Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes-12-08-05Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 4 Page 1 of 20 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all resent. Commissioner Henn noted he would leave at 7:30 due to a schedule conflict. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary avid Lepo, Hogle Ireland, consultant planner PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on December 2, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 17, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain- None HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Brookfield Homes (PA2004 -251) ITEM NO.2 1301 Quail Street PA2004 -251 rc okfield Homes plans to construct 86 multi - family residential condominium units Continued to file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 2 of 20 hin 7 buildings that will be 45 feet in height with floor plans ranging from 900 -1,95 02/23/2006 care feet on a 3.7 acre site located at the southeast corner of the intersection of ruce Street and Quail Street in the Airport Area. A General Plan amendment is iposed that would change the land use designation of the property from Retail rvice Commercial to Multi - Family Residential. An amendment of the Newport Place finned Community is sought to change the use of the site from Retail & Service mmercial to Multi - Family Residential. An amendment of the Newport Place Planned mmunity is sought to change the use of the site from a 304 unit extended stay hotel multi - family housing. The changes to the Planned Community District regulation establish use and development regulations for the proposed condominium eject. A Tentative Tract Map is also sought that would subdivide the lot to establish condominium units. Temple noted that the applicant has asked that this item be continued to 2006. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and None nt: None dn: None JBJECT: Wilson Automotive Group ITEM NO.3 848, 888 Dove Street PA2005 -232 and 3901, 3931, 3961 MacArthur Boulevard Approved request by the Wilson Automotive Group for a modification to the proposed sign Dgram that does not conform to the sign regulations of the Newport Place Planned ) mmunity in the following ways: 1) number and height of ground signs, 2) number of A signs, and 3) area of special purpose directional signs. The applicant requests two ound signs where one is allowed. The signs would be located along Jamboree Road id MacArthur Boulevard. Both signs (6 feet high and 6 feet, 4 inches high) exceed the aximum allowable of 4 feet. The applicant proposes wall signs on more than 2 -'ades of each building and lastly, the applicant proposes directional signs that are 10 ware feet in area where 6 square feet is the maximum allowable. Carlisle, architect of the project, noted a specific sign program is presented for ✓al and is unchanged as to the original submittal at the time this project was imissioner Tucker, referencing the sign exhibit, noted he is okay with the sign ram but questioned the need for the signage on the tower. There are plenty of s on the site and this one does not need to be there. Is it from any vantage point you would see other such prominent signs? Carlisle answered this tower element is more of a branding and in keeping with a in architectural statement in making it a pivot point within the site. You will see signs out there. Griffin, project manager for Wilson Group added: . The tower element is more for identification from the 73 Freeway. . We believe this is an element to identify and will draw people to the site. file : //H:1Plancomm\2005 \120805.btm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 . The tower element is 54 feet high. mmissioner Tucker asked if the other signs on the tower, except the one facing the Freeway were removed, what would that do to the program? Is there any view from nboree and MacArthur where you don't already have plenty of signage? Griffin answered that he would like to keep them all. Southbound Jamboree is the ;t important of the sites. He then noted all the sign sites. nissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the tower sign that looks like advertising than an architectural interest. He suggested only one sign on the tower. Eaton, Hawkins, and Cole noted that they are okay with the signage tower. was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the Sign Program as imissioner Hawkins asked about the directional signage towards Jamboree. Is it of the application? Temple answered yes, because they exceed the on -site directional sign size ation of the Newport Place Planned Community. Edmonston, at Commissioner Hawkins' inquiry, after referring to the plan noted his f had looked at these plans with the architect and that we were going to have itive signage as opposed to negative signage. Following a review he stated egress age from the site would be out on to Dove and up to Bowsprit and then north on ;missioner Hawkins noted the finding that the requested modification will be patible with existing development in the neighborhood. This area is in transition he is concerned about this finding. . Temple noted that this particular corner is slightly different than the more office ninated part of the complex. There are two nearby retail complexes, both of which I modification permits for signage of various types including number and sizes of ns. Within the office complex there are modification requests as well. Perhaps to discussed would be whether modifications to the actual sign regulations for that PC t should be considered through an amendment would be the appropriate solution. affirmed that the adjacent retail area has an abundance of signage. brnmissioner Tucker restated his motion to approve Modification Permit No. 2005- 07 (PA2005232) subject to findings and conditions with the plans that have been comment was opened. None None None Page 3 of 20 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 216'/2 Marine Avenue Page 4 of 20 PA2005 -213 request to amend Use Permit No. 3175 allowing up to 6 tables within the existing Approved staurant, rather than 3 