HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes 051707Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
• May 17, 2007
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Pagel of 21
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/2212007
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and
Hillgren:
Commissioner Hawkins was seated five minutes after the meeting had
begun.
STAFF PRESENT:
David Lepo, Planning Director
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer
Patrick Alford, Senior Planner
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
pe
COMMENTS
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 11, 2007.
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 3, 2007.
ITEM NO. 1
Commissioner Hillgren noted the architect for the Environmental Nature
Approved
Center is LPA, not LPR.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by
Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected.
yes:
Eaton, Peotter, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes:
None
Absence:
Hawkins
SUBJECT: Rick Webster (PA2007 -049)
ITEM NO. 2
PA2007 -049
• 110 Tustin Avenue
Request to allow Rolfs Wine to operate a specialty retail wine shop
Approved
pursuant to Chapter 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets).
Pagel of 21
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/2212007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 2 of 21
;sell Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report
)lic comment was opened.
Ac
•
comment was closed.
nmissioner Peotter discussed an exhibit of sample conditions that had
in distributed. In addition to these being added, he also suggested to
dify the hours listed in condition 4 from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday thru
irsday, and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
Lepo noted if this business was sold, staff did not want to see a liquor
rket go in there. This has been addressed by limiting the hours of
iration with the understanding that a regular corner liquor market would
it hours late in the evening.
nmissioner McDaniel noted that suggested condition 1 talks about no
d liquor and number 8 requiring security cameras and all these new
editions need to be agreed to by the applicant.
nmissioner Hawkins noted the operator is currently at a different
Alon; what are his hours now?
Bunim answered they are the same as proposed in the staff report.
nmissioner Hawkins suggested there is no reason to provide hour
ibility as these are the current hours and the operator does not envision
•
nges. On the suggested conditions, condition one should be
iinated. He noted he had circulated a new recital for the resolution itself
out the Police Department's report and suggested a new sub - finding 2b.
record that is presented does not support the current 2.b finding at all.
nmissioner Hillgren discussed the newly - proposed condition 3. He
:stioned the age of an employee selling beer and wine under 21.
)uldn't there be someone at least 21 at all times in the store?
Alford answered that the ABC has a requirement that is similar to this
there are establishments where alcohol is served by people under 21.
nmissioner Hillgren stated he is okay with the hours of operation as is.
k Webster, applicant, noted the newly proposed conditions refer to a
or store. His is a wine store that has to sell a little liquor as part of the
,iness as they do deliveries for corporate functions. A majority of their
iness is wine; they do like to have liquor and would lose a fair amount of
iness without that capability. He asked that conditions 1 and 8 not be
led and that the hours remain the same as those are the hours they
e used for the past 32 years. He added that there is someone over 21
rs of age at the establishment all the time.
•
:ion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by
nmissioner Hawkins to adopt resolution approving Use Permit No. 2007
with the following changes:
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
Add a new Recital: WHEREAS, the Police Department has advised
that Reporting District 26 has a lower concentration of ABC licenses
than the surrounding Reporting Districts and is not in an area where
the number of crimes are 75% higher than all City Reporting DistrictE
• and has not reported any calls for service at the applicant's current
location;
Add the new sub - finding 2b: The principal uses of the specialty retai
wine store will not be detrimental to the site or to the community
based upon information received at the hearing and information
provided by the Police Department.
following conditions of approval:
Applicant shall post signage precluding consumption of alcoholic
beverages on site and precluding loitering;
At least one employee on duty shall be at least 21 years of age;
There will be no coin operated amusement devices or video games
on the premises;
Applicant will secure the premises with appropriate security lighting
and employee scrutiny of the adjacent areas over which the
applicant has control to preclude trash, graffiti or littering and any
lighting under the control of the applicant shall be directed in such a
manner so as not to unreasonably interfere with the quiet enjoyment
of neighbors. Applicant shall further provide adequate lighting above
the entrance to the premises sufficient in strength to make visible the
identity and actions of all persons entering and exiting the premises;
•The applicant shall maintain free of litter all areas of the premises
under which applicant has control;
Any graffiti shall be painted over within 72 hours of discovery thereof.
