Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/2019 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS —100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2019 SPECIAL MEETING — 4:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Zak III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Peter Zak, Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Kory Kramer ABSENT: none Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Deputy City Attorney Armeen Komeili, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Administrative Support Specialist Tiffany Lippman Deputy Community Development Director Campbell introduced Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill shared her professional experience. IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. STUDY SESSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES (PA2015-024) Site Location: 4400 Von Karman Avenue Commissioner Ellmore advised that he has a conflict of interest with the project as his corporation leases a property located within 500 feet of the project site. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the procedure that allows a Commissioner to be requalified if they have a conflict of interest when a quorum of the Commission cannot be achieved. Commissioners Elmore, Kleiman, Kramer, and Secretary Lowrey participated in the requalification procedure. Secretary Lowrey was requalified to participate in the study session and future public hearings by random draw. Commissioners Kramer, Kleiman, and Ellmore recused themselves due to conflicts of interest and departed the meeting at 4:35 p.m. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell introduced the project by reporting that the project is bordered by Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street in the Airport Area. He then provided an overview of residential developments in the Airport Area. Land Use Element Policy LU 3.3 of the General Plan authorizes residential uses in the Airport Area. Land Use Element Goal LU 6.15 supports a mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential uses, and supporting services in close proximity along with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhanced livability. In 2004-2006, the community reached a broad consensus to support mixed-use and residential development in the Airport Area. The community also felt additional density and traffic are acceptable in the Airport Area. Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.5 allows 2,200 residential units in the Airport Area, 1,650 of which would replace existing uses and 550 would be new units. Some of those units were entitled in the Uptown Newport project. Development policies require 10 -acre villages, 30-50 dwelling units per acre, a 1 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 01/31/2019 conceptual development plan, regulatory plans, a development agreement, neighborhood parks, recreation, and open space, connected and walkable streets, building massing, parking, and sustainability. The 2010 Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) demonstrates the compatible and cohesive integration of uses and improvements, does not convey rights to develop, and is not a regulatory plan. The regulatory document required by the General Plan is the Planned Community Development Plan. Staff has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a traffic study, and a site development review. Chair Zak disclosed one conversation with the applicant's representative to discuss scheduling. Commissioner Koetting disclosed a meeting with the applicant's consultant more than a year ago and meetings with three property owners within the project and two local groups. Secretary Lowrey disclosed a meeting with the applicant's consultant more than a year ago. Vice Chair Weigand disclosed multiple meetings with the applicant's consultant, residents, organizations, and businesses. Chair Zak requested Commissioners provide feedback regarding the project after public comment. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that negotiation of the Development Agreement is ongoing. A draft Development Agreement should be available for a future public hearing. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, the applicant's environmental consultant, and the traffic engineer who prepared the traffic study for the EIR are available to answer questions. Coralee Newman, applicant's consultant, introduced the applicant's team. The applicant began community outreach in 2015 by meeting with Koll Center building owners, the Newport Harbor Exchange Club, the Newport Chamber of Commerce, the Orange County Business Council, the Building Industry Association, and SPON. The applicant participated in the Toshiba Classic, the Field of Honor, and the Balboa Island parade. The applicant has a community website for the project and has conducted an extensive social media campaign. The applicant's outreach has generated 160 letters of support from across the City of Newport Beach. The Koll Center mixed-use area is comprised of high-rise, mid -rise, and low-rise buildings, surface parking, landscaping, and lakes and water features. Brian Rupp, Shopoff Realty Investments Senior Vice President of Development, advised that the applicant's focus is to deliver a project that is consistent with the vision of the General Plan. The General Plan identified the Koll property and the Uptown Newport property specifically as areas with opportunities for new housing. The ICDP created a framework for the project. The Koll Center and Uptown Newport projects are traffic neutral. The Koll Center site contains approximately 13 acres. The project proposes the replacement of surface parking with new condominiums, retail, public amenities, and park space that blend with the surroundings and adjacent buildings. Site plans include 260 for -sale condominiums, 3,000 square feet of neighborhood -serving, ground -level retail, a freestanding parking structure, improved traffic and pedestrian circulation, improved common areas, and a 1 -acre public park. The removal of some office gates will provide new public access through the site. Two existing and two new office gates will control surface parking for offices. Gates will be placed at the two garage entries for residential buildings. Residential and commercial parking will be segregated. The Greater Village of Uptown Newport and the Koll Center will be connected by pedestrian pathways to activate connectivity and provide opportunities for residents and commercial users to integrate. The site currently provides 1,651 parking spaces, none of which are reserved. The number of parking spaces will decrease and increase across construction phases, but the final number of parking spaces for office users will be 1,659. Paul Kearney, project architect, indicated the project is sensitive to the existing mixed-use environment. The enhanced public spine street provides convenient wayfinding for office users and focuses activity on pedestrians. Enhanced paving and traffic -slowing devices allow pedestrians to circulate seamlessly through the village. The retail plaza between Buildings 1 and 2 anchors the spine street and connects the main walking patterns of the village. A ground -level pedestrian paseo will bisect the footprint of the residential buildings and connect the office buildings to the north and south. A residential amenity deck will be constructed at the third level of the residential buildings in order to provide privacy for residents and maintain the activity of the mixed-use environment. The deck will include two swimming pools, club rooms, a fitness area, outdoor gardens, and private patios. The residential buildings are organized to provide residents with private access to parking and lobbies. Building footprints are minimized and staggered so as not to obstruct views to and from the surrounding context. The John Hancock people requested the park be located in front of their building at Birch Street. The proposed park location complements the John Hancock plaza and integrates the plaza into the larger vision for the park and retail plaza. The residential units on levels three through thirteen will have one, two, or three bedrooms. The top two levels will 2of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 01/31/2019 have townhome-style penthouses. Parking will extend two or three stories below grade and two levels above grade. The maximum building height for the site is approximately 160 feet. Low-rise massing corresponds with requirements set forth in the General Plan. The material palette for the buildings is composed of concrete, glass windows, prefabricated concrete panels, and metal trim in warm, neutral colors. The retail space totals approximately 3,000 square feet and will include a deli/grocer. Grocery, restaurant, and retail spaces are planned for Uptown Newport. Building lobbies are envisioned as grand, double -height spaces. Each lobby will provide reception, concierge, and business amenities. The compact approach to the floor plan eliminates long, dark corridors and introduces direct and private access to homes. The homes' primary uses are located along the perimeters to maximize the views. The majority of homes are located on corners, and living areas have 270 - degree views. The size of units will range from 1,200 to 3,100 square feet with an average size of 1,800 square feet. Living, dining, and kitchen spaces are incorporated into larger great rooms, and large outdoor decks span the length of the living space. Town -home style residences will have internal stairs and double -volume spaces from the lower living level to the upper bedroom level. The townhomes include expansive patio terraces, 270 - degree corner views, open floor plans, and high-end finishes. The architectural team fully intends to deliver the expected upscale quality. Chris Fortunato, project landscape architect, explained that the landscape vision celebrates the nearby coastline by blending organic materials and radiating patterns into the spaces throughout the project. Landscaped plazas, paseos, parks, and pools are sophisticated and place an emphasis on the pedestrian experience. The private pools and gardens will include seating areas, barbecues, group dining spaces, and bocce ball courts. The pool adjacent to Building 1 is designed with lounges set on floating, wooden decks shaded by palm trees. Shade structures, fire tables, and seating provide additional lounging areas away from the pool. The pool adjacent to Buildings 2 and 3 is raised above the gym level and hidden behind a water wall. The landscape around the pool will have warm, rich materials and lounging areas in the sun and shade. Both pool areas will offer a variety of small seating areas with wood decking and lush planting. The dining areas will include stone paving, long tables, and shade. The park will include two pickleball courts, which will be set down from the street level, shaded seating, and cafe tables. Wood benches will be integrated into land forms in order to provide separation from the office environment. Plantings will include drought -tolerant grasses and succulents. The central plaza will have a water element, date palms and umbrellas to shade seating, movable furniture, and charging stations. Long concrete pavers will extend from the plaza into the drive aisle in order to connect the space with neighboring spaces and to slow vehicular traffic. The paseo gardens will be lushly planted and have elevated wooden boardwalks and seating areas. The Von Karman plaza will be highlighted with a large, stone water feature. A wave bench will offer multiple seating levels and a built-in shade canopy. Bill Shopoff, Shopoff Realty Investments Chief Executive Officer, felt the plan represents the applicant's ability to implement the City's vision for the area. The project complies with General Plan requirements. The applicant will listen to residents and the Planning Commission. In response to Commissioners' inquiries, Mr. Kearney reported the first and second floors accommodate lobbies, retail spaces, and parking. A rendering of seven -story buildings will be provided. Mr. Rupp indicated the location of the park evolved with feedback from stakeholders. Locating the park along Birch achieves the highest level of consensus, and the location is central to both the Koll Center site and the Uptown Newport site. Mr. Rupp did not know the number of employees in the existing office buildings. Mr. Shopoff added office users will utilize the parking structure on the east side of the site. The buildings at 4910 and 4440 Birch Street have access to surface parking and subterranean parking at Building 1. The uses on both the Koll Center site and the Uptown Newport site will be office, retail, and residential once construction for both sites is complete. The Uptown Newport project utilizes 11,000 square feet of the retail space allowed under the General Plan, which leaves 3,000 square feet of retail space for Koll Center. The project is not subject to any affordability requirements because the project encompasses 10 acres. Office users have not supported affordable units as part of the project. Chair Zak opened the public hearing. Gordon Kilmer remarked that the project is beautiful but should be smaller. Connor Medina, Orange County Business Council, requested the Commission approve the project due to the shortage of housing. 3 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 01/31/2019 Allen Leguay commented that a high-rise, high-end condominium project did not achieve the goals of diversity and affordability. The project would only increase traffic and congestion. Haley Detwiler -McDonald, COMAC America Corporation, along with 19 other existing businesses located around the proposed project opposed the project. Shopoff has failed to create a plan that is cohesively integrated into the existing community. Approval of the project will result in the loss of open space, parking, and views. The project will exacerbate traffic congestion, wait times, and air pollution. Joe Finnell, Southern California Pilots Association, expressed concern regarding the impact of the project on the future of John Wayne Airport. Complaints from residents regarding airplane noise could impact airport operations. He recommended the project not be allowed to proceed. Brad Grabske, on behalf of COMAC America Corporation, referred to his January 25, 2019 comment letter that included a report prepared by Environmental Audit Inc. The high-density, high-rise configuration of the project is out of character with the existing commercial uses. The 13 -story residential buildings are inconsistent with the 2010 ICDP. The inconsistency was not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR. He urged the Planning Commission to require the Draft EIR be recirculated for public comment. Dale Lyon, Olen Properties, advised that the project will obstruct views from the 4910 building and severely impact property values and Olen's ability to lease the 4910 building. The General Plan and the ICDP are clear that new residential uses would be carefully integrated with existing nonresidential properties. The project fails to integrate building height, setbacks, ground -floor retail, a central park, and parking with commercial properties. He asked the Planning Commission to require a redesign of the project so that it is more compatible with existing development. Ginger Alker supported the project because it will create housing in an appropriate location. Julie Ault, Olen Properties, opposed the project because it is not harmoniously integrated with existing buildings, does not protect existing property owners' rights, and does not align with previously approved City plans. ICDP meetings only referred to mid -rise buildings and a central park, while the applicant proposed high-rise buildings and a park location abutting Birch Street. Much of the ground -floor areas is parking rather than retail. The Planning Commission can modify the project so that it complies with the ICDP. Jon Merry supported the project and embraced the growth of housing. Camille Jayne, Bit Central, felt the project will severely diminish the experience of Bit Central employees. Young professionals will probably not consider the units affordable or want to live in a commercial zone or under a flight path. She concurred with the comments of Ms. Ault. Cassius Rutherford, University of California -Irvine Associated Students, supported mixed-use, high-density development across the county, especially in areas near UC -I and John Wayne Airport. John Drake supported a smaller development on the site so that traffic impacts will not be as great. Mary Pat Earl supported the project as it complies with the General Plan and asked the Planning Commission to support it. Fred Fourcher, Bit Central, remarked that the project will radically change the common area without a vote by dues -paying members of the association. Existing property owners have not been given any voting capacity with respect to the project. He requested the Planning Commission delay action on the project until the General Plan Update is complete. Kristin Curry supported the project because it will provide much-needed housing. Gary Schank, SoCal Pilot's Association Vice President, commented that residents near an airport complain about noise. The applicant did not address that issue. Even though more airplanes fly over the east side of the airport, there have been no complaints about noise because residences are not located on that side. 4of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 01/31/2019 Tom Damiani expressed support for the project because it will provide revenue, growth, and housing for the City. The project complies with the General Plan. Michael Morgan, Excel Air, opposed the project because it will generate complaints about noise from the airport. Lorrie Levin expressed support for the project because it will provide housing without burdening established neighborhoods and is compliant with the General Plan. Greg Sullivan remarked regarding the 2006 General Plan Update determining the Airport Area was appropriate for housing. Thousands of housing units are being constructed on the UC -Irvine campus underneath an airplane flight path. He supported infill development. Some people prefer living in multifamily housing. Chuck Fancher commented that the project endeavors to change the outdated architecture and landscape of the Koll Center. The market will determine the success of the residential units. Projects need to provide affordable housing for the City's workforce and to design parking structures for future conversion to other uses. Ken Dufour supported the project because it is located in an appropriate location for increased -density housing that will not diminish the quality of life of neighborhoods and villages. Charlie Davison felt a project that is compliant with the General Plan should be judged on its merits rather than popular opinion. He supported the project. Jo Carol Hunter opposed the project because of its proposed height and mass. The applicant should reconsider the size of the project. Don Beatty as a diehard environmentalist opposed the project. Lisa Fogarty believed the project could attract young professional residents. The Airport Area is the most appropriate location for housing. She supported the project. Elizabeth Hansburg noted the General Plan supports dense housing and walkable communities. The project is consistent with the General Plan. Over time, housing becomes more affordable, and the project will become affordable for the workforce. Dan Deal [phonetic spelling] remarked regarding airplane traffic patterns and noise in relation to the project. Jonathan An commented that luxury condominiums will not solve the housing crisis. Residents of the project will not be able to enjoy their balconies because of airplane noise. The residential buildings will have views of the ocean and mountains, but they will block the office buildings' views. Lauri Preedge appreciated the project's design. Parents living with their children in the project will have to drive their children to Santa Ana schools. Similar residential units near the project site have not been successful. Vicki Cubeiro opposed the project because it will not create affordable housing. Nancy Skinner questioned whether the project complies with the ICDP. Terry Watt, SPON, commented that the General Plan Update should lead rather than follow the project. Approval of the project will foreclose the opportunity for an innovative project tailored to Newport Beach, its families, and its workforce. A new project could increase sustainability, resiliency, affordability, and accessibility and create a neighborhood village. The project is not consistent with the General Plan. Dorothy Kraus objected to the height of the residential buildings as they will block the views for existing commercial buildings. Public documents describe the project as having mid -rise buildings. Vikki Swanson did not believe the project represents a residential village. The layout of the buildings should minimize impacts and focus on the human scale. The project could better integrate park space. The project lacks a central park. 5of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 01/31/2019 Dennis Baker noted none of the existing adjacent businesses provides retail amenities. The project proposes only 3,000 square feet of retail compared to 700,000 square feet of housing. Contrary to General Plan and ICDP requirements, the applicant has not collaborated with residents and property owners. He urged the Planning Commission to take a balanced and sensible approach to the project. Jodi Estwick, People for Housing Orange County, remarked that increasing the housing supply leads to lower housing prices. Residents of the project likely will not have children or shop in grocery stores. People will probably demand restaurants rather than grocery stores. She urged the Planning Commission to support the project because it creates housing in an appropriate location. Adam Wood, Building Industry Association, commented that the project complies with the General Plan and creates a park and housing. He hoped the Planning Commission could reach a resolution expeditiously. Bill Watt supported the project and recommended the Planning Commission approve it. Susan Skinner opposed the project because the citizens of Newport Beach did not want high-rise condominium towers. Chair Zak closed the public hearing. Chair Zak summarized public comment as 22 speakers in opposition, 17 speakers in support, and two speakers with no opinion of the project. Speakers opposing the project expressed concerns regarding traffic, the business association in the area, the operation of parking, impacts to John Wayne Airport, massing, building height, building compatibility with current uses, the Santa Ana School District and the location of schools, affordable housing, compliance with the General Plan, compliance and deviation with the [CDP, and ground -floor retail. Speakers supporting the project addressed the need for housing, particularly workforce housing, the ability to live near employment, the belief that the project conforms with the General Plan, a good area for growth, existing infrastructure, support for infill development, and the high quality of the project. Commissioner Koetting requested clarification of the project's compliance with the General Plan and ICDP, the definition of mid -rise development, particularly the number of stories in a mid -rise development, cohesive integration with existing office users, and the density of the project. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the density of the project is a part of the record, but he did not have the specific number. Chair Zak remarked that the parameters for density were a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 50 units per acre. He questioned whether the developer controls all the acreage in the site or has easement rights over the acreage and how the density is calculated. Commissioner Koetting asked staff to provide information regarding traffic congestion on Von Karman late in the day, the project's compliance with the General Plan of 2006 or 2010, and sustainability of the project and compliance with LEED standards. Vice Chair Weigand expressed concern regarding ICDP issues. General Plan policies of the ICDP refer slightly to high-rise buildings. Koll-specific policies do not refer to high-rise buildings. One policy talks about balancing the amount of surface parking with open spaces and streets so that an appropriate residential environment is created and the feeling of living in a parking lot is avoided. While walking the site, he felt a sense of living in a parking lot, which is a concern. Another concern is a couple of businesses complaining about parking issues when a policy states provide replacement office parking for displaced surface parking in new structures that are encapsulated or screened. The Shopoff group's right to develop the site is important, but the rights of business owners and property owners surrounding the community should be extremely looked upon. If the business and property owners are crying foul, then the Planning Commission needs to look at that and come to a consensus for the applicant to attend outreach meetings with the business and property owners and staff so that the business and property owners do not completely oppose the project. Shopoffs business and some businesses in the Hancock building are the only businesses supporting the project. The businesses in the one, two, three, and four- story buildings will be impacted. The applicant provided one view of the project from the southwest to the southeast 6 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 01/31/2019 but no other views. The ICDP has tons of comments and multiple pages referring to two-story townhomes, one- story flats, and podium mid -rise apartment condominiums. Perhaps staff could provide some information as to the definition of mid -rise buildings and if the buildings are considered mid -rise according to the City's standards. He didn't believe so, but the public needs to know. He had mixed feelings about the park. The park should be visible rather than hidden and should invite people to visit. That should be discussed because the ICDP mentions a central park. The Planning Commission should stick to the plan that was given, that the previous Planning Commission held multiple hearings about, that the City Council gave direction on, and that the CEQA Initial Study reviewed. The developer should meet with surrounding businesses and SPON. SPON's public comment raised key points. SPON has seen proposals that would fit the ICDP requirements much better than the 13 or 15 -story buildings. One ICDP policy refers to one-story flats, podium mid -rise, and two-story townhomes, which are first level. The project proposed no first -level homes. The applicant must work with key stakeholders and come to some consensus before the Planning Commission should support a project of this sort. Secretary Lowrey will be looking at the General Plan and the ICDP and how they relate to the current project. He will take his perspective from that information. Following the General Plan is the Planning Commission's focus. He wanted to continue that and ensure the project fits the General Plan and ICDP. Commissioner Koetting requested clarification of Mr. Shopoffs statement that only 3,000 square feet of retail is available for the project because the renderings of retail space looked like a convenience store rather than a village. The public raised loud concerns about airport noise, but he did not find much information about airport noise in the documents. The Planning Commission needs a good definition of village. Infill development in these areas is smart planning. The City needs residential projects. Whether the project provides the right density, size, bulk, and mass is to be determined. Chair Zak advised that one overarching theme from public comment was the opposition does not necessarily oppose residential units at the project location. Commissioners were appointed to interpret whether a project is in conformance with the General Plan, to look at the consistency with land use policy, and to ensure the project it recommends to the City Council is well thought out and well designed and compatible with existing uses. He requested information regarding the significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR, two of which were temporary construction impacts and one pertained to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. He believed the project site is not located in the area prohibited from having residential uses; therefore, he was surprised to hear concerns about airport noise. He wanted to understand if airplane noise is a significant impact on the land use. In response to Chair Zak's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the DEIR contains a complete noise analysis and noted that the project site is located outside of the highest noise levels but within an area where residential use would normally be compatible provided noise is properly mitigated. The project is subject to Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The DEIR was prepared in anticipation of the ALUC finding the project inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. In order to override an Airport Land Use Commission finding of inconsistency, the City Council will need to make the findings that it is a significant environmental effect pursuant to CEQA if the City Council chooses to approve the project. If the Planning Commission acts on a recommendation for approval of the project, staff will submit the project to the Airport Land Use Commission for review. If the Airport Land Use Commission finds the project inconsistent, then the project will be presented to the City Council. The City Council will have the option to override that determination. Ultimately, overriding the determination will be a policy decision of the City Council. A Council vote by a two-thirds majority is needed to override the determination. Staff will prepare the findings of overriding considerations if the Airport Land Use Commission makes its determination. City policy and Airport Land Use Commission policy require Planning Commission approval of a project prior to Airport Land Use Commission review of the project. The Airport Land Use Commission does not want to review a project that is not potentially going to be approved. Airport Land Use Commission review is required prior to the adoption of a General Plan amendment or a zoning amendment within the Airport Land Use Plan environment. The project is within that area. Chair Zak noted many references to staff reports as the ICDP was being prepared. Mid -rise buildings were supposed to be designated for the Koll property, but he had not seen an established policy. He requested staff clarify the true policy for the project site. He interpreted the policy as requiring low to mid -rise buildings. The project appears to be trying to comply with that with the podium area of the buildings, but he did not know if that complies with the policy. The term of the proposed Development Agreement is 15 years with an option for a five- year extension. He did not recall other Development Agreements having terms of that length. Perhaps staff could 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 01/31/2019 provide the terms of other Development Agreements for comparative purposes. He asked staff to explain the State of California's requirements for the City to meet regional housing goals, how the City will meet the goals, and how the project helps achieve housing goals. A response to a comment made regarding the Draft EIR not incorporating future projects that have submitted applications and are in process would be good. Given the length of time the application has been pending, the applicant's efforts to meet with stakeholders and develop a plan that everyone could support are disappointing. At the next hearing, the applicant's presentation should reflect efforts to work with stakeholders. The applicant or staff should consider having more ground -floor retail in the project. The Planning Commission should address the reasons for 3,000 square feet being the appropriate amount of retail. He requested the staff report reflect the City's evaluation of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Koll Center and the rights of the developer to do this without a vote of the other owners within the association. If the applicant chooses to continue with the high-rise buildings, he suggested the applicant consider breaking up the podium building that connects Buildings 2 and 3 to provide flexibility in construction phasing and additional pedestrian connectivity through the site. He concurred with Commissioner Koetting's comment regarding the Commission's better understanding traffic and the traffic analysis contained in the DEIR. Commissioner Koetting recommended the Planning Commission continue the study session to provide staff time to respond to Commissioners' questions and the applicant time to conduct additional outreach. Chair Zak indicated a motion for continuance could be made for the Planning Commission to consider. He then stated that the Commission could also inquire whether the applicant wants a continuance. Vice Chair Weigand inquired about the process going forward, whether another study session would be scheduled or whether the Planning Commission should direct the applicant to meet with representatives of the large groups to reach consensus with staff serving as a mediator. He wanted the applicant, staff, and the different opposition groups to reach some solution. Chair Zak viewed meetings as the prerogative of the applicant. The Planning Commission did not receive much information regarding outreach meetings. Mr. Shopoff advised that he heard the public's and Planning Commission's comments and will engage the community again. Another study session is not needed. He did not alter the project because he received individual comments from the public and had not heard the Planning Commission's guidance. Based on comments provided during the study session, he will make some adjustments to the project such that the future study session date may not be needed. The team can conduct community outreach on their own and will engage staff as needed. He heard many new topics during the hearing. He will present a project that the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council and that the opposition can support. Commissioner Koetting recommended Commissioners provide an overview of their concerns. His concerns were the project feels too big and too close together. The project does not have a sense of village and does not provide enough community. Perhaps the Commission should adjust a standard so that more retail space is available for the project. The landscape architect's materials are beautiful, but it may be too much for the space. He expressed concern about airport noise. The materials were all good. Maybe the applicant should consider more central locations for the park. Secretary Lowrey concurred with concerns about openness and State requirements for housing. He would like to see the City comply with State requirements. Vice Chair Weigand stated the layout, height, lack of amenities, parking configuration, and a central park are his concerns. Chair Zak recommended the applicant and staff determine an appropriate date for a future hearing. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell agreed to do so. VII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO.2 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None 8 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 01/31/2019 ITEM NO. 3 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the February 7 hearing will be canceled due to a lack of business. The Newport Crossings project and a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) amendment for the Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay are scheduled for the February 21 hearing. The Council will select five members of the public to serve on the General Plan Update Steering Committee at its February 12, 2019 meeting. The steering committee's first meeting and a public forum are scheduled for February 13, 2019. In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised the Council's goal -setting and planning session is scheduled for February 2, 2019, at 9 a.m. in the Civic Center Community Room. A quorum should be present for the February 21, 2019, Planning Commission hearing. Staff notifies applicants of Commissioner absences, when absences are known. The tentative date discussed with Commissioners of February 28, 2019, for the Koll Center project will be canceled. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None VIII. ADJOURNMENT — 8:05 p.m. The agenda for the January 31, 2019, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, January 25, 2019, at 1:40 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Friday, January 25, 2019, at 2:06 p.m. Lee Lowrey, f of ETC./— ZAk i C.hWIR -4A; 9 of 9