Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 • 4 Page 1 of 23 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. file: //H:\P1ancomm1200410923.htm 10/08/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle - Commissioner Eaton was excused, Ms. Daigle has been appointed as a Councilperson and is no longer on the Planning Commission, all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Acting City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner regg Ramirez, Associate Planner inger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Cheryl Dunn, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Dick England noted his concern on the way the Planning Commission handles letters from the public. He noted that at a previous public hearing, he had None expressed a concern regarding the letter he had sent had not been responded to. A senior planner had indicated that it was his responsibility to respond to these letters. As he has not received a response to this letter to date, he asked if it was true that letters should be responded to or not? Chairperson Tucker noted that on Environmental Impact Reports, letters raising issues related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) types then the letters have to be responded to. It is a possibility that the issue raised in this letter are not covered under the physical impact to the environment that all of CEQA covers. A brief discussion took place on the legality and City policy and Council policy and staffs analysis that answer questions and issues raised by the public. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 17, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR file: //H:\P1ancomm1200410923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 2 of 23 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 9, 2004. I ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approved the minutes as amended. I Approved Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Eaton Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Balboa Theater (PA2004 -032) I ITEM NO. 2 707 East Balboa Boulevard PA2004 -032 Request for approval of a Use Permit for the Balboa Performing Arts Theater, a Approved designated Landmark Building and permitted use, to allow an increase in building height up to a maximum of 55 feet pursuant to Section 20.65.070 of the Municipal Code. Public comment was opened. Carol Hoffman, representing the applicant, noted that they have they have worked very hard to meet all the Balboa Design Guidelines. They are very excited about the future of this theater and request approval of this application. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Use Permit No. 2004 -003 to allow the Balboa Theater to increase in height up to a maximum of 55 feet, subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the draft resolution. Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Eaton Abstain: None SUBJECT: Espinoza Condo Conversion and Tract Map (PA2004 -137) I ITEM NO.3 329 Marguerite Avenue PA2004 -137 The Condominium Conversion and Tentative Tract Map relate to the conversion of Continued to . an existing 7 unit apartment building to condominiums for the purpose of individual 10107120044 sale. The Coastal Residential Development permit Application relates to compliance with affordable housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 3 of 23 Senior Planner Jim Campbell outlined the project, as described in the staff report, Noting the following: . Convert a 7 -unit apartment building to condominiums . Applicant is renovating the interior. Painting and routine maintenance are the only upgrades to the exterior . Although several nonconformities exist, the project can proceed, as it complies with condo conversion provisions of the Municipal Code . Findings for the Tract Map can be made and are outlined in the staff report. . An in -lieu fee, paid by the applicant to the City's Affordable Housing Fund, would satisfy the requirements of the Coastal Residential Development Permit application, as two low /moderate households would be displaced Commissioner Selich posed a question to the Acting City Attorney regarding Section 66427.2 of the State Subdivision Map Act. ks. Clauson replied that she had not reviewed that section and could not verify the statement related to that section in the staff report. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Selich and Mr. Campbell regarding the supply of rental housing and the number of condo conversions in Corona del Mar. Commissioner McDaniel inquired about the two parking space requirement, and he was told, by Director Temple, that the two- space - per -unit standard dated back to the 1960's. Commissioner Cole discussed the City's in -lieu fee with Mr. Campbell, and it was indicated that a formal fee would eventually go before the City Council to be established. Mr. Campbell also mentioned that the proceeds would benefit the City's Affordable Housing Fund and not be directed to any single project. Maclovio Espinoza commented that he was doing the condo conversion for the people and asked that it be approved. Chairperson Tucker posed a question to David Graves, Civil Engineer for the project, regarding exterior improvements. Graves remarked that the owner had few plans to update exterior other than it and the addition of basic landscape and hardscape improvements. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Chairperson Tucker opened the matter for public comment. A member of the public stated that he planned to purchase one of the condos. Commissioner Selich expressed concern over the following: ■ Adaptability of the building to condos, specifically: a Parking concerns ■ Impact to rental supply . Exemption of Section 66427.2 of the Subdivision Map Act He also recommended a continuance to obtain additional information from staff. Commissioner McDaniel echoed the concerns of Commissioner Selich. Further discussion ensued regarding the subdivision findings and whether the proposed conversion was in the best interest of the City. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to October 7, 2004. Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel None Eaton None. SUBJECT: Gates Residence Appeal (PA2004 -208) 505 J Street Page 4 of 23 • FJ ITEM NO.4 PA2004 -208 Appeal of the determination of compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.65 of I Continued to the Newport Beach Municipal Code (building Height) by the Planning Director 10/21/2004 related to the approval of a plan revision for a project at 505 J Street. The appeal contests the correctness of that determination. Ms. Temple noted that the appellant has requested that this item be continued to October 21, 2004. However, there is a possibility that this item will be resolved and therefore will not be heard by the Planning Commission. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to October 21, 2004. Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Eaton Abstain: None 1] file: //H:\Plancomm1200410923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 5 of 23 SUBJECT: St. Mark Presbyterian Church (PA2003 -085) ITEM NO.5 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road PA2003 -085 Proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Approved Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REDS) to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF); amend the Big Canyon Planned Community Text to include the project site within it's boundaries, designate the site "Institutional and Nature Presence" and adopt Planned Community District development regulations; Use Permit to allow the construction of a new church complex with the main sanctuary building to exceed the base 32 foot height limit; Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing 10.81 acre parcel into three parcels. The total proposed square footage for all structures is approximately 34,000 square feet. Gregg Ramirez noted two letters received tonight. Staff is also submitting a condition of approval requiring an emergency access road be installed along MacArthur Boulevard if the project proceeds. He noted that the consultant who prepared the Environmental Impact Report may come in late and will be available for questions. In the meantime, staff is available to answer questions. John Benner, member of St. Mark church noted the following: . The church has been in the community for over 40 years and is presently located at the corner of Jamboree and East Bluff and has a membership of 423. . On a given Sunday, an average of 220 members attend service and simultaneously run the Sunday School program for youth and children that would have an average of 25 in attendance. . The preschool has been operated for children ages 2 to 5, Monday thru Friday with an enrollment of 68 and an average daily attendance of 48 because some of the children do not go all five days of the week. . The vast majority of the students are from the community as opposed to from our membership. . Additionally, a counseling center is run from our church facility that provides service to the community. Our facilities will be available for community groups to use such as AA, and League of Women Voters, associations, etc. . The property will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and we believe that our plans maintain and actually enhance the open space / character. A group within our church involved with environmental issues has been involved with the environmentally sensitive projects of this process. We have done a number of environmental issues such as energy audits file: //H:\P1ancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 converting landscape to xeriscape, etc., and have provided forums environmental education, which is a big part of the church activities. . We look forward to developing this property in an environmentally sensitive way and being a good neighbor in the process. Scott Barnard introduced Shelly Hyndman of Hyndman & Hyndman Architects, who will be explaining the site plan on their PowerPoint presentation: . Project design features - the project site is bound by MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road and Big Canyon on the northeastern property lines. . Property designs were based on surrounding buildings around the canyon feature and maintain the canyon feature as a primary design element of the property. . The existing grades along San Joaquin and MacArthur are at about 250 feet in elevation. Most of the site will be cut an average 8 to 12 feet down so that the new buildings will be sunk into the property with landscape buffers varying from 50 to 64 feet wide along the perimeters to shield the structures from surrounding views. Richard Katzmaier of Katzmaier, Newall, Curb, landscape architect noted they following: . Referring to the exhibit, noted that one portion of the site will be 1.67 acres and is intended to go to the Big Canyon Country club and will remain as it is today. . The next section noted is a portion of the canyon that will be retained as a natural habitat space and is about 1.3 acres, which is 15% of the entire 10.81 acres. . The remaining portion of 2.58 acres is the portion that is landscaped with ornamental landscaping with native species. . The three elements, Big Canyon portion, the canyon that will be preserved and the new landscaping within the campus totals 5.58 acres, which is 62% of the entire 10.81 acres. . There is 2.72 acres that is parking plaza and sidewalk with 3/4 of an acre with nine buildings on the campus. . The existing roadway at MacArthur is currently owned in fee by the Irvine Company but is encumbered by easements with the State, City and County for the existing road improvements out there today with one exception. A small piece of 1.76 is proposed deceleration /acceleration lanes. . Of the 9.05 acres, 62% of it is landscaping in some form. Page 6 of 23 file: //H:1Plancomm\200410923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 7 of 23 Hyndman continued: • The buildings proposed for the property are smaller scale elements being sensitive to the neighborhood residential properties. • The sanctuary is approximately 10,500 square feet. • The fellowship hall is approximately 7,400 square feet. • The administration building is 4,000 square feet. • There are also several preschool buildings clustered into very small elements. . All the buildings have rooflines that are extremely low varying from 15 feet to 28 feet, and the church has low roofs and most of it is side areas with one ridge line at the center that is 45 feet. Mr. Katzmaier added: . There are three zones of landscaping for the proposed project. There is the perimeter zone along MacArthur and San Joaquin. The landscape is a combination of plant material that has been selected working with The Irvine Company and Edison. There is a master plan for the streetscape along MacArthur that is comprised of evergreen pines and under the power lines the plant material is primarily native and can be maintained easily. Along San Joaquin there is some eucalyptus in an effort to blend what Big Canyon has further up the street. There is the internal zone that is around the parking and the buildings. Within the interior areas there will be California natives around the buildings, oak and sycamore