Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes..u,uuig commission Minutes 01/05/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 5, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 16 3:1P1ancomm12006101052006.htm 01/20/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - al resent. STAFF PRESENT- Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary David Lepo, Hogle Ireland, consultant planner PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS one None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on December 30, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 29, 2005. Minutes Approved SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of December 8, 2005. ITEM NO. 2 Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the Consent Calendar as Approved :orrected. kyes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn loes: None Lbsent: None ,bstain: None HEARING ITEMS www UBJECT: Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) ITEM NO.5 100 -600 West Coast Highway PA2004 -141 .quest for approval of a Use Permit, Modification Permit and Development Plan, to Continue to 3:1P1ancomm12006101052006.htm 01/20/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 Page 2 of w the development of a 56,000 square foot shopping center and two -)eve 0110512006 Aerranean parking garage. The site is approximately 2.57 acres and is current) :upied by 8 detached commercial structures that would be removed. The reques ludes consideration of a Use Permit to allow buildings to exceed the base height limi 26 -feet up to a maximum height of 35 feet, a Modification Permit to allow nmercial building to encroach into the required 5 foot wide rear yard abuttin idential properties to the north, and a Modification Permit to allow a landscape nter to be built less than the required width of 4 feet along Coast Highway. Th ject also includes right -of -way dedication along Coast Highway for widening o ast Highway adjacent to the project site, installation of a traffic signal on Coas lhway, grading, landscaping, site lighting and site walls. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in connection with the applica 4ed above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, with chan ;orporated in the project or with mitigation measures indicated, the sub :velopment will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the pre: :ention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and suppor icuments. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of ibject application. Campbell noted that the concerns raised at the last meeting were addressed in f report and that the various consultants are available for further information. Beiswenger, Manager for the Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC, gave an overview of thel cept of the development, introduced his technical support team and noted th wing responses to comments: is . Construction traffic issues - current generation of trips is approximately 900 day with approximately 45 truck trips per day. During the construction these truck trips will be replaced with approximately 55 construction truck trips. . Landscaping on top of bluff - slope has already been modified and graded. . Height of the development - architectural features will fit in with the areas. . Design of the project - storefront retail development, with a drug store anchor, a is highly sought by many retailers throughout the country to have their business this location. . Quantity of grading export per day from the site and the quantity of demolition and improvement material from the site - the analysis in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of the quantities used for grading and export, and demolitior and export materials was correct. In Phase I, 190,000 cubic feet of improvement; on the property will be demolished and removed from the site over a two -month period with about 20 cubic yards of soil to be hauled as part of that demolition. Under the grading, the total export from site for the entire operation is less thar 90,000 cubic yards and that quantity has been analyzed throughout the MND. I was presumed that 90,000 cubic feet would be removed from the site each day however, we will be removing less than that per day. That 90,000 cubic fee removal was analyzed throughout the documents but in order to stay under the ai quality thresholds, we now estimate a total of 1350 vehicle miles per day o export, which equates to about 55 truck loads at 21,750 cubic feet of daily so! etP•/ /11 :\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01 /2, Planning Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 removal. The analysis covers the magnitude of what we are going to be doing site and we do not intend to exceed what was analyzed. . The signal will create the orderly flow of traffic on Coast Highway. . The drug store, as an anchor, is key to have as the center function and generate daily trips that will frequent the other retail shops. . The widening of Coast Highway is of great significance. Coralee Newman of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, gave view of the project using a Power Point presentation. She then noted the follow . Site plan modifications - she referenced a handout depicting the modifications; queuing, analyzed parking, minimum 4 feet setback along stretch of Coast Highway, and additional loading and trash areas. . Building heights. • Clarification on the parking numbers. • Excavation and hauling. • Emergency vehicles response on Coast Highway. • Design of the retaining wall materials. A handout with 1953 and 1947 photographs of the site side by side on one sheet. • Discussion and conclusion of the slope modification and General Plan policy. Beiswenger added: . Site plan modifications - referencing the exhibit noted that the parking has I angled and made one direction in order to address any queuing problem. explained the directions. . The ramp to the underground parking has been located further west to create better traffic flow. . Created a trash enclosure area that will hold ten 9 -yard bins and have designated grade level loading area for the shops on the eastern side of t project. . A minimum of four feet of landscaping has been provided that includes the overhang parking spaces on the Coast Highway side. . Another trash enclosure area has been provided at the far northwest corner of mid level garage parking as well as a trash enclosure area by the freight elev along with additional loading spaces for van type loading only. Newman continued. Page 3 of 16 ile: //H:\Plancomm12006101052006.htm 01/20/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 The drug store tower is 34 feet high and is included so as not to design a along Coast Highway. . Referencing the presentation, she noted the numerous heights of along Coast Highway. The corner of the project height meets the open space finding which states the increased building height would result in more public visual open space views than required by the basic height limit of the zone. There will be an 1 pedestrian courtyard on the comer of Dover and Coast Highway. sinner Tucker asked what the base building height before the for the drug store is Beiswenger answered that the mansard roof around the drug store is at about in height. The architectural feature goes up about 3 more feet to 31 feet. A sine w goes up to 34 1/2 feet with the square footage of 200 feet approximate and e for articulation purposes only. ,nmissioner Tucker affirmed the base building, if this project was approved, would bE feet. It would be this design and not 34 1/2 feet everywhere, just at this location? Beiswenger agreed. Toerge asked why 28 feet, is there a cubic footage requirement? Beiswenger noted it is a nice feature to have a drug store with such a high ceiling. height is driven because if we were to shorten the building we believe the imetry of th6 entire project would be thrown off. Referencing the Power Poin !bit of project heights, noted to shorten this tower by 8 or 9 feet, you would end ul i a building that would throw off the look of the project and the height would be tht ie as the other buildings in the proposed project. iairperson Toerge noted the remainder of the project is set back substantially froi last Highway, this building is only 4 feet from the highway. The question is not on height, it is its proximity to Coast Highway and the adjacent development and not 1 balance of the project. If there is not a physical need internally for the height and es demand a variance for height, I am concerned of a box like appearance so clot the highway and close to adjacent development that is not consistent. sioner Tucker asked if the base building could be 26 feet with the still there? Is there a mechanical mezzanine there? Kroft of KTGY Group Architects, representing the applicant, noted: . Part of the reason for the height is that the retaining wall behind the drug store the highest. So part of the reason is to screen that retaining wall from view. . For a drug store, we need to keep about a 16 foot clear ceiling height to screen mechanical equipment. Reducing the height from 28 to 26 feet allowing the same height above for tower to extend we could still make that work. Two feet will not affect proportion, but more than that starts impacting the functioning of the drug s file: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm Page 4 of 16 • • 01/20/20( rrammng Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 Page 5 of 16 interior. The tower height would then be at 32 1/2. At Commission inquiry, he noted the east -end arches are below street elevatio so it appears you are seeing a greater mass at that location; however, the e: side of the site is actually higher. The finished grade there is about 3 feet abc what the pad elevation would be for the drug store. The drawing is accurate relation to the grade and based on the finished floor elevations. The drug store proximity to Coast Highway after it is widened will vary betw about 5 - 7 feet. The West Marine building would have a similar setback if highway was widened as the land has been dedicated. . Newman continued noting the parking calculations for the drug store is 52 b 4 per 1,000; and the rest of the retail and office is 268 based on 5 per 1,000. re provided 287 stalls altogether. Campbell noted an error in the staff report citing that the required parking is 2 ces, which was based upon land uses and the individual parking ratio per Code. crate parking requirement for shopping centers actually requires more parking a parking by individual uses method was incorrect. When you use the individual i (Ing ratios and add office parking you arrive at 235 parking spaces. The prof /ides more than what is required by Code using either method. The 268 requii ces using the shopping center standard allows for a restaurant use up to 15% of I 1 project based on gross floor area. Newman continued by noting: Additional conditions provided that limit the number of vehicle miles traveled to ar air quality threshold, truck trips limits to an air quality threshold, restrict trips tc non -peak hours and provide a Construction Management Plan prior to grading. The signal at Coast Highway was commented on by the Fire Marshall Stew Bunting who offers that this signal may relieve the bottle neck encountered fo emergency vehicles. . Retaining wall materials will match the native rock formation at Dover and Highway. She provided photographs of that type of planned treatment Beiswenger added: . The surfacing of the retaining wall will be similar to "shale" look of formations . Distributed a handout of aerials of 1953 and 1947. . The main modification of the slope natural landform will be in the location of drug store. I ommissioner Cole asked for clarification on the slope modification. 7arshall Lew, Senior Principal of Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc. to applicant noted the following: . Referencing the topographical exhibit in the presentation, noted the area of they B:1Plancomm12006101052006.htm 01/20/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 01/0512006 drug store where the contours are regular and not typical of the contours above. Below and within the confines of the property, the lower part of the slope been modified and has been filled in. . The bottom of the slope is very straight and has been filled in. . The slope is covered by non - native vegetation that doesn't grow in the bedrock. imissioner Cole noting the 1947 photograph, asked what was there. Lew answered it would have had gullies and little ravines from the water wa n as depicted on the exhibit. The water washing down created gullies that filled with materials and that fill material caused new growth, not native gl ;h is there today. mmissioner Hawkins asked if any testing of the soils or geotechnical the slope were done? Lew answered engineering geologists have examined the slope and the material soil that has been added. The material on top was used to create level pads a )ably dumped over the side and graded to give a nice regular surface. It does r : to be natural and even if there was colluviums it would not fill in as a nice ev Page 6 of if Newman continued by noting that the Mariners Mile Vision process has identified . this area needs revitalization. The proposed project meets the criteria and mplishes the goals of the Visioning Plan that was adopted for this area. The erty owner is consolidating lots into one lot, encourages parking consolidation; ade landscaping and fences; unified streetscapes; sign standards; enhance :strian access to business and reduce the number of curb cuts. She asked fo oval of this proposal. imissioner McDaniel asked about the water .tables and the use of "french" noted his concern of the noise to be generated. Beiswenger noted during construction the site would be dewatered to bring 1 :r level below the lowest point which when filtered will then enter the storm dr flow into the Back Bay. There will be a lot of water that will cross under Dover north side of the highway and flow to the Back Bay. At Commission inquiry, ad that the determination to do one or two levels of subterranean parking should s during the engineering phase of the project and following additional geotechni imissioner Eaton asked why incur the additional parking construction? What wi timing be for the truck export? What about the possibility of a condition of <ing during the peak summer time hours? If the trucks go to the closed TL ine base the most convenient route would require flagmen on Coast Highway Id be more problematic than is there now. What is your phasing? Beiswenger noted that the parking availability is a selling point to the retailers being marketed, especially restaurant type tenants. The retailers believe Rlopment will be successful and that will be due partly to the amount of avail file : //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01/2( Planning Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 icing. The soils, if delivered to a place in Irvine, would result in less trips and there Men the timing. That condition would be problematic, as A looks like we will ding during the summer months. However, the 50 -60 truck trips as compared ay's truck trips, we believe there will not be a significant impact during 1 nmertime hours in non -peak hours of exporting 50 -60 trucks per day. We would istant to a condition prohibiting trucking during the peak summer time hours. 1 uld have flagmen that would control the trucks ingress and egress from a saf ndpoint, but again the amount of trucks per hour may be one per every 8 lutes. We would do the very best we can to mitigate any traffic problems. We starting the project around the first of April or after. Edmonston added that neither CaRrans nor the City would approve the use o nen, particularly during the summer months. Typically even City operations art 'icted by CalTrans during the summer as they are very protective of the highway. turns out of the project without normal positive type control would not be practical. imissioner Eaton then brought up the loading corridor; use of the freight elevator restaurant use; egress patterns; and the placement and maintenance of landsc, erials used on the retaining wall. Beiswenger, referring to an exhibit, displayed and discussed the routes that we taken for egress with the possible use of arm gates and a stop light to rotate the )ending on peak demand. The freight elevator will be able to handle the cape J discussed comparisons to other shopping centers. The retaining wall will rered with vines and vegetation to blend in with the hillside. Foley, Landscape contractor, noted: . Plant materials will cascade down the wall from the top. . Plant material will be clinging vine self -fixing at the bottom and will grow up. . Interim wall plantings will be a mixture of the above so both directions will covered. . Irrigation and drainage will be run at the top and will punch out from behind wall and will be tied into the storm systems and will not be visible. . The protrusions through the wall will be water proofed. rson Toerge asked for a presentation from Mr. Lepo on the numbers used materials /dirt and truck load capacities. id Lepo, planning consultant for the City, clarified that during the demolition pha e will be a removal of 190,000 cubic feet of improvements from the site esented in the data sheet shown in the air quality model 1. He went on to clar numbers analyzed resulting in the model runs are more conservative that what )cted now from the applicant. We can change the word "dirt" to "improveme anal ". He then clarified the number of vehicle daily trips mileage; capacity loads; !itv threshold limits and duration. Commissioner Tucker asked if there was a response to an email from Mr. Krotee November 18th? Page 7 of 16 : //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01/20/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Lepo answered that there was no response as it was received on the 12th of December and an individual response is being prepared; however, the issues raised in that email and one from December are covered in other responses to comments. Commissioner Tucker affirmed his belief that the issues raised in the emails were covered in other responses to comments. He added that it is fair to cut off any further responses to comments received due to the timing issue. imissioner Hawkins noted his concern that the responses are not adequate onse to CalTrans comments Item C as an encroachment permit will be needed; is not mentioned. Lepo answered that was responded on the assumption of the understanding t. water would be pumped directly into the storm drain inlet that would be brought the site rather than out to the public right of way. We can certainly condition it t Hawkins noted several concerns of the responses to CalTrans. V Petros, LSA Associates, principal of the project transportation group, noted tha 25 year requirement is a CalTrans requirement specifically for CalTrans capita acts where in order to build their bridges, highways, ramps, interchanges, the lire for their projects to do a 25 year horizon. They put out a manual for thei acts to use the ITE trip manual. What is before you is a land development projec you are evaluating under the guidelines of the City. That study has been don ropriately and accordingly. I agree with the responses to that. The question of th r :ning, street striping, the median, of access and traffic control will all have to go t rrans for the encroachment permit and what we call the project developmen :ess. At that time CalTrans will ask for many studies that will satisfy their ow jirements. For purposes of the land development application, you have a quate traffic analysis according to the requirements set by the City to evaluat ects. Those are the responses we have provided numerous times to Mr. Joseph' :r in our project dealings. nmissioner Hawkins stated that the responses should state that the Traffic Stud iplies with City requirements. Mr. Petros agreed. comment was opened. Billings, resident, noted his opposition to the project stating: . Another drug store is not needed. • The project needs an EIR to address environmental issues. • The MND is an internal document that states environmental impacts can be mitigated but even you are asking questions that can only be answered with an EIR. ' • This will be a traffic nightmare and a traffic signal will be problematic. • Quality of life will be diminished with this project. file: //H:\Plancomm\2006101052006.htm 01/20/' Planning Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 Page 9 of 16 . He noted this item should go to Council and go to the people for a vote. I Vandersloot, resident, noted: . This bluff is a natural landform and as shown by the photographs has there from the time of Newport Beach. . The bluff as excavated is a maximum of 55 feet in height at the westerly line and is 80 feet long from the toe of the slope inward. . There is no data to document that amount of landform is from homeowners at top pushing that amount of dirt over the side of the slope to create a block of I 80 by 55 feet high. That landform is a natural landform. . Policy D should apply and you should not allow significant alteration of landform. . That amount of bluff could not be put there by man, therefore, it is a landform that should be protected. . You could alter the project to require that end not be transformed and buildings need to be rearranged on site. A Drachman, resident, noted his concern of the project noting that this area needs re- vitalized. Traffic on Coast Highway is bad and this project will impact the qual life and is unfair and unreasonable. He asked for best judgment to be used. hn Vaughn, resident, noted he is for the revitalization of Mariners Mile but this pi too much in such a small space. With an anchor of a drug store are you really 1 use subterranean parking when there are seven drag stores within a two thus? There is too much of an impact on the community and our way of life. Palanjian, resident directly above the proposed project noted his support of A; too many accidents on Coast Highway now; the City staff knows what they , and something has to go in there. comment was closed. nmissioner Tucker stated that the Planning Commission is limited to what we c+ by what the Code provides. We did not write the Code and it is the City Counci cy and it is our job to implement policy that the elected officials have had. In tt e, like it or not, this property can be developed with 56,000 square feet. We can r ire what is allowed under the Code. The question of what can go on the propel I people's perception of the quality of life, traffic issue - were explored extensively last meeting. I am convinced that the lengthening and the additional lane on Coz hway for a few hundred feet actually make the traffic situation much better than it ay. We are required to consider substantial evidence under CEQA, and that fence that is creditable and backed by expert opinion. CEQA guidelines tell us egard unsubstantiated opinion, arguments and speculation. We look at what tl fic experts have brought to us and then we have people that seem to think that jL :ause there is a new traffic signal, that is a bad thing. Maybe it is, but it is r riething we are going to accept somebody's opinion when we have the professior lions that the combination of the lengthening of the three lanes on Coast Highway -:// 13 :\Planconun\2006 \01052006.htm 01/20/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 01/05 /2006 Page 10 of 16 s west of Dover with the synchronization of the traffic signals is going to end up with tier situation, even with the project. It may be counter - intuitive to some people, but nk that is probably the case. The issue of the traffic signal itself, is not our decision. ilTrans can put in a signal anywhere it wants on any of its streets and there is nothing it the City can do about it other than to plan the project to work well once it gets into r jurisdiction, which is the private property contiguous to where the signal will go. A last meeting we had, the Commission did not like the way the project circulated and didn't think it would work very well at all. The applicant has changed the circuaato that we have ended up with something that will work if the signal gets installed. squiring that a matter go to City Council, we don't have that authority, that will be u the Council if they want to hear it. It doesn't as a matter of right go the City Council cause it is not a General Plan amendment or a zone change. These folks ar mp(ying with what our Code says. if you think our Code allows projects that are no )rthy, then change the Code. It is appealable to the City Council by both the Counci d the public. As far as the land form issue is concerned, I am convinced there ha yen alteration to the bluff. Question is at some point in time after you dig through th :eration, the bluff is there. How far back that is, is not entirely clear. The issue w ive also involves whether siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled id regulated to ensure to the extent practical. What is the meaning of exten actical? It doesn't say to the maximum extent, and doesn't give guidance as to wha the extent practical is. We've had projects for years that took out coastal bluff and id houses cascading down the bluffs. The general thought process at that time wa ere was no implementing regulations for this policy and we never did anything abou The coastal zone issue is different and this property is not in the coastal zone. It i A that set of standards that apply. We have the Mariner's Mile guidelines that war iopted and speaks in terms of the area needing revitalization, so this is a judgmen ill and it is not clear what policies and procedures we are supposed to follow and wha means. To the extent practical to me calls into question the whole issue. The las Ing is the issue of an Environmental Impact Report. That is a document that it •epared if a fair argument is made that a project can not mitigate the impacts to a leve insignificance. Once again, that is dependent upon substantial evidence presentec A that is not the case here. It is not our place who would win that fair argument if i ided up in litigation, it is whether a fair argument has been made. I have not seen iy substantial evidence that leads me to believe that a fair argument has been made, it to this point. I have heard speculation and opinion but I am not convinced that a fai 'gument has been made that the project can not mitigate itself to a level o �mmissioner Hawkins noted the General Plan and implementation provide ;truction especially since there seems to be a question regarding the land form. H id from Policy D and the implementation under that Policy, where there is some estion as to the applicability of this section to a specific land form a determination as whether or not a specific land form constitutes a coastal bluff shall be made by the anning Commission consistent with the purposes of this regulation. Commission cker has noted that somewhere back there is a natural form. More importantly, )king at the bluff, McDonald's has excavated into the bluff, the residents above hav cavated into it and there are residences cascading down the bluff. The bluff ha en extensively excavated. Referring to the Land Use Element, the only discussio garding bluffs is properties abutting bluff faces require that development projects ar sated and design buildings are to maintain the visual quality and retain the structural egrity of the bluff faces. That is what we have here, I am not saying the proposed ind Use Element applies, but it can provide guidance in our discussions. file: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01/20/21 running Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 Page 11 of 16 mmissioner McDaniel noted that many people have discussed that something nee be done there as it has been in neglect for quite a while. Redevelopment the uld be very positive. We don't get to choose what is built there. Whatever >mitted to us is what we look at and try to be fair and impartial and to make it 1 A possible for the City. The system we have works well. This is our stewardsl i we take it very seriously. 5sioner Henn noted it is not our charge to be judging the eventual comme i of the project. We are here to consider these questions in relation to regulations that we are charged to make. decisions using it. iairperson Toerge noted that one of the issues is whether or not we consider the bl be a natural landform or whether or not that the proposed development alters t iff to the extent practical. We need to straw vote this issue and as we do we need ep in mind that we are being asked to approve a modification that will exacerbate t iding because the applicant is asking to waive the rear yard setback. In order live that setback we have to make certain findings, one of which is that the granti the application will not adversely affect the health and safety of persons residing irking in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the gene :Ifare nor injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. I can see w without a modification this project has that potential when you are going to excaw -80 feet back into the slope and to a depth of 55 to 60 feet. He noted his agreeme it at some point as one excavates into the slope, one will encounter a natu idform; however, the surface formation does appear to be modified and we must at nsider the practical development provision. He is concerned about grading into t ipe and by waiving the rear yard setbacks we may be exacerbating a problem to t >idents above. He noted that conditions of approval would be incorporated to ma s finding that it does not create an unsafe condition that could occur from t nstruction practice and /or through a partial completion. What if construction was r mpleted for whatever reason and there is a retaining wall partially built rendering safe condition? He asked for some type of guarantee or surety bond that t veloper put before the City to guarantee the completion of the retaining wall, on cavation commences, and also to assure that any potential damage to adjacf blic or private property would be offset by some form of liability coverage. vote of this issue: natural slope/landform - Commissioners Henn, McDaniel, Tucker, Eaton ssioner Hawkins questioned if we have to make a finding that this is or is not bluff. (re -read the implementation section of Policy D of the Land Use Elemen Harp noted the determination hinges on whether it is a natural landform or not. J in this section, coastal bluff is any natural landform having an average slope i degrees or greater with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. To be a coastal bluff, to be a natural land form. Hawkins asked do we need to make that finding or not? Mr. Harp answered the consensus what if it is not a natural landform, you don't need make that finding. .,ommissioner Cole noted that he does not believe it is a natural landform. He //H:\Piancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01/20/20W Planning Commission Minutes 01105/2006 Page 12 of 16 his concern of allowing 80 feet of excavation with a retaining wall of 30+ feet high. He I asked if the Commission has the right if we wanted to modify or reduce the size of the rug store that would result in a compromise? Mr. Harp answered yes. He asked the applicant if they would have a problem acquiring performance or assurance bonds, things of that nature to ensure completion of the wall s well as any damage created thereby? This would address any safety issues if th Proiect is abandoned and the wall is incomplete. Beiswenger answered he would not have a problem providing the availability of d. We have the capacity financially to and will provide a completion bond. airperson Toerge then noted under the general topic of grading and export and try Mc there has been clarity brought as to the amount of excavation, amount of expo molition material and debris, etc. The explanation of truck trips and daily lirr Dosed by the AQMD is clear. We need to determine the hours of operation a ether it can be done during peak hours. He agrees that there should be some %% require trucks to exit onto Dover and then a left on Coast Highway. The issue nstruction worker parking needs to be addressed during grading. There needs to me parking requirement. missioner Eaton noted his concern of encouraging trucks onto Dover. H jested staff be allowed to manage the construction management plan providing the cant has agreed to limit the export hours between the peak periods and during the mer (mid June to the end of August) missioner Hawkins noted his concern of the Dover route also. Staff can condition appropriately and perhaps we have a condition that the construction trip route is oved by Mr. Edmonston's group. nissioner Tucker noted he agrees that staff should oversee these issues but I not agree with the limitation during the summer time. It is impractical as it puts .orium on the project. Construction problems happen and there a veniences. That is the price that you pay for having nicer things than what y( d with. Peak hours are problematic and we have addressed that already with tl ioner Henn noted it is impractical to say no use of trucks during the sum Maybe we can shorten the hours of operation to assure we are beyond period of peak traffic. Traffic management should be managed by the Tr mt. He noted his disapproval of the use of flag men to stop traffic in I and encouraged staff to find a solution that would not require it. McDaniel noted the traffic people need to deal with it in their CalTrans. missioner Cole stated he would defer to the Traffic Manager. Edmonston asked if summer hauling on weekends would be acceptable. Th mission indicated that during the summer, weekend truck traffic was no `Commissioner Hawkins asked if hours of operation had been limited or restricted for file: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01/20/: riammng Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 Page 13 of 16 various projects by staff? Edmonston answered yes. irperson Toerge affirmed the applicant has agreed to do coring of the pylons behir retaining wall. The adequacy of parking, parking configuration and maneuvering imissioner Tucker noted he is satisfied with the changes and modificatior >osed by the applicant. Campbell noted there are a few changes to the garage that need to be adjust I resolved and will be done at the plan check stage. We always reserve the rl[ )ugh conditions to further modify and adjust them so we can avoid any vehicle neuvering conflicts. itinuing, Chairman Toerge noted: . Once that 15% restaurant allocation is used up, it is going to be very difficult expand a restaurant use beyond that unless that extra parking is built in t basement. The site plan for the next meeting will show the 4 foot front setback. loner Eaton noted the modification is not required for the front setb the applicant has agreed to a 4 foot setback. The unifying landscaping Mile is not listed in the landscape plan. Campbell noted compliance with landscape standards is an important aspect and A out for the Mariner's Mile Design framework and is required by Code and the been no request to deviate from that. We will add a condition to requi loner Eaton continued asking for the landscape plan to come back to Commission for approval. iirperson Toerge noted he is in favor of that and noted some of the characteristics Design Framework requirements. . Temple noted that this can be forwarded directly to the Commission when s the application for the sign modification. The landscaping plan does not rec >roval by the Planning Commission or staff, at the time we got that plan we can extra copies and we can have a discussion. Chairman Toerge noted: Deliveries of UPS and FEDEX to the most easterly shops - where will trucks park to service the most easterly shops on a daily basis? LAr. Beiswenger answered that they can park either at the grade level at the far w, d of the shops adjacent to the trash enclosure, or, they will park in the subterrane level at the northeast corner of the garage. The delivery trips that go to 1 subterranean level will have to be van type trucks, not box trucks. Referencing 1 :xhibit, he noted the locations. This project will be heavily managed on a daily basis. //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01/20/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 Page 14 of 16 m Kroft of KTTY, added that the clear height on the first level of parking is 9 foot ies which meets ADA requirements for van type loading. That height going dow other levels will be lower. If there is duct work along the perimeter of the project, lei will encroach into the 9 foot 6 inches where the cars are. Chairman Toerge noted: . Height of the drug store - there is an effort to reduce the overall height by feet. . Maintain the 4 foot setback. . Reviewed the trash enclosure and the newly expanded trash enclosure area. . Discussed the landscape. . Sign Program will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. . There will be a condition that the employees of the Center will be required to in the least desirable location of the subterranean garage rendering the desirable available for customers. . Signal issue - can we impose a condition that requires the signal be synchronize with PCH and Dover? This is an important component to the argument that the signal won't contribute to increased traffic when you consider the widening of the highway to three lanes and the extension of the transition lane. It should also be operable with the OPTICOM System. Edmonston answered that CalTrans by a matter of practice, coordinates all als along the State Highways and certainly would not approve this signal if tl not convinced it could work into the coordination. As a practical matter, it will ioner Eaton noted that this is a critical component of the project and Commission needs to satisfy the concerns and issues raised by the public. imissioner Henn noted that the pedestrian crossings raise havoc with :hronization of traffic. I am in favor of a light there, but people should not be it will have a substantial affect on traffic flow because of the crossings. Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted that a plan check can be requested to rt of the analysis that the Traffic consultant did with a computerized model aluate how a signal would work and what the parameters would need to be in or make it work. We can check that and work with CalTrans to promote that be imissioner Tucker noted we could word that condition to work with the City to ge done. irperson Toerge stated staff should work out the wording for this condition. �ynchronizatlon r. Edmonston noted you could make it a condition that the applicant have a signal' study prepared by a licensed traffic engineer that would be submitted) tile: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01/20l P16nning Conunission Minutes 01/05/2006 Page 15 of 16 f �o both the City and CalTrans. The Commission agreed. , Chairman Toerge noted: Raised medians - potential for impeding emergency vehicles. The des framework for Mariners Mile encourages the landscaping as well. Could they designed and developed with rolled curbs? Bunting, City Fire Marshall stated that there are raised medians at virtually ever intersection of the City and are not a problem. There is no need for rolled curbs. Chairman Toerge noted: . Consideration of widening Coast Highway beyond the applicant's property, not the applicant's expense to the Pelican wall. Staff responded should the Plannir Commission feel that is appropriate action to take, on a separate agenda item p that forth to the City Council for their consideration. As it relates to this project, is not appropriate to introduce it in the conditions. Eaton asked for this item to be brought back for discussion. vote on this project being meritorious given the conditions that have - Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn. Commission thanked the applicant and their representatives as well as staff for nugh presentation and question and answers on this project. They noted the port of the project as being a bold plan and one that will be of great importance City. was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue public hearing to January 19 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge, Tucker Noes: None bsent: Henn bstain: None BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the City Council is considering Codes related to nuisances and property development maintenance standE being strengthened; extensions of the Marine Avenue Business Improven District and the Restaurant Association Improvements were considered; Bay: Drive Planned Community and Santa Barbara Condominium projects ti continued to January 10, 2006; the Council adopted the Coastal Land Use Plan the Coastal Commission certified; and 17 offers to dedicate for coastal access w accepted by the Council. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic De Committee - Commissioner Henn stated EDC will be working through the strategic plan during the next month. le : //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htrn 01/20/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 01/05/2006 Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Committee - Commissioner Eaton noted there has been no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge noted the Council adopted the Use Plan and there have been no other meetings. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee Commissioner Eaton noted no meetings as yet. He asked about and receive information on the professional services agreement with Hogle Ireland for evaluatic of development review and plan check process. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Eaton asked that an item to allow t Commission to consider to the City Council widening of Coast Highway towards I Pelican wall. Chairperson Toerge asked about a home on Balboa Island that h an issue of 200 square foot elevator shaft. Ms. Temple noted that the prope owner continues to litigate the City and is still a work in progress. Mr. Harp noted would give an overview. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. Project status - Ms. Temple updated the Commission regarding the issue of tt vent pipes at the Chevron station at the corner of Coast Highway and Bayside Dri% both staff and the owners are working together on this but it has become clear that is prohibitively expensive to change the location due to grade and angle issues ar would mean the removal of almost 100% of the site improvements. Staff and the architect are trying to come up with visual options. Requests for excused absences - none. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 16 of 16 0 0 4 file: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01052006.htm 01/20/20