Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2008Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission February 21, 2008 Special Meeting - 6:30 p.m. file : / //Fi/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, Hillgren and McDaniel - All Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ian Burns, Esquire of Harper & Burns LLP Anthony Taylor, Esquire of Aleshire and Wynder Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 15, 2008 HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 31, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Approved Commissioner Cole to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: Toerge SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 7, 2008. ITEM NO. 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Approved Commissioner Hillgren to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: file : / //Fi/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 � 1 2 AERIE CONDOMINIUMS 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place fhe application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -uni apartment building and a single - family home and the construction of a 6 eve], 8 -unit multiple - family residential condominium complex wit[ ;ubterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the ntersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existinc 3eneral Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of ;mall portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be ;onsistent with the larger portion of the site (from two - family residentia o multi - family residential). The application includes a tentative tract mar or the creation of eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. ThE vlodification Permit application requests the encroachment o ;ubterranean portions of the building within the front and side yarc ;etbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permi application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupiec )y low or moderate income households. No units meeting this criteria arE mown to exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housinc snits is required. % Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City dewport Beach in connection with the application. The Mitiga gegative Declaration states that the subject development will not re: n a significant impact on the environment. r. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that th aplicant has redesigned the project based on the City Council' .cision identifying the predominant line of existing development at 50. et mean sea level (MSL). He then noted the General Pla nendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, Code Amendmen act Map, Modification and Coastal Residential Development Perm quests. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revise oviding additional analysis related to the revised project. oner Eaton asked about the sufficiency of the M Declaration and a requirement for a full Environmental r. Campbell answered that staff believes the Mitigated aclaration is sufficient and recommends action be taken to rE ]option to the City Council. r. Harp noted his agreement. Julian, applicant, gave an overview of the history of his applicati to the Planning Commission and City Council. At the direction City Council, there is now a scaled -back version of the project fining Commission review. He noted the building has been design ITEM NO. 3 PA2005 -196 Recommended for approval file : / //Fi/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008,htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 )ove the 50.7 MSL and is at a higher level than the existing apartmen jilding. There is a reduction in the proposed living area of 25 %, th( sits have been reduced from nine to eight but the parking remains th( ame. Guest parking has been designed at street level and a turning -ea has been created at the bottom level to improve efficiency. Th( ew corridor has been opened further from what exists today by elever et at the corner of Ocean and Carnation Boulevards resulting in a 4, agree range. The proposed height has been lowered by four feet iron e prior plan and is well below the height limit. The majority of this tuare footage has been incorporated underground and out of sight an( /er 38% of the building will be below the existing grade of the propert, day. 46% of the building structure represents mechanical, storage arking and circulation. AERIE incorporates state of the art technolog, preserve and improve the environment. Additional benefits from thi: -oject are three additional on- street parking, LEED Certification desigi id reduction of traffic in the area. He noted the varied roof, deck an( indow designs in the project. r. Brion Jeannette, architect of the project, made a PowerPoin -esentation noting the first [eve[ of the building is at 53.50 MSL; eigh sits; square footage reduced by 17.6 %; guest parking at street level west level is totally subterranean; basement area will have recreations 3es for tenants only; this basement area will need a modification t( eate fire exiting from the building to an attached existing stairway dowi the beach; the first level has a maximum deck extension of ten t( /elve feet; the second floor is at 65.0; the third floor is at 76.0 and ha! deck extensions; the fourth floor is at 86.0; the proposed project ha: yen pulled down and has less height; the exterior is stone finish witl cterior plaster; public views are enhanced; vehicular elevators ar( ;rvicing seven units; back -up spaces provided in sub - basement floor )ck design layout is currently going through the Harbor Resource! epartment although that