HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-09-2004Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
December 9, 2004
• Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
4
Page 1 of 47
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins -
Commissioner Cole arrived at 4:06 and Commissioner Selich arrived at 4:20; all
others were present.
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager
Robin Clauson, Acting City Attorney
Richard Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
Marina Marrelli, Assistant Planner
Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
UBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None.
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on December 3, 2004.
STUDY SESSION
ITEM NO. 1
4:00 P. M.
PA2004 -153
SUBJECT: Newport Lexus (PA2004 -153)
Discussion Item
3901, 3931, 3961 MacArthur Boulevard, 848, 888 Dove Street
Preliminary review of conceptual building plans for a proposed Newport Lexus
automobile dealership.
Ms. Wood noted that a contract project planner had been hired by the City; he is
David Lepo from the firm of Hogle Ireland Associates.
avid Lepo noted that the applicant will be doing the presentation and that they
ant to hear the comments from the Planning Commission on the building designs
in order to prepare for tentative April public meetings.
Casey Griffin, representing the Wilson Automotive Group and project manager,
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 2 of 47
noted the following:
• Brochure distributed to the Planning Commission on the car designs.
•
• Described the intent and ideals for the proposed project.
• General site overview at Jamboree and MacArthur.
. Site is approximately 8 acres comprised of a 3 acre parcel occupied by Avis
and a 5 acre parcel occupied by Platt College.
. He then noted a storm drain that crosses the properties.
Mr. Jett' Carlisle, Principal with the Architectural Firm of Carlisle, Coatsworth
Architects, speaking for the applicant, noted the following while making a
PowerPoint presentation:
• The showroom building and the service building locations on site.
• The easement running through the property.
• The entry drives /accesses onto the site from MacArthur and Dove Streets,
frontages and on -site circulation with customer parking /stacking as well as
new car parking.
• The fire truck diameter turning radii allowing full access on site.
• The buildings will present four frontages.
• A low wall that encroaches into the landscape area will accommodate new
car displays.
• 251 square feet additional landscape is being provided on site, more than
what is required with the 30 foot setback.
• Elevations of the parking structure from Jamboree Road; one story element
of wall in front of the structure housing the ramp allowing access to the
second floor.
• The buildings of different heights and masses are being balanced by low
walls. Within the buildings will be elevators for the parking structure, and
display car areas that will be seen from the streets on the comer.
• The off -set of the buildings is up to 29 feet.
• There will be a fireplace in the customer lounge that is at the end of the
showroom and fronts the major comer of MacArthur Boulevard and
Jamboree Street. There is another interior fireplace located in the entryway
in the new purchase lounge area.
• He then noted the canopy across the service drive that spans from one side
to the other with no columns due to the easement.
file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
. The top of one of the building elements is 80 feet tall, with others being 56
feet, 74 feet and 49.
. He then noted the outlines of the various buildings, exit stair tower, elevator
tower, display areas and stone walls at the front as seen from all frontages.
. The first floor of the showroom building has 30,000 feet and the second floor
has 7,000 feet.
. The roof elements are 360 degrees around the site.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood noted that the Planned Community
Development Plan Amendment does not allow for architectural review by the
Planning Commission; however, the Planned Community Text will deal with the
allowed signage.
Chairperson Tucker asked about the materials on the parking structure, the
visibility of signs /logos, the stacking for the service entry/stacking comparisons and
the elevation differential between Jamboree and where the flat pad will be for the
service building.
Mr. Carlisle noted it will be a poured in place concrete structure. On the Dove
Street side, it will be painted concrete. At certain points from the highway, the logo
will be visible. The Bristol Street side is higher and the signage will be more
visible. The applicant did not provide a materials/colors board. The stacking for
This dealership is three times that of Fletcher Jones. It is proposed to be three
lanes in and two lanes out with a free lane in between that is expected to be open.
At anytime there is a crunch, only one lane is needed for egress and so one of
those can be used for stacking purpose. Referring to the presentation, he noted
the difference between the point at the freeway to the next door property line.
Commissioner Toerge inquired:
. Is there a proposed exit on MacArthur, or is it entrance only?
. He would like to see a sectional drawing from the center line of Jamboree
through the tower and the five -level parking structure as well as maybe a
diagonal through the intersection.
. On one of the site plans there is a proposed sign on a retaining wall at the
comer. He questioned the elevation that appeared out of balance to him.
. He then asked for a discussion on the decision to encroach into the setback
on the s/westerly corner of the showroom.
. Referring to the site plan, he noted it would be helpful to lay out the current
setback from Jamboree and MacArthur in order to facilitate seeing where the
parking encroaches into the setback area and how it balances out.
. He then asked about the driveway to the wash racks and the driveway
approach.
Page 3 of 47
file: //H:1Plancomm\200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Mr. Carlisle answered:
. It will be right turn only due, to the median. Traffic is proposing a right in and
right out only.
. The drawings will be furnished as requested.
. There is about a 7 to 8 feet separation from the pad to the sidewalk.
Referring to the presentation view, he explained the views.
. Referring to the presentation, he noted the need for certain functions on the
floor plan at certain points. The access point determined the location of the
front door and created some unusual cross patterns. The site is definitely
three sided and almost four sided. There are acute angles within the parking
area, which makes it difficult to maneuver on site and we thought it was
important as you come in off MacArthur to see the entry drive. We need the
length for the fire department turn around as well as the turn around for
vehicles, therefore, that building can not get closer than what we propose.
The encroachment is twelve to fourteen feet into the landscaped area. He
then discussed the proposed heights of the buildings.
. He discussed the outer treatments and elements of the buildings and how
they meld together and where they face.
. He then noted the setback lines depicted in the presentation and where the
encroachments are proposed to be.
. He discussed the entry driveways, approaches to the site and accesses.
Discussion ensued regarding one story and two story elements; depth of the
coverage between Dove and Jamboree; draft EIR based on larger plan than what
has been proposed; square footages of ground floor and upper floor; various
architectural features; landscape elements; inventory requirements; placement of
display vehicles; weaving lanes from Bowsprit Drive; massing and potential
widening of Jamboree Road and a proposed encroachment into the Jamboree
Road landscaped setback.
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Land Use Alternatives
Review land use alternatives for further study in the General Plan update.
Chairperson Tucker asked if land uses needed to be in a specific location shown or
if they could be moved to another location in the planning area? What if you move
something from a planning area into a different traffic analysis zones (TAZ)? How
will that affect the technical analysis?
Mrs. Wood answered that we have that flexibility and is a later round of refinement
for the Land Use Plan because at this point, all that is being done with the land use
alternatives is running them through the traffic model and fiscal impact model and
through environmental analysis so that we can see what the impacts will be so that
adjustments can be made later. The kind of changes you are referring to are minor
within an area. In the overall scheme, it should be fine.
Page 4 of 47
ITEM NO. 2
Discussion Item
file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 5 of 47
Continuing, Chairperson Tucker asked about:
. Possibility of density transfers and accumulation of lands.
Mrs. Wood answered that there are provisions for using land use entitlements that
are not specifically not on your parcel of land but is within the statistical area and
that requires the approval of the Planning Commission. It is used judiciously and in
small amounts because there is no transfer of development rights program where
one property owner would buy the development rights from someone else. We
haven't gotten that far on policies for this General Plan update, but that is certainly
something that we can consider and discuss.
Ms. Temple added that the current General Plan does allow transfers of
development rights within certain parameters as set forth in the Zone Code.
However, it is entirely governed by private interest dealing with private interest
directly. There is not a formalized program that has City management of or
involvement in.
Chairperson Tucker commented that a transfer program might be necessary to
encourage consolidation of smaller inefficient lots. Continuing, he noted that
looking at the different potential increases they are fairly substantial over the entire
City if you added everything in. Is there any thought to set some type of targets in
terms of overall increases?
Mrs. Wood answered no. When we see the model runs of these alternatives, if it
really is shocking, then we might want to consider a policy or choose to address it
area by area. It is too early to know what kinds of impacts we are dealing with
which is why we want to get going on analyzing these alternatives.
Commissioner Selich asked what is going to happen to these alternatives? The
traffic runs will be done on these models, will it come back to us to take another
look? There are a lot of good ideas here, but the impact on the City's circulation
system is probably what is going to make the determination. How long will this be?
Mrs. Wood answered yes. It will take a couple of months for the model runs and
then that is taken to the General Plan Advisory Committee before it comes back to
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Eaton expressed his concern with the airport business area
alternatives. and reiterated concerns he had raised at the previous meeting.
Mr. Woodie Tescher gave an overview of twelve special study areas to review
alternatives and buildout analyses; confirm adequacy of the range of alternatives
and the major or "big picture" changes. They included:
Airport Business Park - infill and re -use with office/retail and industrial; infill
and re -use with office /retail and industrial and housing.
Balboa Village - re -use small commercial properties; emphasis of water -
related uses; re -use commercial for mixed use; re -use commercial for mixed
use and lodging; and, re-use commercial for housing.
file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01107/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 6 of 47
• Banning Ranch - maintain as open space with limited parklands; residential
neighborhood (TWO); reduced residential neighborhood; and resort with
supporting uses.
• Cannery Village East - re-use commercial and industrial for mixed use; and,
re -use commercial and industrial for housing.
• Cannery Village West - re-use commercial for mixed use.
• Corona del Mar - infill for mixed use; and, mixed use and expand parking.
• Fashion Island /Newport Center - in- fill /expansion and .housing; and, long
range plan (draft).
• Lido Village (Northeast/Bay front) - mixed use and lodging infill; retail and
lodging infill; and, mixed use.
• Lido Village (South of Via Lido) - retail and housing infill; and, retail and
mixed use infill.
.• Lido Village (Civic Center) - reuse for mixed use; and, re-use for retail and
office.
. Mariners Mile - infill for mixed use and retail; infill for mixed use and
retail /realign highway; and, prioritize marine - related uses.
•
. McFadden Square (Pier area) - lodging incentives.
. McFadden Square (Harbor area) - re -use for mixed use and lodging
incentive.
. Old Newport Boulevard - infill for medical office, retail and mixed use; re -use
for mixed use and housing; and, re-use for mixed use and affordable
housing.
. West Coast Highway (Western Parcels) - re -use for multi- family housing; re-
use for special needs housing; re-use for park/open space; and, re -use for
parking lot.
. West Coast Highway (Corridor) - re -use for mixed use; re-use for affordable
housing and lodging; and, infill retail with lot consolidation.
. West Newport industrial excluding Technology Park - infill for medical office,
retail and housing.
. West Newport Technology Park - re -use for medical office; and re -use for
research & development and housing.
Commissioner Selich asked if any location criteria had been developed?
Ms. Temple answered that there are specific sub -areas W and T. (referring to the
airport business area exhibit on the wall). The area T was considered because
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 7 of 47
there was a large base of land used exclusively to surface parking, which might
provide an opportunity to add residential in association with structured parking for
the standing commercial. In area W it is a lower intensity, small scale office
(development. Given its location and what is going on nearby in the City of Irvine,
that it might provide an opportunity for coordinated effort between the multitude of
property owners if there was a strong residential incentive there.
Commissioner Selich noted that there would be a practical problem with.converting
area W to residential use due to the foot print lots built offices and ownerships.
Ms. Temple noted that the urban density selected is 80 units per acre in
recognition of the multitude of ownerships in that area, perhaps to provide an
incentive.
Ms. Wood noted that there is money in the budget for four runs of the two models.