Ayes: I Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
(Noes: None
I
Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196)
201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place
application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment
Iding and a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit
Itiple- family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking
a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard
I Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan
I Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet)
uld be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from
)- family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes a
tative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace' condominium units for
ividual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests the
:roachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and
e yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit
wcation relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate -
e e households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and,
refore, no replacement of affordable housing is required.
Campbell, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report and
ITEM NO. 3
PA2005 -196
Recommended
for approval by
City Council
Page 3 of 21
file: / /F: \Users\PLN \5hared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 4 of 21
-cap of the project description. He noted the project has been changed
id re- designed to pull the project up and away from the ocean which is
meficial to find the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan.
,ianges to the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made and that •
rcument has been re- circulated for public review. The issue left for
;termination is the predominant line of existing development. This
dablishes the line to which the project could be built as seaward of that
ie would be inconsistent with policy and represent a significant
wironmental effect. He then noted the variety of methods to define the
edominant line of development (PLOD) based upon definition contained
thin the Coastal Land Use Plan.
)mmissioner Hawkins noted the definition of the predominant line of
;velopment on page 5 -19 of the CLUP. We are dealing with the
edominant line of "existing" development. Is that phraseology a defined
rm in the Local Coastal Plan?
r. Campbell answered no, the definition is predominant line of
:velopment, and the word "existing" comes from Policy 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -
He also noted that the definition in the CLUP contains an example
dicating that the median distance of a block of homes from a
presentative point or line might be the predominant line of existing
:velopment.
r. Campbell went on to explain that-staff s position on what the
edominant Line of eistin. development means has changed since " the
for report was published. In the prior report staff indicated that the •
edominant line of existing development is the maximum building envelo
at could be developed and the general_policies to minimize alteration of
e bluff or the protection of public views or the protection of the visual
iality of the,coast could lead to further limiting development, within the
edominant line of existing develocment =staff does not support this
pIieation of polio) Staff believes that the applicant would have the right to
gild tothe predominant line of existing development however the
entification of the redominant line of existing development. must be done
insistent-with the oeneral resource protection policies.
aff believes that the median distance, once determined, is the starting
rint for analysis. In this application, staff used mean sea level as the
immon reference line for measurement. He went on to explain the
dculation of the median distance for a block of homes on a bluff face and
e level of subjectivity involved in the analysis.
)mmissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the methodology to
dermine the median.predomin_ant line of existing development and its
tential inconsistency with the intent of the more general policies. He asked how
resolve the question.
r. Campbell answered that once a candidate predominant line of existing •
velopment is identified, it must be compared to the existing development
ittern to see if it is consistent. If a potential line is not representative of the
)ck of homes being analyzed, the method by which the line was identified
flawed. If that flawed line was used and if development was sited in
file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning COnunission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
ordance with the line (assuming the line allowed more development
) the existing development pattern), the development would not be
sistent with the general policies to minimize alteration of the bluff and to
�ct the scenic and visual qualities of the coast. You will need to look at
e various factors in identifying the predominant line of existing
elopment. After consultation with the City Attorney, staff believes that
applicant has the right to build to the predominant line of existing
elopment given the specific nature of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9.
_Hawkins asked if there isa conflict between the two aolicies when a
:dominant line of existig development is identified that is representative
the existing devel_wment attern and also conflicts with the mor__ a genera
jource_protectton. olicies.
kssistant City Attorney Harp added the primary way to look at the
redominant line of development is by first focusing on the definition of the
redominant line of development, which says it is the most common
- presentative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified
oint or line. You are not bound by the examples given of median distance
/hen you determine the predominant line of development. Look at the
tructures on either side in determining what the predominant line of
evelopment is. This is an independent analysis done in conjunction with
ie policies. Since there are various ways to determine the predominant
ne of development, you can take a liberal view towards it or you can take e
onservative view towards what the predominant line of development is.
'ou are looking overall for a reasonableness of what the predominant line
JWvelopment is because they have a right to develop up to that
ominant line of development. If you took the general policies and
pplied those and said that was the rule, then you would have to apply the
lost conservative policy available and I don't think that is the intent of
iese policies. You are looking for reasonableness in setting the
redominant line of development based on the other structures.
:k Julian, applicant, gave an overview of his project noting the
hitectural features, the building will not extend down to the water and will
30 1/2 feet above the water line; view corridor has been pulled back on
corner of Ocean and Carnation; large portion of the property is single
ry height along Carnation to guarantee those views; majority of square
tage is underground and out of sight; endorsed by Coast Keepers; the
itours of the bluff are matched with heights ranging from 29 feet to 44
t on level one of the building. Levels two and three have been pulled
;k 15 feet on unit 7 to match that contour of the bluff. He is committed to
> project.
Jeannette, architect on the project, noted:
No variance on this project;
Requesting two minor modifications to setbacks;
Project conforms to the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use
Plan;
It is a lessening of density in the number of units on site from 15 to
Utilizing 26% of the site with 74% of the site left as open space;
Project has a 1,700 square foot larger footprint than the existing
building;
Page 5 of 21
fil e : / /F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 6 of 21
Parking exceeds Code requirements and project area is at 76,000
square feet with most of it not visible;
The project has been raised 18 inches with an elevation of 30.5;
The MND has been re- circulated;
Unit 7 was backed up from its promontory 15 feet, not 6 feet as
•
mentioned in the staff report;
This project will be LEED compliant, having to do with energy
conservation, green architecture, net metering, water retention
systems, materials used in project and landscape materials;
Mr. Jeannette made a PowerPoint presentation identifying the site,
Channel Reef Condominiums (2525 Ocean Blvd.) with parking
structure, the McIntosh residence (2495 Ocean Blvd.) and the
Sprague residence (101 Bayside Place) as well as what is on the
project site presently.
Public views from Carnation, Dahlia and by Channel Reef
Condominiums are being preserved;
Construction Management Plan - removing 31,000 cubic yards of
dirt; parking plan will shuttle workers to site; timing of operation will
not interfere with beach users; haul route reviewed and accepted in
the MND. The haul route was reviewed and discussed.
r. Campbell noted that the haul route suggested by the applicant was not
acessarily endorsed by staff. Traffic Engineer does not want to use Iris
ireet as it is very narrow with the left turns and multiple stop signs. Staff
)es have concerns with that route.
ommissioner Hawkins noted that the Public Works Department will have
•
e final authority on which haul route is used. Staff agreed and referred to
>ndition 104.
r. Jeannette continued with his slide presentation and discussed where
e building would be put along the coast line and how the setbacks are
>tablished. This was the same presentation as made at a previous
eeting on February 22nd, 2007. He then noted that the Coastal
ommission had given their input on the homes that had been built on the
)astal bluff as depicted in the slides. He reviewed the site and noted the
ategorical exclusion portions. Exhibits depicting the Kerchoff Laboratory
A Channel Reef Condominium construction were discussed. He then
scussed the project and how it fits in with the surrounding residences.
eferencing an exhibit of a photograph of the bluff from the West, he noted
Magenta line representing the limit line that might be established by The
oastal Commission based on the lowest line of development. Another
•een line depicts the lowest portion of livable space from the McIntosh
sidence. They used the 30.5 elevation for the west side facing slopes
id climbing up to the 59 foot elevation moving towards and onto the
>rtherly slope. Referring to the exhibits, he discussed the various
lationships of the project on both the northerly and westerly sides. He
included by asking the Commission to define the predominant line of
welopment as a single elevation.
•
ommissioner Hawkins asked about and received information on the
ategorical Exclusion zone and what is it's import and how it works.
iblic comment was opened.
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
McCaffrey, President of the Board of Directors at Channel Reef
nmunity Association, representing the members noted their support of
project. He noted in their three -level building parking structure with 48
ential units with two cars each plus service vehicles, there has never
a problem with a queue of cars waiting to get in. Additionally, there
three names listed on a petition that had been circulated with a Channe
of address and those names and do not appear on their telephone list
in their residents' directory.
a Edwards, read a letter from John Martin noting his land development
construction plan concerns which was attached to the packet of
'mation distributed to the public and Commissioners.