is not part of this review tonight. ommissioner Eaton asked what the color rendering on the dock layou presented and was told it was eel grass and the docks were situate( as not to shadow the eel grass. r. Lepo noted that the docks are not part of this project application. A ommission inquiry, he noted the only item that could be considere( ould be that part that touches the land. Cole asked about the predominant line of development. r. Jeannette answered the first finished floor is at 53.5. The 3uncil directed the predominant line of development at 50.7. He ac at there will be an additional 2.9 feet to the bottom of the building 11 be additional bluff face all the way around. ier Toerge noted, and it was confirmed, that there is approximately 20 feet below the predominant line of exisl It behind the bluff face. file: / //FI/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 m Paone, Land Use Counsel for the project noted that under CEQA lu start with an Initial Study (IS); that IS may demonstrate that there is potential for significant environmental impacts; the decision is made tc epare a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact aport. If the Mitigated Negative Declaration deals with the issues that lve been raised and when circulated addresses those issues, then that sufficient. The question becomes is there a fair argument of e ltential significant effect remaining after all the discussion and sclosures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The CEQA sidelines equate fair argument and substantial evidence as one in the ime. Either way there has to be substantial evidence; argument, lsubstantiated speculation, opinion, all of those types of things are nos ibstantial evidence. Someone disagreeing with the conclusions of the itigated Negative Declaration, the conclusion of the analysis or it lmeone says something could happen is a fear or opinion and is ar sue that is addressed. It is our view that there isn't substantial fidence to contradict these points. Substantial evidence consists of cts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion ipported by facts. r. Harp noted a general concern that was raised in the presentatil garding the slips are not part of the project plans that have bei ibmitted. That impact on the eel grass has not been analyzed in tt itigated Negative Declaration. He questioned whether the applicant ;king for some modification or change to plans that were submitted. r. Jeannette answered they are not asking for the dock approv night or even the review. He felt it was important that the Commissic sderstand the whole scope of the project, which is why you at least se iat we are presenting. It is going through the Harbor Resources and eeting has been set up to review the environmental documents Marc ), 2008. No change is requested on what is being presented tonight. r. Harp noted the issue raised is if there is a 'piecemeal' situation, at is something for the Commission to determine. r. Paone added that the decision had been made to not include th )cks as part of the project. If they were ever to be included it was to be and when, down the road. However, in the interim, Harbor Resource epartment notified the owners that there was a public health and safel sue with respect to the docks. As a result of that and followin scussion and negotiation, it was deemed an emergency situation by th ity and a dock plan was submitted for review. There is an exemption i EQA 15.296C of the Guidelines which provide that work to correct a nergency will be exempt from the requirements of CEQA. nissioner Toerge asked if it was the existing docks in their that were determined to be a hazard. r. Paone answered yes. comment was opened. file : / //FVUsers/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 II McCaffrey, president of the Board of Directors of the Channel immunity Association noted their board has voted unanimously in this project. At Channel Reef with forty -eight living units all rough one gate to the garage proper there has never been ck Nichols of Corona del Mar noted his support of the project noting a good looking project and is a multi - family residential project. F ded that several other homes in Corona del Mar have a basement th below grade and noted this was a precedent. pith Dawson, noted the potential necessary excavation; the project Y make economic sense; this project has taken enough time and ked that this be approved. Webb, noted she supports the application as the project will be to the community and is a property right and should be approved. Varon, noted his support of the application as the architect ionded to the direction of the City Council and supports the applic Jeff Beck, noting his letter sent to the Commission, asked about the lroposed structure and the horizontal predominant line of development. le asked if it technically meets the requirements of predominant line o rertical development if you are building a couple of floors below tha wen though it is not visible. This is the first project to go through the efined step of looking at bluff development standards. Cathleen McIntosh, noted her concerns of alterations to significan iatural land forms, protection of existing habitat, need for a completE nvironmental Impact Report, and enormity of proposed complex plan. at Commission inquiry, she presented her written comments. Cent Moore noted his support of the project as this is a welcomed projec n the community. -isa Vallejo noted her concerns of the Ocean Blvd curb cuts; this projec s not endorsed by Coast Keepers; the docks are part of this project; stil Going twenty feet lower than the 50.7 predominant line of development >ubmitted a request for a full and complete Environmental Impact Repor is a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate with many issue: emitted or not properly evaluated; and, all citizens need to bE epresented and protected. She was unable to present her writter ;omments that were requested by Chairman Hawkins. Scott Bedgey noted his support of the project as the applicant has donE ill that was requested of him by the City Council. i Beck stated she is not in support of the project as the Coa Use Plan policies are not being adhered to and would lent setting if it was allowed and future deterioration of the bluff i when other homes on Carnation seek redevelopment. file : / //FI/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008,htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 inquiry, she presented her written comments. Rasner noted his support of the project for similarly stated reas added that the engineers who have certified this project are )rts and have credentials. He noted the views, lowered height visible stories and this project meets the FAR style. Eldridge noted his support of the project adding that car elevato well and this project will be an improvement to the community Hansen noted she is not in favor of the project as she ed with the integrity of the bluff and change of character of tl arco Gonzalez of Coast Law Group representing the Vall ferencing his submitted letter noted the procedural issues with CE itigated Negative Declaration for the larger project has not h )proved; construction impacts; Coastal Commission letter dated in )07 has not been answered; and you can't excavate the bluff otect the bluff at the same time. r. Harp noted the Mitigated Negative Declaration has changed c ne and has been re- circulated. A larger project was analyzed but r lu have a smaller project. There is nothing wrong with approval of le Mitigated Negative Declaration. )hn Martin noted his opposition to the project citing the lack of nvironmental Impact Report (EIR); the project is out of scale and IR is appropriate; we will see this project graded and we will ask h d you let this happen; we will all be sorry to see this if you let it Johnson noted it could be more massive and this is a that will be good for the community. lic comment was closed. i Jeannette noted that there were no plant, flora or fauna identifi needed to be protected; this is a four -story building with t ) ments; and the footprint of the building is almost identical to the c is there today. missioner Hillgren asked about the demolition and excavation of face process. and whether the excavation below the PLOED we rb the bluff face below that line. vir. Jeannette answered the excavation along the bluff face will be ninimum of three to five feet within the existing bluff mass and would n iisturb the fluff face below the PLOED. He then explained the proce: ncluding shoring, testing of the integrity of surroundings. r. Cole asked about the massing and density, is there a request for file : / //FI/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 r. Jeannette answered there is more open space provided, the uni e no larger than the homes in the neighborhood, more parking railable; there is no request for a variance; however, there is odification for an encroachment into the side yard that is below gra< 1 they are not visible from the street. There is nothing above height lildable area or any type of variances. Eaton asked about the gate operation for guest r elevators; r. Jeannette answered it is a keypad operation with a phone that cated in a center island even if the gate is moved in closer a scussed the widths /lengths. Referencing his packet submittal he not e attached elevator companies information. He explained there will ,o elevators in operation for ingress /egress. mmissioner Toerge asked if the Public Works staff had an opportun analyze the gate, location of the key pad stanchion and driveway :y are not noted on the plans. r. Jeannette answered he will have to make that happen. Hawkins asked staff if they had safety concerns with of the keypad? r. Brine answered yes, he has concern about the reduction of the " th the placement of the keypad in the center of a twenty foot aisle. Ided they have not seen a plan with this in place. nmissioner Toerge, referencing the exhibit, asked about the se the garage area allowing guests and tenants to use the parking lout an access barrier. r. Jeannette answered that had not been brought up in the past ey would be willing to look at that opportunity. :)mmissioner Toerge noted the improvements made to the garage ea, circulation and guest parking have improved the parking program r this property. :)mmissioner McDaniel asked about the procedure for a gate guarded immunity. He noted his concern of anyone being able to use the irking if there is no gate. r. Lepo answered that there ought to be some sort of signal device. lis could be posted as residents only. r. Brine added that in a typical gate guarded community when we view plans we look for sufficient length for storage of vehicles and look r a turn - around. In a situation such as this a visitor not having the rrrect access code and unable to contact the homeowner would be rced to back out onto Carnation. That does not meet our norma file : / //Fi/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 uirements for gate - guarded access. Peotter asked about the park dedication fee. r. Lepo answered the appraisal was adjusted in July 2007; however ecedent has been set that there is credit for existing units and because is project reduces the number of units, a park fee will not be required. r. Campbell noted a condition to be added to address the uncovere �cks on the first, second and third floors along Bayside Place the :tend into the required setback. They are not part of the modificatio ;rmit application as they were discovered late and not noticed. We ar iggesting this condition to eliminate them from this project. The adde mdition would be, "The project shall be revised to eliminal icroachments in the required 10 foot 7 inch side yard setbac Jutting Bayside Place." Referencing the exhibit, he pointed out th was suggested and agreed to replace the existing language ndition 12 with this new language. r. Jeannette noted he would like the opportunity to work this out and tc :cept a condition to meet Code is something they have to work with. noted the encroachments are minimal and is not pleased to have t( :)mmissioner Hillgren asked about Condition 13. Mr. Lepo answen is is a Coastal Commission requirement and refers to tl lderstanding of the property owner that if they build on bluff face that ;ing eroded they are not able to go to Coastal Commission for a perr r abutments or pour concrete, etc. nmissioner Peotter inquired about the type of photometric uired under Condition 10. r. Campbell answered that the study will have analysis on the light on the ground and that it not dissipate off the project site. missioner Peotter inquired about curbs referenced in Condition 11. is the Planning Commission reviewing this? r. Lepo answered this is standard language and where it does )Dlv will not be enforced. r. Campbell answered the review came about at the past discussion e Commission. mmissioner Toerge noted the Planning Commission review of tt ns means there is an opportunity for the public review and input. Jed that the Construction, Traffic Management and Parking P ad to be reviewed by the Commission particularly since we are u Mitigated Negative Declaration and not an Environmental Im port. He noted that Condition 20 talks about water leaving the pr( file : / //Fi/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008 /mn02212008.htm[ 10/26/20114:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 due to over - irrigation and asked if it would be appropriate to Ilite controllers. r. Lepo noted this condition is for when an errant sprinkler head f, this gives the Code Enforcement personnel extra leverage to r nmissioner Eaton noted his support of this project as it is le! stantial. He opined there is a difference between a bluff face and f and in this case where there is rock bluff faces that can be protect( left undisturbed and meets the intent of the revised policies whil Council adopted to address this situation. Guest parking is at tf et level and is an advantage and the matter of security needs to k ked out before the Council meeting. There are a lot of mitigati( rsures addressing construction management and parkir lagement issues. The car elevators are unusual for the City but a kable. The project is going to be a landmark and is consistent wi General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan. Campbell noted the guest parking area on the first level shows ( ;ing spaces. There is a lack of a hammerhead on one of tho: ;es which will make it difficult to use. There is a condition to all( Traffic Engineer to further review that parking area. If that is r Ived there would be a loss of one parking space. There is mmendation to scale back the storage areas on the lower level snce the maneuvering for the one garage downstairs. These min ils are typically handled at the plan check stage. Currently they a parked now. r. Brine noted there is a chance of losing one parking space on lcond level due to the maneuverability issue. We can work with chitect on this issue. n was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded nissioner Hillgren per staff recommendation with the modification ition 12. He proposed to delete the requirement for Plannii nissioner review in Condition 11 and insert Planning Director 1 v and approval. A straw vote was taken and a majority approved. missioner Eaton, referring to Condition 102, the P mission would be the approving body and done at one time. taken, majority approved. ,ing a brief discussion, the change to Condition 102 would read to issuance of a Demolition Permit, the Contractor shall submit uction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the ing Commission....... Straw vote was taken and majorit} ted. This will be a public hearing and duly noticed. After a brie sion it was approved that this may come back at various times i nary with added language that staff would make the determination. Toerge noted his earlier objections to this proposal file : / //Fi/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008,htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 he predominate line of development; the mass of the project an( ;ompatibility with adjacent neighboring structures and parkin( arrangement as it was not convenient. An EIR is not required although ton't agree with all the statements in the Mitigated Negativ( )eclaration, That the view corridors have been expanded is 1 significant change and will be of a huge benefit to the community. This )roject will go to the Council for the final approval. Many concerns wit[ egard to parking have been raised; however, they have been addresse( )y the applicant. He recommended disapproval of a gate installatiol finless the keypad, queuing and turn - around opportunities can b( vorked out favorably with the Traffic Engineer. However, these were no >n the prior plan and creates problems. Putting a gate there defeats th( ;ffort of placing all the parking on the ground level. The guest parking is iot for beach parking. He added the parking in the storage area withou ying up one of the elevators is an improvement. The predominant line o misting development was approved by the City Council at 50.7 fee above mean sea level. What is proposed is an excavation 20 feet belov he 50.7 foot PLOED, resulting in a forty -foot cut from the curb face a ,arnation. If we did not allow any development below that predominan ine of development the property would still be cutting twenty feet of th( sluff away and going subterranean and affording rights that othe )roperties have had together with the opportunity to go thirty -three fee sigh above the curb. Referencing page eight of the draft resolution, h( toted that where it says the lower portion of the bluff will remain in thei .xisting condition is not accurate. Referencing page eleven, regarding he building not extending below 50.7 feet, it does extend below. This is iot consistent with what the Council approved nor with othe ievelopment on Carnation as none of them encroach this far down wenty feet below the existing predominant line of development. Ol )age thirteen there is a statement regarding project not extending belov his elevation, and it does extend below the line even though its no risible. These statements are false and misleading and should th( .ommission be inclined to approve the project, the Commission shout( ;onsider revising the language in these statements. fie continued referencing Coastal Resource Protection Policy 4.4.1 -: egarding the predominant line of development is established not only t( imit the visible encroachment into the bluff but all throughout the CLUE ve talk about minimizing the alterations to the coastal bluff. To allow thi ievelopment to go twenty feet below the PLOED does not minimiz( alteration to the bluff. This does not fall under components of approve )f the City Council. Regardless of what happens here, this issue will t( lack to them. The added square footage will be massive and is no ;ompatible with the neighborhood. He then opined on the developmen A Channel Reef. Land Use component 5.1.9 suggests we want t( ;onvey the character in these MFR zones of separate or clusters o iving units and avoid the appearance of a singular building volume. Thi; )roject does not do it as it is a massive singular building volume. 'reserving the coastal bluff, visual impact of the community and integrit, A the Coastal Land Use Plan is not consistent with this project. He wig lot be supporting this project. file : / //FI/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM] Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Chairman Hawkins noted the language on page 8 of 34 in the resolution, suggested the term bluff face throughout the items noted. Commissioner Toerge asked what happens if during the construction the bluff is broken? He suggested that the Commission decide on the correct terminology. Commissioner Peotter amended his motion to include the term'face after bluff on page 8 of 34; on page 11 of 34 and page 13 of 34 add, "...visible portion of the.... ... The seconded of the motion agreed. Commissioner Peotter noted this is a better project based on the policies and rules governed by the City Council. Commissioner Cole noted his support of the project and stated that the applicant has responded to the direction of the City Council resulting in a smaller project, enhanced views and better parking. It is consistent with he revised Coastal Land Use Policy and has community support. Certain language that has been adopted by the City in the General Plan Update and the CLUP is being used to restrict private property owners from developing reasonable development. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Toerge Abstain: None SUBJECT: Fury Rok and Rol Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO. 4 4221 Dolphin Striker Way (PA2005 -087) Revocation of Use Permit No. 3162 and Use Permit No. 2005 -018. Continued to 03/06/2008 The minutes of this portion of the meeting were taken by a Court Stenographer and presented for approval when received. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Cole that the City Attorney will determine whether or not a Hearing Officer is appropriate. If a Hearing Officer is ppropriate he will be assigned and hear the case by March 6th. If the City Attorney decides the Planning Commission is the appropriate body hen we will hear it March 6th. In the meantime, Fury will hire a new security company and have them fully on board by Monday, February 5th and a new security plan submitted to the Police Department for approval by Wednesday February 27th and the security company will be in place by February 29th. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole and Hillgren Noes: Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS It was agreed that due to the late hour this portion of the file: / //FI[Users/PLN /Shued/Plamling Commission / Minutes /Prior Years /2008/=02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PNt[ Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 was cancelled. City Council Follow -up - Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Development Committee - Report from the Planning Commission's representative to th General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to on at a subsequent meeting - Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - Project status - Cancelled g. Requests for excused absences - ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. [ADJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: / //FI/Users/PLN /Shared/Planning Commission/Minutes/Prior Years /2008/mn02212008.htm[10/26/2011 4:35:58 PM]