The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 L 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 7, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Pagel of 33 file: //F:\Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner McDaniel was excused, Commissioner Henn arrived at 8:35, all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None STING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 1, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 17 2006. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as Approved corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Toerge, Noes: None Absent: McDaniel and Henn Abstain: Cole * ** ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned meeting of January 31, 2006. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as written. es: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge es: None sent: McDaniel and Henn stain: IUBJECT: Peotter * HEARING ITEMS Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Expansion (PA2005 -092) ITEM NO. 3 Pagel of 33 file: //F:\Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 2046 and 2100 Mar Vista Drive ur Lady Queen of Angels Church proposes to expand their existing church a :hoof facilities by relocating its church to the adjacent property located at 21 ar Vista Drive and expanding its school within the existing boundaries at 20 ar Vista Drive. The expansion includes the construction of a 1,170 -s( inctuary, additional classrooms, and a 9,450 square foot gymnasium. T oposed project, requires approval of a Use Permit to allow the expansion e existing church and school facility; to allow the church building to exceed I armitted building; to allow the transfer of development intensity between the t operties; and to allow a total of ten portable classrooms on a temporary bas traffic study is also required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. airman Cole noted he had not been at the last meeting for this item; however, has been briefed, read the entire staff report and exhibits, and reviewed and :ned to the transcripts and CD's. He then gave procedural directions for this Ung, Associate Planner, noted: . August 17th was the first hearing for this item. . Staff was directed to address items of - adequacy of parking during services and church staff parking; and, the number of parking after directing traffic to park. . Three parking guides will be provided during the high demand events facilitate the parking to the sports field. . During these events, all employees and church staff will be required park on site. . The Draft Parking Management incorporates these provisions. . Potential vehicular and pedestrian conflicts at Mar Vista and Domingo. The applicant proposes to add a pedestrian crossing on the south side o the two opposing driveways on Domingo Drive. . The Commission expressed a concern that a traffic conflict may e) between the two driveways at Domingo Drive between the Church a school complexes during the Sunday morning services. There is possibility of this traffic concern, but it can be minimized through I implementation of the Parking Management Plan by posting a lot full' si and an attendant directing traffic to the available parking spaces at i school site. Phase I and Phase II of the Parking Management Plan ha been revised to contain provisions for the staffing and signage for b4 lots. . Adequacy of school schedules between Our Lady Queen of Angels Sc and the Corona del Mar High School. The applicant will address issue. A draft resolution for approval has been prepared for the Commission consider. It includes conditions of approval that reflect comments a corrections made by the Commission at the prior meeting. The suggest changes made by the Commission are indicated in bold and 1 PA2005 -092 Approved Page 2 of 33 file:HF: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 3 of 33 applicant's proposed changes are in italics. The extended review period for the environmental document has be closed as of August 23rd. During this review period, comments we received from Amigo Properties, the Gas Company and the Department Transportation District 12. Response to the comments are included in t staff report. Letters were received from nearby residents in opposition to the and are attached to the staff report. oner Hawkins asked about the notice and whether we had with the notice. Ung answered: . The public notice for the proposed application was sent to all prope owners within the 300 feet radius from the subject site (both St. Mark's a Our Lady Queen of Angels Churches). . A notice was sent as a Notice of Availability of the Environrr document on June 28 for the review period of June 30th to July 31st. posting of the site was also done. . The notice of the public hearing of the application was later sent 4th for the August 17th meeting. Posting and newspaper advertis were also done. . The last one was for the Notice of Availability of the Environmental sent August 4th extending the review period of 20 days from August 4th 23rd. Posting on the site was also done. . The reason for the extended review period was that concern had expressed that there had not been adequate time for the public to r the document. Temple added that staff had received communication from a nearl rdominium complex several years ago around 2002 before an application hs :n received. We had answered that we would provide notice to that entity t of the regular hearing. Because of the separation of time and there was r active way to maintain that correspondence, a notice did not occur. We felt y fair, because we had indicated in a written communication that notice wou provided, to extend that review period in fairness. nissioner Hawkins asked whether the radius notice and noticing proced for this Project complied with City and State standards . Temple answered that there are no exceptions for the noticing as requ CEQA. Commission inquiry, Ms. Ung stated that the radius starts from all four the property. Foust of Austin Foust Associates, noted that he did both the traffic ng portion of the study for this application. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 *Followed the City's Traffic Study Traffic Phasing Ordinance guidelines and used that procedure for evaluating the traffic. . They counted the school (Our Lady Queen of Angels) during the 4 and counted every car that came in. It was categorized by ten intervals as well as the amount of students being carried in. The were taken in the Fall and Spring on three different days. . On three different Sundays, we counted the parking and traffic circulation. The Church provided October attendance records for all services for thre( years (2003, 2004 and 2005), the same month we did the count. Typica peak attendance for each of the services was around 600 for the tw( middle services. . The City's TPO has very strict guidelines to be used on any project to evaluated. The study was done during school days in Spring and Fall < on Sundays in both a.m. peak and p.m. peak times. . The p.m. peak time for the school is around 2:30 to 3:00 in the afternoon. Also studied was the traffic p.m. peak hours which is the classic 5:00 6:00 in the evening. There is not a lot of school traffic that occurs durinc that time. The morning peak hour 7:00 to 8.00 overlaps with the schoc drop off. . The school peak hours from 2:00 to 4:00 does not have a formal - analysis. However, there are actual counts of the school traffic and drop off and pick up. ssioner Hawkins asked about a letter from Ms. Krone who maintains peak hours are from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and then 2:00 to 4:00 p.m days and all day on Sundays. Can you comment on that? Foust stated the morning peak hours are not in debate as that is precisely it we used. The 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. is more like 2:30 to 3:00 p.m. when Ou y is dismissing and the high school dismissal occurs within that period o i. The more traditional and classic p.m. peak period is when there is th( st traffic on the roadways, and that occurs when everyone is coming bacl ie at night between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The total traffic count during the 5 4 r is the highest even though the contribution by the school is very modes ng that period of time. The highest concentration of traffic contributed by the col is at 2:30 to 3:00 p.m. when they are arriving to pick up and leavinc in. Adding the existing traffic on the street with the school traffic, you don' as high a peak as you do at 5:00 p.m. with the traditional traffic that is there. TPO guidelines dictate that we use the highest total traffic conditions, whict it between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The main intersection, in terms of the luation, was the Jamboree and East Bluff intersection. an Cole noted residents had asked why other intersections closer to site were not analyzed? Rich Edmonston, answered that the City does not have specific criteria t( Ih impact against at stopped control intersections. The Traffic Phasin( nance (TPO) and all major traffic studies done by the City look at signalize( sections because if you have a lot of traffic, then the traffic signal is there. other reason we didn't is we have been in the vicinity of this project primarily ause of the high school impact on numerous occasions over the past severa Page 4 of 33 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 ars at all times of morning and afternoon. Based on that, we have a feel iat the localized traffic is. Past experience shows a marked differer !tween the two and from an overall capacity standpoint, one of the anomal >cussed at the earlier meeting is that the school peaks are very