|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
PAC Minutes and Reports Aug. 7th 2007 (Subject to approval) Scheduled to be in attendance PAC Members: Barbara Venezia , Rick Dayton, Tim Stoaks, Gary Hall, Richard Moriarty, Jayne Jones Ted Nichols, Ted Bosley, Gary Golson Excused: Mary Slouka Approval of minutes from June PAC Meeting 1. Welcome and introduction of Guests / Councilman Keith Curry, Chief of Staff Mario Mainero is on vacation and Ian Rudge is here in his place, George Britton & Keri Bullock RSG , Matt Brisbois Newport Beach Fire Dept. 2. Public Comments: (3 minutes or less) Public comments can only address PAC related issues or proposed projects. We ask that you do not comment on issues PAC has no jurisdiction over. We suggest you prepare your comments in advance and in writing to keep you focused and within the allotted time. If you have a comment on anything on the agenda, please wait until that agenda item is being discussed. No comments Staff and Committee Reports 3. Mario Mainero is on vacation and Ian Rudge was there to observe- Annexation of West Side, Overview of the County run projects (Kline Dr. Orchard St. Park, Bristol St. Sidewalk & Kline Dr.) (10 mins) BV reported: West Side Annexation was approved by LAFCO on July 18th. Time line on Annexation and What We Can Expect This time table and information comes to us from Bob Aldrich at LAFCO: July 19 - August 17 (30-day Request for Reconsideration Period) August 20 - September 10 - (21-day Protest Period) Probable Date of Recordation - September 11, 2007 For annexations where we don't have 100 percent landowner consent, the law requires that we have a 30-day Request for Reconsideration Period in which any interested party can request the Commission to reconsider their decision - there is a fee associated with this request and it must be based on "new" information not previously considered by the Commission. For WSAH, I can't imagine anyone would want to file such a request. Then comes the Period of Protest - a 21 day period in which landowners and registered voters can file written protests with the Executive Officer. If less than 25% protest, the annexation goes forward. If between 25 and 50% protest, it goes to a ballot; if over 50% protest, the annexation is terminated. Again we don�t see this happening in this annexation but it is the law. Newport still needs to provide LAFCO with a revised map and legal description, but Dave Kiff is already working on it. LAFCO�s portion of this annexation process should completed by mid-September 2007. Now we come to the City of Newport Beach�s portion of annexation and as per Dave Kiff: �We have asked that the date at which the WSAH becomes part of Newport Beach, getting City services, be July 1, 2008. As you may know, we do not collect any property taxes in the area until July 1, 2008, so it makes sense to align the annexation date with the property tax accrual date.� The question was raised can the West Side get a Newport Beach address before annexation? Dave Kiff explained the process: �The Post Office should change the address on/after the annexation's effective date. The WSAH area is legally part of Costa Mesa's Sphere of Influence until June 30, 2008. Typically, we don't have anything to do with the Post Office's decision-making process there, indeed, nothing that LAFCO does nor the City does even goes to the Post Office. They usually call us and ask for the Map & Legal Description along with the Effective Date.� The East Side got a Newport Beach address prior to annexation through the Post office but the difference here is that they already were in the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. Kline Drive Activities: As you probably know, this project will involve the County�s constructing a paved street and cul-de-sac along the existing gravel road using redevelopment funds. Property owners will not be responsible for construction costs, but will need to dedicate the necessary property for the project. The County�s Resources Development and Management Department has completed refinements to the concept plan last discussed with property owners including calculations of just what right-of-way will be needed from each owner. Meetings are being held with each owner in order to explain exactly how the project will impact his/her property and to receive a �good faith� commitment for right of way dedication. Once these commitments have been received from all property owners, the County will undertake detailed engineering of the project and will finalize the right-of-way transfers. Construction will follow. The project should be complete, if all goes well, by the end of 2008 (or early 2009). Should you have any questions about the project, feel free to contact either George Britton or Keri Bullock at the Rosenow Spevacek Group, the County�s redevelopment consultants. They can be reached at (714) 541-4585. The Bristol St. sidewalk plans and specs were on the agenda for approval at