Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1999• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund - Commissioner Fuller was excused and Commissioner Hoglund was absent 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 Genia Garcia - Associate Planner Marc Myers - Associate Planner Ginger A. Varin - Planning Commission Executive Secretary Study Session and Regular Minutes of September 9, 1999: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on, to approve the Study Session and regular meeting minutes of September 9, 1999 as written and amended. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Hoglund Abstain: None Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 1, 1999 INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 SUBJECT: Kovionlon Residence (Andrew Goetz, Applicant) 2720 Bayview Drive • Variance No. 1227 • Modification No. 4960 Request to approve a variance for the construction of a new single family residence which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to permit the structure to encroach 16 feet into the 20 foot front yard setback along Bayview Drive, and 7 feet into the 10 foot rear yard setback. Public comment was opened. Andrew Goetz, architect for the applicant, at Commission inquiry stated that he has read and agrees to all the findings and conditions stated in the staff report. He stated that in reviewing the plans, his clients have decided to give up the underground garage. However, his clients ask to retain some of the square footage in the basement area, which is included in the 2,613 square feet. Sandra Beckman, 206 % Fernleaf noted her concern with the square footage stating that the code allows for 1.5 times the lot size minus the setbacks. The • Planning Commission said he could come back with a plan of 2,601 square feet based upon the reasonable setbacks. However, the architect is still proposing the same setbacks as before which mean that 1.5 times is still 2,475 square feet no matter whether it is subterranean or above ground. My concern is that the Planning Commission is allowing the applicant to building on an unbuildable lot in normal conditions. There is another property two doors away that is on an unusual size lot and they are watching what the Planning Commission does very closely. As long as the Planning Commission allows people to exceed the 1.5 times buildable area, the problem will perpetuate it self. She asked that the Planning Commission have the architect stay within the 1.5 times buildable restraints. Lynn McAlister, 218 Goldenrod expressed her concerns with the proposed residence noting: • Too much bulk for the small lot. • Footprint of the lot is 33 x 50 giving 1,650 square feet equating to 2,475 square feet buildable area. • The setbacks should be: east - 10 feet; west - 5 feet; the back and front at 4 feet each, allowing for a home of 2,200 square feet. • The applicant is entitled to a reasonable use of this lot, but they should be strictly held to the 1.5 buildable requirement. Public comment was closed. n U INDEX Item No. 1 Variance No. 1227 Modification No. 4960 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 • At the last meeting the Planning Commission went through the computation of reasonable setbacks. • Reasonable setbacks agreed to were for computational purposes as to what the size of the structure could be. The applicant was looking for some direction on that and the Commission gave the direction based on the reasonable setback, that determined the size. • The proposed setbacks happen to be a little bit more than what the reasonable setbacks were for the computation of size. That did not diminish the size that the commission gave the guidance to the applicant for. • My only objection to what has come back is that the reasonable setbacks for the size of the structure ought to be adhered to and not exceeded. • To the extent that this structure is now 12 square feet over what the reasonable setback computation would allow, I would suggest that it be pared back to the 2,601. Chairperson Selich concurring with Commissioner Tucker noted that the additional square footage could be taken out of the basement area. Commissioner Ashley noted his concurrencewith Commissioners'testimony. He • added that the applicant is proposing to build 171 square feet below grade in order to not block the view of the bay by the adjacent homeowner. In reducing the project by 12 square feet, the underground area is reduced by that amount. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to approve Variance No. 1227 and Modification No. 4960 subject to the conditions in Exhibit A, and that the applicant be required to reduce the size of the below grade garage by 12 square feet for a maximum building area of 2,601 square feet: Commissioner Gifford noting that is the most logical place to take it from, stated that the applicant should be allowed the discretion to take the 12 square feet from wherever they want. Associate Planner Marc Myers noted that there is no longer a subterranean garage, it is only a basement level. CommissionerAshley agreed to these amendments to his motion. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Abstain: Fuller, Hoglund Absent: None • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Variance No. 1227 Variance No. 1227 Findings: The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program since a single family dwelling is a permitted use within the "Single Family Residential' land use 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 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 3. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the building site referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to properties in the same District since the subject • property is smaller than the typical lot in this area, and is subject to greater than normal setback requirements which restrict the buildable area of the site. 4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, strict application of the zoning will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning classification since the subject property is comprised of the rear one -half of two lots of the original subdivision. This results in its unusual orientation towards the street, and makes it subject to greaterthan normal setback requirements, which restrict the buildable area of the site. S. The approval of Variance No. 1227 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant since the proposed project is generally proportional in size, bulk and height and is compatible with other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of setback requirements would result in a reduced buildable area in which to construct a dwelling. 