Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/08/2000I- L-1 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: Commissioner Gifford was excused, Commissioner Tucker arrived at 7:15 STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Genic Garcia, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of May 18,2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of May 18, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Tucker Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 2, 2000. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Albertson's, Inc. (Mark Steinmann, applicant) 3049 East Coast Highway Proposed Parking Plan with Use Permit No. 3650 Determine if proposed parking plan is in substantial conformance with the approval of Use Permit No. 3650 Commissioner Kiser clarified the staff report regarding the parking counts at the different time frames. The previously approved parking plan dated July 6, 1989 showed 76 parking spaces that have been verified by City aerial photos of the site (1995). 1 assume the photos were taken in 1995. In the last paragraph, it states, 'As previously stated, the City's aerial photos of the site show that the shopping center has been operating with 72 spaces at least since 1995 when the aerial photos were taken: What happened to those four spaces? Associate Planner Eugenia Garcia answered that the 1995 aerial from which the information was taken did show 76 parking spaces. After 1995 to the present, Albertson's has been operating with 72 spaces due to a trash enclosure that was expanded. Commissioner Kiser then asked about the parking plan submitted with the Use • Permit for the mezzanine approval showing 75 spaces to be provided. The City Council approved the applicant's request for a waiver of 9 additional parking spaces when the mezzanine addition was approved. If there were 75 parking spaces to be provided, I don't understand about the waiver of the 9 parking spaces. Ms. Garcia answered that the Use Permit was approved with a parking plan showing 75 parking spaces, which included a waiver of 9 for the mezzanine addition. The 75 parking spaces presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council that resulted in the condition for 75 spaces. Their engineer drew the plan incorrectly resulting in a mathematical error in the center aisle. Additionally, the 75 parking spaces did not show the handicapped space in front of the Blockbuster Video. The angled parking spaces were drawn using the front space twice. Transportation /Development Services Manager, Mr. Edmonston added that the layout of the proposed angle parking counted the front several feet of the space on both sides, which could only be occupied by one car. They were assuming that it could be used by both cars at the same time. Doug Gatsbergh, 2524 Eldon, Costa Mesa speaking for the applicant, stated that the engineer had made an error when he drew the plan up. However, Albertson's has been operating since 1995 with the 72 parking stalls. Commissioner Krandey asked about tandem parking for employees. He was • answered that most of the employees park in the City lot using permits, as this INDEX Item No. t UP 3650 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June S, 2000 was one of the conditions of the original proposal. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to determine that the proposed parking plan is in substantial conformance with the approval of Use Permit No. 3650. Chairperson Selich added that he is in agreement with this action. If this had been brought forward with the 72 spaces, we probably would have granted them the additional waiver because the mezzanine space was not actually adding active floor area, it was all storage area, Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Tucker awa SUBJECT: Hard Rock Cafe (Ryan MacAfee, applicant) 451 Newport Center Drive • • Use Permit No. 3676 Request a change in the operational characteristics of an existing full service restaurant to permit the facility to provide live entertainment and to cease regular meal service prior to the closing of the restaurant, thereby operating the facility as a bar /nightclub with alcoholic beverage service as the principal purpose from that time until closing. Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood noted that since completing the staff report, more research has been done into the Special Events Permits that have been issued. Regarding the second paragraph on page 3, we are not sure why the applicant did not exercise the original use permit for live entertainment. We have also found out that the Special Events Permits that were issued were not in that intervening period when they had not exercised the use permit but back in 1997 when they had applied for that use permit and recently during this calendar year when they had applied again for the use permit. We do not know how they were operating in the intervening time; they may well have had live entertainment without complying with the conditions of the use permit. Since we had no complaints, we were not enforcing it and can not be sure about that. The other thing that was unclear was the number of special event permits that would be allowed per year. It is not clear whether it is one per week day night plus the twelve per year, or, one weekday adding up to a total of 12 per year. It is the latter that staff had intended. She recommended this be clarified in the conditions of approval, number 2. The condition should read in the table under live entertainment,'.. 