the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 26. They were approved and the bid opening should begin 8/17. The Board of Supervisors also approved the plans for the Orchard St. Park. That bidding should begin in Aug. as well. We hope to see this project start in Oct. **************************************************** 4. Approval of June PAC minutes. Richard Moriarty makes a motion to approve minutes, Ted Nichols 2nd Minutes are approved unanimously 5. Matt Brisbois Newport Beach Fire Dept Community Preparedness Coordinator in the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. Some of my main responsibilities include the coordination of the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program, teaching a Neighborhood Disaster Preparedness class, and giving presentations to any school, business or community group in Newport Beach on disaster preparedness and home safety measures. As such, I am very excited about the opening of the New Santa Ana Heights Fire Station #7 as it will serve as the location for my CERT classes, some of my Neighborhood Disaster Preparedness classes, as well as advanced First Aid/CPR classes, all for residents of Newport Beach. We encourage you, as well as the other members of the Santa Heights PAC to join the Newport Beach Fire Department Community Emergency Response Team and to become a certified Disaster Service Worker ready to help our community following an unexpected disaster. We will be holding two CERT classes this Fall, both at the new Santa Ana Heights Fire Station #7, one class will be held on Tuesday-Thursday nights from 7:00-9:00 PM, beginning on Thursday, September 13, 2007 and the second class will be held simultaneously on four consecutive Saturdays from 8:30 AM-5:30 PM, beginning Saturday, September 22, 2007. In Oct. can the PAC meet on Oct 3rd instead of the 2nd? The station already has a class that night. PAC agreed to move the PAC meeting to Wed. Oct. 3rd for Oct. 6. BV & Dave Kiff report updates: Mesa Birch Park, Fire Station, Undergrounding The Mesa Birch Park is moving along. The City of Newport Beach is finalizing an Agreement between the County and the City that would memorialize what the County Board of Supervisors agreed to (County owns it, City builds and maintains it, building is done with RDA funds). As that Agreement goes to the Council and Board of Supervisors, the City will put the project out to bid again so that much of the planting can be done this coming fall, when plants like these are supposed to go in. Tim Stoaks made a suggestion to name the park after our most famous resident, John Crean . Tim will look into this process and bring it back to us in Oct. June 19th the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an additional 5.5 million dollars in funding for the Santa Ana Fire Station to the City of Newport Beach. The Fire Station opening was scheduled to open in July the target date right now the target date is Sept. 10th . Undergrounding on Mesa and Cypress St.: Rodi Almendralo, Associate Engineer City of Newport Beach /Public Works Dept. /Development Services reports �I�ve been working with SCE to finalize the design for the district. SCE requires a joint-use agreement prior to beginning the undergrounding of the transmission main on Mesa Drive and Cypress Street. The City Attorney has been working with SCE to get that agreement finalized. AT&T will be beginning their design work on the underground system in the district.� 7. Development Committee - Rick D. (10 mins) Date: 07/09/07 Rosalinh Ung Staff Planner, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA2-4048 (949) 644-3206 fax: (949) 644-3229 RE: CNB UP2006-039 Newport Executive Court at 20372 Birch Street Third review Dear Rosalinh: The PAC Development Subcommittee has reviewed the third submittal package proposing the construction of four (4) 2-story medical buildings over a parking garage level on a currently vacant lot. The committee was pleased to see that the amount of glass on the elevation facing Birch Street has been reduced, and that the street elevation is considerably more interesting. PAC was also pleased with the revised color palette that uses �warmer� tones. The only remaining concerns that the Development Subcommittee would like the proposed project to address are the following: 1. There are several very mature (50 years old) ficus trees on the property of 2141 Mesa Drive near the location of the proposed property line masonry wall. PAC requests assurance from the applicant to the property owner, Holly Jarvis, that these trees will be protected in place when the new property line wall is built. 2. PAC requests that the Landscape Architect for this project coordinate the landscaping immediately adjacent to the View Park with the proposed landscaping for the park. Dave Pederson is the Landscape Architect for the park project. Specifically, the property line wall for the new project is shown on the landscape and civil plans extending into the park. The wall needs to terminate at the property line where the property line jogs to the north. PAC recommends approval of this project. Thank you for the opportunity to review the third submittal of this project. Sincerely, Richard A. Dayton PAC Development Committee Chairman Rick reported: Scott Davis, the applicant's rep. for the Fairway Village condo conversion project on Santa Ana Avenue, SAH, has been talking with Supervisor Moorlach's staff, and has given me a call to discuss the changes they have made to the project since PAC's last review. He indicated that now they meet the required parking standard based on building square footage, but not based on bedroom count, but that it is an either/or situation as far as County review is concerned. He also indicated that they are now showing the pool being refurbished and a new cabana building with pool bathrooms and BBQ area. He indicated that they now have a landscape plan that shows new landscape areas. He indicated that the flood plain elevation issue is not preclusive, as there is not a determinate flood plain height. He indicated that the sewer for the (2) 1-story buildings have been recently upgraded by the City of Costa Mesa, but had no definite information about other utility upgrades to the 46 year old structures. He indicated that all the buildings have new roofing, and he thought that new plywood roof sheathing was a part of that work. He indicated that all the buildings received the airport acoustical program upgrades of new glazing, insulation, and HVAC. Scott Davis, the applicant's rep. for the Fairway Village condo conversion project stated that he is willing to work with the PAC and increase amenities and landscaping. He also talked about a new parking study that has just been completed and Rick has that to review. �The County is requiring 71 parking spaces based on square footage, but they also use a criteria based on bedrooms. In that case the County requires 80spaces. So which two of these criteria will win out? There are 15 parking spaces on the street and the Pegasus track is concerned that over flow parking will pour into their track. Their parking study indicated that they have ample parking and parking will not be an issue. The study indicated that they really need 61 parking spaces. There are 38 garage spaces. The County is working with them on the flood plane issue. Rick says that he would like to work with OC planning staff on the parking issue and until they make a determination on the parking, PAC stands firm in its non approval of this project. Scott Davis and group will continue to work with Rick to iron out the concerning issues. If the Development Committee is satisfied with the changes, it will then give its approval and PAC will stand behind that. The following is a letter from Planning Commissioner Bary Eaton to Brandon Nichols City of Newport Beach Regarding the ARCO station application: I have several questions about this staff report. Most of them involve the Code standards for Service Stations, and the Design Guidelines for Service Stations: 1) Both Code Section 20.80.060.L., and proposed condition 32. require separate rest rooms, and the Code section requires that both rest room entrances be in clear view of the cashier station or office. The submitted plans show only one rest room, the entrance to which is not visible for the cashier station or office. The staff report does not discuss this issue at all. Is there evidence or plans of how this Code requirement will be complied with? 2) The Design Guidelines contain a whole page (hand numbered page 49) of sign guidelines; including, specifically, a guideline that the free standing sign be a monument sign. The Commission spent a great deal of time discussing the proposed monument sign on the last service station we considered, at PCH and Bayside. The submitted sign plan illustrates a 24' high, single pole, pylon sign at the corner; which is not only not a monument sign, but doesn't meet the sign code's requirement of a double pole for pylon signs, and exceeds the maximum height for pylon signs of 20' (Section 20.67.070.B. of the Sign Code). Again, the staff report does not discuss signs at all. Why? Why was a new monument sign at the corner not recommended? Do the other existing and/or proposed signs meet or not meet the sign code requirements and/or the Service Station Sign Guidelines? 3) The Landscape standards in the Code require that 15% of a service station site be landscaped, and that at least 30% of this requirement be provided within 20 feet of the street. The staff report notes that the applicant is requesting a deviation from the first requirement; but, again, is silent on the 2nd requirement. The applicant maintains that the application meets the 2nd requirement because the % of proposed landscaping (which does not meet the total requirement) exceeds 30% (hand numbered page 57). Does the 30% requirement apply to the required landscaping or the proposed landscaping? 4) The applicant (and the staff report) states that the proposal provides 10.73% landscaping of the site. But the plan notes that 1,536 sq. ft. of landscaping is proposed, which is only 9.3% of the 16,484 sq. ft. site. Which is correct? 5) Further, the applicant states that 39% of the proposed landscaping is within 20 feet of the street. By my calculation, 568 sq. ft. (including all curbs, but excluding walls) is provided within 20 feet of the streets, which is 37% of the landscaping proposed, but only 23% of the 2472 sq. ft. of landscaping that should be provided by the 15% total requirement. [It could be even less - see next question.] 6) The Code requires that a minimum depth of 5 feet of landscaping "inside dimension" be provided between driveways along the street frontage (Section 20.080.060.I.1.a. of the Code). The applicant states that the plan complies with this requirement. This is incorrect. The plan shows that the landscaping along Bristol has a depth of only 4', inside dimension. Further, if the inside dimension criteria was applied to the corner landscaping, it would not comply with the code required minimum of 150 sq. ft. (It's inside dimension area is approximately 120 sq. ft. - Section 20.080.060.I.1.b. of the Code.) (There is no landscape strip at all provided between the 2 driveways on Birch.) Again, the staff report doesn't discuss this at all. Is this pertinent? 7) It appears to me, that with the drive aisle next to the landscaping along Bristol now being proposed as a one way aisle, that this nonconforming landscape depth could be significantly increased. Further, it appears to me that the corner landscaping could also be significantly increased in depth, without interfering with the gas loading vehicles, so that the staff report would not have to admit (on page 5) that: "The existing planter would not constitute a strong street corner element ...", the total landscaping provided could come much closer to the required 15% of the total site, and the portion of landscaping within 20 feet of the streets could come much closer to the 30% of the required 15% total. Again, the staff report doesn't discuss these issues at all, other than to note the failure to constitute a strong street corner element. Have you discussed this with the applicant? 8) The Service Station Design Guidelines state that tall gas vents should be completely screened or incorporated into the building architecture (hand numbered page 46). The Commission was very surprised and dismayed when these were not dealt with ahead of time in the case of the service station at PCH and Bayside; and ended up in a very prominent and non-screened location. The existing survey shows a gas vent adjacent to the building facing Birch, but the proposed plans don't appear to show them at all; and the staff report, again, is silent on this issue. Where are the gas vents proposed, and do they meet the Design Guidelines criteria? 9) Section 67.080.060.I.4. requires street trees in the adjacent City parkways. The applicant states (on hand numbered page 57) that there are no City parkways adjacent to the site. There certainly are City sidewalk areas adjacent to the site, which could accommodate street trees in tree wells; but, again, the staff report is silent on this issue. Is this a requirement that should be imposed, or is it proposed that the PC waive this requirement? 10) The letter from the SAH PAC (hand numbered page 61) states their concern that the circulation is often inadequate on the existing site, and that it is their feeling that that condition will be exacerbated by the proposed plan. They appear to be particularly concerned that the parallel parking to the side and behind the proposed convenience store will not adequately serve the customers of the store; and that the perpendicular parking that will have to back up into the circulation area in front of both driveways on Birch will exacerbate the inadequate circulation and extensive backup of vehicles that already occurs in that area. The staff report addresses the general circulation issues raised by the SAH PAC (on pages 12 & 13), but does not specifically address their 2 parking concerns. Did the staff consider those concerns? 11) The letter from SAH PAC refers to a proposal for a "bright green" roof. The staff report (on page 4) refers to a "rustic red metal panel roofing". Was this changed after the SAH PAC reviewed it? 12) Finally, hand numbered pages 65 & 66 are letters from Costa Mesa commending George Ibrahim. There is no mention of a George Ibrahim that I could find in the staff report, any other attachments, or the plans. Who is George Ibrahim? Thank you for your consideration of these questions. I look forward to your response. Barry Eaton 8. Code Enforcement � BV (3 mins) July 23, 2007 Santa Ana Heights Project Area Committee c/o Barbara Venezia Subject: Santa Ana Heights Code Enforcement Activity 1. Public Nuisance Abatement�I have spent some time working with the property owner of 2191 Mesa Drive. The property has had extensive work to bring the key points of nuisance into compliance. Contractors have repaired irrigation lines, hydro-seeded the front yard area, and made some improvements on the roof, fences, and the eradication of a bee hive. When the hive was removed more than 150lbs. of honey was found. 