We are going to be using two for this first round and another will be held in reserve
for the adjusted land use alternative and then one more for the preferred land use
plan.
Mr. Tescher noted that if you take all the options in some areas, there are
hundreds of permutations of land use options. What we have selected to do for the
two model, traffic and fiscal, is take the cumulative worse case and the cumulative
least impacting case.
Discussion continued on the importance of the airport area; moving uses around;
and impacts on circulation patterns, as well as an overview of the balance of the
geographic areas and options.
The following questions/concerns came up and were discussed:
. Allocating bed counts between bed /breakfast rooms within the commercial
areas and hotel rooms;
. Open space with remediation on Banning ranch;
• Marine uses along the harbor;
• Consistency with the Vision 2004 approach and the challenge of parking with
a mixed use development in Corona del Mar;
• Significant traffic capacity changes;
• City -wide traffic models on variations of mix uses;
• Viability of the existing General Plan;
• Possible elimination of alternative land use with lodging in the Lido Village;
. Possible elimination of alternative to realign highway for Mariner's Mile area;
. Affordable housing land use sites;
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 8 of 47*
. Definition of "mixed use" either for the entire General Plan or individual)
definitions for each area;
Following the presentation and discussion it was recommended that for Fashion
Island Newport Center to add a third alternative which would have the additional
housing shown in one of the alternates but would not have the additional office;
and, to delete from Mariners Mile the alternative that involves realigning Coast
Highway.
The meeting continued following a twenty minute adjournment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 18, 2004. ITEM NO.3
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as written. Approved
Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: Pacific Coast Yacht Club and Charter Services (Norman Goodin)
(PA2004 -216)
2527 West Coast Highway
A request for the approval of an Off -site Parking Agreement to satisfy the off - street
parking requirements for a charter boat service utilizing two off -site properties
located at 2530 and 2436 W. Coast Highway. The applicant also requests an
approval of a Modification Permit to allow tandem parking at the subject property.
Ms. Ung noted the following minor changes to the draft resolution:
Condition #4 - Add: The yacht club and charter boat business shall operate in
accordance with the Business Operations Plan.
Condition #6 - Prior to operation of the charter boat service, the applicant shall
obtain all required permits for the charter boat business as required by the City
Municipal Code at all times.
Condition #8 - Clarify that there will be 25 parking spaces available on site, not 26.
Staff has received a copy of the revised lease agreement between the applicant
and property owner at 2436 Coast Highway that includes weekend hours of use.
Public comment was opened.
ITEM NO.4
PA2004 -216
Approved
Is
file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
I"
4
Page 9 of 47
Dixon Schaefer, owner of property at 2530 West Coast Highway noted that he
does not want to have the property re- subdivided as it was in 1976 when a similar
request was made as well as the dedication of 12 feet. He asked if there were
conditions regarding parking.
Ms. Ung answered that this application is for the consideration of an off -site
parking arrangement for the applicant and has nothing to do with street
improvements or additional property dedication or any future improvements.
Bill Hodge, representing the applicant asked for approval of this item. At
Commission inquiry, he noted his client has read the staff report and agrees to the
findings and revised conditions.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the Off -site Parking
Agreement No. 2004 -002 and Modification Permit No. 2004 -067 subject to the
findings and revised conditions for the Pacific Coast Yacht Club and Charter
Service (PA2004 -216)
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
SUBJECT: Sage Hill Cellular Antenna Site (PA2004 -230)
ITEM NO. 5
20662 Newport Coast Drive
PA2004 -230
Request to allow the installation of three telecommunication antennae and a
Approved
microwave dish on an existing smokestack, three 20 -foot high telecommunication
antennae poles and a 240 square foot equipment shelter with two geographic
positioning system antennae. The subject property is located in the Open Space -
Passive (OPS) zoning district where the proposed use is not permitted. Since the
property has existing telecommunications facilities on site, the applicant seeks to
expand the nonconforming use pursuant to Section 20.62.050 of the Zoning Code.
Commissioner Eaton asked about requiring painting or structural integration with
the facility.
Ms. Marrelli answered that is already addressed in condition 4.
Public comment was opened.
Daniel Brandenberg of Tetratech Communications representing Nextel appeared.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit No. 2004-
039 (PA2004 -230) subject to findings and conditions.
file: //H:1Plancomm\200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 10 of 47
Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes: None
Absent: None •
Abstain: None
SUBJECT: Biosensors International (PA2004 -238)
ITEM NO.6
20280 Acacia Street, Suite 100
PA2004 -238
Use Permit to allow a 4,077 square foot research and development (R & D)
Approved
operation that includes a clean room, three office/lab rooms, a wet lab and
additional office space within an existing office building in the Business Park
District (BP) of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan District (SP -7).
Notwithstanding this request, staff is recommending that the use permit authorize
up to a maximum of 5,000 square feet of the building to accommodate R & D use,
medical /dental office or retail uses subject to the review and approval by the
Planning Director without the necessity for separate use permit applications.
Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner, noted the memo he had sent earlier in the
week with attached letters. The first letter was from the applicant outlining the
original request for a 4,077 square foot research and development facility. Staffs
recommendation was to allow a total of 5,000 total square feet to accommodate a
mix of uses including 4,077 square foot research and development. The second
letter was from the Santa Ana Heights Project Advisory Committee in response to
the project, and although they agreed to staffs recommendation of mix of uses,
they had issue with two uses that could be permitted under staffs proposed
recommendation; retail and service uses. Due to their issues with the project staff
had proposed, staff is now recommending that the Commission just approve the
applicant's initial request for the 4,077 square foot research and development
facility. Medical office will not be part of this either.
Chairperson Tucker affirmed that staffs recommendation is we consider what the
applicant originally asked for.
Commissioner Eaton asked if that changes condition 12 on Exhibit A?
Ms. Temple answered that condition 12 should be changed to say that the
maximum of 4,077 square feet for the research and development should be
permitted. The resolution will be changed to conform to the change.
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Toshi Kramus, owner of 20280 Acacia Street appeared on behalf of
Biosensors. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he has read the staff report and
understands and accepts the revised condition as well.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit No. 2004-
041 (PA2004 -238) subject to the findings and revised conditions.
Ayes: I Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
file: //H:\Plancomm1200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
k k
Page 11 of 47
SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265)
ITEM NO.7
600 St. Andrews Road
PA2002 -265
Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use Permit for the
replacement and construction of additional buildings and a below grade parking
Recommended
garage. The General Plan Amendment involves an increase in the maximum
for Approval
allowable building area with no change to the existing land use designation. The
Zone Change would change the zoning district from R -2 and R -2 to GEIF to be
consistent with the existing General Plan, Land Use Element designation. The Use
Permit involves the alteration of 3existing buildings, replacement of the existing
fellowship hall and classroom building and the construction of a new multi - purpose
gymnasium and youth center.
Chairperson Tucker noted this is the fifth hearing on this matter and then
proceeded to outline how he intended to conduct the hearing.
Mr. Campbell noted:
. Revisions to conditions of approval; set of revisions issued yesterday and
then a subsequent one today around 2 o'clock that was distributed to all
` interested parties.
. A resolution reflecting a consensus approval subject to these conditions.
Chairperson Tucker asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions on the
added language that had been presented? He then asked staff to go through the
parking condition that is inconsistent with the guidance given to staff at the last
meeting that had been a number of 2.5 people per car as the occupancy level.
Mr. Campbell answered that ratio had been discussed and staff had been asked to
review it for this report. Looking at the different uses occurring at the site and at
the use classification definition that relates to that parking ratio, staff felt that uses
fit within the use classification definition, which is for religious assembly. Staff did
not feel it would be appropriate to identify different parking ratio for the use. We
used a three persons per vehicle ratio and the occupancy conditions reflect that.
Commissioner Hawkins asked the ratio 3 to 1, is that a Code requirement?
Mr. Campbell answered yes, it is one space for every three seats.
Continuing, Commissioner Hawkins affirmed that condition 2 restates the Code
requirement.
Mr. Campbell explained the condition adding that examples had been offered for
the numbers of people in attendance for evening activities on different days of the
week. He noted that condition 20 relates to the off -site parking arrangement of 280
paces on site and no more than 290 spaces on site. The maximum addresses
the concern of a large parking structure on site. Additionally, there are 315 parking
spaces available pursuant to an off -site parking agreement with the Newport Mesa
School District. Staff is proposing to insert that as condition 3 in the reorganizing of
the final conditions.
file:l/H:1Plancomm\200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 12 of 47
Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of condition 2, it provides a general and
a specific. The general is a statement of Code requirements. My concern is it
almost sets up a potential conflict if the applicant decides to build a parking
structure that has more spaces than the general guidance in 2 would allow a larger
occupancy. I think 2a and 2b provide the specifics for that so I am not sure what
we get out of the general statement in condition 2. My concern is a potential for a
conflict.
Chairperson Tucker answered that the general language would not be necessary
but for the fact we have this off -site agreement where we don't know what the
agreement is going to look like and there might be a variety of limitation times that
the District imposes. So, it reiterates what the Code says and then has the
example to raise the issue that the number is going to be a fluid number at given
points in time of the day. What it is pointing out is it really is a function of how
many spaces are available out there as to how the occupancy is regulated on a
general basis. Condition 2 provides the maximum that is driven by parking
spaces. In addition to that, in order to address the neighborhood comparability
issues that exist, the Church has agreed to further limitations that don't have
anything to do with parking spaces. You can't have more occupancy than what the
parking will support . The Church has agreed in order to address at least that even
though they have enough parking spaces to support a greater occupancy at given
times and given days, they are going to have.less occupancy. voluntarily. Condtion
20 specifies how many parking spaces can be on site and that is driven by after
design and construction on the school site, that the Church may build in a slight
fudge factor to cover those spaces.
Ms. Wood added that condition 2 states that we are going to use the code standard
of 1 to 3 but the occupancy will be limited to the actual number of spaces that have
been provided, so that you can not occupy all the space at one time.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the Commission straw voted the parking ratios last
time and then we asked staff at the end of the day to bring back their thoughts on
it. Now, I want to confirm that the Commission is okay with the revisions that were
made as to how we are handling this parking and occupancy situation.
Commissioner Eaton noted two issues, limit on number of holidays in condition 2;
and, condition 20 regarding timing of building permit.
Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any questions of staff on the conditions?
Commissioner Hawkins noted the draft conditions 14 and 15 regarding mitigation
measures have been deleted as the thought was these are findings; I don't see
those findings reflected in the resolution. I don't see that the conditions are hurt by
including what may be goals of operation, and so I would encourage us to re -think
and put back in condition 14 and 15 as originally proposed at the November
hearing.
Chairperson Tucker noted he was the one who suggested that they are findings.
One of them has language, "..and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and
harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City ...." I am not sure
exactly how you comply with that condition, to me it really is a finding. What we
have included as a condition should make sure that finding is actually capable of
being implemented. We will come back and consider this.
Chairperson Tucker asked for Church representatives to comment on the specific
language of the conditions.
file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 13 of 47
Speakers for the Church are Mr. Gary McKitterick, Mr. Smith and Mr. Ken Williams.
Gary McKitterick, representing the Church, noted the following on the lists
Condition 2 - The Church supports this condition with edits: strike the
parenthetical in paragraph a, which says, "one of which will be Sunday" for
the following reason. We will identify, in advance, those days where we will
allocate the day. Sunday, for example, during the holidays may be a night
that may have a little more occupancy. We ask for the flexibility to identify, in
advance to the Commission as it is done here, which nights would have the
various intensity of occupancy. Second Regarding notification, we will be
filing a quarterly report per the new conditions and we would like to make that
identification in a quarterly report. In most instances it will be a confirmation
of what we are doing. So, the wording will be on a 'quarterly basis.' The
wording I will leave to staff, the advance notice is okay, quarterly is okay.