Martin read her letter of opposition to the project. This letter was
ed to the packet of information distributed to the public and
Hunsaker noted his acceptance of the project. He noted that
ors who work in tight spaces can work around these types of
He suggested conditioning the project as such.
iel Millikan noted his support of the project as it will be an
vement as the current development is an eyesore. This will be a
improvement with new landscaping and architectural plan.
Rosenblath read a letter from John and Kathleen McIntosh. They
to the project and sent previous letters to the City and the applicant.
lter is part of the administrative record.
Rasner noted his support of the project noting the number of parking
s, units, view corridors, tax base, underground utilities, shuttling
,ers to the site and the outreach done by the applicant and the City.
Moore appeared in support of the project.
Varon appeared in support of the project noting the public outreach
ie by the applicant.
Dawson appeared in support of the project noting the unique
ecture of the proposed project and the development right of the
i Beek noted the line of development should be where the bluff used to
which is about ten feet behind (horizontal) where the development is
>osed. If that is done it would be out to the 50 -52 foot level on the bluff
ling to the adjacent northerly four properties which would, therefore,
.t all the criteria. This project relates to the four adjacent properties to
north and is miscellaneous to the property on the westerly side.
yn Beck noted her opposition to the project due to the size and
n. She noted a petition she had submitted that was signed by over 80
le in opposition. She requested that the project be staked to allow
le to see the enormity of the project. This project is visible from many
Page 7 of 21
file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Cormnission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 8 of 21
•eas. She asked the Commission to be responsible to the residents and
my this project.
Cott Birgy noted his support of the project.
•
)hn Michler noted his support of the project as it is aesthetically pleasing
id will be a vast improvement to what is there currently.
Wray Beck noted the Commission has to interpret the CLUP which is to
*eserve the existing bluff and bluff faces and this project does not do that.
Joking at the proposed project, you can see how the project will come
)wn the bluff face and the Commission should not give approval to it as
e project is clearly in conflict with the CLUP. The vertical line of
;velopment should also include the existing building which the architect's
•esentation did not include. The project will extend further away from the
uff than the existing line of development as noted in the staff report. He
aked that these be considered and deny this project.
sa Vallejo appeared in opposition referring to policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2,
4.1 -3 and read her letter that became part of the administrative record.
ublic comment was closed.
hairman Cole asked for clarification on specific Coastal Land Use (CLUP)
Acies vs. general policies.
ssistant City Attorney Harp stated it is our opinion that you have specific
•
nvisions that deal with development of the bluff face on Carnation Avenue
id those take precedence over general conditions that are contained in
her policies. They have the right to develop to the predominant line of
;velopment, wherever you establish that to be, in accordance with the
ftition of policies that are in place. The other policies that are more
meral in nature should also be considered; however, where there is a
rect conflict between the two, the more specific overrides the general.
ommissioner Eaton asked about Policy 4.4.3 -8 that prohibits development
ccept private development or public improvements provided in the public
;cess and permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative
Gists and when the design is constructed to minimize alteration of the
uff face. This provision refers to public improvements specifically not
;cessarily to the private development, correct? He was answered, "yes ".
e then asked if staff wants to refer to the 28 feet as the predominant line.
r. Campbell answered there are two lines that could be looked at as this is
corner property with two bluff faces intersecting at the project site. There
ay be a rational to develop one limit or predominant line on Carnation side
id a separate one on the other side. You could do it either way.
ommissioner Toerge noted his concerns as they relate to the Mitigated
•
agative Declaration (MND):
Public view at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation - it is
my contention that it is not the responsibility of this particular
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
developer to make that view wider or bigger, but I also feel it is not
approvable to allow that view corridor to be made smaller. He
thanked the applicant for the proposed modifications tonight that
respect that view;
Air quality - proposed haul route is important to consider given the
magnitude of excavation and the amount of trucks circulating
through the area for the next few years, the public needs to see that
and be given an opportunity to review;
He asked that the Construction Management Plan, Parking Plan and
haul route be brought back to the Planning Commission so the public
has the opportunity to see it.
r. Campbell, referring to a map of Corona del Mar, depicted potential and
preferred haul routes.
scussion continued on truck staging, pollution, noise, not allowing idling
trucks and requiring trucks to shut off their engines immediately when
:y come to a stop, and parking for workers' vehicles.
