Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutesPlanning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2007 Reaular Meetina - 6:30 a.m. Page 1 of 18 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007\02222007.htm 03/09/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL ommissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren - all present 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 Mayors dinner. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 16, 2007. HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 8, 2007. Approved Commissioner Hawkins noted changes on pages 4, 5 and 7. Commissionef Toerge noted a change on page 1. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissione Hawkins to approve the minutes as amended. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None I bstain: None ITEM SUBJECT: Fancher Development Services p 6-26 PA2006 -269 849 Newport Center Dr. Approved Request to amend an existing Use Permit to allow an eating and drinking establishment to extend their hours of operation to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week. Assistant Planner Russell Bunim gave an overview of the staff report noting this ication is for the Yard House that will be taking over the current space Spied 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. The Alcohol Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO) requires a Use Permit to be Page 1 of 18 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007\02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 2 of 18 )roved by the Planning Commission and the findings to approve that Use Permi contained in the resolution attached to the staff report. airperson Cole asked about the size of the actual restaurant, seating capacity, I • parking. Bunim answered that the entrance will have an additional 224 square fee -Ire people will now wait to be seated. The seating capacity has been increase to the open floor plan design with the bar at a central location. The Fashion ind Planned Community resulted in adequate parking to allow for the additional care footage. Lepo added that the entire development is controlled by the Fashion Island nned Community text. mmissioner McDaniel expressed his concern about Condition 20. He asked for i got consensus from the Planning Commission following a brief discussion that applicant shall maintain and provide records that reflect separately the gross s of food and the gross sale of alcoholic beverages after 11:00 p.m. If there are r problems, they seem to happen after 11:00 p.m. and this would be a means o ;king the sales. The condition will have the added language, "..and shat orately track and account for the gross sales of food and the gross sales of Dholic beverages after 11:00 p.m." Scott Duffner, applicant on behalf of the Yard House, noted that they are in :ord and agree with the proposed conditions as well as the amended Condition to track food and beverage sales after 11:00 p.m. At Commission inquiry, he ad that typically food service sales exceed alcohol sales. • mmissioner 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. mmissioner Hawkins noted that this is the first time that project specific iditions have been called out as well as standard conditions and this helps in Commission's review. tion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner )tter to approve this item with the change noted on Condition 20. mmissioner Peotter proposed: • Condition 11 - delete, as it is required under applicable Codes. Following a brief discussion including the marine - character of the City, enforcement issues, and appropriateness of including this condition every time there is a restaurant involved, and can be used as grounds for revocation, and upon the recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney, this deletion was no approved by the Commission. • yes: Peotter and Cole, Noes: Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren lAbstain: None file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 2 of 18 pproved by the Planning Commission and the findings to approve that Use Permit are contained in the resolution attached to the staff report. Chairperson Cole asked about the size of the actual restaurant, seating capacity, • and parking. Mr. Bunim answered that the entrance will have an additional 224 square fee here people will now wait to be seated. The seating capacity has been increased ue to the open floor plan design with the bar at a central location. The Fashion Island Planned Community resulted in adequate parking to allow for the additions square footage. Mr. Lepo added that the entire development is controlled by the Fashion Island Planned Community text. ommissioner McDaniel expressed his concern about Condition 20. He asked fo and got consensus from the Planning Commission following a brief discussion tha he applicant shall maintain and provide records that reflect separately the gross ale of food and the gross sale of alcoholic beverages after 11:00 p.m. If there are any problems, they seem to happen after 11:00 p.m. and this would be a means o racking the sales. The condition will have the added language, "..and shall eparately track and account for the gross sales of food and the gross sales o Icoholic beverages after 11:00 p.m." Mr. Scott Duffner, applicant on behalf of the Yard House, noted that they are in accord and agree with the proposed conditions as well as the amended Condition 0 to track food and beverage sales after 11:00 p.m. At Commission inquiry, he noted that typically food service sales exceed alcohol sales. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the rolling store front system. Mr. Duffner answered that it is similar to Cafe R & D.. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Hawkins noted that this is the first time that project specific conditions have been called out as well as standard conditions and this helps in he Commission's review. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissione Peotter to approve this item with the change noted on Condition 20. Commissioner Peotter proposed: • Condition 11 - delete, as it is required under applicable Codes. Following a brief discussion including the marine - character of the City, enforcement issues, and appropriateness of including this condition every time there is restaurant involved, and can be used as grounds for revocation, and upon the recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney, this deletion was no approved by the Commission. • Noes: I Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren r bstain None file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007 \02222007.htrn 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Continuing, Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to delete, in Condition 17, references to the Codes, so the fi6two sentences would stay in but the last two sentences could be removed. Commissioner Peotter noted the Noise Ordinance will apply and reference to noise limits 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 Commissione 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 Id do relative to enforcement? Additionally, he noted a change of the word se' 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. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None bstain: None low ITEM NO.3 SUBJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services PA2005 -196 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place Continued to April he application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building Page 3 of 18 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit multiple -fami 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 dl 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 applicati< 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 -incon 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 -u apartment building and single - family residence. • Parking to be provided will mainly be subterranean. The number of spac 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 1 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 visa qualities of the coastal zone; establishing the predominant line of existi development; establishment of this predominant line can be accomplish through a variety of means; staff is asking which method the Planni 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 Implementati Plan which talks about the median distances that these buildings exte from. Additionally, they did the string line method which is a traditioi 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 bl 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 a 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 1 scenic and visual quality. 5, 2007 Page 4 of 18 • • file: / /F: \ilsers\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007 \02222007.htm " 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 5 of 18 • The proposed building appears to come further down the bluff than policies seem to allow and we are looking for guidance as to what the predominant line of development is. Visual simulations representing various lines of existing development are included in the staff report to aid in the decision making process. • The buildings on Carnation Avenue to the north come down the bluff furthei than the existing development on subject sites. (He then discussed the various exhibits in the staff report.) • The Planning Commission needs to determine the predominant line of development, and if the building conforms to it, then the application can be approved; if the building does not conform to it, then the Commission need: to provide direction to the applicant to re- design it to the line as agreed upon. 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 discretio oval? What is the past City practice regarding determination of lominant line of development. ;ampbell noted that the Subdivision Map finding needs to be made. There )rior example in an application for a variance on Pacific Drive where we we ig at these same policies. On Ocean Boulevard, we haven't had tl ssion in the past as there were no variances or modifications tf 3sitated a finding of consistency with these policies. We have not had tl of analysis or review. ner Hawkins asked about the Circle residence where the 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 b) stal Commission. We looked at the main issue of how far out the buil e because it could block the neighbor's view. We did not discuss lominant line of development in the context of these policies. lard Julian, applicant, noted this proposed project will become the gateway harbor and the City of Newport. He noted the following consultants for t act: Phil Dowdy and Ted Fetone of Hunsaker and Associates; Myron Sukut ut Construction Co.; Sid Nedwit, soils engineer; Tom Castle, structu near; and Brion Jeannette, architect and designer. He added that he h !arched many issues related to the site and has worked closely with t hbors. He has worked with members of the City staff and is committed to tl act. He referenced an exhibit that includes letters of support from t A Jeannette, architect, noted that the major issue is, what is the predomina 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: file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 6 of 18 • Discussed various views of the project site. • Materials to be used are limestone, photovoltaic panels for electricity and green architecture. • • The existing building consumes approximately 21% of the site and the new 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 to 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 each 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 and apart from the 2 auto elevators proposed. A total of 32 parking spaces will 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 to 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 within parking garage. • Public access is not required as there are accessibility problems; California Coastal Commission has not required access on adjacent parcels; and 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 corner o Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Referencing the exhibit, he noted 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 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 exclusion zone parcels to the north; the CLUP allows development on bluff face on Ocean Blvd., Carnation Ave., Pacific Dr.; extensive development before Coastal Zone Act and new development is allowed to continue the'pattem o existing development.' Predominant line of existing development is the mos common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a 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 to file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 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, China 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 fo determining the predominant line of existing development using string -lines structures and decks. • He discussed an aerial view of AERIE with cove and rock outcroppings an( buildings on either side and depiction of median distance from street curb t( furthest line of development towards the Bay. • Referencing another exhibit he discussed median distance from mean lov tide to closest line of development towards the Bay; analysis of propose( line of development with elevations of 34 feet on easterly side to 52 feet or the westerly side; 29 feet to 44 feet and 25 feet to 25 feet respectively. • View simulation of superimposed model viewed from Channel Road public beach. • Existing view from Channel Road public beach with categorical exclusior zone and with the proposed structure on project site. • He then noted several letters of support and asked for ultimate approval o the 9 -unit project. • At Commission inquiry, he noted he has not discussed this project with the Coastal Commission. 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 t( 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 t( determine the predominate line of development and the appropriateness o . using homes on Bayside Place to set the predominate line of development. blic comment was opened. Razner, Ocean Boulevard, noted his support of this project for the following: Page 7 of 18 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 • The project applicant has done an outreach in the neighborhood for it 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 K Association, noted their support of the project. • Impressed with the project sponsors and their plans and i 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 Cho Reef. • We are aware there will be noise, dust, parking issues and e inconveniences during construction but the long term benefits of the pr 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 extremely large scale of the proposed complex. • There are many issues, among them the loss of public enjoyment from development. • This bluff and cove are viewed and enjoyed by people on the Peninsula 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 visib from the harbor. • Newport Beach is special and this area is governed by the CLUP. She the read some of the provisions. • Is this project visually compatible with the surrounding area and how is th minimizing the impact on the bluff? • There is nothing on Ocean Boulevard that looks like this other than Chann 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 the are taking 32,400 cubic yards of bluff away and cannot figure out what th will do to the integrity and support of the surrounding properties and tt impact of the construction and excavation. • Before this is changed forever, you need to give this good thought. Page 8 of 18 0 Ll file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 9 of 18 (Doug Snyder, Balboa Peninsula Point resident, noted his support of the development as it will be a great improvement over what is there currently. leen McIntosh, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted the majority of the neighbor: r 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 to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970's that established more restrictive height and bulk standards around the Bay. • The intent is to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. • As a result, new development within the shoreline height zone is limited to a height of 28 feet. • Development on the bluff face is generally prohibited with the exception o certain public improvements or private improvements determined to be consistent with the predominant line of development. • It is policy to regulate the development envelope to preserve public view through the height, setbacks, floor area, lot coverage and building bulk tha limits the building profile and maximizes the public view. • In this case, the buildable site would grow from under 20,000 square feet to 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. r 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 explair his project. • All have had the opportunity to review the plans. The applicant has addressed all concerns and has made several desigr changes. • Directly next door to this project, the City allowed major excavation an( 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 ou file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 10 of 18 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 corner. 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 gel further down. • What happens on the lower level of the westerly building as it extends at an 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 project 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 that 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 line 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 predominant line of development that would turn the corner in a manner similar to the way the bluff turns the corner. mmissioner Hillgren asked what the bottom vertical line of this project was? . Campbell answered the lower extent of the easterly building is 29 feet and as i go around the corner it steps up to 44 feet. Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette noted that the elevation of the street at yside Drive is at elevation 13 then it starts ascending from there to an elevation 18 or 19 feet. • mmissioner Hillgren noted he has heard a commitment from the developer to )test the cove which is the most important part of this project. I look at the 28 -2 d line to the property to the west as an appropriate datum line. The question is file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 11 of 18 how to connect to the property to the east. Ooner Hawkins noted the property lines to the east go down that far they are in the exclusion zone where they are not regulated. Jeannette agreed, noting adherence to the Zoning Guidelines which require 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 ma 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 Jeannette noted the point at which you contact earth establishes that e. Referencing an exhibit, he noted one elevation of a home at 48.6 ele Ir elevation points were at 44, 50 and 52. He then discussed the public :ionship and drawing the horizontal line at that point to establish iination of development. ,ommissioner Hillgren asked if it was the footing or the house itself that is hitting the level at 44? Mr. Jeannette answered the elevation of the house was at 50. .ommissioner 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 o 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 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 12 of 18 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 fee agreed upon but as it goes around the westerly side, he would like to see more iicating the line of where those homes come down to right now. )mmissioner Toerge answered that is how he reads the Code. Their edominant line of development is higher than their proposal based upon how he ads the Code. We need to understand what our predecessors decided and iat authority our Coastal Land Use Plan has. A couple of years were invested in .tablishing this Local Coastal Plan and we took great care in developing this. weral Planning Commissioners, including himself, served on this Committee. ie plan was reviewed and approved by both the Planning Commission and City 3uncil. It is speculative to guess what the Coastal Commission will do. )mmissioner Hawkins noted: • Agrees that the Commission has an important job with this unique parcel and project. The cove is a natural resource, the bluff outcroppings, etc. and the project, in general, takes good care of that resource. • He noted the concern of the easterly edge at elevations 44/48 and staff an the applicant need to work on that level. • He agrees about tracking the bluff around, and the two units noted by Commissioner Eaton did seem to project out distinctly. He would like discussion on pulling those projections in. • We are trying to understand what the predominant line of development is. I is a flexible metric and the string -line was a tough approach and could be problematic. • The current structures on the site are poor; however, the site itself is fantastic. hairperson Cole noted there seems to be some consensus on the 29 foot line vel on the east and the west at 44 feet. ammissioner Hawkins noted there is some agreement on the 29 feet; however, questions the 44 -foot measurement. Another metric has been offered and he ould like to see if that could work. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 13 of 18 )mmissioner McDaniel, noted: • He was a member of the Local Coastal Committee and they spent a lot o 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 them, then we need to document them so we can understand it now and in the 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 is taken away as previously suggested, what does that do to the quality of life for the residents in that area, what does that do to the view corridor, and an other aspects. • He would much rather give a little extra off that edge so that the parking does not become problematic in the project; that it looks right, works right and all those other aspects that we pickup. • Recognizes that folks who look easterly look at a wall, but the panoramic view to the left may require that you may have to look at a wall to the right. • This is a good project. :)mmissioner Peotter asked about comparing this to properties in the exclusion me, yet looking at the Land Use Plan, it follows the hotel and other homes that go )wn to the water level again. Why are we going outside of that coastal area to :t the predominant line? ammissioner Toerge answered by reading from the Glossary of the CLUP. "Th Rcommon or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a ifled point or line." The example that was cited, "the predominant line of welopment for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group o ructures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a presentative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified ie)." ontinuing, he stated that since the predominant line of development has already len determined to come into play here, and since the Local Coastal Plan doe ive jurisdiction over the site, this definition is something that needs to be overlaid ito the project. It gives the example about the predominant line of development r a block of homes on a coastal bluff which is the specified group of structures. iat is the reason why the homes that are not on the bluff should not be utilized to ilculate 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 at has been approved and the City has adopted. ommissioner Peotter asked if it make any difference whether it is in the Exclusion me or not as far as when it refers to the coastal bluff. Do you stop looking at it if is in the Exclusion Zone? ommissioner Toerge answered in his opinion the answer is "no ". This happens to s a bluff top development that happens to be at the end of the street, and simply scause adjacent bluff top properties are within the Categorical Exclusion Area 0 iunot preclude them from the definition of predominate line of development. ssion continued referencing exhibits showing Breakers Drive, Ocean oulevard and the Cove. r. Campbell noted the exclusionary area was established in 1977 and the Coastal file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007\02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 14 of 18 mmission allowed projects that are consistent with the zoning at that time, gle- family and duplexes, without need to go back and get a Coastal velopment Permit. Under today's rules, you could build out to the setback at 10 it and bring that building down to whatever elevation it might be. Does the ;dominant line of development affect these properties: the answer is "yes ". W ve two policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan 4.4.3 -8 and -9 that talk abou ildings on the bluff face on Carnation Avenue, Pacific and Ocean Boulevard. are referring to that particular bluff right there and they are allowed to build hin the predominant line of development. That is what the policy says meaning it bluff does establish a predominant line. Would we use a predominant line to lulate that now given the exclusion order: the answer is "no ". Staff believe )se homes on Carnation Avenue on that bluff do establish a predominant line of sting development and you would use that in relation to whether this project re is consistent with that. airperson Cole clarified that regardless if it is in the Category Exclusion Zone. . Campbell noted the predominant line of development would not affect those s, but those lots do establish the predominant line of development that affects s lot. �mmissioner Toerge noted that properties are still subject to Coastal Commission fiew under appeal. They are in the Coastal Zone so even though they are tegorically Exempt, that doesn't mean that the Coastal Commission won' ine. It means that the City can approve them, but approval can be appealed to e Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission has just given the City the ht to approve or condition those particular developments but it doesn't exempt :m from Coastal and doesn't exempt them from review. • mmissioner Peotter asked that since part of this lot is in the Exclusion Zone, as that mean the project could go down to 10 feet on the side for a portion of his and now establish a new line of development that we could use? You have two is of rules. . Jeannette noted the differences of access on Breakers Drive, Carnation enue and resulting development. Commission inquiry, he noted that suggestions made about turning the corner is mething that he will look at and he will determine what impacts could or would oult. Additionally, he will look at elevation down to 10 feet. He noted that Aecting the cove is most critical. rtion was made by Commissioner Peotter to set the line at 29 feet as the hard for staff to review with the caveat that the applicant look at reducing the rth /west wing to see if they could round that off to match the bluff face better. airperson Cole clarified that the 29 feet goes up to 44 feet going to the rth /west. Mr. Jeannette answered that is correct. immissioner Hawkins suggested straw votes. airperson Cole noted the motion was not seconded, took straw vote on using 29 feet on the east side of the property going to 44 feet, which is in the sta >ort with the suggestion by Commission to have the applicant consider matching . contour of the bluff specifically on levels one and two. Ilowing discussion by the Commission, consensus was reached consistent with s discussion as to the predominant line of development. Straw vote, file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 15 of 18 (Commissioner Toerge, yes; all other Commissioners, no. Lepo noted the parking configuration as well as the impact the use of stors might have on parking on the street. Are those concerns of emission, or are you okay with the configuration of the working garage? oner McDaniel noted that after meeting with the.. applicant, have been addressed. ssioner Toerge noted his concern on the Mitigated Negative Declan that the comment period is still open. He has reviewed it and asked swing be addressed at the next meeting: • When does the City determine when an EIR is necessary versus a Mitigated Negative Declaration? • Should the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee 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 what 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 ", ho was this determination made, and under what circumstances would it be significant? o 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 reflect some of the description that was on the screen on how the grading will take place with the borings, etc. The MND was silent on that; why? • Aesthetics - on Page 22 The MND addresses this public view site at the point of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, but it does no address the public view street that Ocean Boulevard is and the dynamic view. Until view sims are done, I cannot agree with this report on this topic. • Air Quality - on Page 28, the MND talks about haul trucks, etc. and the deliveries, etc. With 32,000 yards of dirt potentially being moved by 2,500 to 3,000 trucks, this is a lot of activity. The residents in the area need to be protected while the property rights are being exercised. We need to see maps of truck routes, staging, traffic patterns, flagmen operations, public right -of -way use, etc. Washing streets is not an 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 from one spot, but I want to be sure that it improves or at least maintains the view angle from all along that view corridor along Ocean Boulevard. • Stringline - on page 41 the MND seems to be inaccurate an misleading as it says, "stringlines were drawn from the existing residential structure located to the south on Ocean Boulevard and the existing structure to the north on Carnation Avenue. The result is tha file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 16 of 18 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 but there are no reference points specifically as to where those are measured; that needs to be expanded for it to be accurate. 0 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 is short term and I do not agree with that. In "B" of that noise section, it 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 will be no impact? The MND does not address any mechanism on how it' going to be graded, yet it concludes an insignificant impact. This is inaccurate. 0 1 believe these are shortcomings of the MND and I hope that they are addressed at the next meeting. mmissioner Hawkins noted: • The environmental document is virtually silent on the construction impacts o the project and that analysis needs to occur. There will be a final response document that can address these issues. The points that were just made require something that corrects these errors or inadequacies, etc. • There is an easy fix to the construction impacts and that is the Construction Management Plan. He proposes this as a mitigation measure and this plan to be approved by Public Works as the appropriate body at the City, but thall 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. iairperson Cole asked about the procedures for comments to the Mitigated :gative Declaration. Can we get a response document similar to an EIR for the xt meeting? off answered it can be done. iairperson Cole then noted the issue of the view corridor and additional otometric view simulations. )mmissioner 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. Thai important but insufficient, and he would like to see a more significant mitigation ;asure. He supports an offer of dedication for the bottom of this property, but ;re is the access issue. )mmissioner Toerge noted: • Performance Bond - The project includes a retaining wall that require substantial grading. If this is not completed there is a possibility that the 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 safe to the public. This would be similar to the one required of the Mariners Mile Gateway project. >mmissioner McDaniel agreed. file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Commissioner Hawkins suggested that this be a completion bond so there is no "hole" facing the bay. 6eannette noted: • The MND 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 MND and recirculated for public review and comment, after which time we can seek final guidance from the Commission. Mr. Lepo agreed. Commissioner Hawkins asked if they would consider turning the MND into an EIR. Mr. Jeannette said they would not consider it. Chairperson Cole thanked the applicant and commended them for the detail of the proposed project. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to continue this item to April 5th to allow time for the MND issues to be addressed and revisions to the building design be completed. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None JLstain: None SUBJECT: Mile Gateway, LLC ITEM NO.4 100 -600 West Coast Highway PA2006 -279 Request for Comprehensive Sign Program CS2006 -012 for the previously Continued to date approved Be[ Mare Shopping Center. In addition, the Planning Commission will be uncertain reviewing the project's landscape plan and evaluating proposed refinements to exterior elevations to determine their substantial conformance with the approve project. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. 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 for review; and, Council introduced an ordinance on the Interim Desig Standards for single and two- family homes until comprehensive Zone Cod revisions are completed. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Hawkins noted he requested tha b. 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 or parking in -lieu fees and parking issues in general. Page 17 of 18 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 18 of 18 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 Developmen • Agreements. The City Attorney's office recommends that Developmen 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 wha should be criteria for requiring Development Agreements. This discussio was continued to the next meeting. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Eaton asked about a new building c Clay and Orange. He asked if this building will be turned into a reN facility. He asked for a report on the use. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - none. for excused absences - none. IT: 10:25 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/09/2007