Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 17 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL ommissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren - all resent TAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney David Keely, Associate Civil Engineer James Campbell, Senior Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Hawkins thanked the Chairman for reserving the table for the Planning Commissioners at the Mayor's dinner. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 16, 2007. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 8, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Commissioner Hawkins noted changes on pages 4, 5 and 7. Commissioner Approved Toerge noted a change on page 1. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commission Hawkins to approve the minutes as amended. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None ITEM NO.2 PA2006 -269 SUBJECT: Fancher Development Services 849 Newport Center Dr. Approved Request to amend an existing Use Permit to allow an eating and drinking stablishment to extend their hours of operation to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week. ssistant Planner Russell Bunim gave an overview of the staff report noting this application is for the Yard House that will be taking over the current space ccupied by the Ozumo Restaurant. The two conditions proposed to be amended deal with the hours of operation and the floor plan as the Yard House intends to remodel prior to occupancy. Page 1 of 17 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Alcohol Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO) requires a Use Permit to roved by the Planning Commission and the findings to approve that Use Pe contained in the resolution attached to the staff report. hairperson Cole asked about the size of the actual restaurant, seating id parking. Bunim answered that the entrance will have an additional 224 square re people will now wait to be seated. The seating capacity has been incre to the open floor plan design with the bar at a central location. The Fa: id Planned Community resulted in adequate parking to allow for the addit ire footage. Lepo added that the entire development is controlled by the Fashion fined Community text. nmissioner McDaniel expressed his concern about Condition 20. He asked 1 got consensus from the Planning Commission following a brief discussion tt applicant shall maintain and provide records that reflect separately the gro of food and the gross sale of alcoholic beverages after 11:00 p.m. If there a problems, they seem to happen after 11:00 p.m. and this would be a means king the sales. The condition will have the added language, "..and sh arately track and account for the gross sales of food and the gross sales holic beverages after 11:00 p.m." Scott Duffner, applicant on behalf of the Yard House, noted that they are :ord and agree with the proposed conditions as well as the amended Conditi to track food and beverage sales after 11:00 p.m. At Commission inquiry, ed that typically food service sales exceed alcohol sales. Hawkins asked about the rolling store front system. Duffner answered that it is similar to Cafe R & D.. lic comment was opened. lic comment was closed. nmissioner Hawkins noted that this is the first time that project spec ditions have been called out as well as standard conditions and this helps Commission's review. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by to approve this item with the change noted on Condition 20. Peotter proposed: Condition 11 - delete, as it is required under applicable Codes. Following brief discussion including the marine - character of the City, enforceme issues, and appropriateness of including this condition every time there is restaurant involved, and can be used as grounds for revocation, and up( the recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney, this deletion was n approved by the Commission. Peotter and Cole, Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Page 2 of 17 "file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATA\ InternetlPlnAgendas 120071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Abstain: None Continuing, Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to delete, in Condition 17, references to the Codes, so the first two sentences would stay in but the last two sentences could be removed. Commissioner Peotter noted the Noise Ordinance will apply and reference to noise imits is not necessary. Commissioner Hawkins suggested striking reference to Chapter 10.26. The new condition would now read, "The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code." Commissioner Hillgren asked about maximum levels versus minimums. If the Code is revised and allows for more noise, will the revised provisions apply? Chairperson Cole answered, yes, we are allowing that. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None I Abstain: None Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to delete Condition 18. Commissioner Peotter asked what property would be under the applicant's control that would be adjacent to subject premises and what would ABC not do that we would do relative to enforcement? Additionally, he noted a change of the word 'license' to 'licensee'. Commissioner McDaniel noted the parking lot is what is referred to here and he recommends that this condition be left in as a lot of alcohol is consumed in the parking lot that is adjacent to the facility. Mr. Lepo noted that ABC does care; however, there are Codes that we enforce and those references to those Codes do not need to be included as conditions. Commissioner Hawkins noted that Commissioner McDaniel's concern regarding permit revocation regarding abuses, is a good one. I can't support the deletion o his condition. Commissioner McDaniel noted that if complaints arise from the neighbors because problems spill out to the parking lot, this would help to enforce the Use Permit. The maker of the motion agreed and withdrew this suggestion. Vote on the original Motion. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: 11 None SUBJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services ITEM NO. 3 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place PA2005 -196 Page 3 of 17 " file: //N:\ Apps \W EBDATA \I nternet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn02- 22 -07. htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment buildir a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit multiple -faml dential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre si ited bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenu existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of ill portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent wi larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi - family residentia application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspac dominium units for individual sale and. The Modification Permit applicatic jests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the fro side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Pern lication relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate- incorr seholds. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and therefore, r acement of affordable housing is required. Planner, Jim Campbell, gave an overview of the staff report, noting: • This is a bluff top property. . Noted the planning activities of the project. . A new 9 unit condominium complex will replace an existing 14 -( apartment building and single - family residence. . Parking to be provided will mainly be subterranean. The number of spa( exceeds the current Code requirement. • Access to the parking will be through two freight elevators designed accommodate vehicles. . Units range in size from 3,400 square feet up to 6,200 square feet in seven -level building. . Views of the project from various vantage points. • Staff is seeking guidance on application of Coastal Land Use Plan polic related to protecting, and where feasible, enhancing the scenic and vis qualities of the coastal zone; establishing the predominant line of exist development; establishment of this predominant line can be accomplist through a variety of means; staff is asking which method the Plann Commission wants to be used. • The architect has attempted to measure the predominant line (gave example). . Staff used a method proposed in conjunction with the draft Implementat Plan which talks about the median distances that these buildings exte from. Additionally, they did the string line method which is a traditio method that the Coastal Commission has used for many years. • There is no set method of establishing this line and all of the methods tl staff has looked at do not work well due to the unique topography; the b does not line up with the streets and the buildings actually wrap around i bluff so all the traditional methods are not helpful in establishing where i building should be. • The purpose of the discussion is to determine if this project is consistent H the Coastal Land Use Plan as policies note minimizing the alteration of I natural terrain, preserving and enhancing the scenic and visual qualities the coastal zone, prohibiting development on bluff faces except in t particular geographic area; new development has to comply with t predominant line of development. • Views from public spaces to the west looking back to the bluff, that is I scenic and visual quality. • The proposed building appears to come further down the bluff than polic seem to allow and we are looking for guidance as to what the predomin line of development is. nued to 5, 2007 Page 4 of 17 "file://N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Visual simulations representing various lines of existing development included in the staff report to aid in the decision making process. The buildings on Carnation Avenue to the north come down the bluff furl than the existing development on subject sites. (He then discussed various exhibits in the staff report.) The Planning Commission needs to determine the predominant line development, and if the building conforms to it, then the application can approved; if the building does not conform to it, then the Commission nei to provide direction to the applicant to re- design it to the line as agreed up Cole asked what discretionary approval request requires to determine the predominant line of development? Campbell answered that the Subdivision Map requires it as does the finding sistency required for amendments to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. irperson Cole noted the discussion of the 584 square -foot portion of the seems to be the basis for the actions required for approval. If they didn't I 584 -foot portion, would they need to come in front of us for the discretic oval? What is the past City practice regarding determination of lominant line of development. Campbell noted that the Subdivision Map finding needs to be made. There prior example in an application for a variance on Pacific Drive where we we .ing at these same policies. On Ocean Boulevard, we haven't had tt ussion in the past as there were no variances or modifications ti, sssitated a finding of consistency with these policies. We have not had tt I of analysis or review. ner Hawkins asked about the Circle residence where the Com the predominant line. Campbell noted that this was discussed in light of the string line method :d about other prior projects that were allowed to come down the bluffs by stal Commission. We looked at the main issue of how far out the bull( e because it could block the neighbor's view. We did not discuss lominant line of development in the context of these policies. chard Julian, applicant, noted this proposed project will become the gateway 9 harbor and the City of Newport. He noted the following consultants for tt oject: Phil Dowdy and Ted Fetone of Hunsaker and Associates; Myron Sukut Aut Construction Co.; Sid Nedwit, soils engineer; Tom Castle, structur gineer; and Brion Jeannette, architect and designer. He added that he ha searched many °issues related to the site and has worked closely with tf �ighbors. He has worked with members of the City staff and is committed to th eject. He referenced an exhibit that includes letters of support from tt Jeannette, architect, noted that the major issue is, what is the predomins of development? He stated that they have reviewed the Mitigated Negati aration and agree with the measures identified. He then proceeded with presentation of the project: Discussed various views of the project site. Materials to be used are limestone, photovoltaic panels for electricity green architecture. The existing building consumes approximately 21 %" of the site and the Page 5 of 17 "file:HN:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn02- 22 -07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 6 of 17 building is about 25% of the site. • He referenced the categorical exclusion zone on the exhibit noting the treatment of the vegetation and bluff is handled by the City. • There are 9 units replacing 15 units and range from 3,300 square feet tc 6,300 square feet of livable area with 3 parking spaces for each. • The allowable project square footage is 90,759 and this proposal is for 74 314 square feet. • Parking - 7 units with parking at the same level directly accessible to east unit; 2 units have access to parking via their own private elevators; gues parking is 3 spaces at street level and 4 spaces at lower levels; additionally there are 2 golf cart spaces at lower levels. 7 of the 32 parking spaces are created through the use of auto lifts. These individual lifts are separate an( apart from the 2 auto elevators proposed. A total of 32 parking spaces wil be provided. • Reviewed garage configurations turnaround space and vehicular elevators. There will be an emergency back up system. • Grading will require 32,400 cubic yards of export that is scheduled after the summer months. He discussed the schedule, amount of loads per day drilling, and timing to construct shoring walls. • Possible haul routes are from East Coast Highway on Marguerite Ave. wes on Ocean Blvd to the site, north on Carnation Avenue, east on Seaview tc Marguerite, north to East Coast Highway; flagmen and delineators will direc traffic; primary staging of maximum 2 trucks on Ocean Blvd., secondary staging south of Cameo Highlands Drive on Coast Hwy. • Shuttle workers to and from site until parking on -site is available withir parking garage. • Public access is not required as there are accessibility problems; California Coastal Commission has not required access on adjacent parcels; anc public access is nearby at China Cove and Corona del Mar main beach. • Public views - public view point identified in the LCP is at the comer o Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Referencing the exhibit, he notec that corner view will be increased to a 32 degrees wide cone from a 25 degree cone and public seating will be provided. He agreed to an easemen being recorded on their property. • Monitoring of ground motion will be on -going to assure that it is kept at E safe level and will be incorporated in the Construction Management Plan. . Current landscaping can be trimmed and maintained. • He then discussed the building heights and need for a Modification. . Bluff face development - development is allowed on categorical exclusior zone parcels to the north; the CLUP allows development on bluff face or Ocean Blvd., Carnation Ave., Pacific Dr.; extensive development before Coastal Zone Act and new development is allowed to continue the 'pattern o' existing development.' Predominant line of existing development is the mos common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to E specified point or line. (topo line or geographic feature) (CLUP 5.0 Glossary). He then discussed his approach. • He then noted CLUP Policy 4.3.3 -12 and discussed his methods used tc meet this criteria. • Referencing the exhibits, he then explained the predominant line of existinc development and how it was reached at Pelican Point, Cameo Shores, Shore Cliffs, Corona del Mar on Ocean Boulevard, Breakers Drive, Chine Cove, AERIE and Pacific Drive and the issue of fairness and equity a: mandated by Coastal Commission. • He gave a history of past Ocean Boulevard projects and examples foi determining the predominant line of existing development using string - lines, structures and decks. "file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATA1 InternetlPlnAgendas 120071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 7 of 17 • He discussed an aerial view of AERIE with cove and rock outcroppings a buildings on either side and depiction of median distance from street curb furthest line of development towards the Bay. • Referencing another exhibit he discussed median distance from mean k tide to closest line of development towards the Bay; analysis of propos line of development with elevations of 34 feet on easterly side to 52 feet the westerly side; 29 feet to 44 feet and 25 feet to 25 feet respectively. • View simulation of superimposed model viewed from Channel Road put beach. • Existing view from Channel Road public beach with categorical exclusi zone and with the proposed structure on project site. • He then noted several letters of support and asked for ultimate approval the 9 -unit project. • At Commission inquiry, he noted he has not discussed this project with t Coastal Commission. Planning Commission focused on the following: • The requirement of a Construction Management Plan with details on routes truck sizes, street cleaning, timing, fugitive dust, etc. • Impacts on air quality • Need for the Mitigated Negative Declaration to address issues of hau routes, size, access routes and air quality. • View corridor - staff proposes an easement to be recorded. • Ocean Boulevard is a public view street and the view corridor is dynamic. Asked for an expansion of this presentation further up Ocean Boulevard tc depict the view corridor impacts from Ocean Blvd at Fernleaf and Dahlia Streets. • Protection of neighboring properties during the drilling and coring process. • Pattern of development on Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Street. • Floor plan for the lower level. • The Implementation Program discussion of line of development in Corona del Mar. • Reviewed the definition of "predominate line of development" in the glossary of the CLUP, specifically the use of a specified group of structures tc determine the predominate line of development and the appropriateness o using homes on Bayside Place to set the predominate line of development. comment was opened. Razner, Ocean Boulevard, noted his support of this project for the following: • The project applicant has done an outreach in the neighborhood for in and has made several concessions on height and density to addr concerns. • Applicant could build up to 28 units. • Property rights of neighbors as well as the applicant are being addressed. • Tax base for the City. • Removal of telephone poles and run -off from the site will be contained treated. McAfree, Ocean Boulevard resident, and speaking as President of the �f Association, noted their support of the project. • Impressed with the project sponsors and their plans and " file:// N: 1Apps1 WEBDATA1 InternetlPlnAgendas�2007 1mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 8 of 17 communication with their neighbors. • Project will be an upgrade to the neighborhood including visual appeal, property values, etc. • Like the low- density of only 9 living units versus 48 living units at Cha Reef. • We are aware there will be noise, dust, parking issues and c inconveniences during construction but the long term benefits of the pn outweigh any temporary inconveniences. • They urge approval of this project. a Vallejo, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted she is not in support of this the following: • Many people are concerned with the destruction of this coastal bluff and tl extremely large scale of the proposed complex. • There are many issues, among them the loss of public enjoyment from tt development. • This bluff and cove are viewed and enjoyed by people on the Peninsula wl look directly across from the wedge and various other locations. . This cove is a landmark. People do not want to lose the view of the last remaining bluff that is visit from the harbor. Newport Beach is special and this area is governed by the CLUP. She th( read some of the provisions. • Is this project visually compatible with the surrounding area and how is tt minimizing the impact on the bluff? . There is nothing on Ocean Boulevard that looks like this other than Chanr Reef, but that was built in 1960. . Ocean Boulevard is basically single - family homes but this project creates 'hotel' and is too much for that particular site. . There is no Environmental Impact Report and I don't understand that as thl are taking 32,400 cubic yards of bluff away and cannot figure out what tt will do to the integrity and support of the surrounding properties and ti impact of the construction and excavation. . Before this is changed forever, you need to give this good thought. Snyder, Balboa Peninsula Point resident, noted his support of Dment as it will be a great improvement over what is there currently. leen McIntosh, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted the majority of the neighbor; - the demolition of the existing structure and the re- development of the site. noted: • Concern over the intensity of development around lower Newport Bay led the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970's that establish( more restrictive height and bulk standards around the Bay. • The intent is to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consiste with unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. • As a result, new development within the shoreline height zone is limited to height of 28 feet. • Development on the bluff face is generally prohibited with the exception certain public improvements or private improvements determined to I consistent with the predominant line of development. • It is policy to regulate the development envelope to preserve public viev through the height, setbacks, floor area, lot coverage and building bulk th limits the building profile and maximizes the public view. "file: / /N:44pps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 9 of 17 • In this case, the buildable site would grow from under 20,000 square feet tc over 70,000 square feet. • It seems the lateral projection of the structure would greatly impact the public view from the water across the Bay, and the view corridor established by the City of Newport Beach at the Ocean Boulevard /Carnation Avenue junction. • To shift the bulk of the lateral development up to the allowable vertical height would keep the view corridor open but would eliminate the water views enjoyed by the residents on Carnation Avenue across from the proposed development. • It is our hope that the bulk and scale of the proposed development will be reduced both laterally and vertically and in square footage to be in line and scale with the surrounding residences. th Dawson, Corona del Mar resident, noted: • The current complex is an eyesore and is in a dilapidated state. • This development is 1st class and there is hardly any opposition to it given the compromises that have been made. • This is a focal point and he supports the project. • The developer has the property rights for this project. it Moore, Carnation Avenue resident, noted: • The applicant has taken the time to get to know the neighbors and explain his project. • All have had the opportunity to review the plans. • The applicant has addressed all concerns and has made several design changes. • Directly next door to this project, the City allowed major excavation and building to take place on the rocky bluff and area below next to the water. There was a lot of equipment and disruption but ultimately it turned out beautifully. • This is a superbly planned project that has been worked on for several years prior to this meeting and urged that the Planning Commission approve this project. mmissioner McDaniel noted that this issue is not being voted on tonight. This is opportunity for public input and will be continued. blic comment was closed. mmissioner Eaton noted: • Project is extensive and there has been good outreach to the neighbors. • Referencing an email he sent to staff, noted not all his questions had been answered and would like those at the next hearing. • Predominant line of development - referencing Exhibit F -noted the heavy black line symbolizes where the estimated top of bluff is. The predominant line of development refers to the relationship of the bluff. This appears to angle off the corner of the street intersection and turns the comer. The most appropriate sense of how to look at this predominant line of development is that the buildings ought to turn the corner in a consistent relationship to the bluff. • The upper level roofs do follow that rough line but that changes as you get further down. • What happens on the lower level of the westerly building as it extends at an " file:// N: 1Apps1WEBDATA1IntemetlPlnAgendas\2007 1mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 10 of 17 angle further out than the fairly uniform progression of the terraces of the easterly building? The two lower units of the easterly building have a view of a blank wall which is the side wall of the westerly building. That part of the projec extends beyond the curve of the bluff line and is inappropriate to the predominant line of development. The westerly building should taper at a more consistent rate as the easterly building so that the levels are pulled back a bit. That would affect the lounge on the first level and the lower level of Unit 700 on the second level. If tha area was pulled back, the building as a whole would have a shape and the line fairly conforming to the bluff line, which would make a more sensible lint of development. Otherwise, this sticks out a good 20 feet beyond the foundation line that is shown in the plan footprints of the buildings. He concluded that with that adjustment, this building would fit a predominan line of development that would turn the corner in a manner similar to the wad the bluff turns the corner. Hillgren asked what the bottom vertical line of this project was? Campbell answered the lower extent of the easterly building is 29 feet and go around the corner it steps up to 44 feet. Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette noted that the elevation of the street yside Drive is at elevation 13 then it starts ascending from there to an elevati 18 or 19 feet. imissioner Hillgren noted he has heard a commitment from the developer -ct the cove which is the most important part of this project. I look at the 28- line to the property to the west as an appropriate datum line. The question to connect to the property to the east. missioner Hawkins noted the property lines to the east go down that far use they are in the exclusion zone where they are not regulated. r. Jeannette agreed, noting adherence to the Zoning Guidelines which require ar yard setback. Hillgren asked if they were regulated, how far down could they go? Jeannette noted the bottom portion could be used for a casitas with the me ling on top of the bluff, they could go to that rear yard setback and then car it with a retaining wall behind; it would be difficult and expensive, but it nmissioner Peotter, referencing the topo exhibit, noted the regulated areas an( non - regulated areas where someone could go down to the 20 foot elevation. leans more to the priority of maintaining the look and favors either the 29 or 3' : at the highest point as far as determining the setback line that will determine it will be seen from the bayside and how that cove will be protected. 'person Cole noted the western portion of the site seems easier to unders makes sense due to the adjacency of the buildings. He asked how .tal Commission would determine a fair and equitable concept for r. Jeannette noted the point at which you contact earth establishes that ane. Referencing an exhibit, he noted one elevation of a home at 48.6 ele " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 11 of 17 "her elevation points were at 44, 50 and 52. He then discussed the public beach relationship and drawing the horizontal line at that point to establish some ermination of development. nmissioner Hillgren asked if it was the footing or the house itself that is hitting level at 44? Jeannette answered the elevation of the house was at 50. nmissioner Toerge noted: • The charge of the Planning Commission is to ensure that the technical aspects of the project are in tact. • We are to comply with the existing Codes of the City for the benefit of the of residents who are not here and don't know about the project and can't be expected to come down and spend the kind of time that many of the residents here have and we have. • He noted he is a property rights supporter, but in a civilized society property rights are conditional. There are title reports, title restrictions, special land use restrictions, zoning, building heights, etc. and in this particular property's case there is a Coastal Land Use Plan that has to be adhered to. • This is not about the integrity or the character of the applicant or his representatives; it is about the technical components and how they can be applied to this project fairly and on balance with the property rights and with the community. • The predominant line of development doesn't contemplate what could be developed on adjacent bluff top properties, it deals with what is in place today, so this whole discussion on what might happen to adjacent bluff top' properties along Carnation is irrelevant to me. • Also irrelevant to me is what Coastal Commission might do. This Commission and this City has to get quickly up to speed on what the LC says. It will require an amount of time and effort to do this. • He noted his concern of how this project in this area meets the predominan line of development on this bluff. • He does not support the idea of using bayfront properties as similar structures or similar group of homes, as the glossary of our CLUP suggests, by which to determine the predominant line of development as we are talking about a property that is on the bluff. These homes take access off a different street that is almost at sea level. This property is a bluff- oriented property that takes access from the bluff. • Referencing an exhibit, he noted the area that seems to encroach below the predominant line of development and the area on the easterly side seems to be relatively consistent with the predominant line of development. • Some transition is warranted in order to meet this finding of what he considers to be the predominant line of development. iairperson Cole noted that there is consistency in that the easterly side at 29 agreed upon but as it goes around the westerly side, he would like to see r ticating the line of where those homes come down to right now. missioner Toerge answered that is how he reads the Code. Thei ominant line of development is higher than their proposal based upon how h< s the Code. We need to understand what our predecessors decided an( authority our Coastal Land Use Plan has. A couple of years were invested ii dishing this Local Coastal Plan and we took great care in developing this. :ral Planning Commissioners, including himself, served on this Committee. plan was reviewed and approved by both the Planning Commission and Cit. "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 12 of 17 It is speculative to guess what the Coastal Commission will do. Hawkins noted: • Agrees that the Commission has an important job with this unique parcel a project. The cove is a natural resource, the bluff outcroppings, etc. and 1 project, in general, takes good care of that resource. • He noted the concern of the easterly edge at elevations 44/48 and staff a the applicant need to work on that level. • He agrees about tracking the bluff around, and the two units noted Commissioner Eaton did seem to project out distinctly. He would II discussion on pulling those projections in. • We are trying to understand what the predominant line of development is. is a flexible metric and the string -line was a tough approach and could problematic. • The current structures on the site are poor; however, the site itself fantastic. rperson Cole noted there seems to be some consensus on the 29 foot Ii on the east and the west at 44 feet. missioner Hawkins noted there is some agreement on the 29 feet; however uestions the 44 -foot measurement. Another metric has been offered and he d like to see if that could work. McDaniel, noted: • He was a member of the Local Coastal Committee and they spent a lot time addressing heights and string -lines and doesn't want to ignore those. • There are basic guidelines to go by and if you have to work around the then we need to document them so we can understand it now and in t future. • He wants to save as much of the bluff as possible. • He noted his concern of what happens to the parking if part of the building taken away as previously suggested, what does that do to the quality of I for the residents in that area, what does that do to the view corridor, and a other aspects. • He would much rather give a little extra off that edge so that the park! does not become problematic in the project; that it looks right, works ric and all those other aspects that we pickup. • Recognizes that folks who look easterly look at a wall, but the panoran view to the left may require that you may have to look at a wall to the right. • This is a good project. nmissioner Peotter asked about comparing this to properties in the exclus e, yet looking at the Land Use Plan, it follows the hotel and other homes that m to the water level again. Why are we going outside of that coastal area the predominant line? nissioner Toerge answered by reading from the Glossary of the CLUP. "Tt common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to led point or line." The example that was cited, "the predominant line opment for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group ures) could be determined by calculating the median distance >entative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specifie "file:// N: 1Apps1WEBDATA1InternetlPlnAgendas \20071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 13 of 17 ontinuing, he stated that since the predominant line of development has already een determined to come into play here, and since the Local Coastal Plan doe: ave jurisdiction over the site, this definition is something that needs to be overlak nto the project. It gives the example about the predominant line of developmen tr a block of homes on a coastal bluff which is the specified group of structures. hat is the reason why the homes that are not on the bluff should not be utilized tc alculate the predominant line of development as they are not on the bluff and the , specifically the language that the Committee went through. That is the language tat has been approved and the City has adopted. ommissioner Peotter asked if it make any difference whether it is in the Exclusic one or not as far as when it refers to the coastal bluff. Do you stop looking at it is in the Exclusion Zone? mmissioner Toerge answered in his opinion the answer is "no ". This happens a bluff top development that happens to be at the end of the street, and simi *use adjacent bluff top properties are within the Categorical Exclusion Ar :s not preclude them from the definition of predominate line of development. ;cession continued referencing exhibits showing Breakers Drive, ulevard and the Cove. r. Campbell noted the exclusionary area was established in 1977 and the Coasta ommission allowed projects that are consistent with the zoning at that time ngle- family and duplexes, without need to go back and get a Coasta evelopment Permit. Under today's rules, you could build out to the setback at V et and bring that building down to whatever elevation it might be. Does the •edominant line of development affect these properties: the answer is "yes ". Wt ave two policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan 4.4.3 -8 and -9 that talk abou aildings on the bluff face on Carnation Avenue, Pacific and Ocean Boulevard. re are referring to that particular bluff right there and they are allowed to built ithin the predominant line of development. That is what the policy says meanint at bluff does establish a predominant line. Would we use a predominant line tc �gulate that now given the exclusion order: the answer is "no ". Staff believe: ose homes on Carnation Avenue on that bluff do establish a predominant line o cisting development and you would use that in relation to whether this projec are is consistent with that. Cole clarified that regardless if it is in the Category Exclusion Zone. Campbell noted the predominant line of development would not affect but those lots do establish the predominant line of development that lot. imissioner Toerge noted that properties are still subject to Coastal Commissi aw under appeal. They are in the Coastal Zone so even though they .gorically Exempt, that doesn't mean that the Coastal Commission we e. It means that the City can approve them, but approval can be appealed Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission has just given the City 1 : to approve or condition those particular developments but it doesn't exen i from Coastal and doesn't exempt them from review. mmissioner Peotter asked that since part of this lot is in the Exclusion Zo as that mean the project could go down to 10 feet on the side for a portion of and now establish a new line of development that we could use? You have I s of rules. " file: / /N:\Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 14 of 17 Jeannette noted the differences of access on Breakers Drive, we and resulting development. Commission inquiry, he noted that suggestions made about turning the comer ,nething that he will look at and he will determine what impacts could or wog wlt. Additionally, he will look at elevation down to 10 feet. He noted th )tectina the cove is most critical. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter to set the line at 29 feet as the I ine for staff to review with the caveat that the applicant look at reducing iorth/west wing to see if they could round that off to match the bluff face better. Cole clarified that the 29 feet goes up to 44 feet going to Mr. Jeannette answered that is correct. Hawkins suggested straw votes. iirperson Cole noted the motion was not seconded, took straw vote on 29 feet on the east side of the property going to 44 feet, which is in the >rt with the suggestion by Commission to have the applicant consider mat contour of the bluff specifically on levels one and two. fllowing discussion by the Commission, consensus was reached consistent is discussion as to the predominant line of development. Straw 3mmissioner Toerge, yes; all other Commissioners, no. r. Lepo noted the parking configuration as well as the impact the use of evators might have on parking on the street. Are those concerns of :immission, or are you okay with the configuration of the working garage? oner McDaniel noted that after meeting with the applicant, have been addressed. missioner Toerge noted his concern on the Mitigated Negative Declan ig that the comment period is still open. He has reviewed it and asked )Ilowing be addressed at the next meeting: • When does the City determine when an EIR is necessary versus a Negative Declaration? • Should the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory C review the MND? Referencing the Mitigated Negative Declaration: • Aesthetics - describe how the 'Less Than Significant Impact determination was made for Aesthetics 1.c, and under wha circumstances would a determination of "significant impact" be made? He noted page 10 and specific issues. • Land Use and Planning - on Page 16 of the MND, explain how the "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is incorporated ", hou was this determination made, and under what circumstances would i be significant? • Noise - on Page 17, describe how the "Less Than Significant Impact' determination was made when there is no representation of how the excavation operation will be conducted. This report does not reflec some of the description that was on the screen on how the grading wil take place with the borings, etc. The MND was silent on that; why? "file:/ /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Intemet \PlnAgendas \2007 \mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02122/2007 Page 15 of 17 • Aesthetics - on Page 22 The MND addresses this public view site a the point of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, but it does ne address the public view street that Ocean Boulevard is and thr dynamic view. Until view sims are done, I cannot agree with thi: report on this topic. • Air Quality - on Page 28, the MND talks about haul trucks, etc. and thr deliveries, etc. With 32,000 yards of dirt potentially being moved b! 2,500 to 3,000 trucks, this is a lot of activity. The residents in the arer need to be protected while the property rights are being exercised. We need to see maps of truck routes, staging, traffic patterns, flagmel operations, public right -of -way use, etc. Washing streets is not ai acceptable mitigation measure, another means needs to be identified. Diesel- powered trucks and generator use, audible signaling, restriction of delivery construction equipment need to be addressed. • Adequacy of the public view - on Page 40, until those simulations are provided, the widening of this angle may improve the view angle iron one spot, but I want to be sure that it improves or at least maintain; the view angle from all along that view corridor along Ocear Boulevard. • Stringline - on page 41 the MND seems to be inaccurate anc misleading as it says, "stringlines were drawn from the existinc residential structure located to the south on Ocean Boulevard and the existing structure to the north on Carnation Avenue. The result is tha all portions of the proposed building are landward of the stringline." That is not true as shown in the exhibit. There are three calculation: that discuss the median distance from the curb and from the bluff bu there are no reference points specifically as to where those arc measured; that needs to be expanded for it to be accurate. • Noise - on Page 42, this project may go on for at least 2 years and while that is temporary, it is not short termed. This document says it i; short term and I do not agree with that. In "B" of that noise section, i is claimed there is no impact as there is no pile driving; however, there is going to be drilling and excavation. How can it conclude there wil be no impact? The MND does not address any mechanism on how it'e going to be graded, yet it concludes an insignificant impact. This i inaccurate. o I believe these are shortcomings of the MND and I hope that they addressed at the next meeting. r Hawkins noted: • The environmental document is virtually silent on the construction impacts the project and that analysis needs to occur. There will be a final respon document that can address these issues. The points that were just` ma require something that corrects these errors or inadequacies, etc. • There is an easy fix to the construction impacts and that is the Constructi Management Plan. He proposes this as a mitigation measure and this pl to be approved by Public Works as the appropriate body at the City, but tf it come back to the Commission for hearing and approval as well. • He stated he supports the MND concerns and they need to be addressed. • He would also like to hear from EQAC. rperson Cole asked about the procedures for comments to the Mitig: ative Declaration. Can we get a response document similar to an EIR for meeting? answered it can be done. "file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 16 of 17 Cole then noted the issue of the view corridor and view simulations. immissioner Hawkins supports the proposal for more extensive views. However position of the applicant is that there is no access required and that may be the se, but the applicant proposes a public amenity of a bench at the view site. The important but insufficient, and he would like to see a more significant mitigatior ;asure. He supports an offer of dedication for the bottom of this property, bu ;re is the access issue. missioner Toerge noted: Performance Bond - The project includes a retaining wall that require: substantial grading. If this is not completed there is a possibility that th( homes and public right -of -way above could be damaged. If, for any reason there is a cease or stop work order issued, the area needs to be made saf( to the public. This would be similar to the one required of the Mariners Mil( Gateway project. McDaniel agreed. ommissioner Hawkins suggested that this be a completion bond so there is no sole" facing the bay.. r. Jeannette noted: • The MIND is lacking and he agrees with the comments. • He agreed to re- analyze the architecture based on Commission comment and allow time for staff to fix the MIND and recirculated for public review and comment, after which time we can seek final guidance from the Commission. r. Lepo agreed. ommissioner Hawkins asked if they would consider turning the MND into an EIR. r. Jeannette said they would not consider it. hairperson Cole thanked the applicant and commended them for the detail of th -oposed project. on was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissic ter to continue this item to April 5th to allow time for the MIND issues to sssed and revisions to the building design be completed. None None Cole, McDaniel, Toerge r: Mile Gateway, LLC PA2006 -279 100 -600 West Coast Highway Continued to d� for Comprehensive Sign Program CS2006 -012 for the previously uncertain Bel Mare Shopping Center. In addition, the Planning Commission will be the project's landscape plan and evaluating proposed refinements to " file:// N: 1Apps1WEBDATAI InternetlPlnAgendas120071mn02- 22- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 xterior elevations to determine their substantial conformance with the approved ro ect. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None bstain: None DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that the Council adopted th resolution initiating additional or new regulations for residential car facilities and that the item will be coming to the Planning Commission fo review; and, Council introduced an ordinance on the Interim Design Standards for single and two- family homes until comprehensive Zone Cod revisions are completed. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Hawkins noted he requested tha an e-mail be sent to the Commission regarding a presentation made by Dr. Shoup who made a presentation on off - street parking as well as pricing on street parking appropriately. This will help in making our decision o parking in -lieu fees and parking issues in general. C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Genera Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - Commissione Eaton reported the meeting was devoted to thresholds for Development Agreements. The City Attorney's office recommends that Development Agreements be required where there is a legislative act involved. The General Plan Policies for the Airport and Newport Center areas require Development Agreements. There was quite a bit of discussion as to who should be criteria for requiring Development Agreements. This discussion was continued to the next meeting. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Eaton asked about a new building on Clay and Orange. He asked if this building will be turned into a rehab facility. He asked for a report on the use. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. I. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 10:25 p.m. DJOURNMENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 17 of 17 "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\InternetkPInAgendas\2007\mnO2-22-07.htm 06/20/2008