6. The granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district since there are no other lots of this size in the vicinity. The granting of the variance will allow development of a dwelling that is • compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, comparable in size, INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 bulk and height to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and provides setbacks that are the same or similar to the standard setbacks applied to other properties in the district. The granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted gross structural area will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood because: • The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the property and enhance the overall neighborhood. • The use of the property for a single - family dwelling is consistent with the development in the neighborhood, the Zoning, and the General Plan. • A new home on this lot will provide more on- street parking due to the parking spaces provided on site. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access • through or use of property within the proposed development since conditions have been included in regards to development within the public right -of -way. B. The granting of a modification to allow encroachments into setbacks will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and the modifications as approved are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: • The front yard encroachment on Boyview Avenue provides a setback of 4 feet which is greater than the 3 foot side yard setback requirement for the side yard setback on the adjacent property that fronts on Goldenrod Avenue and for other properties in the neighborhood. • The 7 foot encroachment into the rear yard setback will provide a 3 foot setback from the rear property line, which is similar to the 3 foot side yard setback on the adjacent lot to the north and on similar sized lots in the neighborhood, and provides light and air between properties. • Three -foot side yards are standard on lots 40 foot wide or less, which is the width of the lot as viewed from the alley. • The 5 400t side setback provided along the alley is consistent with the required rear setback on an alley. • W904 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. The gross square footage shall not exceed 2,601 square feet. 3. The height of the new single family residence and garage shall not exceed the 24 -foot height limit for the district. 4. All vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 5. Two parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 6. The subterranean garage shall be utilized for the parking of an automobile only, and shall remain free and clear and accessible at all times. 7. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any • building permits. 8. No fences, walls, or other freestanding structures shall be located in the 5 -foot alley side setback. Standard Requirements 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traff ic Engineer. 3. All work within the public right -of -way and the public easement shall be constructed under an encroachment permit /encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 4. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of • traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordancewith state and local requirements. 6. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergroundedto the nearest appropriate pole in accordancewith Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. This variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ••s SUBJECT: CWI Development (Kevin Weedo, applicant) 427 and 429 3Dm Street • Use Permit No. 3663 • Lot Line Adjustment No. 99 -13 • Modification No. 4977 Request to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit by 3 feet 7 inches for a portion • of a new mixed -use commercial building. Also requested is a Lot Line Adjustment to combine two lots by eliminating the interior property line. A Modification to the Zoning Code is also requested to permit a 5 foot encroachment into the required 5 foot rear alley setback and to allow the use of tandem parking spaces, where the Code does not expressly permit tandem parking for commercial use. Associate Planner Genia Garcia noted that staff had received additional information and requirements from the Public Works Department that have been included in the supplemental staff report in the revised findings and conditions. They include: 1. Each unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Departmentand the Building Department. 2. A 10 -foot radius comer cutoff at the corner of 30th Street and Villa Way shall be dedicated to the public. 3. The existing sidewalk shall be reconstructed to standard cross fall along the Villa Way frontage and new sidewalk where non exists; A curb access ramp shall be constructed at the corner of Villa Way and 30th Street; and the deteriorated sidewalk shall be reconstructed and the drive approach be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the 30th Street • frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit INDEX Item No. 2 UP. No. 3663 LLA No. 99 -13 Modification No. 4977 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 issued by the Public Works Department. 4. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water and sewer facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of the grading permit. Added to standard requirements: Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 2. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. Public comment was opened. • Kevin Weedo, 518 Via Lido Nord, applicant, at Commission inquiry noted that he has read the revised staff report and agrees and understands the additional conditions. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 3663, Lot Line Adjustment No. 99 -13 and Modification No. 4977 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Hoglund Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3663 Modification No. 4977 Lot Line Adjustment No. 99 -13 Findings: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program • Land Use Plan designates the site for "Specialty Retail' commercial' use. A INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 mixed -use office and residential is a permitted use within this 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the following reasons: • The project is a minor lot line adjustment which does not create any new parcels. • The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 %. • The project will not result in a change in land use or density since no additional lots will be created and the land use of commercial use will be maintained. • The general exception to the Class exemptions is not applicable in this case since no environmental eff ect will result from this project because the traffic and parking impacts will not change from that which would result from use of the original subdivision. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3663 to permit the construction of a commercial building that will exceed the 26 foot basic height limit 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 the Municipal Code for the following reasons: The increased building height results in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit because the area of the roof that exceeds the basic height limit is located closer to the interior side property line and center of the property. Additionally, the increase in side yard setback from 0 feet to 5 feet will provide additional landscaping. The increased building height results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area that is required by the basic height limit in any zone because the increased height at the third story will result in a more varied architectural treatment. Additionally, if the entire building roof structure was built to a maximum ridge height of 31 feet, the structure would be more visually imposing than the proposed structure. The project is also designed to include elements of the Cannery Village Theme, as stated in Specific Area Plan, which results in a more appealing visual character. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 INDEX The increased building height does not result in any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces because the increased height of the third story results in a building bulk, both horizontallyand vertically, that is comparable to, or less than, the scale and mass of other recently developed commercial buildings in the area. The structure will not have more floor area than could have been achieved without the Use Permit, since there is less square footage, for both the residential and commercial portions of the project. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of propertywithin the proposed development. That public improvement may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 4. The modification to the Zoning Code for tandem parking spaces is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be • precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District because: The tandem parking configuration has been used in other similar mixed - use commercial projects within the Cannery Village /MCFaddenSquare District commercial areas and has not been a problem. • The tandem parking spaces will be used by employees and the independent accessible spaces will be available for customer or visitor parking. 5. The modification to the Zoning Code for a 5 foot encroachment in the alley setback will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use for the following reasons: • There is adequate room for vehicular maneuverability and circulation within the alley. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the alley setback encroachments with the parking spaces will not impact vehicular circulation. • The proposed encroachments will not affect the flow of air or light to • adjoining residential properties. 10 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 • The proposed encroachments will not obstruct view from adjoining residential properties. 6. The approval of the lot line adjustment will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the lot line adjustment as approved would be consistent wit the legislative intent of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: • The project site consists of legal parcels established by the original Lancaster's Addition Tract, recorded August30,1907. • No additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment. • The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and /or facilities because public improvements and infrastructure are existing. • The proposed lot widths and lot sizes are consistent with the surrounding area. • 7. Based on the information of this particular case, the provisions of Title 19 of the Municipal Code (entitled Subdivision) or the Subdivision Map Act, do not apply to the adjustment of lot lines between adjacent parcels of land and are excepted from such provisions. Conditions: 5. The development shall be insubstantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 6. A minimum of 10 parking spaces shall be provided on -site for patrons, employees, and residents. 7. The proposed landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved site plan. The landscaping on -site shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All trees and vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 8. Two parking spaces (one garage space in the single car garage, and one tandem parking space located in front of the garage) shall be provided for the residential unit on the property. 9. Parking shall maintain a minimum 5 foot setback at the alley. • 10. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from 301h 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 Street, Villa Way, the alley and adjoining properties. 11. One handicap parking space shall be provided on -site unless otherwise approved by the Building and Traffic Departments. Said parking space shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self- parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking space shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for the handicapped space. 12. All employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 13. Each unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 14. A 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of 30th Street and Villa Way shall be dedicated to the public. 15. The existing sidewalk shall be reconstructed to standard cross fall along the Villa Way frontage and new sidewalk where non exists; A curb access ramp • shall be constructed at the corner of Villa Way and 301h Street; and the deteriorated sidewalk shall be reconstructed and the drive approach be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the 30h Street frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. • 16. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water and sewer facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of the grading permit. 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. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 4. Public improvements maybe required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Public Works Department. 6. The intersections of 30th Street and Villa Way and Villa Way and the alley shall be designed to provide sight distance in accordance with Standard 110-L. Landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 7. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 8. Coastal Commission approval shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 10. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be underground to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal • Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 12. 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. 13. This Use Permit, Modification and Lot Line Adjustment shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. * *s • 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 SUBJECT: 22 Corporate Plaza The Irvine Company (applicant) A request for PC Text Amendments to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring approximately 45,000 square feet of existing entitlement from Fashion Island and Block 600 of Newport Center in conjunction with the construction of a new office building. The project involves the following actions: a finding that the transfer of development rights is consistent with the General Plan based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project, and an amendment to increase the permitted square footage in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community and reduce the permitted square footage in the Fashion Island Planned Community. Associate Planner Marc Myers noted the following: • The trip generation of a professional office is different than those of the regional retail commercial. Therefore, the use of a multiplier resulted in a comparative square footage amount based on trip generation. • In order to offset the difference in the trip rates between the regional retail • commercial and the professional office, it is necessary to transfer 44,637 square feet from Fashion Island in order to provide the balance of 38,480 square feet of office entitlement which is needed in Corporate Plaza. • Based on the findings of the traffic analysis the transfer of the prepared square footage will not result in any adverse impacts. Planning Director Patricia Temple noted that she was contacted by a member of the community who discussed certain concerns relating to the lighting of the building and the new parking area of the project. Of particular concern was the magnitude of the lighting that may be visible to surrounding residential uses. As a result, additional language was developed and is to be added as number 7 mitigation measure of the initial study and recommended action. (She then proceeded to pass out a draft) Continuing, she stated that this additional language would provide for further review of the actual level of illumination subsequent to the installation of the lighting program. The language is proposed to read, 'The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated, based on the illuminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America" She then explained the measure would provide guidelines within which a set of adjustments could occur. Certain members of the community have requested, and the applicant has also agreed to, an additional provision beyond comparing these illuminating standards. That would be a second parameter, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding residential uses. The . Planning Commission needs to considerthese under the following concerns: 14 INDEX Item No. 3 A 889 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 It has a broad and undefined standard of an unacceptable negative impact and there is no real criteria beyond the actual criteria in the exhibit upon which the staff could actually make such a determination. A compensating factor is that the actual decision is left in the hands of the Planning Director and that even should a local community member not agree with that determination, the Director's decision would be the over- riding factor. These have been reviewed by the Assistant City Attorney who has expressed the some concerns, but to the extent that the applicant is agreeable to the rather broad discretion on the part of the Planning Director, sees no legal problem with it. Staff would be comfortablewith the addition of the paragraph noting lighting sources on both the building and the new parking areas. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there was an appeal process in the case of a disagreement. He was answered that Title 20 of the Municipal Code provides that any decision of the Planning Director in terms of reading or interpreting the intent of the Code can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ashley asked about the reduction of the entitlement from Block 600 and Fashion Island. Fashion Island is intending to add 200,000 square feet • more of floor area under another proposed development. Is it one thing to give up 44,000 and then come back and ask for an additional 200,0002 Ms. Temple noted that this particular consideration is done under the provisions of the Land Use Element that allows a fairly liberal framework within which development rights may be transferred. There are fairly discreet parameters relating to traffic service and the approval of the City in order to accomplish these transfers. The Planning Commission and the community are aware that there is another request on the table, however, that is not under consideration at this time and it is unknown whether it will be approved or not. It is possible, through subsequent action, that the property owner may achieve a compensating increase in entitlement for development that was transferred in this particular request, but, there is no guarantee and the property owner is aware of that. Public comment was opened. Carol Hoffman of The Irvine Company, on behalf of the company stated that they have read and accept all of the findings and conditions of approval and appreciate the staff work done in preparation of this report. She then introduced Jeff Larson, project architect from McLaren - Vasquez Architects who designed Buildings 24 and 26 in Corporate Plaza and who is doing this design. He has presented pictures of the existing buildings to indicate what the new buildings will look like because a consistencywill be maintained in keeping . with the high quality, low rising buildings that exist there. Also, Mike Erickson, 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 traffic engineer on the project who has worked on the traffic analysis and parking, has background information should you have any questions in that regard. We have met with our tenants regarding this proposal and our property manager, Kelly Nyer, has indicated that there are no concerns on the part of the tenants with regards to the addition of this last remaining building site in Corporate Plaza. We have also met with the community in order to ensure that they understand that The Irvine Company is committed to meeting all the requirements in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Zoning Regulations and to be consistent with the site plane requirement that protects the views from Harbor View Hills. In addition, we have spent a lot of time on lighting issues with the neighbors with regard to Corona del Mar Plaza and certainly in regards to this project. The condition that Ms. Temple has proposed for additional lighting was subject to last minute discussion regarding possible additional language that will be presented by Debra Allen and I would like to indicate that we will be open to, and willing to, accept that additional language. I would like to reserve any right to additional comments upon the conclusion of public testimony. We would appreciate your favorable consideration of this request so that The Irvine Company may be able to respond to the market forces that are in place that allow us to build some new office buildings to respond to keeping tenants and businesses in Newport Beach. • Chairperson Selich noted one comment in Mr. Allen's letter, "Why the need for a density transfer? if Corporate Plaza was built as originally proposed they wouldn't need a density transfer:' Ms. Hoffman explained that at the time The Irvine Company was ready to proceed with the two newest buildings that are there, Buildings 24 and 26, we recognized that Corporate Plaza would allow the use of the square footage that had been in the original zoning, without utilizing this one pad. This was different than had originally been anticipated. We knew that additional square footage would require a zone change. We thought there would be a good opportunity to do that if we could meet the requirements of the General Plan and we could provide adequate parking and insure adequate circulation. We went forward to add that square footage since the demand exists. It is important to use our land as effectively as possible. Barry Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way stated that The Irvine Company has met with the Harbor View Hills Community Association and explained and answered the concerns noted in his letter included in the staff report. He explained that there has been an agreement reached about the lighting and noted that the Association has no objection to the project. He thanked staff for their help as well as The Irvine Company in addressing the concerns of the Association. Debra Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way noted that the language version Ms. Hoffman referred to is the longer version of the additional condition that was read by Ms. • Temple. Our reason for putting in, ......or if in the opinion of the Planning Director 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 the illumination creates an unacceptable, negative impact on the surrounding residential uses" is for two reasons: • It happened at the last minute and was hard to understand • We have had a good working relationship both with the company and the department and we are confident that the City is sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. We understand that it is up to the City to decide what is the appropriate amount of lighting and there are plenty of safeguards in the City system for that to proceed in an appropriate manner. I do not envision any kind of dispute, however, it is nice to know that we can go to the Planning Department and have issues resolved. I would appreciate it if you would pass the project with the entire condition in it. This project is conditioned well. BJ Johnson, 23 Canyon Crest Drive stated that she works at 23 Corporate Plaza and noted there is not adequate parking for her clients or the building clients. There is limited parking now and parking for this new building needs to be adjusted. Marc Myers answered that the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations apply a scaled ratio of parking requirements based upon the net square footage of the buildings therein. The applicant was initially planning to • request a waiver of up to seven parking spaces, but they were able to accommodate re- stripping which would add the additional spaces plus the new building requirements. They are in compliance with the Planned Community District Regulation requirements for parking. With this new building there will be sufficient parking based on the parking analysis that was prepared for the project. Ms. Temple added that on handwritten page 65 there is the parking utilization percentages based upon actual parking surveys. The parking areas in closest relationship to 23 Corporate Plaza do show a regular availability of parking, both in Lot E and C which are in close proximity to that area. Lot B, which may be one of the parking areas that may be problematic because it is more utilized than the other two. Parking problems are not necessarily related to the number of parking spaces, but how close people prefer to park to the building. Mr. Edmonston, at Commission inquiry, stated that the parking around Corporate Plaza does experience a range of utilization. It is a function of location as well as the actual occupancy of the building. The full amount of parking as required by code is being provided. Carol Hoffman, The Irvine Company noted that it is pool parking and the proximity and how far people