short, not e% hour. Using the standard traffic engineering analysis and looking at the err lur, there is virtually no impact. Within that hour there is a 20 minute per sere there is an impact and that is primarily on Eastbluff in the morning. Thl very little impact on Mar Vista and Domingo and the surrounding streets in :)rning. In the afternoon, the same is not true. As students leave the rear d come out on the section of Mar Vista, they back up from the stop sign istbluff. There is a definite impact on immediate access to the neighborho rich lasts for about a 15 to 20 minutes maximum. r. Foust added that part of the high school and this study tells you that there 7:30 restriction on Eastbluff where you can't turn left onto Mar Vista. The Stu /aluates how many of the Our Lady trips occur because their start time is 7: the morning. Some of them arrive before that 7:30 restriction and about 3C the arrival is able to make a left turn coming in on Eastbluff at Mar Vista. )u arrive later than that, you have to make the left turn at Del Oro. We we to considerable detail for the traffic study and included a section on how ma ars will be on Domingo either before or after 7:30 a.m. and how many will ound Del Oro. We have looked at this in terms of the impact of the schc 'op off and pick up. airman Cole affirmed the study takes into account the already exis igating conditions including no left turn as well as the drop off scheduling, built in on how this project would impact peak trips. The conclusion was I peak trips increased in the a.m. hours by 27 and decreased in the p.m. •57, which equates to 19 less. He questioned if the school is increased in ; approximately 180 students, how does that only increase the a.m. peak h s by 27? Foust answered that is due to the decreasing of existing two pre - schools )unt to 105 students. We counted the vehicle occupancy of those lents, which turned out to be 59 vehicles. That is where the net cha ies from 180 students which arrive, on average, 1.7 to 1.8 students per ad on actual observation, and discounted the pre - school traffic, which + +ad out over a longer period of time. n Cole noted that the combination of the pre - school hours a I increase in students at Our Lady Queen of Angels elementary have as many peak hours as some of the existing pre- school Is that a fair statement? Mr. Foust answered ves. nan Cole asked if we reduced the a.m. peak to zero, approximately students would the school have to reduce? r. Edmonston answered: A reduction of students from 600 to 510, in the morning there would fewer cars leaving, but 4 more cars coming. The total morning peak net zero. Removing those 4 additional that were coming and have an even c deficit, it would take a reduction of 110 students to get to zero trips morning with 6 fewer out. Page 5 of 33 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 6 of 33 Discussion followed on the traditional p.m. peak hour time, mitigation measures,II xisting conditions, standards, staggering of start and ending hours) comparisons. II Foust noted that in that full hour, you would see those 27 cars, which about 1 carper minute. Ung added that with regards to the public notice, this is a non - resident act so the radius is measured excluding roadways and public right -of -ways. Cole asked the applicant to address traffic concerns. Petros, traffic consultant of LSA, spoke on behalf of the applicant noting: . He had reviewed the Traffic Study prepared by Austin Foust Assoc that provided a disclosure of OLQA traffic during the school peaks. were satisfied with this disclosure of the volume of traffic. . The arrival patterns of both schools do happen to coincide, which ra the issue of staggering the starting times. . We were satisfied with staffs condition, which was 15 - 20 or 30 minutes in the morning. . Referring to slides, he noted the comparisons of vehicles arriving OLQA school and Corona del Mar high school patterns. . He noted this is a half hour duration of arrivals for both schools. . The data referenced in the exhibit is only from the senior lot at Corona Mar High School off Mar Vista and does not include the entire load of t school traffic. . A slide depicted the intensity of peak diminishing with a 10- minute time while not expanding the overall duration of the period. . Another slide depicting a 15- minute stagger time shows that it the duration as there is unused capacity. . A final slide, depicting a 30- minute stagger time showed that it brc out the duration over a longer period of time. The result would be a period of time needed for the arrival times. . He asked that the Planning Commission consider the original condition approval on a 10 - 15 minute time period. ioner Hawkins noted the 7:45 hour is problematic for the neighborhood He then asked about other scenarios. Petros answered yes. He then discussed other alternatives as depicted slide presentation. Chairman Cole asked about the existing condition. The proposal adds anothe 7 peak hour trips in the morning. If the neighbors try leaving at 7:40 in the morning, they would confront approximately 90 trips leaving there, as the wors file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 7 of 33 �ase scenario. If you add another 27, and they happen to be at that same time, (percentage wise that is a pretty high increase in numbers. •.. Petros answered, this is just two counts at the senior lot driveway and the a lot more traffic out there attributable to the high school and the residents area on the street at this time. Proportionately, you can not use tl ormation to arrive at any conclusion because you don't have the 1 mplement of traffic on that street in this graph. Peotter added, plus the added 27 trips will be distributed 30 minutes. Attorney Clauson noted this appears to be one car or less per minute. on followed on the impact of 27 more car trips added to the in the morning, arrival patterns, frequency and less than Eaton asked about staggering the times when the schools let out. Petros noted the duration of instructional days do not necessarily coincide. high school day is longer, so by the nature of doing this, you may as a d( ), have separation on the end. continued. comment was opened for traffic issues only. Pat Krone, representing the Directors of the Villa Granada Com ciation and the Directors of the Eastbluff Apartment Owners Assoi • They have grave concerns of the increase of trips to this area. • She stated this is a quality of life issue for the residents. • She discussed the a.m. peak hour trips and suggested widening of I Vista for safety, and possibly adding a pedestrian bridge over Domingo. • She asked the Commission for additional analysis prior to tl determination. Johansen of Amigos Properties, noted: . The City has not adequately acknowledged or addressed the ti congestion problems in the Negative Declaration and you should certify the Negative Declaration. . She recommends the staff be directed to prepare an Environmental Report before approval of this project as the various problems that this area have not been addressed. . She stated that the local area of Domingo, Mar Vista and Eastbluff is most impacted. file: //F: \Users \PLN\5hared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 8 of 33 (Commissioner Hawkins asked which specific concerns or problems did the Initial) tudy /Mitigated Negative Declaration raise which are unresolved. Johansen answered: . The deficiencies are in the traffic study that is being applied and used as does not look at the area of Domingo, Mar Vista and Eastbluff with respe to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Custer, local resident, noted: . Traffic has never been a problem for her. . We need the schools and the Church. . The times are 7:30 to 8 in the morning and people who are going to are usually gone by that time. The hours in the afternoon are usually to 3:00 and then it is all over. . We have a blue ribbon school and it is significant and important children go to school. . No matter where you live in the city or world, if you don't have traffic would be surprised. Hawkins asked how bad if at all the traffic is near the Church. noted she has discussed traffic with her neighbors and has never heard of them complaining about it. She recognizes the schools that are in t hborhood and they are not a problem as they are a reality one has to face. r. Edmonston noted that from an overall impact on City traffic, the p.m. pe )ur 5:00 to 6:00 is the commuter traffic going to and from homes. That is t neframe that the intersection of Jamboree and Eastbluff was looked at. so looked at in the vicinity of the school and the counts were taken during 2 o'clock so that we would have accurate representation and information on 1 nount of traffic specifically oriented to and from Our Lady Queen of Angels. . Temple added that for the adequacy of the environmental document befc a, the testimony related to the lack of specific traffic related to Mar Vista a mingo Drive, in looking at the traffic study there is a neighborhood imp: alysis discussion on pages 11 through 17. It includes qualitative discussi well as quantitative information regarding both weekday and Sunday volum those roads as well as a.m. peak hour changes on those roadways both i out. There is not the peak hour in the p.m., which is an overall negati en the removal of the pre - schools. It is for the Commission to decide if tl )rmation presented to you is sufficient for you to make your determination. Mickam, resident behind the Church, noted: . The traffic is managed very well During the times mentioned, there is a lot of traffic but as a practical m she has never found that it takes more than 10 minutes. file:HF: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 