Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2011NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, November 17, 2011 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Commissioner Hillgren Vice Chair Toerge announced that Chairman Charles Unsworth resigned from the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Toerge recognized and appreciated Chair Unsworth's service to the Planning Commission. All Commissioners agreed. C. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Amen, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Kramer ABSENT (EXCUSED): None. Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director; Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; James Campbell, Principal Planner; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant D. PUBLIC COMMENTS Vice Chair Toerge invited comments from those in the audience who wished to address the Commission on other than Agenda items. There was no response and the Public Comments portion of the meeting was closed. E. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES — None. F. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 Minutes of November 3, 2011 Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, and carried (5 — 0) with Commissioner Kramer, abstaining, to approve the minutes, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): None. ABSTAIN: Kramer G. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Commissioner Myers recused himself from hearing Items No. 2 and 3 due to an economic interest in Golf Realty Fund and departed the dais and the Chambers. Community Development Brandt reported this is the third public hearing on the Newport Beach Country Club applications, noting that this is an unusual circumstance in that there are two (2) applications Page 1 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 covering at least a portion of the property being reviewed. She provided an overview of both projects through a PowerPoint presentation noting that the first application, Item No. 2, encompasses the entire 145 -acre property and that the second application, Item No. 3, encompasses only the 133 -acre golf club portion of the property. She discussed the General Plan designations involved. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Toerge, Ms. Brandt reported that because there are two (2) overlapping applications as they relate to the golf club house and parking lot, the Planning Commission will be unable to recommend approval of both applications to the City Council as they would be in conflict with one another. She added that the presence of a development agreement for both applications is not what would deem the inability of the Planning Commission to recommend approval of both applications, but rather the area related to the golf club house and the related parking lot. She added for the first application, that staff is recommending that the club house and related parking lot be "white holed" and that approvals go forward on the tennis club part of the property. Ms. Brandt reported that the Planning Commission has the option of filling in that "white hole" with the proposal requested with the second application, if so desired. Ms. Brandt further explained that the development agreements would apply to each applicant since the development agreement would relate to the first application would be limited to the 12 -acre tennis club property if the Commission takes staff's recommendation. The development agreement to the second application would be applicable to the larger 133 -acre golf club portion of the property and would not be in conflict with one another. Regarding the documents, Ms. Brandt reported that necessary adjustments would be made to the development agreements to reflect the entitlements once they are acted upon by the City Council. Commissioner Hawkins commented on the development agreement for Golf Realty noting there is almost 20,000 square feet that has no benefit fee attached to it and asked for clarification. Staff reported that the terms of the Golf Realty development agreement refer to the additional construction and related public benefit, once the hotel units are built, the City would be in a position to receive transient occupancy tax. There is no associated per square footage fee included as additional terms of the development agreement. That was a subject of negotiation between the City Council ad- hoc committee and the applicant. ITEM NO.2 Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 1600 & 1602 East Coast Highway Principal Planner James Campbell presented details of the project and referenced the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration noting there are no significant impacts that could not be mitigated. He added there are several mitigation measures included in the packet and noted key areas of discussion including land use, traffic, aesthetics, recreational impacts and architectural style. Mr. Campbell stated staff recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Campbell reported the planned community development plan encompasses 145 acres, 133 -acre golf course, club house and ancillary maintenance facilities, 12 -acre tennis club, tennis club house and supports twenty -seven (27) hotel rooms, ancillary spa and meeting rooms, and five (5) single - family homes. He noted that the draft text, which staff has prepared, provides for use and development standards and is a fairly flexible document without any prescribed architectural themes. He referenced a draft document prepared by the applicant, which is extremely specific, but added that staff is recommending adoption of the text prepared by staff. He added that the specifics the applicant is seeking would be accounted for within the site development permit. Page 2 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Mr. Campbell addressed transfer of development and referenced a letter by Host Hotels and Resorts indicating possible solution to eliminate the need to do a development intensity transfer relating to converting the eliminated tennis courts into hotel rooms. He noted that staff has found nothing in the records indicating that Host has a vested right to build those hotel rooms and staff does not believe that the elimination of the tennis courts and converting them to floor area to accommodate hotel units is inconsistent with the General Plan. He added that the General Plan provides a specific development intensity limit of 3,725 square feet for the project site and what Host suggests is taking an area and creating a building mass that was not intended. The General Plan does provide for transfer of development intensity and Mr. Campbell reported the applicant has applied for that consideration. The other alternative would be for a General Plan amendment. Commissioner Hillgren commented that it would be beneficial to all parties if it could be determined how the conversion of tennis courts to bungalow units might occur; thus eliminating taking rights that are not vested today from another site and vesting them on the property through the development agreement and tentative map. Mr. Campbell responded that if a transfer is approved, it would vest through the development agreement to the project site. He indicated that staff does not believe Marriott (Host Hotels and Resort) has a vested right and that the General Plan indicates 611 rooms as a maximum number of rooms. Commissioner Hillgren referenced the General Plan relative to the development intensity limit of 3,725 square feet, noting the assumption that there is an existing development in place, which happens to be tennis courts. He also referenced the analysis noting that from a traffic point of view, it is better to proceed with the proposed development than having the current use. He inquired as to contradictions of proceeding with the proposed. Community Development Director Brandt reported that the General Plan sets specific thresholds in the land use element when considering any type of development proposal. She reported that it is a multi - pronged test, not limited to only one criterion. Ms. Brandt reported that the criteria includes traffic generation, floor -area ratio for non - residential buildings specifying the maximum limit for a particular area, or land -use designation in order to help define intended use, bulk and scale. She added that floor -area ratio for non - residential development works in concert with trip budget in order to keep with the anticipated bulk and scale for an area but also not impacting the circulation system or the transportation element of the General Plan. There are instances where you can have land uses that do not have floor -area ratio assigned to them but have a corresponding trip budget. Ms. Brandt indicated that this is the case for the tennis courts. Ms. Brandt continued reporting that in the case of a conversion within the anomaly; a site - specific land -use designation, with the conversion proposal, Host asks to look at that anomaly only and to convert the use that generates trips but does not have floor -area ratio or building intensity assigned to it and convert that into a building. She explained that one of the intents of floor -area ratio is to help regulate bulk, scale, and massing. Continuing to respond to inquiries by Commissioner Hillgren, Ms. Brandt reported that the transfer of use can be accomplished within the context of what the General Plan has established. She noted that the specific anomaly area must be considered as well as the larger statistical area for Newport Center Fashion Island (1-1). The General Plan has established an over - arching trip budget for the entire statistical area as well as overall development potential comprised of residential and non- residential development potential. The General Plan, by policy, specifically allows the development potential and trip budget can be transferred throughout the statistical area providing that traffic impacts remain neutral, does not create a negative effect nor additional floor -area ratio or unit. In Page 3 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 the analysis of the bulk and scale for the area, staff does not find it inappropriate for the location, given the transfer allowance by the General Plan. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the conversion could be accomplished. Commissioner Hillgren expressed a belief that it might be consistent with the General Plan, while Vice Chair Toerge noted that the project could be done with a General Plan amendment, which is not, however, the subject of the present hearing. Vice Chair Toerge explained that Host is not the applicant, but rather Golf Realty is and they are choosing to pursue an avenue supported by staff. If the Planning Commission would desire, it could make the findings necessary to expand the floor -area ratio but, that would need to be accomplished through a General Plan amendment. Ms. Brandt noted that under Item No. 3 the applicant is requesting expansion of the club house for the anomaly area; therefore, a General Plan amendment has been filed. Commissioner Ameri inquired regarding the positives and negatives of the intensity conversion, noting the most important issue is traffic and by eliminating the tennis courts and replacing it with floor -area, there is no increase or decrease of traffic. He questioned if there would be a negative impact by adding floor -area. Mr. Campbell explained that the development intensity for entire statistical area could not be exceeded so if a use conversion were to be granted, then Marriott could build additional rooms at a future date and the statistical area would then be exceeded. With the proposed transfer, the entire statistical area would not be developed beyond what the General Plan would allow. Commissioner Ameri wondered if the Planning Commission has the authority to proceed with the intensity conversion without a General Plan amendment. Vice Chair Toerge noted that the avenue being proposed by Host is not the appropriate mechanism that the Planning Commission has the authority to engage in a General Plan amendment, should that application be submitted, but that currently it is not under consideration. Commissioner Kramer indicated that he would be in favor of a conversion because it would be the best route for the applicant, Host, and the City, because of the economic benefit. He questioned whether the only route to a solution would be a General Plan amendment and opined that the Commission has the discretion to make the conversion adding that care needs to be taken regarding limiting the scope of the Commission's authority. Commissioner Hawkins referenced the North Newport Center hearings wherein the Irvine Company transferred hotel rooms to an office building and that these hotel rooms were lost under the General Plan. He stated that the General Plan also encourages the development of hotel rooms and questioned the need for a General Plan amendment. He also indicated that both the tennis club and the country club are sites that are in need of "revitalization." Vice Chair Toerge expressed concerns with the interpretation and whether other locales within the City could later use it against the City. He proposed that if the Commission were to support a General Plan amendment, the applicant may be compelled to return with an appropriate application and the problem would be resolved accordingly. Mr. Campbell addressed a comparison site plan submitted by the applicant to illustrate that a larger club house, as proposed under Item No. 3, may theoretically work with the applicant's parking lot plan. He reported the draft development agreement has a ten (10) year term and conveys a vested Page 4 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 right to develop the components discussed and listed the public benefits contained within the document. He listed the recommendation as the adoption of a resolution recommending to the City Council the: Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, with an Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Approval of Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as proposed by staff, for the entire 145 - acre project site; Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 as proposed by the applicant; Approval of Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, as proposed by the applicant, for the improvements to the 12 -acre tennis club portion of the project site reserving for future consideration the identification of improvements to the 133 -acre golf course portion of the project site; Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and Approval of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Toerge, Mr. Campbell reported the vesting tentative tract map is isolated to the 12 -acre parcel and does not include the entry driveway, the frontage road, the landscaping on Coast Highway, the parking lot, the design for the golf club nor the club house. He added that staffs recommendation is to address those items with the second application. Staff responded to an inquiry from Vice Chair Toerge regarding the determination of the public benefit fees, noting that it was the subject of negotiations between representatives from the City Council and the applicant and stated that offsets for the demolition is based on new construction and addressed how the funds are used. Commissioner Hawkins commented on the loss of seventeen (17) tennis courts. He disagreed with the environmental document claim that there is no impact and questioned if a public benefit would include the addition of tennis courts in public parks. In response to his inquiry, staff noted that the development agreement requires the payment of fees that could be used at the City Council's discretion. Vice Chair Toerge invited the applicant to provide a presentation Robert OHill, Manager Owner of the Newport Beach Country Club, expressed agreement with staffs revised planned community district text and most of the site development plan recommendations, but disagreed with the approval of the site development permit limiting it to just the twelve (12) acres. He provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing the proposed entry way to the project, and reported the proposed project reduces traffic, brings substantial revenue to the City, preserves the tennis club, adds a new tennis club house as well as a stadium court, addresses the aesthetic issues along Coast Highway, and provides a landscape buffer to Irvine Terrace residents. He listed the reasons for the importance of the project. Mr. OHill opined that IBC's proposed club house parking lot; Item No. 3, does not work functionally and addressed the grade difference and the inability of golf carts getting to it. He stated that the application is slightly different than the original proposal noting an addition to the number of parking stalls in response to IBC's desire to have 334 parking stalls for their larger clubhouse, 34 more than the original proposal and 90 parking stalls more than what the parking study stated was needed. He addressed access to additional parking through a non - exclusive easement at Corporate Plaza West, the aesthetics of 700 feet along Coast Highway would be improved, and preserve the open space views along Coast Highway. He reported the building footprint approximately mirrors the existing club house but noted it is two stories high. Mr. OHill presented a comparison between the IBC proposal and his NBCC master plan developed long ago, the proposed application. He stated that their Item No. 3, proposed expansion of the club house would eliminate much of the open space views and he addressed the grade separation. He reported their effort to make sure the grading of the tennis club and the golf club sites balance and Page 5 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 took into consideration crushing the tennis court concrete and reusing it to avoid traffic congestion and dust from trucks during construction. Mr. OHill requested the site development plan approved as submitted but indicated understanding the concept of the "white hole" so that the IBC club house or master plan club house could be built in the future. He stressed his parking lot plan works with many of the elements requested and proposed by IBC. Commissioner Hawkins inquired whether the parking lot issue was the sole remaining area of controversy. Mr. OHill stated that their concerns involve the parking lot, the General Plan amendment and the architecture of the golf club house that IBC, Item No. 3, is proposing. He added his "white hole" concept is a compromise but he objects to approving the project with just the twelve (12) acres. He stated their preference would be for the Commission to approve the project with the entire land owned. Commissioner Hillgren inquired regarding the differences in the two (2) proposed parking lots and landscaping. Mr. OHill reported that his plan was not designed to hide cars, but to hide asphalt and create a more aesthetic parking lot. He also addressed fill issues and in response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry affirmed support of a General Plan amendment by Marriott. He referenced previous General Plan amendments and indicated that he would not like to go through another. Commissioner Hillgren noted that no Irvine Terrace residents have appeared before the Commission regarding the item. Mr. OHill reported spending a lot of time speaking with all the stake holders in an attempt to understand their needs but indicated that residents of Irvine Terrace have not been notified. Depending on the outcome, Mr. OHM stated they may need to be. Paul Singarella of Latham & Watkins spoke on behalf of Host Hotels and Resorts, stressed the importance of the hotel units and introduced his colleagues. He expressed appreciation for staff's help but stated disappointment with the fact that staff does not believe that the use conversion is consistent with the General Plan. He noted that reasonable minds can differ and stated that the law makes it clear that it is in the elected officials' and their designee's discretion to choose which interpretation of a General Plan to adopt. He opined that use conversion is a decision for the legislative body. Mr. Singarella reiterated staffs position that if the use conversion approach is used rather than the transfer approach, the development potential of statistical area L1 would be exceeded. He asserted that staffs position is such due to an assumption about the tennis courts; however, in the staff report, staff acknowledges that the tennis courts are part of the development potential intensity for Anomaly 46. He agreed with staff in that categorization but disagreed over the implications of that fact. He stated that the only way a use conversion would exceed the overall development intensity of L1 is by giving zero development value to the tennis courts. He added that one cannot determine the tennis courts are part of the maximum development intensity while at the same time discount their value when it comes to use conversion. Mr. Singarella asserted that the City's use conversion law does not discriminate one non - residential use from another. He reported there is no limit on hotel units on the statistical area and questioned the assignment of zero development value to the tennis courts. Mr. Singarella stated the belief that the use conversion can be done without a General Plan amendment and addressed setting precedence. Regarding the latter, he indicated this is a decision Page 6 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 for the legislative body and therefore, there is no risk of setting precedence. He added that these are the only tennis courts in town with an assigned maximum development intensity which distinguishes them from any other in the City. He restated his request that the Commission find the use conversion approach to be consistent with the General Plan and recommend the same. Commissioner Hawkins commented that if in fact, the hotel units are vested to Host, the Commission has no discretion at this time. He stated if Golf Realty is to obtain hotel units, it could not be through a conversion, but rather through a transfer. Mike Recupero, Attorney representing half of the ownership of the subject property, referenced comments submitted in writing and reported that his clients do not agree with the development agreement and have not had an opportunity to participate in discussions on the subject. Regarding the planned community text, he inquired about the possibility of amending it at a later time at staffs discretion based on a pending legal hearing that will decide the relative rights of the ownership. He requested the Commission remove the sections relating to the golf course in its entirety. Commissioner Hawkins reported speaking with Host and Mr. Recupero regarding the frontage access easement and referenced a termination of access and grant deeds given to both of his clients. However, he stated the grant deeds listed in the attachment to Mr. Recupero's letter to the Commission occurred before the termination which could affect those. Mr. Recupero felt the termination is specific to the documents that it affects. He agreed it could affect them if it is so interpreted, but he stated that is not how it was written. He agreed there is a title issue. But, he pointed out that the state of the record and what is recorded are separate easements that by the plain language of the termination are not affected by it. Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning, indicated the comparison plan submitted by Golf Realty does not work for NBCC, applicant for Item No. 3. Mainly, she stated it is due to operational reasons. The NBCC golf club house and parking lot is a coordinated and integrated plan. She reiterated previous comments noting objection to a club house on a property with a long -term lease, the location of the bungalows and the hardscape improvements over the lease hold land. Tim Paone, on behalf of Golf Realty, addressed the Commission noting the desire for the use conversion to work. Regarding previous comments made by Mr. Singarella relative to interpretation of the General Plan, he stated that there is discretion, but it must be exercised consistently and cannot be directly contrary to what the General Plan specifies. He expressed concern with issues relative to the removal of the tennis courts, new hotel units and trips generated. He indicated that there is no record that the Marriott units are vested and felt the most important word in the process is appurtenant (runs with the land), not personal to the person who has it. He stated easement rights went with the property. Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Brandt responded to Mr. Recupero's suggestion noting that if the Planning Commission were to proceed with the planned community text or zoning regulations for Golf Realty, that a provision be added to the zoning text that would allow an amendment to be implemented by the Community Development Director or staff. She noted the zoning code is legislative and can only be amended by the City Council. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the encroachment of patios over the parcel lines Vice Chair Toerge re- opened the public hearing. Page 7 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Mr. OHill responded noting his architect chose to create a bubble in spots. He reported the project can be built with or without the patio encroaching into the lease hold interest. In addition, he reported the proposed entry way does not follow the existing entry way and eliminates one of the bungalows. Vice Chair Toerge again closed the public hearing. He commented on the complexity of the issues and expressed disappointment at the applicants' inability to come to mutually acceptable agreements. Commissioner Ameri expressed disappointment at the lack of progress being made. Commissioner Hillgren felt that there was a possibility of a conversion and referenced the General Plan Land Use Element (3 -18 and 3 -19) which lists all of the various anomaly locations, land use designations, development limits and types of developments. Relative to Anomaly 43, it has no designated square footage. Therefore, density cannot be determined. Regarding Anomaly 46, it exceeds 3725 square feet as well as a significant amount with the proposed bungalows, which is being determined to be acceptable because traffic is well below existing. Ms. Brandt reported that with various anomalies within statistical area L1, the General Plan allows transferring to occur within the anomalies areas and conversion of non - residential through other non- residential and specific square footages for hotel rooms when not assigned. Commissioner Hillgren noted it also lists twenty -four (24) tennis courts as specific development types, which have an associated intensity. He felt that if it is deemed a development type then it can be converted to another non - residential commercial use. Ms. Brandt responded stating that there are many types of uses that generate trips that do not have square footages assigned to them. They have value, even without having a primary structure associated with it. She addressed various types of uses and noted they each have a value in and of themselves. Ensuing discussion pertained to listed uses, possible development activities within the spaces, entitlements, and the ability to convert. Vice Chair Toerge stated the Commission has been asked to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration, prior to reviewing any other entitlements. He directed Members to focus on the MND. Commissioner Hawkins referenced the staffs response to Planning Commission comments. The conclusion is that there are no land use impacts yet, within the discussion of the parking lot design, compatibility of the architectural style, the size and locations of the golf club house, those impacts still remain. He wondered if the response is appropriate. Relative to the elimination of the tennis courts, he noted that the staff's response that they are not community resources but rather membership resources and the seven (7) tennis courts that remain will serve for the tennis club members. He disagreed with the approach and stated he regards the twenty -four (24) courts as a recreational resource for the community. He recommended the Mitigated Negative Declaration needs to be revised, and that there be a mitigation measure proposed which would replace or reconstruct seventeen (17) tennis courts on City -owned property and that same is inserted into the development agreement. Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Ameri, to deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Page 8 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Substitute Motion made by Vice Chair Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, and carried (3 — 2) with one recusal (Myers) finding the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be adequate and recommend it for its approval. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: Ameri and Hawkins ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers ABSTAIN: None. Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Amen to adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005- 002, as proposed by staff, for the entire 145 -acre project site; without the Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 as proposed by the applicant; but, a Use Conversion of Tennis Courts to Hotel Rooms with the General Plan policies of encouraging hotel units; approval of Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, for the improvements to the 12 -acre tennis club portion of the project site reserving for future consideration the identification of improvements to the 133 -acre golf course portion of the project site; approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and approval of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry regarding the patio encroachment and how that would be resolved, Ms. Brandt stated that it is a minor issue and that it could be resolved through the plan check process. Ms. Brandt suggested a recess to allow staff some time to modify the findings within the draft resolution to reflect the proposed motion. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:15 p.m. The assembly recessed and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Commissioner Hawkins corrected his earlier comments regarding the response to comments on the land use impacts, loss of tennis courts, etc. stating that he was referencing the present staff report of November 17, 2011, rather than the October 20, 2011 staff report. Ms. Brandt proposed modifications for the Commission to consider in regards to the motion. She referenced handwritten page 10 of the Staff Report subparagraph D and proposed it would read as follows, "In order to accommodate the development of the proposed 27 -hotel unit development 'bungalows,' the seventeen (17) tennis courts shall be converted to 27 hotel units. The General Plan provides for additional retail opportunities at Fashion Island and hotel rooms and housing units in Newport Center. The proposed conversion does not require a General Plan amendment." On handwritten page 11, Ms. Brandt proposed the deletion of paragraph 2 (Transfer of Development Intensity), finding (A) and facts in support of finding (A -1). In addition, the deletion of handwritten page 12, finding (B) and facts in support of finding (B -1 and B -2). She noted no additional changes to the Resolution. Commissioner Hawkins suggested changes including handwritten page 10, adding "the proposed conversion revitalizes an area wherein the General Plan encourages to have hotel rooms." Relative to page 12, finding (B), Commissioner Hawkins wanted to add "the conversion will not result in any adverse traffic impacts." He referenced Exhibit 4 of the staff report relative to traffic impacts of hotel units as opposed to tennis courts and suggested the addition of B -1 classifying the conversion as traffic neutral. He felt B -2 could remain. Page 9 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Discussion followed regarding maintaining B -1 and B -2 as they presently read. The maker of the motion, Commissioner Hawkins, and Commissioner Amen agreed to the amendments and the motion carried (5 - 0) with one recusal (Myers). AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers ABSTAIN: None. ITEM NO.3 Newport Beach Country Club (PA2008 -152) 1600 East Coast Highway Principal Planner Campbell presented details of the proposed project addressing the project site, including a larger club house associated with a General Plan amendment to increase the development allocation from 35,000 square feet to 56,000 square feet in Anomaly 74, a planned community development plan amendment, a prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration that principally addressed land use, traffic and aesthetics and he stated staff recommendations for approval. He referenced an alternative site plan providing for modified access easement area across the front of the property which maintains exit -only driveway access, proposed 15 feet of driveway with 18 feet of landscaping along Coast Highway that would hide the proposed fence, and parking lot. Staff expressed concern about the width of the driveway indicated their preference for it to be 20 feet wide. He noted this is the applicant's preferred plan noting it avoids circulation issues and it provides additional flexibility for special events. Mr. Campbell addressed conditions of approval relative to the frontage road. He specified Condition No. 7 regarding the design of the parking lot providing flexibility to address the issue at a later time. This will allow the flexibility to address the issue administratively before the issuance of a building permit. He highlighted the terms of the draft development agreement and stated staff recommendations including approval of a General Plan amendment. Vice Chair Toerge confirmed that approval of the MIND is included in the resolution which is presented. Commissioner Hawkins expressed concerns about the frontage access road and the negative declaration. Commissioner Ameri reported that legally, the easement can be there but it has been eliminated in the design. David Wooten, Newport Beach Country Club, Incorporated, indicated support of staff recommendations and referenced refinements to the plan based on comments from staff and the Planning Commission. He deferred to CAA Planning staff Shawna Schaffner for a presentation. Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning, reviewed some of the changes made including widening of the entry driveway, the re- orientation of the porte- cochere, the perimeter fencing redesign and reduction in height, the reduction of the signage, the lowering of the pad elevations and the reduction of grading, the increase in setback to the parking lot landscape. She reported that the Irvine Terrace entry drive was widened and that significant landscaping was added. She noted that the amount of heavy truck traffic was reduced from twenty -seven (27) days to twenty -one (21) days for the grading operation. She stated that the frontage road and placement of the perimeter face were both issues warranting a closer look following the straw vote at the October 20, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Schaffner noted that they have submitted two (2) plans, one with the frontage road Page 10 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 and one without. In addition, she presented an updated site plan and noted the frontage road has been reduced to fifteen (15) feet and mentioned that they accept the 20 -foot width. In addition Ms. Schaffner addressed the increase of landscape setbacks, one -way traffic on the frontage road, separation of the berm and perimeter fence, and presented an updated rendering. She urged the Commission to approve the plan and advance the item to the City Council. Ensuing discussion pertained to ways of enforcing one -way access on the frontage road through signage and a center median, landscaping on both sides of the fence, the possibility of making the frontage road entrance only rather than exit only and effects of traffic to and from Armstrong Nursery. Ms. Schaffner noted that in working with the Traffic Engineering, they have adequately addressed the issue of safety on the frontage road. Discussion followed regarding the number of turning movements needed from the frontage road and possible hairpin turns. Commissioner Kramer inquired regarding other alternatives to vehicular traffic and asked to see the site plan without the frontage road. He expressed his support for a project design that did not include the frontage road, noting that there are other alternatives available. Commissioner Hillgren agreed with the idea of a one -way frontage road, and felt it would be used by a limited number of people, and noted it functions reasonably as a one -way coming out of the nursery. Vice Chair Toerge voiced his agreement. Discussion followed regarding the addition of trees in the parking aisles between spaces. Douglas Lee, Project Architect, indicated that two (2) strips of landscaping have been created through the parking lot and specified the location of trees on the site plan. He noted the importance of staging areas for big events. Mr. Lee reported the plans have been adjusted to ensure that there is no elimination of the bungalows proposed in the previous application. Perry Dickey, President and COO of NBCC Country Club, reported the absence of trees in the center area of the lot was designed to accommodate the mobile homes and other vehicles during tournaments. He affirmed that golf carts would not be allowed in the parking area. Ian Hydoski Vice President of Operations at Armstrong Garden Centers, spoke on the importance of the frontage road, noting about sixty (60 %) percent of his customers use the frontage road to exit back to Pacific Coast Highway. He opined the reason is that they feel safer exiting at the stop light. He further indicated that if they lose that exit, customers will lose the convenience and will subsequently affect his business. He addressed the number of truck deliveries and stated that using the frontage road is much safer for them instead of pulling out of the driveway. Vice Chair Toerge opened the public hearing. Brian Horn commented on the parking lot and the staging area noting it facilitates the ability of the Toshiba Classic to generate upwards of $30 million of economic impact to the Newport community. He expressed a house divided will never stand and a house united will never fall. He urged the Commission to approve the plan and move it forward. Page 11 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Mike Recupero, Attorney representing half of the ownership of the subject property thanked the applicant for the changes made pursuant to the Commission's direction. He distributed a rendering of the area and noted it makes clear the drive aisle will never be appreciated by someone on Coast Highway. He explained that the owner and his clients are in agreement with the frontage road and opined that there is no reason not to adopt the frontage road. He asked for consideration in allowing the frontage road. Robert OHill commented on the Toshiba Tournament noting that their needs can be accommodated with the master plan parking lot, Item No. 2. He addressed termination of the frontage road noting that the easement no longer exists. He also opined the frontage road plan is an aesthetic eye sore and has created safety issues in the past. Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Toerge commented on the perimeter fence and frontage road and noted the input received is quite compelling. He commented positively on the changes made and stated that he no longer objected to the frontage road. Commissioner Ameri expressed his past concern regarding the frontage road and stated that the improvement on the design is significant and that he no longer has concerns regarding the safety of the frontage road. Commissioner Hawkins inquired regarding decreases in terms of dollars received from the subject development agreements. Ms. Brandt reported the basis for the rate is based on discussions by the City Council ad -hoc subcommittee for development agreements which is also subject to City Council review and approval. Vice Chair Toerge re- opened the public hearing. Ms. Schaffner reported that negotiations were based on recent development agreements for which the City has received monies including the North Newport Center development agreement and the Hoag Hospital development agreement. Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins to deny adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Hillgren expressed concern that public use of the clubhouse as an event venue remain ancillary to the golf course. He also referred to a previous Planning staff report regarding the mention that the banquet assembly uses would be accessory and allowed by the General Plan as long as the public event venue use remains subordinate to the golf course. Commissioner Hillgren asked what subordinate would be in this case. Mr. Campbell explained that the primary activity will be the golf course and the golf club house. He added that the operation of the golf house as a banquet venue absent the operation of the golf course could not occur. In addition, he stated that there are no conditions limiting use of the banquet venue, but that it would need to remain subordinate. The club has to regulate its own activity where it is conducive to their own operation. Page 12 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Commissioner Hawkins referenced Condition No. 2, on handwritten page 23, and Mr. Campbell responded that it is there to provide clarity to the applicant that what is being approved is the site development application only for the golf course /clubhouse facility. Staff noted that the plans include the alternative driveway approach and access easement. Mr. Campbell noted that if the Commission chooses to go with the access easement and frontage road, Condition No. 5 would need to be modified. Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the General Plan Amendment, the Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Review, Limited Term Permit and the Development Agreement, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be separate from this motion. The motion failed for lack of a second. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Ameri, and carried (3 — 2) with one recusal (Myers) to approve as submitted by staff with the following modification to No. 5, Exhibit D, to read "the preferred parking lot design includes the 20 -foot frontage road that provides one -way access from the entry driveway to the Armstrong Nursery property to the left of the project site." The motion includes adoption of a resolution recommending to the City Council the adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -010, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program; approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -005, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PC2005 -002; and approval of Site Development Review No. SD2011 -003, Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -005, and Development Agreement No. DA2010 -005. AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, and Toerge NOES: Hawkins and Kramer ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers ABSTAIN: None. H. NEW BUSINESS — None. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO.4 Community Development Director's report Community Development Director Brandt introduced the City's new Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski and briefly listed her background. In addition, Ms. Brandt announced the Orange County Business Council has announced awards for this year's "Turning Red Tape into Red Carpet" for which the City of Newport Beach's Community Development Department was honored with a first runner -up award in the category of business retention and encouragement of businesses within the community. ITEM NO. 5 Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. Commissioner Hawkins inquired regarding concerns from the City Council regarding Planning Commission appeals. Ms. Brandt reported the City Council has scheduled a study session to consider the issue which will take place on Tuesday, November 22, 2011. She also indicated outgoing Planning Chairman Unsworth would be recognized at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hawkins inquired regarding possible Christmas celebration. Vice Chair Toerge directed staff to consider the matter. Page 13 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Commissioner Hawkins reported that Speak Up Newport's Mayor's dinner will be on February 3, 2012, and he will be reserving a table. ITEM NO. 6 Request for excused absences — None. ADJOURNMENT — Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Page 14 of 14