where
one property owner would buy the development rights from someone
else. We haven't gotten that far on policies for this General Plan
update, but that is certainly something that we can consider and
discuss.
Page 5 of 56
ITEM NO.2
Discussion Item
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Comnlission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Ms. Temple added that the current General Plan does allow transfers
of development rights within certain parameters as set forth in the
Zone Code. However, it is entirely governed by private interest
dealing with private interest directly. There is not a formalized
program that has City management of or involvement in.
Chairperson Tucker commented that a transfer program might be
necessary to encourage consolidation of smaller inefficient lots.
Continuing, he noted that looking at the different potential increases
they are fairly substantial over the entire City if you added everything
in. Is there any thought to set some type of targets in terms of overall
increases?
Mrs. Wood answered no. When we see the model runs of these
alternatives, if it really is shocking, then we might want to consider a
policy or choose to address it area by area. It is too early to know
what kinds of impacts we are dealing with which is why we want to
get going on analyzing these alternatives.
Commissioner Selich asked what is going to happen to these
alternatives? The traffic runs will be done on these models, will it
come back to us to take another look? There are a lot of good ideas
here, but the impact on the City's circulation system is probably what
is going to make the determination. How long will this be?
Mrs. Wood answered yes. It will take a couple of months for the
model runs and then that is taken to the General Plan Advisory
Committee before it comes back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Eaton expressed his concern with the airport business
area alternatives. and reiterated concerns he had raised at the
previous meeting.
Mr. Woodie Tescher gave an overview of twelve special study areas
to review alternatives and buildout analyses; confirm adequacy of the
range of alternatives and the major. or "big picture" changes. They
included:
Airport Business Park - infill and re -use with office /retail and
industrial; infill and re -use with office /retail and industrial and
housing.
Balboa Village - re -use small commercial properties; emphasis
of water - related uses; re -use commercial for mixed use; re-use
commercial for mixed use and lodging; and, re -use commercial
for housing.
Banning Ranch - maintain as open space with limited parklands;
residential neighborhood (TWO); reduced residential
Page 6 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
neighborhood; and resort with supporting uses.
. Cannery Village East - re -use commercial and industrial for
mixed use; and, re -use commercial and industrial for housing.
• Cannery Village West - re -use commercial for mixed use.
• Corona del Mar - infill for mixed use; and, mixed use and
expand parking.
• Fashion Island /Newport Center - in -fill /expansion and housing;
and, long range plan (draft).
• Lido Village (Northeast/Bay front) - mixed use and lodging infill;
retail and lodging infill; and, mixed use.
• Lido Village (South of Via Lido) - retail and housing infill; and,
retail and mixed use infill.
. Lido Village (Civic Center) - reuse for mixed use; and, re -use
for retail and office.
. Mariners Mile - infill for mixed use and retail; infill for mixed use
and retail /realign highway; and, prioritize marine - related uses.
. McFadden Square (Pier area) - lodging incentives.
. McFadden Square (Harbor area) - re -use for mixed use and
lodging incentive.
. Old Newport Boulevard - infill for medical office, retail and mixed
use; re-use for mixed use and housing; and, re -use for mixed
use and affordable housing.
. West Coast Highway (Western Parcels) - re -use for multi - family
housing; re-use for special needs housing; re -use for park/open
space; and, re -use for parking lot.
. West Coast Highway (Corridor) - re -use for mixed use; re -use
for affordable housing and lodging; and, infill retail with lot
consolidation.
. West Newport industrial excluding Technology Park - infill for
medical office, retail and housing.
. West Newport Technology Park - re -use for medical office; and
re -use for research & development and housing.
Page 7 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 8 of 56
Commissioner Selich asked if any location criteria had been
developed?
Ms. Temple answered that there are specific sub -areas W and T.
(referring to the airport business area exhibit on the wall). The area T
was considered because there was a large base of land used
exclusively to surface parking, which might provide an opportunity to
add residential in association with structured parking for the standing
commercial. In area W it is a lower intensity, small scale office
development. Given its location and what is going on nearby in the
City of Irvine, that it might provide an opportunity for coordinated
effort between the multitude of property owners if there was a strong
residential incentive there.
Commissioner Selich noted that there would be a practical problem
with converting area W to residential use due to the foot print lots
built offices and ownerships.
Ms. Temple noted that the urban density selected is 80 units per acre
in recognition of the multitude of ownerships in that area, perhaps to
provide an incentive.
Ms. Wood noted that there is money in the budget for four runs of the
two models. We are going to be using two for this first round and
another will be held in reserve for the adjusted land use alternative
and then one more for the preferred land use plan.
Mr. Tescher noted that if you take all the options in some areas, there
are hundreds of permutations of land use options. What we have
selected to do for the two model, traffic and fiscal, is take the
cumulative worse case and the cumulative least impacting case.
Discussion continued on the importance of the airport area; moving
uses around; and impacts on circulation patterns, as well as an
overview of the balance of the geographic areas and options.
The following questions /concerns came up and were discussed:
. Allocating bed counts between bed /breakfast rooms within the
commercial areas and hotel rooms;
• Open space with remediation on Banning ranch;
• Marine uses along the harbor;
• Consistency with the Vision 2004 approach and the challenge
parking with a mixed use development in Corona del Mar;
• Significant traffic capacity changes;
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004\1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
• City -wide traffic models on variations of mix uses;
• Viability of the existing General Plan;
• Possible elimination of alternative land use with lodging in the
Lido Village;
• Possible elimination of alternative to realign highway for
Mariner's Mile area;
. Affordable housing land use sites;
. Definition of "mixed use" either for the entire General Plan or
individual definitions for each area;
. Third alternative with additional housing shown on the
alternates.
Following the presentation and discussion it was recommended that
for Fashion Island Newport Center to add a third alternative which
would have the additional housing shown in one of the alternates but
would not have the additional office; and, to delete from Mariners Mile
the alternative that involves realigning Coast Highway.
The meeting continued following a twenty minute adjournment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 18,
2004.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as
written.
Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes: Hawkins
Absent: None
Abstain: None
None
HEARING ITEMS
Page 9 of 56
ITEM NO.3
Approved
SUBJECT: Pacific Coast Yacht Club and Charter Services ITEM NO.4
(Norman Goodin) (PA2004 -216) PA2004 -216
2527 West Coast Highway
Approved
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
A request for the approval of an Off -site Parking Agreement to satisfy
the off - street parking requirements for a charter boat service utilizing
two off -site properties located at 2530 and 2436 W. Coast Highway.
The applicant also requests an approval of a Modification Permit to
allow tandem parking at the subject property.
Ms. Ung noted the following minor changes to the draft resolution:
Condition #4 - Add: The yacht club and charter boat business
shall operate in accordance with the Business Operations Plan.
Condition #6 - Prior to operation of the charter boat service, the
applicant shall obtain all required permits for the charter boat
business as required by the City Municipal Code at all times.
Condition #8 - Clarify that there will be 25 parking spaces available on
site, not 26.
Staff has received a copy of the revised lease agreement between
the applicant and property owner at 2436 Coast Highway that
includes weekend hours of use.
Public comment was opened.
Dixon Schaefer, owner of property at 2530 West Coast Highway
noted that he does not want to have the property re- subdivided as it
was in 1976 when a similar request was made as well as the
dedication of 12 feet. He asked if there were conditions regarding
parking.
Ms. Ung answered that this application is for the consideration of an
off -site parking arrangement for the applicant and has nothing to do
with street improvements or additional property dedication or any
future improvements.
Bill Hodge, representing the applicant asked for approval of this item.
At Commission inquiry, he noted his client has read the staff report
and agrees to the findings and revised conditions.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the Off -site
Parking Agreement No. 2004 -002 and Modification Permit No. 2004-
067 subject to the findings and revised conditions for the Pacific
Coast Yacht Club and Charter Service (PA2004 -216)
Ayes: ( Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes: Hawkins
Page 10 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Absent: None
Abstain: None
None
SUBJECT: Sage Hill Cellular Antenna Site (PA2004 -230)
20662 Newport Coast Drive
Request to allow the installation of three telecommunication antennae
and a microwave dish on an existing smokestack, three 20 -foot high
telecommunication antennae poles and a 240 square foot equipment
shelter with two geographic positioning system antennae. The
subject property is located in the Open Space- Passive (OPS) zoning
district where the proposed use is not permitted. Since the property
has existing telecommunications facilities on site, the applicant seeks
to expand the nonconforming use pursuant to Section 20.62.050 of
the Zoning Code.
Commissioner Eaton asked about requiring painting or structural
integration with the facility.
Ms. Marrelli answered that is already addressed in condition 4.
Public comment was opened.
Daniel Brandenberg of Tetratech Communications representing
Nextel appeared.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit
No. 2004 -039 (PA2004 -230) subject to findings and conditions.
Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes: Hawkins
Absent: None
Abstain: None
None
SUBJECT: Biosensors International (PA2004 -238)
20280 Acacia Street, Suite 100
Use Permit to allow a 4,077 square foot research and development
(R & D) operation that includes a clean room, three office /lab rooms,
a wet lab and additional office space within an existing office building
in the Business Park District (BP) of the Santa Ana Heights Specific
Plan District (SP -7). Notwithstanding this request, staff is
Page 11 of 56
ITEM NO.5
PA2004 -230
Approved
ITEM NO.6
PA2004 -238
Approved
file : //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlPlanning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\200411209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
recommending that the use permit authorize up to a maximum of
5,000 square feet of the building to accommodate R & D use,
medical /dental office or retail uses subject to the review and approval
by the Planning Director without the necessity for separate use permit
applications.
Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner, noted the memo he had sent
earlier in the week with attached letters. The first letter was from the
applicant outlining the original request for a 4,077 square foot
research and development facility. Staffs recommendation was to
allow a total of 5,000 total square feet to accommodate a mix of uses
including 4,077 square foot research and development. The second
letter was from the Santa Ana Heights Project Advisory Committee in
response to the project, and although they agreed to staffs
recommendation of mix of uses, they had issue with two uses that
could be permitted under staffs proposed recommendation; retail and
service uses. Due to their issues with the project staff had proposed,
staff is now recommending that the Commission just approve the
applicant's initial request for the 4,077 square foot research and
development facility. Medical office will not be part of this either.
Chairperson Tucker affirmed that staffs recommendation is we
consider what the applicant originally asked for.
Commissioner Eaton asked if that changes condition 12 on Exhibit A?
Ms. Temple answered that condition 12 should be changed to say
that the maximum of 4,077 square feet for the research and
development should be permitted. The resolution will be changed to
conform to the change.
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Toshi Kramus, owner of 20280 Acacia Street appeared on behalf
of Biosensors. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he has read the
staff report and understands and accepts the revised condition as
well.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit
No. 2004 -041 (PA2004 -238) subject to the findings and revised
conditions.
Page 12 of 56
Ayes..
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes:
Hawkins
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
None
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265)
600 St. Andrews Road
Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use
Permit for the replacement and construction of additional buildings
and a below grade parking garage. The General Plan Amendment
involves an increase 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 and R -2 to GEIF to be
consistent with the existing General Plan, Land Use Element
designation. The Use Permit involves the alteration of 3existing
buildings, replacement of the existing fellowship hall and classroom
building and the construction of a new multi - purpose gymnasium and
youth center.
Chairperson Tucker noted this is the fifth hearing on this matter and
then proceeded to outline how he intended to conduct the hearing.
Mr. Campbell noted:
. Revisions to conditions of approval; set of revisions issued
yesterday and then a subsequent one today around 2 o'clock
that was distributed to all interested parties.
A resolution reflecting a consensus approval subject to these
conditions.
Chairperson Tucker asked if any of the Commissioners had any
questions on the added language that had been presented? He then
asked staff to go through the parking condition that is inconsistent
with the guidance given to staff at the last meeting that had been a
number of 2.5 people per car as the occupancy level.
Mr. Campbell answered that ratio had been discussed and staff had
been asked to review it for this report. Looking at the different uses
occurring at the site and at the use classification definition that
relates to that parking ratio, staff felt that uses fit within the use
classification definition, which is for religious assembly. Staff did not
feel it would be appropriate to identify different parking ratio for the
use. We used a three persons per vehicle ratio and the occupancy
conditions reflect that.
Commissioner Hawkins asked the ratio 3 to 1, is that a Code
requirement?
Mr. Campbell answered yes, it is one space for every three seats.
Continuing, Commissioner Hawkins affirmed that condition 2 restates
the Code requirement.
Mr. Campbell explained the condition adding that examples had been
Page 13 of 56
ITEM NO.7
PA2002 -265
Recommended
for Approval
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Conllnission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
offered for the numbers of people in attendance for evening activities
on different days of the week. He noted that condition 20 relates t(
the off -site parking arrangement of 280 spaces on site and no more
than 290 spaces on site. The maximum addresses the concern of,
large parking structure on site. Additionally, there are 315 parkin(
spaces available pursuant to an off -site parking agreement with the
Newport Mesa School District. Staff is proposing to insert that a:
condition 3 in the reorganizing of the final conditions.
Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of condition 2, it provide:
a general and a speck. The general is a statement of Code
requirements. My concern is it almost sets up a potential conflict i
the applicant decides to build a parking structure that has more
spaces than the general guidance in 2 would allow a large
occupancy. I think 2a and 2b provide the specifics for that so I am no
sure what we get out of the general statement in condition 2. M.
concern is a potential for a conflict.
Chairperson Tucker answered that the general language would no
be necessary but for the fact we have this off -site agreement when
we don't know what the agreement is going to look like and there
might be a variety of limitation times that the District imposes. So, i
reiterates what the Code says and then has the example to raise the
issue that the number is going to be a fluid number at given points h
time of the day. What it is pointing out is it really is a function of hov
many spaces are available out there as to how the occupancy is
regulated on a general basis. Condition 2 provides the maximum tha
is driven by parking spaces. In addition to that, in order to address
the neighborhood comparability issues that exist, the Church ha:
agreed to further limitations that don't have anything to do wits
parking spaces. You can't have more occupancy than what the
parking will support. The Church has agreed in order to address a
least that even though they have enough parking spaces to support,,
greater occupancy at given times and given days, they are going tc
have less occupancy voluntarily. Condition 20 specifies how maw
parking spaces can be on site and that is driven by after design ane
construction on the school site, that the Church may build in a sligh
fudge factor to cover those spaces.
Ms. Wood added that condition 2 states that we are going to use the
code standard of 1 to 3 but the occupancy will be limited to the actua
number of spaces that have been provided, so that you can no
occupy all the space at one time.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the Commission straw voted the
parking ratios last time and then we asked staff at the end of the dal
to bring back their thoughts on it. Now, I want to confirm that the
Commission is okay with the revisions that were made as to how wt
are handling this parking and occupancy situation.
Commissioner Eaton noted two issues, limit on number of holidays it
condition 2; and, condition 20 regarding timing of building permit.
Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any questions of staff on the
Page 14 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
conditions?
Commissioner Hawkins noted the draft conditions 14 and 15
regarding mitigation measures have been deleted as the thought was
these are findings; I don't see those findings reflected in the
resolution. I don't see that the conditions are hurt by including what
may be goals of operation, and so I would encourage us to re -think
and put back in condition 14 and 15 as originally proposed at the
November hearing.
Chairperson Tucker noted he was the one who suggested that they
are findings. One of them has language, "..and shall not be
detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the
surroundings and of the City...." I am not sure exactly how you
comply with that condition, to me it really is a finding. What we have
included as a condition should make sure that finding is actually
capable of being implemented. We will come back and consider this.
Chairperson Tucker asked for Church representatives to comment on
the specific language of the conditions.
Speakers for the Church are Mr. Gary McKitterick, Mr. Smith and Mr.
Ken Williams.
Mr. Gary McKitterick, representing the Church, noted the following on
the lists of conditions:
Condition 2 - The Church supports this condition with edits:
strike the parenthetical in paragraph a, which says, "one of
which will be Sunday" for the following reason. We will identify,
in advance, those days where we will allocate the day. Sunday,
for example, during the holidays may be a night that may have a
little more occupancy. We ask for the flexibility to identify, in
advance to the Commission as it is done here, which nights
would have the various intensity of occupancy. Second
Regarding notification, we will be filing a quarterly report per the
new conditions and we would like to make that identification in a
quarterly report. In most instances it will be a confirmation of
what we are doing. So, the wording will be on a 'quarterly
basis.' The wording I will leave to staff, the advance notice is
okay, quarterly is okay. Third Holidays, they are events. There
are the traditional holidays; Christmas day and Christmas Eve,
Thanksgiving Day, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday and
Easter. We are requesting an item that the Church does as an
Adventure in Faith. He went on to describe the upcoming event
that will be a three -night stretch coming up in January. We are
trying to be cognizant and have the ability to have special
events that are periodic. Additionally, there is a singing group
that may come through and we would like the flexibility, as we
have done in the past, to accommodate them and designate
one of our days.
Chairperson Tucker noted that this item was to cover special days of
worship. What you are talking about are events. I think you have to
Page 15 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Sbared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
stick within the envelope that you have in terms of your maximum
concurrent occupancy. Special days of worship that we identify is
where the number 8 came from.
Mr. Ken Williams answered that 8 is okay for the number of holidays
and special days of worship per year.
Chairperson Tucker noted we are down to two changes on Condition
2 - you don't want Sunday night be the designated night; and the
quarterly issue. We are trying to make sure that the public has
advance notice of what nights in the week because if it is constantly
shifting no one will know if you are complying.
Mr. McKitterick answered that as a practical matter, it will stay steady.
He anticipates those quarterly reports to be no change. However, we
are setting forth a CUP forever, and so flexibility in the time frame is
important. The advance notice, I understand.
Chairperson Tucker affirmed that vindicates what we are trying to do
and that is to have advance notice. So, deletion of Sunday, and then
we will convert it to some type of quarterly basis where we have at
least 30 days notice is what is on the table. He then asked who would
speak representing the neighbors.
Mr. Don Krotee, President of the Newport Heights
Association speaking for the neighbors noted:
. For condition 2 he agrees with the issues that have been
presented by Mr. McKitterick.
Mr. McKitterick: Condition 3 - the issue of Memorial Services we
suggest a change. Insert, 'weekday memorial services over 250
people, shall not be scheduled before 1 p.m. We have site
occupancy issues that we are dealing with and this can be
accommodated within our chapel. We are requesting this insert.
Mr. Krotee answered that he does not have a problem with this
additional language.
Commissioner Eaton noted that the combination of 2c and 3 have left
a gap. 2c totally exempts memorial services from any of the capacity
limits and three merely says during high school that they have to start
at 1 p.m. Isn't there a gap on where there should be a cap?
Mr. McKitterick noted regarding attempting to accommodate an
unscientific projection on how many people will attend a funeral
service in honor of someone, we are using our best efforts to identify
those that where the Church believes will have more impact and
schedule those so that more parking is available. More than 50% of
the services are below that, and obviously you can not anticipate how
many people will attend.
Chairperson Tucker noted that there is nothing that exists today that
Page 16 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
limits this at all. What we are saying is that we are imposing these
restrictions, but when it comes to the memorial services, it stays the
way the rules work today, which is there are no rules.
Mr. Ken Williams noted that if there is a memorial service on the
weekday with a high attendance, we will discontinue use of the
parking lot for the preschool that day and, if necessary, we will put the
sign out to the high school that this day no parking is allowed. These
are done to accommodate the normal memorial services.
Discussion followed on the size and timing of memorial services.
Mr. McKitterick added that the item of 1 o'clock in the afternoon was
discussed before in trying to accommodate an afternoon that it is less
intense during a period of time. What we are saying is that we will
absolutely comply with the notice requirement; and will notice as a
matter of practice, we understand this is important. It is incumbent
upon us to identify those that are larger and have them start later.
Straw vote on condition 3:
Commissioner Selich is okay with the way the condition was written
by staff with the 250 limitation.
Commissioner McDaniel yes.
Commissioner Cole yes.
Chairperson Tucker yes.
Ms. Wood noted that it might be clearer if the language in condition 3
was added to condition 2c, so that it would read, "The occupancy
restrictions shall not apply to memorial services provided that
weekday memorial services over 250 people shall not be scheduled
before 1 p. m...... ".
The neighbors' spokesperson, Mr. Bruce Stewart, agreed.
Mr. Gary McKitterick noted 2b in the latest version, the word regular
session was deleted. Regular to us was satisfactory.
Chairperson Tucker noted it is the impact on the neighborhood that
this was designed to avoid. If you use the word regular, that implies
there is something that is not regular.
Following a discussion on the term 'regular' , it was determined that it
is a scheduled session.
Mr. Krotee spoke to the ratio used in condition 2 regarding parking.
He recapped previous testimony of ratio of 2.5 reading Ms. Temple's
script from previous meeting. He said that today staff is now using 3,
which is the standard used for any church. The application of 2.5
would make it significantly better for the community. We want to
know why there was such a dramatic change and why we couldn't
have some consideration in this matter.
Page 17 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Chairperson Tucker answered that at the end of that conversation,
the staff suggested that staff would take a look at it to see what would
be the proper parking ratio to apply. So that is what the Commission
directed staff to do. Staff has come back with a different ratio than
what the majority of the Commission was looking at. He then asked
the City Attorney to comment on this. There is a certain desire
amongst the Commissioners to see a different Code with a different
way of analyzing church parking than what is in the Code today. But,
that policy decision and change hasn't happened and I think what it
comes down to is that the Commission would overstep its bounds, if
we amend the parking code without benefit of the City Council.
Ms. Clauson added that the Commission does not have the
jurisdiction to change the parking ratio that is provided for in the Code
and we discussed that at the staff level when we did the review of this
matter after the last meeting. The other issue is even applying the
ratio; the occupancy limits are intended to address the parking ratios
in another way, which is to address the fact that there isn't enough
parking even at that ratio to accommodate concurrent use of all the
buildings on the site.
Chairperson Tucker noted that we took the church's suggestion in
terms of the further limitations and we said we don't seem to have
much of an ability to restrict occupancy on Sunday based upon 600
spaces at 3 per, but here is one we can do to deal with the
neighborhood compatibility issue and that is what we ended up with.
That is the rational behind it.
Ms. Temple clarified that certain aspects of what would be going on
the church site at the same time would have different parking
requirements if viewed in relationship to the Code. When we looked
at the use classification and definition of what that might include,
clearly almost everything they might do would fall under the use
classification of religious assembly and that is the Code requirement
of 1 parking space per 3 occupancy. My previous comments were
based on the concept such as we have for restaurants where there
might be some kind of sliding scale within the parking code. We
reviewed it and discovered that was not the case, so we did not think
that varying from the Code was warranted.
Ms. Clauson noted that the parking ratios are established in the City's
Codes. If they have a set parking ratio versus a sliding scale, or
ability to modify or waive parking standards, that is stated in the
Code. That is the only jurisdiction that the Commission has to work
with. To change the established standard in the Code by an arbitrary
or capricious standard, I don't think is supportable in this situation.
Mr. Stewart asked about the hours of operation. 15th Street is a quiet
street and is not a commercial street. The hours of operation during
the week nights are long, and we requested 9 p.m. instead of 10 p.m.
The neighborhood has been telling us they have problems with the
occupancy limits. For example, on the two quiet evenings the Church
is saying they will now have on an average more than double or triple
the amount of people there now during that period of time. In terms
Page 18 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
of traffic generation, you are talking about a pretty significant impact
over what current operations are. The last two items would be the
evening starting at 6 p.m., because we are now talking about no
limitations on the traffic it would generate.
Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if there was any interest
in the change of the hours of operation than what was discussed at
the last meeting?
Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees with what he just heard and
was encouraged at the last meeting to modify the hours similarly.
Chairperson Tucker stated the parking ratio and the occupancy
related to what we had decided on. The maximum occupancy in the
evenings was tied to parking space availability. Is there anyone on
the Commission who wants to revisit that issue based upon what we
have heard? What the neighbors are concerned about is that none of
those numbers on several nights are being reached today, and yet we
are establishing limitations that are bigger than what is going on
today. I guess the response to that is there is no limitation today and
at least there will be some limitation in the future. While it certainly
would be nice to see it limited further, the question is for the Church,
we are imposing a group of restrictions on them and they are
agreeing to, where they have none today. It is a question as to how
much we can impose when they are trying to look out into the future,
30 or 40 years and try to figure out what the future might hold.
Anyway, am I seeing anybody else that wants to revisit those
occupancy levels beyond what the Church already asked for?
Seeing none, he stated the evening time defined as 7 p.m. versus the
6 p.m. Let's straw vote this one.
Mr. McKitterick noted that 7 seems to be the most appropriate time
for evenings. It is when most people are getting home, having dinner
and that is programmatically what makes sense.
Chairperson Tucker asked if there was a difference in occupancy
between 6 and 7? Why couldn't the hours start at 6?
Mr. McKitterick noted that the youth and family center having an after
school program, as they are developed we anticipate that those may
be 6:30 or 6:15 p.m. We brought those occupancies down
significantly and we feel the kick off time should be 7.
Mr. Stewart noted that between 6 and 7 people are trying to get home
and looking for it to be quiet. If there is a lot of activity at the youth
and family center, there are going to be drop offs /pick ups/traffic and
the later you wind that down to the lesser occupancy, you are just
pushing that intensity of use at a higher level to 7 p.m. instead of
cutting it off at 6 p.m.
The following straw vote was taken for definition as the time after 6:00
p.m.:
Page 19 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Commissioner Eaton yes,
Commissioner Cole, yes
Commissioner Selich, yes
Chairperson Tucker, yes
Chairperson Tucker asked if anybody was interested in changing the
number of holidays.
Commissioner Eaton noted it should be down to six as there are no
capacity limits on those days.
Commissioner Cole, stay with 8.
Commissioner Toerge, 6.
Commissioner Selich, 8
Commissioner McDaniel, 8
Commission Hawkins, 6
Chairperson Tucker, 8.
Condition 4 -
Mr. McKitterick noted that on the school numbers, this is capping the
school at less than capacity. We had anticipated that at this time
during the day for kindergarten, we would like to have the ability to
have 280, which would at least allow the classrooms we are building
to be used.
Mr. Krotee answered that we would be in favor of holding the ceiling
at 240 children.
Straw vote on 240 or 280:
Commissioner Hawkins - 240
Commissioner McDaniel - 240
Commissioner Selich - 240
Commissioner Toerge - 240
Chairperson Tucker, okay, it stays at 240. The concept is it is not our
expectation that this program will grow. We're being asked to
approve something that is mainly a youth after school and a place to
hang out type of facility as opposed to an opportunity to expand the
pre - school.
Condition 5:
Mr. Krotee noted that the neighbors had hoped that the drop off area
would be at loading zones slightly off the public right of way. If it is to
be on 15th Street, could a curb cut be placed there with room made
to allow for this un- loading?
Chairman Tucker asked if there was any desire by the Commission to
change the condition. None was given.
Condition 6 - No comments.
Page 20 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Condition 7:
Mr. McKitterick requests insert where it says, ....... 3 times per
calendar year plus vacation bible school which is in June.
Following a discussion it was decided and agreed upon by the church
and neighbors' representatives somewhere between 3 and 8 days.
Straw vote:
Commissioner Eaton - 8 mornings per year.
Commissioner Cole - okay with 3 times and the 5 mornings, as we
are talking about when school is not in session.
Commissioner Toerge - 5 mornings.
Mr. McKitterick noted that the 3 times we are asking for are in the
afternoon on the surface lot such as a picnic or event only.
Commissioner Selich - okay with the 3 afternoons and the 5
mornings.
Condition 8:
Mr. Stewart answered that the neighbors are still concerned about
only 40 minutes between worship services and trying to unload the
parking structure.
Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if there was any
inclination to switch the timing:
Commissioner Hawkins - 40
Commissioner McDaniel - 40
Commissioner Selich - 40
Commissioner Toerge noted that he has never felt that 40 minutes
was adequate to allow 1800 people to come into the site, disembark
and have another 1800 come in, or 600 cars. He noted he is not in
favor of the 40 and agreed to it as a compromise the last time
reluctantly. It is too little time
Commissioner Cole - 40
Chairperson Tucker, 40 it stays.
Condition 9:
Mr. Campbell noted that he had deleted the verbiage because the
other conditions are not modifying the gross square footage. What
this refers to is the buildings themselves with square area exclusive of
garages.
Chairperson Tucker stated that it is the intention of the Commission
that this item will not in its wording, is not intended in any way
condone or allow for a larger parking facility than what is referred to in
item 20.
Page 21 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Following a brief discussion, it was determined to add the phrase,
"exclusive of the parking structures ".
Mr. Krotee noted that the added traffic and parking causes the most
harm to the surrounding communities.
Condition 10:
Mr. McKitterick, would like some consideration for the community
benefit that this gymnasium be offered to the Newport Harbor High
School and the City on a limited basis.
Straw vote to change:
Commissioner Hawkins - leave as is.
Commissioner McDaniel - leave as is
Commissioner Selich - leave as is
Commissioner Toerge - leave as is
No change.
Condition 11: No change.
Condition 12: No change.
Condition 13:
Mr. McKitterick asked to strike the words, "lower level" from a parking
management standpoint if we have occupancy, we have parking
restrictions and where they park at least during this period of time we
didn't feel the need for "lower level ".
Mr. Stewart noted that the public is not going to want to go into the
lower level of the structure unless they have to or are forced to.
Therefore, if staff is parking outside at the first available spaces, you
could potentially create more of a parking issue because people
aren't going to want to go deeper or lower if they have choices on the
street.
Straw vote to delete 13, change or delete:
Commissioner Hawkins - leave as is.
Commissioner Eaton - leave as is.
Commissioner Cole - leave as is.
Commissioner McDaniel - would be willing to change it.
Commissioner Toerge - leave as is, particularly since there is no
restriction on the memorial services.
Condition 14: No change
Condition 15: Deleted
Page 22 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Condition 16:
Mr. McKitterick, they agree that the width of the planting area shall be
a minimum of 4 feet. However, they do not support the restriction on
provided that a minimum of 2 feet, and preferably 4 feet be on the
private property. From the aesthetic point of view, there will be a wall
with a four foot landscape area, which is being approved by the
Commission. There will be an inordinate amount of detail on that
plan that we feel is sufficient. It actually ends up being problematic
for parking.
Chairperson Tucker noted we wanted to be sure that there was a four
foot strip in there for room to fit trees in. Whether it is on the parkway
or on St. Andrew's property, as long as there are four feet behind the
sidewalk and between the wall.
Mr. Campbell noted that in looking at the conceptual plans, there
appears to be some dimension between the structure and the
proposed wall and the property line, although we never got a good
answer as to how much that would be. I estimate it to be
approximate 2 feet, which would be consistent with the plans
depicted. If the intent is to get 4 feet, it will be in the public right of
way.
Mr. Krotee noted that the primary concern is the existing landscape
consists of a combination of public and private property. If the
condition could be written such that distance could be preserved, then
we wouldn't have a problem with that. The loss of landscape on the
Clay Street edge is a hurt to the community. With the building of the
wall and the project, the softening of the landscape is important to
us. What is lacking in this presentation are precise cross sections
showing the distances noted.
Chairperson Tucker noted we have conditioned this on the wall itself
and the landscaping between the wall and the sidewalk, and the
landscape plan coming back to the Commission for approval before a
building permit is issued. The Commission wants to make sure the
public had a chance to weigh in on the issue. We are planning on
making sure the wall effectively disappears and that there are lots of
trees planted along that wall. We want to make it so it looks nice and
one of the reasons I felt 4 feet was important, I don't know what the
footing of the wall is going to look like and I wanted to make sure that
there is enough space that trees could go in and it would work. That
is the other piece of the puzzle. They are not going to be able to get
their parking spaces in there if that existing perimeter stays in all
respects where it is. I think it is going to have to be shrunk. We are
dealing with this issue and if it is going to be less, than we want to
see exactly how they are going to deal with it.