9 of 33 . She has never encountered children not being managed and they are picked up in an orderly manner. . The biggest problem in the area is when the high school is letting even then it has never taken more than 10 minutes to get to Mar onto Eastbluff onto Jamboree. it Doremus, presented correspondence including pictures of the traffic that :ray the traffic problems that exist Monday through Friday and on Sunday. noted: . Traffic problems have gone from bad to worse. . They are held hostage each morning and afternoon Monday Friday and on Sundays. . He does not blame the church for the problems caused by the high scl traffic, nor does he blame the high school for the problems caused by church traffic. . It is incomprehensible that you would approve something that would in even one more car into the situation that exists now. . The church is beautiful but it is far too big by accommodating 250 more students and a cathedral that will seat over 1200 people with six service each weekend. Commission inquiry, he noted: . He had attended as many of the traffic seminars as he could. . He is not in the business but he sees this situation every day and does nc understand that adding 180 students results in only an additional 27 cars. . It will be worse from January to June when more of the high students get their licenses. The concentrated traffic gets worse- * He asked that the school and church remain as they are. issioner Hawkins noted the problems seem to be with the high has nothing to do with the additional students or the sanctuary. Foote, local resident noted: . He has lived in this area for a long time and does not find it paralyzing all. . The exhibits shown previously is a good representation of the reality. . Residents that need to get out don't want to wait in line, simply around it. It is not a big deal during the half hour time when you know traffic will be there. . If on occasion you do miss that window, it's five minutes. It is not a file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 deal, it is not paralyzing. in Doremus, noted: • The traffic study only included the senior parking from the high school. • By adding 300 -400 seats in the cathedral, that is going to bring ani 400 cars every Sunday. It is paralyzing. • My parents live on Amigos Way and will be hindered if they emergency vehicles during that time period. . We are held hostage in our homes. • The streets are not adequate. • It is your job to think about the future. irperson Cole clarified that the total size of the sanctuary has been what is there now by 52 seats. continued on traffic problems from the high school. Beaulieu, pastor of Our Lady Queen of Angels Church and local . This church is not a cathedral, rather it is a parish church. You have have a bishop in order to be a cathedral church. . We do not expect attendance to increase even though we have a church. • We have attendance records from 10 years ago and the average is 2 to 2,600 over six services during the month of October. The lar attendance is 600 at one of the bigger Masses. . Combining the two churches there will be fewer seats in the new church. Commission inquiry, he noted: • There are three choirs. • They have discussed mitigation measures such as extending the t period between the end of one popular service and the beginning of next one, which they are willing to do. Densmore, referencing a letter she had submitted, asked: • How could the traffic study say that there is only going to be a net of 27 trips in the morning and a decrease in the afternoon? . It seems to deal with assumptions on the difference of the car occupa delivering K thru 8 students and the day care students. Page 10 of 33 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 . If that is the case, how can you make those assumptions? . The day care drop offs have historically been spread out. . Combining them in a particular half hour period, we now have two that could result in a lot more traffic than the traffic study predicts. McDermott, local resident, noted: . She had served on the original committee that did the planning for expansion for Our Lady Queen of Angels. . The proposal recognized the need for expansion and doing so in thoughtful way for the neighborhood. . This proposal includes better solutions in terms of driveway access parking, etc. . This church helped St. Mark's Presbyterian Church to find another locatic and helped pay for their relocation in order for this expansion to occur in thoughtful way. . We acknowledge we can not address the high school problem. We N tried to address ways to mitigate the impacts for Our Lady Queen Angels. . There are great schools and churches in the community. Jensen, local resident and parishioner, noted: . Many local organizations are supported by Our Lady Queen of Church. . OLQA reaches out to the community and neighbors. . Traffic issues will be addressed by OLQA. comment was closed on the traffic component. Cole then noted three issues brought up: . Staggering of p.m. hours. . Height. . Reduction in size of school. . Widening of Mar Vista. Edmonston noted that during the reviews of traffic around the high scho concept of widening Mar Vista was reviewed in conjunction with adding is signal at the corner of Eastbluff and Mar Vista so that students a cents could turn left and not have the 7:30 a.m. restriction. In order to ma work it would mean widening the street and the City would have to c Page 11 of 33 file:HF: \Users \PLN \Shared\Gvarin \PC min etal\2006109072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 12 of 33 [property from both Churches as well as obtain a right -of -way from the high [school We estimated to do a project of that type, including widening of Eastbluff, osts were in excess of a million dollars. It was deemed impractical due to the osts for such a short period of traffic. At Commission inquiry he discussed the ssible benefits and detriments of widening Eastbluff and traffic patterns. missioner Toerge asked what percentage of vehicles turn left on Mar Vi: the church? Would there be a benefit to a no stop right turn at Mar Vista duff? If there is, is it feasible? Foust answered that they did not know specifically. He then went into explained traffic patterns throughout the project area including Mar tbluff and Jamboree. continued. mmissioner Hawkins noted if the high school lets out later, there is no the staggering. He asked what time the high school dismisses? iirperson Cole noted he would favor a slight reduction of the school to re, peak hour trips. He suggested reducing the number of students by 50 %. mmissioner Toerge noted the elimination of the pre - school with different dr patterns. The difference in the number of students, the issue is the. kind lent. He does not support the reduction. Foust noted that this is a 180 student increase. There is also a total of 10, lent decrease which is the pre - schools and that nets 75 students. The cle occupancy count varied between 1.7 and 2.2 so that gets you to the total. the discussion, Chairperson Cole noted he would be in support ie number of students. missioner Peotter noted with the ability to offset and restrict hours wh start will offset the 27 trips, so he is not in favor of reducing the number irperson Cole noted 46 doesn't seem like a major reduction but this wo date the traffic as much as we can but not impact the school's ability nmissioner Hawkins stated that the benefit under such a scenario was iificant. You have a net increase of 19 trips for the whole day. By redu a.m. you reduce the p.m. totals and would be a straight line reduction. e people saying that notwithstanding, there are difficulties with the traffic, intersections are working alright. iissioner Eaton noted that saving 27 trips will be overcome by probably of 2 every year at Corona del Mar with their growth and of the Coast. iirperson Cole noted there was no consensus on reducing the number tents. He then asked the applicant to address the practicality of staggeri afternoon let out hours. Henn arrived at 8:35 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 13 of 33 Dennis O'Neil, representing the applicant, noted: . We can coordinate the start time but it would be hard to control the time. . If there was some way to accurately measure it, how would we coord with the high school, as we have no control over when they let students out? Ryan, Principal of Our Lady of Queen Schools, noted: . We dismiss at 2:30 p.m. and the car pools end at 2:45 p.m. . When they leave, 12 vehicles pull up and they are loaded with stuff and then exit. The next 12 vehicles pull up and the process starts again- * We try to have everyone off our campus by 3:00 p.m. . The bell rings at 7:45 a.m. and the students are tardy at 7:50 a.m. . We have a shorter lunch time. . The high school times change periodically, even in the middle of the year. . The high school starts at 7:55 a.m. and let out at 3:00 p.m. arson Cole suggested there should be a condition to stagger the time. was no consensus. He asked if the traffic study was adequate, the ssion agreed. Petros of LSA, representing the applicant, noted the following: . City Code requires the Church to have an on -site supply of 390 spaces. is providing 439 spaces. The Church can accommodate its mandai parking on site. . The Church could, in the future, have a parking demand in excess of tha ultimate supply at the peak Sunday services at 8:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. That excess is approximately 39 spaces, so 39 more spaces may have tc be found in the school lot and in the Church lot. . Other special events may increase the parking demand beyond supply. In response to that a mitigation measure was drafted that calls the preparation of a Parking Management Plan. Traditionally these ph are developed after a plan is approved. . The Parking Management Plan involves two phases; one is for the typic Sunday morning peak between 8:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and, because relies on staff to direct traffic and parking, it is an access management well. The plan relies on staff to manage the entrance and filling of tt parking spaces with up to three attendants. As the lot reaches capacity, sign goes up across the entry and staff will move over to the Dominc side, so there will be no cross traffic between the school lot and the chun lot. file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 14 of 33 . As these lots are parked, the motorists are instructed to park along the project frontage along Mar Vista and along the project frontage on Domingo Drive. . To arrive at the 478 spaces, there is no parking required along Domingo Drive project frontage. . The use and utility of the Corona del Mar lot is not relied upon, nor parking directed there. . This plan will be regulated through notification in Church bulletins to parishioners throughout the year. . For those occasions where there is an overage, we allow access on school field that is marshaled by staff attendants. There is no other e out onto the lot to the school, there is one way in and the same way out. )mmissioner Eaton noted condition 72 states the Parking Management Pla ould not provide for any on- street parking. r. Petros answered that is an error as the Public Works staff instructed us i :knowledge that the on- street parking is public and is generally available .c indays. r. Edmonston added: . The City does not count on- street parking towards meeting a demand as determined by the Code. . Since this Parking Management Plan attempts to address an acts projected traffic based on the expansion size of the sanctuary, the Put Works staff felt, in this case, that it was not inappropriate because it above and beyond the actual Code requirement. They were restricted show only those spaces that were adjacent to their property, not acrc the street from the high school, nor further down along Domingo in It residential areas. ,nmissioner Hawkins noted the Church can park to code without parking street. The Parking Management Plan is in excess of Code to meet isual parking demand. How often do you expect the sports field parking used? Petros replied we have identified 4 -5 general occasions per year for the imissioner Toerge noted his concern of allowing the use of street parking Parking Management Plan. We can't restrict it as people will park the vay, but it shouldn't be in the Plan. Does the Parking Management PI -ess how the parking lot will be filled? r. Petros, answered that it is filled first and it is marshaled by three attendants. sioner Toerge noted his concerns of which lots get filled and in and crossing pedestrians. file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 15 of 33 �Mr. Petros noted there will be ample time to review the Plan by the Church and he City. imissioner Henn noted it is in the Church's best interest to figure out t st and most efficient way to fill the lots. He then noted the parking in front church property is not an affront to the neighborhood. Is there a way )urage this parking? Are there any tools available to see that parki lege does not get abused beyond church property? Edmonston answered he has visited Domingo Drive this past week and the cars parked there early in the morning with dew on them that suggests thi not related to the school or to the church. But, they are in fact related >idents in the neighborhood. He would be concerned that any sort of attem restricting parking would impact the residents as well as possible attendees Church. There is very little policing available on Sunday mornings if that iat you are talking about. It is a public street and at what point does it becon reasonable. It becomes very difficult. There could be some sort of resident . rking program. Petros noted we are only talking about a potential occasion that )en at 8:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m.. That is why we are talking about mar nmissioner Hawkins asked how many curb cuts will be closed? He w Nered two curb cuts closed. He then noted he agrees that parking in front Church frontage should not be a problem. This is not an extreme event a uld be encouraged. Barnard, representing Our Lady Queen of Angels, referenced two exhit I areas where there will be enhanced paving for the pedestrian crossing, ver the Commission wants. The Church is amenable to eitl r. Edmonston noted that on Sundays, one plan works well with the marshallir the traffic. He does not have as great a concern of the crossing from the hic ;hool. He noted that either plan would work; there will be no marked crosswa the middle of the block; however, there could be enhanced paving materials. cussion continued on the two exhibits, pedestrian signs on sta sswalk at Mar Vista that would remain operational, overflow parking, either lots, attendee crossing guards, marked or not marked cro idicap access, and the ability to call this item up. r Henn noted his support of a crossing guard as part of the Plan. There was a consensus by the Commission. ott Barnard, representing the applicant, referred to exhibits noting the I the buildings, towers and property lines. Several renderings were dis( well as view simulations. As he discussed the view simulations he feral site distances, setbacks, and relationships to existing landscaping. missioner Hawkins asked how high are the trees surrounding the site tall are the St. Mark's building and cross. r. Barnard noted:. file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 16 of 33 1 . Some of the trees are anywhere from 45 to 66 feet high; . The top of the St. Mark cross is 49 feet above the surrounding grade. . The existing structure of St. Mark itself is approximately 42 feet to the of the pyramid shaped ridge roof. n Van Pelt, Senior Project Director of Focus spoke on behalf of the applicant. read from a prepared brochure of what their procedures are on the process view simulations and how they are achieved. He noted that they had taker otographs from up to 40 different sites. r. Barnard noted the modeling and simulation of the building was done ree pictures plus the architectural files. imissioner Toerge noted the cross will be dramatically visible from Jambore d and residents to the south due to the elevation differences. He asked item should be continued to get better view simulations from Jamboree as the potential to have an impact and visibility on cars driving north < boree particularly coming out of Big Canyon Gully. I have not heard ar :erns about the height of the buildings from the residents. nmissioner Hawkins noted he has heard comments regarding the reliability 011 view simulation process. He asked for more information. r. Van Pelt added that the Cad application was used in the process of the vie mulations. He went on to explain the rest of the process. He concluded I 3ying site photos, GPS coordinates and 3D project modeling are included alor ith a virtual camera in the selected viewpoints and overlaying the model ov e photography. All the survey markers are included that allows checking :curacy on the placement and scale of the model. The final step is to create gh resolution rendering of the computer model to be used in the next phase )mpositing. For the rendering, a representation of the sun is used to calcula e actual shade and shadow according to time, time of year and location iotography. It involves the work of a digital artist, the high resolution of tl )mputer model is then placed over the digitized photograph and is composit( f selecting the unchanged foreground portions and bringing them in front of tl iodel. Landscape and other elements are then added to realistically represe its project as it will look at the completion. In this case, we did not have •oposed landscape plan, so that has not been added in. )mmissioner Hawkins asked about his experience, his responsibilities, his simulation, and his experience regarding their reliability. Van Pelt added: . He has been doing this for 12 years. . This technology has been around since 1993. . He uses this process daily. . There have been occasions for him to look at a final project and it to the actual view simulation. file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 17 of 33 1 . The error ratio is less than 1 %. I . The challenge for the client is the picking of the view points to simulate. Hawkins asked if parts of Jamboree Road were scenic Temple answered: . The General Plan identifies certain public views that are worthy preservation. . Typically they are identified along roadways, Jamboree Road is one them, but the views identified are across an open area towards soi visual resource, i.e., bay, cliffs, mountain view, that the public enjc having a view of. . We do not identify view corridors within which the change out of build that may change their level of prominence. . Given the placement of the new sanctuary and the changes from what exist, that structure is going to be much more prominent as viewed from Jamboree Rd. followed on the height issues and use permit. . Temple noted the issue related to the environmental document relates to tl nificant environmental effects of a project. The visual mass and bulk c+ ,ct the determination as to whether that rises to a threshold of significant le\ it relates to environmental effects. However, I believe you could find from QA threshold of significant level of effect related to the environmerr ermination could still be held not significant, but you still must find in a u mit that the project is compatible with the surrounding area and ti ghborhood within which the project is proposed. On that basis, while s ling no significant environmental effect, the Commission can still find that tl ling to approve the use permit can not be made. One does not necessar d to the other, although one could lead to the change in the environmen, ling as well. That is for the Commission to decide. missioner Henn asked about the outreach program, was the issue of r height detailed? oft Barnard, referring to exhibits, noted that the process started with the :etings with the Eastbluff Traffic Task Force comprised of various members. e size of the school has been reduced from 700 to 600 students; removed the school components; the church floor area ratio was reduced from .21 to .17 d the height of the church that was once 120 feet has been reduced to 90 fee the top of the cross. The church is now situated on site so as to increase rking by 49 spaces and still maintain the setback from Eastbluff while retaininc terracing. These revisions were based on what was heard from the various treach meetings. Commission inquiry, he added that the view simulation was done at a :e. The concerns heard at the outreach meetings were about access, parl 1 mass of the building. We had renderings that were discussed at etings but no concerns regarding height were ever voiced. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 18 of 33 ommissioner Henn noted he is more concerned with the residents' views than motorists going up Jamboree at 60 miles per hour. >ner Hawkins noted he received one comment about the view Road. hairperson Cole asked for a comparison of heights between the ample and Church tower elements. Temple stated: . The approval of one structure under the church exception at any particul dimension does not set a standard for anybody else, because each site unique, both in terms of its site characteristics and neighborhood. . The Mormon Temple proposed a much higher steeple with statue what was ultimately approved. . It started out at 125 feet and ended up at 90 feet. • There are other churches in town that have made use of the use permits related to church exceptions for both the church structure as well as their identifying features such as steeples, crosses or other religious symbols. • Do they set a precedent? The answer is no. . However, many churches have made use of the use permits for features to exceed the height. nmissioner Eaton noted that if there was a height issue with the surroundinc imunity we would have heard from them as they have been noticed. So far have heard no testimony. Cole noted his agreement. Temple added the issues and controversy of the Temple were the heig I the height in combination with the manner in which it was proposed to t ted, which was quite dramatic and probably more than what would be dor most denominations. In this particular case, you deal with the height ar ss of the structure, you also consider it in light of how otherwise prominent ht be within the community. Cole noted there is a condition the prohibits the lighting of the steeple. Ung answered that was correct. Cole asked about the potential easement issue. O'Neil, representing the applicant, noted: . City staff has asked that the replacement of the land adjacent to property along Eastbluff to allow the re- establishment of the bicycle would be a good thing for the community. file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 19 of 33 . We deliberated this and have concluded that this would be a good community benefit for the church to enter into a grant of easement of an area about 10 feet to allow for the bicycle trail to be re- established. . Staff has formulated a condition and the applicant agrees to it. Edmonston noted that originally there were two 5 foot bicycle lanes bluff. The dedication referenced 10 feet; currently there is a sidewalk on ch's side that is 14 feet wide and could be reduced to ten feet. The four 1 is there plus the additional 6 feet for the total of 10 would equate to the b of bike lanes that were lost with the re- striping of Eastbluff. That would Ovate to re- establish bike lanes on both sides. nmissioner Toerge noted that would be fine. The circulation that has be ited makes approval of this project easier. He appreciates the willingness Church to entertain this kind of suggestion as it is a tremendous benefit. iissioner Henn asked about a possible impact to the allowable build parking or use of the site. O'Neil noted that the granting of the easement does not impact the buildable a of the property as the sidewalk will be done through the easement process. Ung read the condition: "The applicant shall grant the City of Newport ich a total of a 10 foot wide easement along the Eastbluff Drive frontage of church property located at 2100 Mar Vista Drive for the purpose of bicycle and pedestrian walkway. The easement document to be approved by the Attorney's office and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building nits for the new sanctuary." O'Neil agreed to the condition. comment was opened. Kerwin, local resident, noted his support of the application: . The statement of 'held hostage,' is a dramatic statement and should dismissed. . He has been attending this church for 33 years, so he has a lot experience of being, 'held hostage.' Parking in the lot means you have get out of the lot first and then through the street traffic and the worst it h ever taken me is ten minutes. . It is a ten minute ride and is not terribly inconvenient. . The most difficult time for traffic is during the time the high school is left' out; however, there is nothing that can be done and is out of our control. . The church has reached out to be good neighbors and he hopes consider that in your deliberations. ck Jensen, local resident, noted the proposed cross on this Church will not so it will not be a problem in the neighborhood. file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 20 of 33 Public comment was closed. Cole then addressed the remaining outstanding issues of . On- street parking - include any in the Parking Management Plan? mmissioner Toerge noted that due to the testimony of the traffic consultant J applicant he is comfortable allowing the Parking Management Plan to take course, which also includes the stacking. Pedestrian Plan A or B - consensus was on Plan B to have the primary walkway in the middle of the street on Mar Vista. . Bike lane easement language - Commissioner Eaton asked for clarification. Edmonston stated the proposal would take 6 feet from what is there today landscaping. missioner Peotter asked about condition 5 noting his concern that this is an ;ial limitation as there is a Parking Management Plan in place as part of the irements. He suggested that any assembly use the church wants to use as memorial services or wedding, would be allowed subject to the :mentation plan rather than restrict them. He suggested the wording, "Other : such as memorial services, weddings or other large assembly uses of the -tuary are allowed during weekdays when the OLQA School is in session the implementation of the Parking Management Plan." Barnard (referring to the exhibit) stated that the tightest area at this corner as 27 feet 5 inches, so an additional dedication of 6 feet would result in 21 feet inches left for the landscaping. He noted that they agree to all the conditions :luding the suggested language for condition 5. Hawkins suggested increasing the number to 100 in condition 5. mmissioner Eaton stated that the Parking Management Plan would have to be >lemented so that 3 staffers would have to be in attendance. I am not sure the urch understands that. imissioner Peotter noted the Parking Management Plan doesn't require the 3 onnel unless they have a certain number of parking spaces or start to park ss the street. For a small group would not require implementation of parking onnel; but, if they have a large enough meeting they would have to just like i large memorial service. Friday weddings with 125 people can't be done this and Friday weddings are not impractical especially with the way ches get booked these days. The limit ought to be placed on the facilities they have, which is the Parking Management Plan. If they require a certain unt of parking for an activity and if they can't provide the parking, they can't the activity. Attorney Clauson noted that the Parking Management Plan will deal with the of the assembly use, not when it will occur. The Parking Management Plan deal with the situation where the assembly uses and school uses, etc. is ig on is unusual and more than what the parking can handle on a regular is. She suggested that condition 5 have a restriction on the assembly during week, or when school is in session to the extent that they would require any file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 21 of 33 nd of parking that would be over and above what would be handled on site. I e Parking Management Plan is needed then they have to comply with it. I lows memorial services, the question is whether the Church wants to have a )mmitment to the community that during the week the only thing the community ill see is the school without any large assembly except for the unusual tuations they can't avoid; versus Commissioner's Peotter concern, does the immunity want to hamstring the Church to have other type of assembly use .firing the day or the week where they could handle all the parking, but you will ill have the additional traffic. ommissioner Hawkins agreed, and stated the issue really is the traffic. The •ojections have been made on certain uses and I would like to see a cap. Is. Clauson added that the suggested cap of 50 is during the week when school in session. If someone wants to have a Friday evening wedding, there is no rohibition on this. Ir. O'Neill noted he would agree with a 200 cap. Is. Temple stated the site plan has 276 parking spaces on site. Perhaps slating a cap to the available parking supply might have a greater foundation. ince these are more assembly like uses and are different from the normal ssembly uses with multiple occupancy vehicles, starting with 250 cap or the Cher option limit that kind of daytime uses to a number of uses per month so iat they are not a continuous use. ony Petros stated there are 276 parking spaces. There are 1.7 persons per ar, so there is a logic to go beyond the 250 and still stay within the capacity oll jat lot. This would allow for a greater flexibility for the church to operate on lose occasions. ommissioner Peotter agreed with allowing to fill up that lot except for those pecial circumstances. ommissioner Eaton suggested 200 to be on the conservative side. :ommissioners Toerge and Henn agreed with 200. :hairperson Cole noted that the cap for condition 5 shall be 200 and that was ie only change. 1r. Barnard noted for condition 72: • Change reference of Traffic Management Plan to Parking Managemen Plan • Strike words, " traffic and" from second sentence. • Remove '...on public streets and...'..... from third sentence. • Add, "...... informed not to park at Corona del Mar high school on publi k property adjacent to residential land uses. ollowing a discussion all changes to this condition 72 all were in agreement file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 22 of 33 Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction, the applicant shall prepare a Parking Management Plan (PMP) that shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Traffic Engineer. The PMP shall include provisions for proper parking management for all assembly activities depending upon size to ensure that traffic conflicts are minimized and that vehicular access, pedestrian access and parking resources are managed effectively. Parking at Corona del Mar High School shall be not be planned. Parishioners, visitors and school users shall be regularly informed not to park at Corona del Mar High School and on public property adjacent to residential land uses. The PMP shall include procedures for management of the student drop off and pick up. The applicant shall implement all measures contained within the approved PMP. Thereafter, modifications of the PMPs may be authorized from time to time by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Director provided that they are limited to eliminating unnecessary aspects of the PMPs or implementing new or altered traffic or parking management techniques that improve traffic and parking management or site access. ussion then followed on the following conditions with the suggested Commission agreed to: Except for supporting uses, such as church choir and/or break room, t imunity room located on the church property shall not be used for religio rices nor for assembly purposes, concurrently with the services performed sanctuary.. ate Condition 27 Upon completion of the school expansion and renovation, the >oms shall be removed from the school campus. and the pFeFMse The cross and tower above the ridgeline shall not be illuminated. itectural lighting of the sanctuary shall be aimed to illuminate the stru shall avoid missina the structure to the maximum extent feasible. Glie i language to restrict lighting of the cross and tower above the ridgeline limited to 11:00 p.m. each night accept for religious holidays. Condition 36. During the Our Lady Queen of Angels and the Corona del Mar High S cool day, heavy construction vehicle traffic on adjoining streets shall be li directed by the City's Traffic Engineer to avoid construction during the Tic hours. 70 and 73 that deal with construction plans and haul routes. into one condition. . A twelve -month noticed review by the Planning Commission, from the church operation of the new sanctuary. . A twelve -month noticed review by the Planning Commission, from the school full enrollment. file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 condition changes are to be incorporated in the rest of the conditions lined in the draft resolution. Commission inquiry, Mr. Barnard noted he accepts all the conditions missioner Peotter brought up his concern of Commission policy and wou to bring this matter up for review and discussion. It had to do with tt ber of conditions that repeat Code. ar Eaton suggested identifying in the draft resolution the stud that was evaluated, which was Jamboree and Eastbluff. S )n was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve Use Permit No. Traffic Study No. 2006 -002 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (PAS subject to findings and conditions as modified during the hearing �d to by the applicant. missioner Eaton noted this was a well thought out project. missioner Hawkins noted the benefits of this project are significant. son Cole noted the findings can be made for the application; does r the intensity of the use and is consistent with the current and propos Plan; the traffic study looked at existing conditions; MND was done ice with CEQA; this project will result in a better project than M Eaton, Peotter, None McDaniel The Koll Company (PP 4450 MacArthur Blvd. PA2006 -095 al Plan Amendment and Planned Community Plan Amendment to transfe It retail and restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B t Continued to Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -11) for the 09/2112006 action of a 21,375 square foot, two -story office building over one level ranean parking structure. nan Cole acknowledged that this item is being heard past 10:30 p.m. requires a consensus of the Commission. Ung gave an overview of the staff report, noting: . The applicant proposes to construct a two -story office building to as their new corporate headquarters. . The proposed construction site is in Office Site A. The area proposed for development is in a common parking area for O Site. A, which is owned by the applicant and located at the south corner of MacArthur Boulevard and at the entry driveway west of Fairmont Hotel. Page 23 of 33 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 24 of 33 . There is unbuilt floor area identified by the Koll Center Planned Community that the 1988 and 2006 Land Use Elements do not recognize. . Prior to the adoption of 1988 Land Use Element, Office Site A had e of 340,000 square feet of office space, a 30,000 square foot private and a 471 room hotel. . Office Site B permitted a total of 965,216 square feet of office 10,000 square feet of retail and 19,000 square feet of re: development. . Office Site A presently has utilized the maximum floor area of the PC text. . Office Site B has a remaining unused balance of 24,016 square feet office, retail and restaurant development. This unused square foot; within the PC text; however, has not recognized by the 1988 Land I Element due to the fact that there was no projected growth allowed Office Site B. . The estimated growth table in the 1988 Land Use Element shows existing building area in 1988 equals the maximum allowed and growth in floor area. . Since the 1988 Land Use Element did not account for the unbuilt floor the PC text allowed in Office Site B, an amendment to the Land Element is being sought to increase the floor area in Office Site B b unbuilt amount identified in the PC text and then transferring it to Site A to facilitate the development of the new office building. . Staff is requesting that the gross floor area for Office Site B is adjusted reflect the existing numbers tracked by our Building Permits. T difference between the maximum allowable floor area indicate in the 19 Land Use Element for Office Site B and the existing overall gross flc area is 2502 gross square feet. . The proposed projects require an amendment to the Planned Comm text to allow for the transfer of development intensity of the unused r restaurant and office uses from Office Site B to Site A. . This request is consistent with the provisions allowed in the PC text. net increase in the square footage will result from this amendment. . Only 21,311 square feet will be used for the construction of the pri office building and the remaining will be reserved for future development in that particular site. . Koll Center Newport Planned Community allows the 24,016 square feet additional development that the 1988 and the 2006 Land Use Elements not. This entitlement pre -dated the 1988 Land Use Element and st believes there was no intent to eliminate it. . The proposed General Plan Amendment will recognize this un -bui entitlement and make the Land Use Element consistent with the Kc Center Newport Planned community. file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 25 of 33 . The resolution recommends approval of the proposed amendment and it is suggested the amendment be made to both Land Use Elements; however, a potential amendment to the 2006 Land Use Element would only be accomplished after an affirmative vote in November and the Council shall take a separate action to amend the 2006 Land Use Element. The Commission could act on the application tonight and not have return. Staff has prepared this application to have two sepan considerations with the Council, one for the 1988 Land Use Element the other for the 2006 Land Use Element after the election if necessary. . Temple noted that Section 1 on page 4 of the draft resolution addresses the ual amendment to the 1988 Land Use Element. Section 2 makes a separate ommendation for approval of the General Plan Amendment per Exhibit B. nibit B is the information necessary to amend the not yet adopted or approves the voters 2006 Land Use Element. It is segmented, and while we believe the mmission can make a recommendation to the City Council related tc ending either or both the 1988 plan as well as the 2006 plan, that the Citl until can not consider nor adopt an amendment to the 2006 Land Use ament until it is actually approved by the electorate in November. Clauson affirmed that the draft resolution reflects these issues. rperson Cole questioned the unused square footage within the PC text 3nized by the 1988 Land Use Element. The chart talks about an additic ige. Why didn't they recognize the footage at that time? Is. Temple noted that a mistake had been made, there was no overt mscience intent to reduce the entitlements within the Planned Community. -eas such as Kell Center Newport where there is unique subdivis •rangements we established square footage limits as opposed to floor a itios in an attempt to make them consistent. Due to the structure of lanned Community text sometimes it is difficult to figure out what the total v id in this case the square footage was missed. . Clauson noted during the analysis they looked back at the record to mZ e it was more than just the memory of staff and the intent of what we h snded to do and make sure that there wasn't anything indicating someth scific in the record that it was intended to reduce. It is not clear in the reel the time it was adopted. There are statements in the original adopt guage resolution adopting the 1988 Land Use Element that says there was ant to make reductions in land use approvals, but it doesn't say this prope s intended to be reduced. Her recommendation to both staff and :)licant that we need to do a General Plan Amendment to make it very clear record. This is a very conservative valid way to make sure that they b Temple added the best course of action is to deal with this through ;ral Plan Amendment. issioner Hawkins asked how the Commission can make nendation but the Council can not make a similar action. Did the vested rights to the property owner? s. Clauson answered that this is an attempt to assist the applicant in a situation) here they are caught in limbo. The General Plan was actually adopted by the file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 26 of 33 :y Council and just the 423 vote, which deals with the required approval of nd Use allocation. That is what needs to be amended as staff did not )se numbers into the new General Plan because of the timing. This is a v d procedural way to assist the applicant so that they don't have to come b the Planning Commission after the vote to get another recommendation w analysis is made here. The actual amendment to the General Plan can done until after the election. >. Clauson answered they did not have vested rights, they had a PC text tt thorized a certain amount of square footage. When the General Plan w opted, it could very well have been a specific intent to reduce the number uare footage in that and the PC text would later have been amended to redu A number. Temple added that the presence of 'entitlements' in our zoning document i many people say they are vested entitlements. What that is, is < ability to utilize intensity. There are other factors in zoning that could caul individual property not to be able to exercise their full 'entitlement' or the ng limit. An example would be in Corona Del Mar you may have floor ar( of .5 but the nature of your use and its parking requirement may not alit to get all of it. So, you don't have an absolute right to construct eve >ible square foot unless you can comply with all other standards. In this F .compliance with the standards are easy. The zoning entitlement is .r ad until whatever approval or permit is achieved as required by the zoning: ier Eaton noted there is no reference to the mitigation measu also say approved subject to the mitigation measures. Also, do not match up with the mitigation measures. Should they Clauson noted this is a resolution recommending a General idment, which is a legislative act. It is not a conditioned approval. that Exhibit D was the list of Standard Code Requirements. Temple answered the standard code requirements are in the code, and to comply. The mitigation measures will be dealt with through lation monitoring. The City Council resolution will certify it. Hawkins noted that on this resolution we take no action on document. Clauson noted that the Commission needs to have a recommendation e ption by the Council of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the Plann nmission wants to adopt this resolution and forward on the recommendati motion should require including a Whereas and specific recommendation approval of the environmental document and adoption of mitigat isures. Council will do that in their adopting resolution. missioner Toerge noted it does not make sense receiving a resolution 12-3 hours before hearing and not having a chance to read it. Certainly t c hasn't an opportunity to read it either. We are setting a bad precede I am uncomfortable with this and I believe that staff is too. I have read t report and have no issue with the project, but I don't think we are ready ove this as I haven't had the opportunity to review this resolution. issioner Peotter moved to continue this because he feels the same way. file : / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 27 of 33 Commissioner Henn noted he is not going to vote on something that he hasn't Cole suggested hearing from the applicant. Carol McDermott, representing the applicant, noted: . There has been no public request for information. . There has been no comments on the Negative Declaration. . Nobody but our team is here in the audience. . It was the Koll Company's understanding since 1972 when they bec implementation of the Planned Community Regulations that the C Plan allowed the using and the zoning covered the square footages. . When the 1988 General Plan was approved, Koll Company was developing anything. There was a little square footage left, but the was not monitored. . We have participated with staff on verification of square footac reviewing building permits and very detailed analysis to ensure that we agreed on what those square footages were. . It became clear then that the zoning did not match the General Plan, but was an inadvertent issue. • Since Greenlight I the square footages in the General Plan have I increased importance. • It is important that it be clarified and stated for the record in a very c fashion. • A couple of requests have gone on before us as zone changes and absorbed the burden of cleaning these up. • Landscaping - referring to exhibits she noted the location of the ac building and pointed out the reconfiguring of hardscape and landscape. • There will be a total of 16,840 square feet of landscaping and open sp provided within this office site. • The building itself will replace some minor landscaping and basic parking. • There will be no parking lost with the reconfiguration. . There is no net increase in square footage with this change. . The flexibility was always granted in the planned community regulations be able to move the square footage around because they could not pred in 1972 what would be happening in 2006. file : //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 . The way we read the resolution under the last Whereas, what it says is the environmental record shows there will be less than significant impact the mitigation measures identified are feasible, they reduce potentia environmental impacts to a less than significant level, and they are applies to the project and incorporated as conditions of approval. . This is what covers the incorporation measures appropriately a referenced in the document so that we know we have to comply with that. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that the resolution for the Church project lists ding regarding the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. Such a findii missing in this resolution. It should be included. followed on possible wording. McDermott noted that with all things considered, asked that this not tinued but come up with language to add to the resolution that would addr Commission concerns. Cole asked about the trips being generated by this building. McDermott answered they are at 299 irperson _Cole noted: . Those trips are primarily peak hour trips for office use. . The development transfer rights are coming predominately what called retail /restaurant uses, which would be for non -peak trips. . Was this looked at this context? . These peak hour trips are different. Temple answered: . There is no relationship between the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Charter Section 423. . The TPO does deal with peak hour trips. . The original use designation for retail and restaurant are different in of the peak hour characteristics as opposed to office. . The initial threshold for requiring for the TPO analysis 300 is daily trips. . If you don't cross 300 trips, we don't go further. . Retail and restaurant have extremely high p.m. peak hour trips, far greater than office. . What they don't have typically is the a.m. trips, which office would more of. file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm Page 28 of 33 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 29 of 33 Mr. Edmonston agreed. comment was opened. comment was closed. imissioner Henn noted he feels an obligation to perform his duties, so he be voting on this item tonight as he has not had the opportunity to review Elution. He has read the staff report. oner Eaton noted he would act on this tonight if the resolution was 4s. Clauson noted the main reason this resolution came out so late is because leir office got