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. (one weekday only by special Event Permit with a maximum of twelve per year, only six of which may be outside the INDEX Item No. 2 UP 3676 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 building)'. Delete condition 14. Commissioner Kranzley noted that on the Census Tract, the Hard Rock Cafe was moved to a different tract. Condition number 6 limits the number of performers to 5. We have a Noise Ordinance, why do we need to limit the number of performers? The purpose of the Noise Ordinance is to make sure that we do not disturb the surrounding people. The number of performers should not matter. Ms. Garcia answered that the Police Department had indicated that they wanted the applicant to have to get a Special Events Permit to go over the number of five performers. Their concern was the crowds that would be attracted with more performers. Commissioner Ashley asked about condition 9, as it seems to be a duplicate. Staff answered that it was to have been deleted. Commissioner Kiser noted in the table in condition 2 that it should read 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. He asked for clarification of the prohibition on dancing. Ms. Wood answered that for restaurants and bars, the City has typically considered dancing as another activity that must be specifically permitted as • part of the use permit. Usually, when there is dancing, there is the potential for additional impact with crowds and lines waiting to get into the establishments. Additionally, Title 5 of the Municipal Code requires another type of permit for dancing called the Caf6 Dance Permit. Commissioner Tucker arrived at 7:15 p.m Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern about the security plan and lack of one being filed by the applicant. This needs to be done before we approve this time, rather than waiting for it to happen. Commissioner Kiser asked if any communications were received from residents or businesses in the area? Staff answered no. At Commission inquiry, staff added that the Police Department had stated that they are satisfied with the conditions and the hours. Public comment was opened Ryan McAfee, General Manager of the Hard Rock Cafe, 451 Newport Center Drive stated that he had been before the Planning Commission in November two and one half years ago as the Operations Manager. At that time the business had applied for and received a live entertainment permit. He noted his embarrassment at being here tonight repeating his efforts. He explained the reasons for lack of follow through on the first application: • He was promoted just after that meeting in November and was unable to A INDEX ® City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 personally oversee the plans. • His promotion took him out of the state until this past December. • Realized that nothing was done in his absence. • He talked to the Police Department and realized that the actual permit was never enacted. • He was told that the use permit had expired. Continuing, he noted that the restaurant is very successful and that the music would add another dimension. Nothing has changed since his original proposal; he wants to bring in tasteful bands. Fashion Island approved this application after they went to Roy's restaurant and found out that no noise was heard from our establishment. I am working with the Police Department on this issue and I am willing to do whatever it takes. It is embarrassing to be back here, because it looks like we didn't take it serious the first time, but there was a change in hands and it was not followed up on. I can assure you, this will not happen again. Commissioner Kiser asked if the people at Flemings were contacted and if you've been doing the kinds of music activities that you are proposing to be allowed to do now? Mr. MacAfee answered that Fashion Island was the one who checked with the businesses. Roy's is adjacent to the Hard Rock and he didn't know if Fleming's had been contacted. The music activities have been done only on a Special Event Permit basis and that he was allowed twelve Special Event Permits per year. A special event should be used for a big event, not just to bring a band in on a Friday night for a crowd of 100 people. At Commission inquiry, Mr. MacAfee noted that he has read, understands and agrees to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. He has no difficulty with any condition. He asked about the number of people in the band. The noise is not affected whether he has 5 or 6 members, as they have to abide by the Noise Ordinance. He will work with whatever the Commission decides. He asked to have a band on Friday night, and an option to have a band on a Sunday afternoon. Our company would now like to have entertainment twice a week, Friday night and a Sunday afternoon and then do a special event during the week. Tuesday would be a good night. There are no big events planned as yet. Mrs. Wood confirmed with the applicant that he understands that the change in the condition spoken earlier is that the weekday special events would be limited to a grand total of twelve events per year including the one night per week. Is that what you intended to apply for? Mr. McAfee answered that the company's proposal is now to have a special event Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday night. I would like to have the flexibility to do this one night a week, but if I have to settle for 12, 1 will. 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 Ms. Garcia added that the Police Department did not have a problem with a special event one night during the week. They did request that if the Planning Commission approved this, then they would prefer that it not be a Thursday evening as this is a difficult night in Newport Beach. Mr. MacAffee asked to have Tuesday nights for the live entertainment. Chairperson Selich then reiterated that the applicant is asking for: • Tuesday nights • Friday nights • Sunday afternoons • Plus twelve special events per year Commissioner Kranzley stated that if another operation comes in and since the permit runs with the land, maybe on a two year basis have a review with the Planning Director as to what is going on at this site. If it is annual, we can do it with the Planning Director who can then bring it up to the Planning Commission if necessary. Mr. MacAfee and Commission agreed. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 3676 as amended and adding a condition that this permit is subject to an annual review by the Planning Director and deleting condition 9. Mrs. Wood added that condition 14 would need to stay as it relates to the number of special event permits allowed. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3676 Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for 'Retail and Service Commercial' uses and a restaurant and bar /nightclub are permitted uses within this designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). • 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3676 to allow the business to operate as a INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 bar /nightclub after the meal service ceases, and to add live entertainment 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, for the following reasons: • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since this operation is a continuation of an existing restaurant facility. • The control of noise can be achieved by the limitation on the location of the live entertainment and compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance. • The proposal will not add a new liquor license to an over - concentrated area, providing only for the operational change of an existing restaurant with an existing alcoholic beverage license. • The establishment is to be operated as a full service restaurant and a bar /nightclub operation with limited hours of operation which should minimize the potential number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control problems in the area. • The increased parking demand resulting from the establishment operating as a bar /nightclub can be easily accommodated by the large pool of parking within Fashion Island. • The live entertainment, as limited by this approval, is incidental and accessory to the primary restaurant use and will not result in noise impacts on surrounding properties and is not anticipated to generate a significant demand for police services in the area. • The establishment will continue to operate principally as a full service restaurant and the bar /nightclub operation will occur on a limited basis based on the overall hours of operation of the facility. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. The hours of operation of the restaurant /bar shall be limited as follows and any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit: 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 Hours: RestaurantBar/Niehtclub Facilitv: Live Entertainment: 11:30 a.m. and tol2:30 a.m. Sun.-Thurs. 9:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. Fri. 11:30 a.m. artd to 1:00 a.m., Fri. & Sat. 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. Sundays 9.00p.m. to 12.00 midnight Tuesday. 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. one weekde, erdy by Special Event Permit with a maximum of 12 per year, only six of which may be outside the building. 3. The regular food service from the full- dinner menu shall be made available until 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise specified in conjunction with a Special Event Permit. 4. A security plan shall be submitted and approved by the Police Department, which shall include but not be limited to, the provision of security personnel for restaurant and parking lot security and crowd control purposes. 5. The tables and chairs to be removed to accommodate the stage for the live entertainment shall be relocated outside the dining and bar areas to an area approved by the Fire and Planning Departments. 6. The live entertainment shall be limited to a maximum of 5 performers (total of musicians and vocalists) with amplified sound. The sound from such activity shall be confined to the interior of the restaurant and all doors and windows of the establishment shall remain closed during all performances, except when persons enter and leave by the main entrance of the facility or to the outdoor dining area. The live entertainment in excess of 5 performers may be approved by a Special Event Permit on a case -by -case basis taking into consideration such factors including but not limited to: the time of day of the activity, the number and types of performers and the location of the performance within the building. The Planning Director may, at his or her discretion, refer the matter to the Planning Commission for interpretation or approval. 8. The loudspeakers outside of the building or in the outdoor dining area shall not be utilized in conjunction with the sound system of live performers, or to amplify or convey the sound of the live entertainment to the exterior of the building. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.26 provides, in part, that the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: 65 dBA 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: 60 dBA 50 dBA 10. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the live entertainment to insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Planning Director. 11. The approval is for the establishment of a restaurant type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose for the sale or service of food and beverages with sale and service of alcoholic beverages incidental to the food use during the specified restaurant hours of operation. The approval will also allow the establishment to operate as a bar /nightclub type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code after the specified restaurant hours of operation, with the principal purpose for the sale and service of alcoholic beverages with incidental food service. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow concerts as defined by the Municipal Code, unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 12. Dancing shall be prohibited as a part of the regular operation, unless an amendment to this use permit and other required application is first approved in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. 