want to walk is a consideration. However, we have done a couple of things with regard to pad 22 in terms of how we oriented the building and the fact that the pad area restricts the amount of parking in parking area b and that will be improved and increased. Because it • 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 n U functions as pool parking, the users of building 23 will actually have improved parking to the south of the building in terms of accessibility. The way we have designed the building to make the parking convenient to the greatest number of users in Corporate Plaza, not just the new building, is important and has been taken into serious consideration. Additionally, we did a further parking evaluation for the percentage of parking usage in Corporate Plaza and Corona del Mar Plaza at peak times. What happens is as parking gets heavier in Corona del Mar Plaza, we can shift users over to Corporate Plaza at nighttime when the parking demands go down. In terms of evaluating when that happens, they are very compatible. During the daytime, building 23 has great uses, as there is a lot of clients and activity. That is the way we like to have it. The design of the proposed project will contribute to the solution. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve and accept the Negative Declaration as adequate for approval of the project; and adopt Resolution 1505, finding the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan; and adopt Resolution 1506, recommending approval of Amendment No. 889; with the inclusion of a supplement to mitigation measure number 7. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Hoglund Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Amendment No. 889 A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findings: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3, 2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. • 18 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Mitigation Measures: The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. 2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term • (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust): b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. 3. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. 4. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. 5. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. • 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 6. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department confirming availability of water and wastewater services to and from the site. 7. Light sources within the parking area shall be designed or altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed and directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, light fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of use and occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening • inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this mitigation measure. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources on the building and In the new parking areas upon finding that the site is excessively Illuminated, based on the illuminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding residential uses. B. Adopt Resolution No.1505 (attached), finding the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan. C. Amendment No. 889: Adopt Resolution No. 1506 (attached), recommending to the City Council adoption of Amendment No. 889. SUBJECT: Initiation of General Plan Amendments The report was received and filed with no action taken by the Planning Commission. • 20 INDEX Item No. 4 Initiation of General Plan Amendments Received and filed City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 a.) City Council Follow -up - Mrs. Wood reported that at the Council meeting on September 131h, the appeal by the Newport Beach Brewery Company expansion of their liquor license was heard and the decision of the Planning Commission was reversed. At the retreat of the City Council on September 18th the City Manager announced that Mrs. Wood would take over the Human Resources function for the City as a separate department out of the City Manager's office. Her new office is located next to the City Manager's and she will continue to be involved with economic development issues and long -range planning projects. Ms. Temple reported that at the meeting of September 271h, the Council approved the General Plan Amendment related to the Sports Memorabilia Museum. However, the Council removed the condition regarding the preservation and /or replacement of the trees along Newport Center Drive. The amendments to the zoning code were approved and passed to second reading with no comment. The City Council determined to initiate the proceedings for the reorganization of territory, which is a formal way of saying the City is interested in annexing certain areas of the City. The areas are: Newport Coast /Newport Ridge area; Santa Ana Heights area; and the Bay Knolls • area, which would include a small amount of detachment from the City of Costa Mesa. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple will provide a map delineating the boundaries of Bay Knolls. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee- None. C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - Mrs. Wood noted that the City is on schedule. The Council has approved the contract with Hogle Ireland for Phase 2 and with Michael Brandman Associates for the EIR and the Cost Sharing Agreement among the property owners. Commissioner Kranzley asked for copies of the EQAC meeting where this item was discussed. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Gifford asked for a re -cap on all items that have been asked for in the past. Mrs. Wood reported that she sent out some building inspectors to the Cassidy block. They did not find any violations to the building code, however, she noted that most all of the buildings on the block have signs that project out over the sidewalk that do not conform to the current code. They have been there for so long, they are pre- existing and non- 10 21 Ik,IP1 :1 Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 conforming. The study session (the Dunes EIR project) for the next meeting will be after the regular meeting. f.) Requests for excused absences - none ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 P.M. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 22 TiT74.1 Adjournment