Third Holidays, they are events. There are the traditional holidays; Christmas
day and Christmas Eve, Thanksgiving Day, Maundy Thursday and Good
Friday and Easter. We are requesting an item that the Church does as an
Adventure in Faith. He went on to describe the upcoming event that will be a
three -night stretch coming up in January. We are trying to be cognizant and
have the ability to have special events that are periodic. Additionally, there is
a singing group that may come through and we would like the flexibility, as
we have done in the past, to accommodate them and designate one of our
days.
Chairperson Tucker noted that this item was to cover special days of worship.
What you are talking about are events. I think you have to stick within the
�nvelope that you have in terms of your maximum concurrent occupancy. Special
days of worship that we identify is where the number 8 came from.
Mr. Ken Williams answered that 8 is okay for the number of holidays and special
days of worship per year.
Chairperson Tucker noted we are down to two changes on Condition 2 - you don't
want Sunday night be the designated night; and the quarterly issue. We are trying
to make sure that the public has advance notice of what nights in the week
because if it is constantly shifting no one will know if you are complying.
Mr. McKitterick answered that as a practical matter, it will stay steady. He
anticipates those quarterly reports to be no change. However, we are setting forth
a CUP forever, and so flexibility in the time frame is important. The advance
notice, I understand.
Chairperson Tucker affirmed that vindicates what we are trying to do and that is to
have advance notice. So, deletion of Sunday, and then we will convert it to some
type of quarterly basis where we have at least 30 days notice is what is on the
table. He then asked who would speak representing the neighbors.
Mr. Don Krotee, President of the Newport Heights Improvement Association
speaking for the neighbors noted:
. For condition 2 he agrees with the issues that have been presented by Mr.
McKitterick.
Mr. McKitterick: Condition 3 - the issue of Memorial Services we suggest a
change. Insert, 'weekday memorial services over 250 people, shall not be
file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 14 of 47
scheduled before 1 p.m. We have site occupancy issues that we are dealing with
and this can be accommodated within our chapel. We are requesting this insert.
Mr. Krotee answered that he does not have a problem with this additional
language.
Commissioner Eaton noted that the combination of 2c and 3 have left a gap. 2c
totally exempts memorial services from any of the capacity limits and three merely
says during high school that they have to start at 1 p.m. Isn't there a gap on where
there should be a cap?
Mr. McKitterick noted regarding attempting to accommodate an unscientific
projection on how many people will attend a funeral service in honor of someone,
we are using our best efforts to identify those that where the Church believes will
have more impact and schedule those so that more parking is available. More
than 50% of the services are below that, and obviously you can not anticipate how
many people will attend.
Chairperson Tucker noted that there is nothing that exists today that limits this at
all. What we are saying is that we are imposing these restrictions, but when it
comes to the memorial services, it stays the way the rules work today, which is
there are no rules.
Mr. Ken Williams noted that if there is a memorial service on the weekday with a
high attendance, we will discontinue use of the parking lot for the preschool that
day and, if necessary, we will put the sign out to the high school that this day no
parking is allowed. These are done to accommodate the normal memorial
services.
Discussion followed on the size and timing of memorial services.
Mr. McKittenck added that the item of 1 o'clock in the afternoon was discussed
before in trying to accommodate an afternoon that it is less intense during a period
of time. What we are saying is that we will absolutely comply with the notice
requirement; and will notice as a matter of practice, we understand this is
important. It is incumbent upon us to identify those that are larger and have them
start later.
Straw vote on condition 3:
Commissioner Selich is okay with the way the condition was written by staff with
the 250 limitation.
Commissioner McDaniel yes.
Commissioner Cole yes.
Chairperson Tucker yes.
Ms. Wood noted that it might be clearer if the language in condition 3 was added to
condition 2c, so that it would read, 'The occupancy restrictions shall not apply to
memorial services provided that weekday memorial services over 250 people shall
not be scheduled before 1 p. m...... ".
The neighbors' spokesperson, Mr. Bruce Stewart, agreed.
Mr. Gary McKitterick noted 2b in the latest version, the word regular session was
deleted. Regular to us was satisfactory.
file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 15 of 47
Chairperson Tucker noted it is the impact on the neighborhood that this was
designed to avoid. If you use the word regular, that implies there is something that
is not regular.
Following a discussion on the term 'regular' , it was determined that it is a
scheduled session.
Mr. Krotee spoke to the ratio used in condition 2 regarding parking. He recapped
previous testimony of ratio of 2.5 reading Ms. Temples script from previous
meeting. He said that today staff is now using 3, which is the standard used for
any church. The application of 2.5 would make it significantly better for the
community. We want to know why there was such a dramatic change and why we
couldn't have some consideration in this matter.
Chairperson Tucker answered that at the end of that conversation, the staff
suggested that staff would take a look at it to see what would be the proper parking
ratio to apply. So that is what the Commission directed staff to do. Staff has come
back with a different ratio than what the majority of the Commission was looking
at. He then asked the City Attorney to comment on this. There is a certain desire
amongst the Commissioners to see a different Code with a different way of
analyzing church parking than what is in the Code today. But, that policy decision
and change hasn't happened and I think what it comes down to is that the
Commission would overstep its bounds, if we amend the parking code.without
benefit of the City Council.
Ms. Clauson added that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to change
the parking ratio that is provided for in the Code and we discussed that at the staff
�evel when we did the review of this matter after the last meeting. The other issue
s even applying the ratio; the occupancy limits are intended to address the parking
ratios in another way, which is to address the fact that there isn't enough parking
even at that ratio to accommodate concurrent use of all the buildings on the site.
Chairperson Tucker noted that we took the church's suggestion in terms of the
further limitations and we said we don't seem to have much of an ability to restrict
occupancy on Sunday based upon 600 spaces at 3 per, but here is one we can do
to deal with the neighborhood compatibility issue and that is what we ended up
with. That is the rational behind it.
Ms. Temple clarified that certain aspects of what would be going on the church site
at the same time would have different parking requirements if viewed in
relationship to the Code. When we looked at the use classification and definition of
what that might include, clearly almost everything they might do would fall under
the use classification of religious assembly and that is the Code requirement of 1
parking space per 3 occupancy. My previous comments were based on the
concept such as we have for restaurants where there might be some kind of sliding
scale within the parking code. We reviewed it and discovered that was not the
case, so we did not think that varying from the Code was warranted.
Ms. Clauson noted that the .parking ratios are established in the City's Codes. If
they have a set parking ratio versus a sliding scale, or ability to modify or waive
parking standards, that is stated in the Code. That is the only jurisdiction that the
Commission has to work with. To change the established standard in the Code by
an arbitrary or capricious standard, I don't think is supportable in this situation.
Mr. Stewart asked about the hours of operation. 15th Street is a quiet street and is
not a commercial street. The hours of operation during the week nights are long,
and we requested 9 p.m. instead of 10 p.m. The neighborhood has been telling us
file : //H:1Plancomm1200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004. Page 16 of 47
they have problems with the occupancy limits. For example, on the two quiet
evenings the Church is saying they will now have on an average more than double
or triple the amount of people there now during that period of time. In terms of
traffic generation, you are talking about a pretty significant impact over what
•
current operations are. The last two items would be the evening starting at 6 p.m.,
because we are now talking about no limitations on the traffic it would generate.
Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if there was any interest in the change
of the hours of operation than what was discussed at the last meeting?
Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees with what he just heard and was
encouraged at the last meeting to modify the hours similarly.
Chairperson Tucker stated the parking ratio and the occupancy related to what we
had decided on. The maximum occupancy in the evenings was tied to parking
space availability. Is there anyone on the Commission who wants to revisit that
issue based upon what we have heard? What the neighbors are concerned about
is that none of those numbers on several nights are being reached today, and yet
we are establishing limitations that are bigger than what is going on today. I guess
the response to that is there is no limitation today and at least there will be some
limitation in the future. While it certainly would be nice to see it limited further, the
question is for the Church, we are imposing a group of restrictions on them and
they are agreeing to, where they have none today. It is a question as to how much
we can impose when they are trying to look out into the future, 30 or 40 years and
try to figure out what the future might hold. Anyway, am I seeing anybody else that
wants to revisit those occupancy levels beyond what the Church already asked
for?
Seeing none: he stated the evening time defined as 7 p.m. versus the 6 p.m. Let's
straw vote this one.
Mr. McKitterick noted that 7 seems to be the most appropriate time for evenings. It
is when most people are getting home, having dinner and that is programmatically
what makes sense.
Chairperson Tucker asked if there was a difference in occupancy between 6 and
7? Why couldn't the hours start at 6?
Mr. McKitterick noted that the youth and family center having an after school
program, as they are developed we anticipate that those may be 6:30 or 6:15 p.m.
We brought those occupancies down significantly and we feel the kick off time
should be 7.
Mr. Stewart noted that between 6 and 7 people are trying to get home and looking
for it to be quiet. If there is a lot of activity at the youth and family center, there are
going to be drop offs/pick ups/traffic and the later you wind that down to the lesser
occupancy, you are just pushing that intensity of use at a higher level to 7 p.m.
instead of cutting it off at 6 p.m.
The following straw vote was taken for definition as the time after 6:00 p.m.:
Commissioner Eaton yes,
Commissioner Cole, yes
Commissioner Selich, yes
Chairperson Tucker, yes
Chairperson Tucker asked if anybody was interested in changing the number of
file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 17 of 47
holidays.
Commissioner Eaton noted it should be down to six as there are no capacity limits
bn those days.
Commissioner Cole, stay with 8.
Commissioner Toerge, 6.
Commissioner Selich, 8
Commissioner McDaniel, 8
Commission Hawkins, 6
Chairperson Tucker, 8.
Condition 4 -
Mr. McKitterick noted that on the school numbers, this is capping the school at less
than capacity. We had anticipated that at this time during the day for kindergarten,
we would like to have the ability to have 280, which would at least allow the
classrooms we are building to be used.
Mr. Krotee answered that we would be in favor of holding the ceiling at 240
children.
Straw vote on 240 or 280:
Commissioner Hawkins - 240
Commissioner McDaniel - 240
Commissioner Selich - 240
Pommissioner Toerge - 240
Chairperson Tucker, okay, it stays at 240. The concept is it is not our expectation
that this program will grow. We're being asked to approve something that is mainly
a youth after school and a place to hang out type of facility as opposed to an
opportunity to expand the pre - school.
Condition 5:
Mr. Krotee noted that the neighbors had hoped that the drop off area would be at
loading zones slightly off the public right of way. If it is to be on 15th Street, could a
curb cut be placed there with room made to allow for this un- loading?
Chairman Tucker asked if there was any desire by the Commission to change the
condition. None was given.
Condition 6 - No comments.
Condition 7:
Mr. McKitterick requests insert where it says, "..... 3 times per calendar year plus
vacation bible school which is in June.
Following a discussion it was decided and agreed upon by the church and
(neighbors' representatives somewhere between 3 and 8 days.
Straw vote:
Commissioner Eaton - 8 mornings per year.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 18 of 47
Commissioner Cole - okay with 3 times and the 5 mornings, as we are talking about
when school is not in session.
Commissioner Toerge - 5 mornings.
Mr. McKitterick noted that the 3 times we are asking for are in the afternoon on the
surface lot such as a picnic or event only.
Commissioner Selich - okay with the 3 afternoons and the 5 mornings.
Condition 8:
Mr. Stewart answered that the neighbors are still concerned about only 40 minutes
between worship services and trying to unload the parking structure.
Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if there was any inclination to switch the
timing:
Commissioner Hawkins - 40
Commissioner McDaniel - 40
Commissioner Selich - 40
Commissioner Toerge noted that he has never felt that 40 minutes was adequate to
allow 1800 people to come into the site, disembark and have another 1800 come
in, or 600 cars. He noted he is not in favor of the 40 and agreed to it as a
compromise the last time reluctantly. It is too little time
Commissioner Cole - 40
Chairperson Tucker, 40 it stays.
Condition 9: 0
Mr. Campbell noted that he had deleted the verbiage because the other conditions
are not modifying the gross square footage. What this refers to is the buildings
themselves with square area exclusive of garages.
Chairperson Tucker stated that it is the intention of the Commission that this item
will not in its wording, is not intended in any way condone or allow for a larger
parking facility than what is referred to in item 20.
Following a brief discussion, it was determined to add the phrase, "exclusive of
the parking structures'.
Mr. Krotee noted that the added traffic and parking causes the most harm to the
surrounding communities.
Condition 10:
Mr. McKitterick, would like some consideration for the community benefit that this
gymnasium be offered to the Newport Harbor High School and the City on a limited
basis.
Straw vote to change:
Commissioner Hawkins - leave as is.
Commissioner McDaniel - leave as is
Commissioner Selich - leave as is
Commissioner Toerge - leave as is
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004\1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 19 of 47
No change.
No change.
Condition 12: No change.
Condition 13:
Mr. McKitterick asked to strike the words, "lower level" from a parking management
standpoint if we have occupancy, we have parking restrictions and where they park
at least during this period of time we didn't feel the need for "lower level ".
Mr. Stewart noted that the public is not going to want to go into the lower level of
the structure unless they have to or are forced to. Therefore, if staff is parking
outside at the first available spaces, you could potentially create more of a parking
issue because people aren't going to want to go deeper or lower if they have
choices on the street.
Straw vote to delete 13, change or delete:
Commissioner Hawkins - leave as is.
Commissioner Eaton - leave as is.
Commissioner Cole - leave as is.
Commissioner McDaniel - would be willing to change it.
Commissioner Toerge - leave as is, particularly since there is no restriction on the
memorial services.
No change
Condition 15: Deleted
Condition 16:
Mr. McKitterick, they agree that the width of the planting area shall be a minimum
of 4 feet. However, they do not support the restriction on provided that a minimum
of 2 feet, and preferably 4 feet be on the private property. From the aesthetic point
of view, there will be a wall with a four foot landscape area, which is being
approved by the Commission. There will be an inordinate amount of detail on that
pan that we feel is sufficient. It actually ends up being problematic for parking.
Chairperson Tucker noted we wanted to be sure that there was a four foot strip in
there for room to fit trees in. Whether it is on the parkway or on St. Andrew's
property, as long as there are four feet behind the sidewalk and between the wall.
Mr. Campbell noted that in looking at the conceptual plans, there appears to be
some dimension between the structure and the proposed wall and the property
line, although we never got a good answer as to how much that would be. I
estimate it to be approximate 2 feet, which would be consistent with the plans
depicted. If the intent is to get 4 feet, it will be in the public right of way.
Mr. Krotee noted that the primary concern is the existin.9 landscape consists of a
Combination of public and private property. If the condition could be written such
that distance could be preserved, then we wouldn't have a problem with that. The
loss of landscape on the Clay Street edge is a hurt to the community. With the
building of the wall and the project, the softening of the landscape is important to
us. What is lacking in this presentation are precise cross sections showing the
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 20 of 47
distances noted.
Chairperson Tucker noted we have conditioned this on the wall itself and the •
landscaping between the wall and the sidewalk, and the landscape plan coming
back to the Commission for approval before a building permit is issued. The
Commission wants to make sure the public had a chance to weigh in on the issue.
We are planning on making sure the wall effectively disappears and that there are
lots of trees planted along that wall. We want to make it so it looks nice and one of
the reasons I felt 4 feet was important, I don't know what the footing of the wall is
going to look like and I wanted to make sure that there is enough space that trees
could go in and it would work. That is the other piece of the puzzle. They are not
going to be able to get their parking spaces in there if that existing perimeter stays
in all respects where it is. I think it is going to have to be shrunk. We are dealing
with this issue and if it is going to be less, than we want to see exactly how they
are going to deal with it.
Mr. Stewart asked how much distance are we talking about? What happens to the
width of the landscape area and where is the wall?
Chairperson Tucker stated the applicant is not asking for any change to the
sidewalk and we are not granting any changes with this application. There is no
expectation on our part that the applicant will be reducing the sidewalk. The only
thing they have to figure out is to fit a four foot planting area behind the sidewalk
that exists today and the wall.
Commissioner Selich offered language, '.The width of this planting area shall be a
minimum of 4 feet wide .... behind the existing sidewalk', be added to the
condition.
Commissioner Hawkins agreed
Commissioner McDaniel agreed
Commission Toerge agreed
Condition 17:
Commissioner Toerge noted that on Wednesday night the gathering starts at 6
p.m. In the Traffic Management study for construction it talks about during
construction off -site parking arrangement for that night also starts at 6 p.m. It
would seem to me it would have to start half an hour earlier so that people can
park and get to the venue on time. We need to change Wednesday night to 5:30
p.m. and the Traffic Management says 6 p.m.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the way this condition is written is if you are going to
implement the plan that is written plus any other changes the traffic engineer
comes up with before building permits. We will look to the traffic engineer to ask
for that correction. Is that acceptable? Do we need a condition?
Commissioner Eaton noted that there are no restrictions during the week at any
time per the Traffic Management Plan.
Mr. McKitterick noted that the Traffic Management Plan triggers at 800 persons or
larger events.
Mr. Campbell added that there may be a few items within the Traffic Management
file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \l209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 21 of 47
Plan that might not conform with what the Planning Commission is agreeing upon.
What staff will do is go back through these and work with the traffic engineer to
assure that these are revised to conform with the decisions made this evening.
Chairperson Tucker noted that when there are weekday events with more than
800 people concurrent occupancy then the Traffic Management Plan should be
applied. This would strike Sunday and indicate any day that there is that
expectation.
Commissioner Hawkins suggested that because this condition raises potential
conflicts between the conditions and the Traffic Management Plan (TMP), 1 would
propose to insert in this condition that to the extent that there is any inconsistencies
between the TMP and the conditions, that the conditions govern. On page 3 of the
TMP at the bottom of the page we are talking about a 400 space parking structure
and that has been reduced.
Chairperson Tucker noted we will pick this up that the TMP have the 400 be the
correct number and that if there are inconsistencies, I agree that the conditions
should prevail.
The Commission concurred.
Condition 18:
Krotee asked if there will be a pedestrian penetration in this fence at all?
Chairperson Tucker answered that there wasn't going to be one. There is to be no
vehicular or pedestrian access except for on emergency basis only.
Mr. Campbell noted that there were three other conditions that overlapped related
to the wall, penetration through the wall, and Fire Department requirements to
maintain proper access for this review and approval. Therefore, we created
conditions 16 and 18 based on subject.
Ms. Clauson added that the Fire Department has a manner of universal access to
certain gated locks. They would come up with a program where it could be limited
to fire access and wouldn't be something that would have other types of access.
Chairperson Tucker added, why don't we say, ".......Each access point shall not be
designed or otherwise used for non - emergency vehicular or pedestrian
egress/ingress to the site....:'
The Commission concurred.
Condition 19:
Mr. McKitterick noted that the Traffic Management Plan actually addresses the
entrance and exit onto St. Andrew's Road, so we request that this condition read,
'The St. Andrews Road driveway accessing the parking lot shall be closed except
for emergency access after 5:00 p.m. The applicant shall regulate the driveway
traffic in accordance with the City's approved Traffic Management Plan."
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 22 of 47
Mr. Campbell noted that the Commission had left it to staff to make a
recommendation on what to do with this driveway approach and we felt closing the
driveway after 5:00 p.m. would work, maintaining emergency access. The intent of
trying to regulate turning movements as requested, we felt it would be possible to
make a design change to that driveway that would make undesirable vehicular
turning movements fairly odd to do. It was not something that the City would like to
do, but it can be done with proper signage. The concept is to force traffic to come
from 15th Street.
Mr. Edmonston noted that this would be helpful if it was addressed in a condition.
The Church indicated it was in the plan, but that plan directs traffic from the south
to come up St. Andrews and enter at this point. If the Commission would rather
have that traffic across Cliff Drive to Irvine Avenue and then across 15th, I think it is
appropriate as a condition. That was my understanding of the intent of the
Commission to keep as much traffic off any of those local streets and utilize the
more major streets of Cliff and Irvine and 15th.
Commissioner Eaton noted he would like to see the condition stay in as it was the
Commission's intent to encourage the traffic pattern to come down from 17th to
15th to St. Andrews, rather than come up Cliff to Clay and then making two left
turns around 15th Street. I think as a practical matter that would happen, if you
have to make all those turns to get back down, I don't think they are going to use
Clay Street as much.
Chairperson Tucker asked if it was acceptable to the neighbors to leave this
condition in?
Mr. Krotee answered yes. He then verified that the wall on Clay Street would come
around on the St. Andrew's side. I believed it would, but there is nothing that
specifically says that in condition 16.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the plan that is submitted is where the wall will be
built. Why don't we just say, 'Construction along Clay Street as per the October
21, 2004 plan"
Mr. Campbell noted that per the plans, the walls do wrap around on both St.
Andrews Road and 15th Street. There is a dimension to the driveways, so it does
wrap around close to the driveways and those walls will only come up so as not to
create a site distance issue.
Chairperson Tucker noted, we will indicate that it will be constructed along Clay
Street and wrap around St. Andrew Road and 15th Street as per the October 24th,
2004 plan. The Commission concurred.
Condition 20:
Mr. McKitterick noted that low side, we are trying to maintain flexibility. We were
always willing to build 400 spaces but now, we are working into a different
parameter that is dependent on the amount of parking at the Newport Harbor High
School. We recognize the 600 parking spaces total, but we would like the flexibility
of the low side being 250 spaces. This hasn't been designed yet and the site plans
are in process. We clearly have to have the total and we are looking for some
file: //H:1Plancomm\200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 23 of 47
flexibility. The Commission is imposing a combination and not knowing what the
total combination looks like.
Chairperson Tucker noted that his feeling was that the more spaces in the 15th
Street lot, the better as it accommodates more kids and is more benefit to the
neighborhood. There were some Commissioners who did not feel comfortable with
only 250 spaces on the Church site.
Commissioner Eaton noted that he does not have a problem with lowering the
number of spaces on site as long as that doesn't turn around to allow greater
occupancy and the total 600 spaces are there, and as long as the standards are
met regarding parking widths.
Chairperson Tucker asked the neighbors if they had any concerns as this may end
up as a smaller parking structure but they have to end up with 600 total.
Mr. Stewart answered that there is a strong opposition to the parking structure
based on the belief that it is not going to be fully utilized. The neighbors would
support 250 on site at level.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the 250 would not fit on the one level so it is a
question of reducing the structure area.
Commissioner Selich noted he is okay with the 250 as long as we get the spaces
on the 15th Street lot.
commissioner Cole agreed.
