Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-21-2005'tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 2' e: //H:\Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Commissioner Toerge was excused. TAFF PRESENT: haron Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director aron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 15, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 7, 2005. Minutes Approved SUBJECT: Moriarity Appeal of the Planning Director's Use Determination ITEM NO. 2 2128 Mesa Drive Appeal of Planning Appeal of the Planning Director's determination regarding the processing of grapes and Director's Use he retail sale of wine on a property within the RA (Residential Agriculture) zone. Determination Ms. Temple noted that staff is requesting that this item be removed from calendar. Removed from calendar Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as amended and remove the Moriarity Appeal from the calendar. Ayes: I Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins e: //H:\Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 2 of 2_ Noes: I None bsent: Toerge bstain: None Zinc Cafe (PA2003 -225) I ITEM NO.3 3222 East Coast Highway PA2003 -226 of Use Permit No. 2001 -040 that authorizes an eating and drinking) Approved ment with beer and wine service subject to operational limitations. Drson Tucker noted this review is a result of the last amendment to the regarding the hours of operation. s. Ung noted that a telephone call was received from a Ms. Pamela Fray, a ne; aident, who asked if staff included the previous parking citations in the staff report be sure that the Commission is aware of the citations. She noted that this was a the staff report and has since been abated. comment was opened. in Tucker asked about condition 36 requiring another review of is this necessary? Eaton noted: . Primary reason for this review was to see how the operation worked with hours extended into the evening. . The hours have not been extended into the evening. . He asked if there was a way to provide a review six months after they do the evening hours, as he would be in favor of that. Temple noted: . The applicant has exercised portions of the use permit, so the use permit is force. . Staff would not be able to know if the evening hours were extended or not. Harp suggested bringing this item back for review, and noted another option to change the condition. Tucker noted one of the conditions was problematic in terms of deliveries. Hawkins noted: . He is in favor of continuing condition 36 due to the waiver of 18 parking spaces connection with this permit. It is important to stay on top of the parking issue including deliveries. ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 02/08/2001 11anning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 . He is concerned about the parking impacts. Secretan, owner of Zinc Cafe, noted the following: • He is complying with the Use Permit, a few mistakes have been made, but tl have been corrected. • At Commission inquiry of the delivery issue, he noted there was one truck i had been stuck in the adjacent parking lot. He went on to explain maneuvering problems onto Coast Highway, noting how much easier it was deliveries to be done in the alley. . He asked for the same delivery rights from the alley as other businesses had. Tucker noted the lack of public participation on this item. Temple noted: • Staff had acknowledged on the original consideration that the City's n permitted businesses some limited deliveries in alleys. • Staff would have no problem going back to that. • This condition could not be modified at this time, staff would need to be dire( to bring this item back for an actual amended condition. Campbell noted: • The original intent of that condition was to ensure that there are no delivery try parking on Coast Highway. • At the time of the original hearing, there was some concern expressed about delivery trucks in the alley. Cole: . The neighbors' concern was the hours of delivery and that was addressed in original condition, especially with the intent of evening hours of operation. . He asked when the deliveries were made. Secretan answered that most of the deliveries are made between 8:00 a.m. : )n. There are no deliveries after 4:00 p.m., even if they did dinners there would evening deliveries. (airperson Tucker recommended having this item come back, and to leave it up to plicant to work with staff in terms of modifying the condition regarding deliveries, the fact that there is no other public testimony to the contrary. Commission inquiry, Mr. Secretan noted that following the original approval, gyration was opened during the evening hours. Following a trial period of six to ( nths, we found the hours were not long enough, nor profitable enough, to do it. Page 3 of 2: ile: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 4 of 2_ 0sked to keep these hours open. He has read and understands the findings andl onditions in the staff report. >sioner Hawkins noted his concern of parking. Noting exhibit 6 of the si it says the employees are going to pay the parking tickets. What sort m/training/ other agreements do you have that require them to park as they �d to? Secretan answered this issue is discussed during the employee's training wt are hired. They are shown where to park, and they sign an agreement iowledge that they know what they are supposed to do and what the consequent if they don't. There was one instance where an employee had to pay a $c ing ticket and since then there have been no problems. comment was closed. ion was made by Chairperson Tucker to accept this report and require a review item within twelve months from now. yes: Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None bsent: Toerge bstain: None Birch Medical Office Center (PA2004 -257) ITEM NO.4 20162 Birch Street I PA2004 -257 ast for a use permit to allow the conversion of a portion of an existing general Approved building to medical office use. The existing building is approximately 32,278 e feet of which approximately 16,257 square feet are proposed for medical office Approval of a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is also airperson Tucker noted that the people out there who had property that was ar were under the assumption that the Planning Director would be the party that al with it as opposed to coming to the Planning Commission. Temple noted that the Municipal Code has a specific provision that when multi ications are involved, all applications are considered by the highest single entity application. The Planning Commission is higher than the Planning Director. imissioner Hawkins noted receipt of a letter received from the Santa Ana rp who expressed some concern about the parking ratio. He asked staff to issue. Ramirez noted he had spoken to Mr. Dayton and his desire to have the proje ed at the regulation that was in effect when the project came before tt emission. The Ordinance that the City Council adopted, set up deadlines for certa :cts and plan checks, and this was the one that met the requirement that it was plete discretionary application at the time the Ordinance was adopted. The parkir dards would be reviewed by using the old 1/250 parking ratio. Eaton asked staff if they ever re- notified the Santa Ana Heights PAC, ile: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 5 of 2' �Or. Dayton who was representing them, that in fact this project was not going to meeI he new standards.? Are they aware of that fact? Ramirez answered he had not spoken with the Santa Ana Heights e that time. comment was opened. lotion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2004 -046 and raffic Studv 2004 -006 subiect to the findinas and conditions of aooroval. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: Toerge bstain: None SUBJECT: Newport Lexus (Wilson Automotive Group) (PA2004 -153) ITEM NO. 5 3091, 3931 & 3961 MacArthur Boulevard PA2004 -153 848 & 888 Dove Street Recommended Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2004081004), General Plan Amendmen for approval No. 2004 -004, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2004 -003, Use Permit No. 004 -026, Modification Permit No. 2005 -030, and Traffic Study No. 2004 -003 to allow he redevelopment of an 8 acre site presently developed with office uses and a vehicle rental establishment as a new automobile dealership. Tucker noted the agenda for this item: . Presentation of the project by the applicant; . Staff report comments; . Questions of staff by the Commission; . Discussion of the Environmental Impact Report, the comments, and responses comments and will be referred to as the Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR; • Comments before the public is invited to testify; • Public testimony; • Brought back to the Commission for questions of staff; • Internal discussion by the Commission; . A decision on whether to re- circulate the DEIR is necessary; and, . Vote. then noted that this item was seen at a Study Session at the end of last year, b 'e have been some changes to the architecture. ile://H:\Plancomm\2005\042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 ey Griffin, project manager for Newport Lexus, stated that input has been rece t various entities. He made contact with the shopping center owner next to the office building to the north of the site, and what would be the John Laing H ding, that is owned by Glenborough; however, unsuccessful in meeting with ers of 901 Dove Street. Referring to an exhibit, he noted the following: . The biggest constraint on this site is a 60 foot wide storm drain easement th cuts through the property, consequently the operation is split into two structures. . The easement is being used to queue cars onto the site with a distance of 300 feet, three lanes wide. . There are three entrances on Dove Street, one is an employee /delivery entrance the main service entrance and a sales entrance with a request for an entrance or MacArthur to serve the showroom building up front. . The showroom building is approximately 31,000 on the first floor with 10,000 feet on the second floor. He then noted the new car delivery area, writer and show room. . The service building is the first floor service and the second floor is covere parking and rooftop. The rooftop is intended for inventory and employee parking. . The height of the structure to the parapet is approximately 35 feet with the top the tower element about 20 feet above that. . He then reviewed on the exhibit how the site plan would work for cars /customer ingress /egress. . He noted a 30 foot landscape setback along Jamboree and MacArthur. T proponents are asking for a modification to allow an encroachment, noting tl the City is planning on widening Jamboree Road. The proposed total landsca on Jamboree and MacArthur is more than exists today with the 30 foot setback. . On the Dove Street side, there is a ten foot landscape setback together with a foot building setback. The building encroaches with some exterior columns i the 30 foot setback by about 18 inches. . He noted a screen wall that is within the 30 foot setback. Wood clarified that the encroachment on Jamboree that was discussed is :)achment into the landscape setback, not a building setback. Mr. Griffin agreed. iissioner Hawkins asked about a 'taking' of Jamboree for widening. Did dedication? imissioner Cole asked what is the current access to the site and what will be new. assuming the MacArthur access is new to the site versus the three that a iosed for Dove Street. . Griffin answered the site itself has the three curb cuts now. There are two in the Avis property, the curb cut on MacArthur is the only new point of access. erenced the exhibit for clarification purposes. Page 6 of 2: ile: //14: \Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 02/08/200t 'lanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 7 of I Chairperson Tucker asked staff about that footage, is it now in public ownership bye dedication or is it something that will it happen later? Edmonston answered: . The City Council has authorized the hiring of an engineering firm for documentation of the widening of the bridge on Jamboree Road over the Freeway. • Part of that widening is to have a fourth lane in each direction on Jamboree Ros and to make that work, it requires a widening. • On this property, the widening starts out at zero and angles to the west. • We did not anticipate requiring a dedication, but it is something that we ai evaluating a value for and credit against the Fair Share Fees. nmissioner Hawkins, noting the proposed entrance driveway on MacArthur, asked re also is a plan for exit on that same driveway? Griffin answered correct, and it is part of the application. Jeff Carlisle, principal with Coast Architects, noted the building design ar . Referring to the exhibit, he noted the ceremonial entrance off MacAi highlighted by palm trees with enriched paving all the way to the front door landscape over 100 feet along this drive entrance. Customer parking is at the front of the sales building that is laid with the paving. . Referring to the exhibit, he stated that on the Jamboree Road side, there is monument sign that is located at the intersection with landscape, waterf element, and turn - around area. . The sales building will be a friendly, warm and inviting structure with a in front to bring down the scale of the building to a very 'human' scale. . He noted a canopy area and fireplace used as a feature element for the lounge area. • He noted that this is a 'three sided' site resulting in three front doors. • The car wash amenity is on the side that backs up to the commercial area • The edges of the service building have a feature wall that is curvilinear to si the edge of the building and compliments the colonnades. • The sales building has a repetitious column feel with recessed walls that n the architectural expression of an office building of the surrounding area as as the showroom. ile : //H:1Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 . He noted the location of the elevator, feature tower on the service building, the entrance to the service on the ground floor that is shielded from the public a wall. . The openings on the service building are provided with mullions and are actual windows. . The entry and tower elements will have weathered copper roofs, and be guttered. The adjacent retail center has those same peaked roofs so proposal will be consistent with the adjacent buildings. . Referencing a materials board, he explained the textured stucco feature wall, crenellated feature on the colonnades that is also proposed on two walls, darker based color, the bronze glass, colored concrete, copper roof and ac pavers. . The service building is in the same finish as the sales building. . Noting the car wash location that is under cover within the building, he the stacking within the building. . The top of the towers on the adjacent retail building is similar to the parapet on that side of the building. . On the Dove Street side, the wall is proposed to be ten feet high so that with thi landscape in front, it will provide a foreground for the service building behind it. The walls are recessed so that the columns are expressed; and, the exit stai tower is done in bronze glass with a copper roof. . He then noted an outdoor customer waiting area with fireplace. . The last two columns on the showroom building go in about 18 inches into building setback. The landscaped area between these columns is back of building setback. . The entrance drive from MacArthur to the front door has a strong statement the entry element, copper roof and pedestrian features and enriched pavers. Selich asked: . You indicated that coming in off MacArthur you go up to the customer with no cross traffic. I see two cross paths before you get to the entrance. . Those cars that are parked there, are those cars for sale? Carlisle answered there is one cross traffic lane, you have to look at the lands4 i. We closed up the one nearest MacArthur, that has been revised with Iscape plan that reflects the correction and those are all display cars. Hawkins asked: . Going to the service turn - around, is there any barrier that prevents cars Page 8 of 2: ile : //H:1Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( .Mulilig commission Minutes 04121/2005 towards MacArthur, in other words not completing the turn - around? Carlisle answered there is no physical barrier, the people that are driving aroun( t area are porters. Referencing the exhibit, he explained where the customer drop: his car for service and where they would go to pick up the loaner car and drive out. porter takes the car and goes into the service building or up to the second level o service building. Tucker noted: . The plan that is before us, is this the same that each of us saw in our own Griffin answered yes, with the exception of the improvements that we made on * e Street side. The plan that you originally saw did not have the copper roofs, tf :ss that was added to express the columns and also the glass and the roof as well. iairperson Tucker asked about the landscaping along that screen wall, is that ten planting area between the sidewalk and the wall? Carlisle answered that it is ten feet from the property line and has parkway as well. Tucker noted one of his suggestions would be to add some other types palms. It looks like there are some in there. Carlisle answered that podocarpus as well as vines that will creep up the wall n added to the planting scheme. Cole asked how the retaining wall will be landscaped along side. Griffin answered the retaining wall has not been touched in anticipation of the ig it's improvements. Referencing the exhibit he noted where the 'taking' will end. He then noted the exhibit on the north bound Jamboree side and discu height of the towers on the shopping center and on this site. Carlisle added that the tower where the elevator is will be about 20 feet higher. Selich asked about the spacing of the trees on Dove Street. Carlisle answered that the podocarpus and the palms are in groupings. Th )carpus were around 16 foot on center as the trees get pretty wide, so when forme will be touching at the canopy width. The size is 36" and it will take about 4- s for full maturity. If Canary Island pines were used, it would take about 12 -1 s for full maturity as they are much slower growing trees. oner Eaton noted an opposition letter received at the beginning of One of the questions raised was how will your delivery trucks operate? Carlisle answered that the truck delivery is off the street and on the site in the at veen the service building and the 10 foot wall on Dove Street. There is an er e 200 feet long where a transport truck can make a delivery. He will not have k up as there is a fire truck turning radius to accommodate the transport truck. Page 9 of 2: : / /H:1Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 was then a discussion of the materials board. rson Tucker then asked staff to explain why each one of the action items except for the environmental impact report, which will be done at the end. Lepo with Hogle Ireland, contract planner for the City on this project, A General Plan Amendment would change the designation on the northerly fi% acres of this 8 acre site from the current Professional, Administrative Offic designation to Retail and Service Commercial. Right now, a car dealership wou not be permitted in an Office Designation of the General Plan. This would WE change the way the numbers of allowable square footage that is presented in tt General Plan site. Now, there is a total of about 115,000 square feet of allowab building area for this 8 acre site plus a 3 acre auto site. Staff has converted that acre site into an allowable building area of approximately 24,000 square feet. Tt change to the General Plan would also include an assignment of the building are for the 8 acre site of 139,000 square feet. The amount of footage the project currently proposing is approximately 114,000 square feet. The zoning on this property is Planned Community (PC) as well as the adjoininc properties between Bristol and MacArthur, and Jamboree and Birch known as the Newport Place Planned Community Text. Now the 8 acre site is split into twc pieces, the southerly portion is designated for auto center use and the northerly portion of 5 acres is designated for Professional Business office use. The change in the PC text would combine both into one designation of General Commercial. The related changes would be an increase in height for a portion of the site. Now the 3 acre southerly portion of the site has a 35 foot height limit applicable, an E story height limit applies under the