Mr. Stewart asked how much distance are we talking about? What
happens to the width of the landscape area and where is the wall?
Chairperson Tucker stated the applicant is not asking for any change
to the sidewalk and we are not granting any changes with this
Page 23 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
application. There is no expectation on our part that the applicant will
be reducing the sidewalk. The only thing they have to figure out is to
fit a four foot planting area behind the sidewalk that exists today and
the wall.
Commissioner Selich offered language, '.The width of this planting
area shall be a minimum of 4 feet wide .... behind the existing
sidewalk', be added to the condition.
Commissioner Hawkins agreed
Commissioner McDaniel agreed
Commission Toerge agreed
Condition 17:
Commissioner Toerge noted that on Wednesday night the gathering
starts at 6 p.m. In the Traffic Management study for construction it
talks about during construction off -site parking arrangement for that
night also starts at 6 p.m. It would seem to me it would have to start
half an hour earlier so that people can park and get to the venue on
time. We need to change Wednesday night to 5:30 p.m. and the
Traffic Management says 6 p.m.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the way this condition is written is if
you are going to implement the plan that is written plus any other
changes the traffic engineer comes up with before building permits.
We will look to the traffic engineer to ask for that correction. Is that
acceptable? Do we need a condition?
Commissioner Eaton noted that there are no restrictions during the
week at any time per the Traffic Management Plan.
Mr. McKitterick noted that the Traffic Management Plan triggers at 800
persons or larger events.
Mr. Campbell added that there may be a few items within the Traffic
Management Plan that might not conform with what the Planning
Commission is agreeing upon. What staff will do is go back through
these and work with the traffic engineer to assure that these are
revised to conform with the decisions made this evening.
Chairperson Tucker noted that when there are weekday events with
more than 800 people concurrent occupancy then the Traffic
Management Plan should be applied. This would strike Sunday and
indicate any day that there is that expectation.
Commissioner Hawkins suggested that because this condition raises
potential conflicts between the conditions and the Traffic Management
Plan (TMP), I would propose to insert in this condition that to the
Page 24 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 25 of 56
extent that there is any inconsistencies between the TMP and the
conditions, that the conditions govern. On page 3 of the TMP at the
bottom of the page we are talking about a 400 space parking
structure and that has been reduced.
Chairperson Tucker noted we will pick this up that the TMP have the
400 be the correct number and that if there are inconsistencies, I
agree that the conditions should prevail.
The Commission concurred.
Condition 18:
Mr. Krotee asked if there will be a pedestrian penetration in this fence
at all?
Chairperson Tucker answered that there wasn't going to be one.
There is to be no vehicular or pedestrian access except for on
emergency basis only.
Mr. Campbell noted that there were three other conditions that
overlapped related to the wall, penetration through the wall, and Fire
Department requirements to maintain proper access for this review
and approval. Therefore, we created conditions 16 and 18 based on
subject.
Ms. Clauson added that the Fire Department has a manner of
universal access to certain gated locks. They would come up with a
program where it could be limited to fire access and wouldn't be
something that would have other types of access.
Chairperson Tucker added, why don't we say, ".......Each access
point shall not be designed or otherwise used for non - emergency
vehicular or pedestrian egress /ingress to the site....."
The Commission concurred.
Condition 19:
Mr. McKitterick noted that the Traffic Management Plan actually
addresses the entrance and exit onto St. Andrew's Road, so we
request that this condition read, "The St. Andrews Road driveway
accessing the parking lot shall be closed except for emergency
access after 5:00 p.m. The applicant shall regulate the driveway
traffic in accordance with the City's approved Traffic Management
Plan."
Mr. Campbell noted that the Commission had left it to staff to make a
recommendation on what to do with this driveway approach and we
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
felt closing the driveway after 5:00 p.m. would work, maintaining
emergency access. The intent of trying to regulate turning
movements as requested, we felt it would be possible to make a
design change to that driveway that would make undesirable
vehicular turning movements fairly odd to do. It was not something
that the City would like to do, but it can be done with proper signage.
The concept is to force traffic to come from 15th Street.
Mr. Edmonston noted that this would be helpful if it was addressed in
a condition. The Church indicated it was in the plan, but that plan
directs traffic from the south to come up St. Andrews and enter at this
point. If the Commission would rather have that traffic across Cliff
Drive to Irvine Avenue and then across 15th, I think it is appropriate
as a condition. That was my understanding of the intent of the
Commission to keep as much traffic off any of those local streets and
utilize the more major streets of Cliff and Irvine and 15th.
Commissioner Eaton noted he would like to see the condition stay in
as it was the Commission's intent to encourage the traffic pattern to
come down from 17th to 15th to St. Andrews, rather than come up
Cliff to Clay and then making two left turns around 15th Street. I think
as a practical matter that would happen, if you have to make all those
turns to get back down, I don't think they are going to use Clay Street
as much.
Chairperson Tucker asked if it was acceptable to the neighbors to
leave this condition in?
Mr. Krotee answered yes. He then verified that the wall on Clay
Street would come around on the St. Andrew's side. I believed it
would, but there is nothing that specifically says that in condition 16.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the plan that is submitted is where the
wall will be built. Why don't we just say, 'Construction along Clay
Street as per the October 21, 2004 plan."
Mr. Campbell noted that per the plans, the walls do wrap around on
both St. Andrews Road and 15th Street. There is a dimension to the
driveways, so it does wrap around close to the driveways and those
walls will only come up so as not to create a site distance issue.
Chairperson Tucker noted, we will indicate that it will be constructed
along Clay Street and wrap around St. Andrew Road and 15th Street
as per the October 24th, 2004 plan. The Commission concurred.
Condition 20:
Mr. McKitterick noted that low side, we are trying to maintain
flexibility. We were always willing to build 400 spaces but now, we
Page 26 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Comrnission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
are working into a different parameter that is dependent on the
amount of parking at the Newport Harbor High School. We recognize
the 600 parking spaces total, but we would like the flexibility of the
low side being 250 spaces. This hasn't been designed yet and the
site plans are in process. We clearly have to have the total and we
are looking for some flexibility. The Commission is imposing a
combination and not knowing what the total combination looks like.
Chairperson Tucker noted that his feeling was that the more spaces
in the 15th Street lot, the better as it accommodates more kids and is
more benefit to the neighborhood. There were some Commissioners
who did not feel comfortable with only 250 spaces on the Church
site.
Commissioner Eaton noted that he does not have a problem with
lowering the number of spaces on site as long as that doesn't turn
around to allow greater occupancy and the total 600 spaces are
there, and as long as the standards are met regarding parking widths.
Chairperson Tucker asked the neighbors if they had any concerns as
this may end up as a smaller parking structure but they have to end
up with 600 total.
Mr. Stewart answered that there is a strong opposition to the parking
structure based on the belief that it is not going to be fully utilized.
The neighbors would support 250 on site at level.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the 250 would not fit on the one level
so it is a question of reducing the structure area.
Commissioner Selich noted he is okay with the 250 as long as we get
the spaces on the 15th Street lot.
Commissioner Cole agreed.
Commissioner Toerge agreed.
Commission McDaniel agreed.
Commissioner Toerge noted that there had been discussion about
access to the youth center and the gymnasium underground. Were
they going to be accessed underground with the smaller structure, or
could that not happen?
Mr. McKitterick noted that in preliminary design with his architect, he
noted their intent is to connect that as it is a benefit. We have not
fully designed it yet, but there will be that access maintained below.
Commissioner Toerge noted his concern of what happens after 30
years should that parking agreement with the school terminate. It
would be my recommendation that unless adequate replacement
parking can be identified, secured and approved by the Planning
Page 27 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Commission, that the occupancy limits of the Church would be
subject to the available parking on site multiplied by the ratio that
we've agreed to tonight. This would put the responsibility on the
Church to obtain panting before the other expires and then if they
don't, their occupancy limits are adjusted accordingly.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that 30 years is a long time to think
that there is an expectation of something not changing and needing to
be changed. I am comfortable with the 30 years.
Commissioner Toerge responded that we are planning here, and that
is what we are intended to do, to look at the future. I think we create
a potential for a problem 30 years from now if they lose that parking
and we have this expanded facility there. I think it is responsible to
try and address it and motivate the applicant to replace it by having
some pretty burdensome issues if they don't.
Chairperson Tucker noted that condition 21 specifically addresses
that issue, although I am looking at it now.
Commissioner Toerge answered that does not address the issue as it
says it will, "cease occupancy of the expansion area....."
Ms. Temple noted that it goes on to say, "...or the church shall modify
its activities to reduce overall parking demand to that commensurate
with available off - street parking...."
Chairperson Tucker noted that the condition as of today, says the use
permit is predicated upon the existing high school lot being available.
If that lot is not available, then they have to seek some type of
amendment. 1 think that we really didn't cover the situation as to what
happens, it is clear that the expansion area should not be occupied if
they lose those extra parking spaces, but if they are unable to park on
the lot at all, then what happens with the base situation that they are
in today where they would lose their right to occupy the sanctuary in
some fashion. It is unclear so we may need to work on that
language.
Mr. Campbell agreed noting the existing condition would indicate that
they shall file for an amendment and would have to provide alternate
parking so they would need to come back to the Planning
Commission. That is the mechanism today. This one here indicates
they have to cease occupancy of the expansion and may file an
amendment to provide alternate parking.
Chairperson Tucker then read from the minutes that says, "In the
event the Church shall lose the opportunity to park in the high school
parking lot, they shall be required to come back to the City for an
amendment to this use permit and provide adequate off - street
Page 28 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
parking." We still have to deal with the issue of what happens if they
lose probably all? Why don't you go through that and come up with
some language, we will then give everyone a chance to review it. We
are not trying to change the deal on what happens with parking that
presently exists under the present use permit and I think we
inadvertently almost did. Let's go on to 22 while we are trying to
figure out how to deal with 21.
Mr. Campbell noted on condition 20, the parking space number of
315 at the school and 250 on the site. 315 was taken from the plan
that the District presently is considering, obviously it is not an
approved plan. The plan actually shows 317 spaces with widths,
depths and aisleways that meet our standards fairly readily so we felt
that was an achievable number. If we keep the cap at 600 but lower
the number on site, and in essence if there is a static amount of area
for this lot to be, there is possibly the introduction of compact spaces
to boost the number of spaces there which would be something for
the District to consider and approve, although the City doesn't
approve compact spaces, or the lot would have to expand and hence
maybe the parking spaces may be further distant from the Church.
Chairperson Tucker asked what is being proposed? Is the 250 not an
acceptable number?
Mr. Campbell noted that staff believes on condition 20 that 315 is
achievable and they are going to need to provide 280 to 285 spaces
on site. So, lowering the number to some other number really
provides the opportunity to put in compact spaces at the school or
increase the physical size of the parking lot provided there is
sufficient area, which would possibly put parking further distant. I
would recommend that we leave this condition as it is drafted.
Chairperson Tucker noted we should re -visit this as we did not have
staffs input when we voted on this.
Commissioner Hawkins stated that in those changes he was
concerned that this would be off loading parking to the school site and
I agree that it is preferable to have the parking on site. I would leave
it as is.
Chairperson Tucker noted that staff has a legitimate point. Before
you pull a building permit, you will be here before .us with a parking
agreement. Everyone needs to understand that at the point in time
when all this is negotiated we are going to see things that none of us
are thinking about now. So, this one is a work in progress and
would probably stick with staffs recommendation.
Commissioner McDaniel - still okay with 250.
Commissioner Selich - still okay with the 250 as long as we get the
Page 29 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLMShared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
extra spaces on the 15th Street lot.
Commissioner Toerge - pass.
Commissioner Cole - keep at 250 to allow the Church some flexibility.
Commissioner Eaton - okay with the 250
Mr. McKitterick noted there will be an agreement with the school
district The timing of that parking lot will need to be done in the
summertime. The sequence of events, there is an adequate land use
protection for the community that our occupancy will be targeted to
available parking. We also have a condition, which is the
construction of that lot, because of the way the cycle works, start our
construction and limit our occupancy until such time as we are able to
construct the lot across the street, the community benefit will be
achieved. To do it differently, will be to have a tremendous burden on
a cycle that does not seem appropriate because there is an
appropriate land use tool to mitigate and protect the community in
that timeframe. So, our request is that the timing be such that we
would be able to a) enter into an agreement; b) and until such time
as that lot is done, but if we can't do it because of the cycle, this
condition seems to be not appropriate because there is in fact an
agreement that already exists.
Chairperson Tucker noted that we are all of the mind set that this
project has to deliver benefits that exceed what the detriments are,
not only the project but the existing project today. Getting the
benefits there early and having the biggest lot available the soonest,
is a key feature. I'd like to see the 300 and some spaces there. I am
not unsympathetic to the dilemma with the Church, but as between
those two balancing the equities there, I would like to see that school
lot in effect to start delivering the benefits to the community first. I
don't want to see a situation first where we have to wait 18 months for
the Church project to be done before we can finally come back to
deal with the school project. This is one where the neighbors ought
to be protected.
Mr. Stewart noted he agrees with these comments. The high school
lot is not well used today and using the street parking is more
attractive. Taking away the surface parking on the Church lot will
only exacerbate the situation because people are going to look to
park more in the neighborhood because that is the easiest place to
park.
Commissioner Eaton noted the possibility of a delay due to the
summer cycle and potential budget inflation. He agreed that the 15th
Street lot has to be in existence. You can't have the construction on
both of them at the same time.
Commissioner Cole noted that this condition is going to play itself out
in more areas than we are possibly thinking about today. I would like
Page 30 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
to allow some language for the church to handle the timing, and
allow them to come back to the Planning Commission to propose
some compromise on timing. We agree that the 15th street lot is in
existence and should be able to provide parking at some point. The
Church will need some kind of flexibility to come back to us.
Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees with the Chair's comments.
Commissioner Selich noted he wouldn't be supporting this project if
he did not believe it wouldn't be improving the neighborhood. He
supports the condition the way that it is worded. You have to have
that lot in place.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that whatever is needed to be done on
the project, he would hate to see this project go two years because
we constrained them too much. So not only the cost, but the impact
to the neighborhood would go up. He is concerned that it could go
into a two year cycle and would like to give the Church the flexibility to
start the project and work on it until it is done.
Commissioner Hawkins noted he would modify that last sentence to
have a requirement that they enter into an agreement with the district
prior to issuance of a building permit and also have a condition that
one parking lot has to be in place at all times, so that they can't take
both parking facilities out at the same time. In theory it would allow
for the 15th Street as is and then work on the church parking lot so
long as there was an agreement with the district to improve the 15th
Street lot.
Commissioners Eaton, Cole and McDaniel agreed.
Chairperson. Tucker asked staff to prepare wording for condition 20.
Ms. Clauson noted that the proposal is that one of the parking lots
should be available at all times. Did the Commission have a thought
on the concept that the condition that says that the occupancy shall
be limited to the availability of parking?
Chairperson Tucker noted that there would be a whole series of
occupancy limits that would have to apply based on our general
occupancy limitations.
Ms. Clauson stated that those occupancy limitations would apply to
this?
Chairperson Tucker noted they would apply in all cases. That is the
way the conditions are set up.
Ms. Clauson noted she wanted to check that was the intent during the
Page 31 of 56
file : //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 32 of 56
construction process.
Chairperson Tucker noted that there was a Construction Traffic
Management Plan, which would actually be the instrument that
applies.
Commissioner Selich noted that the way this condition has been re-
done, we haven't given much incentive, assuming this gets approve
by the Council, to actually get that lot constructed over the coming
summer. Most likely by the time they get their plans done, they are
not going to be able to start the major construction until fall anyway.
We have taken out what incentive there was to get that lot done this
summer and get all the stuff that has to be done with the school
district and the plans for that done before the summer starts. Doing
plans for parking lots is much simpler than the type of plans they are
going to be doing for the church facility. It seems to me that we have
taken away some of the incentive to get that lot done.
Ms. Clauson added that if they chose, by the development times
under the proposed amendment, to start the project on the on -site
parking and then it wasn't completed in time by summer time when
the opportunity would come to do the off -site 15th Street parking it
might cause, if they can't be both out of commission at the same time,
a whole year delay getting to that 15th Street parking.
Commissioner Hawkins, referring to Commission Selich's comments,
noted that was an excellent condition providing the incentive;
however, the church has been operating for 25 years without a written
agreement. What this does is provide the incentive to get that
agreement. That is not going to be an easy chore and is going to be
a milestone, to get that written agreement.
Mr. McKitterick noted the applicant is very motivated. He then
discussed monies and incentives.
Chairperson Tucker noted he would ask staff to come up with
language for condition 20. The church suggested some limits on the
occupancy issues.
Mr. Campbell noted he has drafted the following condition to ensure
that either of the parking lots are available during construction. He
noted he would have to draft verbiage regarding occupancy levels
during that time period.
Ms. Temple added that three locations are identified to be used for
parking during the construction phases. A total of 450 spaces, which
includes both the 15th and 16th Streets lots at Newport Harbor High;
50 spaces at Lighthouse Coastal Community Church on Monday
through Friday; and the bank site will have 200 spaces on Sundays
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004\ 1 209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
and up to 100 spaces Wednesday and Saturday evenings. Including
those numbers within whatever flexible occupancy limits at the one
space for every three seat occupancy, then we can work that. It
would be based whatever they actually have available to them at the
time they are holding those services. Perhaps we can say that the
occupancy is limited based on the one per three based on all of the
occupancy during construction per the construction Management
Plan.
Chairperson Tucker asked for the verbiage for condition 21.
Ms. Temple then read: "In the event that the Church should lose the
right to use parking within the 15th Street parking lot at Newport
Harbor High School, the Church shall immediately modify its activity
to reduce overall parking demand to that commensurate with
available off-street parking, and may file for an amendment to this
use permit to provide alternate adequate and comparable convenient
off - street parking at a separate location." What that would be is have
an immediate adjustment of their activities from the moment they lose
it plus they have the opportunity to seek out through amendment,
other opportunities for off -site parking.
Chairperson Tucker asked the neighbors if that was okay?
Mr. Stewart answered yes.
Commissioner Toerge suggested one change. In the event that the
church should lose the right to use parking on the 15th Street parking
lot at Newport Harbor High School, the church shall immediately
modify activities and occupancy....; which is really the key point.
Everyone agreed.
Condition 22.
Mr. Krotee noted they are interested in adding some type of parking
count and time explanation when the expected peak was.
Mr. Stewart added that another concern of the neighbors was how this
was going to be handled in terms of monitoring. The neighbors don't
want to be counting, so someone else who is less vested, needs to be
doing the counting. The basic concept is to have a report compiled,
reviewed and audited by some independent person.
Chairperson Tucker that if the neighborhood complains, staff goes to
the data and ascertains whether or not the conditions are being
complied with.
Mr. Stewart answered that people are going to have questions on the
data itself unless you require them to hire a consultant to do the
Page 33 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\5hared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
calculations.
Chairperson Tucker noted staff will verify the data and any
inconsistencies.
Commissioner Hawkins suggested some type of electronic monitoring
to count the number of vehicles. The problem would be installing a
counting device on property that the church does not own and maybe
that could be a condition of the agreement. You have some sort of
traffic counter installed at the entrance of the church parking lot and
the school parking lot and that is reported, as well as the church can,
personal attendance.
Ms. Wood noted that the conditions are structured toward personal
occupancy, there is nothing in the conditions that limit the number of
vehicles, or says a certain minimum of vehicles need to park here or
there. So I am not sure what we would do with that data, even if we
could collect it.
Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if anyone was in favor of
changing the language on condition 22?
Commissioner Toerge - this is one of the clear benchmark issues of
the entire potential approval of the project. The most significant issue
is occupancy. I would ask the applicant, how would you do this, how
would you determine this? This is an evolving several hour issue. I
don't understand how at all you can comply with this and how you can
actually do this. Can you explain how you can do this?
Mr. Smith, answered that our best attempt at doing this is, we have in
place, 'event management software, which lists every room and
schedule every day, 24 hours a day. That software provides both for
an estimated occupancy and an actual occupancy. We envision
when we do room reservation simply allocating a number of spaces to
the estimated occupancy and periodically evaluating that estimated
occupancy to the actual occupancy, particularly with the large
events. We are not going to count children walking across the
campus, but we can tell you we have a school program and there are
135 kids registered at any given time, or there is a meeting going on
in a particular room, which consists of sessions. Therefore they are
allocated 40 spaces. We will assure that the occupancy limits stay
within the guidelines and we will do that on the basis of allocating
spaces initially using our estimated occupancy and thereby testing it
periodically with the accuracy of actual counts, particularly with the
large groups.
Commissioner Toerge noted the condition states you will monitor the
daily attendance and tell us what it is, not that you are below the
limits. 1 have sincere doubts of the accuracy of that ability on a
Page 34 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\3hared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
multiple hour operation that starts at 7 or 8 in the morning and might
end at 7, 8 or 10 at night.
Chairperson Tucker noted we need to come up with instructions to
staff or leave it the way it is.
