Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/1999CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund - Commissioner Fuller was excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Robin Clauson, - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston -Transportation and Development Services Manager Eugenia Garcia - Associate Planner Ginger Varin - Executive Secretaryto Planning Commission • Minutes of April 8,1999: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on, to approve as amended the April 8th Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Fuller Abstain: Tucker Public Comments: Mr. Alan Beek presented a packet regarding the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 1 b, 1999 • Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 Wine Shop Project #1 (Jeff Schroeder, contact person) 2411 East Coast Highway • UP No. 3653 Request to open a specialty off -sale retail wine store focused on the sale of domestic and imported wine on a property located in the RSC District. The request to establish a new alcoholic beverage service outlet is pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Temple noted for the record, that the Planning Department received a letter of opposition to this application from Mr. and Mrs. Emil Crespin. Public comment was opened. Jeff Schroeder, applicant of 6 Morning View Drive, Newport Coast in response to Commission inquiry stated that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of Use Permit No. 3653. Public comment closed. Commissioner Tucker asked if the applicant would have to come back if the • business use went from a beer and wine license to a full liquor license. Ms. Temple answered that the conditions of approval are worded with no limitation for solely the sale of wine. A change in the license type is still subject to the review of the Police Department for additional conditions and could be subject to a further Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Use Permit depending on the nature of the license change the applicant would make. Commissioner Gifford asked if it would be feasible to limit the sale of anything other than wine and beer to say 107. of total sales or inventory. Some way to set a limitation, but not to deprive the right to sell those products. Ms. Temple answered that the Commission could impose such a condition at this time. She noted her concern with the ability to monitor. Public comment was re- opened. Mr. Schroeder noted that it is not his intent to have his business become a full - scale liquor store. His business is a specialty wine shop in rare and imported and domestic wines that are not found in shops around Newport Beach. There is no intention to sell anything but wine except for bottle openers, books and perhaps gift baskets. Public comment was closed. • 2 INDEX Item No. 1 UP No. 3653 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve Use Permit No. 3653 with an additional condition to restrict this use permit to sell only wine products that meet the Alcohol Beverage Commission definition. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Fuller Abstain: None FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3653 Findings: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" use. Retail sales are a permitted use within this designation and are consistent with the General Plan and compatiblewith surrounding land uses. 2. The Zoning Code designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" use. Retail sales are a permitted use within this • designation and are consistent with the Zoning Code and compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Approval of Use Permit No. 3653 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made based on the public's desire for a variety of wine choices in a retail setting. • Because the wine shop does not have a bar area specifically designed for the service of alcoholic beverages, the potential number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control problems in the area should be minimized. • The retail use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since retail uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and conditions of approval have been included which should • prevent problems associated noise from store ,I,I= • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 Nonconforming on -site parking is 20.62.060 (B) of the Municipal Code. Conditions: to the area residents. address under Section That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The interior retail area shall be limited to approximately495 square feet as delineated on the approved floor plans. 3. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or leasing company. 4. The sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption is prohibited. 5. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. • 6. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 8. The hours of operation shall be limited between 11:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. daily. 9. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 10. All owners, managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California • Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 certifying /licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 consecutive days of the issuance of this use permit. 11. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. 12. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. 13. The applicant should take steps to assure that noise from store deliveries, employees, or cleaning crews do not affect near -by residents. 14. The business shall sell only wine products that meet the Alcohol Beverage Commission definitions. • Standard Requirements The project shall comply with Uniform Building Code and Disabled Access requirements. 2. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 3. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Roy's - Newport Beach, LLC 453 Newport Center Drive • Use Permit No. 3654 Request to permit the establishment of a new, on -sale alcoholic beverage outlet pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code. The alcoholic beverage outlet is in conjunction with a new restaurant on a property located in the Fashion Island Planned Community District. Since the Fashion Island INDEX Item No, 2 UP No. 3654 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 Planned Community permits restaurants without a use permit, the request specificallyfor alcoholic beverage service only. Public comment opened. Mr. Michael Chow, attorney representing Roy's- Newport Beach, LLC, 3991 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 350, Newport Beach spoke in support of this application noting the following: • upscale restaurant specializing in Pacific rim cuisine 16 locations throughout the world • add a world class internationallyrecognized restaurant to the Fashion Island area • the entrydoorfortherestaurantison Newport Center Drive • the restaurantwill have valet parking available for its patrons • outdoor dining is planned In conclusion, he stated that the applicant understands and agrees to the findings and conditionsof Use Permit No.3654listed in Exhibit A. Public commentwas closed. • Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 3654 pursuant to the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Fuller Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3654 Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" use. Alcoholic beverage service is incidental to a restaurant use which is a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. • 3. The Planning Commission has considered the five factors for reviewing a INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance. The project is in an area of over- concentrationof alcohol outlets and where the crime rate exceeds the Citywide average by more than 20%. However, the project is in an area that is primarily commercial and has very few residents, and residents in nearby areas are not impacted by the concentration of liquor licenses. Further, the alcoholic beverage service is incidental to a full - service fine dining restaurant, which will add to the variety of restaurant choices in the City, thereby serving the convenience and necessity of the public. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the approval of the Use Permit is appropriate in this case. 4. Approval of Use Permit No. 3654 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following reasons: • A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made based • on the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in a restaurant setting. • The establishment will provide regular food service from the full menu at all times the facility is open; and the limited hours of operation should minimize the potential number of Police and Departmentof Alcoholic Beverage Control problems in the area. The proposal will add a new liquor license to an over - concentrated area. However, the alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of the facility as a restaurant. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages. • The. restaurant use with alcoholic beverage service is a permitted use in the Fashion Island Planned Community. The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary restaurant use, with the bar area limited to 20% of the dining area. • The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting district in which the project is proposed is less than the percentage citywide, and the adjacent reporting districts are also below the citywide percentages due to more commercial land uses in these reporting districts. • • There are no residential districts, day care centers, schools, or park INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 and recreation facilities in the Conditions: project site. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. This approval is for alcoholic beverage service only. The off -sale of alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption is prohibited. 3. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 4. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. • 5. Alcoholic beverage service shall be permitted in the outdoor dining area upon approval of the Police Department and the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 6. The hours of operation shall be limited between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. daily. 7. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 8. The exte6orof the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalkswithin 20 feet of the premises. All owners, managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 consecutive days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 10. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. Standard Requirements: The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. Grease interceptors shall be located to be easily accessible for routine cleaning and inspection. 3. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 4. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. • 5. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to furtherreview by the City Traffic Engineer. Dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted in accordance with a Cafe Dance Permit and Live Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance with Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. 9. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the • subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 10. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Blockbuster Video Sign (Mark Frank, contact person) 3007 East Coast Highway Modification No. 4879 Request 4o permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where the Code limits roof signs to business locations that preclude the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. Ms. Temple noted that this is a referral to the Planning Commission from the Modifications Committee. The business wanted to install a sign that was on a location that could be considered a roof sign and would therefore require an approval of a modification. In addition to the two potential signs that the applicant had submitted for consideration, staff discussed the possibility for a • third sign option for the Planning Commission which is described in the report. Should the Commission elect that third alternative, it would revise condition three in Exhibit A. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the building permit was issued that included a demolition of an existing 4 -foot high corrugated metal parapet wall located above the roof. In that plan, did they have the addition of the new marquee? Ms. Temple answered yes, the applicant knew at the time of plan submittal, that should they install a sign on that marquee parapet that it would require subsequent discretionary action. Absent the sign, the parapetwall is permitted with no discretion. At commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted staff's concern on the potential to set a precedent. Other property owners may come in and construct similar parapets. They could then come in after the fact and ask for signs to be put on them thinking the parapets would be considered as the face of the wall of the building. Public commentwas opened. Mark Frank representing San Pedro Sign Company of Wilmington stated that at the beginning of the project submittal, there was a four -foot high corrugated metal background. Originally it was going to be painted blue with a 30" tall channel lettered logo. It was deemed to be too massive and did not fit the neighborhood. Therefore, he wanted to develop a pop up on the facia that the city is calling the roof sign. The 32" high band that was there went away as . it was not tall enough to place their logo on. Referencing the exhibit he noted 10 INDEX Item No. 3 Modification No. 4879 Continued to May 6t^ City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 that Blockbuster would like to have a smaller logo with 9 1/2 " letters that are more recognizable. Continuing he noted • Focal point over the entrance • Comparisons of signagein immediate vicinity • Support of Chamber of Commerce letter • Explained that this was simply a misunderstanding. Gary Taylor, Blockbuster, 5500 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills - stated that he did not intend to "back door" this by putting up a .facade and then come in later and asking for a sign. The original presentations brought before the city showed the signs that were blue corrugated panels with the facade. We did realize we should have been here in February for the sign. It is a very expensive facade that was put up and it will be expensive to remove. However, we feel it is in characterwith the building and the community. At Commission inquiry, he stated that when he was in with the Building Department, he should have discussed the sign with the Planning Department. He explained that he was not aware of the process that should have taken place before hand. He explained that the Blockbuster signs are different and some show just the lettering and some with the torn ticket design. There are a • variety of reasons for the different signs, and that is to accommodate the particular city sign codes and space. He noted that the City has given him permission for the temporarysign that is in place now which is allowed for ninety days. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley noted the following: • The sign ordinance is vague and a number of people ignore it. • The problem with this application is that the Commission could set a precedent if this was approved. • Suggested an extension of the use of the temporary sign while the process of an updated sign ordinance is going on. • Signs are a hot topic around town. • This is an attractive sign but it may set precedence for other roof signs. Commissioner Gifford noted the following: • The new sign ordinance that is in the process of being drafted will preclude an onslaught of people attempting to take advantage by building a parapet to put a sign on. • The sign being proposed is so much better than the alternative; it is good for the community. This is an enhancement. • Is in favor of permitting this sign. • Many signs around Newport are on structures or parapets. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 Ms. Temple noted that the current sign revisions are only for the Balboa Peninsula and would not be effective in Corona del Mar. It might be years before citywide sign ordinance changes. The draft is still in staff review. Commissioner Tucker noted that the square footage of this sign is fine, it has been massed instead of spreading out. A neighboring establishment has what appears to be 12" or 15" high lettered sign right next to the street. We need some uniformity, and it will take generations to work through what is already there to move it out. At what point do you start denying a retailer's right to have what every other retailer in the area seems to have? Commissioner Ashley clarified that the applicant originally requested a 5 -foot x10 -foot sign but now a 4 -foot x &foot sign will be satisfactorywith 9 1/2" letters. Commissioner Hoglund stated that it seems the City's ordinance is at fault. If it is not clear about what is and what is not a roof sign then how can we do this on a case by case basis. I am inclined to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. Chairperson Selich stated that the Planning Commission would like to see better signs. We have an applicant before us with a special situation. He is asking for • an exception to the code rather than provide a pole sign, a monument sign or wall sign. If we are looking to have better signs, I would not feel uncomfortable approving the current sign on a permanent basis with the approach that any other sign that comes in would have to follow the some review process. I think the Blockbuster lettering works fine and the tom ticket does not need to be there. People recognize the name. This is not like Autobistrowhere we decided the sign was architecturally in conformance with the building. We gave them the sign because we felt the business needed it. The Blockbuster is not a business that needs to have the torn ticket. The one at Bison Street with lettering does just fine. The visibility of the building is fine with the newly cut trees in the area. If they need to have a torn ticket, let them do a small one on the wall or something else as staff has suggested. Commissioner Gifford agreeing with the overall philosophy, stated she finds the torn ticket a more interesting sign. The letters and the yellow outline on the ticket are illuminated at night. The torn ticket is a more interesting sign and adds more. Commissioner Hoglund agreed with Commissioner Gifford. Commissioner Kranzley agreed with Commissioner Gifford. Commissioner Ashley supports the Blockbustersign without the tom ticket sign. • CommissionerTucker agreed with the Chairman's analysis. The sign that is there 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 is of a sufficient size. They may be able to come up with some other integration of letters and torn ticket, but prefers the Blockbuster lettering. Chairperson Selich recommended that with the obvious deadlock that this item be continued to May 6th for a full Commission vote. Mr. Frank stated that he might not be back in town. Ms. Temple noted this could be continued to May 6th and at that time, if Mr. Frank was not available, it could be continued to May 20th. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue Modification No. 4879to the next meeting on May 6th. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Fuller Abstain: None +x• SUBJECT: Discussion of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of . the Newport Beach General Plan Chairperson Selich noted that this item was requested for the benefit of the Planning Commission by its involvement with the City's General Planning program as outlined in the joint meeting with the City Council. Also, part of the discussion will be the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements, what they are and how they inter - relate with each other as well, as the differences from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the Fair Share Ordinance. During the discussion tonight, it is appropriate to discuss the existing TPO and how it relates. In terms of the proposed TPO, that will be the subject of a public hearing and we should not discuss that at all. Our questions should only be on the existing TPO. Ms. Temple presented the staff report noting the following: • Summarized what the city has done to actually implement the policies contained within those elements. ➢ Implementation of the Land Use Element is done primarily through the Zoning Ordinance and related portions of the Municipal Code. ➢ Implementation of the Circulation Element is through the City's capital improvement program and the Fair Share Ordinance and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Update of the General Plan to look at the City's larger commercial districts, such as the Newport Center proposal and the idea to have an Airport Area Specific Plan. • • Considerations relating to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 13 INDEX Item No. 4 Discussion City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 INDEX • Present in both elements is a stated intent to insure that the City's circulation systems function in an adequate manner of what is called an acceptable level of traffic service. • There are hints as to some of the criteria on how this is done; there is no clear statement however, as to what the City means by an adequate circulation system or acceptable level of service. • We have never set down, separate and apart from a development project and its related traffic studies for both General Plan and TPO, a discussion of an adequate circulation system or what is really meant by that statement. • The correlation of the land use and circulation elements needs to be looked at for a balance between some of the other competing issues and policies. Discussion took place on the following: • Basis of the Land Use 2010 projection - suggested floor area ratios or specific square footage limits and density limits in the residential areas with full development. It is considered a 100% build out scenario from a traffic analysis stand point. • The circulation element does not provide a lot of information on streets (link volume). Some of that data could be brought back into the • element. • Circulation element includes a map of the master plan of streets and highways for the city that shows anticipated street configurations in terms of various classifications. This was developed in the 50's and 70's, which provided the basic input. The model when it is run may or may not show the excess traffic demand based on the capacity of the streets. • The 70's model was based on daily traffic because the model simply wasn't capable of forecasting peak hour traffic and intersection traffic. As the model became more sophisticated, it has become the primary mode because typically the intersections are the control points on a highway network. • The street system is adjusted based on the traffic model. • Concept of trend growth projection was a key feature of the city's original estimation of the future. This estimation was based on the "on ground development" plus an anticipated amount of additional development based on the previous 10 to 15 years experience. • We now have to address our maximum potential to present a circulation system that could accommodate the development derived as entitled in the land use element. • You may never have every single lot fully developed to its fully entitled potential. • We don't anticipate future general plan amendments or increases. • Reasonable planning horizons for the purpose of correlation may be appropriate given the nature of development and traffic generation. A • shorter term land use and traffic analysis may be more valid. The longer 14 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 term the analysis is, the more speculative it becomes. Models try to replicate traffic behavior based on standardized criteria. The human factor is the element that makes modeling more art than science. • Levels of service are based on levels of congestion and numbers of cycles to get one through an intersection. Ms. Temple noted that the development patterns have been set. There is no expected shifts in land uses although at various times, the Council has discussed the idea that perhaps there might be too much land allocated to commercial land uses, particularly on the Balboa Peninsula. Some studies have suggested that there is insufficient market to support that high amount of commercial development. Positive benefit could be derived from a review of the Land Use Element and certainly should be done from time to time. Commissioner Ashley observed that with a full build out all the properties within the city, we need to make a hard decision as to the level of service we are looking for to sustain in this community. There are levels of congestion that will materialize that will produce levels of service that will exceed the traffic capacities of our streets and intersections. Should we "down zone" in . order to sustain whatever level we decide or can we find ways to alter the