2. Orchid Street� I am working in conjunction with the City Attorney�s Office and outside counsel to resolve the Orchid Street dwelling issues. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter please contact the City Attorney�s Office. 3. Please remember that in these warm and windy months neighbors keep their windows open. Please maintain your yards to minimize dust and debris. Shannon Levin Code & Water Quality Enforcement 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92663 shannon@city.newport-beach.ca.us Summer Water Quality Tips � Take unwanted pesticides, fertilizers, paints, oils and other toxins to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center to be recycled. Never dump or wash anything into the gutter. � Plant native vegetation to reduce the amount of water, fertilizer, and pesticides needed. The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door! 9. Trails/ Arena Subcommittee - Jayne J., Mary S., and Dave K. (10 mins) Blue Prints and Maps of the Equestrian Arena Area were displayed at the Back Bay Equestrians General Meeting on July 10, 2007 (thank you to George Berger at the city of Newport for providing these documents) The BBE Board is currently drafting an operations plan and a manure maintenance plan for the arenas to be submitted to the City of Newport for approval. Discussion of a few arena rules and regulations are also being considered. The BBE is looking for a club member that would like to volunteer as the Facility Coordinator once the arenas are complete. The BBE is expected to play a very important part in the maintenance, operation and overall use of the facility. The club is very grateful to the city of Newport and the County of Orange for the opportunity to do so. Working on this project has been a pleasure and a privilege for the BBE Board members and the PAC Arena Sub-Committee. Richard Moriarty is now a member of the Equestrian Sub Committee: George Berger reports: "We have received and are processing through the ten comment letters received from agencies and individuals from the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Among others, we received letters from the California Coastal Commission, and the California Department of Fish & Game; staff from the latter agency requested an extension of the comment period so that they could meet with our project team. Essentially, work on the project has been delayed a bit so we can accommodate their request. That meeting will be held at the end of next week. Following the meeting with CDF&G staff, we will amend the schedule and put it up on the City's website." Carla Brockman trail issue: should the PAC recommend eminent domain on this trail? Dave Kiff asked that we table this discussion until the next meeting as the City and the County are having meetings with Brockman to discuss this. A revsionary clause might be something the County and the City should look at . The Mesa Trail is still scheduled to go in along with the under grounding project. Equestrians have expressed concern regarding traffic on Mesa and would like to see trail signs on Mesa Drive to help slow down the speed in which cars are traveling. Sub committee member Tim Stokes points out that the fencing being used at the new fire station is similar to the railing the PAC Trial Sub-Committee is considering using on the neighborhood trails once under grounding is complete. Safety on Mesa Dr. for those riding horses is still a big concern. Last week a 10 year old rider�s horse was spooked by a fast moving car on the stretch with no trail and she was thrown from her horse. Fortunately she sustained no major injuries. Handicap children, (who are part of a new riding program in our area), are doubly at risk with the speeding cars along Mesa Dr. Please be aware and slow down as you drive along Mesa Dr. and Cypress St. BBE.com will be added to the PAC website. Meet Keith Curry : Keith welcomed the West Side Residents to Newport Beach and talked a bit about what projects he was working on and about the upgrade in city services on the horizon. There was a question from the audience about the Mesa Dr. trail extension and Keith suggested that PAC take another look at that. BV ended the meeting by saying that PAC has looked at this issue three times, it�s a safety issue and the trail is called out in the County Trail system map, it is called for the in the Specific plan, the homeowners who are objecting are encroaching on public land and PAC stands strong in it�s conviction to complete this trail system. We thank Counclman Curry for taking the time to meet with us and get to know the community projects and how PAC works on a first hand basis. We look forward to him visiting us again! |
|
||