Commissioner Selich suggested we leave the way it is written. I
sympathize with the concerns raised, but you can't make it so difficult
to implement and achieve. This is not exact science, and this is the
best we can do with what we have. I don't think there is any practical
way to go beyond that.
Discussion followed on the software usage, description of monitoring
with that software, consistency of occupancy limits and reporting
status. Staff was instructed to modify the language on condition 22 to
come up with the detail that is required.
Following a discussion on the proposition to come up with some sort
of after construction program monitoring a straw vote was taken.
Commissioner McDaniel noted there was adequate enforcement in
place to address the issue.
Commissioner Selich noted he would not be in favor of this. We have
only done this in situations that are not working out and the
Commission would put further restrictions on the use. In this
instance, we are already giving them the authorization of the use of
the parking, we are not coming back to put further restrictions. Might
be some interesting information, but I don't think we should be putting
this into the use permit.
Commissioners Toerge and Cole concurred with Commissioner
Selich's comments.
Chairperson Tucker concurs with Commissioner Selich's comments.
Condition 23:
Mr. McKitterick noted that there will be some times when meetings
will break out into the foyer. This should be okay because we have a
total occupancy limit for the site. There will be times when the kids
have to sit on the floor.
Mr. Stewart noted it was the noise issue and part of the idea was to
have everything indoors. I think part of the motion from the church in
terms that they were bringing a lot of these activities indoors.
Commissioner Toerge suggested no change.
Commissioner Hawkins agreed no change.
Page 35 of 56
file : //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 36 of 56
Commissioner McDaniel agreed no change.
Commissioner Selich agreed no change.
At the applicant's notation, all of the conditions from condition 24 up to
condition 42, they agreed with and offered no changes. The
neighbors also agreed.
Condition 43:
Mr. McKitterick noted we would like to say, "If Newport Harbor High
School students are given a permit or, are allowed to park in the St.
Andrew's site during school, the Church will establish the parking
regulations and may revoke a student parking permit at will."
The neighbors had no objection.
Commissioner Hawkins noted there are liability issues and the church
is responsible for any negative issue. What are those negative
issues?
Chairperson Tucker noted that the church is responsible for anything
that happens on their property.
Commissioner Selich noted he is okay with the church's language.
Commissioner McDaniel agreed.
Commissioner Toerge agreed.
Commissioner Cole agreed.
Conditions 44 - 52, no changes.
Condition 53:
Mr. McKitterick noted that the time of the announcement needs to be
done during services. We ask to delete at the conclusion of and say
during. Everyone agreed.
Condition 76 - the number changes from 280 to 250. Everyone
agreed.
Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any other comments?
Mr. Krotee, referring to condition 22, the issue of parking count needs
to be re- addressed. A pivotal ratio has been made and used and not
gathering the data that would substantiate those facts would be a
mistake.
Chairperson Tucker, are you suggesting they count cars on their lot as
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning COmmission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htrn 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 37 of 56
well as cars that are on the school lot?
Mr. Krotee answered that at the time of the perceived occupancy, 1
think they should know the peak combined parking.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that on Sunday that may make sense,
but if there are other things going on in the neighborhood, how do you
know that the car parked there the people are actually attending the
church site? During the school days, that would be impossible.
Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if there was a desire to
see a change on condition 22?
Commissioner McDaniel, I don't think we need to make changes. If
we see there is a problem, then maybe code enforcement can be
involved. It has been worked out fairly well so far, let's wait to see if
there is a problem.
Commissioner Cole - the data is probably valuable but we have
already made a decision based on the Code as it relates to the ratio.
To get the information to refute the ratio we have agreed to tonight, I
am not sure does anyone any good since all the conditions are based
on occupancy. So, I am not sure that we need to change anything.
Commissioner Eaton - I think the data that would be valuable, would
be the differential between the early morning and during services
parking on the streets, so I would like to see that monitored
occasionally. I am not so worried about the on -site and off -site lots.
Commissioner Hawkins - the parking survey is a good idea, but the
whole point is we want to make sure that we are keeping the parking
off the streets.
Commissioner Toerge - the more information we can get, the better. I
recognize what Commissioner Cole's concept is, but I would like to
have the information collected so that we have the opportunity to act
on it particularly as this is a dynamic institution. It is not going to
remain this way forever, and in the years to come, that information will
be very valuable.
Commissioner Selich - I am in favor of leaving it the way it is.
Chairperson Tucker - I am in favor of leaving it the way it is, that is a
majority of the Commission.
Mr. Campbell noted that on condition 22 - there was a consensus to
add the hourly concurrent occupancy. Add a sentence after the first
sentence that would read, "The monitoring reports shall indicate
total concurrent occupancy on an hourly basis each day during
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 39 of 56
Mr. McKitterick, referring to Condition 14: insert , "......the majority of
other staff shall park within the......" There are some senior ministers
and others that will park there, so we would like to have that
flexibility.
Mr. Stewart asked how many would that be? If you are talking about
a couple of people, then it is no big deal; however, if you are talking
about a staff of 50, then all of a sudden you are impacting parking a
little bit more.
Commissioner Selich asked for a number of people not a percentage.
Mr. McKitterick answered that they are asking for the flexibility to
have a certain percentage of staff still park on site. In all events,
having the ability for staff to have some parking on site, we will
comply with the Traffic Management plan and all other parking
requirements. This is an extra condition for certain people on staff to
have the flexibility to park on site, because that is what they should be
able to do.
Commissioner Hawkins proposed a percentage for that (90 %) park at
the non - preferred parking site, allowing only 10% to park on site.
Commissioner McDaniel asked, how many people are you talking
about?
Mr. Smith answered if we assume these participants are the choir and
the ministers participating in the worship service, there would be less
than 120 persons that are involved in this particular qualification. The
intent is to encourage people to park across the street but what I can't
do is guarantee that everybody parks across the street.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that 80% was okay.
Commissioner Hawkins stated 90 %.
Commissioner Selich stated 90 %.
Ms. Wood asked how staff will ever know how many staff people or
choir members or whatever they have at any given point in time, to
know what 80 or 90% equates to so we would have any hope of
enforcing this?
Chairperson Tucker answered he did not know.
Ms. Wood added that if there are complaints, the neighbors will
expect us to enforce this.
Ms. Temple noted that this condition needs to be re- worked. I agree
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
that the church wants to encourage that people use that lot before
they would elect to use the street, and I am not sure how to make
changes to that, if you hold up this one, we can see if we can come
up with different wording.
Chairperson Tucker noted he would like to move onto the next
portion. He asked the Church to come forward to make a
presentation on its claims of benefits to the community. He will then
ask the neighbors to comment on this as well.
Mr. McKitterick, representing St. Andrew's Church, noted the
following:
. The Church has been at this current since 1950 and has been a
part of this neighborhood.
. The Church is requesting an expansion of 21,741 square feet to
improve the facility to better serve the community.
. The use of the site will not significantly change and the
modification is intended to better facilitate existing programs
offered by the Church.
. The need for parking on the streets and noise are reduced.
. The intensity of use on the entire campus is reduced.
. There are significant operational restrictions on the entire
church.
. The proposed campus improvements create a public benefit.
. The Commission has considered pros and cons and mediated
the differences and required identification of those things that
are important and have required compromises.
• The church has reduced its original request by 40 %.
• The conditions need to be based upon land use issues and
have a legitimate compelling public interest.
• There will be no increase in sanctuary seats or the capacity in
the sanctuary or the chapel.
• The current CUP regulates the fixed seating.
• Under the DER the project impact after mitigations are less
than significant.
Page 40 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
. The gym use will be primarily for youth church activities.
. The traffic impact is less than significant and the existing
roadway network and intersections have adequate capacity to
accommodate the minor additional trips.
. The total peak hour trips for the project are 15 for the a.m. and
15 for the p.m.; the total daily trips are 198.
. The nature and intent of the current use of the Church will not
change with the new project.
. We established a plan to provide all its parking on site that has
since been modified.
. The main concerns identified by the neighbors and the Planning
Commission are traffic generation, noise /light, parking
accommodations and project size and intensity of use.
. Referring to a Power Point presentation, he then discussed the
operational restrictions posed in the conditions.
. Continuing, he then noted for the record, that there is no parking
agreement today. However, they are willing to pursue it for the
benefit of the community.
. He then asked that the Commission endorse the revised
proposal of the applicant.
Public Comment was opened.
Mr. Don Krotee, President of the Newport Heights Improvement
Association, noted:
• He gave a brief description of other municipalities and their
conditional use permits.
• Community benefits from this development.
• Parking requirements and ratios.
• Asked that the Commission deny this project.
Mr. Dunlap, Cliff Haven resident, noted:
. The thoroughness of the project presentation.
. There is no other Church that sits in a neighborhood such as
Page 41 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
the reporting period" This reporting would be the sum total of the
occupancy, not by room.
Mr. Smith asked if this could be the maximum occupancy per night
and per day, that is what we envisioned, not a 24 hour daily report.
Chairperson Tucker answered that we need data that matches up with
the occupancy as the occupancy timeframe shifts.
Mr. Smith answered that our daytime occupancy is 1200 between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. and I would say we would give you the
maximum occupancy for that time period for that day. Or, do you
want every single hour within that 7a.m. to 6 p.m. time frame?
Mr. Campbell noted that would be sufficient. If the peak occupancy
was 1050, that is the number we want to get. We would assume that
the other time periods were less than that. In my mind that would be
good, we shouldn't have a sheet of paper for each day of the week,
we would have a much more manageable report to look at. If we are
experiencing problems, we would like the flexibility to go to the hourly
so that we can delve into how things are being done.
Chairperson Tucker directed staff to work on that language. At the
election of the Planning Director, the reports will be hourly or however
you want to word that.
Ms. Temple noted that we do like the details as sufficient as
established by the Planning Director because if we are getting reports
and also complaints, I would like to have the opportunity to enhance
those reporting requirements to address specific issues that may
come up through time.
Chairperson Tucker agreed to do exactly that, this will be a work in
progress as we figure this out.
Condition 20:
Mr. Campbell noted the last sentence to read: ...... Furthermore, either
the 75th Street parking lot at Newport Harbor High School or the
on -site parking lot shall be available for use by the Church at all
times during construction. Occupancy of the project site during
construction shall be limited to the number of on -site and off -site
parking spaces that the Church has the right to use pursuant to
the approved Traffic Management Plan for construction times
three people. In essence, if they have 400 parking spaces multiplied
by 3, there would have 1200 people.
All agreed to this language.
Page 38 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
this
. This project is the most intense religious use in a residential
neighborhood in the City.
. He then discussed the dollar amount for the proposed project.
. He asked if this proposed project was the best for the
community.
Rob Craig, citizen, noted:
. Witnessed the first expansion.
. Does not agree that all the facts have been discussed.
. On Sunday mornings there are groups of people using the high
school facilities.
. His problems with driveway access on Sunday mornings.
Robert Coldron, citizen, noted:
• He opposes any expansion of the Church that would add any
square footage and asked that this be denied.
• Referring to his letter of December 7th, he noted that this
expansion would not benefit the community.
• He asked that the Commission listen to the neighbors and deny
this project.
• He then noted a survey that he had done of parking.
• Occupancy is a key issue and asked that a parking survey be
done to determine the ratio.
Nancy Kitty, citizen, is opposed and noted that the neighborhood
does not consider this expansion a benefit to the community.
Mr. Stewart, citizen, noted the detriments to the neighborhood of the
increased traffic, parking ratios, and noise. The existing conditions
are not great. By limiting the size, you create a limit on occupancy.
He asked that the Commission listen to the neighbors who are there
in the area and are the most directly impacted and deny this project.
John Sturgess, resident of Cliff Haven, noted that there is a need to
preserve and protect his life style. He proceeded to note the
Page 42 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004\1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Castaways, Balboa Bay Club and the Taco Bell along Mariners' Mile
and the qualities of scope, density and time of use issues. This
proposed project and use of property in the community effect the life
style of the community and asked that this be denied.
Maryann Towersy, resident of Kings Place, noting her personal
experiences with the Church, asked that this project be denied
because of the change of the character of the community. The
neighborhood does not stand to benefit from this expansion. She
asked that the Commission protect the neighborhood and deny the
project.
Jim Conley, resident of Pirate Road, noted this project is not in the
best interest of the neighborhood and asked that this project be
denied as currently proposed.
Jim Karmak, Cliff Drive resident, noted his opposition to this project
similar reasons as stated.
Jan Vandersloot, resident of Newport Heights, noted that based on
the testimony of the community tonight, they have asked that you
deny this project. Signs in the neighborhood and published letters
have asked that this project be denied as the community does not see
this as a benefit to them. He asked that this project be denied.
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Tucker asked about the language in condition 14.
Mr. Campbell noted the entire condition as re- drafted should read:
"During worship services or special events with over 800 participants
in attendance, the Church shall direct event participants such as choir
members and other staff to park in the Newport Harbor High School
15th Street parking lot to the extent that they are allowed to do so
under the terns of an agreement with the Newport Mesa School
District. Additionally, other attendees shall be directed to park in this
lot provided for in the approved Traffic Management plan for the
expansion project as required in other conditions of approval"
Ms. Temple noted this is difficult from a monitoring perspective and
there may be some good reason why some of those people may,
even though they would prefer to be directed to 15th Street, really
should be allowed to park on site for a variety of reasons.
Chairperson Tucker noted that this condition verbiage needs more
work, so condition 14 will stay as is. What we are trying to do is to
allow the flexibility for people to park on the lot because there is
room.
Page 43 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Mr. McKitterick noted as drafted, the language is appropriate and this
approach is satisfactory. His objection before was the requirement
for a development agreement, instead this essentially says there will
be a development agreement required if there is a vote at the Council
prior to the agreement with the School District. We are faced with a
challenge and we are going to do our best. This is an appropriate
method, and we agree with this approach.
All parties agreed.
Commissioner Selich he is ready to take action as he is satisfied that
the conditions have been worked to the maximum extent that can be
done.
Commissioner McDaniel noted the he has listened and read
everything that had been sent to him, met with people, and he
believes this is a benefit to the community.
Commissioner Toerge noted:
. The role of the neighborhood church has evolved over time and
what once was a sanctuary used for general services has
evolved to family counseling and youth recreation seven day a
week operations.
. The question before us is how do we balance the burden of that
evolution and how it affects the community.
. The neighborhood has grown. Most of the expansion of the
residential area has been done within established codes and /or
with modifications or variances.
. No residential property in the neighborhood had requested nor
received a General Plan Amendment to enable them to
increase their density or use beyond what is permitted by
current Code.
. This project requires a General Plan Amendment, an
amendment to an existing Use Permit and a significantly
different planning process than the expansion of the homes in
the neighborhood.
. I am certainly a property rights advocate; however, I
understand that property rights in any civilized society are
conditional. Property rights are conditioned by General Plan
provisions, by Zoning limitations, title restrictions, recorded
special land use restrictions, density and height limitations.
These are all tools that enable individuals and companies to
own and operate real estate without unjustly impacting the
Page 44 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
rights of other property owners.
. These property restrictions and limitations, in my opinion, foster
harmony in the neighborhood and in a community in general.
Through my participation in these conditions, 1 struggle with the
conflict that I see that such a project is being built, yet they are
restricted from using it.
. The Church is proposing to build significantly more space to
accommodate a growing sector of their congregation while at
the same time agreeing to significantly limit its use. Its a little
like enabling a homeowner to build an extra bedroom with the
promise that they won't use it if the other bedrooms are being
used.
This planning body regularly places use restrictions on
restaurants, nightclubs and other commercial operations but in
this case where a General Plan Amendment is required,
buildings will be demolished, new buildings built and tens of
millions of dollars are proposed to be spent. It feels to me that
we are squeezing this expanded facility onto a site with a use
limitation shoe hom.
. Too much expansion and too many conditions, and in my
observation, it doesn't fit.
. The monitoring places a tremendous burden on the church, on
staff, the City and the residents as well.
. I am not comfortable with the parking mechanism we put
forward, it is inadequate.
. I can't support this project in face of such opposition from the
neighborhood. I have participated as best I can in creating
conditions because it is entirely possible that the project does
get approved here and at the City Council level. At that
location, I would like to have these conditions been reviewed
and my input brought forth.
Commissioner Cole noted:
. This has been a most difficult issue.
After listening to all the testimony, I believe the proposed
expansion with the detailed mitigation and conditions proposed
will result in a better environment for the community.
. The Church has made a good case for need and they want to
Page 45 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
expand the facility by about 20% that is primarily for a youth
center. They are not increasing the site and not setting
precedent as it relates to density or FAR.
. The EIR has concluded that there are no significant impacts
with mitigation.
. These conditions can be enforced and need to be clearly
written. Staff has done this.
. Churches are a fundamental part of the community as a whole
and St. Andrew's Church has been a good community member
for over 50 years.
. I believe that this is a reasonable request and I therefore will be
in support of this project.
Commissioner Eaton asked about the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act that does assert constraints on cities in
dealing with churches and particularly church worship services. It has
not been discussed here. He asked if this project is approved with
the conditions does the City Attorney see any problem with that
approval in terms of the RLUIPA? If it was denied outright, would that
create problems with the RLUIPA?
Ms. Clauson answered no. If the Commission wanted to deny this
outright, I would want to have the reasons and statements for such a
denial be given with the direction that staff come back with a
resolution to provide for those reasons of denial.
Commissioner Eaton noted:
. The Church is planning to grow, as the limits they have asked
for demonstrate that.
. The impositions we have imposed on the Church are extensive
and are warranted by the very intense use of the property that is
already there and being proposed to be increased somewhat.
. Those conditions are warranted on such an intense use and
such a constrained site.
. The parking ratio in the Code is not adequate in my opinion, but
we have been advised that we have to live with the parking
ratios in the Code so that leaves us with a yes or no.
. 1 have heard a lot of complaints about the current situation.
. So the question is does approval improve the current situation
Page 46 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004\ 1 209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
in the community?
. Many citizens tonight have said no, but this decision lays in the
hands of the Council members.
. He is in support of the project.
Commissioner Hawkins noted:
. This is a most challenging project.
. There is a net benefit of the project as proposed, which is the
circulation issues with the wall and increased parking.
. He supports the project.
Chairperson Tucker noted:
. The project on balance will be more beneficial than detrimental.
It might get approved at the Planning Commission level and it
might be approved at the Council level, but I suggest that it
would be the right thing for St. Andrew's to do is not build the
project they way it is presently constituted.
In my mind, there is an issue that is out there that has festered
for a long time. The Church could have done a lot of things
over a long period of time to be a little more neighborly, and
they haven't done that. They have created a lot of animosity
and acrimony and so much anger that I think it is virtually
impossible for the neighbors to see any benefit out of this
project.
don't think this is a healthy situation. I am not sure what the
urgency is for the Church to proceed with this project at this
time.
. If the Church has the approvals, it will have the upper hand in
any discussions that go on, but then if they agreed to modify the
project from that point, it would be a more magnanimous
gesture and the right thing to do in my mind.
. I support this project because it meets the criteria that I have
stated all along, but I really don't think this project as designed
should be built by the Church because of the past history and
the problems that exist in the neighborhood. I think the right
thing would be to discuss this further with the neighbors.
Page 47 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Commissioner Selich noted:
. He supports the project reluctantly.
. The neighborhood will be better off with the additional parking.
. The Church could accommodate all of the activities and
programs they have in a smaller square foot print.
. Because of the nature of the square footage and not having
concurrent occupancy of the square footage, it has forced us to
come up with this rather long list of conditions, which I think we
all realize are going to be difficult to enforce over the long haul.
It is up to the Church to have a lot of integrity over future years
to operate in accordance with these conditions.
I support this with the package that we have put together the
neighborhood is going to be better off in the long run, but I still
feel that the Church could have come up with a plan that
accommodated their activities in less square footage.
Chairperson Tucker noted we have to take care of the EIR first. He
asked if there were any last comments or concerns on the EIR.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich that we recommend that
the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and that we
further find that there is no substantial change to the Environmental
Impact Report that will be necessary and that we determine that
recirculation is not necessary.
Page 48 of 56
Ayes.
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes:
Noes:
Hawkins
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
None
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to recommend to the City
Council that they approve the Use Permit and the Zone change in the
General Plan Amendment subject to the findings and conditions in the
terms of the Resolution that have been handed out this evening with
all the changes discussed during the course of this hearing.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
Toerge
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Chairperson Tucker then asked that a report of the Planning
Commission of some variety be sent forth to the City Council that
recommends to the City Council that the Council not act on this
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Page 49 of 56
matter until the School District Agreement has been approved by the
Planning Commission.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker that we recommend that
the Council, because the school agreement is an integral part of this
particular approval and is vital, have the Planning Commission
approve that agreement before the Council acts.
Commissioner Eaton asked about the Permit Streamlining Act and if it
applies to this project if the timing wasn't correct.
Ms. Clauson answered that the Permit Streamlining Act does not
apply to the Zone change or the General Plan Amendment, it only
applies to the Use Permit. There isn't an issue on the Use Permit
because the Use Permit can not be approved without the General
Plan Amendment, otherwise it would conflict with the General Plan.
Chairperson Tucker affirmed that if the Council wanted to they could
certify the EIR and later vote to deny the project if they so chose.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes:
Hawkins
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
None
SUBJECT: Circle Residence (PA2003 -006)
ITEM NO.6
3415 Ocean Boulevard
PA2003 -006
Request for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification
Permit that allowed a new single - family residence to exceed the 24-
Continued to
foot height limit and subterranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into
01/06/2005
the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting
changes to the building design that include an increase to the height
on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The applicant does not
request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to waive the provision the
Planning Commission not take up new items for consideration after
10:30 p.m.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and Hawkins
Noes:
Eaton
Absent:
McDaniel
Abstain:
None
Brion Jeannette, architect for the project noted the following:
. This project was originally approved by the Planning
file : //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlPlanning CommissionlPC MinuteslPrior Years1200411209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 50 of 56
Commission at 6,100 square feet; the proposal is now a 4,900
square feet, three level project with a roof top project already
approved by the Commission.
. The house is lower relative to the street elevation.
. The basement level has been removed.
. The proposed project meets the newly adopted LCP in that the
protection of the coastal bluff and following the pattern of
development issue.
. There were questions of issues of stringline. stringline is
difficult to define and connect the dots when you look at
development on a bluff like this.
. You have to look at the configuration of each of the homes
relative to the whole stretch, not just neighbor to neighbor,
which is why I believe the LCP discussed the issue of following
the predominant pattern of development rather than the
common stringline definition.
. He then presented and explained his exhibits that consisted of
view simulations down the shoreline taken on both sides of his
client's home.
. He explained that they are looking to increase the size of the
house and come out as far as they can.
. He noted that the houses along the bluff meander and the
Tabak residence (two doors down), and the house adjacent to it
is out further by 5 to 7 feet, the decks in some cases go beyond
that; they all hit the ground at different elevations at different
distances from the street.
*Coastal Commission language defines the stringline as the
furthest most portion of the structure at that adjacent corner, not
enclosed, not defined in any way other than the structure
holding up whatever is there, which would be the corner holding
the deck up above it.
. The City has no definition of stringline.
. There is sort of a general line of development, which is how we
designed the project.
We have gone out further with the center portion of a
cantilevered deck that extends further than the house but at a
point where it does not affect anybody's view.
file : //F:1UserslPLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC MinuteslPrior Years1200411209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
. The view is the'view in front of you.'
. It was important to not impact the next door neighbor's view of
Inspiration Point, so we made sure that nothing extends too far
into that area that would interfere with this view.
That was how we established the design. He then referred to
the exhibit and noted the points used for the stringline.
Chairperson Tucker asked about the stringline and how it has been
used.
Mr. Campbell noted that staff hasn't used this stringline other than in
the prior application, which was for the Ensigns. In that application,
the project architect designed the project with stringlines in mind and
he drew them in a different method. We utilized those stringlines to
analyze the project and the project was approved based on those
stringlines and in fact it was conditioned and altered to be in
compliance with those stringlines.
Staff does not have a definition of stringline established at this point in
time. We have a policy in the new LCP, which has been adopted by
the Council, but yet to be certified by the Coastal Commission, that
establishes policy based on the predominant line of development
Staff has not set up where we are drawing that line. A discussion of
that policy is in the staff report for the Commission's information. The
applicant's proposal does not seem to be that far beyond the
predominant line of development. It is our opinion of the plans that
the plan does come out a little bit further on the bluff face than the
prior approved project. It is on an area that has been altered and
within those policies there is discretion that the Commission can
exercise to evaluate whether it is consistent with those policies.
Again, those policies have been adopted by the Council, but not
certified and not formally adopted to be applied to a project today.
This is the first project that staff is looking at the stringline issue.
This project exceeds the prior variance approval, which is why we are
here. The overall volume of the house as viewed from Ocean
Boulevard is comparable to that prior approval. It is really the down
slope 24 -foot height off the natural grade that is being exceeded
here. In that respect, the project does not affect any public views
given the positions of the houses next to it. It would have an affect on
the adjacent properties more than on the public views. If you follow
the predominant line of development, staff believes that this project
can be approved.
Commissioner Eaton noted that besides the height variance, the
applicant is seeking to modify the prior condition that did refer to the
stringlines. What stringlines would you apply if that condition was not
Page 51 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years\2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
modified?
Mr. Campbell answered that we would be looking at a stringline
similar to the way the applicant has drawn on the new plans, which is
from the furthest extent to the adjacent properties. Referring to the
exhibit, he pointed them out. He noted that the house does fit within
the stringline shown. The difference between this stringline and what
the Ensigns had drawn was Ensign used the comers of both houses.
The house proposed by the applicant comes out 4 to 5 feet further
based on the new stringlines. The decks, which are cantilevered on
the upper levels, come out farther than these stringlines and hence
the need to amend the prior conditions that require the project to
comply with a stringline. There were two stringlines on the previous
plan, one for the residence and one for the decks. (referring to the
exhibit he pointed them out) The house is coming out four feet further
on one side than the prior stringline for the house; and the decks are
coming out even further, but I don't know the exact distance.
He went on the say that the basis of this policy relates to the
alteration of the natural terrain and discussed reasoning for
stringlines, cantilevered decks, and policy language.
At Commission request, Mr. Jeannette showed the distances of depth
down the hillside the new house would be. He noted that the
Butterfield house has a five foot retaining wall before it hits the
ground. He further explained that the Building Department has
identified that the three level building would need to have two exits
out of the upper floor, put a five foot retaining wall at the base of the
building to limit it to a two story basement concept. The only reason
we are touching the ground is to meet the Building Department's
requirement to not have to provide a second exit at the upper level.
Commissioner Cole asked if this constitutes a special privilege that
wouldn't be detrimental to the adjacent property owners and what
kind of findings would have to be made to determine it would be a
special privilege?
Mr. Campbell answered that the proposed house will be comparable
to homes on either side. This property couldn't be developed in a
consistent fashion or a very similar fashion as the adjacent properties
so we felt that the subject property would not enjoy the same
privileges as their neighbors.
Public comment was opened.
Lynn Butterfield, resident of 3401 Ocean Boulevard, noted her home
on the exhibit. She stated that the homes line up almost identical by
design and good planning. The neighbors are aware of the views.
The newer projects dig down in order to get more footage as the
Page 52 of 56
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
previous owner had wanted to do as well as encroach into the front
yard setback, which is 10 feet. This had all been approved with a
prior variance and modification. We all have similar contours to our
properties. There is a small curve so they are all a little bit off, but all
the homes adhere to a stringline. The new proposal increases the
project towards the ocean. The home will be bigger in volume and
matches to our decks and from there he is proceeding to go out
further 7, 9 and 11 feet with decking past our home, which will
definitely impact and infringe our views. The views are taken from
Inspiration Point and from the beach as well as Ocean Boulevard. It
would set a precedent if this application is approved. We strongly
oppose this application to amend the variance. She noted her
concern of view infringement and the extensive excavating that will
take place will not undermine her home.
Don Kazarian, 3412 Ocean Boulevard above the subject property
asked if the roof top deck will exist or not. He was told it will be gone.
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Tucker asked how wide the applicant's house and the
subject property house is?
Mr. Campbell referring to the staff report, discussed the depths of the
developments as measured from the front property line.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that a fair amount of time was spent
going over the previous application. This looked like the way it was
going to be done, so that was the reason why we approved the
Ensign project the way it was. This change, for me, would set a
different precedent. I am concerned about it jetting out, I am
concerned about the next person who wants to build and I am
certainly concerned about the Butterfields. I am not going to support
this, we did this once before and it worked fine and I would like to
stick with what we did before and let everybody know we are
consistent.
Chairperson Tucker noted that we seem to have different ways of
computing a stringline and we never really looked at any hard fashion
whether the way it was done in the first place was the proper way to
do it. I am kind of torn about what is the proper way to do it.
Commissioner Selich noted he agrees with Commissioner McDaniel.
I would be in favor of supporting what we did with the Ensign
residence.
Commissioner Toerge noted that this project is consistent with the
previous project except that this is smaller. One complete floor is
eliminated. The stringline determination is anything but certain and is
Page 53 of 56
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
not a clear cut policy and our LCP, while it may have been adopted, is
not certified. I am not sure the procedure whereby the stringline is
interpreted is clear. The location of the bluff is a convex curve, so it is
clear to me that this house is going to stick out further than the
Butterfield home. To me, this is a much smaller home with less
excavation of the slope is clearly what we are looking to do in our
community. I would approve this project.
Commissioner Cole noted he concurred that based on what has been
presented with the size of the project is important and does not see
the significant impact to the adjacent property owners. I agree with
staff and recommend for approval.
Commissioner Eaton noted he agrees with Commissioner McDaniel's
comments.
Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the stringline and the
width of the proposed project. He agrees with Commissioner
McDaniel's comments.
Chairperson Tucker asked do any of those improvements pertain to
the variance? The variance request is for a height variance and the
modification request is for a setback encroachment. I am not sure
how the stringline concept got into the last variance discussion, but it
is not before us tonight. The issue is would granting the variance
cause harm to the adjacent residences. We need to make a finding
that granting a variance would not be. harmful. We have a set of
conditions for approval and a set of findings for denial. The denial
side is in the majority.
Mr. Jeannette noted that the concept of the stringline and the way you
are interpreting it has only to do with the corner of this building. He
then referred to the exhibit and noted the Coastal stringline
interpretation, the livable area, the placement of the Butterfield
residence, and which point to use for the stringlines and how to base
the analysis.
Motion was made to continue this item to January 6, 2005.
Commissioner Selich noted he agrees to the continuance and would
like to see the proposed applicant be more in conformance with the
Ensign residence in measuring the stringline.
Mr. Jeannette noted he agrees with the continuance and said this
would be a good time to look at the stringline concept.
Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees. This project does not meet
the test in his opinion, to impact negatively one neighbor or multiple
neighbors the way it is designed.
Page 54 of 56
file: //F: \Users\PLN\5hared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Page 55 of 56
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes:
Hawkins
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
None
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to reconsider item 3. I
Approved
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes:
Hawkins
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
None
Commissioner Hawkins noted his vote was to abstain and asked that
Approved
this be reflected in the minutes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to change the minutes
as requested.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and
Noes:
Hawkins
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
a. City Council Follow -up - no time.
b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee - no time.
c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the
General Plan Update Committee - no time.
d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to
report on at a subsequent meeting - no time.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a
future agenda for action and staff report - no time.
f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - no time.
g. Project status - no time.
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 56 of 56
h. Request for excused absences - none.
ADJOURNMENT: 12:45 a.m. JADJOURNMENT
JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
file: //F: \Users \PLMShared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \1209.htm 6/26/2008