Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 28 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle - Commissioners Toerge and Cole were excused. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Rich Edmonston, Transportation & Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 13, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of August 5, ITEM NO. 1 2004. Approved Approved as written. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as written. Ayes: Eaton, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle Noes: None Absent: Cole and Toerge Abstain: None I file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Cooling Medical Building (PA2004 -059) 1901 Westcliff Drive A Traffic Study to evaluate traffic impacts associated with the construction of a 12,628 square foot medical office building pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Mr. John Browell, one of the principals of the project, noted that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions included within the staff report. Commissioner Eaton noted his concern about parking as it relates to the City's parking requirements for medical offices, which in his opinion is not sufficient. He noted this building is fully parked now before the 12,000 square feet addition. However, the Traffic Study is perfectly satisfactory and he made motion for approval. Ayes: Eaton, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle Noes: None Absent: Cole, Toerge Abstain: None SUBJECT: Southwest Sign Company representing The Irvine Company (PA2004 -118) An appeal of the Modifications Committee's denial of a third off -site shopping center identification sign on the corner of Ford Road and San Miguel Drive (located at 2690 San Miguel Drive). Ms. Temple noted that this appeal of the Modifications Committee decision was withdrawn by the applicant. Staff recommends that this item be removed from the calendar. Motion was made Commissioner Selich to remove this item from the calendar. Ayes: Eaton, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle Noes: None Absent: Cole and Toerge Abstain: None Page 2 of 28 ITEM NO.2 PA2004 -059 Approved ITEM NO.3 PA2004 -118 Removed from calendar file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 3 of 28 SUBJECT: Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club (PA2004 -002) ITEM NO.4 1601 Bayside Drive PA2004 -002 An amendment to Use Permit No. 1437, to allow the reduction of required on -site Approved parking from 122 to 95 spaces and to increase the dry storage boat capacity from 100 to 200 boats. The request requires consideration of a parking waiver per Section 20.66.100 of the Municipal Code Chairperson Tucker noted that at the last hearing direction was given to staff to come back with conditions that were worked through with the applicant. The Commission has received a proposed change to condition 8b at tonight's meeting. Ms. Ung noted that the proposed edit for condition 8b came from the applicant. Staff is concerned with this change to use the employee parking spaces as a staging area for the Junior Boat Program during the summer months of June, July and August as staff believes these are the busiest months during the year. Chairperson Tucker noted that the proposed language is that if they do not have any off -site parking then they have to use those spaces as we have already conditioned them. If they do have off -site parking then they can use it as a staging area for the Junior Boating program. The one thing it does not seem to indicate is if they secure additional off -site parking, which technically could be one space, and we are really talking about having ten spaces not available for employee parking. He asked if staff had any suggested language change, noting that this was left that the applicant needs to gauge the attendance at their events so that there was sufficient parking. There needs to be some room and that is there as condition 7. If staff wants to review the language, then the applicant can come up and we can proceed. Commissioner Daigle noted some suggested language that after, 'In the event that additional off - street parking is secured, insert ...of at least 10 additional spaces..'..this way we insure that there is no decrease in the overall parking. She noted that if employee parking is provided some place else, she does not have a problem with that area being used for the Junior Boating program. The area on Bayside Drive, because of the proximity to the club, is preferred to be used for club members and have employees park further from the club. Public comment was opened. Paul Ireland of Hogle Ireland representing the applicant, noted: • The applicant is in agreement with all other conditions. • The proposed language for 8b is the area where they would like to have some flexibility. • Basically, if this area is used for valet parking it affords 160 spaces rather f ile: //H:1Plancomm1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 4 of 28 than the 150 spaces on site at the location. . It would only be used for other purposes if we can secure parking elsewhere. Chairperson Tucker asked if the additional language proposed by Commissioner Daigle was acceptable. Mr. Ireland answered yes. Commissioner McDaniel asked about condition 10c regarding 'no gating of the vehicular access areas permitted'. Do you have any concerns about this? What' about the entire premises? Mr. Ireland answered that boat storage will be locked up except during periods of times when the area is used for valet parking. There is no concern beyond that, it is no longer an issue. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Ireland added: . There is an opportunity to acquire additional parking at Belcourt, about four doors down. This is currently under discussion. . Regarding condition 7, it would be infrequently that circumstance would, occur. We did not want to put numbers to it, but parking will be kept on site to the maximum extent feasible and should be done with the number of spaces we now have. It would be less than once a month that parking would flow out into the streets and that would be for more city-wide events. Ms. Temple noted that if this Belcourt parking was to be used during the day, the City would not approve that if there was not surplus space. Additionally, with the wording of this condition, staff would require a Planning Director's approval. Mr. Rauth noted: . Everyone has worked extremely hard to understand the problems and create workable solutions. . There may be differences in opinion as to the proposed solutions being the right ones; however, they do represent the best effort of the staff and the applicant. . The neighbors should embrace these solutions. If they don't work, they can be revisited. I think we should give them the chance to work. . When measuring parking supply and demand, now and again in September 2005 when we rely upon cover counts, we are not accounting for employees that create an additional 15 -25 spaces, nor are we accounting for boating activities, which creates on a busy day, 50 - 60 additional spaces. Commissioner Daigle noted that the ten spaces in dry storage will be employee file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 5 of 28 parking unless there is an off- street agreement and then the employees will park there, the off- street being something other than the 1550 Bayside Drive. Mr. James Campbell agreed yes, that is what the proposed condition indicates. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Use Permit 2004 -001 (PA2004 -002) with the revised conditions of approval including the edition to condition 8b. Ms. Ung added the edit to 8b as discussed, 'In the event at least ten additional off - street parking spaces are secured at a location approved by the Planning Department and other than at Bayside Drive, employee vehicles may from time to time be parked at such location. Spaces within the dry boat storage area may then be alternatively used for additional valet parking or in conjunction with the Junior Boat Program. In no event shall spaces, designated for employee parking, be used for parking by the general public or for the permanent storage of boats.' Commissioner Selich agreed this is part of his motion. Ayes: Eaton, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle Noes: None Absent: Cole and Toerge Abstain: None SUBJECT: Yi Dynasty Korean BBQ Restaurant (PA2004 -130) ITEM NO.5 1701 Corinthian Way, Suite E PA2004 -130 A Use Permit to allow a 707 square foot expansion of an existing restaurant dining Approved room into a neighboring suite for daily dining use and private banquets. A portion of the existing dining area will be converted into storage. A waiver of a portion of the required parking space is also requested. Public comment was opened. Mia Kim, restaurant owner, at Commission inquiry noted she has read and agrees to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit No. 2004- 022 (PA2004 -130) subject to the findings and conditions in the resolution. Ayes: Eaton, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle Noes: None Absent: Cole and Toerge file: //H:1Plancomm\200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Abstain: I None Page 6 of 28 SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265) ITEM NQ. 6 600 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 garage. The General Plan Amendment involves an increase the maximum allowable building area with no change to the existing land use designation. The Zone Change would change the zoning district from R -2 & R -1 to GEIF to be consistent with the existing General Plan, Land Use Element designation. The Use Permit involves the alteration of existing buildings, replacement of the existing fellowship hall and classroom building and the construction of a new multi- purpose gymnasium and youth center. The Use Permit also considers setting the maximum allowable building height of 40 feet for the two proposed buildings. Chairperson Tucker noted that at the last meeting, the Commission asked the Church and the neighbors to engage in discussions which might lead to a compromise plan that would be good for all. There have been on -going discussions since that time and tonight we ask the Church to update us on the possible revisions to the plans and generally describe to us the conditions on their operational characteristics that might be acceptable. We ask that small groups of neighbors who have been in discussions with the Church give us their reactions to the Church's proposed revisions and conditions. We will be giving the Church and the small group of neighbors equal time to present their views. We will then open the matter up to public comment. Public comment will be limited to three minutes per person, but if the comments become redundant, the chair reserves the right to reduce the comment period to two minutes. The Commission has never recognized ceding one's time to another and we will not be doing so tonight. Comments should be in response to the revised plans. If you have a prepared speech that deals with the facets of the original plans which has been deleted from the revised plan, please do not deliver that speech. Because we have already had a hearing where everyone had an opportunity to say what they wanted in the allotted time, this time I will reserve the right to halt testimony outside the purview of the Planning Commission under the Municipal Code. Generally speaking, the good work to which the proposed facilities will be put to use and the supposed adverse affects on property values which the project may cause while under construction and thereafter are not matters reserved to the Planning Commission under the Municipal Code. These may be political matters which the City Council may wish to consider, but the Planning Commission has no authority to base its decisions on such matters, so we need not hear about them. We do welcome comments on the detrimental and physical affects or physical benefits the project may have on the community. Part of the charge of the Commission is to make sure the testimony presented as facts are facts and not a matter of personal opinion. Repeating what you have heard from someone else whose views you may respect is unfortunately not relative testimony since we can not rely on what any of you represent was said by someone who is not here to say it for themselves. He then introduced each of file: //H:1Plancomm1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 the Planning Commissioners giving an overview of their expertise. Continuing, Chairperson Tucker stated that once we have heard from everyone, the Commission will attempt to give direction to the applicant and to staff as to where this project ought to head next. However, we will take no action tonight. With that I would like to have the applicant come forward to start his presentation. Mr. Campbell added that for the record staff has not been presented with a revised project at this time and therefore has not had any opportunity to review it. Chairperson Tucker answered that the whole purpose tonight is to get the reaction of the neighborhood group that has been in discussion with the Church and any members of the entire community that care to show up and speak tonight as well as the Planning Commission. We will take it from there. Mr. Phillip Bettencourt, member of the Williams, chair of the Church Building General Counsel to the Church. Church's planning, team introduced Ken Committee as well as Gary McKitterick, Ken Williams, representing the Church as the Chair of the Building Committee noted the following activities since the 20th of May when the Planning Commission last met on this application through a Power Point presentation. . Projective Objectives /Needs: Youth/Family Center - Provide for recreational area and update facilities to meet today's requirements. Provide additional parking Additional family meeting /conference and office space . Referencing a diagram of the existing site, he noted the existing buildings that were to remain, the current building footprint, and the placement of the new and /or replaced buildings. . The campus building net square footage allocation according to the DEIR Summary is a total net change of 35,948 and then reallocating that same 35,948 square footage based upon Church programs. . The DEIR listing of impact results that after mitigation standards/City conditions, impacts are less than significant. . Gave a brief history of community outreach activities since 2000 including a limited survey, design studies newsletters and assessments, meetings with Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), EIR Scoping meeting, EQAC meetings, neighborhood interviews (163 homes) and Planning Commission meetings. Post May 20th Planning Commission meeting actions included meeting with individual Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers, 10 meetings with Page 7 of 28 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 8 of 28 neighborhood representatives, 3 meetings with staff of NMUSD with neighborhood representatives and project reviews with their architect. Volunteered compatibility activity through notices in bulletins and reminders from the pulpit: 1. Requested congregation to limit traffic and parking on local neighborhood streets and be mindful of our impact on noise when using the parking lot. 2. Agreed to recommend elimination of Clay Street parking entrance /exit; removal of pedestrian entrances along Clay Street and construction of 6 -8 foot block wall (landscaped) along Clay Street. 3. Prepared a traffic/parking management plan to minimize potential impacts to adjacent street system, reduce traffic conflicts within the site through ushered parking. 4. Proposed operational restrictions pertaining to hours of operation, occupancy of the site, gymnasium use, school restrictions, parking lot use, parking management plan, overnight use, time between events and monitoring. 5. Square footage reduction proposal of 8, 780 square feet. 6. The application is being amended to remove mechanical equipment from rooftops that eliminates the need for height waiver for the Youth /family center and the Fellowship Hall to second floor open mechanical wells. 