Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/2016 - Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers- 100 Civic Center Drive Monday, August 18, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Ray Lawler, and Commissioner Erik Weigand Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Associate Planner Makana Nova; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez; Senior Planner Jaime Murillo; Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Terry Welsh, President of the Banning Ranch Conservancy, provided an update on the Banning Ranch project and the Conservancy's proposed plan. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr.Welsh stated his address in Costa Mesa. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated the applicant for the Troesh Residence Appeal had requested the item be tabled to allow redesign of the project. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to table the item. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand, Zak NOES: None VI. CONSENT ITEMS 1. MINUTES,OF JULY 21,2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file It was noted that written corrections to the minutes were submitted by Jim Mosher and Chair Kramer. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 21, 2016, as amended. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. TROESH RESIDENCE APPEAL(PA2015-122) Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive Tabled under Request for Continuances. 3. C2 EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS (PA2016-114) 1 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Site Location: 2121 East Coast Highway Senior Planner Murillo presented a PowerPoint providing an overview of the proposed tutoring center. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Senior Planner Murillo explained the proposed hours of operation. Commissioner Hillgren stated there appeared to be unnecessary conditions including Conditions 8, 13, and 16. Senior Planner Murillo explained the Building Code requirements for maximum occupancy limits are standard conditions of approval, but indicated that Conditions 8, 13 and 16 could be omitted. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Senior Planner Murillo explained student drop-off and on-street parking. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher asked for the applicant's letter explaining the project. He stated the presentation of hours of operation were misleading. He asked if the signage would be included in the comprehensive sign program. Senior Planner Murillo stated sign approval was not before the Commission, but there was a comprehensive sign program for the building. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, John Thomas, Vice President of C2 Education, explained the tutoring program. He stated the signs would follow the comprehensive sign program and indicated the location of the suite was selected due to the proximity to the street. Cort Ensign stated the new business' signs would be replacing the existing bank signage. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to adopt Resolution No. 2022 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-020. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting, Weigand, Zak NOES: None 4. AUTONATION PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH (PA2015-095) Site Location: 320-600 W. Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile area approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive Principal Planner Campbell presented a PowerPoint explaining the proposed project including the traffic analysis, Mitigated Negative Declaration and nine mitigation measures, site plan, parking, hours of operation, modern architectural theme, and roof plan. He stated no variance is required and the lot consolidation provided a larger floor area ratio. He discussed staff's recommendation for a larger roof cover to reduce noise. He explained the prohibition on test drives on residential streets and the widening of Coast Highway. He summarized staff's recommendation for project approval subject to findings and conditions of approval. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, representing AutoNation, described the project site, project components, setbacks, parking, architecture, design, community outreach and residents' concerns. She discussed the neighboring residents' suggestions to fully enclose the roof and underground power lines. She explained the substantial public benefit of widening Coast Highway. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, City Traffic Engineer Brine described the required street improvements. Ms. Schaffner urged the Commission to approve the project consistent with staff's recommendation. Page 2 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Larry Tidwell stated the parking surface would be concrete, coated with grey sealer and the rooftop canopies would be matte charcoal grey to reduce glare. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr.Tidwell described the proposed building materials. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Tidwell explained the design to protect the views and noise impact to residents on Kings Road. Commissioner Hillgren questioned how the building height was determined. Mr. Tidwell explained the base elevation and building heights. Principal Planner Campbell explained the slope of the property and that a grade plane established by the Zoning Code is the baseline for measuring height. He stated the project was consistent with the code requirement for measuring height. He stated the proposed building would be 32 feet above the pavement at the front of the building not accounting for the elevator and stair shafts. Commissioner Hillgren discussed allowable height. Principal Planner Campbell stated staff's opinion that the four findings for increased height had been met. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Mr. Tidwell stated the 35-foot height limit would be exceeded and additional mechanical equipment would be necessary if the entire roof were covered. He stated the proposed design created a lower acoustical impact. In response to Secretary Zak, Mr. Tidwell discussed base elevation and constraints by the bluff. Secretary Zak asked if the screen could be extended across the roof without requiring mechanical ventilation. Mr. Tidwell discussed issues with extension of the canopies. Secretary Zak discussed the acoustical study and asked if additional noise mitigation could be included. Mr. Tidwell suggested the addition of acoustic batting to the rooftop canopies. In response to Chair Kramer, Ms. Schaffner confirmed the project was a long-term ground lease and consolidation of eleven parcels. Property owner Russ Fluter indicated full support of the project. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Tidwell described ingress and egress and stated there was adequate stacking within the service drive. He stated the overall architectural design was a requirement of Porsche. He discussed the proposed signage and lighting and indicated the applicant would accept dimming requirements. He confirmed that the site would be fenced during construction. Commissioner Lawler asked if left turns were currently allowed. Traffic Engineer Brine stated left turns were allowed at three of the four existing driveways, and he was not concerned with the proposed driveways and access from the highway. Commissioner Hillgren asked who determined the requirement of the widening of Coast Highway. Principal Planner Campbell explained that it is a requirement of the General Plan and he addressed the dated reference to not widening the highway in the Mariners' Mile design guidelines. Traffic Engineer Brine discussed the County and City's Master Plan for Coast Highway to be a six-lane facility from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Peter Rooney, Bayshores resident, stated he was surprised that the Commission was hearing the matter. He questioned the building height calculations. He requested the matter be continued to provide proper notice to the residents and provide public workshops. Patrick Gormley, Bayshores resident, concurred with Mr. Rooney. He requested a continuance. He stated the service area was incompatible. He stated Coast Highway was already widened and there was a lack of coordination. George Howser, Kings Road resident, discussed existing business conditions. He stated the power poles should be removed. He asked for additional information on the rooftop canopy. Page 3 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Ann Staple, Bayshores resident, expressed frustration regarding the lights from Mariner's Point. She stated she did not want the lights and traffic from the Porsche dealership. She discussed damage caused by Coast Highway construction. She suggested a continuance to allow additional residential input. Tom Zolga, Bayshores resident, stated he was blindsided about the project. He suggested the matter be tabled to address concerns. He discussed existing light issues and potential noise from the car elevators and power tools. He expressed opposition to the proposed architectural design. In response to Chair Kramer, Principal Planner Campbell explained the noticing requirements. He stated the application was submitted in May 2015. Commissioner Dunlap asked if the Bayshores Community was notified. Principal Planner Campbell stated nearby associations were notified. Ms. Schaffner discussed outreach to residents. Gary Hill, Kings Road resident, expressed concern regarding noise. Chair Kramer stated the conditions of approval prohibited employees on the roof. Principal Planner Campbell confirmed that to be correct. Matt Nest, Bayshores resident, concurred that the residents were not notified about the project. He urged the Commission to deny the project. Todd Otte, Dover Shores resident, questioned whether the complex fit the Newport Beach character and feel. He stated mitigation was necessary for upslope and Bayshores residents. Jim Mosher expressed concern with car dealership lighting. He discussed impact to the coastal bluff and whether the project is consistent with General Plan Policy 6.19.12. He questioned the 24-foot retaining wall and mitigation for the mapped earthquake liquefaction zone. Principal Planner Campbell stated the General Plan provided policy for visual and structural integrity of the bluffs and staff's opinion that the project complies with the General Plan. Jessica Rinkin, Kings Road resident, expressed concern about the integrity of the bluff and noise impacts. She questioned the height calculations. She requested the Commission consider the concerns of the residents. She suggested the powerlines be undergrounded as part of the project. Chair Kramer stated the power poles were not related to the project. Principal Planner Campbell stated the poles were on the residential properties. He stated there was not a project nexus related to the powerlines and it would be a significant cost to underground the lines. Commissioner Weigand asked who was responsible for the integrity of the bluff. Assistant City Attorney Torres discussed the indemnification provision. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell showed the site plan showing the property line and slope. Jack Geerlings, Kings Road resident, discussed his time in Newport Beach. He stated the residents found the project unacceptable due to the height, noise and rooftop parking. He stated there was no other roof parking on Mariners' Mile. He suggested underground parking. Mike Gilbert, Kings Road resident, expressed concern about noise from the repair area. He stated the building was out of proportion to the neighborhood. He stated the power poles were not on his property. He expressed concern about light pollution. He proposed the project be delayed or moved to Harbor Boulevard. Janice Gormley, Bayshores resident, expressed concern about traffic safety at Dover Drive and Coast Highway, hours of operation, and aesthetics. Page 4 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Carole Dru, Kings Road resident, discussed her experience with a car dealership. She expressed concern with fumes and deliveries. She asked about the material of the canopy. Peggy Palmer, Kings Road resident, stated she had no knowledge of the project. She asked how the project would impact the property values of the neighboring residents. She asked the decibel level of the cars and suggested the maritime theme be retained. She indicated opposition to widening Coast Highway. Dan Purcell commended the residents addressing the Commission. He discussed noise from the vehicles, especially tires. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Ms. Schaffner reminded the Commission that the project was consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. She stated the service area had doors and very little noise would be generated. She stated there was no nexus with the powerlines but the applicant would be willing to contribute $100,000 to the City's effort to underground. She explained that the battery charging process does not require starting and running engines and sales transaction length. She stated the conditions of approval limited neighborhood impact. Mr. Tidwell stated the elevators would create minimal noise and they are not freight elevators but rather a large passenger elevator that can accommodate a car. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Principal Planner Campbell confirmed that neither tax revenue nor property values were under consideration by the Planning Commission. He discussed bluff structural integrity and views of the bluff. He discussed inland bluffs versus coastal bluffs. He discussed the Community Noise Ordinance and the project's compliance. Commissioner Hillgren asked if there was a condition limiting the property to higher end automobiles. Principal Planner Campbell explained that the approval was for the building and use, not the brand. He discussed the purpose of height limits and activity on the roof. Commissioner Lawler asked if there was any effort to connect to the Bayshores residents. Ms. Schaffner discussed City noticing. Steve Rosansky discussed outreach with Kings Road neighbors and the adjacent properties. He stated there was no specific outreach to Bayshores. Commissioner Lawler asked if the applicant would be open to outreach to Bayshores residents. Ms. Schaffner stated the light levels were adjustable to address any concerns. She stated City staff required expansion of Coast Highway. She requested the Commission not continue the matter. Commissioner Lawler stated the project seemed inconsistent with the design guidelines. Principal Planner Campbell discussed the guidelines and stated the Commission could recommend changes or denial. He stated the applicant indicated the architectural design was dictated by Porsche. Commissioner Lawler stated he did not find the project consistent with the design guidelines. Secretary Zak discussed Mr. Mosher's comment regarding the height of the retaining wall. Principal Planner Campbell discussed retaining wall height limitations and an understanding that the wall was an integral part of the building allowing it to be taller. Secretary Zak indicated support for a continuance to allow the applicant to meet with concerned residents. Vice Chair Koetting questioned project noticing. Principal Planner Campbell explained the 300-foot radius for noticing and the requirement to not include abutting rights-of-way when measuring that distance. He discussed the type of limited complaints at other existing dealerships that helped staff in the development of the proposed conditions of approval. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, David Sara, AutoNation, discussed service and stated there was no service on Sundays and only light repairs would be done onsite. Page 5 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Traffic Engineer Brine stated widening of Coast Highway was a requirement of the City and permitted by Caltrans. Ms. Schaffner stated underground parking would be cost prohibitive in the proposed location. Principal Planner Campbell stated a variance application would be required for a full cover on the roof. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Sara stated Porsche determined the exterior building materials. Commissioner Dunlap expressed concern regarding lack of notification to Bayshores and suggested consideration of expanding the noticing radius. He expressed concern regarding noise, HVAC equipment, and architecture. He suggested completely covering the roof. In response to a question from Commissioner Dunlap, Principal Planner Campbell stated the adjacent Mariner's Pointe project voluntarily undergrounded the utilities behind their building and it was not a requirement of the City. Commissioner Weigand suggested continuing the item to allow Bayshores to receive additional information. Commissioner Hillgren discussed the Mariner's Pointe project. He stated the proposed project was on an important property and design guidelines should be followed. He agreed with continuing the matter. Chair Kramer indicated support for the project but agreed with a continuance. He stated it was a difficult parcel and the proposed use seemed appropriate. He suggested additional outreach. He requested consideration of roof covering options and evaluating whether a nautical theme should be required. Commissioner Hillgren requested the height increase justification be fleshed out. Ms. Schaffner stated they would conduct outreach and review the other items. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to table the matter. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting,Weigand, Zak NOES: None RECESS Chair Kramer called a recess at 9:21 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. with all Commissioners present. 5. 150 NEWPORT CENTER(PA2014-213) Site Location: 150 Newport Center Drive Continued from July 21, 2016 Community Development Director Brandt presented the staff report including the 6-story option requested by the applicant and the staff recommended 5-story option. She requested direction regarding the appropriate land use and zoning designations. She reminded the Commission that it was making recommendations to the City Council. Associate Planner Nova presented the Zoning options for the property. She explained the various planned community (PC) options and reviewed other residential developments in the area. She explained how building height is measured in the North Newport Center Planned Community. Commissioner Dunlap appreciated consideration of alternative PCs and asked why PC-56 was not being recommended. Community Development Director Brandt explained that site development review is conducted by the Planning Commission in the proposed PC versus PC-56, where site development review is conducted at a staff level by the Community Development Director. In response to Chair Kramer, Community Development Director Brandt stated that in PC-54, the site development review is conducted by the Planning Commission. Page 6 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Commissioner Hillgren stated "community'suggested multiple people coming up with a plan. He asked if the properties had to be contiguous to be included within a different PC. Community Development Director Brandt explained that the residential project could be included in a non-contiguous PC. She stated the majority of North Newport Center(PC-56)was owned by the Irvine Company but that was not a condition for inclusion in PC-56. Commissioner Hillgren asked why properties less than ten acres were established as a PC. Associate Planner Nova discussed properties in Newport Center area PCs that were less than ten acres in size. She explained the process to waive the requirement and indicated draft findings were included in the resolution for Commission consideration. In response to Secretary Zak, Community Development Director Brandt explained the planned community wavier and the opportunity to include the project in a different planned community within Newport Center, and creating distinct zoning regulations for the property. She stated the North Newport Center PC already included mixed-use development. Secretary Zak stated staff supported the waiver. He discussed the letter from the Irvine Company and its amendment rights to the North Newport Center PC-56. Assistant City Attorney Torres explained that the Commission could amend the PC but not the Irvine Company development agreement. In response to Secretary Zak, Community Development Director Brandt stated the current density in PC-54 reflected the Meridian development and a sub-area could be created with different density and height. Chair Kramer stated the project was discretionary and the Commission was tasked with creating a box of parameters for the project and the Commission must come to an agreement on what the parameters are. Community Development Director Brandt defined the "box" as the appropriate zoning district or PC, number of units and/or corresponding density, building height, number of stories, and building setbacks. Chair Kramer suggested striving for consistency with past and future projects. He stated there was a certain elegance with the Santa Barbara PC-54, in that it was entirely residential. Community Development Director Brandt stated the proposed project was all residential as was the Santa Barbara PC-54 and there were comparable features between the two projects. Chair Kramer stated it made sense to expand a PC instead of creating small community developments. Commissioner Hillgren noted when compared with other similar projects there was a lack of consistency related to FAR, height and number of dwelling units. He agreed that residential worked, but found benefit to mixed-use. He indicated support for including the project in an existing planned development. Commissioner Lawler stated he was struggling with why a new PC would be created rather than using PC-54 or PC-56. He concurred that utilizing an existing PC would make sense. Secretary Zak stated it was unfortunate that that applicant had gone through two study sessions, two public hearings, a mitigated negative declaration, full EIR, and further reduced the project. He supported the idea of comprehensive planning, but stated it was unfortunate that the idea came so late in the process. He agreed with the need for consistency. Vice Chair Koetting stated none of the existing Planned Communities fit exactly. The Commission will have to pick the appropriate development standards. Commissioner Dunlap stated the density per acre and number of units was similar to the Colony. He stated it was necessary to establish the number of units, height, and setbacks to come up with a new PC. Chair Kramer stated there seemed to be consensus for the need to redesign the project. Community Development Director Brandt requested direction from the Commission on how to move the project forward. Page 7 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Chair Kramer stated zoning, height, and the number of units were primary and affected everything else. Mike Lutton, representing the applicant, stated the project had been redesigned three times based on prior meetings. He explained the redesign efforts were to fit the project into PC-56. Matt McLarand, project architect, stated the Santa Barbara condos were single loaded, rather than double loaded, creating proposed lower density. He stated PC-56 seemed the appropriate text to keep consistency. Mr. Lutton stated they had worked diligently with staff to fit within the parameters of existing PC 56. He stated the height was proposed at 55-feet. Associate Planner Nova discussed the difference between the dwelling unit sizes and floor area ratio between the proposed project and Villas at Fashion Island (PC-56). She stated the Villas at Fashion Island were apartments and the proposed project were condominiums. Commissioner Hillgren stated the proposed project was roughly twice the size in terms of project floor area to unit number. In response to Chair Kramer, Community Development Director Brandt discussed the size of the Meridian units. Mr. Lutton stated they had not worked on specific floor plans due to the three project revisions. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. McLarand stated the units would be roughly between 2,500— 4,000 square feet, similar to Meridian. He stated the 49-unit version had townhomes on the lower floors. Secretary Zak asked if the Commission should determine unit size. Community Development Director Brandt stated it was an option but not a necessary ingredient. Secretary Zak stated he reviewed the General Plan for Newport Center and found that it indicated height and massing concentrated along San Joaquin Hills Road. He stated the floor area ratio was not a metric of massing and that the height was consistent with PC-56. Commissioner Lawler stated there was consensus to pick an existing box and indicated support for PC- 56. Chair Kramer stated that the zoning was selected and that the height in Block 100 was 50 feet. In response to Secretary Zak, Associate Planner Nova stated the recommended project height fit within the PC-56 height parameters. Community Development Director Brandt stated the height and number of stories could be selected in any of the PCs. Vice Chair Koetting stated the proposed project was too tall and requested it be limited to four stories. He stated he was not comfortable with a 50-foot, 45-unit development. Mr. Lutton stated the setbacks could not be retained and the project would not be economically feasible. He stated they had designed a project with friendly walkways and the appropriate design for the community. Commissioner Weigand indicated opposition to the project, preferring commercial or retaining the car wash. He stated he did not want residential on the subject property. Chair Kramer suggested the project follow the North Newport PC-56 or Santa Barbara PC-54. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Nancy Skinner suggested continuity and consistency and suggested similar heights as the existing corners in Block 100. She stated it was not the appropriate place for residential development. Jeffery Steffan stated the customers and employees would be impacted by loss of the carwash. Page 8 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Jim Place discussed voter's opposition to the freeway. He stated the community was interested in slow growth. He stated Newport Beach was a destination community and indicated height restrictions were important. He stated nobody walked to work so the concept of mixed-use was flawed. He requested retaining the character of Newport Beach. He urged the Commission to oppose the project. Karen Carlson suggested public input earlier in projects. She indicated opposition to the proposed density, height, and walkability. Margaret Baldwin stated the businesses would be impacted by the proposed residential development. She suggested the property be used as a commercial space. She stated the residential owners would be very unhappy with the long-time existing businesses. Lorian Petry discussed the importance of planned growth and William Pereira's vision for the community. Jim Mosher stated it did not sound like planning, rather smoke and mirrors. He stated the Commission could override the voter approved General Plan by changing the property to multi-family residential, not planned community. He stated height was not unlimited in planned communities. Ron Schwartz, owner of Muldoon's Irish Pub, stated neither the developer nor the City responded to his prior concerns. He stated the developer chose to design a residential project on the commercial property. He stated he could not support residential on that corner. He discussed noise from the existing surrounding businesses. He stated the new homeowners would be upset and turn to him because the developers would be long gone. Tom Baker stated the project was not compliant with the General Plan and should not be approved. He discussed requested modifications and waivers. He stated the height was too tall. He discussed the existing commercial properties and impact to proposed residential development. He urged the Commission to deny the project. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Mr. Lutton provided a response to public comments, noting that he built a condominium project at the train station in Downtown San Diego and he understood the sound issue from surrounding properties. He stated the project began due to the need. He stated they proposed a responsible project, with no negative impacts, favorable to the City's betterment. He stated they had worked with staff to make the project compatible with nearby land uses and were mandated to disclose any noise factors. Community Development Director Brandt requested the Commission provide direction to staff on the proposed Zoning and General Plan Amendment. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand to deny the project. The motion died due to lack of a second. Motion made by Secretary Zak and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to approve Option 2B to change the zone to PC-56(North Newport Center Planned Community, Block 100 sub-area). Chair Kramer agreed with the exception of the unit count. Associate Planner Nova stated the resolution would be modified based on Commission feedback for action on September 1, 2016. Commissioner Hillgren stated residential use in the area could work but not on the proposed corner. He questioned why the Irvine Company did not support the proposed project. Chair Kramer outlined the options before the Commission. Commissioner Hillgren asked if there was any support to add commercial to the project. Page 9 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Chair Kramer stated that was his suggestion at the prior meeting and suggested consideration of mixed- use. Commissioner Hillgren stated he would be more supportive if the project contained mixed-use. He asked Secretary Zak if he could support PC-56 or a mixed-use option. Secretary Zak stated he could support mixed-use. In response to Secretary Zak, Associate Planner Nova stated the draft EIR would have to be recirculated. In response to Chair Kramer,Associate Planner Nova stated the EIR would not have to be recirculated if the project was considered under PC-56 as a residential use since there would be no physical change to the project scope in the EIR. Vice Chair Koetting suggested the Commission determine if the property should be residential, how many stories, number of units, height and setbacks. Commission Zak suggested a box on limitations that can be reduced at the next meeting. Commissioner Lawler stated it would be difficult to build consensus. Vice Chair Koetting stated the Commission's recommendation was non-binding and the applicant did not have direction to obtain an approval. Commissioner Lawler stated there was not consensus amongst the Commission. Commissioner Hillgren suggested providing direction to the applicant. Mr. Lutton discussed efforts to satisfy concerns and indicated his understanding that the project would be evaluated at the meeting on September 1, 2016. In response to Secretary Zak, Mr. Lutton indicated support of the proposed process to proceed. Assistant City Attorney Torres clarified that the motion was to approve Option 2b with 45 units. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting, Zak NOES: Weigand, Dunlap Chair Kramer stated he felt 45 units was too intense and suggested a 25-unit project. Commissioner Dunlap indicated support for a residential project but expressed concern about floor area ratio and density. Commissioner Hillgren stated he could support residential being that there were 100 units available to develop. He indicated he could support additional development units if there was a commercial component since this is important to the General Plan policies. He also noted a preference for a tall and thin building product type versus a short and squatty product type. VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—None. ITEM NO.7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee 2. Update on City Council Items Page 10 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT—None. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Weigand indicated he would be late for the September 1, 2016 meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT Due to the bylaws stating that the Planning Commission cannot go past 11:30 p.m., unless the Commission votes to continue, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, August 12, 2016, at 2:20 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, August 12, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. Cory r, hair Peter Zak, Secretary Pagel 1 of 11