trees and flowering natives. The reason for the native plantings is to cut down on the fertilizer and water runoff. Having worked with natives a number of years, we can reduce both those elements of water and fertilizer and be better neighbors to downstream runoff, which goes ultimately to Newport Bay. There is a native canyon area. Within the natural area there is an abundance of coastal sage scrub. There obviously will be construction around the edges and our goal is to reestablish the coastal sage scrub in this area and extend it back to around the sanctuary. There will also be heavy evergreen screening so that as neighbors to Big Canyon, we will be providing screening so that we don't become a neighbor with large buildings next to the golf course. . Referencing the exhibit he then noted the water drainage areas that take the water from the site and enters down into a natural area. . There are berms along the perimeter. Section A by San Joaquin, the cars are screened from parking so it will be quite a bit lower. There will be planting of file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 8 of 23 evergreen and shrubs. . Section B at the intersection has a large lawn area as required by The Irvine Company, mirrors presently what is going on at Rogers Garden, Newport Center and the apartments. *Section D at the connector between the two campuses with cars on MacArthur up and the bridge way sloping will have a green wall with plantings. e Looking into the natural area you will see the sanctuary. . Section E in the upper area by the children's facility has a little bit of berm with the use of excess soils from the site and will have native planting. . The campus is small and is intended to be user friendly and a comfortable place. . There is adequate screening and sound walls behind buildings in the children's area so that any activity and noise is contained within that cluster of buildings. . The church encourages people to come in through outreach programs. There is a nature facility with descriptive information around the site and a small amphitheater at the edge of the natural area that is part of the church programs. Kelly Nolan, of Nolan Consulting, civil engineer of the project, noted he has been involved with the grading, utilities and drainage design: . The project is part of the Big Canyon Watershed. . The main stream for Big Canyon actually runs to the north of the property. . Our site has a canyon that is a tributary to the main stream and our project plus the off site flow is coming through the project about 5% of what is the main stream in terms of flow comparisons. Our site itself is about 1% of the total confluence. . We have prepared a Water Quality Management Plan in accordance with the City's requirements and as a result we intend to implement three types of Best Management Practices (BMP). . The first source control BMP is educating the owners and tenants about what their responsibilities are with this BMP implementation. The source control amounts to custodianship of the site or maintenance of the site including litter control, maintaining trash receptacles, maintaining the infrastructure. file: //H:\Plancomm1200410923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 9 of 23 The second type is the site design BMP. That includes the use of landscape areas around the site and preserving natural areas such as the canyon and controlling runoff with detention basins and the use of slope erosion control measures such as where we discharge into the canyon. The third type is the treatment control BMP. We are utilizing two types, landscape swales in combination with infiltration trenches, two in the parking lot and one in the campus. The second type of treatment control is the catch basin inserts at three locations. Once the runoff has made its way down to the low points and through the landscape swales it will eventually get to the catch basins inserts where during the low flow events water is filtered through the catch basin system and goes out through the canyon. He discussed a cut away of the landscape swale. . The catch basin with the percolation filter inside would be sized to handle the appropriate design flow so that it would enter the unit before it would fill out and over top in a large storm event. It then goes down into a solid pipe down into the canyon. where it would discharge through the slope protection system. Through the landscaping scheme the rock slope protection at the outlet point would be augmented by native materials to fit in with the existing canyon features. Scott Barnard speaking for the applicant, continued the presentation: St. Mark has applied to get a LEED Certification for the project and has been registered. The certification comes from different categories that are scored such as sustainable site planning, water quality, energy efficiency, materials and uses of resources and air quality. Gregg Ramirez gave a briefing on the series of application: . The application includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities; A Planned Community Amendment to identify the subject parcel as part of Big Canyon Planned Community, the site is currently zoned PC but there are no PC regulations that govern the site, that will include development regulations that will specify how many square feet are allowed on the project site in this case it will be 34,000 with the typical development regulations found in the Zoning Code; A Use Permit to obtain approval for the development and operation of a religious institution which include all the buildings and uses on site as covered within the applicant's previous presentation; there is a Use Permit for the actual church buildings or portions of them to exceed the height limit that is file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 10 of 23 governed under the Exceptions to Height Limits Chapter in the Zoning Code that specifically allows religious institutions to apply for a use permit to exceed the height. That is limited to the buildings that are actually used for religious services. • A Parcel Map is a request for the subdivision of the property which is a little over ten acres and includes three parcels. One of which is existing MacArthur Boulevard right of way, one of which is the site that will be transferred over to the Big Canyon Country Club and become part of the golf course, and the largest site (7.3 acres) is proposed for the church development; • A Traffic Study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; • And, a review pursuant to CEQA. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern regarding the run off. There are three areas for collection. It will come off the hardscape of the property and instead of flowing down the canyon, it will go to these three places, through the filters and then go into a pipe that will take it to the canyon. I am concerned about what happens at the end of the pipe. What is happening to those three collector pipes that are now concentrating the water flow.? How will that water be accommodated? Mr. Nolan answered that at the collection points there is a low flow treatment that • filters the water before it goes into the pipes below. In a larger storm, there are three detention basins on site. The runoff when it reaches its peak in a developed condition,. the discharge into the canyon does not exceed the existing condition. The velocities are also attenuated by the use of energy dissipaters such as rocks at the discharge points. Riprap will also be used to dissipate the energy of the flow of the water into the canyon. Commissioner McDaniel questioned that you are comfortable that there will be no damage to the canyon during a heavy storm down stream caused by runoff from this project? He was answered yes. Referring to the presentation, Mr. Nolan pointed out the discharge points with impact basins. The design of the rocks is for removing the energy of water flow. The rate of flow discharging from the canyon is no greater than the existing use. That is what the detention basins are doing, they are holding it back and letting it out at a rate that does not exceed the existing rate. There is an increase due to the paved areas but that is retained on site and then over a period of time is drained through the piping. Chairperson Tucker asked how much coastal sage scrub from what is out there today is going to be removed in total when the project is completed. Mr. Katamaier answered there is some being removed around the sanctuary and • over to the left there is a canyon that is presently existing, part of which gets filled in. Some of that coastal sage is going to be removed but what we are going to do file: //14:\Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 11 of 23 on the left side of the canyon, we are replanting where coastal sage scrub does not �resently exist and are adding it back in. In our calculations we feel we are in balance by the additional materials. There is some areas that are denuded right, now that will be replanted as well. Chairperson Tucker noted that it would be helpful if between now and the time this matter ends up at the City Council you would file a letter with the City just for the record that shows what the net affect of the project will be after the project is completed. Kevin Shannon, Project Manager of Michael Brandman Associates noted that in round numbers the amount of coastal sage scrub is about 1.96 acres currently and after removal will be about 1.38 acres. There will be a transition top of the slope and blending with existing coastal sage scrub. Chairperson Tucker asked about a program or at least an application for a grant for a water quality improvement down where the Big Canyon Creek ends up at Newport Bay. Is this additional water that is going downstream have an additional impact on that plan, or does that plan account for the additional water? I see this mentioned in the City Manager's newsletter about every six months or so. He was told this is a Dave Kiff question. Continuing, he asked about the maintenance program for the filters in the catch J)asins. Is that something that will be part of your program? Mr. Katzmaier answered yes it is the rear section of the Water Quality Management Program. I believe the replacement period is annually and the recommendation is that a contract with the manufacturer for this program be implemented between the church and the manufacturer. Ms. Temple added that if lack of maintenance involved in any discharge beyond what is permitted, then our Code and Water Quality Enforcement people would step in and commence enforcement. Chairperson Tucker noted that on the plans there were alternative heights for where the cross is going to be located. One was 51 feet and one was 56 feet, what is the applicant asking for? Shell Hyndman answered that the applicant is asking for flexibility on that point and would like the opportunity to developing that tower height either way. That tower occupies about a 13 by 13 footprint on the property. At Commission inquiry, she answered that the applicant does not have a problem if the Commission designates the height at 51 feet. Chairperson Tucker noted that on the MacArthur entry and exit point, he is concerned about the safety. If a mistake is made by a driver the likelihood of a Cigh speed accident and therefore a serious injury or death is much greater in my opinion than on the San Joaquin Hills Road side, where I think the speeds would be typically less. I know staff is going to look at the site distance issues, in the EIR file : //H:\Plancomm\200410923.htm 10108/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 and traffic studies say the project works without the MacArthur entry and exit point. Could staff give us an overview of this situation. Mr. Rich Edmonston noted that staff and the traffic consultant looked at that location. Is it an ideal set up, no, but it is reasonable. If all the access is concentrated on San Joaquin Hills Road then there is just that much more of a concentration at that point versus having two access points allow traffic coming south on MacArthur to enter the site without having to make that right onto San Joaquin and then decelerate then turn directly in to the property. On balance we looked at distancing the driveway from the intersection, and we felt that it was doable. There is no guarantee, but we felt it was reasonable. Chairperson Tucker asked if it was something where we could see operationally where the one point works on San Joaquin and then have the applicant come back if the applicant and staff feel it is not an optimal situation and need to try the MacArthur entry and exit point. Is it something where we could defer it and see if it is going to be needed? Page 12 of 23 Mr. Edmonston answered that from the City's perspective, we could. If that is not to be a full access, we want some sort of emergency access for the fire department in that area anyway. The difference would be if the applicant is willing to spend the money to put in the deceleration lane and all the rest of the features associated with a full driveway that would be required for emergency access. We do anticipate one way or another that there will be some access although it would. be gated if it • was just for fire access. Chairperson Tucker then noted that