7. Discussions with Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) resumed in June resulting in a submittal made in July that NMUSD staff is currently reviewing. . Creating a neighborhood and community wide benefit Gary McKitterick, representing the church, noted the following: Through a process of discussions with the neighbors and analysis with the architect we are attempting to balance the land use interest. This has been accomplished through modifications to the original plan. . There will be no increase in sanctuary seating, or capacity in the sanctuary will not be increased. The Church has fully complied with the existing recording requirements under the existing conditional Use Permit (CUP). Saturday services are not required to be noticed and they are not outside the CUP. The CUP regulates the fixed seating in the sanctuary and requires specific reporting, but no limit on the time of day nor the number of worship services nor are there any file: //H:\Plancomm1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 9 of 28 programmatic or policy or scheduling limitations currently. . No other Church in the Newport area has operational restrictions imposed in connection with their CUP, certainly not to the extent that we have. . Under the DEIR the project impact after the mitigations are less than significant. The DEIR contains a complete construction mitigation plan. . The gym has one line for seating, no spectators other than can be accommodated in the one line seating are planned. The gym use is limited to church uses and on a limited basis with the City and the school district. . Traffic impacts are less than significant under the DEIR and the intersections and roadway networks have adequate capacity to serve these needs. There is an insignificant amount of trips being generated by the new proposal. . There is no prior agreement concerning St. Andrews Road. . There are five major concerns identified in the DEIR, traffic, noise and light, parking, project size, and construction activities. . Traffic - the additional trips generated by this project is 248 trips. The majority of these trips are non -peak. The traffic study concluded that neither the daily nor peak hour trips for this project, when added to the existing traffic and future traffic volumes result in significant impacts. The closure of the Clay Street access will be significant because it will change traffic patterns. It will be very inconvenient to park in Cliff Haven. We have heard the concerns of the neighbors and the Commissioners so this closure is to address those concerns and alleviate traffic in those neighborhoods. . The closure of St. Andrews Road driveway entrance on non -peak times primarily evenings and Saturdays, will limit the amount of traffic that goes out through the neighborhood. . There will be self - monitoring of these programs which we are embracing as part of this program. . The wall will help both deflect noise and light. It will work as a visual and sound barrier. We are working on noise issues with the neighborhood on operational conditions. The below grade access to the youth and family center will additionally mitigate noise concerns. . Directional lighting will be focused within the campus, plus the wall will add some additional mitigation. . Parking - the wall across Clay Street will discourage access. We will also support resident only parking on a temporary or permanent basis if the neighbors wish. We encourage the non -use of those streets and encourage parking enforcement. file: //H:1Plancomm1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 10 of 28 The school district has not given us feedback on our proposal regarding parking. The increase in parking will be without a structure, it's 65 to 100 spaces depending upon layout and proposed curb cut changes. Additionally, the efficiency of that lot will be enhanced. This is a huge benefit during Sundays and the impact on Cliff Haven because the adjacency of the school will take parking off the street. We are offering to fund a concession stand and some restroom facilitates, a benefit that helps all involved. The church and neighborhood representatives have met with the school staff as a joint effort. Project size and intensity of use is something you will need to evaluate. We believe that it has been mitigated, it is compatible with the neighborhood. We will support a reduction in the parking structure on site. It is important to reduce this size in order to use the funds for the school across the street. . Operational controls are volunteered measures that we are proposing be part of our CUP and have an on -going monitoring available that deal with occupancy and hours of operation. The intensity of use can be controlled and concerns regarding what will happen in these facilities can be controlled by those items. The construction phase of the program, we have hired Snyder Langston builders to manage this process and we will comply with the construction mitigation outlined in the DEIR. . Concluding, the Church wants to work to make this happen after listening to the neighbors and the Commission. He asked that this project be approved as it is a community wide benefit. This project is tied together, the funds are only there if the Family and Youth Center goes forward. Commissioner McDaniel asked: You will limit the 1,387 capacity at one time to Christmas and Easter? Mr. McKitterick answered that the exceptions are children under the age of 16 and there will be limited exceptions at Christmas and at Easter. The 65 to 100 parking spaces, is that additional? Mr. McKitterick answered yes it is new as the lot has a storage facility in the middle so not all spaces get used. When you remove that, you change the curb cuts with an in and out and redesign of the program, it grows significantly. The total parking spaces under the plan we have proposed to NMUSD, if all goes, varies between 315 and 332 spaces on the lot across the street and another 400 on our lot. Commissioner Eaton asked: How many people are in attendance during the services that serve the congregation? Mr. McKitterick answered between 50 and 75 cars park on a regular Sunday morning. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 11 of 28 In the family and youth building on the bottom floor there are two large multipurpose rooms, what are they used for? Mr. McKitterick answered that the whole area under the gym is a revised youth area separated by function and ability to separate for groups. Of the spaces across the street how many are close to the church? He was answered the entire lot will be done with the proposed curb cut closer to Clay Street. Instead of diagonal spaces, they will be 90 degree spaces, which allows extra spaces. Commissioner Selich noted his concern of the square footage allocation on the programmatic summary. The category of restroom, storage, circulation in the DER is counted as 16, 134 square feet and the program summary is 10,848 square feet, which is about 5,286 square feet difference. Where is the other 5,000 square feet in the other categories. In the restroom, storage, circulation category, how much is restroom, how much is storage and how much is circulation? Mr. Williams answered that in the DER summary, the 16,134 square footage was shown as restroom, storage, circulation. When I did it to reflect the programmatic needs, we took the children's classrooms which is the basement of the educational building out of what had been defined as storage. Heretofore, that 4,500 square feet was in there. The way we arrived at the others was to take off the drawings the exact square footage of the various items we pulled from. There is data available, but I do not have it with me as to how much of that is restroom and how much is circulation. Commissioner Selich asked for a more precise allocation of this square footage. At Commission inquiry regarding costs, Mr. McKitterick added: The request to look at the on -site parking structure and reduce it is because the neighbors are concerned about a structure of that size, and so we are looking at an alternative to create parking that is available to the Church. That availability is across the street. We would not seek to reduce our parking structure, and it is an important component in order to get the funds to go across the street. We are not proposing to build 400 spaces on our site and spend the significant amount of funds that it would take to improve a neighborhood issue seven days a week across the street. We feel, and have had discussions with the neighbors, we agree it is better value to have spaces closer to the Church. However, in trying to balance the interest, by these volunteer issues to reduce size, parking, etc., is that it is more palatable for the neighbors to increase those spaces across the street. . We need feedback regarding the proposal made to the school district. The funding is well over 2 million dollars. There is a desire to maintain on the site throughout the year functionality. There are 177 surface spaces file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 12 of 28 approximately at the end of the construction of this facility. Commissioner Daigle noted: One of the stated purposes was to increase the youth activity, yet under the proposed operational restrictions under occupancy of the site, children are exempt. My concern is that children will be picked up and dropped off and that translates in vehicle trips. . What kind of feedback have you gotten from your outreach program regarding the proposal and the modifications? Mr. McKitterick answered some of the children are walking and some are being dropped off. The exemptions are primarily for Sundays. Sunday is really the time when there is an occupancy amount that even gets close to that. In terms of the proposal to exempt the children, it is so we can have Sunday school while church is going on. We are willing to have reasonable controls, but that is not one of them. From our neighbors, we have been told that they like the measures about Clay Street closure, they don't want us to build the parking structure. We do all those things because we get a Youth and Family Center, that is how they are tied together. It's not spending millions of dollars for what we consider a 'no program'. The concerns we hear are intensity of use and size. We believe the intensity of use can be regulated. They want 5,000 feet underground and that just won't work for us. Chairperson Tucker asked: The surface parking lot has 250 spaces right now, and the proposal is 173, there is a 77 space reduction on site. You have indicated in the revision that the church is proposing to eliminate the basement in new building D, has any thought been given to moving the gymnasium facility underground there and taking it out of the old parking lot so that you do not lose so many of the surface parking spaces? . What about putting the gym on top and whatever was in that building now stays? Mr. McKitterick answered yes, the original plan done by their planner had shown a gym underground. When priced out, it is an enormous cost and completely unworkable in terms of program. This would be too big a dig. The whole building would come down, the original plan would have a basement under both buildings. You would then have a two -story building and a three -story building, the heights would be relatively the same. Referring to the screen, he noted the orientations of the proposed /existing buildings to the sanctuary and noted the site distances with pedestrian traffic and circulation. He then went into detail on the proposed building referencing the screen. He noted that there is circulation space in foyers that are in the square footage numbers and makes it look like more than there is. This is not a problem for the community to have entrances and exits in these buildings and the elevator shafts; however, they are in the application because we need them and file: //HAPlancomm1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 13 of 28 they are square footage. We have discussed altering the footprints with extensive evaluations done by MDE. Chairperson Tucker asked if it was the position of the Church that the additional square footage with the conditions attached does not lead to an intensification of the use of the property? I am thinking in terms of traffic trips and parking intensification. The youth center part out of a total proposal of 27,000 square feet is 7,000 square feet. Mr. McKitterick answered there are no new programs being created or added. The majority of the people using this youth facility will be driven to the site. When the gym is used for sports, you are talking about 10 to 16 people and there is one line of chairs. As an athletic facility, that is the use. In terms of that 27,000 square feet, 7,000 square feet would be gymnasium and the ground floor under it which gets you to 14,000 square feet would be the basement of that facility. Taking the circulation area around that space, you are up to approximately 17,000 square feet. The additional space that is new with respect to the footprint is the educational building used for Sunday school or during the week are larger rooms because they are inadequately sized right now. Mr. Campbell added that the 35,000 square feet is a net increase over what is out there today. Two existing buildings are coming down and two proposed buildings coming in. The Fellowship Hall building is 28,000 square feet and the Youth and Family Center building is actually 32,700 square feet. It is difficult to compare the net increase over the general plan versus these building areas as the buildings are quite larger. Chairperson Tucker questioned how did the Church reach the conclusion that it was the size of the buildings that were needed for its purposes? Mr. McKitterick answered programmatic. They set down with the Church leaders and discussed their programs and the enhancements that were envisioned. The conclusion was that a gymnasium above a youth facility creates a synergy. The design came from the inside out. Family space was another component that the leaders wanted to also add. The developer was given the numbers to came up with the numbers which were discussed and refined and now you have the net result. Commissioner Eaton asked about the use of the multipurpose rooms. What about the hang out area? Mr. McKitterick answered they are for the youth. They will be used for computer space, activities, meetings, etc. that is why they are multiuse rooms. You need to have flexibility with any youth facility and that is what those rooms are for. The lounge is used for smaller groups. For larger groups, the multipurpose room can be set up to be used. Commissioner McDaniel clarified that the applicant is asking for 27,000 not for the 35,000 square feet. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 14 of 28 Mr. McKitterick noted that is correct, the application will be amended. We identified in the previous presentation where the exact square footage would come out. We will provide exact/comparison drawings. Commissioner Daigle asked if controls would be in place during the youth activities. Mr. McKitterick answered yes. The gym will be used for Church activities. We believe if we build this facility on a limited basis with respect to the City and /or Newport Mesa, that we would have some co -use. We will monitor the number of occupants in the gymnasium and it is incumbent on us to be aware of the total occupancy on site with reasonable controls. Mr. Brian Brooks, president of the Cliff Haven Association consisting of approximately 300 homes, noted: . The neighbors feel this is the most significant project they have had to deal with in the last 20 years since the last expansion of the Church. . He thanks St. Andrews people for their presentation noting that the major points of this plan were presented at the neighborhood meeting last Tuesday night that was a joint meeting of Newport Heights and Cliff Haven residents. . The overwhelming majority of the neighbors do not want any expansion of the Church. They were not receptive of the revised plan nor the original plan. . Their feelings are that increased square footage translates to increased capacity which translates to increased usage in the neighborhood which would increase noise, traffic and parking problems. These are the same problems you have been hearing for the last year. The concerns are still there and the neighborhood does not feel the revised plan addresses any of those major issues. The neighborhood does not want this project to go forward in its present form. Mr. Don Krotee, representing Newport Heights Improvement Association comprised of almost 1,000 homes, noted: The church has now come forward with a plan of 27,000 square feet from 35,000 square feet after the joint neighborhood groups raised their threshold from 0 to 5,000 square feet. The applicant can not regulate their intensity because they have failed the current 22 year old CUP. The Church is required to count their parking and report it. They did this until the Saturday services were in place which they did not include. The City has never had a reporting of the Saturday service traffic. . The Church has not shown a record of self mitigation, nor does the file: //H:1Plancomm1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 15 of 28 neighborhood feel they are able to do it. . There is a proposal for traffic calming measures in these two neighborhoods and that was a four -year study. . The sanctity and importance of these neighborhoods should not be compromised. . The density measured in the floor area ratio of this church is unlike any other Church in the western area. . There is insufficient mitigation measures associated with the impacts and the traffic report. . He asked that staff and the Commission look at the comments made by members of EQAC, particularly the short term mitigation for air quality due to construction. In the EIR there was an estimation for grading for the subterranean parking garage of a little more than 1 1/2 days. In a recalculation you couldn't do it in less than 100 days. When this comment was made, the answer was that those numbers were given by the applicant. This is not the response that will stand up to the measure of an EIR. This and other issues made in EQAC and information given to staff need to be examined closely. . The joint neighborhood groups have talked to the church about reducing their proposal to 5,000 square feet. If the square footage of those buildings that are proposed to be torn down was not built back and build a 9,000 square feet Youth and Family Center, which is truly the centerpiece of this project, and abbreviated the re- building of the education building and have these lunches and conventions in the gym, you would be at zero. There was a brief discussion on the historical expansion that happened twenty years ago. Bill Dunlap, representing Cliff Haven as a board member, noted the following: Many of the petitions submitted by the Church are signed by people who live in Irvine and Santa Ana and areas that are far beyond the impacts of what this project is all about. He takes some exception that this is just a neighborhood Church. The Church zoning exists on sanctuary seating per the Code. In the future, staff will have to re -look at that because Churches have many things going on at the same time not only in just the sanctuary. Simultaneously this Church could be totally concentrated with people then is envisioned in the current zoning. file: //14: \Plancomm \2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 16 of 28 The Church says they have met the reporting requirements of the existing CUP, but if they truly were a neighborhood Church when they initiated Saturday services, which had major impacts on the surrounding neighborhood on which we were working with them with barricades, delineators, working with their facility director on trying to get cars out of driveways, etc., you think they would have told us about the new services. Now they are saying they weren't technically required to report that. The proposal has been reduced and the neighbors have offered a proposed project of 5,000 square feet or basically the gym. This proposal is 27,168 feet. At the public outreach meeting with the Church, they said that the youth and family program exists today at about 7,000 feet and that would be replaced 1 for 1 in the basement of the new project and that an additional 4,500 square feet in the basement would be added to that. On top of that would be 7,000 for the gym. Totaling that amount up you have left over to get to 27,000, 15,000 feet of what? We have asked for a needs assessment of this additional footage that makes up the difference up to 27,000 square feet. They say it is conference rooms and storage. Why do they need that, they can't tell us and we think that is a major concern. 15,000 feet of this expansion is non - youth. If you believe the youth will not be driving and will walk then there will be adults using that room on campus. Parking structures are being used in other cities. The highest crime rate can be parking structures. You must include the best lighting, elevators that are glass, stairways open to the outside, locked doors, special keying and escort service. The neighbors feel this needs to be reduced and offered the 5,000 square feet that was rejected. They are here with a proposal of 27,000 square feet. There is plenty of room at the high school, two gymnasiums and plenty of meeting space. The facilities are in the neighborhood and it is a matter of managing the program. Discussion ensued on the parking structure that would be basically under ground with a top level, which is the parking lot re- configured, it is not readily available, and has one point of entry and exit. Commissioner Eaton asked if the improvements to the high school and a reduction of the garage proposal was more acceptable to the neighbors. Mr. Krotee answered that they have as part of their 5,000 square foot proposal told the church that they can build these envelopes back to a point where the parking is legal. You have to look at the intensity of use and the need for the parking since church parking is based on the sanctuary seating. We would like to see them make a deal with the high school, but anything but a parking garage will help. The short term unmitigatable impact in the EIR is mostly because of the grading, which is mostly because of the parking garage. Our 5,000 square foot proposal does away file: //H:\Plancomm1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 17 of 28 with that and allows them to move the building envelopes back and park their surface parking, make this deal with Harbor across the way and get the spaces they need. We'll sit down and write mitigation measures with them. Commissioner Eaton asked if the neighbors of Cliff Haven like the idea of closing off the driveway and constructing a wall along Clay. Can someone confirm that is correct? Mr. Brooks answered yes, they have informally agreed to those measures. Commissioner Selich asked what the basis regarding intensity of use was for other churches, what was the criteria for that, was it floor area ratio, numbers of attendees, what? Mr. Krotee answered several. Floor area ratio was the key, the built square footage on net acreage and on gross acreage. The Church is proposing 27,000 feet to add to their 100,000+ square feet. If you divide that by the acreage, you get a built square foot per acreage, the project is significantly more dense than Fashion Island or South Coast Plaza, it is not neighborhood in its sense. This is based on floor area to land area. Chairperson Tucker noted he sees issues that can be viewed from the point of view if this project, through its construction and the restrictions that will be put into place, makes the world a better place around the project, then I view it as something that merits consideration for supporting it. We have a situation with the Newport Heights people and traffic being generated is bad for them. Cliff Haven is closer to the issues and problems and additional traffic will affect them more directly, parking for the people living on Pirate and immediately around the Church will be the most potentially impacted. Those are the people that I would like to see the most benefited, the ones suffering right now. It seems if you had an 8 foot block wall with landscape that wraps around, that makes parking in the neighborhood inconvenient. This will be totally different if there is not a deal made with the school district. If it is better during the week on balance the school parking situation helps. Assuming something can be done with the school district, why wouldn't that be more than a little bit of a benefit that you mentioned, Mr. Brooks? Mr. Brooks answered that parking is only one of the concerns in the neighborhood, there is also noise and traffic that is generated due to increased activities. The fear is once you have the increased square footage that can lead maybe further down the line in increased programs. You have a gym that could be used for other activities that leads to increased traffic, increased noise and more adults and children using that facility. That is the fear. Anything that gets parking off the street somewhere else for the neighbors is a positive but I think when you weigh that against the overall project and the potential for the impact on the neighborhood, 1 think that is minimal. Mr. Dunlop added that our fear is what we have gone through. We thought we had a pretty good program back in 1983 -84 with monitoring and conditions. However, out of that came a whole new program with Saturday services. We weren't notified file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 18 of 28 that there was an increase in use. When we allow them to build more facilities and they've said it, 'we build they will come'. We understand that and we are concerned. We are concerned about the gym being used for other than sports. The parking structure will create an intensity of peak use at 9 to 10 on Sunday mornings. When people get into that queue to get into the parking structure and they have not given themselves time, it's not going to happen because of the possibility of the earlier service getting out late. Then you will have cars coming out of the parking spaces and the other cars are stacked up the street trying to get in. People will then drive into the neighborhood to park. The Church can not tell us that the parking structure will be used. There is no way it can be mandated. They have to build it because it is a good neighborly thing to do and they are trying to get more cars on site. Chairperson Tucker noted that if there were conditions that dealt with all the issues, your concern is that at some point in time they won't be complied with and then what do you do? Mr. Dunlop answered yes. Right now a youth program is their concern but in two years from now it may be adult programs that are a concern, then what do you do? Mr. Krotee noted its the size and the limit in the General Plan that is important. In looking at traffic generation across our neighborhood, the TPO does not include Clay Street as one to study for this project. Also, St. Andrews Road is not identified as a street to be studied under the TPO. Chairperson Tucker asked about the safety issue for the parking structure noting the 8 foot wall. Mr. Krotee answered the wall on Clay Street and the interaction and the access off Clay Street is probably the most split vote he has seen in the community. For me, to have them knock down two buildings, build the youth and family center at 9,000 square feet, reduce their other uses and come out with a net gain of 4,000 to 5,000 square feet and keep the landscape the way it is now. We don't need the wall, we don't need an 8 foot wall, this is a neighborhood church and looks lovely the way it is. Downsize it and have them plant new plants, we're happy. Mr. Dunlop discussed the security of the parking structure, use of access codes and ingress and egress. He added that if Pirate Road is closed off, that will increase the traffic on the other streets with cars piling out towards Cliff Haven Street, which is the street that has duplexes on it. A wall creates a positive security issue, but they are not walling the whole campus, people can still get access. He noted that a percentage of the homeowners basically want zero expansion. Our proposal at 5,000 feet is something we felt was important to try to reach some common ground. Chairperson Tucker noted that he would open this up to public comment. What the Commission is interested in is gaining information. If the rational against the project has already been expressed by the community representatives, then you don't have to say anything at all file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 19 of 28 Public comment was opened. Appearing in opposition to the project: Jim Trammel, Cliff Haven resident, noted he values St. Andrews as a neighbor as they have been a great contributor to the community. The public common sense is validating the City's General Plan Land Use Element. If the Church is successful in changing the zoning from its current R1 -R2 to GEIF it would be denser than any other GEIF zone in the City, the densest being Harbor High School at .5 FAR, it would be more dense by 53% with the revised plan that is at .77 FAR. There are twelve sites in the City that are zoned GEIF; Mariner's School, Newport Heights Elementary, Harbor Christian, Lincoln are all .1 FAR; Pacific View Church is .3 FAR, Harbor Day is .3 FAR, Lady Queen of Angel is .17 FAR and then Balboa Fire Station library and harbor are the most intense use today at a .5 FAR. The Church today is a .61 FAR and many people believe that its use is more intense than it should be. The City is undergoing a traffic program that validates a significant problem already exists in the neighborhood. St. Andrews Road currently has about an 8,500 trip per week count. The expansion at the reduced size will add about 1,500 trips per week excluding Sundays. If the Church accepts the neighborhood proposal at 5,000 square feet and gets it approved, then they should consider their pursuit a success. Rob Craig, Snug Harbor Road resident noted he lived through the expansion of 1982. He stated the neighbors were told then traffic plans showed no impact on the neighborhood at all. He noted he has had to call the police quite a few times to come and tow away cars that have blocked his driveway. The reality is, there is an impact and it is not imagined, and we were told there was no impact. We are worried and there are a number of signs of no expansion posted on the lawns in the neighborhood. There are 114 individual houses that have the sign, 'please, no expansion'. Our problems are real. James Parker, attorney representing homeowners, the Gallants, in the Cliff Haven development who oppose the application. The project today is over - utilized and is a source of traffic, parking and safety problems throughout the community. The current proposal does not comply with any building and or planning odes, therefore it is asking for a General Plan Amendment, zone change and a conditional Use Permit. Staffs analysis in May acknowledges that there are arguments that can be made both pro and con. They also say the increased activities will negatively impact adjoining neighborhood residences. Staff noted policies in the Land Use Plan to be used by the Commission for deliberation. Modest growth should be allowed in cases of under utilization of properties. The applicant's proposal calls for a dramatic increase and utilization of property. The policy goes on to state that the City must insure that the beauty and charm of residential communities be maintained. The adjoining residential communities are almost unanimous in their opposition to this proposal. We are opposed to any expansion. Vicki Edwards Zischi, Cliff Drive resident, noted her personal experience and concern with problems of underground excavation. file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 20 of 28 Dick England, Snug Harbor Road resident noted his concern with the provisions and regulations in the General Plan and how it relates to what is in the best interest of the community and told the Commission to discount this proposal. John Zig, Clay Street resident noted that the traffic on his street amounts to 1,200 cars a day. The Church is indicating an increase of 20% to 25% traffic, and this is not an insignificant impact. I am opposed. Chairperson Tucker noted that the way our Codes and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is set up is not whether traffic will increase trips, it is if it increases beyond the capacity of the roads to carry the traffic. So while you may have what you view a significant increase in terms of actual number of cars, when the word significant is used in the technical sense that means it goes beyond the level of service that is allowed. It could end up being what you perceive as a very big increase but it is not a significant problem as far as the city Codes and CEQA are concerned. People are talking about the code nature, not what people would generate view as where traffic increased a lot. John Betoff, resident of Newport Heights in opposition for similarly expressed opinions. Denise Lackey, in opposition adding the church has outgrown the site. They could move if they really had to. Sheila Munson, St. Andrews Road resident noted her concern of the increased traffic. Barbara Rawlings, Tustin Avenue resident noted a history of the application of 1982. Tim Woodall, Cliff Drive resident asked for zero expansion due to traffic problems. Terry Butros, Pirate Road resident stated there was no needs assessment done foi this property. The neighbors had asked for this in order to assess the proposed project. Asking for a general plan amendment to drive an extra 250 to 400 cars intc the neighborhood a day, to maybe build this parking structure or maybe not, you have to have some basis for your needs and to show how they will affect the community. I daresay a gym will invite new programs. There are no explanations how that gym is going to be used. The EIR says the gym could be used foi conference space, seminar space and for musical performances. It is a gym that can be subdivided into smaller units. To me that is not a low impact use that car be written off with 20 kids playing volleyball. We are told the youth and family center is the cornerstone of this proposed project. No one is going to dispute tha as a good thing. In fact, when we went to the church and asked about the 5,00( feet specifically for the youth and family programs, that was rejected. But if yoL look at what the youth and family program is, that is only about a third of what the) are asking for. That kind of rejection of a reasonable proposal merits ar explanation before any action is taken on this. We hear moving outdoor activities is a goal, well, there are no outdoor activities that are going to be moved as a result o file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 21 of 28 this. The DEIR says the pre - school program will stay there in the parking lot. There is no outdoor basket ball that is going to be moved in. There are no musical performances going to be moved in, they are not having seminars in the parking lot that are going to be moved in either. Concluding, he urged that the Commission reject this proposal. Carrie Slayback, resident of Riverside Avenue: e Suggested that St. Andrews is successful and has outgrown its present site. . Be careful of relying on schools as an alternate parking. The school she taught at grew from 400 students to 700 students. No one expected that and now there are portable buildings all over the place including parking lots. e There are questions of separation of church and state. . I am not comfortable with St. Andrews being a part of the neighborhood schools. The schools are the schools, St. Andrews is a church. I hope they will attract other members of their faith; however, it is not a whole community. Willard Courtney, resident of St. James Place gave a brief history of the church. Portia Weiss, resident of San Bernardino Avenue, noted that she had an opportunity to move on Pirate Road but chose San Bernardino due to the amount of traffic on Pirate Road. She opposes this proposed project for safety reasons, and property values. Appearing in support of the project: Bill Lightcap, resident of Newport Beach and member of St. Andrews Church, noted: e Church has been on this site for fifty years and needs to grow. . The proposed square footage noted in the DEIR will be underground and not seen by the neighborhood. e The function and use of the Church will not change. . No significant changes in the use of the site will occur as a result in the increase of floor area. St. Andrews has agreed to limit the building height to 32 feet. . Traffic generated by the proposal will not result in any cumulative impacts per the DEIR. e During construction there will be use of heavy trucks. Mitigation measures file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 22 of 28 will keep the impacts as less than significant. . The Church has offered to undertake several mitigation changes to address the neighborhood's concerns as noted tonight. . He asked that this item be approved as it fulfills the needs of the church while seeking to address the concerns of the neighborhood. Debbie Schultz, Corsica Drive resident, noted her support of the youth programs. Jim Robertson, Mariners Drive resident supports the application because the church needs more area. Citing major impacts of cultural changes, the church is hoping to pick up the slack on the lack of direction and role models and activities that the youth need until they become independent. St. Andrews is near many schools and is trying to have a more positive impact on the children that attend those schools in the neighborhood so that it will improve the character and make a better contribution to the community than what we can make with the facility now. He urged approval of this application. Ron Hendrickson, 31 year resident of the City, noted his support of the parking structure. He then read a letter from the chief operating officer of the LaJolla Presbyterian Church regarding their underground parking structure benefits. Novelle Hendrickson noted that St. James church is 1.7+ FAR. Jeff Menard, resident of the City noted his support of the church and its application. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted: . The EIR's are structured to look at certain things and governed by the state and city guidelines and do not deal well with the local compatibility issue. . St. Andrews is a very large church on a small site in a neighborhood area. . The existing neighborhood has existing problems with the site and with the fact that some of the conditions on the existing use permit are not as strict or comprehensive as they ought to be. . Accommodating the basics of what St. Andrews wants to accomplish and at the same time put enough operational restrictions on it such as the net result will be more beneficial to the neighborhood than what exists there now. . If this application is rejected, what happens is a continuation of what is there now and may be some intensification by the Church under the existing use permit. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 23 of 28 . In my opinion, the basics of what the church wants to do is a youth center and that can be accommodated in about 18,000 feet. That accommodates the gym, the lounge and much of the office and auxiliary space downstairs. It will allow for the restrooms and some circulation in both buildings. It allows the core of the program that they say they have to have to move forward. In turn for that, in my opinion, the Church should be expected to step up with what they have already volunteered in terms of the walkways along Clay Street, elimination of the driveway and the construction of a wall. I would impose all the mitigation measure proposed in the DER and impose the operational restrictions proposed tonight and those proposed by staff in their memo of June 17th and require 45 minutes between sessions. The total number should include all activities. In terms of the improvements at Newport Harbor High School, the size of the garage could be substantially reduced in exchange for the parking at the school. The parking said to be accommodated at best was between 65 to 100. The underground parking is 221. You can't give up 221 right there at the elevators for 60 to 100 spaces across the street. . There are other restrictions such as the provisions of the church putting in their bulletins every Sunday and announced at least once a month. . If it is not possible to do the large scale plan at Newport Harbor High School, they could re- stripe what is there that would be an advantage. . If you can't get the agreement with the high school, you will have to keep the whole underground garage. . What happens during the construction period? The elimination of all the on- site parking at the church during the construction period is a concern. It needs to be specific about the number of what is provided and where everyone is parked including the workers. This needs to be part of the process for everyone to see. . Operational restrictions need to be much tighter than the existing CUP and should include any additional schooling or services require an amendment to the CUP. All parking monitoring needs to be reported to the City, not as it just gets over a certain number and the monitoring takes place throughout the week not just for Sunday services. Commissioner Selich noted: He agrees with the previous comments. We have a church that is in a transitional area between single family residential and other land uses that are of a higher intensity. This facility over the years has grown and apparently has a need to grow even further. file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 24 of 28 My biggest concern is there is a lot of numbers and areas of use specified in their presentation this evening, but there really isn't documentation as to why they need it and why they need it to be that size. I think they could do what they want to do in less square footage, whether it is 18,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet I am not sure, but I don't believe we have been presented with information that really allows us to totally make that assessment. I am disappointed that the neighborhood and the church could not get closer on this. On one hand, 5,000 square feet and on the other hand, 27,000 square feet is a little disappointing and we are still at that point. Parking is a major issue. I agree with what the Chairman said earlier if we could come up with something that helps serve an area wide problem here, why wouldn't we want to pursue it? I am in favor of pursuing the parking situation over at the high school. I have not made up my mind as far as whether going in that direction you will reduce the size of the on -site parking proposal or not, but I think it is imperative that the church take a look at the parking situation. I agree with the comments made parking a facility like this just by the number of seats in the sanctuary does not make sense. You are talking about all these uses and it makes sense to break it down by the various components. Take a look at the times of use and see what the real parking need is then to just take an arbitrary figure that was developed many years ago and say you are going to park by X number of seats probably doesn't make much sense. That is our Code, the way it stands and we do have some discretion to deal with it under this Use Permit process. Pursuing the parking and looking to make the situation better in this neighborhood as a result of this project is something worth pursuing. . All the other mitigation issues we are talking about are all things we should be pursing. The real issue is the size of the facility. All of the conditions can be worked out and I still think that more work needs to be done on this to reduce the size. Commissioner McDaniel noted: Most anyplace over twenty years needs to change to meet the needs they have. The Church has the right to want to do that. The net of all of this is a positive to the entire community, especially if the parking can be worked out. The size does not matter to me at all. The input tonight will probably downsize the project more. I think the school is the problem with traffic, people crossing PCH, more than the Church. file : //H:\Planconun1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 25 of 28 . There are some issues that need to be worked out, but I think this project will be a net positive for the entire community. 1 will support it at whatever numbers come out. I am also disappointed that the community and the church did not come together, so we are going to have to make that decision. Commissioner Daigle noted: . I agree that more work needs to be done. . People fee{ they are being impacted with an intensity coming in the neighborhood. They are not sure how much more activity there will be and how often it will be and what exactly is going to be happening in the Church. I understand that. . Looking at our General Plan our institutions are imbedded in our residential areas, our parks, schools and churches. For our community to be vibrant, out institutions need to flourish. . What intensity will be compatible so that we maintain the integrity of our homes? . She then noted that additional work needs to be done on the circulation plan, the physical barriers to route traffic is good, and a formalized agreement with the high school is a step in the right direction. . More explanation for the need of this extra space is needed. . If this thing should pass, what will have been done for the neighborhood? Chairperson Tucker noted: . We weigh equities. The people right around the facility are the most impacted. There is a community wide benefit but I am concerned about what is going on in the immediate neighborhood. . We are not a political body. . There is a political body that this will ultimately go to and they will take our recommendations and they understand how we work on a more technical basis. You will see the Council looking at the bigger picture. . Can we create a situation where in our opinion the neighborhood circumstances are improved from the problems that exist today. In doing that we realize there may be some days where problems are greater and some that are less. However, the lessening of the problem is the overall impetus of the effort. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 Page 26 of 28 The key issue is the high school parking situation because that has the potentiality for nine months of the year really mitigating a problem over there. It provides parking spaces for the school, I do think that garage will need to be decreased and fairly significantly. The trade off is that I think the surface parking spaces have to more or less the same count for two reasons. Those are the spaces that are most convenient and I believe that leaving those spaces on the surface the money generated can go across the street and deal with the high school problem. It is a complicated situation with a lot of moving parts to it, but ultimately I think if that is going to be done, the square footage will be reduced further. The number somewhere between 18,000 and 22,000 square feet is about where it is going to be. I suggest that the parties go through and work out the conditions and amend and re -state the use permit in its entirety so that all the things that are deficient or believed to be deficient today in terms of the conditions and the lack of clarity are drafted by the parties. The City doesn't want to be a participant in that drafting until after the parties have come up with their own solutions. I believe they can do ft. The number of parking spaces on site in terms of what is in the underground facility, I think the Church needs a pretty healthy amount even with the work across the street in order to take account those situations where there is a major event at the church and school is in session. The parking code based upon the sanctuary seating really doesn't make sense considering what churches have become. The nature of churches in the community generally, where do they go? We are going to have an issue with Our Lady Queen of Angels with a large investment and they will be coming forward with a similar situation, they have run out of space for the people they are trying to serve. I am not seeing a great answer, not everyone can go to Irvine and still be serving people locally. I don't know what the answer is, 1 wish the community had been planned out where these things had been thought about. There is an evolution going on and there is just no easy, quick answer. I think the wall around the facility will make a big difference for the immediate neighbors. I am not unsympathetic to the issue that there will be additional cars that may end up in the neighborhood. It is a difficult issue, things that we can implement to make better on balance than they are today. It is not going to be a clear -cut easy decision. . More work on the site plan is needed. Commissioner McDaniel noted that the Commission has given input on where we stand on this proposal to the best of our ability. He stated to the neighbors, a project of some size will take place and he urged them to work with the church. I file : //H:1Plancomm1200410819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 would like to get this to the point where we can vote on this and move it forward. Commissioner Eaton noted that restoring the spaces on the surface would be preferable and in that case there could be a reduction in the garage. Chairperson Tucker noted he views the agreement with the school district as a critical factor. Normally an off -site parking agreement is in the form that the City Attorney's office finds acceptable. In this particular case because it does involve a school district as another governmental agency I want to see how that would work. I have to feet comfortable that it will work and work in perpetuity because you've got buildings there. I am sure that will be a tough issue to work out. Commissioner Selich noted that the outcome of this process has to be the total situation in the neighborhood has to be made better. Discussion followed on issues for conditions. Chairperson Tucker asked the applicant for a date to continue this item to. Mr. McKitterick, speaking for the applicant, asked for the second meeting in September on the 23rd. Commissioner Eaton noted he will not be at that meeting. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to September 23, 2004. Chairperson Tucker told the members of the audience to contact the City to be sure that this item will definitely be heard as it may be possible that something may happen that precludes the applicant from giving the revised proposal at that time. Ayes: Eaton, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle Noes: None Absent: Cole, Toerge Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment for Newport Sports Museum; they. had a discussion and evaluation of alternatives on the revisions to the appeal and call for review procedures and directed staff to come back with an Ordinance that would establish their procedures as one member able to extend an appeal or call for review period from fourteen days to the next available meeting but will require a simple majority present to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission or staff; they introduced the zoning amendment on the recovery facilities; they chose to appoint Robin Clauson as acting City Attorney for the Page 27 of 28 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0819.htm 09/03/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2004 interim period before a new City Attorney is found and appointed and comes on board. Discussion then followed on the workload. It was determined that items that may require her advice will be scheduled at the front end of the meeting. At those meetings that the Planning Director and Commission Chairperson decide her advice is not needed, she will not be in attendance. The Commission was advised to email questions to Ms. Clauson. Discussion followed. b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - update was distributed. g. Project status - none. h. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Eaton is excused from the meeting of September 23, 2004. Page 28 of 28 ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 p.m. J ADJOURNMENT JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //H:1Plancomm\200410819.htm 09/03/2004