13. A Special Event Permit issued by the Community Services Department and approved by the Police Department and the Planning Department shall be required for the following events or activities (said Special Event Permit shall be completed and submitted to the Community Services INDEX 9 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 Department at least 30 days prior to the date of the event, unless other arrangements are made with the City departments, to allow adequate time for the Police Department and other City departments to review the application and to impose additional conditions of approval): • Any event or activity within the dining areas of the restaurant which is contemplated not to operate with the sale or service of food and beverages as the principal purpose during the specified restaurant hours (i.e., conversion of dining area to bar service area during restaurant hours) which utilizes a majority of the dining area of the facility. • Activities or events associated with the establishment and located outside of the building within the parking lot. Public address systems or sound amplifying equipment outside of the building may be used only in conjunction with a special event, and shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of, the Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code). • Any event or activity staged by an outside promoter or entity, where the restaurant owner or his employees or representatives shall be permitted to share in any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon money collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or sale of drinks. 14. A maximum of 12 Special Event permits for events or activities in conjunction with restaurant and bar /nightclub operation shall be permitted per calendar year, except that activities located outside of the restaurant building or within the parking lot shall be limited to no more than 6 events per calendar year and included in the 12 total permitted. 15. The applicant or successor shall take reasonable steps to discourage loitering and to correct objectionable conditions that may constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks, alleys and areas within 20 feet of the project site. 'Reasonable steps" shall include calling the police in a timely manner and requesting those engaging in such activities to cease those activities, unless personal safety would be threatened in making that request 16. A Live Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Division, in accordance with procedures set forth in Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, shall be required to allow live entertainment as incidental and accessory to the primary use of the facility as a restaurant and as a bar /nightclub operation after regular meal service ceases in the restaurant. 17. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 i8. 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 business owner, property owner or the leasing company. 19. All signs shall conform to the provisions of the Fashion Island Planned Community District Regulations and Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 20. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 21. 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. 22. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 22. On an annual basis, the Planning Director shall review the operation of the facility to determine its compliance with the conditions of this Use Permit and applicable provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code SUBJECT: GPA and Prezoning of Santa Ana Heights • GPA 99 -3 (B) • Amendment 903 • Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment, Prezoning Amendment, and sphere of influence change, prior to annexation of approximately 240 acres within the Santa Ana Heights area to the City (see Vicinity Map). Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood stated that staff is recommending that this item be continued to July 6th because the County is making changes to their Specific Plan and we want to make sure that what the City adopts is consistent with that. 0 11 INDEX Item No. 3 GPA 99 -3 (B) A 903 Negafive Declaration Continued to July 6th City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to July 6th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Tucker SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 (F) • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement General Plan Amendment No. 96 -31', Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No, 1 10 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office /lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Senior Planner James Campbell stated that the Development Agreement is not in a state to be presented to the Planning Commission at this time. Staff is still meeting with the applicant to work on details and it should be ready for presentation at the next meeting. Commissioner Kranzley stated that two very important parts of this deliberation are the Development Agreement and the traffic information. Since we got the supplemental traffic report from the Transportation and Development Services Manager this evening and the Development Agreement information has not been presented, I would like to suggest that we continue this item. I would offer that we hear public testimony and then continue this to allow us more time to review this thoroughly. Chairperson Selich noted this is a good suggestion, as they had not had time to look at the traffic report. The rest of the Commissioners concurred. He then stated that they will hear the staff report on the additional traffic information, any additional information the applicant wants to give us, then any public testimony. We will then continue this item to the 22nd of June. Transportation and Development Services Manager Rich Edmonston noted the following from his report on the four items that the Commission had asked additional information on: • Trip generation rate determination - the rate used in the traffic study is • based upon actual field counts which were converted to trips per 12 INDEX Item No. 4 GPA 96 -3(F) A 898 EIR