tables as previously conditioned. The maximum number of !ats permitted will remain at 12 seats. Additionally, the request includes the ithorization for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption pursuant to e Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance (ABO). ne Murillo, gave an overview of the staff report. The Building Department has fount the existing non - conforming configuration of the restroom facility is in violation of Health Code and Building Code requirements because it was requires the aurant patrons to walk through the kitchen to access the restroom. The concern ;ts that the level of customers deciding to dine on site may increase thus increasing demand and use of the restroom facility. Therefore, staff has incorporated a dition requiring the restaurant facility to be brought into compliance to the sfaction of the Building Department to where it will be directly accessible to the aurant customers without walking through the kitchen. The applicant understands accepts the condition and therefore staff recommends approval of this application. imissioner Tucker questioned why condition 44 is being added. He stated that this )r level of intensification by adding beer and wine service really doesn't change the at all and does not seem a justification for this added requirement onto the icant to bring the restaurant into compliance. He then discussed a similar situation re it was ultimately decided to let the Health Department enforce their own lations and against staffs recommendation the Commission deleted a condition did something similar. He questioned staff if the Commission could strike condition Murillo answered that per discussions with building officials this condition was ed at their request. He stated that if this was removed, the applicant could proceed their project. nmissioner McDaniel noted that there have been quite a few restaurants over the is in that same location and that if we give them the beer and wine service the right stay with the establishment whether it be a waffle place or takeout, it will have a ise for beer and wine. He noted his concern of the zoning and a beer and wine Temple noted this is a granting of a use permit pursuant to the ABO, you are not iting a license for alcoholic beverage service, that is done by the ABC. The ABC rise will contain specific conditions which are always included and will disallow a :aurant such as this to allow patrons to exit the facility with an opened alcoholic erage. Depending on the license type they may not be able to take out an un- �ned alcoholic beverage. That is regulated by the ABC through a license issued by State of California. The police department seldom observes violations of that ause they put their license at risk. There are conventional take outs in the airport 3 with drive through windows that inside the restaurant serve liquor. continued. Cho, attorney for and representing the applicant, noted this is quite a small file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 5 of 20 staurant. The client will attempt to change the restroom situation; however, referring the photographs in the staff report, in order to access the restrooms, patrons will ed to leave the restaurant and walk down the narrow alleyway and go to the rear of a restaurant where a new door would need to be located to access the restrooms. hile it is feasible to do so, if the Planning Commission could see fit to drop this ndition and allow patrons access as they have been since 1985, that would be ,preciated. The intent is to have some seating for people who are waiting for their lers as well as to have 6 approved tables for dining. There is no change in cupancy load that is within the 935 square feet in total area. The applicant is looking means to succeed and believe with the addition of beer and wine for patron nsumption on site would be helpful. The interior of the space is comfortable and any locals patronize the establishment. He then produced a petition of support. This a small local place and many patrons walk as there is little parking on Balboa Island. McDaniel asked if the establishment was ADA accessible. Cho answered no. The configuration of the restaurant and restroom facility has n the same since originally constructed. ,sinner McDaniel asked that if not having ADA access would make the City I don't want to approve this and have the City sued. Temple answered that it is the restaurateur who would be at risk for litigation. The does not bear any liability for any discretionary actions it approves. ssioner Henn asked if the restroom is modified so that it does not have to be through the kitchen will it then be ADA compliant? Cho stated he could not answer that. Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, stated that typically the requirements would you would have to bring it up to make it ADA compliant with modifications. Temple added that if the dollar value improvement is made, it is likely the ADA gn requirements will be triggered; however, there is a dollar threshold calculations occurs so that only partial ADA improvements would be required. That is a formul the Building Department administers. nissioner Cole verified that the application is to change to 6 tables with two chairs and this would only be a re- configuration of the seating plan and will not result in onal seating. Your client approved the conditions? Cho answered, yes. He added that his client is inclined to accept the conditions as of the approval. But, if the Planning Commission drops condition 44, the applicant ild approve that as well. He affirmed that there is no nexus between the application condition 44. The inclusion of beer and wine is not changing the character rations of the restaurant. The alleyway may not be able to accommodate ADA ass. There is no construction proposed in this application. >mmissioner Hawkins asked If the addition of beer and wine would intensify the use the restroom? Mr. Cho answered no. At Commission inquiry, he noted that his client has read and file: /fH:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Pagg 6 of 20 1 understands the conditions on the application. ublic comment was opened. hilip Hoofe, noted his support of the restaurant and as a patron the restaurant is a I plus for the neighborhood. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Toerge noted that anytime beer and wine is served there is a need for estroom access. The requirement for ADA is a Building Department requirement and is not for the Commission to determine. The exterior access is the better alternative. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve an amendment to Use Permit No. 3175 (PA2005 -213) deleting condition 44 and subject to the other findings and conditions. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to amend the motion and include condition 44. Ayes, Toerge, Eaton, Hawkins Noes: Cole, McDaniel, Tucker and Henn bsent: None bstain: None ote on the original motion. yes: Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker and Henn Noes: Eaton, Hawkins, Absent: None Abstain: None OBJECT: Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) ITEM NO.5 100 -600 West Coast Highway PA2004 -141 Request for approval of a Use Permit, Modification Permit and Development Plan, to Continue to allow the development of a 56,000 square foot shopping center and two-level 01/05/2006 subterranean parking garage. The site is approximately 2.57 acres and is current) occupied by 8 detached commercial structures that would be removed. The request includes consideration of a Use Permit to allow buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 -feet up to a maximum height of 35 feet, a Modification Permit to allow commercial building to encroach into the required 5 foot wide rear yard abutting residential properties to the north, and a Modification Permit to allow a landscape planter to be built less than the required width of 4 feet along Coast Highway. The project also includes right -of -way dedication along Coast Highway for widening of Coast Highway adjacent to the project site, installation of a traffic signal on Coast Highway, grading, landscaping, site lighting and site walls. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in connection with the application ted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, with change incorporated in the project or with mitigation measures indicated, the subject evelopment will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 :nts. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of application. Temple noted that the Commission had received email notification regan .iments for denial or approval of this application. There are many issues Jed to be decided or direction given to staff before we can present documents d reasonably support an approval or denial action. Staff is therefore amending :mmendation contained in the staff report and on the agenda to receive st ;entation and to have the Commission give input on the staff report and to rec presentation of the project proponent and to receive all public testimony and t uss and give staff direction as to where they would like to take this project. nest that it be continued to the first meeting in January so that staff can come t: a recommendation that reflects the direction you would like to go on the vad is of this project. imissioner Tucker asked for a discussion on the jurisdictional nature. He ask t it would entail in this area and what the Commission should or should not look the ability to suggest changes to the development plan. ;. Temple noted that Mariners Mile was the first area where the City decided I :bark upon an instrument that would provide the Planning Commission with mu( >re authority to review actual design components of a project. Starting on page 13 a staff report is a discussion of the development plan review. There are a number Jings that need to be made and the Commission has the authority in this case cuss and direct changes to the site plan, the landscaping, the overall effect of tt :hitecture as it relates to the specific criteria of the design framework. It gives yc : latitude to ensure that the development in this area meets the city standard fi ality. The use permit is related to the project height and is necessary because ad portion of the project exceeds the basic height limit of 26 feet and reaches ight of approximately 35 feet as provided by the code. That particular approval has scific and different set of findings which the Commission must make in order " prove the use permit. That also has a specific design component including bas luirements of not allowing a project that has more floor area than the code alloy d things of that nature. It does ask the Commission to determine whether the proje er implementation would result in more public visual open space or views than wou experienced from those public areas by height conforming project. The way th Sing is achieved by enhancing setbacks especially in areas where there might be tf ssibility of a visual view through to some visual resource. That typically is the bay 4 aan and could also be a significant landform that is valued by the community such z view of the distant mountains, the view of natural landforms such as roc tcroppings and cliffs or even of a sandy beach or a city enhanced park area, etc. nissioner Tucker noted the site plan was an issue to him. He asked about th of traffic signal, is that something that we have the ability to suggest be deleted? ;. Temple answered it is not technically within the Commission's authority to approve deny the traffic signal. This is an issue for CalTrans since Coast Highway is a state ihway in that area. The project itself is obviously connected to the signal; however; criteria, if you have concerns, is to focus on what results if the signal is approved, rticularly what problems might occur on site. If you believe a significant queuing :blem that obstructs parking then I think there is a way to express that concern in e Jing that would be part of the support perhaps to deny the project, or to require lain modifications such as widening aisle widths or reorganizing parking in order tc Page 7 of 20 file: //H:1Plancomm12005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 8 of 20 I tsddress those specific operational concerns that might be an outgrowth of the signal elf. In terms of the operation of the highway it is more of the arena of the Cit ouncil as to whether the City should support or oppose with CalTrans the approval o e signal. Toerge asked if there is any opportunity to synchronize the signal w e Drive and the signal in front of the Bay Club or is out of the control City? Edmonston answered the signals along Coast Highway are presently tied toge CalTrans is in charge of them. We have made suggested changes in the past Frans worked with us on. If we saw problems, our staff could work with them. Hawkins asked if the site or the project is within the Coastal jurisdiction. Temple answered the project site is outside the coastal zone. Henn left the proceedings. David Lepo, consultant planner for this project, gave an overview of the . A single tenant in a 13,000 square foot building tentatively scheduled drug store on the westerly property line. The remainder of gross floor area will be in < second building at the north property line built into the slope at the toe of the bluff . The project includes a one level underground parking garage with ar second level of underground parking dependent on applicant decision. . Parking is provided in excess required by the Code. . The Commission is asked to make findings for the approval of the develo plan, the use permit for the over height buildings as well as modification p allowing a reduction of from 5 feet to 0 of the building distance to the property line as well as a reduction in the minimum 4 foot landscape strip Coast Highway. . The staff report includes a discussion on the nature of the findings that would made. Staff will need direction as to whether you find compliance, necess revisions, or denial. . There are significant issues of open space, a significant retaining wall of 55 at the north property line and a slope determination. Bob Matson of RBF Consulting, preparers of the environmental documents for act as well as the traffic study made a PowerPoint presentation noting: . Location of proposed traffic signal. . 3 access points on project site. . Trip generation net would be approximately 1,683 daily trips. file : //H:1Plancomm120051120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 9 of 20 . Circulation modification with a widening of Coast Highway from 2 to 3 throug lanes, approximately 14 driveway cuts will be reduced to three. I I . A raised medium will be constructed between the proposed signal and the Dover intersection. . The full access driveway will be signalized. . All intersections studied are currently operating at an acceptable level of servic D or better. Without the project all intersections are forecast to operate at a acceptable level of service; however, with the addition of project trips th proposed signalized intersection is forecast to operate at deficient level of servic in the p.m. peak hour. . Thresholds of significance in terms of the CEQA document with the addition project trips at that proposed signalized intersection would result in a signift impact. . Mitigation has been identified to reduce that level to less than significant would be a west bound Coast Highway proposed third lane would be right lane into the project site. • The number 3 lane would be converted to a shared right turn through lane. . With the additional project trips, the intersection at Balboa Bay Club will forecast to operate at a level of service E, which would be deficient. . Based on the City's thresholds of significance, the addition of project trips result in two significant impacts in the cumulative year analysis. The intersections that would be operating deficiently are the Balboa Bay Club at Highway as well as the signalized access on Coast Highway. . The first mitigation is the additional through lane at the signalized intersection the project and to mitigate the Balboa Bay Club intersection that has two throe lanes to add a third through lane which would also allow for a right turn lane. . This mitigation would address accumulative significant traffic impact at the access location, the same one identified for year 2007 with project. . He then reviewed an aerial of the roadway showing possible Coast improvements. iairperson Toerge asked for clarification of the Negative Declaration wherein count of dirt to be removed off -site (90,000 cubic yards), exceeds the amount of be excavated (190,000 cubic feet). Page 4.3 -4. Beiswenger, project applicant, noted that 90,000 cubic yards is what is to ated and hauled off -site in the case of the two -level subterranean pari ire. He then added: . The project will be constructed of steel, concrete, slate roof, real rock covering, and wood windows. file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 10 of 20 . This proposed project will be the gateway and a lasting landmark to Mariner' Mile along Coast Highway. I . He then listed all of the people who have been working on this project. . This project will remove 50 year old retail buildings and replace them with development of a 56,000 square foot retail development, widening of Coec Highway, reduction of curb cuts, undergrounding of utilities on the adjace hillside and an addition of a traffic signal to regulate egress and ingress to tl project site. . Accidents are frequent occurrences at this property at the transition area on highway. . The proposed development is comprehensive with the consolidation of 17 reduction of curb cuts, dedication of land to CalTrans and improvements to C Highway and traffic signal are balanced and designed to work together. . Access to and from the project will be orderly and regulated. . There is no tenant of the project that is dictating that a signal be part of project. . We have not yet determined whether a second level of subterranean parking be built, which would cover half the site. The determination will be driven by factors at the time of project commencement. . The EIR; however, includes construction of the lower level. Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, noted the following: . We understand that there may be technical issues as outlined that necessities second hearing and we acknowledge that. . Mariners Mile is an area that needs revitalization. . The Strategic Vision and Design Framework for Mariner's Mile was compiled 2000 by the City and identified specific goals for Mariner's Mile. . These goals are reflected in the proposed project. . This retail center is permitted by the general plan and zoning. . She then gave an overview of the proposed project noting the drugstore, first f shops of approximately 32,000 square feet and a second floor retail /med office and restaurants of 10,000 +square feet. . She presented photos of what is on site today. . The project consists of 1 and 2 story buildings with the average peak of 29 with some peaks of 39 feet. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 11 of 20 I . Displayed an exhibit showing the project is not in the coastal zone. . The proposed slope grading area will be done to ensure to the extent practical preservation of the slope as there appears to be an area of sloughing. . There will be no curb cut along Dover from this project. . This is a comprehensive proposed project, and the proponent has spent a lot time with the community. . She then reviewed an exhibit noting the placements of the various buildings. . The 30+ feet retaining wall will be landscaped with vines and other within planter boxes placed in the wall itself to accommodate plantings. . The varying building heights allow for interesting architecture. . Parking, terracing, stairways, photo simulations, and artist rendering discussed. . The residents above want a signal as they feel it will minimize the accidents. • The garage ramps were discussed. • There is an elevator serving the drugstore from the garage. • The garage will have signage to locate stores above for easier access. • This project is parked at 5 per 1,000 in case someone from the profession wishes to have an office here. . A minor modification fronting Coast Highway is requested. She then the landscape areas on the project. . Most of the neighbors above the project are in favor of this project as evide in the packet of support letters contained in the staff report. This support many hours in living rooms discussing this project and how it works and t�F about views. Formal presentations were started in 2004. . The site was story- poled. . View simulations were presented and discussed. I Croft, Principal of KTTY Architects, referencing the exhibit, noted the area four feet in front of seven parking stalls where the setback modification is t son Toerge asked about the five -sided architecture for the roof. If there to be presented today asked that before a vote is made on the project tion to be made showing the location of air conditioning units, how they v file: //H:\Plancomm120051120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 12 of 20 �Iook from up above, and how the rooftops are to be treated. i Croft noted the black and white plans shows the screening of mect pment with angled trellis screens. He stated there is only one large cooling will also be screened. issioner McDaniel noted that there is no signage on the buildings being st the presentation. He stated his concern of signage being on the roadside that a presentation be made. Doug Beiswenger noted that a complete sign program will be submitted. The s be metallic and lit from the back like halos. They will not be plastic nor colored. signs will be on site. Temple noted she will assure that the applicant will receive a copy of the Ordinance. Cole noted his concern about the pedestrian situations. Croft discussed the exhibit noting the ramp transition areas, car access immissioner Eaton asked about the 'soldier piles'; the parking; queuing on ress onto Coast Highway; modification request and the possibility of cor aces; haul trucks.,and AQMD thresholds; and a condition looked at with final nun impact on Coast Highway from the truck trips. Lepo answered: . The pile issue had been discussed both in terms of a project condition environmental analysis. The applicant has agreed as a condition of the pr approval to limit the method to coring rather than drive piling. . Parking provided in the one level option is 294 spaces which is 14 more than minimum required; and 409 in the two -level option which is 129 more than minimum required. For medical office the provision is 1 space for 200 square and that will fit within the shopping component. . Queuing analysis on site shows adequate space. Stacking in the drive could be a problem in terms of obstructing in and out of the spaces at the time. (referred to the exhibit and showed potential stacking areas) The an shows one car leaving every three minutes. . The applicant has suggested changes to the aisle ways. Petros, Principal of LSA Associates, speaking for the applicant, noted: . The queuing analysis indicates the amount of queuing that would form on average of 3-4 vehicles queued during the cycle. . At the worst extreme, the analysis shows 6 -7 cars queued. Most every portion o that peak hour there would be no more than 3-4 and on occasion you may hav 6 -7. That is the finding of the City report and I would not consider that file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 13 of 20 1 considerable queue at a retail center. Temple added that many years ago the City eliminated the concept and ability compact car spaces in favor of a uniform and somewhat smaller standard park I width. This was done because, people would park in two spaces, and due to id to larger vehicles, and effective placement where these spaces were allocated parking lot. Edmonston noted his agreement with Ms. Temple's statement and added this wa: e in 1988 and that the City is now marking SUV spaces for the biggest vehicles. standard depth stall is 17 feet. Parking up to 2 1/2 feet is allowed to overhanc Iscaping, but the difficulty is that very few plants tolerate the heat from the engines. curb height can be no more than 6 inches. .. Beiswenger added that it will be about 6,000 haul trips to export the 90,000 yards it off the site. He noted they will stay below the threshold so there is no significE pact with regard to the export. We have analyzed and may implement excavati �m the site and stockpiling at a closer by property where we can then time the hauli the export out of the area. We will stay below the mileage threshold that would st low the air quality impact threshold as required to not create a significant impact. Hawkins noted: To the extent that the stockpiling is a proposal of the project, the Commissi would want to have air quality and traffic analysis for all of those trips essentially you are doubling the trips. He did not favor the stockpiling proposal. • Referring to finding 1 on page 15, he asked about the bluff impacts from t project. He noted the environmental document needs to address these issues deeper detail. Lepo answered: • Analysis in the mitigated negative declaration has to do with the conformity of tl project with the general plan land use policy, which will depend on tl Commission's action as to whether this is a significant natural land form. If it is determined it is, the project would not be consistent with the general and therefore that component of the negative declaration would not mesh that finding. . RBF has no way of knowing what determination this body would give, so could be a threshold of significant, if so determined by the Commission. ,loner Hawkins noted and discussed his concern of the analysis and between the staff report and the analysis in the environmental document. Temple added that if the Commission decided this was a significant natural I: warranting protection under General Plan Policy D, then it could be determii dealing with this project with a Mitigated Negative Declaration was not appropri direct the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. That very th )ened for the Newport Dunes hotel project where once that document got out street and we started receiving comments, the City realized that the docum fil e: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01 /06 /2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 14 of 20 ould not suffice. Staff is preparing a comprehensive response to comments as a result of the correspondence received as well as comments of the Commissioners and any further input during public comment. We won't know what the answer is until you ake the determination. imissioner Hawkins then discussed hydrology issues referring to 4.8 of the Ir Iy /Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposal is that the project will expe > off the retaining wall and that those flows will arrive to the storm drain prior to i storm amount. Realizing those flows need some filtration, it seems optimistic. :d how the system would work so that there is no flooding on the upper retair or onto the project. Gregg Hoofe of Development Research Consultants, representing the applic ained the run off conditions for the amount of water and the type of drains used. rsioner Eaton asked if there is water filtering through the slope under and how would that be handled? *shall Lieu of Mach Tech Engineering and Consulting, representing the applic; :d he had worked on the geological evaluation for the project. The conditions of Dnt failure of the small retaining wall was a case of inadequate drainage and )unt of water happened at that time was unusual. For the new project, there will equate drainage that collects the water that comes in from behind the wall and th system of swales on top that protect infiltration coming in. There will be drain, :s at the bottom which will bring it to a sump pump and from there it will be puml of the parking building. r. Doug Beiswenger noted a determination has not been made to go to a permane watering system. We would have a drainage system on the back of that retainii III that will include a series of 'french' drains and they will be placed all the way dov a. wall so that in the event of a major failure we could put in a permanent de- watedi stem and the drainage infrastructure would be in place around the building. In goii a permanent de- watering system there is a series of regulatory matters, and if the ever contamination of water that gets to our property, we have to deal with it like it it own water. We are going to build the subterranean parking like a bath tub and v water - proofed so that it does not need to be pumped from around the garage bek s water table to keep the water from penetrating the garage. We will put in draii Dund the perimeter of the bottom floor of the garage so that if there is ever a failu a can get a permit to de -water by pump and take the hydrostatic pressure away frc )se lower levels of parking. Commission inquiry, Mr. Beiswenger answered that the single level of subterranf pth of excavation to the bottom of the footings should be in the range of about A. The second level of subterranean excavation to the bottom of the footings we around 27 feet. King of Hydroquip Dewatering Corporation, representing the applicant noted: . Has done projects at Hoag Hospital and the Balboa Bay Club. . There will be extensive testing performed at the site. . A combination of de- watering wells and french drains in conjunction with file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 15 of 20 shoring to lower the ground water table 3 -5 feet beneath the bottom of th excavation to achieve as dry a condition as possible during the excavation so that the export goes out dry. . Referring to exhibits, he noted his equipment used installation /collection /disposal parameters. nmissioner Tucker noted his concern about the parking calculations of parking at ces per 1,000 for retail and medical but the restaurants are based upon pub a. Continuing he referenced the Bluff Shopping Center parked at 9 per 1,000 a F 60% of it is restaurant; however, you can't find a parking space there at lun ;. If the goal is to have restaurants and public gathering places, this is not going a place for parking waivers. The decision needs to be made up front. T ulation is another concern. He then elaborated on the circulation and queuing. I sussed one -way traffic and two -way traffic in specific aisles, loading and trash areE Temple noted the parking and how it is calculated is based on the restaurant well. I Beiswenger answered he would be willing to modify the direction of the dr with appropriate signage and noted he will work with staff on the on -site issues. discussed the challenges that would present itself with possible scenarios. mmissioner Tucker asked how many service and passenger elevators are from -king area up to the shops? What about the trash pick up? Is the garage going to h enough? He affirmed that the drug store had seen and approved the site plan. Beiswenger answered that there is one planned for the north /east corner of t ling as well as 5 passenger elevators. There will be 4 passenger elevators, one :h will be serving the drugstore only. In the first level subterranean parking by t ht elevator there will be a storage area for trash. The 9 -yard dumpsters will t for the pick up. Additionally, there is a trash housing area exclusively for the dr Petros, LSA Associates, discussed the queuing at the transition on Q ay with the project providing a third through lane along the property and xiate transition to be provided at the proposed signal intersection. Discus: nmissioner Tucker asked for more information to be presented at the next meet turn around areas in the parking structure, and is staff proposing any hours tation on the haul route? Temple noted it is able to be considered and perhaps as a condition we could truck operations during peak hours. mmissioner Tucker asked that the colors and materials board be a part of & rmittal process. Whether this project fits on the site is an issue, but I generally see a great addition to the area; however, if we approve of the project, I want to fe nfortable that we have not created adverse traffic consequences that tt rounding neighborhoods have to live with. file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 16 of 20 Commissioner McDaniel noted the more parking there is the better it helps with th f anal determination; and, having all these people available to help with the presentation I is great. comment was opened. Marshall, resident, supports this project stating this type of quality and level terial used for this area will be a fine addition and gateway to the neighborhood s improve the traffic. Ily Anderson, owner of business at 400 West Coast Highway, noted that a car t ten through her store just this past month as well as another driver in the past y o lost her life on this section of the highway. She stated that this store is in a seric ,ximity to Coast Highway and that other accidents need to be prevented. l posed project is such an improvement and will save lives. If the situation contim it is now, there will be a loss of life. The strip is terrible and the signs there now y. People hang out in the back of the stores, there is trash and litter and causes ;sore. She asked for the support of this effort. Bean, property and business owner, noted his support of this proposal. He buildings there today are dilapidated and this new proposal is upscale and rous to the citizens. Mugel, resident, and partner of the proposed project, stated: The buildings will act as a landscape buffer as they will be covered with vines landscape materials. His company has many properties and one of the biggest challenges is creating sense of community. What this project does is create a sense of communi where people will walk to. . Parking will be on ground level as well as the parking structure. ian McCarthy, resident„ noted her support of this project and hopes that the be improved. Otting, resident„ noted: • Referenced her letter she had written and is pleased that there will be respon to comments forthcoming. • She explained some of the local traffic problems and noted that queuing is important aspect of this project that needs to be discussed. • She strongly supports an EIR for this project and is disappointed that one ha been done as there would have been community support. . She is concerned with the underground parking and trash pick up. . The Summary lists recommendations from de- watering to tie -back shorings, none of which are incorporated in the MND, including a survey of surrounding) properties for cracks prior to any excavation and building. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01106/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 17 of 20 . This Mitigated Negative Declaration did not do the project justice and asked abou the hydrology and soils information, and noted that there is not enough information to make an informed decision. . She concluded that the applicant should have been informed that an EIR was best way to handle this project in Newport Beach. ssioner Tucker noted the Mitigated Negative Declaration is an environmenl mt that has more or less the same studies that are in an EIR. There is t comment period and a narrative is contained in the EIR, he questioned wh in the MND that you feel should have been included that would have bey J in an EIR? Offing noted an issue was public services and utility vehicles and the ra lians. She wondered if with the extra signal there will be traffic backed up to wl Dunes is with the queuing. She is very concerned about safety and utility vehi ersing Dover due to traffic. She noted her basic concern is life saving and ct of getting to Hoag Hospital from where she lives. Even if you synchronize :s you can not get the traffic off the streets. imissioner Tucker noted anyone can get up and give their opinion. We have ha( c consultants and experts give us their input and that is what we have to act upon. ask questions but ultimately for us to make a decision we look to the experts fo contrary views for us to consider and whenever any written correspondence is jived, we respond in writing. So we get to see a valid reason and we get to see thi ments. The Commission will not take action until we see the response to all thos( is and set forth in a written form so that everyone can see, especially the Cit, ncil. However, I have still not seen