dropping off children for pre - school, every parent drives and parks their cars and then walk the children in. There are fifteen parking spaces and that doesn't seem to be near enough when you have a maximum potential for 112 students. I am concerned where those cars are going to go when they all arrive at five minutes to nine to drop the kids off. I see a stacking problem. Mr. Edmonston answered that is correct. One of the things discussed, is there is a parking lot not terribly distant from that school entrance. We have noted that around the City, private schools such as this have a great deal more control over their parents than the public schools do because they have the threat of throwing the family out of the school. We tend to have a much greater problems with public schools than with private schools. Commissioner Toerge noted that on the MacArthur access point for the acceleration lane that goes southbound, the design shows that it forces the cars to merge into the path of travel of the traffic before they are allowed to veer right to make a right onto San Joaquin Hills Rd. Is there any reason why that acceleration lane can't just line up with the right hand turn lane onto San Joaquin Hills Rd.? Are there any studies that suggest a longer deceleration lane might be safer? Mr. Edmonston answered that there is no reason it can't, again it was felt that if it was made longer people might stay in there longer and not realize until the last file: //H:\Plancomm1200410923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 13 of 23 m� ninute they were in a lane that is going to make a right turn and that might not be Where they wanted to go. They could be blended together. There are some issues with the large Edison power pole line and that if you try to extend the roadway you would run into some problems with the pole line falls in relation to the curb on MacArthur. Commission Toerge asked why there is not an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin exit? If the MacArthur exit is eliminated then all of the traffic will be leaving that location and it seems you would want to have an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin Hills exit. Is the project going to be phased and if so, what is the phasing plan on the building and parking lot constructions? Gregg Ramirez answered that basically the entire project will be constructed in the first phase except for the fourth pre - school building, the expansion building and the parking lot that is adjacent to the expansion building. There is proposed condition #20 relating to the number of parking spaces. There are approximately 200 spaces that will be installed with phase one that include the 15 spaces in front of the pre- school. That condition would give the Planning Director the authority to require the additional 37 spaces in front of the expansion building to be installed at any time if there is a parking demand problem. We could re -word a condition or re -craft a condition along the lines of if there is a problem with circulation with respect to the pick up and drop off of the pre - school students that we can require those 37 parking spaces be installed sooner. Commissioner Toerge noted he would be in favor of the expansion building parking be built in the first phase due to the narrow roadway and safety concerns. Chairperson Tucker then noted that tonight we are going to receive testimony from anybody who wants to talk about this item. However, if you are going to talk about the Environmental Impact Report then you will need to talk in terms of technical comments on a technical document. As I have indicated earlier the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines prohibit us from considering argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence that is not credible. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts or expert opinions supported by facts. We have an Environmental Impact Report that we invite comments on and we have received a lot of very good written comments and staff has responded to those comments. You are also invited to make any other comments you would like to make on the project or the appropriateness of the project which proposes the conversion of recreational environmental open space to a church and pre - school use. Public comment was opened. Craig Borstein, co -owner of the apartment complex property directly northwest this property noted the following: . They have no fundamental objection to the church occupying the land. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 . However, they are very concerned with the location of the buildings on the property related to their property line and the lack of mitigation measures associated with the location of the sanctuary and the outdoor play area. . The main sanctuary has an outdoor play area next to it that is 55 feet from nearest residential structure. . The main sanctuary is planned at 40 feet in height and because the subject property is at a higher elevation than our property, the five foot setback that is being proposed is all slope. Therefore, it is almost impossible to shield the 40 foot structure with the slope and a five foot setback. . The outdoor play area is right next to the sanctuary that is located 5 feet from the property line. There will be too much noise. . In November of 2003 he had written a letter to the Planning Department indicating these concerns and suggested solutions and has spoken with John Brenner. . They have looked at and reviewed the EIR where it became obvious that their concerns were not addressed. . We had suggested in our letter that this outdoor play area have a setback of 15 feet instead of 5 feet so that mature landscaping could be placed to shield the structure and outdoor play area from the residential property. . The driveway on San Joaquin Hills Road is right on the property line and we suggest moving it back ten feet towards MacArthur. . It is a nine acre property, seven acres of the property is useable and the structures are 35,000 square feet. In other words, 117 of the property is being used for structures. It seems a reasonable solution to set it back 15 feet to be a good neighbor and to shield the noise impacts and the potential pollution impacts. Mr. Bernie Rome, resident of Newport Beach, noted the following: . Traffic is a problem that has yet to be resolved. There are a lot of cars that come into Newport Center. . Is it possible to come south down MacArthur Boulevard passing San Joaquin Hill Road and make another entry into Newport Center, say at the bus stop. That would alleviate a lot of the weaving on San Joaquin Hill Road as we have had a number of accidents. . This Commission and Council must recognize the traffic problems in this vicinity, including those from special events at Fashion Island. . The Church will be hosting other events such as the AA, etc. and that traffic is Page 14 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm\200410923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 not counted. . There is a small piece of land that is 'no -man' land and I would urge that the applicant or the seller of the land (The Irvine Company) be required to landscape that piece of land. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Toerge, referring to page 2.2, stated one of the project design features PDF5 suggests the use of deep earth tones and building colors that compliment and blend in with the natural color tones of the canyon. Yet, it appears from the renderings on the screen and in the packet that the buildings are white. That doesn't seem to be consistent or in keeping with PDF5. Mr. Scott Barnard answered that the color board is the accurate depiction of the types of colors to be used. The artists rendering of white is wrong. Commissioner Cole noted that a view corridor was referenced in the EIR from MacArthur Boulevard to the canyon feature. Is there a particular view corridor as referenced in PDF7 in the EIR? Mr. Katzmaier answered by pulling up the presentation depicting the view corridor between MacArthur and the access road. The Irvine Company wanted screening bf the sanctuary; however, there will still be a small view. Chairperson Tucker then reviewed the letter presented by Dr. Vandersloot and noted the objections and the mitigation measures in place, the Bonita Canyon Sports Park in the surrounding area, topography of the site and the amount of parkland along MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Clauson noted that this property isn't currently recreation and open space. It is currently undeveloped privately owned property that is zoned for recreation and open space. Chairperson Tucker then noted that the response to comments states that the City asked for a noise study be prepared and an analysis was done that determined that the noise from the project would not exceed the noise levels that are allowed. It complies with the noise requirements. Moving the project ten feet away and planting mature materials, yes there will be a slope, but I am not sure what moving an extra ten feet in will accomplish. Certainly on moving the access point ten feet further to the east, it may be good for the apartment project, but I don't think it is good for traffic, especially given the location. Mr. Rome's comments on how the City does its traffic study, does the trip generation rates and the surrounding land uses include special events to which he refers? Mr. Edmonston answered that special events go through their own process. Our Kraffic studies compare typical day traffic, morning and evening peak periods with and without the project. There is no specific criteria for evaluating weekend traffic which is when most of the special events occur. On large special events, the Page 15 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/08 /2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 16 of 23 applicant is required to pay for all types of traffic controls and overtime police officers, etc. to help ensure the event is carried off safely. Those requirements extend to off site locations as well. Continuing, Chairperson Tucker noted that as far as the landscape strip, it is not before us today and is not part of this project area. We do not have the authority and the landscaping of that 'no mans' land is not tied to this project. I agree it should be dealt with but this is beyond the plan. Ms. Temple noted that on page AI AB there is a line that depicts a retaining wall. If the area in question commences immediately north to the retaining wall then at least a portion of or perhaps all of that area is part of the parcel map that would go to the Big Canyon Country Club. If that is the case, as property owner they would obviously take on all the responsibilities and rights of the property and would perhaps improve that area with landscaping. However, I do believe that it would very unconventional to place a landscaping requirement on a Parcel Map. It is a parcel for transfer. Chairperson Tucker noted that we don't seem to have all the facts and indicated Mr. Rome could talk to the City Council about this matter when this is heard. Ms. Temple added that we can provide that information and have it available for the Council if you act tonight, or for the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Toerge noted he sees two issues: . The landscape in the area north of the parcel being conveyed to St. Mark there appears to be landscape between the street and the road that is going to Big Canyon. Is that currently landscaped and maintained now? If it is not, I would like to include that it should be and done by either Big Canyon or the Parcel Map might be adjusted so that the property is in St. Mark property and they would do it. Ms. Temple noted that there was a many party agreement associated with the construction of the retaining /sound wall that was a requirement of the widening of MacArthur Boulevard. We are not sure who the obligated party is, but one of them is. Commissioner Selich noted that it would be appropriate as part of this project to require a landscape plan for the area between the wall and the street and make sure it is maintained in the future either by the church or the country club or whoever ends up with the property. As far as the 'no man' land off site, there is nothing we can do about that. Commissioner Cole asked about the no project alternative allowed development alternative that wasn't really addressed in the staff report and summary. I am assuming it was rejected because it did not meet the project objectives. I is Ms. Temple answered that the California Environmental Quality Act does require us file: //H:\Plancomm\200410923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 17 of 23 t Iteat no project and no development alternatives. We did provide one rnative which would be development compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use designation. One of the points of evaluation for a higher level of consideration of one of the alternatives is that it meets the project objectives, and obviously that did not meet the objective of the project applicant because they would not be able to construct the church. Despite that and what the Environmental Impact Report says what we have before us is a General Plan Amendment within