Commissioner Toerge agreed.
Commission McDaniel agreed.
Commissioner Toerge noted that there had been discussion about access to the
youth center and the gymnasium underground. Were they going to be accessed
underground with the smaller structure, or could that not happen?
Mr. McKitterick noted that in preliminary design with his architect, he noted their
intent is to connect that as it is a benefit. We have not fully designed it yet, but
there will be that access maintained below.
Commissioner Toerge noted his concern of what happens after 30 years should
that parking agreement with the school terminate. It would be my recommendation
that unless adequate replacement parking can be identified, secured and approved
by the Planning Commission, that the occupancy limits of the Church would be
subject to the available parking on site multiplied by the ratio that we've agreed to
tonight. This would put the responsibility on the Church to obtain parking before
the other expires and then if they don't, their occupancy limits are adjusted
accordingly.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that 30 years is a long time to think that there is an
'expectation of something not changing and needing to be changed. I am
comfortable with the 30 years.
Commissioner Toerge responded that we are planning here, and that is what we
are intended to do, to look at the future. I think we create a potential for a problem
file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
30 years from now if they lose that parking and we have this expanded facility
there. I think it is responsible to try and address it and motivate the applicant to
replace it by having some pretty burdensome issues if they don't.
Chairperson Tucker noted that condition 21 specifically addresses that issue,
although I am looking at it now.
Commissioner Toerge answered that does not address the issue as it says it will,
"cease occupancy of the expansion area....."
Ms. Temple noted that it goes on to say, "...or the church shall modify its activities
to reduce overall parking demand to that commensurate with available off - street
parking... "
Chairperson Tucker noted that the condition as of today, says the use permit is
predicated upon the existing high school lot being available. If that lot is not
available, then they have to seek some type of amendment. I think that we really
didn't cover the situation as to what happens, it is clear that the expansion area
should not be occupied if they lose those extra parking spaces, but if they are
unable to park on the lot at all, then what happens with the base situation that they
are in today where they would lose their right to occupy the sanctuary in some
fashion. It is unclear so we may need to work on that language.
Page 24 of 47
Mr. Campbell agreed noting the existing condition would indicate that they shall file
for an amendment and would have to provide alternate parking so they would need •
to come back to the Planning Commission. That is the mechanism today. This
one here indicates they have to cease occupancy of the expansion and may file an
amendment to provide alternate parking.
Chairperson Tucker then read from the minutes that says, "In the event the
Church shall lose the opportunity to park in the high school parking lot, they shall
be required to come back to the City for an amendment to this use permit and
provide adequate off - street parking." We still have to deal with the issue of what
happens if they lose probably all? Why don't you go through that and come up
with some language, we will then give everyone a chance to review it. We are not
trying to change the deal on what happens with parking that presently exists under
the present use permit and I think we inadvertently almost did. Let's go on to 22
while we are trying to figure out how to deal with 21.
Mr. Campbell noted on condition 20, the parking space number of 315 at the
school and 250 on the site. 315 was taken from the plan that the District presently
is considering, obviously it is not an approved plan. The plan actually shows 317
spaces with widths, depths and aisleways that meet our standards fairly readily so
we felt that was an achievable number. If we keep the cap at 600 but lower the
number on site, and in essence if there is a static amount of area for this lot to be,
there is possibly the introduction of compact spaces to boost the number of spaces
there which would be something for the District to consider and approve, although
the City doesn't approve compact spaces, or the lot would have to expand and •
hence maybe the parking spaces may be further distant from the Church.
Chairperson Tucker asked what is being proposed? Is the 250 not an acceptable
number?
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 25 of 47
Mr. Campbell noted that staff believes on condition 20 that 315 is achievable. and
they are going to need to provide 280 to 285 spaces on site. So, lowering the
(number to some other number really provides the opportunity to put in compact
spaces at the school or increase the physical size of the parking lot provided there
is sufficient area, which would possibly put parking further distant. I would
recommend that we leave this condition as it is drafted.
Chairperson Tucker noted we should re -visit this as we did not have staffs input
when we voted on this.
Commissioner Hawkins stated that in those changes he was concerned that this
would be off loading parking to the school site and I agree that it is preferable to
have the parking on site. I would leave it as is.
Chairperson Tucker noted that staff has a legitimate point. Before you pull a
building permit, you will be here before us with a parking agreement. Everyone
needs to understand that at the point in time when all this is negotiated we are
going to see things that none of us are thinking about now. So, this one is a work
in progress and I would probably stick with staffs recommendation.
Commissioner McDaniel - still okay with 250.
Commissioner Selich - still okay with the 250 as long as we get the extra spaces
on the 15th Street lot.
Commissioner Toerge - pass.
Commissioner Cole - keep at 250 to allow the Church some flexibility.
Commissioner Eaton - okay with the 250
Mr. McKitterick noted there will be an agreement with the school district The timing
of that parking lot will need to be done in the summertime. The sequence of
events, there is an adequate land use protection for the community that our
occupancy will be targeted to available parking. We also have a condition, which is
the construction of that lot, because of the way the cycle works, start our
construction and limit our occupancy until such time as we are able to construct the
lot across the street, the community benefit will be achieved. To do it differently,
will be to have a tremendous burden on a cycle that does not seem appropriate
because there is an appropriate land use tool to mitigate and protect the
community in that timeframe. So, our request is that the timing be such that we
would be able to a) enter into an agreement; b) and until such time as that lot is
done, but if we can't do it because of the cycle, this condition seems to be not
appropriate because there is in fact an agreement that already exists.
Chairperson Tucker noted that we are all of the mind set that this project has to
deliver benefits that exceed what the detriments are, not only the project but the
existing project today. Getting the benefits there early and having the biggest lot
available the soonest, is a key feature. I'd like to see the 300 and some spaces
there. I am not unsympathetic to the dilemma with the Church, but as between
those two balancing the equities there, I would like to see that school lot in effect to
start delivering the benefits to the community first. I don't want to see a situation
first where we have to wait 18 months for the Church project to be done before we
can finally come back to deal with the school project. This is one where the
neighbors ought to be protected.
file: //H:1Plancomm\200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Mr. Stewart noted he agrees with these comments. The high school lot is not well
used today and using the street parking is more attractive. Taking away the
surface parking on the Church lot will only exacerbate the situation because people
are going to look to park more in the neighborhood because that is the easiest
place to park.
Commissioner Eaton noted the possibility of a delay due to the summer cycle and
potential budget inflation. He agreed that the 15th Street lot has to be in
existence. You can't have the construction on both of them at the same time.
Commissioner Cole noted that this condition is going to play itself out in more
areas than we are possibly thinking about today. I would like to allow some
language for the church to handle the timing, and allow them to come back to the
Planning Commission to propose some compromise on timing. We agree that the
15th street lot is in existence and should be able to provide parking at some point.
The Church will need some kind of flexibility to come back to us.
Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees with the Chair's comments.
Commissioner Selich noted he wouldn't be supporting this project if he did not
believe it wouldn't be improving the neighborhood. He supports the condition the
way that it is worded. You have to have that lot in place.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that whatever is needed to be done on the project,
he would hate to see this project go two years because we constrained them too
much. So not only the cost, but the impact to the neighborhood would go up. He
is concerned.that it could go into a two year cycle and would like to give the Church
the flexibility to start the project and work on it until it is done.
Commissioner Hawkins noted he would modify that last sentence to have a
requirement that they enter into an agreement with the district prior to issuance of a
building permit and also have a condition that one parking lot has to be in place at
all times, so that they can't take both parking facilities out at the same time. In
theory it -would allow for the 15th Street as is and then work on the church parking
lot so long as there was an agreement with the district to improve the 15th Street
lot.
Commissioners. Eaton, Cole and McDaniel agreed.
Chairperson Tucker asked staff to prepare wording for condition 20.
Ms. Clauson noted that the proposal is that one of the parking lots should be
available at all times. Did the Commission have a thought on the concept that the
condition that says that the occupancy shall be limited to the availability of parking?
Chairperson Tucker noted that there would be a whole series of occupancy limits
that would have to apply based on our general occupancy limitations.
Ms. Clauson stated that those occupancy limitations would apply to this?
Chairperson Tucker noted they would apply in all cases. That is the way the
conditions are set up.
file.//H:\Plancomm\2004\1209.htm
Page 26 of 47
0
•
•
01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 27 of 47
Ms. Clauson noted she wanted to check that was the intent during the construction
process.
'Chairperson Tucker noted that there was a Construction Traffic Management Plan,
which would actually be the instrument that applies.
Commissioner Selich noted that the way this condition has been re -done, we
haven't given much incentive, assuming this gets approve by the Council, to
actually get that lot constructed over the coming summer. Most likely by the time
they get their plans done, they are not going to be able to start the major
construction until fall anyway. We have taken out what incentive there was to get
that lot done this summer and get all the stuff that has to be done with the school
district and the plans for that done before the summer starts. Doing plans for
parking lots is much simpler than the type of plans they are going to be doing for
the church facility. It seems to me that we have taken away some of the incentive
to get that lot done.
Ms. Clauson added that if they chose, by the development times under the
proposed amendment, to start the project on the on -site parking and then it wasn't
completed in time by summer time when the opportunity would come to do the off -
site 15th Street parking it might cause, if they can't be both out of commission at
the same time, a whole year delay getting to that 15th Street parking.
Commissioner Hawkins, referring to Commission Selich's comments, noted that
was an excellent condition providing the incentive; however, the church has been
joperating for 25 years without a written agreement. What this does is provide the
incentive to get that agreement. That is not going to be an easy chore and is going
to be a milestone, to get that written agreement.
Mr. McKitterick noted the applicant is very motivated. He then discussed monies
and incentives.
Chairperson Tucker noted he would ask staff to come up with language for
condition 20. The church suggested some limits on the occupancy issues.
Mr. Campbell noted he has drafted the following condition to ensure that either of
the parking lots are available during construction. He noted he would have to draft
verbiage regarding occupancy levels during that time period.
Ms. Temple added that three locations are identified to be used for parking during
the construction phases. A total of 450 spaces, which includes both the 15th and
16th Streets lots at Newport Harbor High; 50 spaces at Lighthouse Coastal
Community Church on Monday through Friday; and the bank site will have 200
spaces on Sundays and up to 100 spaces Wednesday and Saturday evenings.
Including those numbers within whatever flexible occupancy limits at the one space
for every three seat occupancy, then we can work that. It would be based
whatever they actually have available to them at the time they are holding those
services. Perhaps we can say that the occupancy is limited based on the one per
three based on all of the occupancy during construction per the construction
Management Plan.
Chairperson Tucker asked for the verbiage for condition 21.
file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Ms. Temple then read: "In the event that the Church should lose the right to use
parking within the 15th Street parking lot at Newport Harbor High School, the
Church shall immediately modify its activity to reduce overall parking demand
to that commensurate with available off-street parking, and may file for an
amendment to this use permit to provide alternate adequate and comparable
convenient off - street parking at a separate location." What that would be is have
an immediate adjustment of their activities from the moment they lose it plus they
have the opportunity to seek out through amendment, other opportunities for off -site
parking.
Chairperson Tucker asked the neighbors if that was okay?
Mr. Stewart answered yes.
Commissioner Toerge suggested one change. In the event that the church should
lose the right to use parking on the 15th Street parking lot at Newport Harbor High
School, the church shall immediately modify activities and occupancy....; which is
really the key point. Everyone agreed.
Condition 22.
Mr. Krotee noted they are interested in adding some type of parking count and time
explanation when the expected peak was.
Page 28 of 47
Mr. Stewart added that another concern of the neighbors was how this was going to .
be handled in terms of monitoring. The neighbors don't want to be counting, so
someone else who is less vested, , needs to be doing the counting. The basic
concept is to have a report compiled, reviewed and audited by some independent
person.
Chairperson Tucker that if the neighborhood complains, staff goes to the data and
ascertains whether or not the conditions are being complied with.
Mr. Stewart answered that people are going to have questions on the data itself
unless you require them to hire a consultant to do the calculations.
Chairperson Tucker noted staff will verify the data and any inconsistencies.
Commissioner Hawkins suggested some type of electronic monitoring to count the
number of vehicles. The problem would be installing a counting device on property
that the church does not own and maybe that could be a condition of the
agreement. You have some sort of traffic counter installed at the entrance of the
church parking lot and the school parking lot and that is reported, as well as the
church can, personal attendance.
Ms. Wood noted that the conditions are structured toward personal occupancy,
there is nothing in the conditions that limit the number of vehicles, or says a certain
minimum of vehicles need to park here or there. So I am not sure what we would
do with that data, even if we could collect it.
Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if anyone was in favor of changing the
language on condition 22?
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004\1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 29 of 47
Commissioner Toerge : this is one of the clear benchmark issues of the entire
potential approval of the project. The most significant issue is occupancy. I would
�sk the applicant, how would you do this, how would you determine this? This is
n evolving several hour issue. I don't understand how at all you can comply with
this and how you can actually do this. Can you explain how you can do this?
Mr. Smith, answered that our best attempt at doing this is, we have in place, 'event
management' software, which lists every room and schedule every day, 24 hours a
day. That software provides both for an estimated occupancy and an actual
occupancy. We envision when we do room reservation simply allocating a number
of spaces to the estimated occupancy and periodically evaluating "that estimated
occupancy to the actual occupancy, particularly with the large events. We are not
going to count children walking across the campus, but we can tell you we have a
school program and there are 135 kids registered at any given time, or there is a
meeting going on in a particular room, which consists of sessions. Therefore they
are allocated 40 spaces. We will assure that the occupancy limits stay within the
guidelines and we will do that on the basis of allocating spaces initially using our
estimated occupancy and thereby testing it periodically with the accuracy of actual
counts, particularly with the large groups.
Commissioner Toerge noted the condition states you will monitor the daily
attendance and tell us what it is, not that you are below the limits. I have sincere
doubts of the accuracy of that ability on a multiple hour operation that starts at 7 or
8 in the morning and might end at 7, 8 or 10 at night.
Tucker noted we need to come up with instructions to staff or leave it
way it is.
Commissioner Selich suggested we leave the way it is written. I sympathize with
the concerns raised, but you can't make it so difficult to implement and achieve.
This is not exact science, and this is the best we can do with what we have. I don't
think there is any practical way to go beyond that.
Discussion followed on the software usage, description of monitoring with that
software, consistency of occupancy limits and reporting status. Staff was
instructed to modify the language on condition 22 to come up with the detail that is
required.
Following a discussion on the proposition to come up with some sort of after
construction program monitoring a straw vote was taken.
Commissioner McDaniel noted there was adequate enforcement in place to
address the issue.
Commissioner Selich noted he would not be in favor of this. We have only done
this in situations that are not working out and the Commission would put further
restrictions on the use. In this instance, we are already giving them the
authorization of the use of the parking, we are not coming back to put further
(restrictions. Might be some interesting information, but I don't think we should be
putting this into the use permit.
Commissioners Toerge and Cole concurred with Commissioner Selich's
file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 30 of 47
comments.
Chairperson Tucker concurs with Commissioner Selich's comments. si
Condition 23:
Mr. McKitterick noted that there will be some times when meetings will break out
into the foyer. This should be okay because we have a total occupancy limit for the
site. There will be times when the kids have to sit on the floor.
Mr. Stewart noted it was the noise issue and part of the idea was to have
everything indoors. 1 think part of the motion from the church in terms that they
were bringing a lot of these activities indoors.
Commissioner Toerge suggested no change.
Commissioner Hawkins agreed no change.
Commissioner McDaniel agreed no change.
Commissioner Selich agreed no change.
At the applicant's notation, all of the conditions from condition 24 up to condition 42,
they agreed with and offered no changes. The neighbors also agreed.
Condition 43:
Mr. McKitterick noted we would like to say, "If Newport Harbor High School
students are given a permit or, are allowed to park in the St. Andrew's site during
school, the Church will establish the parking regulations and may revoke a
student parking permit at will."
The neighbors had no objection.
Commissioner Hawkins noted there are liability issues and the church is
responsible for any negative issue. What are those negative issues?
Chairperson Tucker noted that the church is responsible for anything that happens
on their property.
Commissioner Selich noted he is okay with the church's language.
Commissioner McDaniel agreed.
Commissioner Toerge agreed.
Commissioner Cole agreed.
Conditions 44 - 52, no changes.
Condition 53:
Mr. McKitterick noted that the time of the announcement needs to be done during
services. We ask to delete at the conclusion of and say during. Everyone agreed.
Condition 76 - the number changes from 280 to 250. Everyone agreed.
f ►le: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any other comments?
P- r. Krotee, referring to condition 22, the issue of parking count needs to be re-
addressed. A pivotal ratio has been made and used and not gathering the data that
would substantiate those facts would be a mistake.
Chairperson Tucker, are you suggesting they count cars on their lot as well as cars
that are on the school lot?
Mr. Krotee answered that at the time of the perceived occupancy, I think they
should know the peak combined parking.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that on Sunday that may make sense, but if there
are other things going on in the neighborhood, how do you know that the car
parked there the people are actually attending the church site? During the school
days, that would be impossible.
Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if there was a desire to see a change
on condition 22?
Commissioner McDaniel, I don't think we need to make changes. If we see there is
a problem, then maybe code enforcement can be involved. It has been worked out
fairly well so far, let's wait to see if there is a problem.
Commissioner Cole - the data is probably valuable but we have already made a
Gcision based on the Code as it relates to the ratio. To get the information to
refute the ratio we have agreed to tonight, I am not sure does anyone any good
since all the conditions are based on occupancy. So, I am not sure that we need to
change anything.
Commissioner Eaton - I think the data that would be valuable, would be the
differential between the early morning and during services parking on the streets,
so I would like to see that monitored occasionally. I am not so worried about the
on -site and off -site lots.
Commissioner Hawkins - the parking survey is a good idea, but the whole point is
we want to make sure that we are keeping the parking off the streets.
Commissioner Toerge - the more information we can get, the better. I recognize
what Commissioner Cole's concept is, but I would like to have the information
collected so that we have the opportunity to act on it particularly as this is a
dynamic institution. It is not going to remain this way forever, and in the years to
come, that information will be very valuable.
Commissioner Selich - I am in favor of leaving it the way it is.
Chairperson Tucker - I am in favor of leaving it the way it is, that is a majority of the
Commission.
Mr. Campbell noted that on condition 22 - there was a consensus to add the hourly
concurrent occupancy. Add a sentence after the first sentence that would read,
"The monitoring reports shall indicate total concurrent occupancy on an
Page 31 of 47
file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 32 of 47
hourly basis each day during the reporting period." This reporting would be the
sum total of the occupancy, not by room.
Mr. Smith asked if this could be the maximum occupancy per night and per day,
that is what we envisioned, not a 24 hour daily report.
Chairperson Tucker answered that we need data that matches up with the
occupancy as the occupancy timeframe shifts.
Mr. Smith answered that our daytime occupancy is 1200 between the hours of 7
a.m. and 6 p.m. and I would say we would give you the maximum occupancy for
that time period for that day. Or, do you want every single hour within that 7a.m. to
6 p.m. time frame?
Mr. Campbell noted that would be sufficient. If the peak occupancy was 1050, that
is the number we want to get. We would assume that the other time periods were
less than that. In my mind that would be good, we shouldn't have a sheet of paper
for each day of the week, we would have a much more manageable report to look
at. If we are experiencing problems, we would like the flexibility to go to the hourly
so that we can delve into how things are being done.
Chairperson Tucker directed staff to work on that language. At the election of the
Planning Director, the reports will be hourly or however you want to word that.
Ms. Temple noted that we do like the details as sufficient as established by the
Planning Director because if we are getting reports and also complaints, I would
like to have the opportunity to enhance those reporting requirements to address
specific issues that may come up through time.
Chairperson Tucker agreed to do exactly that, this will be a work in progress as we
figure this out.
Condition 20:
Mr. Campbell noted the last sentence to read: ...... Furthermore, either the 151h
Street parking lot at Newport Harbor High School or the on-site parking lot
shall be available for use by the Church at all times during construction.
Occupancy of the project site during construction shall be limited to the
number of on -site and offsite parking spaces that the Church has the right to
use pursuant to the approved Traffic Management Plan for construction times
three people. In essence, if they have 400 parking spaces multiplied by 3, there
would have 1200 people.
All agreed to this language.
Mr. McKitterick, referring to Condition 14: insert , "......the majority of other staff
shall park within the......" There are some senior ministers and others, that will park
there, so we would like to have that flexibility. •
Mr. Stewart asked how many would that be? If you are talking about a couple of
people, then it is no big deal; however, if you are talking about a staff of 50, then all
of a sudden you are impacting parking a little bit more.
file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 33 of 47
Commissioner Selich asked for a number of people not a percentage.
IIIAr. McKitterick answered that they are asking for the flexibility to have a certain
percentage of staff still park on site. In all events, having the ability for staff to have
some parking on site, we will comply with the Traffic Management plan and all
other parking requirements. This is an extra condition for certain people on staff to
have the flexibility to park on site, because that is what they should be able to do.
Commissioner Hawkins proposed a percentage for that (90 %) park at the non -
preferred parking site, allowing only 10% to park on site.
Commissioner McDaniel asked, how many people are you talking about?
Mr. Smith answered if we assume these participants are the choir and the
ministers participating in the worship service, there would be less than 120 persons
that are involved in this particular qualification. The intent is to encourage people
to park across the street but what I can't do is guarantee that everybody parks
across the street.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that 80% was okay.
Commissioner Hawkins stated 90 %.
Commissioner Selich stated 90 %.
IMs. Wood asked how staff will ever know how many staff people or choir members
or whatever they have at any given point in time, to know what 80 or 90% equates
to so we would have any hope of enforcing this?
Chairperson Tucker answered he did not know.
Ms. Wood added that if there are complaints, the neighbors will expect us to
enforce this.
Ms. Temple noted that this condition needs to be re- worked. I agree that the
church wants to encourage that people use that lot before they would elect to use
the street, and I am not sure how to make changes to that, if you hold up this one,
we can see if we can come up with different wording.
Chairperson Tucker noted he would like to move onto the next portion. He asked
the Church to come forward to make a presentation on its claims of benefits to the
community. He will then ask the neighbors to comment on this as well.
Mr. McKitterick, representing St. Andrew's Church, noted the following:
. The Church has been at this current since 1950 and has been a part of this
neighborhood.
. The Church is requesting an expansion of 21,741 square feet to improve the
facility to better serve the community.
. The use of the site will not significantly change and the modification is
file : //H:\Plancomm\200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 34 of 47
intended to better facilitate existing programs offered by the Church.
• The need for parking on the streets and noise are reduced.
•
• The intensity of use on the entire campus is reduced.
• There are significant operational restrictions on the entire church.
• The proposed campus improvements create a public benefit.
• The Commission has considered pros and cons and mediated the differences
and required identification of those things that are important and have
required compromises.
• The church has reduced its original request by 40 %.
• The conditions need to be based upon land use issues and have a legitimate
compelling public interest.
• There will be no increase in sanctuary seats or the capacity in the sanctuary
or the chapel.
• The current CUP regulates the fixed seating.
• Under the DER the project impact after mitigations are less than significant.
• The gym use will be primarily for youth church activities.
• The traffic impact is less than significant and the existing roadway network
and intersections have adequate capacity to accommodate the minor
additional trips.
• The total peak hour trips for the project are 15 for the a.m. and 15 for the
p.m.; the total daily trips are 198.
• The nature and intent of the current use of the Church will not change with
the new project.
• We established a plan to provide all its parking on site that has since been
modified.
• The main concerns identified by the neighbors and the Planning Commission
are traffic generation, noise/light, parking accommodations and project size
and intensity of use.
• Referring to a Power Point presentation, he then discussed the operational
restrictions posed in the conditions.
•
. Continuing, he then noted for the record, that there is no parking agreement
today. However, they are willing to pursue it for the benefit of the community.
. He then asked that the Commission endorse the revised proposal of the
file: //H:1P1ancormn1200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
applicant.
Comment was opened.
Mr. Don Krotee, President of the Newport Heights Improvement Association,
noted:
• He gave a brief description of other municipalities and their conditional use
permits.
• Community benefits from this development.
• Parking requirements and ratios.
• Asked that the Commission deny this project.
Mr. Dunlap, Cliff Haven resident, noted:
. The thoroughness of the project presentation.
. There is no other Church that sits in a neighborhood such as this
. This project is the most intense religious use in a residential neighborhood in
the City.
. He then discussed the dollar amount for the proposed project.
. He asked if this proposed project was the best for the community.
Rob Craig, citizen, noted:
. Witnessed the first expansion.
. Does not agree that all the facts have been discussed.
. On Sunday mornings there are groups of people using the high school
facilities.
. His problems with driveway access on Sunday mornings.
Robert Coldron, citizen, noted:
. He opposes any expansion of the Church that would add any square footage
and asked that this be denied.
. Referring to his letter of December 7th, he noted that this expansion would
not benefit the community.
. He asked that the Commission listen to the neighbors and deny this project.
. He then noted a survey that he had done of parking.
file://H:1Plancomm1200411209.htm
Page 35 of 47
01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 36 of 47
. Occupancy is a key issue and asked that a parking survey be done to
determine the ratio.
Nancy Kitty, citizen, is opposed and noted that the neighborhood does not consider
this expansion a benefit to the community.
Mr. Stewart, citizen, noted the detriments to the neighborhood of the increased
traffic, parking ratios, and noise. The existing conditions are not great. By limiting
the size, you create a limit on occupancy. He asked that the Commission listen to
the neighbors who are there in the area and are the most directly impacted and
deny this project.
John Sturgess, resident of Cliff Haven, noted that there is a need to preserve and
protect his life style. He proceeded to note the Castaways, Balboa Bay Club and
the Taco Bell along Mariners' Mile and the qualities of scope, density and time of
use issues. This proposed project and use of property in the community effect the
life style of the community and asked that this be denied.
Maryann Towersy, resident of Kings Place, noting her personal experiences with
the Church, asked that this project be denied because of the change of the
character of the community. The neighborhood does not stand to benefit from this
expansion. She asked that the Commission protect the neighborhood and deny the
project.
Jim Conley, resident of Pirate Road, noted this project is not in the best interest of
the neighborhood and asked that this project be denied as currently proposed.
Jim Karmak, Cliff Drive resident, noted his opposition to this project for similar
reasons as stated.
Jan Vandersloot, resident of Newport Heights, noted that based on the testimony of
the community tonight, they have asked that you deny this project. Signs in the
neighborhood and published letters have asked that this project be denied as the
community does not see this as a benefit to them. He asked that this project be
denied.
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Tucker asked about the language in condition 14.
Mr. Campbell noted the entire condition as re- drafted should read:
"During worship services or special events with over 800 participants in attendance,
the Church shall direct event participants such as choir members and other staff to
park in the Newport Harbor High School 15th Street parking lot to the extent that
they are allowed to do so under the terms of an agreement with the Newport Mesa
School District. Additionally, other attendees shall be directed to park in this lot
provided for in the approved Traffic Management plan for the expansion project as
required in other conditions of approval."
Ms. Temple noted this is difficult from a monitoring perspective and there may be
some good reason why some of those people may, even though they would prefer
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \l209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 37 of 47
to be directed to 15th Street, really should be allowed to park on site for a variety of
reasons.
'Chairperson Tucker noted that this condition verbiage needs more work, so
condition 14 will stay as is. What we are trying to do is to allow the flexibility for
people to park on the lot because there is room.
Mr. McKitterick noted as drafted, the language is appropriate and this approach is
satisfactory. His objection before was the requirement for a development
agreement, instead this essentially says there will be a development agreement
required if there is a vote at the Council prior to the agreement with the School
District. We are faced with a challenge and we are going to do our best. This is an
appropriate method, and we agree with this approach.
All parties agreed.
Commissioner Selich he is ready to take action as he is satisfied that the
conditions have been worked to the maximum extent that can be done.
Commissioner McDaniel noted the he has listened and read everything that had
been sent to him, met with people, and he believes this is a benefit to the
community.
Commissioner Toerge noted:
. The role of the neighborhood church has evolved over time and what once
was a sanctuary used for general services has evolved to family counseling
and youth recreation seven day a week operations.
. The question before us is how do we balance the burden of that evolution
and how it. affects the community.
• The neighborhood has grown. Most of the expansion of the residential area
has been done within established codes and /or with modifications or
variances.
• No residential property in the neighborhood had requested nor received a
General Plan Amendment to enable them to increase their density or use
beyond what is permitted by current Code.
. This project requires a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to an
existing Use Permit and a significantly different planning process than the
expansion of the homes in the neighborhood.
. I am certainly a property rights advocate; however, I understand that
property rights in any civilized society are conditional. Property rights are
conditioned by General Plan provisions, by Zoning limitations, title
restrictions, recorded special land use restrictions, density and height
limitations. These are all tools that enable individuals and companies to own
and operate real estate without unjustly impacting the rights of other property
owners.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \l209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 38 of 47
•
These property restrictions and limitations, in my opinion, foster harmony in
the neighborhood and in a community in general.
I
•
Through my participation in these conditions, I struggle with the conflict that
see that such a project is being built, yet they are restricted from using it.
•
The Church is proposing to build significantly more space to accommodate a
growing sector of their congregation while at the same time agreeing to
significantly limit its use. It's a little like enabling a homeowner to build an
extra bedroom with the promise that they won't use it if the other bedrooms
are being used.
•
This planning body regularly places use restrictions on restaurants,
nightclubs and other commercial operations but in this case where a General
Plan Amendment is required, buildings will be demolished, new buildings built
and tens of millions of dollars are proposed to be spent. It feels to me that
we are squeezing this expanded facility onto a site with a use limitation shoe
horn.
•
Too much expansion and too many conditions, and in my observation, it
doesn't fit.
•
The monitoring places a tremendous burden on the church, on staff, the City
and the residents as well.
•
I am not comfortable with the parking mechanism we put forward, it is
•
inadequate.
•
I can't support this project in face of such opposition from the neighborhood.
I have participated as best I can in creating conditions because it is entirely
possible that the project does get approved here and at the City Council
level. At that location, I would like to have these conditions been reviewed
and my input brought forth.
Commissioner Cole noted:
•
This has been a most difficult issue.
•
After listening to all the testimony, I believe the proposed expansion with the
detailed mitigation and conditions proposed will result in a better environment
for the community.
•
The Church has made a good case for need and they want to expand the
facility by about 20% that is primarily for a youth center. They are not
increasing the site and not setting precedent as it relates to density or FAR.
•
The EIR has concluded that there are no significant impacts with mitigation.
•
These conditions can be enforced and need to be clearly written. Staff has
done this.
•
Churches are a fundamental part of the community as a whole and St.
file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 39 of 47
Andrew's Church has been a good community member for over 50 years.
. I believe that this is a reasonable request and I therefore will be in support of
this project.
Commissioner Eaton asked about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act that does assert constraints on cities in dealing with churches and
particularly church worship services. It has not been discussed here. He asked if
this project is approved with the conditions does the City Attorney see any problem
with that approval in terms of the RLUIPA? If it was denied outright, would that
create problems with the RLUIPA?
Ms. Clauson answered no. if the Commission wanted to deny this outright, I would
want to have the reasons and statements for such a denial be given with the
direction that staff come back with a resolution to provide for those reasons of
denial.
Commissioner Eaton noted:
. The Church is planning to grow, as the limits they have asked for
demonstrate that.
. The impositions we have imposed on the Church are extensive and are
warranted by the very intense use of the property that is already there and
being proposed to be increased somewhat.
. Those conditions are warranted on such an intense use and such a
constrained site.
. The parking ratio in the Code is not adequate in my opinion, but we have
been advised that we have to live with the parking ratios in the Code so that
leaves us with a yes or no.
. I have heard a lot of complaints about the current situation.
. So the question is does approval improve the current situation in the
community?
. Many citizens tonight have said no, but this decision lays in the hands of the
Council members.
. He is in support of the project.
Commissioner Hawkins noted:
. This is a most challenging project.
. There is a net benefit of the project as proposed, which is the circulation
issues with the wall and increased parking.
. He supports the project.
file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 40 of 47
Chairperson Tucker noted:
• The project on balance will be more beneficial than detrimental.
•
• It might get approved at the Planning Commission level and it might be
approved at the Council level, but I suggest that it would be the right thing for
St. Andrew's to do is not build the project they way it is presently constituted.
• In my mind, there is an issue that is out there that has festered for a long
time. The Church could have done a lot of things over a long period of time
to be a little more neighborly, and they haven't done that. They have created
a lot of animosity and acrimony and so much anger that I think it is virtually
impossible for the neighbors to see any benefit out of this project.
• I don't think this is a healthy situation. I am not sure what the urgency is for
the Church to proceed with this project at this time.
• If the Church has the approvals, it will have the upper hand in any
discussions that go on, but then if they agreed to modify the project from that
point, it would be a more magnanimous gesture and the right thing to do in
my mind.
• I support this project because it meets the criteria that I have stated all along,
but I really don't think this project as designed should be built by the Church
because of the past history and the problems that exist in the neighborhood.
I think the right thing would be to discuss this further with the neighbors.
•
Commissioner Selich noted:
• He supports the project reluctantly.
. The neighborhood will be better off with the additional parking.
• The Church could accommodate all of the activities and programs they have
in a smaller square foot print.
• Because of the nature of the square footage and not having concurrent
occupancy of the square footage, it has forced us to come up with this rather
long list of conditions, which I think we all realize are going to be difficult to
enforce over the long haul. It is up to the Church to have a lot of integrity
over future years to operate in accordance with these conditions.
• I support this with the package that we have put together the neighborhood is
going to be better off in the long run, but I still feel that the Church could have
come up with a plan that accommodated their activities in less square
footage.
Chairperson Tucker noted we have to take care of the EIR first. He asked if there
were any last comments or concerns on the EIR.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich that we recommend that the City
Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and that we further find that there
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
4
4
Page 41 of 47
is no substantial change to the Environmental Impact Report that will be necessary
and that we determine that recirculation is not necessary.
yes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to recommend to the City Council that
they approve the Use Permit and the Zone change in the General Plan
Amendment subject to the findings and conditions in the terms of the Resolution
that have been handed out this evening with all the changes discussed during the
course of this hearing.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
Toerge
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Chairperson Tucker then asked that a report of the Planning Commission of some
variety be sent forth to the City Council that recommends to the City Council that
the Council not act on this matter until the School District Agreement has been
approved by the Planning Commission.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker that we recommend that the Council,
because the school agreement is an integral part of this particular approval and is
ital, have the Planning Commission approve that agreement before the Council
cts.
Commissioner Eaton asked about the Permit Streamlining Act and if it applies to
this project if the timing wasn't correct.
Ms. Clauson answered that the Permit Streamlining Act does not apply to the Zone
change or the General Plan Amendment, it only applies to the Use Permit. There
isn't an issue on the Use Permit because the Use Permit can not be approved
without the General Plan Amendment, otherwise it would conflict with the General
Plan.
Chairperson Tucker affirmed that if the Council wanted to they could certify the EIR
and later vote to deny the project if they so chose.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
SUBJECT: Circle Residence (PA2003 -006)
ITEM NO.6
3415 Ocean Boulevard
PA2003 -006
Request for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit that
allowed a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and
Continued to
subterranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard
0110612005
setback. The applicant is requesting changes to the building design that include an
file: //H:\Plancomm\200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planing Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 42 of 47
increase to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The applicant
does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to waive the provision the Planning
Commission not take up new items for consideration after 10:30 p.m.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and Hawkins
•
Noes:
Eaton
Absent:
McDaniel
Abstain:
None
•
Brion Jeannette, architect for the project noted the following:
•
This project was originally approved by the Planning Commission at 6,100
square feet; the proposal is now a 4,900 square feet, three level project with
a roof top project already approved by the Commission.
•
The house is lower relative to the street elevation.
•
The basement level has been removed.
•
The proposed project meets the newly adopted LCP in that the protection of
the coastal bluff and following the pattern of development issue.
•
There were questions of issues of stringline. stringline is difficult to define
and connect the dots when you look at development on a bluff like this.
•
You have to look at the configuration of each of the homes relative to the
whole stretch, not just neighbor to neighbor, which is why I believe the LCP
discussed the issue of following the predominant patter of development
rather than the common stringline definition.
•
He then presented and explained his exhibits that consisted of view
simulations down the shoreline taken on both sides of his client's home.
•
He explained that they are looking to increase the size of the house and
come out as far as they can.
•
He noted that the houses along the bluff meander and the Tabak residence
(two doors down), and the house adjacent to it is out further by 5 to 7 feet,
the decks in some cases go beyond that; they all hit the ground at different
elevations at different distances from the street.
•
Coastal Commission language. defines the stringline as the furthest most
portion of the structure at that adjacent comer, not enclosed, not defined in
any way other than the structure holding up whatever is there, which would
be the comer holding the deck up above it.
•
The City has no definition of stringline.
•
There is sort of a general line of development, which is how we designed the
project.
file : //H:\Plancomm1200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 43 of 47
We have gone out further with the center portion of a cantilevered deck that
extends further than the house but at a point where it does not affect
anybody's view.
. The view is the'view in front of you.'
. It was important to not impact the next door neighbor's view of Inspiration
Point, so we made sure that nothing extends too far into that area that would
interfere with this view.
. That was how we established the design. He then referred to the exhibit and
noted the points used for the stringline.
Chairperson Tucker asked about the stringline and how it has been used.
Mr. Campbell noted that staff hasn't used this stringline other than in the prior
application, which was for the Ensigns. In that application, the project architect
designed the project with stringlines in mind and he drew them in a different
method. We utilized those stringlines to analyze the project and the project was
approved based on those stringlines and in fact it was conditioned and altered to
be in compliance with those stringlines.
Staff does not have a definition of stringline established at this point in time. We
have a policy in the new LCP, which has been adopted by the Council, but yet to
be certified by the Coastal Commission, that establishes policy based on the
predominant line of development Staff has not set up where we are drawing that
line. A discussion of that policy is in the staff report for the Commission's
information. The applicant's proposal does not seem to be that far beyond the
predominant line of development. ' It is our opinion of the plans that the plan does
come out a little bit further on the bluff face than the prior approved project. It is on
an area that has been altered and within those policies there is discretion that the
Commission can exercise to evaluate whether it is consistent with those policies.
Again, those policies have been adopted by the Council, but not certified and not
formally adopted to be applied to a project today. This is the first project that staff
is looking at the stringline issue.
This project exceeds the prior variance approval, which is why we are here. The
overall volume of the house as viewed from Ocean Boulevard is comparable to that
prior approval. It is really the down slope 24 -foot height off the natural grade that is
being exceeded here. In that respect, the project does not affect any public views
given the positions of the houses next to it. It would have an affect on the adjacent
properties more than on the public views. If you follow the predominant line of
development, staff believes that this project can be approved.
Commissioner Eaton noted that besides the height variance, the applicant is
seeking to modify the prior condition that did refer to the stringlines. What
stringlines would you apply if that condition was not modified?
Mr. Campbell answered that we would be looking at a stringline similar to the way
the applicant has drawn on the new plans, which is from the furthest extent to the
adjacent properties. Referring to the exhibit, he pointed them out. He noted that
the house does fit within the stringline shown. The difference between this
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 44 of 47
stringline and what the Ensigns had drawn was Ensign used the comers of both
houses. The house proposed by the applicant comes out 4 to 5 feet further based
on the new stringlines. The decks, which are cantilevered on the upper levels, •
come out farther than these stringlines and hence the need to amend the prior
conditions that require the project to comply with a stringline. There were two
stringlines on the previous plan, one for the residence and one for the decks.
(referring to the exhibit he pointed them out) The house is coming out four feet
further on one side than the prior stringline for the house; and the decks are
coming out even further, but I don't know the exact distance.
He went on the say that the basis of this policy relates to the alteration of the
natural terrain and discussed reasoning for stringlines, cantilevered decks, and
policy language.
At Commission request, Mr. Jeannette showed the distances of depth down the
hillside the new house would be. He noted that the Butterfield house has a five
foot retaining wall before it hits the ground. He further explained that the Building
Department has identified that the three level building would need to have two exits
out of the upper floor, put a five foot retaining wall at the base of the building to limit
it to a two story basement concept. The only reason we are touching the ground is
to meet the Building Department's requirement to not have to provide a second exit
at the upper level.
Commissioner Cole asked if this constitutes a special privilege that wouldn't be
detrimental to the adjacent property owners and what kind of findings would have
to be made to determine it would be a special privilege?
Mr. Campbell answered that the proposed house will be comparable to homes on
either side. This property couldn't be developed in a consistent fashion or a very
similar fashion as the adjacent properties so we felt that the subject property would
not enjoy the same privileges as their neighbors.
Public comment was opened.
Lynn Butterfield, resident of 3401 Ocean Boulevard, noted her home on the
exhibit. She stated that the homes line up almost identical by design and good
planning. The neighbors are aware of the views. The newer projects dig down in
order to get more footage as the previous owner had wanted to do as well as
encroach into the front yard setback, which is 10 feet. This had all been approved
with a prior variance and modification. We all have similar contours to our
properties. There is a small curve so they are all a little bit off, but all the homes
adhere to a stringline. The new proposal increases the project towards the ocean.
The home will be bigger in volume and matches to our decks and from there he is
proceeding to go out further 7, 9 and 11 feet with decking past our home, which will
definitely impact and infringe our views. The views are taken from Inspiration Point
and from the beach as well as Ocean Boulevard. It would set a precedent if this
application is approved. We strongly oppose this application to amend the
variance. She noted her concern of view infringement and the extensive
excavating that will take piece will not undermine her home.
Don Kazarian, 3412 Ocean Boulevard above the subject property asked if the roof
top deck will exist or not. He was told it will be gone.
file: //H:1P1ancomm1200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 45 of 47
Public comment was closed.
son Tucker asked how wide the applicant's house and the subject
house is?
Mr. Campbell referring to the staff report, discussed the depths of the
developments as measured from the front property line.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that a fair amount of time was spent going over the
previous application. This looked like the way it was going to be done, so that was
the reason why we approved the Ensign project the way it was. This change, for
me, would set a different precedent. I am concerned about it jetting out, I am
concerned about the next person who wants to build and I am certainly concerned
about the Butterfiields. I am not going to support this, we did this once before and it
worked fine and I would like to stick with what we did before and let everybody
know we are consistent.
Chairperson Tucker noted that we seem to have different ways of computing a
stringline and we never really looked at any hard fashion whether the way it was
done in the first place was the proper way to do it. I am kind of tom about what is
the proper way to do it.
Commissioner Selich noted he agrees with Commissioner McDaniel. I would be in
favor of supporting what we did with the Ensign residence.
lCommissioner Toerge noted that this project is consistent with the previous project
except that this is smaller. One complete floor is eliminated. The stringline
determination is anything but certain and is not a clear cut policy and our LCP,
while it may have been adopted, is not certified. I am not sure the procedure
whereby the stringline is interpreted is clear. The location of the bluff is a convex
curve, so it is clear to me that this house is going to stick out further than the
Butterfield home. To me, this is a much smaller home with less excavation of the
slope is clearly what we are looking to do in our community. I would approve this
project.
Commissioner Cole noted he concurred that based on what has been presented
with the size of the project is important and does not see the significant impact to
the adjacent property owners. I agree with staff and recommend for approval.
Commissioner Eaton noted he agrees with Commissioner McDaniel's comments.
Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the stringline and the width of the
proposed project. He agrees with Commissioner McDaniel's comments.
Chairperson Tucker asked do any of those improvements pertain to the variance?
The variance request is for a height variance and the modification request is for a
setback encroachment. I am not sure how the stringline concept got into the Iasi
variance discussion, but it is not before us tonight. The issue is would granting the
variance cause harm to the adjacent residences. We need to make a finding that
granting a variance would not be. harmful. We have a set of conditions for
approval and a set of findings for denial. The denial side is in the majority.
file: //RAPlancomm\200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
Page 46 of 47
Mr. Jeannette noted that the concept of the stringline and the way you are
interpreting it has only to do with the comer of this building. He then referred to the
exhibit and noted the Coastal stringline interpretation, the livable area, the
placement of the Butterfield residence, and which point to use for the stringlines
and how to base the analysis.
Motion was made to continue this item to January 6, 2005.
Commissioner Selich noted he agrees to the continuance and would like to see the
proposed applicant be more in conformance with the Ensign residence in
measuring the stringline.
Mr. Jeannette noted he agrees with the continuance and said this would be a good
time to look at the stringline concept.
Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees. This project does not meet the test in his
opinion, to impact negatively one neighbor or multiple neighbors the way it is
designed.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to reconsider item 3.
I Approved
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Commissioner Hawkins noted his vote was to abstain and asked that this be
Approved
reflected in the minutes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to change the minutes as requested.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
a. City Council Follow -up - no time.
b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development
Committee - no time.
c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan
Update Committee - no time.
file: //H:\Plancomm1200411209.htm 01/07/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004
d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - no time.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future'
agenda for action and staff report - no time.
f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - no time.
g. Project status - no time.
h. Request for excused absences - none.
Page 47 of 47
ADJOURNMENT: 12:45 a.m. I ADJOURNMENT
JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
0
file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/07/2005