specific reasons for the need of an EIR. Offing answered it was brought up this evening and that was an issues of the I i itself, emergency services with the amount of people that need to move thrc streets and the reason for raised medians. She stated these concerns were in McDaniel asked that someone will respond to emergency services project. Temple answered yes, she will ask both the Fire Chief and the Police Chief oner Hawkins asked if it was the City's policy to respond to comments on Negative Declaration. Ms. Temple answered yes. ge Sircy, resident, noted traffic issues in the area of Coast Highway and the traffic mitigation elements of the proposed project, would be a sig )vement to the community. y Clark, resident, noted his concern of this stretch of Coast Highway degradation. Li now have the opportunity to revitalize Mariner's Mile and he supports the projec it will be an addition to the neighborhood. He noted he had witnessed someone ge ad on Coast Highway and if this project does nothing but slow down that traffic tha uld be a positive addition. This traffic would regulate itself and there may be lesi p and go and therefore may be better for emergency vehicles. What that stretch is file: //HAPlancomm\2005\120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 18 of 20 now is far inferior to what it could be. He then stated his support of the project. comment was closed. Toerge then summarized the areas that were addressed: . Whether or not the slope is a significant natural landform. . Discussion on the Level of Service (LOS) E at driveway number one with forecast of LOS E at the Bay Club access to PCH and that effect on the project. . Community gathering points on the facility and allocated parking needs to addressed. . Signage program may need to come back at some subsequent date for review. . A condition to require any and all employees working on the site to park in parking structure and not on the surface level. Should there be two levels, 1 should be required to park on the lowest level. Discussion of coring and no drive piling on site. . Issue of site queuing and the one way access issue in conjunction with some parking in that subject area. . The number of truck hauls to be required and the phasing of export would need be addressed in the EIR. . Consistency regarding amount of soil excavation needs to be addressed. . Handling of new material and deliveries during construction and the potential limit in truck hauls in peak hours. . Reference to 4.1B and 4.96 relative to the bluff in the MND. . Discussion about the hydrology in the bluff and retaining wall. . Loading and delivery of materials to stores in the eastern portion of the site how that will be achieved. . Use of elevators to park delivery vans. . Turn -around aspects of the parking structures. . Raised medians on Coast Highway and how it affects the public services emergency response for serving public. Eaton added: . Threshold issue of the slope and use of historical aerial photos for confirmation. . How many truck loads per day. file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01 /06 12006 Planning Conunission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 19 of 20 . Any additional mitigation measures proffered by staff. . Two foot landscape strip extended to four feet to allow for the overhang eliminate the need for the modification and be consistent with the Mariners h program. • Fair share requirement applied to the Bay Club if possible to extend that third lane. • Queuing of signals needs to be addressed. )mmissioner Hawkins added: • Hydrology and drainage issues testimony was adequate and a written response may not be necessary. • On site queuing and signal assumptions tied together. )mmissioner Tucker added: • More detail on the trash situation. • Extension of transition on Coast Highway. s. Temple noted that imposing a condition related to a signal beyond the project is t recommended by the City Attorney's office. She noted that the Capital iprovement Program is being started for next year and this is the place where the lnal issue should be addressed. Discussion followed. She then asked for direction incorporate into the resolution. It was decided to wait until the additional information presented and to give direction at the following meeting. was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue public hearing to January yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge, Tucker Noes: None bsent: Henn bstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Santa Barbara project has been continued to January. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Committee - Commissioner Eaton noted there has been no meeting. Ms. added that it will be mid to late January before staff will have a presentation. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal f Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge noted that the land use controls, file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2005 Page 20 of 20 reation and marine commercial projects and the implementation process a amendments on vacation and abandonment of public right of way within the Coas zone, changes to section 20.70 dealing with coastal zone development and h4 those implementation policies need to be modified to meet the LCP as with t public access for properties within the coastal zone were discussed. Coming up be the discussion of the bluff top development guidelines. There is a desire by t committee to accomplish this by July. Coastal will probably ask for an extension the implementation. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee Commissioner Eaton noted no meeting to date and asked about the staff liaison. Ms. Temple noted that there is a possible restructuring and is not sure of who the staff liaison will be and there is a time issue. She then discussed the timing issue: of applications and plan check processes. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Chairperson Toerge noted the black poles at the Chew station at Bayside /Coast Highway. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \120805.htm 01/06/2006