which the City has the full discretion to approve or deny. If the City, for whatever reason, thinks this should not be changed to Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities designation and consistent zoning then you have the right to deny it. Mr. Kevin Shannon of Michael Brandman Associates added that in addition to what could be proposed for Recreation Facilities, there is no project application or proponent associated with that. Chairperson Tucker noted that comment about the traffic analysis not covering a built out condition, in the response to comments and traffic study it is clear that the build out analysis accumulative long term analysis was done. Under the City's traffic ordinances typical traffic methodology, all these studies are done based upon a level of service analysis that allows for a certain level of congestion as acceptable. Our traffic studies are done in great detail because we have a Traffic Phasing Ordinance so they really are scrutinized. While the addition of traffic in V m. and p.m. peak changes the traffic situation where this project is located, it ,doesn't change it to the extent based upon the technical analysis that we have that causes it to go beyond what is acceptable. It may not be deemed desirable by some people but there is going to be some level of congestion that is allowed. Continuing he noted we had another letter opposing the project stating the project was not wanted by the people. There were only two people from Big Canyon who wrote letters. Canyon Hills Community Association wrote a letter that said while it had some concerns they stated that they are not opposed to the church, school use. We have had church projects with opposition that filled this room and the foyer and down the steps, continuing through several meetings. This project is not nearly like those projects. Continuing, the next phase in the environmental review is the decision if we have heard anything tonight that would lead us to believe the EIR needs to be modified in any substantial way and recirculated. No one on the Commission felt this was necessary. He noted that the issues have been addressed in the EIR and that there have been sophisticated comments on the EIR. The primary purpose of the EIR is to make sure the decision makers understand the nature of the project so that when they make the decision they actually understand what the consequences are to the environment of the project. In this case it is a relatively simple project and easy to understand what will happen if the is project were to be developed. There is no reason to re- circulate the EIR. Commissioner Selich noted: file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 18 of 23 On the MacArthur acceleration /deceleration lane in the entrance, in the total evaluation of the project, it makes more sense to have two means of ingress and egress to this project. I support the solution that has been presented and I would not support trying to merge the acceleration lane out of the project into the deceleration lane going to San Joaquin Hills Road. I agree with the concern of the parking and would be amenable to requiring that some of the parking in front of the expansion building be provided as part of the pre - school so there is sufficient parking. I don't believe that you will find people parking on the other side of the canyon area and walking back to the pre - school. Perhaps going in and doing a portion of the parking to provide overflow parking for the pre - school is warranted. Commissioner Toerge noted: . Looking at the Site plan A1.4B it appears the power pole is at least 60 to 80 feet north of the start of the current deceleration lane. . My suggestion is to extend the deceleration lane on MacArthur Boulevard to 200 feet or more in length as feasible with the limitation of the power pole. • Elimination of the requirement that the accelerating cars out of MacArthur have to flow into the traffic before they turn right. • There should be some form of acceleration lane out of San Joaquin Hills exit as it makes no sense why there isn't. You will have a lot of cars pouring out of that exit. . The tower feature of the sanctuary should be held at 51 feet. . I agree that maybe half or more of the parking for the expansion building be included in the initial phase to accommodate the pre- school. . Some requirement be included in the conditions to clear up this issue of landscape north of the parcel being conveyed to the Church and that area be landscaped and someone be made responsible for it. Chairperson reiterated: . The extension to the extent that it is feasible; have that lane be basically continued as an acceleration lane out onto MacArthur that doesn't have to get back into the third lane of MacArthur and then cut back over to a right turn on to San Joaquin Hills Road, . you want an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin Hills Rd exit. I • Mr. Edmonston noted that: file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 The deceleration lane on MacArthur, we have always been concerned that we wanted the driveway as far away from the intersection as we could and to condition a developer with acquiring a right of way from another owner is something we generally try to avoid as it puts them in an uncertain position. That would also apply to the acceleration lane on San Joaquin Hills Road but in addition there are other unsignalized accesses to San Joaquin Hills road, particularly out of the Newport Center side that have greater traffic using them that do not have acceleration lanes. As far as I am aware we don't typically put in acceleration lanes based upon a particular situation. Here the concern was for providing the one on MacArthur as you come out of the driveway and try to get up to speed because there already is a right turn only lane and that is a different conflict you would have on San Joaquin Hills Rd where there is a straight through lane. As far as the continuation of the acceleration lane on MacArthur to tie into the right turn lane, I would not be opposed to that. The proposed one is better, but either is acceptable. Commissioner Toerge then discussed the possibility of changing the property line to accommodate a longer lane; acquisition of right of way, constraints and safety. Chairperson Tucker noted he did not see the need to have an acceleration lane on fhe San Joaquin Hills Road side, especially with two access points. The wall is important to the community and to the Big Canyon Country Club, so it has to stay there. For safety purposes, if the deceleration lane on MacArthur Boulevard was extended, I agree that we can put a condition on the St. Mark project, as it is to accommodate St. Mark and they should pay for it. The issue with the lengthening of the fourth lane if it is okay with the engineering department that is okay with me. If it turns out to be a problem, the City can modify that. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted that the City has few acceleration lanes from private property like this. Following debates with our consultants the decision was that it would help people with the design that is shown to accelerate and get up to some speed before they had to start moving over into southbound Macarthur through traffic. We don't have any adopted design criteria for acceleration and deceleration lanes. and we don't have very many of them but usually longer is better. Discussion continued on possibility, length of lane, power pole replacement costs, etc. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2003 -001, Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004, Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 and certification the Environmental Impact Report to the City Council With the following modifications to the conditions listed in the draft resolution: . Extend the deceleration lane on MacArthur leading into the secondary access file: //H- .Tlancomm\2004 \0923.htm Page 19 of 23 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 driveway as long as feasible without the necessity to move or modify the large Edison power poles. . Extend the acceleration lane to merge in a linear fashion with the deceleration lane for the right hand turn from southbound MacArthur to westbound San Joaquin Hills Road. . The sanctuary tower height is limited to 51 feet. . That a minimum of one half or more of the parking, if required by the Public Works Department, adjacent to the expansion building be built with the initial . phase of the development. . That there is some form of surety that the property between the sound wall and MacArthur be continuously landscaped. Ms. Wood noted that when the sound wall was built there are a number of parties involved in the funding and construction and the installation of the landscaping. I believe that as part of that project responsibilities were assigned. I am concerned that if we put a condition on this project it might be in conflict with some other agreements that were reached when the wall was installed. Commissioner Selich noted this is one parcel that is now being split so the Commission has the ability to place a condition on this project and the parties to that agreement can figure out how to deal with it. If it becomes impossible to implement, the applicant can always come back and seek an amendment to the condition. Ms. Clauson noted another option is that more information may come up between now and the time this goes to City Council we can make some recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Toerge agreed to this recommendation. Commissioner Selich noted he does not agree with the deceleration /acceleration lane recommended on MacArthur as it is not necessary. Following a brief discussion Commissioner Toerge modified his motion to eliminate the acceleration /deceleration lane merger for the right hand turn from s/b MacArthur to w/b San Joaquin Hills Road. He also included the proposed added condition 59, 'Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an emergency access road with a rolled curb and surface capable of supporting fire department apparatus shall be provided at or near the location of the proposed MacArthur access point shown on the approved plans. the final design shall be subject to the review and approval by the Fire department, Public Works Department t and Planning Department. (This condition is only applicable in the event that the MacArthur Boulevard Access is not constructed.)' Page 20 of 23 file: //H:1Plancomm1200410923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Eaton Abstain: None SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265) 600 St. Andrews Road 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 to 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 of the two proposed buildings. Ms. Temple noted that applicant has requested that this item be continued to ,October 21, 2004. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to October 21, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the following items: Revisions to Appeal and Call for Review Procedures Amendment was approved Newly revised Zoning Amendment for Group Living Uses was reintroduced and will receive its second reading next Tuesday (9/28/04). Loss of Planning Commissioner Daigle to City Council - Appointment of the committee to consider applications will be made, and the application period will run through mid - October Page 21. of 23 ITEM NO, 6 PA2002 -265 Continueto 10/21/2004 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 22 of 23 b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - . Commissioner Selich mentioned a meeting on City's Grease Trap Ordinance c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. Commissioner Tucker for Sharon Wood: Land Use Alternatives still planned for November? Ms. Wood stated that she planned to bring the Land Use Alternatives to the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) on November 8, 2004, along with additional information from the consultant. She remarked on the importance of providing an ample range of alternatives, for consideration by GPUC, prior to testing them with the Traffic and Fiscal models. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Toerge inquired about the proposed use for the Chili's site on. Coast Highway Ms. Temple responded that it is a medical office building. Chairperson Tucker asked about the parking ratio for the site. Ms. Wood replied that the applicant had met the parking requirements. 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 - Ms. Temple reported the following: California Coastal Commission had, on September 10, 2004, extended consideration of the City's Local Coastal Plan for a period,of one year. AB2702, Second Units Statute, is on the Governor's desk but has not yet been addressed. g. Project status - Chairperson Tucker asked for project status on St. Andrews' Church Expansion. Ms. Temple reported that no revised plans had been received. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 1 Page 23 of 23 Chairperson Tucker requested feedback on the Banning Ranch Tour. Ms. Temple discussed details of Tour and Meeting. h. Request for excused absences - ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • U file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/08/2004