No. 159 TS No. 110 DA Continued to June 22nd City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 employee. Based upon recently identified differences in current and projected employee shifts, the trip generation rate during the PM peak period was found to be too low. The AM peak hour generation and the total trip generation rate would be unaffected. Based upon projected employee shifts and number of employees, the PM trip generation component of the overall trip generation rate is expected to be 31.7% higher than predicted in the traffic study. Based upon this information, the traffic engineer conducted ICU analysis at three intersections that were projected to have ICU values between 0.85 and 0.90. The analysis shows that these intersections would not be impacted and would operate at satisfactory levels of service and no new TPO or CEQA impact would result using the higher PM peak generation rate. • Ability of the access from Birch Street to handle the project parking structure - There are no detailed site plans as of this date. By having a single lane entry and exit from the garage that would access the Birch Street driveway, the ability of cars for egress and ingress at the end of the shifts would limit the amount of traffic getting out on to Birch Street at any given time. By designing this structure where there was more capacity for exiting onto the Jamboree side, it would make it a more attractive exit. People would go straight out via the traffic signal on Jamboree at Fairchild. • Whether the short-range TPO analysis extended far enough south on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road - A specific concern for Jamboree Road was due to the Dunes traffic. The consultant was asked to look at the next intersection to the south. It was determined that no impacts were identified at that next intersection. The intersections south on Jamboree were operating at LOS A and C at the present time, and the project traffic with the Dunes traffic would not create unsatisfactory LOS. Study showing lower long -range ICU values at some intersections with a project added - Another explanation is included in the report. Workers who would come to the new Conexant building have to come from someplace. The assumption is that they are not new workers who come into the modeling area, but they are people who are already in the modeling area. If they came into the modeling area, the assumption is they would have to come into new residential in order to have a place to live in the modeling area. What the model tries to do is redistribute trips that would use a facility like Conexant, office type and manufacture type trips. It strikes a balance with all these uses of that nature within the system. For example, if somebody lived on Balboa Island and worked in Irvine Spectrum, they might drive up Jamboree to the 405 and go south. If they changed and took a job at the expanded Conexant, they would no longer be on Jamboree north of Conexant, which would result in fewer trips on that segment of Jamboree. That is how the model essentially works. 0 Continuing, he stated that based on the analysis: 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 ➢ We are comfortable with the modeling and the trip rates. ➢ The distribution is appropriate and the p.m. peak hour rate, while slightly higher than in the report will still be mitigated at all of the intersections identified in the report as being impacted. The previously identified mitigation measures will bring them back to at least as good as the pre - project condition. ➢ There are no additional impacts identified. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston added: • Model includes all of Orange County. • The model matches certain traffic projections at the boundaries of Los Angeles County, Riverside County and San Diego County. • In the long range, there is a hierarchy of models that ultimately builds up to the SCAG regional model. They have projected what the population increase is between now and long range. With what is in the General Plan now there is equilibrium established between the population, housing land use and employment. When you introduce one or the other, than the model goes out to figure how to do that. With residential use, it clearly adds trips because you are bringing in people who make those trips. New uses, other than residential, must compete for the available trips made by the people who live here. The only other change would be if there was any type of a long -term social change, which the model cannot predict. • Does the model take into account when the people come or go? - the City's model has trips that are based on studies in terms of the work shifts that were in place at Conexant. The model assumes that the future employees will behave like the current employees in terms of both shifts and car - pooling. Wes Pringle, WPA Traffic Engineering added at Commission inquiry: • One lane exiting the parking structure will have access to Birch Street that will allow only a set amount of cars to exit. There is only one lane out now, so it will not dramatically increase the number of trips going to Birch. It is designed to encourage traffic to go to Jamboree by having two lanes out. • People who park in this structure are mainly manufacturing type and have different schedules. They are not the ones who leave during the peak hours but leave at different times depending on their shift. • When we looked at the information provided by Conexant of the employees based on shift, the majority of people were added to a shift that ends at 4:30 p.m. That shift is management and engineering that work with an open schedule (flextime). The majority of them tend to spread their hours out, but for the purposes of our analysis we have assumed they all leave at 4: 30 p.m. If they find that becomes a problem then they have the option of leaving later or earlier, which would reduce peak hour trips. • We used the density of 1 employee per 210 square feet on the basis of a 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 general office basis of one shift. The traffic study is based on Conexant's shifts and studies of their operations that were compared to general office building use. Therefore if Conexant moved out and a general office use took its place, there would be less trips. The lower density more than offsets the fact that Conexant has multiple shifts. The trip generation numbers are in the Response to Comments in Table 2 that shows comparisons for general office use as compared to what we use. The difference in density is based upon employees per square footage, either net or gross. Public comment was opened. Alan Shiroma, Conexant Systems, Inc., 4311 Jamboree Road noted concurrence with the findings in the staff report. We will continue to work with staff to iron out the Development Agreement so that it can be presented at the next meeting. Barry Eaton, EQAC representative: • There is no effect on the intersections with the higher generation. Page 2 of the traffic consultant's report, the shift factor generates 32% more traffic. • • There are no threshold problems with the intersections further down Jamboree but at Jamboree and University intersection the 1% TPO number is triggered in both the a.m. and p.m., and should have been included in the study to be looked at to see if it had any capacity problems. • Relative to the model, which is hard to understand, it uses only employee numbers and population numbers and divides them into fairly large tracts. It uses the highway system to try to affect the gravity of how those numbers will relate to each other. There are other possible models out there, and I ask that you look at a better method. The actual numbers at Campus and Jamboree being used for Koll Center are the same. The model is saying that the Koll Center is going to put the model over the threshold but Conexant (has three times the traffic) is not. There are several other intersections that the model says will be affected by Koll but not Conexant. It just doesn't make sense. • Koll traffic study is predicting that 507o of their new employees will be using the Conexant driveway on Jamboree. If the garage is also going to use the Conexant driveway onto Jamboree, that presents the possibility of some significant traffic on that driveway. • EQAC recommended that if you are looking at a long -range solution for Jamboree and MacArthur, there be mitigation measures for Conexant to participate in that also. The revised traffic study says that there should be a mitigation measure requiring Conexant to participate in the long -range solution at Jamboree and MacArthur. The Koll EIR study says that Koll should participate. However, the mitigation program has no such provisions. 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 Public comment closed. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston added that there is one driveway on Birch that accesses the site. Staff can look into a deceleration lane southbound on Jamboree. Commissioner Tucker commented that the traffic model has too many variables to ever make sense. If it doesn't make sense, then you have to take its usefulness with a grain of salt. It is a long -range prognostication that has a lot of things in it to the point that it is difficult for anybody to explain to us. In every jurisdiction, it is difficult to understand a long -range model. What happens on the Conexant property is a very minor part of the model and that is where the problem comes up. There is so much of a regional influence that we would all love to say what is it going to do to this one little site? I am convinced that there is not a long -range model in existence today that is going to tell us that answer. One of the things we have to look at with this sequence of traffic signals right next to each other, you need to look at it as a segment of roadway as opposed to an intersection. We do have the MacArthur /Jamboree intersection and the Birch /Jamboree intersection looked at and there may be some congestion in the intervening intersection, but the whole segment analysis appears to work at an acceptable • plus or minus level. The last point has to do with the long -term impacts that Commissioner Selich and I are involved with in terms of the negotiation of the Development Agreement that we are attempting to work out a protocol as to how that fits together. It is not something that has escaped notice. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to June 22nd. Chairperson Selich noted that it would be best to go through this item all at one time. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Sea Island Subdivision (Luna Planning & Architecture, Applicant) Southeast comer of Jamboree Road and Ford Road • General Plan Amendment No. 99 -1(D) • Amendment No. 990 • Resubdivision No. 1083 Request to permit a subdivision within an existing condominium development and the construction of three new attached residential units. The project requires the approval of: 16 INDEX Item No. 5 GPA No. 99 -1 (D) A 990 Resub No. 1083 Continued to June 22nd . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 • A General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment to increase the total number of units permitted within residential area 1 of the Big Canyon Planned Community to accommodate the construction of the proposed 3 new units. • A resubdivision application to subdivive the existing parcel creating 3 new residential condominium units. Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood stated that staff is recommending that this item be continued to June 22nd. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to June 22nd Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, , Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Tucker SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2000 -2 • Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. Northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaauin Hills Road: A proposal to change the land use designation and development allocation for this site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Governmental, Educational and Institutional facilities, to allow the property to be developed with a church and related uses. B. 600 St. Andrews Road (St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church): A proposal to increase the development allocation for this site to allow an approximate 54,600 sq. ff. addition to an existing church complex, which may include a youth center, classrooms, offices and a parking structure. C. Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan: The proposed Harbor and Bay Element would be an optional element of the General Plan. Under State law, a City may include in its general plan any element that relates to its physical development. This element would focus on the issues and policies relating to the uses of the Harbor and Bay and the surrounding shoreline. Chairperson Selich asked staff for a brief summary of what an initiation is and what it is not for the benefit of the newest Commissioners. Ms. Wood stated that there is a City Council Policy that describes the procedures 0 17 INDEX Item No. 6 General Plan Initiations Recommended for Approval • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 for initiating an amendment to the General Plan. There are three cycles per year in which these amendments may be initiated. All we require from the applicant for this step is a letter outlining what the proposal is. We bring this to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then to the City Council for action to initiate. The value of this kind of system is that it is an opportunity for the Commissioners and Councilmembers to look at a project in its initial general state to see if it is something they think they would consider. If it is something that you don't think that there is any way that the City would wish to approve, then you can choose not to initiate it. This process saves the applicant a lot of time and expense before proceeding with it. Commissioner Kranzley noted that any additional theoretical traffic generated in this amendment is included in subsequent traffic study. Ms, wood answered that if there is a project for which there is an application and it is being reviewed, at the time a Notice of Preparation on an EIR for a future project goes out, then we have to include the traffic projection from that application already under consideration. Commissioner Kranzley stated that in GPA 2000 -2 (A) it is Open Space going to be converted to a church and GPA 2000 -2 (B) we have a church that is going to be • adding an additional amount of square footage and presumably trips. Ms. Clauson added that it would have to be considered as a cumulative impact analysis. It would not go into a committed project. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood stated that if you are concerned about one of these General Plan items having to account for the traffic from the Dunes, Conexant or Koll, we would be doing that if we reached the point where we realized an EIR would be necessary for these projects. At the point that a notice of preparation for the EIR in these projects was issued, we would have to count the Dunes, Conexant and Koll as reasonably foreseeable projects because they are already under review. We know what their impacts are projected to be. We would not add these projects that you are considering tonight into the analysis for the ones already under way. Commissioner Kranzley added that these projects would add generated traffic to the weekend as opposed to the weekday. I don't know what they are planning to do and it would be nice to have a bit more information in the initiation reports. Chairperson Selich added that the traffic gets confusing. For example Banning Ranch and Newport Center project. Since the Newport Center project was withdrawn, has that potential traffic been removed from Koll, Conexant and /or Dunes? Mr. Edmonston stated that in the case of Conexant, it had all of Newport Center • in it. At the time we did Koll, some of the parties had dropped out but it still 18 1,1111 �:1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 included Pacific Life and the Newport Beach Country Club aspects. There is a difference in the long range between Conexant and Koll in the cumulative because they were done a few weeks apart. Commissioner Tucker asked what uses are allowed in Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Ms. Garcia answered that in the Recreational and Environmental Open Space the City allows schools, recreational facilities, parks and park facilities. Commissioner Tucker noted a letter written by the Irvine Company wherein they suggested that they would want to have the Big Canyon Community Plan amended. Is this going to become a separate planning unit within the plan? Would it come to the Planning Commission for a site plan review? Mr. Campbell answered that it is the intention to create a separate area within the Big Canyon Plan and incorporate this area. Right now, it is part of the open space golf course area. It is to become a separate area within the plan. The development application will come forward to the Planning Department and a Use Permit will be required. The Planning Commission will see the project. • At Commissioner inquiry about the San Joaquin and MacArthur parcel, Mr. Edmonston noted that there have been a number of meetings with representatives from the churches and the Irvine Company. A drive approach had been installed for the Christmas tree lot on the north side of San Joaquin this past year. This will be the sole access point, right in, right out. Commissioner Kiser stated that there is so little information that he intends to abstain from initiating these amendments. A lot of questions have been asked pertaining to traffic issues. There might be more information that could be provided before the Planning Commissioners could find it in the best interest of the City to initiate these amendments. I would like to have more