current PC text for the northerly 5 acres. Witt the amendment of the PC text, the total overall height limit would be 55 feet fo the entire site plus a provision that would allow for an extension of that clocl tower on the northeast corner of the parking structure. The applicant ha: indicated they would like to add an additional story in the future. son Tucker asked what uses would be allowed on this site as a matter of PC amendment is completed? Lepo answered any use that would be permitted, retail uses whether it be in retai ices, restaurant, stores, anything like that in addition to the automobile center. V could do a shopping center there some day if they decided it wasn't going to be dealership within the allowable building area that is allocated for that space. He d that the applicant would not have to come back for site plan approval under the text. nmissioner Selich asked why the Planned Community text is being amended i are asking for a Modification Permit for the setbacks. Why wouldn't you just setbacks up in the Planned Community text to accommodate the project and e the Modification Permit? Lepo answered that was a discussion on how that would be accommodated. :ment has put a restraint on the amount of development that could occur here wouldn't find on other parcels in the PC area, so in recognition of the three s Cages and the uniqueness of this particular parcel within the Newport Place Plar Page 10 of 2' le : //H:IPlancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04 /21/2005 Page 11 of 2: Community, were the reasons why that should not apply across the board. ter Selich asked why not set the setbacks on this site in the Text rather than doing the Modification Pen-nit. Temple added staff decided on this approach because the modification is into rack that is defined as special landscape street and staff felt for the overall health Planned Community that we did not want to erode the concept of special landscal et without some special review by some body at some level, which as a stand aloe iification would be heard by the Zoning Administrator. In the case of the setback ,e, the building setback is 30 feet, and if we reduce it by 18 inches then the whole building could come forward 18 inches, and we felt that being able to control tl >unt of building within that area through the discretionary process was a prefern e because the City would be in a position to limit it, or reduce it, should a differe jest come forward. person Tucker noted that if there was subsequent re- development of this the modification would go away wouldn't it, if the building was scrapped? al PC text setbacks would apply on the re- development. Temple answered yes, if it was a totally new building. nissioner Eaton stated it appears that you are proposing to amend the PC text the height of permitted monuments signs and that would apply to the entire I Was there not a way to allow somewhat higher monument signs on this prope it allowing them through the entire area? David Lepo answered yes, through the Modification process as well. The de plan will be submitted at a later date for staff review and issuance of Modifical nit at the staff level. The monument sign could be included, it was put in there oideration to see it was acceptable throughout the Planned Community. tinuing, Mr. Lepo noted that there are two components of the Use Permit: The proposed revision to the PC text requires a use permit to allow for automobile dealership. The use permit is a way to ensure that the design of facility at this particular site is appropriate for the existing improvements in area to assure compatibility with specific consideration of access to the site, and design of the buildings, aesthetics such as lighting, and noise. A Use Permit is also required for the proposed sale of alcohol beverages unc the City's ordinance. Complimentary service of wine and beer are proposed a falls within the purview of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and license would be required for on -site consumption. Specific conditions included in the resolution to address this issue. McDaniel asked if there were other dealerships that have beer Temple answered that they have more coffee type bars, and if there were wine, it would have required an ABO license. (Continuing, Mr. Lepo added that there are circular display pads that are proposed tol ile : //H:1Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 12 of 2: ncroach into the setbacks at MacArthur, Jamboree and Dove and then noted th ollowing on the Traffic Study and the Environmental document: I A study was conducted for this particular facility per the City's Traffic Phasi Ordinance (TPO) requirements. With the reduced size of the facility at 114,0 square feet plus or minus, the only TPO impact occurs at Irvine Avenue and Me Drive. Under the TPO, there is an impact if the additional traffic results in decrease in a Level of Service (LOS) to an unacceptable level, or makes currently unacceptable level worse. With the re- striping and improvemer indicated as mitigation measure at the Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive intersection, t service level is brought back to what it was prior to the addition of traffic, so the is no TPO impact after the mitigation measure. There were areas that were not analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report. A the preparation of the Initial Study it was determined, based on evidence in the record at that time, that there would be no impacts and would require no analysis of Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources Public Services, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Recreation Utilities /Service Systems, Geology /Soils, and Population /Housing. Potentia impacts were studied in the areas of Aesthetics /Land Use, Hydrology, Wate Quality and Storm Water, Transportation/Traffic, and Air Quality. Mitigatior Measures proposed with this project reduced the level of significant impacts it each of those four areas to a less than a significant level. At the request of the Chairperson, he then reviewed the items where there was a significant impac identified and the mitigation measure that took care of the impact as listed in the staff report. Tucker noted the Photometric Study needs to be consistent with nmissioner Selich asked if condition 32 that deals with lighting, was similar to City has on the Fletcher Jones project? Wood answered that this condition is much more detailed and restrictive than the original mitigation measure and condition of approval on Fletcher Jones. ommissioner Hawkins asked about the aesthetics impact and potential incompabb e General Plan Amendment and the PC text will allow for a height increase. All aphics we have seen tonight, the majority of the buildings are well below that 54 1 is only the towers and elevators, etc. Are there any graphics showing the additil ory on the service garage? Lepo answered, no. Temple clarified that the height limit is not being raised. Basically, there is >d height limit for the current auto center site in the PC. The height limit for e portion of the site is 8 stories with no numeric limit. Staff is establishing a sta ht limit for this site and it will be in the PC text. m Tucker asked if the applicant decides he wants to add to this building at what will the Planning Commission or staff see? Mr. Lepo answered they would be subject to the Use Permit provisions. The Planning) ile://H:1Plancomm\2005\042105.htm 02/08/200t Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 13 of 2: Chommission will see the revised plans, because that is expanding premises subject tol e Use Permit. Lepo continued, under the Land Use category: Consideration of inconsistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, requirement was that the applicant submit an applicant that includes a Ger Plan amendment and a PC text amendment. Potential inconsistency with Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 and Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan - plans submitted to the FAA and to the ALUC; the plans were approved. Hydrology, Water Quality and Storm Water - impact of violating any water qu standards or waste discharge requirements, degrade groundwater quality cumulative impacts to surface water quality. Mitigation measures are that applicant will send a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control B4 and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; and have an apprc Water Quality Management Plan prior to grading permit. Commission inquiry, he added that the new permits from the Water Control lard require inspection and code enforcement efforts to check filters and main materials. Mr. Lepo noted: . Air Quality - impacts would potentially happen during construction phase. facility is small in terms of operational impacts, He then reviewed the mitic measures included in the staff report. Transportation/Traffic - potential impact of transportation /traffic could cagy deterioration to an unacceptable Level of Service of ICU of 0.01 or more and tl is under the TPO. Proposed mitigation was to re- stripe westbound approach Irvine Ave. and Mesa Drive to provide one left -turn lane, one shared throughil lane, and one right -turn land, and require signal modifications to implement sF phase operation on east -west approaches as required to satisfy the TI requirements. These mitigation measures are for the full project as origins proposed for the full 130,000 square -foot project. There is a provision providing a triple left turn pocket at the west bound approach at Jamboree MacArthur Boulevard and improved east bound approach by providing a fou thru lane per the TPO and CEQA. Once the project was reduced to 117,000, ti impact goes away and no mitigation is required. This project is down to 114,0 square feet. airperson Tucker noted that it appears that on a cumulative basis there are nificant impacts to other intersections. At 130,000 square feet those impacts mitigated, but at 117,000 square feet there is nothing that has to be done. Lepo answered that at the 130,000 square feet project level, that is correct, a impacts. However, at 117,000 square feet there are no impacts to that inters Jamboree /MacArthur. Eaton noted: ile : //H:1Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 14 of 2' . He is concerned about the amount of traffic exiting from MacArthur merging) across traffic to get into the left -turn lane at Jamboree. . Are there other ways to try and minimize that amount of exiting traffic? r. Edmonston answered that he is not aware of any discussions and has not revie iy on -site signage proposal which might assist people to exit onto the Dove Sti to and go onto Bowsprit, as an option. He noted that he was on site during rush Ir observe this driveway function and noted when there were gaps and when there back up. He concluded that there is not a constant flow of traffic and in his opir are are enough gaps within each traffic cycle to accommodate this movement. )mmission inquiry, he noted it would be helpful to have on -site signage direc �ople to exit the Dove Street driveway. Commissioner Eaton asked: The letter of opposition received questions whether the amount of traffic at ( Street was looked at and whether that intersection might now require a signal. Edmonston answered in the initial study, it was not looked at, the City focused signalized intersections in the area. The consultant did counts today in both . and p.m. peak periods, made tabulations in terms of level of function with pro. is added and evaluated it if it would meet the traffic signal warrants of peak h ic. He then gave an overview of what the consultant observed as well as grvations concluding there is no warrant for a signal at the intersection. Ciandella with Kimley Horn and Associates, noted the following: Tested the peak hour warrant at that intersection, both morning and evenii existing and adding the project traffic. It does not meet the warrant in any those four cases. . She was there again this evening and did not see a queue of even five southbound. It is a four -way stop that assigns the responsibility of the right of that is followed to the motorists. )mmissioner Eaton asked about the parking and storage differences. Is there a v assure that we don't have a condition where the number of vehicles parked or sto the site exceeds the availability on site? Is there a way to assure that there will ough parking in the future if an additional story is built on the project? Lepo answered that is subject to a use permit so a• condition could be added 'ess that. Typically, you would wait until someone complains. Then, with the u. iit, you have the opportunity to request that the applicant come before tl emission to review the terms of the Use Permit and could add a condition Edmonston noted that it was his understanding that the deck would be needed tional inventory, not active parking purposes. Perhaps the applicant could cle for you. Wilson of Wilson Automotive Group, noted the following: ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 15 of 2' . Additional parking deck - this facility is being over built to start with and don' anticipate adding another deck for ten years, maybe never. It will be engineered for another deck, so that we don' have cars parked all over. mer Hawkins asked, if we eliminate an exit on MacArthur, does that result impact on other intersections in connection with Dove, etc.? Ciandella answered: . The adjustment that was done from the original traffic study to the revised figu that you have, the assumption was made that traffic wants to go where it wants, is just a matter of how it gets out of the site. The primary change would be if y( went out at Dove Street instead of MacArthur, you could make your way up Bowsprit and make a right. Edmonston added that the assumption now is that if the exit is allowed, about 2( the cars, or 40 -42 cars, would make that move in the peak hours. Some would ma s left turn onto Jamboree, the others would get onto MacArthur and go through, rs would be added to one or more of the driveways on Dove Street. There oacity in the intersections to handle that traffic. nmissioner Hawkins, noting the supplemental information, the response to was amended in connection with the alternative analysis. Tucker asked for a review of the alternative analysis. David Lepo gave a brief overview of the analysis as presented in the staff sing to a reduced project alternative and a no project alternative. tairperson Tucker noted that staffs comments on the EIR were fairly compreher terms of those items where there were issues identified. He asked if there was ier questions in terms of this report that the Commission had. )mmissioner Hawkins clarified that the Commission had received a comment on R this afternoon. airperson Tucker noted he would be asking staff to respond to that comment Ii ween now and the Council meeting. It is a comment letter that is late, but it w appropriate to respond. He then stated the responsibility of the Commission on n and what would be expected during public testimony on the FEIR for CE comment was opened. Biram, manager of 901 Dove Street, speaking on behalf of the owner of 901 at, noted the following: The EIR process has been flawed in their opinion. These flaws have be pointed out in a letter presented to the Planning Commission at the beginning this meeting from his attorney. . He stated he had received notice of this hearing on the 11th of this month and only saw the Draft EIR last week. ile://H:1Plancomm\2005NO42105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 16 of I . No contact had been received from the developer of the project to discuss th impacts of this project with him. I . He noted that he had spoken with the owners of 1000 Quail, 1001 Dove, 11 Dove and 1151 Dove, 1201 Dove, none of whom had received notice of t. hearing or previous publication of the DEIR. . The greatest flaw of this EIR is the complete omission of traffic studies on and Quail Street. . There are three driveways indicated on the plan, all of which are off Dove Street. The report estimates that traffic in the area will increase by 3,200 trips per day most of which will enter in off Dove Street. How can the DER ignore this? Thi; additional traffic will exacerbate an already hazardous street as during peak time: it is difficult to pull out of the parking lots on Dove Street. . No mention of any traffic flow considerations on Quail and Dove is made in DER; which in my opinion is a violation of the law. . The construction of a dealership in this location will have a serious n impact on our property as it will change the character of the neighborhood rather quiet professional office area to a busy commercial area. . My tenants will now look out onto a sea of cars unless the project has screening and buffers. . Noise from loud speakers will affect the area. . Parking may become impacted in the future if the dealer starts to recei incentives to stock more vehicles, which may force employees to park off site neighboring lots. . The retail sites behind the project are already impacted and they are renting parking spaces from me. . He concluded by asking the Commission to recognize the flaws in the DEIR send it back to staff for additional work to address the issues and delay a vote this matter for 90 days in order for the neighbors to engage their own consulta to address these concerns. Matthews, counsel to Mr. Biram, noted the following: • He has not seen the supplemental traffic report. • He objects to the notion of people drinking and driving. • The Traffic Study does not seem to address the double blind curve as car proceed down Dove Street towards Bristol before they get to the project location. • A comments letter had been distributed, and they have never received a notio from the City. ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 17 of 2: . Matters that have been brought up tonight, he obviously does not have time t prepare any response to. °I iairperson Tucker noted that CEQA has a series of time frames and noti( quirements. This Lexus dealership has not been a secret and everyone in the re tate community was saying how lucky the property owner was that thing was going bought at that price. It is not like you had no forewarning, it was out there if you ai tually in the real estate business. Your clients would have known it was out ther iy they didn't get more actively involved and check with the City and follow up, that iat real estate people do. It is hard for me to go with the concept that nobody kne id this was just a giant surprise. You may not have been notified anymore than wh required by law, which is basically a publication, that is what State Law requires. N i through this process all the time and we hear from some people that they say the a not notified, but I know in a lot of environmental documents, especially in tf sidential community we get stacks of things from all the neighbors with all tf ,mments they have. I have asked staff to go ahead and respond to your letter, but )uld really be unfair to the applicant who has been in this process and has followe rules to grant a 90 day delay. I would not support this unless somebody told me tf itice was deficient in the first place. I am not sure how we respond to something th; is given to us on the day of the meeting, it is tough. Matthews noted that your Planning Commission rules allow submission of a ction letter at the actual meeting and that is what we have done. He noted that th iant never scheduled a meeting in order to get specific information on traffic gn, etc. to have an adequate opportunity to formulate objections, to hire consultant leem necessary and to try to work with them to identify some mitigation measures. rson Tucker noted that the legal process is disclosing what the are of a proposed project on one's property. Matthews noted stated for the record, that the notice that was given was hairperson Tucker stated that as far as the letter is concerned, giving it to tf ommission on the last day may be something that you allowed to do, certainly you ai Ilowed to do it. We won't be in a position to have as meaningful a discussion as % )uld have had we had the letter five days before the meeting, where as chairman ould have said to the staff, let's go through and try to figure out what the answers ai i these things because the whole process is public disclosure. It is to allow the publ i see that the decision makers actually understand the nature of the impact on & nvironment of the decision that they are about to make. For us, we are not th �rtifying body, we are going to take what we have today, make a conclusion and sen along to Council and ask that this letter also be answered. The Council will therefor ave the ability to then see all the record. That is about all we can do at this point, ast as far as I am concerned because it would be unfair to ask the applicant to e 'ound and wait for 90 days. The comment period under CEQA is only 45 days, rigl may you are doubling what the law requires, assuming you just got notice today. Matthews stated it does not have to be 90 days, 45 would be fine. >erson Tucker noted that the only time you have would be between now the City Council hears this item. He asked staff when that would be. ile :!/H: \Plancomm\2005 \042105.htm 02!08!200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 18 of 2: s. Temple answered, assuming you recommend this for approval tonight, this item wil be heard on May 10, 2005 by the City Council. I missioner Hawkins noted in connection to CEQA timelines, the Environme ct Report is released for comment which opens a window for public comment. d if this property had been posted. Lepo noted that the comment period ended January 12th of this year. The date notice would have been on or about November 29th, 2004 that the Notice ilability of the EIR and the Notice of Completion went out. I don't have my files he )ht, so I can not verify if this property owner did, or did not, receive a notice. Campbell answered that the property was posted ten days in advance of ting with 4 public hearing notices at various locations on site. = missioner Hawkins noted that the comments have received a substantial exte time since the written comment closed in January. We are now hearing it in late d we are considering the Objector's comments. There has been a subst tension already granted, and there will be another opportunity at the Council me a hearing process at which time you may submit additional comments. Campbell added that there was a notice sent to 901 Dove Street, Suite 270 and the mailing list. m Tucker asked staff, in terms of the information discussed tonight, enough to require re- circulation of the DEIR? Lepo answered that this does not change the conclusions of the DEIR or tl ysis. This supplemental information was provided as a courtesy based t ,tions from members of the Planning Commission separate from the EIR analysis. comment was closed. McDaniel noted his concern of a wine bar. Wilson answered that the idea of the wine bar is more of a custom immodation rather than an on -going wine service. We've heard several commen it it tonight and perhaps it is not such a good idea. The ABC said cars and wir t mix. The idea was to have a regulated wine service and was to be more like Lexus in the lounge with the fireplace and big screen televisions. If someone waiting to buy or pick up a car or have a meeting the wine service would t able. We are looking for a food bar for our customers and employees as well, say it is a bad idea, we can take it out of the plan. It is the smallest part of tt ty and not much of the application so taking it out isn't going to change my mir it being a Lexus dealer in Newport Beach. imissioner McDaniel noted that he had no objection to a champagne grand open those kinds of things for a new model year, but to have someone know they can a to drink is a bad idea. I think the community might have the same idea. ommissioner Hawkins noted for the special events would be a permitted event so we re not actually allowing any dealership to open up a wine event for one day. Would hat be a permitted activity? ile : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/2112005 Temple answered that the types of activities that Mr. Wilson described would eithe considered part of normal operation, or if they reach the threshold of our specia ant permit ordinance, then they may require a special event permit from the City. ABC regulates catering operations and usually the caterers who come in have th( iropriate permits to cover the operations so that the dealer doesn't need to deal wits ABC to conduct these events. comment was re- opened. Fred Fellows, with Glenborough Realty Trust, owner of 895 Dove Street this project, noted: The MacArthur entrance is good from the standpoint that it takes a lot of the off Dove and Quail. Anytime we can reduce some of that traffic it would be I to our tenants. He brought up the issue of test drives. He suggested that the dealer consider drives outside the small area of Dove and Quail and make them on Bi heading north and then around on MacArthur. Due to cross traffic and stop si there could be a safety issue. Wilson, noted: . All dealerships have a prescribed test drive route. The salesman drives the car off the lot to show the prospective everything works. . Our prescribed route for this dealership would be right out onto MacArthur do% to Jamboree, then right to Bristol and then up to the 73 freeway. They then cor down MacArthur and into the dealership. We look for the right in and right out facilitate our test drives. comment was closed. missioner Cole asked if there were any responses from the City of Irvine on th Lepo answered that response to comments reflects the input from the City of Ir re were some issues about construction routing and Mr. Edmonston will work City of Irvine on the mitigation measures that were modified and revised to re >e concerns. ier Hawkins asked if the City of Irvine had an opportunity to review any on this project. . Lepo answered that information for tonight's meeting was sent to the desigi rson in the City of Irvine for their review. airperson Tucker asked for a conclusion of the Commission regarding a recircu the EIR. Does anybody believe it is necessary? He was answered no. He ted the issues brought up during the meeting: Page 19 of 2: ite: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 021081200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 20 of 2: . The signs done by a PC text change, or a later sign modification; . The wine bar; . Some type of notification to traffic leaving the site regarding north bound traffic Jamboree; . Potential condition not to park off the site, which would be primarily and . The route of test drives. Selich noted: . On the landscape plan, the use of 36" box for podocarpus on Dove Street is reflected. . He suggested at least 5 gallon minimum for the shrubs, to be specified on landscape plan to complement the 36" box trees. . Condition 18 - suggested that the sign plan come back to the Plann Commission for review. a brief discussion it was decided to bring the sign plan back to in for review. ition was made by Commissioner Selich to recommend that the City Council CA Newport Lexus Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2004081004), )rove General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -004, Planned Community iendment No. 2004 -003, Use Permit No. 2004 -026, Modification Permit No. 2 ), and Traffic Study No. 2004 -003 for the Newport Lexus Automobile Dealer \2004 -153) with the findings and conditions as recommended in the staff report modified. Tucker noted: . His agreement about the sign change as a modification, not a PC text change. The rest of the Commission agreed. . The wine bar - following a brief discussion, it was determined that at this time would be best to delete it. . Sign(s) on site to suggest to traffic not to move north on Jamboree. Edmonston noted a sign indicating that traffic heading northbound Jamboree to e Street and Bowsprit. >sioner Eaton suggested staff negotiate with the applicant to some way and satisfy the intent. The Commission agreed. son Tucker asked the maker of the motion to include that concept in deletion of the wine bar, the sign as a modification permit, delete the PC ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 21 of 2` change, as well as the Sign Plan being reviewed by the Commission; and a condition to impose on the applicant to assure that his employees are parking on site, the test drive route as indicated by the applicant, the 36" box for the podocarpus trees on Dove and he 5 gallon on the shrubs on Dove Street. The maker of the motion agreed. Mr. Dave Wilson noted his agreement with the modified conditions and withdrew the application for the wine bar. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes, None Absent: Toerge Abstain: None St. Mark Presbyterian Church (PA2003 -085) I ITEM NO. 6 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road PA2003 -085 iew of proposed changes to the Saint Mark Presbyterian Church project =ination of substantial conformance with plans approved as part of Use Pe 2003 -015. Eaton recused himself from deliberation of this item. airperson Tucker noted this item had been approved a few months ago. Staff put the agenda due to changes made by the applicant since that approval. >ioner McDaniel noted that he has no concerns on the changes or pl he felt it should be noticed so that people in the area would have ity to come forward and speak. irperson Tucker noted it was noticed in the Daily Pilot this morning and item did not have to go through a 'noticing requirement. Cole asked about the berms increasing in size. Ramirez noted that the applicant's representative is here and has prepared Point presentation to outline the changes noted in the staff report, if ti ssion wishes to see it. The architect and the grading engineer are also here any questions as well. i Tucker then poled the Commission if substantial conformance without any further presentation. nmissioner Hawkins noted he had spoken with Mr. Ramirez yesterday and revie plans. He noted ambiguities and areas of concerns. He then asked if those n addressed. Ramirez answered that he had spoken with the applicant regarding erns. The architect can review them. ner Hawkins clarified that he noted a change in the height of the cross a possible alternative placement. It may be that no one else has tl ile : //H:1Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 person Tucker noted that this comes down to whether the changes to the pl :antially conform to what we have approved. The ambiguities in the plan and I >olved minor issues, I expect staff to address as part of the refinement of the fii Staff felt uncomfortable, primarily with the elevation changes in the grades in areas, and that is why they brought it to our attention. If it hadn't been for th would not have brought it back. I am of the mind that it doesn't need us to ling further on it, it really is a staff finding and I would refer it back to staff to fi :antial conformance. McDaniel - after reviewing the changes, I think they are in Selich - I agree. Cole - I agree. iairperson Tucker noted that Commissioner Hawkins has made his comments to sta. d they can be sure that they are implemented. He suggested that this be forwarder staff for substantial conformance determination as they have shown us the changes. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to refer this matter to staff to Page 22 of 2: Ayes: Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: Toerge Abstain: Eaton BUSINESS: BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted: Appointments to the Ad Hoc Commi for Revisions to the Zone Code, current Planning Commissioners were appoin Michael Toerge, Barry Eaton and Ed Selich as a public member; amendments to Housing Element and a Code Amendment regarding Elevation Datum refere point contained in the Code. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developn Committee - Ms. Wood noted that there was a very interesting presentation f someone from the OCTA on their attempts to extend Measure M and what they doing to prepare for that and why the existing measure was successful. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Upc Committee — Commissioner Eaton reported there are four meetings scheduled the end of the month and in to May. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - Commissioner Selich noted they reviewed the bluff setbacks and public access. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. ile: //14:\Plancomm \2005 \042105.htm 02/08/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted the change item 1 that specifies the first hearing on the Sign Code will be at the next meeting May 5, 2005, She added that there were two public workshops in April on the Si! Code and 10,000 notices had been mailed. Project status — Ms. Temple noted the Local Coastal Program Committee review, the Implementation Plan for public access and restarted on the coastal bl question that had quite difficult discussions surrounding it and with new informati, provided by staff, I believe that the committee now is reasonably comfortable tt our staff is on the right track and can come up with revisions that would be workat and fair and provide the intent. The package will be completed and reviewed pri to giving it to Coastal for their initial review. The schedule for the Coastal hearing in June and they are planning on giving us everything within the timeframes tt they suggested with the exception of the original comments on the Land Use PI from their legal staff. Those will come to us right before their staff report released. I think there will be things there that we need to address. airperson Tucker noted a letter he had received from the Newport Mesa E District dated April 18th that has to do with St. Andrews. He noted a copy had sent to Ms. Temple and asked that a copy be given to the Commission. ,nmissioner Hawkins gave a brief overview of the Planners Conference of tl League of Cities that he and Commissioner Cole attended in mid April. He stated was an educational process: he was able to attend many of the seminars and to with many planners and commissioners from other cities. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole asked to be excused from meeting of May 5th. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 23 of 2: ile : //H:1Plancomm120051042105.htm 02/08/200(