involved with it late. She told staff that they needed to bring this :) the Council after the adoption of the new General Plan or the effective date, sat they would have to now amend the new General Plan to reflect these hanges because they did not transfer over. Due to that, staff had to compose ie resolution for the Planning Commission so the applicant did not have to :ome to the Planning Commission to make these same determinations after the Jovember elections. This resolution attempts to incorporate the findings that are iecessary for the changes that will be necessary for the 2006 in order for the Manning Commission make the recommendation to the City Council to amend )oth of them. That is the information that is in here. The two issues would be to equire and to:find, make the findings and have staff add to the resolution that anguage that was necessary to make the findings that you find that the Negative )eclaration is adequate and you recommend the City Council approve it. The �ther issue is standards. The last item being approved is the changes to the PC There is no issue with having these attached. Your question is whether the gation measures should also be included when this is a PC text amendment. once the adopting resolution for the Negative Declaration is done by the City :ouncil those mitigation measures will be adopted and they will have to be mplemented as part of the project. If you would like to have the mitigation neasures be included in the standard operating conditions, then you can give hat direction. :)ner Eaton answered that this came up in two prior projects and measures were included. . Clausen noted her confusion was she thought that these conditions H ng attached to the General Plan Amendment, they are not. They are be ached to the PC text amendment, so I think the mitigation measures could the Planning Commission added to that. e added that given the hour and that the public comment period is not close )ther option would be to continue this item for review and approval of tl solution. You don't have to have another public hearing. Unless there is ange that comes up, you don't have to re -open the public hearing at the ne !etng, you could just act on the resolution. Otherwise, there could be directii approve this resolution with the finding and staff can put those appropria sings in and forward it to the City Council. Whatever you feel me nfortable with. nmissioner Hawkins noted that a finding similar to Section 1 of Our =_en of Angels resolution is needed as a new Section 4 so long as it is to this project. file:HF: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 )wing a brief discussion the consensus of the Commission was to conti item to the next meeting. Won was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to : st without having to open the public hearing on the application itself. None ns, and Henn BJECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006 -173) d the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan sse the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwell to 47 dwelling units and to prohibit subdivisions that would increa na units. Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff review: • This item was initiated by the City Council in response to a letter from .Belcourt Master Association. • This amendment would reduce the number of dwelling units from 48 to to be consistent with the number of existing lots and to prohibit fut subdivisions. nissioner Peotter asked what difference does it make? Their CCR's subdivisions. Temple stated that the existing area has a number of lots which are ;lent size to meet the planned community sub - division standards that wo t those lots to be split. The City Council in initiating this at the request of eowners association, I can only presume, that the association wishes r the weight of the City along with the Association CCR's. Clauson noted that originally there was a certain amount of lots authorized subdivision that was part of the original subdivision plan which the CCF based upon. It was an issue of having the City amend their cod -opriately to make sure that those properties were not further subdivided ;ase the number of lots available for development in the subdivision. O terty would get to subdivide and the rest would not. The reason there is not 48 is another property consolidated. iairperson Cole verified that property would lose the opportunity to in the divide. Clauson noted the number proposed reflects the number of dwelling u lots that currently exist. The City Council wants to make sure that all erty owners do not further subdivide their property. They want to keep livision in the condition that it is in now. this Peotter, following a brief discussion, noted he was not in comment was opened. PA2006 -173 Continued to 09/2112006 Page 30 of 33 file : / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 31 of 33 ce Kermott, attorney for the Association and author of the letter, noted: • There wouldn't be a problem if the people who consolidated wanted late on to divide it. To allow anyone to take advantage of that lot is inappropriate and unfair. • This came from the homeowners themselves, they took a vote and 183 turned in votes with 182 voting to prohibit the subdivision of lots within the Association and 1 voted against it. • Referring to page 6 of the staff report that references LU 4.2 that prohibits subdivisions except from the GPA requirements and may be resubdivided to the original underlying legal lots. Temple noted that if the Planning Commission is concerned about this, staff come back and re -work this. Kermott stated they would allow that but we wouldn't want anyone else to divide. nmissioner Henn noted this would uniformly apply to any landowner who a1d want to do this. He clarified if we do go forward with this and at a late e a landowner consolidated two lots, that landowner would not be able to idivide those lots for even more subdivisions would be prohibited. Is this rect? . Temple noted the land use language referred to is in the 2006 Land Use ment and would allow the resubdivision for the purpose of conversion to the linal underlying subdivision without a General Plan amendment. In this ticular case, we have a proposed amended to the planned community text for specific planning area to actually reduce the permitted number of dwelling is based on how many lots exist on actual mapping of today. The question is fold; it would be a question of whether any amendment to the planning nmunity text had occurred in association with a consolidation, which wouldn't required by the City. In this particular case we would have to go back and iew the Land Use Element and how we structured this amendment to see if it Ad still require a general plan amendment, or whether a further amendment t to the planned community to increase the dwelling unit number would be uired. Given the fact the testifier is comfortable with the land use language I ik it would be best for us to continue this until the meeting of the 21st. Let us iew these issues and ask do you want this ability to revert to the original ierling subdivision be incorporated, and then we could restructure this into an )ropriate way. way this was written it was at the request of the homeowners group and iated by the City Council and that is what you see is what you get and we are ucing the number commensurately. cussion continued. mmissioner Toerge noted he is prepared to support the recommendation o City Council. mmissioners Peotter, Henn and Cole supported a continuance as suggested staff. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm, 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 32 of 33 r. Kermott noted that the homeowners have said you can't subdivide. So, th m't want to be in a position where someone from their community goes to t ty and they say yes, you can subdivide. Now, the homeowners associati ive to initiate a lawsuit against that person as they might have that ability to because the Planning Commission said so, but you can't because of what corded against your property. We don't like to be at odds with the City so tt what we are hoping to do, to get an amendment that says you can't furtt ibdivide the property. What happens in the future if two of the current 47 k eme, I don't know. mmissioner Toerge noted we just addressed this recently in Newport Height: Cliff Drive and it was very clear that it required a General Plan Amendment t< ahead and subdivide the lot because it was against the current General Plan. s is an easy one. They have to go for a General Plan Amendment, that is the they take. I am prepared to vote. nmissioner Hawkins noted that there are enough questions that staff has prudential course is to continue this item. r. Kermott stated that what you have before you is what the Association wants. St. nissioner Eaton asked do we try and make it consistent with the General language or do we try and make it consistent with what the applicant i g for? In that balance I would like it to be consistent with the General Plan age and it might:be that staff wants guidance. son Cole noted there was a consensus to have it consistent with Plan language. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this item to None McDaniel to the late hour, it was decided to forego these items. a. City Council Follow -up - b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Development Committee - C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Coastal Committee - d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 33 of 33 agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - a. m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 0 file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/28/2006