information before I could raise my hand to say any of these items would be good for the City. Chairperson Selich stated that the idea is to have this early review and not have the staff do a lot of work to provide us a lot of information. Ms. Wood noted that this is not giving any indication that the Planning Commission or the City Council would approve of these amendments, it is just to get the analysis process started. You reserve all your rights when you have all the information presented to you. However, Commissioners Kranzley and Kiser are raising something that the Planning Director and I have been talking about and that is to look at ways to amend the City Council Policy. We think that the three times a year does not make a lot of sense because applicants want them initiated before they have much information so they can be in line and not have • to wait a few months to get back in. But then, the applicants sometimes do not 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June S, 2000 file a complete application or don't get them going for years and we are working on GPA's that have very old case numbers. We are not sure what that cycle achieves for the City so we are thinking of changing it to allowing people to request initiations at any time during the year. As part of that, we would also look at perhaps outlining some additional pieces of information that the Commission would want in order to feel more comfortable making these decisions. The law provides that you can amend each element of the general plan no more than four times a year. However, we are a Charter City so that probably does not apply to us. In my mind this initiation process doesn't accomplish that for us because it bears no relationship to how many general plan amendments we approve in a year which is what the state law addresses. Commissioner Kiser clarified that he is not asking for a lot more work to be done before these GPA's are put in front of the Planning Commission, but to the extent that work has been done, that at least in some basic way that gets into a report that can be considered. For instance adding 54,600 square feet to an existing church raises so many questions. If this process is just to have staff analyze it my answer would be yes to all of them based on the quality of staff. However, to initiate amendments if it suggests some kind of a go ahead to a project, that may be the wrong type of use to that area. If we base an initiation decision or a yes on so little information, the less information to base a decision on even to start • analyzing the more chance that down the road you may realize that there is some problem with the initiation. My comment would be that a summary of all information that has been gathered by staff in meetings and such should be included in the General Plan Amendment initiation. Public comment was opened. Bernie Rome, President of the Big Canyon Community Association that includes 468 residents, stated that issue A, which is the re- zoning of the comer, has only one entrance /exit that is being proposed. We had a good example of what this does to the traffic during the time the Christmas trees were sold there. That corner was a terrible traffic problem. The residents in Big Canyon are always complaining about that problem and here we are going to add something that will make it worse. I am amazed that any religious organization would consider this site for a church. It doesn't make sense but the open space area does. The City was able to acquire the Bonita Canyon area from the City of Irvine. We allowed ourselves to have what might be considered a church row, as there are several churches already in that area. There could be a better place for a church site than along this corner that is being proposed due to traffic. Barry Eaton stated that Queen of Angels drives this issue as they are in need of a larger sanctuary and hope to get St. Mark's property. Queen of Angels went to the Irvine Company and asked for a site to relocate St. Marks's to and this is the only site that was offered. St. Mark's is just starting the internal process of evaluating this site and if it would be appropriate for church use. This is not a • done deal by any means. 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 Commissioner Tucker noted that this is the initial stage. We can turn it down if it doesn't make any sense and that is what we are going to look at. It seems that everything that comes before us, everybody complains about how terrible traffic is in their part of town and that is why we do these traffic studies. If the use in question will conflict with the current traffic patterns, a traffic study will show it. If the Irvine Company and the church want to explore that option, I feel like it is something that they ought to be able to do with no assurances that we are going to approve it. Public comment closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan 2000 -2 A, B and C. Ayes: McDaniel, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Abstain: Kiser Noes: None Absent: Gifford ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated that no Planning issues were considered at the meeting of May 23rd. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich reported that the EDC is doing a review of the City's overall economic development policy and Will probably be making recommendations to City Council on some clarification and changes on the policy, the EDC is reviewing the fiscal impact report on Conexant which will be presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Ashley asked if any work had been done on a study of traffic in Corona del Mar on Coast Highway. Mr. Edmonston answered that work has begun on this, but it is in preliminary stages. d.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker asked to be excused from June 22nd meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M. • LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY 21 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment