Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 - Draft Minutes_09-01-2016 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 STUDY SESSION -4:30 P.M. AND REGULAR MEETING -6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 4:33 p.m. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Secretary Peter Zak EXCUSED: Commissioner Ray Lawler and Commissioner Erik Weigand Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Dep Director Brenda Wisneski; Deputy City Attorney Andy Maiorano; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Seni anner Gregg Ramirez; and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle II. CURRENT BUSINESS SS1. MUSEUM HOUSE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT(PA2015-152) Site Location: 850 San Clemente Drive Senior Planner Ramirez presented a PowerPoint presentation explaining the process, project overview, environmental review, technical studies prepared to support the EIR analysis, mitigation measures, and Airport Land Use Commission review. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Senior Planner Ramirez explained the Airport Land Use Commission's policy to consider following the PlanningCommission recommendation and before the City Council hearing. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Senior Planner Ramirez explained the museum offices located on the adjacent property,were not part of the proposed residential project. Bill Witte, applicant, explained that the entire parcel was still owned by the Museum. He presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the Planning Commission considerations, and project overview including site plan, open space, building setbacks height, and view simulations. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Witte discussed access off of San Clemente Drive. Gino Canori, applicant, explained the existing fire lane and means of servicing the building and access into the subterranean area. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Witte discussed the level of quality of the high rise condominium in Century City and proposed amenities and size of the units in the Museum House residential project. He explained the intent to create an individual home feel and the use of the roof top deck as a quiet outdoor space. He discussed the demographic profile of the anticipated tenants. Chair Kramer indicated approval of the building design. He anticipated another study session to discuss the EIR. Mr. Witte stated the usual concerns were traffic, shadow, and views. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Mr. Canori explained the building materials and LEED certification sustainability efforts. Mr. Witte discussed the requirement for a development agreement and financial contribution paid to the City. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Canori explained that there were no units on the ground floor. He discussed the amenities on the first two floors. Vice Chair Koetting listed the proposed amenities. Mr. Canori 1 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 discussed the full service capabilities for the tenants. He explained the building design, increasing in size from the third floor up. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Canon discussed the potential cultural arts facility under negotiations between Orange County Museum of Art (OCMA) and the City for the adjacent property located at 856 San Clemente Drive. In response to Secretary Zak, Senior Planner Ramirez confirmed that a waiver of the ten-acre minimum was not required. He reviewed the heights of surrounding planned communities. He stated that an analysis of the loss of institutional use was not in the EIR and that information will be provided. Secretary Zak suggested information be provided. Deputy Director Wisneski asked the Commissioners to identify the additional information that was needed in order to assist them in their decision making. Commissioner Dunlap asked about the setback dimensions. Senior Planner Ramirez stated the project was in the San Joaquin Planned Community. He stated he would report back on setback dimensions. Commissioner Dunlap requested information on the changes to zoning and comparing it setbacks and development standards of other zones. Chair Kramer asked for the distinctions between the zoning requested from this applicant versus what is requested from 150 Newport Center. Deputy Directory Wisneski stated the 150 Newport Center was not currently located in the PC whereas the Museum House is already within a PC. Chair Kramer discussed the Commission's suggestion to merge 150 Newport Center into an existing PC. Secretary Zak stated he wanted to ensure that both applications were evaluated consistently. Chair Kramer opened public comments. Thomas Nielsen stated the project was elegant and consistent with the area of Newport Center. He indicated support for the project. Barry Allen stated luxury condominiums had a higher traffic count and therefore would require a Green Light vote. _Xar� Lynn Hamilton Lang addressed the Commission in support for the Museum House project. She stated the slope made the project appear lower. She stated the project would enhance the design of Fashion Island. She stated the City would benefit from property taxes. She urged the Commission to support the project. Terri Kennedy stated she was in favor of the project. Marcia Cashion stated she and her husband support the art museum and proposed project. Jerry Lang requested the Commission support the project. Tom Fredericks asked if the motor court was considered part of the open space and if the open space was open to the public. He asked how many units would have ocean views and if adjacent property views would be obstructed. He asked the target age group. Thomas Tucker indicated support for the project. He stated they visited the Century City development and commended the quality. He stated the EIR indicated no significant traffic impacts. He urged approval of the project. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr.Tucker explained why the high rise luxury project was appealing. Jim Muzzy endorsed the proposed project and urge the Commission to support it. Page 2 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 Casey Terravino stated she was impressed with the developer's sensitivity. She endorsed the project due to its design, open space, and amenities. Chair Kramer asked why she was supporting Museum House rather than 150 Newport Center. Ms.Terravino stated the project met the needs of her clients. Carl Swayne expressed concern with parking and emergency vehicle access. He suggested restrictions on the adjacent 0.9-acre lot. Jim Mosher stated that staff errored by identifying the building as a former library location. He stated the building had never been a library. He stated the project would add units above and beyond the approved number of units in the 2006 General Plan. He stated the maximum height was 32 feet. He stated he was surprised with the view simulations. He questioned how the project would bring more water to the residents of Newport Beach. Linda Goodman stated she did not want more density in the City. She stated most residents did not support the development. Janice Carston discussed traffic issues and opposed increased density. She questioned why additional units were allowed when existing residents were forced to reduce water consumption. Chair Kramer requested that staff provide data on water use restrictions in Orange County. Jim Warren questioned the view simulations. Bob Currie commended the design of the project. He stated residents were concerned about water, sight lines and development. He stated the EIR indicated no substantial impact from the project. He urged the Commission to support the project. Karen Everett discussed the need for a concert hall. She stated she was a docent at the museum. She discussed Measure A in 1993 working to save open space but the focus was now on density. She urged the Commission to support the project. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Mr.Witte stated the building will be valet parked, adding at least 30%to the parking. Vice Chair Koetting asked where staff would park. Mr.Witte stated there would be onsite staff parking. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Mr. Witte stated cleaning would be done by individuals. In response to Secretary Zak, Senior Planner Ramirez stated parking was not allowed on San Clemente Drive. Secretary Zak suggested additional information be provided on the need for spillover parking. Vice Chair Koetting requested information on trash service and moving vans. He asked for a summary of the San Joaquin Plaza apartment project. He asked if there were issues with views, shadows, and traffic for the new office towers built in the last three years. Secretary Zak requested analysis on trip generation of the two new office high rises compared to a residential high rise. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS-None IV. RECESS—The meeting recessed at 5:58 p.m. V. RECONVENE AT 6:30 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING VI. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. Page 3 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer VIII. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Ray Lawler, Secretary Peter Zak EXCUSED: Commissioner Erik Weigand(arrived at 8:01 p.m.) Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Deputy City Attorney Andy Maiorano; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Associate Planner Makana Nova; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo; Wendy Joe, Police Department Civilian Investigator; and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dennis Baker,Treasurer of SPON, requested the Planning Commission meetings be televised. X. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES—None. XI. CONSENT ITEMS 1. MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Commissioner Hillgren clarified his statement and it was noted that written corrections to the minutes were submitted by Chair Kramer and Jim Mosher. Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 2016, as amended. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren,Kramer, Lawler,Koetting,Zak NOES: None ABSENT: Weigand XII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. LIDO BOTTLE WORKS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(PA2016-102) Site Location: 3408 Via Oporto, Suites 102 and 103 Associate Planner Nova presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed project and required conditional use permit (CUP) along with the proposed hours of operation. She recommended approval of the restaurant with denial of the requested retail off-sale alcohol sales component. She recommended an additional condition regarding trash service. She explained the need to consider that this location was previously utilized as a food service establishment and that off-sale alcohol sales would be an intensification of the use. In response to Chair Kramer, Associate Planner Nova stated the Planning Commission decision did not go to the Council. Chair Kramer suggested bifurcating Lido Marina Village from the rest of Reporting District 15. Police Department Civilian Investigator Joe explained the reporting districts and that licenses affected police services over the entire reporting district. Commissioner Dunlap discussed the three bars in the "Golden Triangle' (Malarky's, Rudy's, and Brew Co.). He suggested approval retaining the hours of operation at 11 p.m. Page 4 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 In response to Secretary Zak, Associate Planner Nova explained that the one-year review on other CUPs is typically only added where there is a specific issue to review. Secretary Zak asked if the grease interceptor had already been installed. Associate Planner Nova stated there was not an existing grease interceptor. Chair Kramer requested the applicant explain the business, extended hours and off-sale retail sales. Vice Chair Koetting asked if the trash enclosure was shared. Associate Planner Nova explained the master plan for trash services and a condition for a grease interceptor. She discussed the restroom requirements for the center. Kyle Paine, applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining their understanding of the area, business concept, retail component, Police Department concerns, the request to modify Alternative Condition No. 3 and delete Alternative Condition No. 1. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Paine stated they were one of four restaurant concepts, all unique. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Paine stated the proposal was for a restaurant with beer and wine sales. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Mr. Paine indicated 5% of total sales was anticipated for off- sale retail alcohol sales. He stated the specialty beers were between $10-$15 a piece. He agreed with a condition to review after one year. Commissioner Lawler asked if the applicant was agreeable to limit the number of bottles served. Mr. Paine accepted the prosed condition. Commissioner Hillgren asked if they had restaurant experience. Mr. Paine stated one of the partners had been in the restaurant industry for ten years. He explained the proposed concept and focus on craft beer. Chair Kramer asked for a description of the bar design. Mr. Paine explained the bar in the center and pass-through window to the outdoor dining patio with bar seating. He stated the kitchen was approximately 400 square feet. He clarified that the CUP was 40 indoor seats and 24 outdoor seats. Associate Planner Nova stated the condition was based on floor area rather the number of seats. Chair Kramer stated it appeared to be a good plan. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. George Schroeder stated he was grateful for Commissioner Dunlap, but expressed concern about the limited historical knowledge of the Commission. He discussed the purpose of the police reporting districts. He expressed concern with alcohol-impaired driving. He stated there was sufficient beer and wine locations and saturation of liquor licenses. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Mr. Paine stated it would be a high-end restaurant, not a bar. He urged the Commission to approve the project. Secretary Zak disclosed that he spoke with the applicant prior to the meeting, and he explained to him the plan. He expressed surprise at the size of the bar area. Mr. Paine stated it was not a bar because the majority of sales would be food. He stated the total area was 1500 square feet. Chair Kramer stated he was in favor of the application and off sales alcohol with the conditions of approval, deleting Alternative Condition No. 1 and modifying Alternative Condition No. 3 to limit off- sale alcohol sales to end at 10 p.m. daily. Commissioner Lawler indicated support of Chair Kramer's suggestion with a condition that it come back in 12 months for review. Page 5 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 Commissioner Hillgren expressed concern with granting approval for the property. He asked if it could be conditioned for review with change of ownership. Deputy Director Wisneski stated the Commission could review the application annually. She stated the project would be subject to an operator's license. Commissioner Hillgren questioned the parking threshold. Associate Planner Nova referenced the table in the staff report regarding the parking and occupancy thresholds. Commissioner Hillgren stated he could support the permitting process with review in 1 months. Commissioner Dunlap asked if Chair Kramer supported off sales. Chair Kramer confirmed that he would make that motion. Commissioner Dunlap commended the applicant on the proposed menu. He expressed concern with the saturation of liquor licenses. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to adopt Resolution No. 2023 approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP2016-027 as modified without the requested off-sale alcohol sales component, deleting Condition No. 1, modifying Condition No. 3 to 10 p.m., adding an overall global condition that the application come back to the Planning Commission 2 months after occupancy for review and adding a condition requiring the trash enclosure to be in place before operation. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting,Weigand, Zak NOES: Dunlap 3. 150 NEWPORT CENTER(PA2014-213) Site Location: 150 Newport Center Drive Community Development Director Brandt introduced the item. Associate Planner Nova presented a PowerPoint providing an overview of the application, including the reduced project scope since last heard by the Planning Commission, and comparison of development standards with other planned communities in the area. Sean Neville, City's EIR consultant, summarized the EIR and indicated there would be no significant unavoidable impacts after mitigation. He reviewed the four alternatives evaluated. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Neville provided additional detail on Alternatives 2 (8,500-square-foot office development) and 4 (25-unit residential development). In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Neville explained the evaluation of surface parking along with FAR requirements. Associate Planner Nova explained that the 8500-square-foot office was contemplated and subsurface parking was not necessary for a building of this size. Community Development Director Brandt clarified that anything more than 8500 square feet of office would require a General Plan Amendment. In response to Commissioner Zak, Mr. Neville explained the requirement to consider a no project alternative. Community Development Director Brandt explained Alternative No. 3 (8,500-square-foot restaurant) and the various alternatives considered. Chair Kramer asked about Alternative No. 4. Community Development Director Brandt explained that an RM zone was considered, which has a lower height limit. Mr. Neville discussed the water demand, wastewater demand, and traffic trips generated by the project. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Neville stated the EIR did not include analysis of where the car wash trips would move to. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Neville explained the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)trip generation rate. Page 6 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Neville stated the projected 205 trips for the proposed development were based on the ITE trip rate for high-rise condominiums. Mr. Neville stated the City received 27 comment letters and provided 18 formal responses to CEQA- related comment letters. He stated the majority of the letters focused on aesthetics, land use and planning, and traffic, more specifically building height, impacts on visual resources, and compliance with General Policy 6.14.4. Commissioner Lawler stated the EIR results for water, sewage, and trips were based on a 7-story, 49-unit project and the applicant was now proposing a 5-story, 35-unit project. Mr. Neville explained the corresponding reduction based on a per unit decrease. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Neville stated a mixed-use alternative would take 4-6 months to recirculate the EIR. Commissioner Hillgren asked the difference in traffic and water for a mixed-use alternative. Mr. Neville stated he would have to run the application through the models. In response to Secretary Zak, Community Development Director Brandt confirmed that only horizontal mixed-use was allowed in the MU-H3 land use designation. Commissioner Hillgren articulated that a taller, thinner building with some commercial made sense. Secretary Zak asked if the Museum House project would be precluded based on the 100-unit limitation. Community Development explained that the P . Hing Commission was making a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council wouIa action. She stated, presuming that the project would proceed and be approved by City Council rior to the Museum House project, there would be a balance of 72 units in the density threshold before voter approval would be required for a General Plan amendment, pursuant to City Charter Section 423. She explained the proposed vesting period of 10 years once the development agreement was approved. Commissioner Weigand arrived at 8:01 p.m. In response to Vice Chair Koetting. Community Development Director Brandt explained the requirement of Charter Section 423 requirement to reduce prior General Plan amendments by 20%, and retaining the prior General Plan for 10 years for the purpose of calculating Charter Section 423 thresholds. In responset Commissioner Hillgren, Community Development Director Brandt explained the the Charter Section 423 requirements and how the 20% reduction is applied. Associate Planner N", presented the site plan, site access, setbacks, underground trash enclosures, circulation Pfan, open space, floor area, and construction process. Community Development Director Brandt stated staff had received a letter from Irvine Company expressing concern regarding the construction period. Associate Planner Nova presented Condition No. 93 prohibiting lane closures during the holidays and Condition No. 83 regarding trash truck service. She presented the haul route for the project, landscape plan and tentative tract map. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Associate Planner Nova displayed the planting plan. She suggested adding Condition No. 96 to provide the Commission the opportunity to review the exterior building materials, landscaping and resident site amenities prior to building permit issuance. Community Development Director Brandt stated the water standards were codified in the Municipal Code. She suggested high quality landscaping could be water saving as well. Commissioner Hillgren requested the Commission have the opportunity to review the final landscaping plan. In response to Secretary Zak, Community Development Director Brandt stated, with the revised conditions,the Irvine Company did not have any outstanding issues. Page 7 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 Commissioner Koetting discussed the walkways and landscaping and expressed concern about the lack of landscaping along three sides due to the private balconies. Associate Planner Nova clarified the three-foot landscaping area adjacent to Block 100. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Associate Planner Nova discussed the dog run design. Associate Planner Nova introduced the proposed development agreement terms and reminded the Commission of the proposed modifications to Condition Nos. 83 and 93 and addition of Condition No. 96. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Associate Planner Nova discussed the condition requiring a stop sign near the south driveway and clarified its location. Mike Lutton, representing the applicant, introduced Chase Russell, car wash operator. Mr. Russell addressed the Commission regarding the feasibility of the full service carwash. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Mr. Russell discussed the cost of labor and transition to self- serve canaashes. Commissioner Lawler stated the car wash was profitable but the current model no longer worked. Mr. Lutton introduced Francois Badeau. Mr. Badeau. TransMax Group, discussed the need for the proposed housing. He discussed the architect for the project and efforts to build a landmark. He discussed efforts to respect views, reduce traffic, and address concerns. Mr. Lutton presented a slide displaying the height of the proposed project and surrounding buildings. He discussed efforts to bring the project down to the height within the planned community. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Lutton stated he hoped there would be other residential in Block 100. He presented the elevation depicting the setback of mass. He stated a four-story building was not economically feasible. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Lutton stated the ceiling heights were 10 to 12-feet. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Lutton described the indoor/outdoor space. He discussed the outdoor amenities. In response to Secretary Zak, Matthew McLarand, architect, explained the floor to ceiling heights, with 10 feet for each level including an 8-inch slab drop lid and 9-foot clear floor to ceiling heights. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Mr. McLarand discussed the area in between the floors. Mr. McLarand stated there were ten-foot floor-to-floor, with 12 feet at the top floor. He reviewed the landscape areas and proposed dog park. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. McLarand stated he did not know the percentage of landscapable area. Mr. Lutton stated they heard the desire for lush landscaping. Associate Planner Nova stated 15% of the site would be landscaped. Mr. McLarand stated the projects were podium based, adding green space. In response to Chair Kramer, Community Development Director Brandt stated 10-foot clear space from floor to ceiling would achieve the luxury living. She discussed staffs recommendation for a four-story project. Mr. McLarand discussed efforts to be a good neighbor and ensure the residents are aware of the noise and sounds in the urban environment. Page 8 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 In response to Secretary Zak, Mr. Lutton stated high quality building materials would be utilized to reduce noise issues. Secretary Zak asked if the applicant had offered to mitigate the neighbor's noise concerns. Commissioner Hillgren discussed decibel restrictions and existing businesses being restricted. Mr. Lutton suggested Muldoon's provide a letter to disclose to homeowners. Secretary Zak asked if the applicant would be open to upgrading the windows at Muldoon's. Mr. Lutton stated he did not see a sound issue. Commissioner Weigand questioned the covenants with the Irvine Company. Mr. Lutton stated they had been working with the Irvine Company for several months. Marissa Armstrong, Muldoon's event coordinator, provided an overview of Irish culture at Muldoon's. She urged the Commission to protect their business and vote no on the project. Dennis Baker, representing SPON, expressed appreciation for reduction of height but concern with spot zoning. He stated the project seemed inconsistent with a planned community. He stated the project will set a bad precedent. Tom Nielsen indicated opposition to the project due 'pjcle trips. Jeffrey Stephen suggested a hybrid carwash. recomme the zoning be retained and that no variances be allowed. Jim Place discussed displacement of the cars from the carwash. He stated the City did not want to look like Paris and that no one walked to work. He urged the Commission to vote no on the development. Rebecca Hall, representing the "silent residents", who support the project and smart development. She stated the proposed project reduced traffic, saved water, and provided necessary housing. She requested the Commission support the project. Doug Simpson indicated support for the proposed project. Tom Fredericks discussed Finding L and the need to support the finding with facts. Lance Watkins indicated support for the project. Nancy Skinner, representing SPON, submitted petitions signed by over 1,400 people opposing the project. She indicated opposition to building residences next to Muldoon's. She urged the Commission to not support the project. Susan Skinner stated a Green Light vote was necessary. She discussed styles of governance and urged the Commission to deny the project. Debra Mayhugh expressed concern that the proposed development would be incompatible with existing businesses. She urged the Commission to vote no on the project. Christy Metolabetchek commended the architecture on the proposed project. She stated the project offered a safe, sophisticated environment. She stated it was necessary to consider the changing needs of the community. Karen Carlson urged the Commission to deny the project, noting the car wash trips, noise, and Measure Y, where residents voted no against new residential development in Newport Center. She noted a referendum would be in order if the project went through. Page 9 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 Ron Schwartz, Muldoon's, stated the project was not ready for a vote. He stated he did not want trouble and appealed to the Commission's common sense. Jim Mosher stated that there was no study indicating there were 100 units left to be built with no impact. He stated the addition of residents would add traffic. He discussed impacts to public views and growth inducing impacts. He stated he was amused to hear Newport Center was the heart and soul of Newport Beach. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Lutton stated it was critical to move forward due to financing constraints and market place demand. He discussed efforts to retain the project within the development standards. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Associate Planner Nova stated the height limits in the RM zone as 28 feet for a flat roof and 33 feet for a sloping roof. She stated a General Plan Amendment would be necessary to allow residential development for other portions of Block 100 and the height limit for the property would have to be reevaluated with such a request. Chair Kramer discussed the vision for Newport Center as outlined in the General Plan and founding designers of Newport Center as a regional center bringing together a mix of different uses. He stated the General Plan needed to be updated for Newport Center and the Airport area. He stated residential use made sense in Block 100 and on the particular,; ite, however, the overall project had to make sense. He stated 32 units were too dense, with too massing for the site, insufficient landscaping, and not enough green space. He expressed difficul with making Finding B of the draft resolution. He stated the design was nice but suggested 25 units with four floors. Commissioner Lawler reminded the public that the Commission was not a political body, rather to enforce land use. He discussed the developer's efforts to reduce the project with an EIR showing no impacts. He agreed that it was well designed and the demand was high. He stated the project was smart growth in a great location that reduced traffic. Secretary Zak trusted staff's guidance regarding the Green Light issue. He stated residential uses were allowed in Newport Center and the proposed project was in a good location. He stated the EIR contemplated a more intense, larger project but the Commission wanted the project to fit within the North Newport PC. He expressed disappointment that the developer did not make more of an effort with its neighbors, particularly Muldoon's and that the project seemed rushed. He stated the General Plan did not reference density, therefore he had trouble opposing the density for the site. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Secretary Zak stated he could not propose the number of units, it was up to the developer. Commissioner Weigand asked if the developer would consider 25 units. Chair Kramer stated the matter before the Commission was the applicant's application. Commissioner Lawler stated the applicant proposed 35 units and the EIR supported 35 units, therefore he would support 35 units. Commissioner Hillgren stated the majority of the Commission were developers, which provided expertise in reviewing projects. He stated he valued property rights. He stated Green Light allowed 100 units and the project was going through the process to request those units through the General Plan amendment application. He stated traffic was de minimis, height was not impacting views, and water usage was reduced. He discussed the General Plan goals and stated 100 well planned units can and should work within the area. He stated the project would be well-received in the market and he supported the timeless design. He stated he believed the building could actually be taller but that it was bulky for the site. He stated he requested floor plans for the units. He stated the EIR supported 35 or 45 units but bulk needed to be considered and expressed appreciation for the Page 10 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 modifications but the project needed additional work. He mentioned his opposition to the project as currently proposed but recommended the developer return with a project based on the comments. Commissioner Koetting expressed concern with setback, access and units on the ground floor. He stated he was unable to make the finding that a land use change would be compatible with existing uses. He stated he was not opposed to additional residential in Fashion Island but not at the proposed location. He stated he would vote to deny the project. Commissioner Dunlap discussed FAR, indicating it was the highest in the area. He stated the project and Muldoon's needed to work together. Commissioner Weigand stated he would not support the project. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2024 denying the 35-unit,five-story project. Alternate Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to continue the hearing to September 22,2016, based on the applicants request to bring back a 35-unit project. AYES: Hillgren, Lawler,Zak NOES: Dunlap, Koetting, Kramer, Weigand Community Development Director Brandt stated re endation as denial without prejudice allowing the applicant to come back with a revs oject. The vote on the initial motion was as follows: ®' AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Weigand' NOES: Lawler, Zak XIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION— None. ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Community Development Director Brandt reminded the Commission that the California Coastal Commission would be holding its monthly meeting in Newport Beach, and the hearing for the Newport Banning Ranch project was scheduled for September 7 and the Draft Implementation Plan for the City's LCP was scheduled for September 8,2016. 2. Update on City Council Items Community Development Director Brandt stated 150 Newport Center was tentatively scheduled for the Council in September, and that the project would be publically noticed. ITEM NO. 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Commissioner Hillgren discussed the requirement for Planning Commission approval of roof top equipment on non-conforming structures and suggested consistency with conforming structures requiring zoning code administrator approval. By consensus, the Commission directed staff to bring back a zoning code amendment regarding roof-top equipment. Page 11 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/1/16 Vice Chair Koetting suggested the Commission consider amendments to the setback requirements. By consensus, the Commission directed staff to review setbacks and possible amendments to the code. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Community Development Director Brandt stated letters could be provided electronically. Commissioner Weigand requested paper copies. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Lawler stated he would be absent September 22 and October 6, 2016. Commissioner Dunlap stated he would be absent November 3, 2016. Vice Chair Koetting stated he would be absent November 3, 2016. Chair Kramer stated he would be absent September 22, 2016. Commissioner Weigand stated he would be late October 6, XIV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, August 26, 2016, at 9:30 a.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, August 26, 2016, at 9:40 a.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary Page 12 of 12 Planning Commission - September 22, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of September 1, 2016 Sept. 22, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in Orikeeut underline format. Page 1, Item SSI, paragraph 3: "In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Senior Planner Ramirez explained the museum offices located on the adjacent property, were not part of the proposed residential project." [delete second comma] Page 1, Item SSI, paragraph 4, last sentence: "He presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the Planning Commission considerations, and project overview including site plan, open space, building setbacks,height, and view simulations." [insert comma] Page 2, paragraph 3, last sentence: "Commissioner Dunlap requested information on the changes to zoning and comparing it to setbacks and development standards of other zones." Page 2, paragraph 8: "Barry Allen stated luxury condominiums had a higher traffic count and therefore would require a GFeen Ligh Greenlight vote." Page 2, paragraph 10: "Terri Teri Kennady stated she was in favor of the project." [?] Page 2, last paragraph: "Jim Muzzy endorsed the proposed project and urge urged the Commission to support it." Page 3, paragraph 5: "Janice Garston Carsten discussed traffic issues and opposed increased density." [?] Page 3, paragraph 9: "Karen €verett Evarts discussed the need for a concert hall." [?] Page 4, last paragraph: "Commissioner Dunlap discussed the three bars in the "Golden Triangle" (Malarky's, Rudy's, and grew Newport Beach Brewing Co.)." Page 6, motion: "Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to adopt Resolution No. 2023 approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP2016-027 as modified without with the requested off-sale alcohol sales component, deleting Condition No. 1, modifying Condition No. 3 to 10 p.m., ..." [weren't"off-sale" sales approved, and weren't Conditions 1 & 3 related to that, per the next to last paragraph on page 5?] Page 6, Item 3, paragraph 3: "Sean Shawn Neville, City's EIR consultant, summarized the EIR and indicated there would be no significant unavoidable impacts after mitigation." Page 6, Item 3, paragraph 5: "In response to Gef" nissieneF Secretary Zak, Mr. Neville explained the requirement to consider a no project alternative." Planning Commission - September 22, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received September 22, 2016, PC agenda item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Draft MinBlwcif97e'ptember 1, 2016 Page 7, paragraph 7, sentence 2: "Community Development Director Brandt explained that the Planning Commission was making a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council would take action." [note: this is correct if the recommendation is for approval. However barring an appeal or call for view, if the recommendation is for denial, City Council Policy K-1 and the Zoning Code indicate the process ends with the Planning Commission decision.] Page 7, paragraph 11: "In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Community Development Director Brandt explained the requirement of Charter Section 423 requirement to reduce prior General Plan amendments by 20%, and retaining the prior General Plan amendments for 10 years for the purpose of calculating Charter Section 423 thresholds." Page 7, paragraph 12: "In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Community Development Director Brandt explained the the Charter Section 423 requirements and how the 20% reduction is applied." Page 8, paragraph 4 from end, sentence 2: "Mr. McLarand stated the they were ten-foot floor-to- floor, with 12 feet at the top floor." [?] Page 9, paragraph 8: "Jeffrey Stephen Stevens suggested a hybrid carwash." [?] Page 9, paragraph 10: "Rebecca Hall, representing the "silent residents"T who support the project and smart development.-She,, stated the proposed project reduced traffic, saved water, and provided necessary housing." Page 9, paragraph 4 from end: "Susan Skinner stated a Green Light Greenlipht vote was necessary." Page 9, paragraph 3 from end: "Debra Mayhugh Mayhew expressed concern that the proposed development would be incompatible with existing businesses." [?] Page 10, paragraph 5 from end: "Secretary Zak trusted staffs guidance regarding the ween Light Greenlipht issue." Page 10, last paragraph, sentence 3: "He stated Green Light Greenlipht allowed 100 units and the project was going through the process to request those units through the General Plan amendment application." Page 11: "Alternate Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to continue the hearing to September 22, 2016, based on the applicants applicant's request to bring back a 35-unit project." Page 11, paragraph 2 from end: "Commissioner Hillgren discussed the requirement for Planning Commission approval of roof top equipment on non-conforming structures and suggested consistency with conforming structures requiring ZGning GOde administrate Zoning Administrator approval."