circulation plan to permit the development to occur. He then proceeded to talk about eminent domain scenarios on Mariner's Mile resulting in the possibility of widening Coast Highway. Concluding, he stated that we have to focus on the land use plan, what it generates in terms of traffic. Then we have to decide what level of service are we going to approve and sustain in this community and how it will impact the land use plan. Chairperson Selich noted that in the Circulation Element there is a conscious statement that the city is accepting a level of service higher than D in the airport area because of regional traffic and traffic from surrounding cities. This seems to be in conflict with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance that was adopted in 1978 and the Land Use Element was adopted in 1988. Logically, the TPO then should have been amended to bring it in concert with the Land Use Element. Commissioner Tucker stated that the Land Use Element specifically calls out that it relates to the Circulation Element. As general plan amendments to the land use aspect come through, instead of the Circulation Element being modified at the some time instead the circulation is compared to the requirements of the TPO. The TPO appears to be a moving amendment to the Circulation Element. There have been no changes to the Circulation Element but there have been numerous changes to the Land Use. . Ms. Temple noted that when general plan amendments are considered, two 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 analysis and the other is pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The projects are looked at in a general plan sense in that we run the traffic model assuming full build out of all existing entitlements plus the new general plan entitlement. That will identify any conflicts if it will require a roadway width which is higher than any element and will also reveal whether any intersection at build out for ICU projections would create an unacceptable level of service after all the master plan improvements. At the same time, a Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis is done. That allows us to look at how the traffic is acting in and around that intersection in association with the specifics of the new project. It provides a way to refine the intersection design to optimize its capacity within its designation on the Circulation Element master plan. The Circulation Element is not precise in detail, but the TPO gives the opportunity to review things like lane function, signal phasing and functions and gives the opportunity to optimize the capacity of the intersection (s). Mr. Edmonston added that in the years prior to the TPO being adopted, much of the road network in the city was not built to its full size. Coast Highway was not, MacArthur had not been widened, and Jamboree was not fully completed. The map that is in the Circulation Element is the some map that • was adopted in 1974 with approximately seventeen amendments. The amendments are heard at the Planning Commission with environmental documentation and traffic studies as necessary and then it is recommended to the City Council to make the changes on the map. The Fair Share Ordinance includes a provision that certain types of improvements specifically those that provide the ultimate configuration of an arterial highway than the cost can be offset against the fair share fees. On a number of projects there are credits given where they actually constructing a master plan improvement. Commissioner Kranzley noted that these documents need to be more dynamic. The numbers are made obsolete when amendments to the general plan are done. Ms. Temple stated the models are re -run on all the general plan amendments and we look at that output as compared to the anticipated levels of service within that element and identify for the City Council if there is any degradation that would result from it. We have a high level of precision in terms of limitations of density and intensity in the General Plan. Other communities designate land uses in acreages and have general parameters for levels of land use, sometime establishing trip budgets that are for broader areas. Our General Plan land use limitations are applied on a parcel by parcel basis that is more the nature • of zoning and not general planning. 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 commissioner 1,71TTora noTea Tne inreresTing issues in Tne report as weu as Tnese dilemmas. There have not been a lot of TPO issues within the past seven years. It may be we are coming to build out. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Planning Director regarding City Council actions related to planning - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council approved the Redstone Plaza General Plan Amendment; the General Plan Amendment for the Harbor Day School; introduced an Ordinance and passed to second reading the amendment to the Districting Map on Breakers Drive and the Resubdivision; approved and passed to second reading the amendment to the Maximum Floor Area Limits, and the Autobistro ground sign was approved. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee- none. C.) Matters which a Planning Commissionerwould like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kronzley would like a discussion on • the role of the Planning Commission after a Use Permit is granted in enforcing conditions of approval. How can the Planning Commission be more proactive and call up those businesses that are in violation and do not respond to citations? Commissioner Gifford asked that the discussion include criteria for Use Permits to be called back to the Commission for their review as well as a listing of the number of situations where there are two or more citations for the same issue. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Ashley asked for a presentation of charts that would reveal what the City uses as fiscal impact guidelines to represent the revenues versus costs associated with each major classification of land use. Assistant City Attorney Clauson advised fiscal issues have not been within the purview of the Planning Commission. Discussion of this question will be placed on future lightagenda. e.) Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 17 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment