Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTESPlanning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 33 file: //F:1Users\PLN\SharedlGvarin\PC min eta112006110052006.htm 03/01/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn - all were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner aylene Olson, Department Assistant Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Cheryl Hodge of Hodge and Associates, City Contract Planner Bill Cunningham of Lawrence and Associates, City Contract Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 29, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 21, 2006. Approved Commissioner Hawkins made a correction. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Henn rt k x ITEM NO.2 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 17, 2005 Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge, Henn Noes: None bsent: None bstain: Peotter file: //F:1Users\PLN\SharedlGvarin\PC min eta112006110052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 2 of 33 file : //F: \Users\PLN\SharedlGvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/0112007 OBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) ITEM NO.3 2920 Newport Boulevard The Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub Continued to pursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City in October 19, 2006 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received severs complaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will valuate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the condition under which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission may require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions o approval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary and evocation of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time. tall requests to continue this item to October 19, 2006. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the consent calendar as modified. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn Noes: None bsent: None bstain: None HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Big Canyon Country Club ITEM NO.4 1 Big Canyon Drive PA2006 -160 General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable gross floor area Recommended allocated to the Country Club by 10,000 square feet. for Approval Commissioner Toerge asked what the boundaries of Statistical Area L2 are an hat was the development contributed to the prior General Plan Amendment 003 -002. Ms. Temple answered that L2 is surrounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The other amendment within that statistical area was St. Mark's Presbyterian Church. Mr. Larry Tucker, speaking on behalf of the County Club, requested the Commission approve this application. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -06 to the City Council by adopting the resolution contained in the staff report. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn Noes: None Absent: None OBJECT: Housing Element Review ITEM NO. 5 The Annual Housing Element Implementation Report is being provided to the Recommended Planning Commission for review. for Approval file : //F: \Users\PLN\SharedlGvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/0112007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 3 of 33 Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: . An annual report, required by the California Government Code, is prepared for submission to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR). • This reports outlines the goals and policies of the existing Housing Element and the City's progress towards meeting those goals. . The report typically is part of a larger report that analyzes the City's General Plan; however, since the City is in the midst of the General Plan update, the entire report is not required. . The status of the General Plan update does not exempt the City from preparing the Housing Element section on an annual basis. . The Housing Element Implementation Report has been prepared for review prior to submission to the OPR and HCD. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward this report to the City Council for their final approval. comment was opened. comment was closed. sioner Eaton asked about goals 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 referencing the City of updating its in -lieu fee and affordable housing ordinance. It had been ;d by staff last year to drop that reference because we had converted to an it affordable housing implementation plan. Is this language still pertinent? Nichols answered that currently the Housing In -lieu Ordinance study is on hold ding the outcome of the General Plan update. However, during the past fiscal r the City has been operating under the existing Housing Element and there some work done on the Ordinance and the In -lieu Housing Fee Study. As ed, the purpose of the report is to analyze the progress the City has made 3rds achieving the current Housing Element goals during the past fiscal year. t is the reason it still exists in the report. Eaton suggested changing the wording to, 'The City has been in Lion was made by Commissioner Eaton to approve and forward the Annual using Element Implementation Report to the City Council for final review with suggested change. issioner Henn asked about Goal 2.1.1. He asked what the result of the vacancy rate survey is. Nichols noted he is still getting the information through the mail on the >rt and will email it to the Commissioners. Temple noted the survey is done quarterly and the last report was below the file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 None None Newport Bay Marina formerly known as the Bridgeport Mixed Use Development 2300 Newport Boulevard Plan Review, Use Permit, Modification Permit and Vesting Tentative Tn to allow the construction of a mixed -use development on a 2.4 acre s ad north of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. T ct consists of the demolition of all structures on site and the construction 3ximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 dwelling un iominiums). Eleven three -story buildings are planned to be built over - rranean parking garage. The reconstruction /reconfiguration of the existi lead, boatways and docks is also planned. The Site Plan Review applicati J authorize the entire project and the Vesting Tentative Tract map wos it a subdivision map to allow for the residential units to be individually so Use Permit would establish a building height limit of up to 35 feet and t fication Permit would allow portions of the proposed buildings to encroa i the 5 -foot front yard setback. Finally, consideration of a Draft Environmen ct Report (SCH# 2003071144) including mitigation measures. arson Cole noted the applicant will make a presentation followed by a and then questions by the Commission. McDermott of Government Solutions, representing Newport Bay Mai iced her staff and then made a PowerPoint presentation highlighting . The project is now named Newport Bay Marina. . Computer generated model done to scale is as realistic a picture of what project will be. Entitlement request includes approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map allows the sale of the residential parcels on the mixed use site. A Permit to allow 35 foot height on a portion of the site; a Modification Pe for the front yard setback; and a Site Plan review for the mixed development of the residential and commercial uses including the renov marina. The Environmental Impact Report is being presented by the C consultant and staff as well. Community outreach efforts - they have met with the Central Newpor Community Association representatives on the 28th of September. Includes in your packet is a letter that was sent during the review period on the EIR. We met with those representatives and they have sent a revised letter tha has narrowed those issues, many of which can be easily addressed. W invited all property owners within a 500 foot radius to a meeting earlier thi: week. We did not have a very good turn out, but all of them were notifies according to the latest ownership roles on the County Assessor's list. Wi met with adjacent business owners and have a letter of support from the South Coast Shipyard that is immediately to the south of this project. . Project overview including setting, site plan and architecture. The ITEM NO.6 PA2001 -210 Continued to November 2, 2006 Page 4 of 33 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 5 of 33 site is 2.4 acres and is located on Newport Boulevard. She then noted site plan and the surrounding businesses. The mixed use development is 36,000 of retail /commercial uses, curret there is 40,000 square feet of retail and office and boat sale uses on property. There are proposed 27 residential units and a 19 slip marina. A proposed is subterranean parking to serve visitor, retail and office needs, well as some evening activities for surrounding uses. • She referred to the site plan and noted the .placement of the pier McFadden Square portion of the Cannery Village McFadden Square Sp Plan. The 28th Street marina project is a mixed use that was approved years ago. Property to the north is a small mixed use development with Kantina an( Woody's Wharf restaurants. The subject property begins where th< Johnston Yacht Sales is located and ends where the Crab Cooker begins or the Newport Boulevard frontage. Further views were noted along 22nc Street; Arcade Street fronted by the project as well; and, the current shipyan is immediately to the south of the project. Simulated views were ther presented from the 485 foot water front section. Existing conditions - 44,000 square feet of existing mixed uses commercial office and retail shops. There is an existing commercial marir with an extended slipway that has been used variously. We consider this 19 slip marina. There is associated parking scattered along the site at grac level; there is very limited public access. Views to the water are blocked I parking, trees and boats. Public access is limited by trees and out of coc types of improvements. A visual site tour was shown noting entrances to the location. Since this site has become used for office uses and a variety of other comrr uses. • There are two slipways on the site. The existing marina is old and does not meet current code or marir specifications. There are a variety of circumstances along the bulkhead th have led to drainage directly into the harbor. Part of the Water Quality PI. is to assure that there is no direct water run off into the bay. There will be Water Quality Management Plan to address this. The marina requires complete renovation of docks, bulk heads and pump out facilities. Tf slipway that has been covered for a number of years had been used launch boats. Boat repair was done on the top of the covered slip wa which will be eliminated in return for a widened and enhanced slipway : part of the major access to the water. The marina will be reconfigured to make it more efficient. It will allow handicap access in two locations from the 10 -foot public walkway that exi across the front of the property. It allows for the expansion and widening the existing slipway. It will allow for the replacement of the exist bulkhead. This construction will be done with all the best managemr practices in the industry and under the auspices of the Harbor Resourc Division as well as the Department of Public Works. • The abandoned and covered existing boat slipway will be filled. This will file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 6 of 33 allow for increased access and some boat berthing, enhanced bay and recreational activities for small boats to pick up and drop off people. Referring to the site plan, she then noted Building A with proposed retail the ground floor and residential on the second and third floors. Building has retail on the ground floor on Newport Boulevard, office on the secoi floor and residential on the third floor with parking underneath this building garages. Building C is an office /retail building and is two stone approximately the same height as the rest of the buildings but with high floor plates. Buildings D thru K are a combination of residential and ret and retail parking spaces are available as well as garage parking I residential. Parking is individual with landscaping surrounding them. • Most of the residential units have either balconies or other private spaces as demonstrated in exhibits contained in the packet. . The conceptual landscape plan has landscape between each of buildings so that in the 10 -foot walkway, there was room for a 6 foot i access way and also allows for landscape planters as well as benches seating to enhance the visitor access and experience to the water.. . Public access is along either side of the slipway with everywhere we can. . There is an existing recorded easement that will cover a more exte area, as relayed by the referenced presentation. She noted the surrou buildings and bridge and how they relate to the visual enhancements. bridge will not impede the views and will be a low elevation change. . She noted an illustration on how the area will function with opportunities seating areas and pedestrian access to the water. • Public access is reached from Newport Boulevard via the plaza area walkways on either side and via a paseo, an easement between the c building and Building D to the boardwalk from the Arcade Street. Stain and elevators will allow convenient public access to the water. • Woody's Wharf has no public access. • The 28th Street marina has a ten foot walkway. . Small electric boats will have some access through the slip up to the at low tide. . Vehicular access to the project site will be from 22nd Street or from Newpor Boulevard. There are left turns and stop signs to direct the traffic flow. Discussion followed on additional street lighting and vehicular access vi, ingress and egress for separate parking areas. • The elevator shaft and public access were viewed. • Deck level parking provided by carports and garages, delivery parking and visitor parking at deck level, which is different from the parking at th subterranean level, retail and residential parking and exits out to the street were noted on the presentation. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 • Subterranean parking functions through two way circulation in all directions. Trash enclosure details have not been locations that are feasible and it will department review of the circulation locations on the site plan. finalized but there are a number be worked out during the tra plan. She noted a few possil Parking includes 2 spaces per 27 dwelling units, including 39 garages at It deck level, 15 carports at the deck level, 14 guest spaces, 10 of which are the deck level and 4 on the parking level. The retail office is parked at or stall per 250 square feet consisting of deck level carports so that tt owner /operators or employees of small retail shops less than 1,000 squa feet, will have convenient parking to their stores while customers are given nice level of parking of 135 spaces. There will be a parking compar operating the structure to assure that the parking is used appropriately ar is managed and does not create circulation problems onto the street. The marina is parked at .8 stall per slip resulting in 15 stalls in the parkins level as well as the necessary showers required for a commercial marina.. This ratio has been determined to work both by the Planning Departmen and the Harbor Resources Division. The total parking is 226 spaces per the Code. As a developer we want to assure that there is adequate parking and Codes here on parking are valid and have been tested; therefore, we comfortable that there is adequate parking. In this location, which is clearly related to McFadden Square, there is historic theme that should be re- created by using turn of the cent architecture. Materials suggested such as ceramic tile stone, brick brass would fit the image. Looking where 21 Ocean Front is, you see feeling of what we are going to try to address with our designs with tile ro4 awnings, windows, brick facade and separation of treatments. She tl presented a color and materials board while presenting views of the area. . Looking at the view simulations, she noted setbacks of the buildi balconies and two and three story heights to provide a variety of configurations. She then noted and discussed the floor plans of the buildings associated assigned parking, retail /office spaces, elevator shafts and units. . She ended the presentation with a video rendering and a copy of the letter support received from the operator of the Shipyard. Cunningham, Contract Planner representing staff, noted: . The Land Use Element, current and past, designates the property as related commercial with residential on the upper floors. . The Harbor and Bay Element denotes water related and water front ac and public spaces and non - conflict with surrounding land uses. Staff r Building C provides a buffer for the shipyard to the south. Given the pol and goals in the Element, the reconstruction of the seawall, the boat new pump out facilities, and public access that the project is consistent Page 7 of 33 file: /(F: \Users \PLN\SharedlGvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 8 of 33 1 this Element. • The project was presented to the Harbor Commission in May of 2003. T Commission recommended denial of the project; however, staff continues feel the project is consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element of the Gene Plan. The project is located in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan #6 and is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial witt residential uses allowed above the first floor. The first floor is subterranean commercial parking therefore, the first floor on the deck level used fo residential can be consistent with the City's plan. The Coastal Land Use Plan regulations and language are almost identical with the McFadder Square Specific Plan and reiterate the use of recreational /marine commercial with residential above the first level. Staff noted in the staf report the various policies relating the public access and enhancement o biological resources and have discussed in detail how the 10 foot pedestriar easement being provided along the Bay Front and through the property, a: well as the enhancement of the various marine related uses in deteriorates condition now, will be re- built. The project is consistent with the Specific Plan #6 development standa with the exception of height and front yard setback, which are two of discretionary items before the Commission tonight. In terms of height, Specific Plan calls for a 26 foot height limit; however, it does allow height can be exceeded up to 35 feet with a Use Permit, which is part of application. The number of mandatory findings can be made, namely physical and visual access provided by the easements along the water f and through the property and from the public streets, the public can i access to the property. The proposed view easement will result in an increased view access thr, the property, the upper floors are set back and there is considerable articulation in the project, and is consistent with the design theme materials recommended by Specific Plan #6, consistent with i development within the vicinity and does not result in increased overall then otherwise permitted. The maximum FAR is being decreased over which is permitted. A Modification Permit for the front setback, in terms of findings, the colurr that are being provided along up to property line in order to provide safety the outward swinging doors of the commercial on the first floor level alo Newport Boulevard, in reality the actual storefronts themselves are setb< 2 112 to 4 feet from the front property line. The upper floors of the projo are set back. The project is in line with the Crab Cooker, which is adjace and is similar to other development in the McFadden Square that go up the front property line. • Another issue is if this project had been located on an interior lot, t would be a 5 foot front setback but no rear yard setback. This prol being located on the bay front is required under the CLUP and the Sp( Plan to provide for at least a 6 foot setback along the water front and project is proposing a 10 foot setback along the bay front. . The Vesting Tentative Tract Map is to allow the sale of residential units a condominiums and in staffs opinion all the required findings for granting tentative tract map can be found for this project. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 9 of 33 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) initial study was done on February 22, 2005 and at that time the findings were made that an EIR would be required for this project. The Technical Studies were done for all of the pertinent measures that led to that finding, particularly noted are the biology, traffic, and cultural historical resources and those are contained in the EIR. During the comment period there had been discussion on traffic. The traffic analysis for the project was done in terms of the TPO analysis and resulted in a slight decrease in the a.m. peak and a slight increase in the p.m. peak overall. All of the intersections studied did not exceed the 1% threshold with the exception of Newport Boulevard at Via Lido. In accordance with the TPO, an ICU analysis was done and that particular intersection remains at LOS A during the p.m. peak. In terms of the historical analyses, under the State and Federal criteria for evaluating the historical significance of buildings and sites, it is noted of all those criteria the one that stands out is that any building that exceeds 50 years in age would automatically throw it into that category and we have to make a statement of overriding considerations. In accordance with the study, the consultant determined that the mitigation measures as presented and included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, as well as the conditions of approval plus the statement of overriding considerations will be done for that particular aspect of the project, as well as all the other mitigation aspects of the project that can be mitigated to an acceptable level. • The EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse on July 19, 2006 for the 45 day review period. During that period and after, the consultant received five comment letters. The comment letters and responses to the letters are included in the staff report. • Three documents have been distributed today: the Errata to the Draft Environmental Report, the Statement of Findings and Facts, and the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program. In all three, revisions are included by strikeout and underline. Staff feels all the mandatory findings for the Site Plan, Use Permit, Modification Permit and Tentative Tract Map can be made. then noted the following changes: . Section 4 of the Resolution for the EIR, adding ".....Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...." In the second Resolution for the project itself, page 3 under Site Plan Review, the second finding, staff recommends it be amended to read, " The proposed eleven buildings are consistent with the development standards of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan with the exception of building height and front yard setback. In addition a Modification Permit for reduction of front yard setback has been requested and findings supporting the reduction are made herein below. Their height and bulk is comparable to other structures located in the vicinity. In the conditions of approval on page 8 of the Resolution condition 5, should read, "in lieu of the requirement of 20 %..." file: //F: \Users \PLN\3hared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01 /2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 10 of 33 • Page 15 under Mitigation Measures - Geology and Soils, part c, eliminate word 'partially'. • Page 17, Mitigation Measure 61, change the word missed to "mixed'. . Page 18, add condition 65 to add a mandatory notification program for future buyers of the condominium users regarding the adjacent shipyard and restaurants in the area. . We inadvertently left out a condition related to traffic, so condition 66 needs to be added. "As currently proposed, left turn access to project driveways along Newport Boulevard is prohibited. The project shall consist of a four foot wide raised median along Newport Boulevard to prevent left turn access into and out of the site or other improvement acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Peotter asked about the prohibition of left turn access. and 1. Edmonston noted this condition applies to the southerly driveway. The irtherly driveway with the upper deck would still have the left turn. The problem the roadway narrows and there is no room for a car to stop and be in a separate t turn lane for the access to the subterranean garage. We looked at providing a der median; however, any further widening impacts the public parking lot across B street iairperson Cole asked to start the Commission discussion on the land use and ning issues. iairperson Cole asked: • The land use conflict between residential marine and industrial uses and particularly the Harbor Commission concern of the adjacent boat yards. Cunningham answered: • Building C (office building) in our estimate provides a buffer between the future residential uses and the shipyard. • The restaurants may not provide a nuisance but they could change the use characteristics in the future. Therefore, staff added the new condition . relative to the disclosure to address that concern. • The project has not changed substantially since the first presentation was made to the Harbor Commission in May of 2003. We would assume they would continue to have the same recommendations today. )mmissioner Eaton asked the applicant if they would present this plan to the arbor Commission. s. McDermott answered that if the Commission directs this, it would be done; wever, their thoughts were that in terms of the issues that were addressed by Harbor Commission we did not think there would any changes on the plan that )uld change their position. We believe we have provided a marina, which is nsistent with the goals of the Harbor Element. The Harbor Commission area of file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 1010512006 Page 11 of 33 w relates only up to the bulkhead and we have done everything beyond Dad to address those concerns. We have protected the shipyard v priate location of an office building that will protect the residential, and basically there is a difference between planning views of mixed use : �r Commission views of mixed use. We were not sure the difference could ssed any further. Campbell added the project has not changed since the original plan. TI )or Commission makeup has not changed and they felt quite strongly that simply the residential land use in proximity to the South Coast Shipyard, tl rport Harbor Shipyard and the Balboa Shipyard and the restaurants. I doi a change in their position, even though the project is subtly different. TI )or Commission recommendation is that this is an incompatible land use al consistent with the Harbor Element of the General Plan. Building C dor side a buffer to the adjacent shipyard and the project will incorporate sour nuation with construction techniques. irperson Cole noted that the Planning staff believes this project is the General Plan given the buffer. Campbell answered the Harbor Commission made a recommendation to nning Commission and it is the Planning Commission to determine consiste i the Harbor and Bay Element. The Harbor Commission is not involved with mitting process. The only thing they would be reviewing is the Harbor Pe the new marina. That would be considered by the Harbor Resources Mani 1 would only go to the Harbor Commission on appeal. Eaton asked: An issue raised by the Central Newport Homeowners Association is marina parking, particularly if there are charter boats. . Are there any charter boats now and will it continue, and what about parking? a What about joint use parking? McDermott answered: There is a small boat charter that does six - packs, where they take out fishermen at a time. It is a very small operation. The boats are necessarily docked there and parking is included on site. We believe parking is adequate. There are no slips large enough to accommodate large charters, Hornbtower and others can not be served and we don't intend to serve th . Parking is adequate and because the party boats and charter boats do fit, there should not be any incompatibility. Campbell added that the parking arrangements for charters are reviewed Harbor Resources Department. Parking for charters is required at 1 space ry 3 passengers and that also includes crews. A large charter boat is essarily going to work on this site. Off site parking arrangements are possil in review of that future permit we would have to take into consideration exist 1 uses and hours and days of operation. There is an opportunity for sha file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 12 of 33 arrangements depending upon the nature of the future use if a is sought for a restaurant. That would be brought forward to the I ssion, but that is not before you tonight. Discussion continued. sioner Toerge, referring to page 11 in the staff report, noted the required for fishing vessels is noted as a parking stall for every 2 occupant: I crew members. So the use on site today would not be accommodated. Campbell noted the .8 is for the entire marina and is for the boat owners rk and use their slips and does not account for commercial activities at all. T rrbor Resources and the Planning Department will review and ensure tl equate parking is provided through a Marine Activities Permit. That applicati not before us. However, the small charter boat operation is not accommodai er this project is implemented. Through a separate permit process that park II be addressed at a later date. iissioner Toerge noted the .8 is the standard for privately owned vessels. is the standard for a commercial marina? Campbell answered it would depend on the nature and type of charters Id be presented. Discussion continued. Temple noted: Parking is provided for individual homeowners' private docks, which presumed to be the on -site parking for the residential use, and a commer marina such as the Irvine Company Marina, which is not used commercial activities vessels they are used for privately owned slip rent forjust individuals. That is what the .8 addresses. Once you move to a commercial activity either within a commercial or any place in the harbor, then we assess those parking arrant through the Marine Activities Permit. mmissioner Toerge asked who has the right to use the slips? Are they going for the residents or not? s. McDermott answered there will be designated parking within the park ucture that will relate directly to the marina. To the extent that the small char occupying a retail space, they also have spaces connected with that re eration. One of the things staff can do as part of that business license is aluate how much space they have and how much parking they have coming 4 the total allocated to that retail space as well as whether or not the boat slip tl :y have connected with their operation in combination will be evaluated in I rking allocated to that use. The boat slips will not be allocated only to i continued on the responsibility of the small charter business. Campbell discussed the differences between privately owned vessel commercial activity parking in the marina. Henn asked if party boats could be prohibited from using Staff answered we are looking at land use entitlements for a development project file: //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006110052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 13 of 33 J the permitting beyond the bulkhead will be done by a separate tivities Permit and whatever activities occur is a separate permit that is the Harbor Resources Director. oner Henn asked for further clarification of charter boats as it relates parking in this facility. followed. nmissioner Hawkins noted the land use part is for 19 slips. Can we use of party boats? answered they will get the information. immissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the parking and the conditional use rmits that will follow. This is a major concern he had relayed to the applicant. a need to consider what business will be in there and how much parking i; equate for these commercial uses as well as for the residential uses. It look., w that it is under parked as presented with the residential allocation as oppose( any commercial application that might take place there. City Attorney Harp added that it does not have parking for even though it has a commercial designation. nmissioner Eaton asked at what point restaurants require extra parking standard 1 for 250 requirement. Campbell noted the Zoning Code classifies restaurants in a vari4 gory. He went on to explain the differences noting that the sn aurant, with limiting seating of 6, is parked at the same rate a retail or is, which the project is designed for. nmissioner Toerge asked staff to outline the differences in the allowable regular commercial project versus a recreation marine project. How are Campbell answered: . Retail and office uses are both permitted. . Within the RMC zone there is a requirement that 40% of the site actually devoted to what is known as marine related uses. Most of that requirem is satisfied by the marina itself. . The 40% is calculated on the project area or site, which also inclu submerged lands. The area devoted to the marina, including the parking the marina, which is in the garage, is tabulated. If that is 40% of the er project site, then they may indeed satisfy that requirement. . It is the entire lot area times 40% is the target goal. . If the area that is devoted to the marina, which includes the submerged land boat slips and parking areas is totaled and meets that standard, then the, would satisfy the requirement. There would be no need to have furthe restriction of commercial occupancy. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etaE2006\10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 14 of 33 mmissioner Toerge asked how the residential development on the site that equation? If 60% of the site is residential and 40% is marine nmercial, it seems you have a disconnect. Campbell answered the standard is based on the lot area and is a simplt elation. 40% of the lot area is a numeric number we are trying to achieve. The Ina and parking is included in that. if it does not satisfy it on its own, then wt Id be looking at the floor area of the commercial tenants to achieve that 40 %. e that 40% is achieved, you can have other office uses that are not marine nmissioner Toerge noted that should have been explained during the Gener i update process as he had no idea that lands under the water would qualify fi marine commercial component for these retail opportunities that the Plannir nmission will be reviewing. I don't know if any Commissioners knew that and ms very confusing and illogical as it relates to promoting marine relate imercial in the building, not just on the water. Temple noted the zoning regulations in place for residential mixed use rational marine commercial areas are implemented from the existing Land lent via the Zoning Code. These are the development standards develc tly after 1988. If the General Plan continues forward there will be a fur rig implementation effort and the Commission and City Council at that time e the actual zoning regulations that would implement those policies. 1 t have to be the same as they are today. nmissioner Toerge noted that he was comfortable with that and expressed h e that this would be brought up at that time. He went on to say that assumir marina occupies 40% of the land area, that there is no real difference in marir led commercial retail, they can do whatever they want so long as the oth fining requirements are adhered to in terms of hours of operation, parking, etc. rperson Cole clarified that the site is located in Sub .Area 6 in McFadder ire and under the current Land Use Element of the General Plan it providec . allows for recreation marine commercial designation which does allow foi ential mixed use. The proposed General Plan designation is MUW2, which it d Use Water that also allows for residential development. Is that accurate? stated yes. rioner Hawkins asked if the only rational of the Harbor Commission that residential was not going to be compatible with the operation of s. Was that the only rational or was there something else? Campbell answered that the South Coast Shipyard, which is directly to t h, used to lease a portion of the site where they actually stored boats and t e repair on boats. The crane would haul boats out of the water. Johnstoi t Sales was there as well. At that time, the Harbor Commission saw the loss e uses occurring and that was a serious concern. Since that review, Sot st Shipyard no longer leases the space, the crane is gone and this happen to economical conditions and was not a result of this proposed project. T land use that is otherwise marine related is the Johnson Yacht Sal irring on the northern part of the site. Commissioner Hawkins asked if they have an opportunity to condition this project o say that the commercial uses over and above the 40 %, assuming slips an arking associated with those constitute the requirement for marine related uses, Jo we have an opportunity to further condition this project so that another additive file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.1tm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 of the commercial is conditioned as marine related to assist the ,sion in its review and hope for adoption of the project? Campbell answered no. arson Cole asked the Commission if there were any concerns that thi would not be consistent with either the existing or proposed General Plan? Toerge noted he sees no benefit referring this back to the nmissioner Eaton noted he wanted to see if the revised project would char r opinion; however it is within our purview to determine whether or not i sistent. Whichever way the Harbor Commission went, it would not impinge ability to make that determination. City Attorney Harp clarified the Harbor Commission is there to advise t Commission in these matters, but you are not bound by their decisions. mmissioner Hawkins noted this is an important site and the project is < e than the earlier proposed project. He stated he would like to have the a consultation from the Harbor Commission. nmissioner Toerge noted that we are not going to get to the point of approvinl matter tonight. It would be appropriate for us to express our concerns an( w the applicant to ask questions of us. It is not appropriate to engage in s ition tonight but rather to come back at a later date in order to get an approval. then noted: On site circulation - Where do you propose delivery trucks, trash truce postal trucks, and moving trucks service the commercial and retail activiti on the site? He noted he is not prepared to approve a site plan unless this understood and designed. It is a critical component as the project is tigh developed. McDermott referring to the site plan answered: . The route of the trash pick up for residential was high lighted. . A trash facility serving the office building will be used bringing out the trash and emptying it into the bins, out by the trash trucks. by the janitorial which are then . In a commercial operation a special pick up can be done by smaller true that can go into the parking structures and into the trash enclosure to pick the trash. . The trash management of a mixed use project is handled differently than it on a single use project so we will have a couple of different types contracts to accommodate residential and commercial trash both of whi can be accommodated by the existing circulation. . She noted that the residential trash cans will be located within the and or garages. Page 15 of 33 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 16 of 33 . All other types of trucks will access in the same fashion. There is a delive space located on the site plan. Eaton asked about the size of the trucks. McKently, project architect, noted: • The garage has a minimum of a two bay clearance to get in and will be restricting element under the units. . A typical van will be allowed to enter and because of divided access via slipway, we are providing 87 all the way across. . The idea was that the larger scale commercial delivery would happen traveling up and across and backing into the loading stalls on grade or b. to Building C. . The restaurant uses will be minimal so the amount of garbage other from residential units will be fairly limited. • There is only one large loading space being provided. itinuing, Commissioner Toerge opined that the property is under -served for I I of use especially if there is more than one truck at a time particularly sera large office building. He noted that there seems to be no deck level parking ding A. All the parking for this building is subterranean, which I question ropriateness of. Referencing the simulated views, he noted his concern of nation regarding ingress /egress and turning capabilities. He asked to view erground garage layout. He noted the access referenced as emergency < yellow gates across it. Why is that? McKently noted the intent of the deck level parking was not to be restricti, to provide access for the residential parking in the small commercial bE ar the residential on the bay side. We tried to create a simple segregation commercial from the residential parking by putting the commercial park n below for the most part and the residential parking above. The residen ass and exit would be from the north end. He then explained the course continued on the size, width, parking, circulation and placement and residential parking. Also discussed was the primary use shortness of queue and orientation of ingress and egress off 22 Eaton asked if there was an intent to gate the deck. McDermott discussed their intent to provide some sort of mechanism allow exit only; :ussion continued on the two opportunities to access the site, volumes ic, the separation of commercial and residential to the greatest extent possit design of access if required to have two -way access at the easterly end of K, signage of deck, potential re- design and security of control. o r McDermott noted that a Parking Management Plan will be provided to works ut the parking. file: //F:\Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/0512006 Page 17 of 33 >sioner Eaton asked how the people coming from Balboa Boulevard this site. Campbell described a couple of scenarios. McDermott offered another possibility. e Foust, Principal of Austin Foust and Associates, noted the following in Commission's questions.: . The trip demand in the morning you can anticipate 20 to 35 cars will coming in to this project in the morning peak period. . In the afternoon it will be about 40 trips coming in. . Outbound in the p.m. peak because it is commercial related, we have 60 trips. • The highest number in the peak period is 60 in the p.m. going out. • Figure about 30-40 arrivals in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. • The directionality, because of the residential, is different compared to today. In total trips for this site, the morning is about two less. In the afternoor there is about 28 -30 more trips generated by this project than exists therE today. . He then discussed the queue lines for the northerly and southerly drivev as well as the counts that have been taken there and the amount of cars can be handled. • Peak hour in the afternoon for this project is 5 -6 o'clock in the evening. nmissioner Toerge noted that is the time when a lot of beach traffic is peninsula. nmissioner Henn noted that as a resident of the Peninsula he is not conc i the traffic during the non - summer months; however, during the summer back up and it will be a problem for the residents. Foust opinioned that with regard to the position of the Crab Cooker and he ich the traffic backed up into the Arcade area it is a big issue that added traf 22nd Street would compound the situation. He supports the idea as keeping an egress only on the southerly end. ) mmissioner Toerge proposed that the Parking Management Plan become p the application so that the Commission can review it. It is an integral part of tl oject and needs to be reviewed concurrently with the site plan in order for us in any kind of confidence that the circulation is going to work. nissioner Hawkins asked about the straightway onto 22nd St. Has a thought of signalizing that area to allow for the traffic directions? r. Edmonston answered no. There is a signal at 21st Street, a very short bloc ay and may cause problems in this intersection. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 18 of 33 was noted that copies of the Errata and other materials were on the table. comment was opened. irol Wichman, local resident, noted she supports the project. She noted this the peninsula has more obsolete buildings than other areas in the City and velopment improves the area. ibert Rubian, owner of the Crab Cooker and local resident, noted he is in supl this project; however, he has some concerns He thanked the Commission work they were doing. Griffith, representing Mr. Rubian, noted: . While in support of the project, the way the southerly driveway is currently is problematic. He distributed some pictures of the traffic gridlock. . The southerly drive should be one way. . The existing layout works, but it is not perfect. . They are concerned about the construction noise and asked for a 4 work stoppage. . During demolition, Building B that abuts the Crab Cooker on a zero common wall may necessitate the closure of that restaurant area. They looking for some help for alternates. sioner McDaniel noted that parking is a major concern. Citing tra problems in the area, he noted that truck delivery and valet parking will Hill, property owner across this project site, noted: . This area needs improvement as it is an aging area. . There is tremendous economic opportunity for the City and for the area both the land use and harbor as well. . There is no view of the harbor today. . This project will enhance the local property values. . He does not believe there is a traffic problem except during the months. . Traffic problems relate to beach and bar use and do not relate to retail normal restaurant use. . We do not have a parking problem as the parking problem relates to use. . If you look at the summertime when you can not find a place to park, ou local business can not handle anymore business than they do. If you look al 1 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \10052006.htm 03101/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 19 of 33 the wintertime when the local business could handle much more there are places to park where you would like. • The parking is not related to the projects, the parking issue is related to beach. • He urged consideration of this project and to allow it to move forward. Dove, Vice Chairman of the Central Newport Beach Comn Lion, noted their concerns with the responses to comments to their a the EIR: • Comment 4.1 - the response doesn't address the loss of view. • Comment 4.3 - the response doesn't address the loss of view or the blockage by the bridge of the view corridor with the waterway. . Comment 4.4 - Says see answer 3 -15 and 3 -16; but those are responses and are not construction mitigation measures. • Comment 4.5 - doesn't address referring the historic resource to the Arts and Cultural Commission, which is charged by the City with hi: review. • Comment 4.5 - references 3 -15 and 3 -16 and does not answer water mitigation. • Comment 4.7 - gives an answer related to the construction activity but not address the year round concerns and especially the summer con we have, nor emergency response when there is total gridlock. • Comment 4.8 - references 3 -25 and 3 -31 which are totally irrelevant to transportation question. . She then suggested that the business owners and employees should be prohibited from purchasing parking passes. 1c Saventi, business owner and partner in Woody's Wharf, noted: • Project redevelopment does need to be done on that site. • Residential is not the best use as this site today is 100% commercial and will go to 2/3 residential if this plan was to be approved. • There are restaurants at either end of this proposed project who h customers and his restaurant stays open later than the Crab Cooker as are open until 2:00 a.m. We have customers going to their cars smoking on the side of the building. • In the proposed plan there is no buffer between the condos that a proposed and our restaurant, so I can see future problems there. This is problem for us. • The setbacks that are proposed being taken away, the site line to ourl file: //F:\Users \PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 20 of 33 property and restaurant will be taken away by doing that and this is an issued for us. I • There are going to be parking problems as you have already discussed. . If you put a condo up on a second or third story next to a restaurant, behind the Crab Cooker 100 feet away and see if you can smell the it's like having a barbecue all day. Our vents run continuously. . Without any mitigation for those kinds of things, we are going to problems here. There is no buffer on our side of the proposed project. . This is the first we have talked or seen this proposal so we have not included in any outreach program during this process. . At Commission inquiry, he added that they have live entertainment amplified music. We have this entertainment five nights a week. arson Cole noted that this area is currently zoned for residential, are for some sort of buffer? Saventi answered yes, at a minimum as the site today has no residential, only see problems when residential is placed there. The shipyard closes at He stated that getting into this project and five years from now a resident ig in his living room and complains that it is like sitting next to a barbed ause the vents go day and night. I don't want to have noise problems. Tt rport Beach Brewing Company is getting ready to limit their hours because tt iential that just moved in next door to them. This is an issue and our busine: been there for over 40 years. Me and my partners support our families wi business. This is a big issue for us. Pappas, partner of Woody's Wharf and local resident, noted: • Strongly opposes the residential portion of the project. • Supports the commercial side even though there is going to be a for 2 or 3 years during the construction phases. • His concern is whether residential and restaurants can co- exist. . The Cannery about ten years ago lost their entertainment permit and the closing time changed from 2 a.m. to 10 p.m. all due to the high rise condos. . Newport Brewery is fighting for their life. You can't have a restaurant at 10 :00 p.m. from 1:00 a.m. and exist and be able to support their fa because of the loss of time. • It is very expensive owning a business down here as you lease the and then lose three hours of business that impacts the revenue. . Windows and Studio Cafe had the same problem with the loss of time, impacted their revenues. • Their biggest fear is that a year or two down the road they will be before they Commission. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 21 of 33 . The restaurant has been in business for over 40 years and when bought it they were asked not to make any changes, which they haven't. . He noted that what is being referred to as the northern access into project as proposed won't work. . They are very busy on Sunday afternoons and do a lot of brunches as the Kantina. He has a hard time getting into his restaurant especially C the summertime and this new access will block their driveway and c backups to his customers. . The Kantina also exits through our parking lot, which will create noise late night. We will have additional noise and whatever we can to keep the not at a minimum we will do, but we have a lot of issues that can upset potent nearby residents. Stewart, owner of South Coast Shipyard for the last 27 years, noted: • This proposed project and the process are good • He is on his facility 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. five to six days a week. • This area as it is now is dangerous at night, attracts vagrants and can stay like it is today. • As the Shipyard owner, he supports this project. Anthony, a tenant of South Studio, noted: . After seeing the presentation tonight, this is something that will be a to the community. R. Dilding, local property owner, noted: • His concern with condition 36 regarding on -site parking. It should a these concerns in the whole area. As a member of the State Public Commission representing specialty contractors for the past 24 years. Realizing the urgency and complexity of construction particularly refers this project as a redevelopment or infill project. Condition 51, provides for full traffic management control plan to be submitted. This project wi grading and demolition could be started before you get involved in making final decision as a developer in who they are going to use for subcontractor etc. • A provision should be made that they can have a second filing so that once they get in, they can come back with a refined plan. I don't think there is e structural engineer involved at this time and what is going to be the actual construction materials, they may end up with a batch plant to bring onto site for concrete. Things have changed from what it used to be. The biggest problem in construction industry we deal with is that we are a nuisance; however, end results benefit everyone. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 22 of 33 These people are a couple of years off in putting this together and tl may change. They may line up sites today and submit this plan, they be gone when the time comes. Cole asked that these suggestions be given to staff. Morrisette, local resident and board member of the Central Newport owners Association, noted: e The response for re- development of that area is positive. . There are a lot of good features to this plan. . Summertime traffic is the problem as it backs up from 15th Street all the up the peninsula. . If the counts were made off season, the traffic counts are not valid. comment was closed. Hawkins asked about the additive traffic during the summer, studied? Foust answered that the project traffic in the summertime and the project traffic the wintertime is not a great deal different. The figures given earlier of 30 to 4( )re cars coming and making the left turn in, that is fairly constant. Part of these residents (27) and the rest are commercial and does not fluctuate that much. e volume on Newport Boulevard fluctuates between winter and summer. The mbers of this project are relatively constant, so when I told you the left turns, i I be same whether it is winter or summer. We take the peak hour period as ing a one hour period. For the 4 fifteen intervals that are the highest during the )ming period from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and the afternoon is from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. lain the 4 fifteen minute intervals that are the longest turns out 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. it afternoon and 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. in the morning. That is a one hour perioc are talking about. Discussion continued. McDermott, representing the applicant, noted: . We met with the property owner of Woody's and apologize for not mee with the operators. We were not aware there was a distinction and then just found out he recently sold the operation versus the land. We will with the operators soon. . We talked to the owner about doing extensive glazing and noise attenu along that wall and intensifying noise mitigation that will occur on that unit. . We are set back more than 10 feet from the bulkhead and have a little bit setback from the right of way. There is some advantage from a not standpoint and we will be talking to staff about it. . The height of the project in contrast to what would be allowed on site, havi separated the buildings into the harbor frontage and the street frontage a with the deck in between, there is quite a bit of separation between 1 buildings. The intensity of the development is a lot less than what file:HF: \Users \PLMShared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 23 of 33 permitted by Code. We are asking for up to 35 feet but have devised f variety of ways to meet the findings for the height limit. . Regarding the primary entrance to the deck, hopefully the Commission give direction how you want it handled. ssioner McDaniel asked how deliveries to Building A, are made to the s. It looks as the only pass through goes down into the parking and back up. >. McDermott answered that all the businesses along Balboa Boulevard t ;ir deliveries from the front. Deliveries usually occur in non -peak hours. Tt parking in front to allow deliveries. Given the size of the retail spaces, there t be the demand for large deliveries. McKently, architect for the project, referring to the site plan noted the diffen ip access for use by delivery services. There would have to be a re- design site to create a delivery or loading zone area for Building A. issioner McDaniel noted the parking problems with no pass through to He noted that this is a major problem especially during the summertime. continued. nmissioner Toerge, noted we are trying to balance the benefits of this projec I how it will be viable to the community and existing businesses and neighbors. then asked: What is the width of the pedestrian walkway? - Ms. McDermott answer( they are offering a ten foot easement and within that 10 feet there will be feet clear. There is 4 feet to be used for landscape and benches. The 6 fe is the dimension Public Works has asked for. What was allowed at 919 Bayside by Council? - Ms. McDermott answered was allowed an 8 foot easement with no room for benches within th easement. Along the side at Promontory Bay, there was 10 foot easeme with six foot clear. Along the frontage on Balboa Island, there was 8 fe and there was no distinction between whether to allow landscaping or nc but it was understood to be 6 foot clear. As this relates to the vertical and the easement, is that going to be re to be handicapped accessible? - Mr. Campbell answered that there is to be an elevator. McKently, referring to the site plan, added that the elevator is double sided. uing, Commissioner Toerge asked about the floor plans for the resit The units are hard to identify along with the parking. He then asked c items on the layout and the parking. McKently, referring to the floor plans explained the plans and noted the the diagram and garages and elevators. Toerge discussed: . The number of bedrooms including the 4 on the ground level is 80. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 24 of 33 He disagrees with the interpretation that the deck level is som construed to be the second floor and is allowed to have residential on it. • He opined that the purpose of the Code was to put the ground floor units retail /commercial, so he won't be supporting any residential on that floor. He asked to see a Parking Management Plan, how the distribution of par is going to be restricted, accessed, controlled, how non - residents and guests, non patrons, and non customers are going to be restricted using this. The Parking Management Plan should be part of our review is critical for this project to have this because of the dense project and allocation of parking. • With no street parking in this development and recognizing there are only 1 guest parking spaces but with 80 bedrooms and all the other parking in th parking structure being allocated to the retail and commercial uses, do w have the authority or right to demand more parking for the residential units? Temple answered that if it is above and beyond what the Code requirement no. City Attorney Harp agreed. Commissioner Toerge discussed: • Size of parking spaces in the ground floor area, some are 9 and 8. Is that design? Are there areas where 8 1/2 feet wide would work? McKently answered stalls closer to columns or walls are wider as required le. He doesn't believe there are 81/2 feet wide stalls. Toerge continued: • There is a location in there that is 60 feet wide with 7 cars parking in there, that seems narrow to me. • My concern, as it relates to trash enclosures and Parking Management F because this project is so tight on parking and is at the minimum of Code, if there is a dimensional correction after Planning approval we lose some parking. • I want to confirm how that happens should it occur. • What determines if this is not in substantial conformance to come back the Planning Commission? Campbell answered that in that respect the project is not finally designed r staff reviews it some of the dimensions may shift. We have a condition sires review by the Traffic Engineer that all parking spaces and maneuve :s meet our code and standards. If the parking garage loses spaces, then licant will have to lose square footage in the project. That is how :hanism works and that is at the plan check stage. With a loss of 4 parl ;es that means there is 1,000 square feet of commercial building lost. It wl end on how the applicant chooses to reduce the square footage. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 25 of 33 Toerge continued: . He does not see a nexus between the requirement to provide the access the back and the requirement for setback. There are two separate issues. . I can not make the finding based on what I see today that there are unu: circumstances that compel this property to not put a five foot setback in front. . The argument aligning with the Crab Cooker is a weak argument as it is small building and is 50 years old and likely will be there for a long time. • Using that same argument (referring to the site plan) there is not a until you get further down the Boulevard. • I do not support this argument at all, and the five foot setback is required. • As it relates to building height, I do not agree with staffs conclusions at all. don't see any 35 foot tall buildings in the area. Three stories is an abru scale change. I think 35 feet in this area will be an abrupt scale change ai I don't agree to the findings to support a 35 foot height. . He asked if any bulk calculations had been done. Mr. Campbell ansv the project meets the requirement for building bulk within the Zoning ( which is presented in the staff report. The applicant prepared a volun analysis and is contained in the staff report. He continued by giving a overview. . The design features need to be at both ends of this project to act as a but between the residential components and restaurant and shipyard facilities. • He stated he was concerned about the construction schedule, the restricts on summertime weekend use of truck traffic in this area hauling debris materials to the site, where the construction workers will park and oil applications of projects of this magnitude. We need a parking program construction parking to review with this application as well. . We should review this in a public hearing format prior to certifying the EIR opposed to leaving it to staff approval at some later date. Henn noted: . He is concerned about the construction management and would like to the plan in a public hearing format. • He would like to see how the landscape softens the building mass. • He asked about the view corridor and the elevation changes from the street. McKently answered: • The street elevation is approximately +8 and the deck level is assumed to at +11. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin \PC min etal \2006\10052006.htm 03101/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 26 of 33 • The intention is not to have the bridge higher than that and it will transparent railings. Eaton asked: • Why are some parking spaces in garages and some in carports? Campbell answered it has to do with the floor area limitation for resi m which is .75. If they were enclosed it would be gross floor area and it counted against the residential square footage. The carports that are o three sides do not count as floor area. Eaton noted: • He could not make a finding that the garage is the first floor for the pure, of non - residential. To make the findings of consistency, the residential to rise above the deck level and not be on the deck level. • He agrees leaving the southerly access as exit only based upon the consultant's advice. • Both the Parking Management Plan and the Construction Management F should be brought to the Commission and preferably now in context of project and be a part of the overall approval process. . The units next to Woody's Wharf need to be protected .and buffered noise and nuisance factors. He agrees to the added condition about no to potential homeowners. • Agrees to the issue of the setback on Newport Boulevard and has not good reasons as to why it should not be provided. • This project is symbolic of what will happen in the mixed use areas as far building heights are concerned. The trend in the future will see more of t kind of project with a high floor area and intensity and therefore you will seeing more 35 foot high buildings. • Question of a delivery area next to Building A, having only one space and far away from Building A is not enough. Maybe a loading zone can provided, somewhere or another. You are going to need a loading space Building A. • Never got missing page 16, so that needs to be provided. . On what basis was it reported that 22nd, 23rd and 28th Streets operating at an acceptable Level of Service, the response referred to Engineer. • The most important issue to me is the first floor /second floor residential. Henn noted: . Encourage the applicant to find solutions to the questions and concerns have been brought up. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 27 of 33 • He favors a re- development of this property that works. Hawkins noted: • The current use is not the best use of the project site. • The commercial parking does not work. • The circulation needs to be enhanced. • 22nd Street provides an opportunity that should be looked at. . The video was impressive and helpful; however, it showed the Duffy b going out of slip 19 and I am not sure how it will work if you have day transport moving easterly of the slip. How will that work? . Condition 64 addresses some of the concern raised by the owners Woody's Wharf but more needs to be done. McDaniel noted: . This appears to be a condo project that has retail and commercial added it. • Some of the detail of retail and commercial requirements were overlooked. • We have identified things such as access, trash enclosures, etc. . Parking is a major concern Not knowing what the applications are for the other buildings, with the slips we are already under parked so it appears. What is planned on going in there and what parking will be required and wil there be space for it? . It is difficult to give up parking spaces and this future requirement needs be included in order to make businesses viable. We have used all the spa available for the buildings and requirement for future needs to be done. • 35 foot building with one story buildings on either side will stand out. If makes it viable, I am not against it totally, but it would be nice if some of buildings were pushed back. • We may need a deed restriction to identify potential nuisances. airperson Cole noted the consensus that a development of this site >irable. There are concerns from the neighbors, Commissioners and the pu certain areas. He noted the following: • Prohibiting party boats from using slips. -Staff will get back on this. . Restriction of large restaurant use on bay front because of the parking load. • Additional parking has been brought up by several people. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 28 of 33 1 . Site plan that includes trash enclosures and delivery/postal circulation. . Revised subterranean circulation plan/flow and deck circulation flow as well. . The Arcade entrance as exit only. - Staff to discuss. . Condition of multiple parking attendants as part of Parking Plan. . Construction Parking Management Plan part of the approval process. McDermott noted her concern of the Construction Management Plan ing Management Plan is whether we can do it in the time they have. I d that they have to be in substantial conformance. She then elaborated on itial problems. Discussion continued. nmissioner Toerge noted he wants to see a plan and if that has to be change t it is brought back at some future date on a deferred basis. These plans ha, n available prior to approval of an EIR in the past and certainly in the me .nt project for Our Lady Queen of Angels. He noted his concern of approving ect without those opportunities in place. I learned tonight that you might I rging to park there. That was not on the plans nor mentioned in the at )rt. This project appears premature as the Errata is lacking and the plat Yt accurate in terms of emergency and regular vehicle access. He noted the a lot of issues that need to be addressed before he could support the project. immissioner Peotter noted this is a great project and will be an improvement a neighborhood. There are concerns that need to be addressed. He express ncems previously expressed. He noted the Construction Plan does not need me back to the Commission. The Parking Management Plan is not necess� the applicant meets the required parking and is providing all necessary parki site simultaneously. It is an extra burden placed on the applicant. T )blems of this project are technical in nature and can be worked out. He not Commission should not be designing the project and the applicant has put a money into it. person Cole asked if that plan can be brought back to the Commission at date for approval, which would have to be required before the project we ird. Is there a way to get some of the issues in a report form? It might be t i to have this all completed prior to us approving this project. i. Temple answered that the Public Works Department has asked for the )es of plans and information if they deemed it was necessary in the context �uing a building permit. They are required as a plan check correction in the pl eck process by projects of size that don't need to come to the Planni mmission. The Planning Department has added the reference to needing the ngs when the Public Works would want one and we use it to put the applicant tics that they need to be prepared to produce them when they are seeking me tailed permits. It has been a recent experience that the Planning Commissi >hes to review things that have traditionally been the purview of the City's TM gineer. If it is critical to make a finding that a project is compatible for t ighborhood for the construction period, you are within your rights and author ask for it. It is the Commission's call. Given the issues raised with this proje the short term construction it may lead to conditions that help identify issu it are atypical, things we might ask a project to do. In terms of the day to d eration for the long term we have heard issues that may lead you to go it )re detail specifics such as trash pick ups, deliveries, etc. In this case, I do file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\ I 0052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 29 of 33 �hink it is out of order to ask for those things if you deem it necessary. She would sk for a full plan. Edmonton added that there were projects that had these kinds of conditi i the projects were in critical areas of the City such as Mariners Mile and on iinsula and most commonly when they involve significant amounts :avation. Public Works focus has primarily been on public safety and the imr projects with ten dump trucks show up and they have to be here before istruction starts and that creates a parking problem. We focus on those issL ere contractor employees park so as not to create problems with adjoir iperties. The areas that the Council and Commission have weighed in are m ✓ironmental impacts where they have limited the amount of truck trips during nmer months. Certainly you can have a plan that has some of those itations or concerns in it and staff can flush it out from there. Diffei itractors approach this differently and may not be the contractor they actu rk with so it will change, but you have a starting point. Cole noted that we can review the reports up front. Edmonston noted it would be good to have some level of report for emission to review recognizing that staff can take it as guidance for ;tion you want to see the project goes to. iissioner Henn noted that the parking will have to solve itself because of the 3 regulations. He does not feel it needs to be seen in totality up front. ver, the Construction Management Plan needs to be laid out in detail as the -uction will be over a period of three years. Once you get into it with e actor you may have to come back for some revisions but that initial effort wil out key issues. Temple asked about short term parking as it relates to construction and the otruction vehicles, both of contract workers and heavy equipment delivery. is what I call a construction parking plan. The second is the obvious Parkins agement plan which is the long term thing. I just heard that there is interest it the project is going to be constructed with demolition and construction at tha of the year when there is more capacity on the road or less adverse affect or c congestion and that certain other types of construction may not create s< y demands on the roadway and might be more appropriately placed in the mertime as opposed to winter time. Is this correct? imissioner Henn noted that the construction parking issue is subsumed v construction management plan and is not a separate issue. I think druction phasing as well as the construction management plan are int rson Cole asked for a consensus on having a construction the next hearing: mer Eaton agreed to at least a conceptual construction and parki ent plan. He noted the Errata sheet still has a lot of items that say will They need to be provided before we can approve the EIR. imissioner Hawkins noted the plans need to be as concrete as possible so see what the needs are, what is on the ground today, and the limitations. Pommissioner McDaniel noted this project is at ground zero and will have a majo mpact on what happens on the peninsula. The more we know as opposed t file: //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112 00 611 0 0 5 2 0 06.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 30 of 33 the better. If we know and stipulate as many issues as possible that He asked for comprehensive plans. imissioner Toerge noted it is the responsibility of the Commission to e matters especially in these areas of redevelopment in established re commercial areas. We need the comprehensive plans. Dmmissioner Peotter noted it is a complicated plan that is being asked for and beyond conceptual is unreasonable. The applicant doesn't even know if he he project or not and now you are asking him to spend several thousands of dolla putting together a plan in order to get that approval. Conceptually he may fir operty at Hoag to stage those trucks and park construction workers or it may k Costa Mesa somewhere. Where that's at is going to depend on which plan it is. Cole then asked about a full or conceptual parking plan. mmissioner Henn noted he had not realized the engineering had not been this project. Until that is done, it would be difficult to come up with a de king management plan. He is okay with conceptual. Cole agreed. Toerge noted he would like a detailed plan. . Edmonston noted this is the first that he heard about the project havin 2ndant parking. You need a place for a booth, a cashiering system or som ier way. We haven't looked at this and there is concerns of backing in, blockin i movement out. These are things we would have typically have the traffi aineer analyze that we didn't do because it was never pointed out that this woul part of the project. The applicant should provide a complete plan and present staff with enough lead time so that we can analyze it as there may be spat t. There are considerable repercussions from this aspect. 31 McDermott asked if once the parking garage is constructed first and then al construction traffic is in the parking structure, is that the way to handle it? ,iously once we have a parking structure we want to be able to use it. Edmonston stated that would be a reasonable phase of the project Iling the construction parking on site is the best place. missioner Toerge agreed. Temple noted this is true as it applies to the onsite construction workers. T ilic Works will still be concerned about construction deliveries and staging in t is of ways and all of those things. Those stay constant throughout the whole construction of the project. Cole then continued his wrap up of public and A condition that residents or boat owners are not allowed city passes. I not sure that is something we can enforce. Staff will address. . Some type of buffer from Woody's, sound attenuation or some re- design o� setback that addresses the nature of a bar that is opened late wit entertainment and being adjacent to residential. file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min eW\2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 31 of 33 1 a The changes in conditions 36 and 51. a The reduction in the size of the project because of the traffic concerns. a Providing a new loading /delivery area in Building A. . Don't allow the deck level to be defined as the second level, therefore, will be no residential allowed on this level. nmissioner Eaton noted the Commission can not set the precedent of allowing deck level, which is really the ground level, to be the second floor. Toerge agreed. Henn agreed. Cole continued with the list: . Addressing the need for more parking or at least a clear understanding where parking will be located. a Requiring a 5 foot setback in front was brought up. mmissioner Toerge noted these findings were changed about a year ago. The t finding you have to make is, the granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the pose and intent of the Zoning Code. I can't make that finding. Henn noted he feels less strongly about that issue. Cole suggested the applicant come back with more information. nissioner Hawkins noted there are four people concerned about the setback believe there is room to accommodate the 5 foot setback with some caping treatment that will soften the front edge on Newport Boulevard. Cole continued with the list: a Building height - the need for 35 feet. Have a staggered affect. Eaton noted he is okay with the height. Hawkins agreed with the height and the view corridor. Cole agreed. imissioner Toerge noted finding 4 is mandatory finding, the increased building ht would not result in an undesirable or abrupt scale relationship being created Teen the structure and existing developments or public spaces. You have a ing lot on one side and a one story building on the other side. There are no r three story buildings other than the one mixed use project that was !loped at 28th Street. Further it says, particular attention shall be given to the bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. When build square buildings you are giving no attention to bulk, it is a bulk square file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 ding. At the very least, the height above the standard height restriction, shou staggered in some way to reduce the bulk and to minimize the abrupt sca tionships being created between the structure and a one story building and king lot on the other side of the building. It is very clear to me. Cole continued: . Notice verification and CCR's. Temple noted staff can propose a condition regarding the CCR's. She ar with the City Attorney's office. ssioner Hawkins noted there are avenues to accommodate the concerns Wharfs. nmissioner McDaniel noted he is not comfortable with the 35 foot high building. is not in favor of a three story building. Toerge asked for a study of the building heights in the Temple cautioned that two story does not mean compliance with a 26 Iht limit. There are a lot of 35 foot high buildings that are two story but they on this side of Newport Boulevard though. They are mostly in the McFad iare area. We will gather the requested information. McDermott noted that the metal buildings on the project site are currently high. mer Toerge noted he had mentioned that but they are not on and are setback and do not appear abrupt. nmissioner Henn noted there is a mix of issues for which there should be ition. This project is one of compromise because it is an infill. We have to sI ie flexibility for the final solution. The fact that it does go higher provides for tl that it does provide open space for the project. On the other hand, if we ga some setback and we are able to stagger the buildings away from Newpi rlevard and still make it work, maybe that is okay too. I don't know, tl licant needs to take these concerns that have been expressed and see if th craft a solution that will work. iirperson Cole agreed and noted a more detailed landscape plan is needed. perspective is that this is an overall project that has a great potential but then a lot of moving parts and is going to look at it in totality with all the differen is in the next presentation. You have heard our concerns and hopefully yor come up with something that works for all parties. iissioner Toerge asked about the bridge width. He asked if there is pedestrians using it or should there be a walkway provided as well. Edmonston noted that his staff will look at it. was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to November 2 Peotter Page 32 of 33 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min eta1\2006 \10052006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 10/05/2006 Page 33 of 33 Absent- None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple stated that a study on our interne review processes, particularly plan check, development review an interdepartmental coordination report was presented to the Council. We wil be assessing the highest priorities and will be putting forth a plan t implement. In association with that there was a discussion on staffing need in Planning. Sober Living by the Sea has been in process and have no agreed and found a location in Costa Mesa to hold their large meetin activities which takes them out of the Villa Way location. That large room wil be divided and used for small conference rooms and office space. Discussion continued. The appeal for Vista Tramonto was denied. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Henn noted a first draft of th Strategic Plan for Economic Sustainability has been completed and will b reviewed by the Economic Development Committee at the meeting o October 18, 2006. If a draft is finalized at that meeting, it will be discussed a a subsequent study session for the City Council. C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coasta Committee - no meeting. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Hawkins asked about the Zonin Committee. Ms. Temple noted this project will be part of the implementatio of the General Plan. Discussion continued. Commissioner McDaniel note he would like matters come before the Planning Commission that they ca vote on. Referring to the Marina project, he noted the Errata sheet was no ready, they ended up re- designing the project, this project was and has long way to go, and he would like to see total projects so that we can vote. Discussion continued. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a futur agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Henn asked to be excused from the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F:1UserslPLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min eta112006110052006.htm 03/01/2007