er Toerge asked for a straw vote on a new condition that the
management plan and haul route be reviewed by the Plann
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
oner Hawkins noted the construction parking plans should all be
by the Public Works Department.
nmissioner Hillgren asked about the process and what the neighbors
be going through.
ion Jeannette noted the haul route mentioned by staff is acceptable to th
)mmission; we will just do it. The construction management plan is best
be reviewed by Public Works and Traffic, which has been required. The
ul route we mentioned earlier was granted to a project adjacent to this
e, He noted the initial phase of the project will involve the operation of
terpillars, dump trucks, watering trucks, and street sweepers as the
cavation begins. Later the shoring process will commence and then the
indation will start. When the building is partially constructed, it will
commodate the smaller tradesmen's trucks in the proposed parking
;ility. This will probably be 12 to 16 months with excavation slated to takf
out 3 months.
nmissioner Toerge noted that this explanation is helpful and withdrew
request for a straw vote. He will be addressing further concerns on the
ditions. Referencing the MND, he noted his concern with the string line
msistencies on Ocean Boulevard as depicted on the exhibit.
ampbell noted the language related to "stringlines" is in the prior draft
MND. That language has been excised from the report as it was not
or accurate.
Cole asked about any concerns noted by EQAC needing to be
Page 9 of 21
file :HF : \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 10 of 21
ddressed by the Commission
In Lepo said there were none.
•
t Commissioner Eaton's request, Mr. Campbell opined on a comment
otter from the California Coastal Commission staff noting the comments
sere conservative and reflect a lack of understanding of the complexity of
ie project and the bluff. It talks about the aesthetic impact related to
Itering the bluff to accommodate the project. The MND makes a
inclusion that it is not a significant effect on the environment and they take
different viewpoint on that issue. The letter indicated their view that the
nalysis in the MND related to Policy 4.4.3 -8 fails to show that all feasible
Iternatives to the project were explained. It is our belief that this provision
my applies to public improvements and not to the private development.
here was another policy question as to whether 4.4.3 -8 and 9 apply as
oastal staff does not believe the project is on the coastal bluff at all. Staff
elieves it is on the coastal bluff and we have a letter from the geologist
upporting this belief.
ommissioner Hawkins noted this project is on a bluff face for which 4.4.3 -
and 9 would apply. Staff agreed.
ommissioner McDaniel noted this is one member of the Coastal
ommission staff, not the Coastal Commission. Staff agreed.
ommissioner Hawkins asked and received clarification about the lack of a
hange to the boat docks and improvements to storm -water run -off systems
•
s referred in the letter from Coastal Commission staff.
Ir. Campbell also discussed public access and the various factors to
Dnsider pursuant to CLUP pplicy when reviewing a new project. The
xisting staircase from the apartment buildin ug toj he water and then to the
xistina dock system is steep an in disrepair. To�ogra h ,safety and the
roximity to residential uses were factors_ considered and given public
ccess nearby, staff felt that public access across the site is not required.
litigated Negative Declaration (MND) items on page 51, the construction
arking plan related to construction crew parking at ano_ff -site location until
ich time that the _parkinggarage proposed can accommodate parkina on_
te,and the need to schedule grading to avoid summer months were
iscussed. These components will be added as conditions and added or
fanged in the MND.
Ir. Harp noted the MND will be re- circulated and a revised resolution was
istributed recommending approval to the City Council of the project and
(lows for this re- circulation during the time period between now and when
goes to the City Council. The reason for the re- circulation doesn't require
ew analysis. The issue stems from the basic premise that some of the
nguage in the MND was not agreed to by the applicant at the time they
.rbmitted the project, e.g., the predominant line of development. We are in
•
greement with the applicant's counsel that it should be re- circulated. The
Dmments regarding the construction crew parking and scheduling of
rading to avoid summer months could be included in the MND and re-
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC MinuteslCopy ofmn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
Discussion continued.
Campbell referred to exhibits on pages 22 and 23 of the HIND showing
view areas of the Begonia Park. This discussion is contained in the
ament concludingthat no significant impact would result to public views
1 the —ark.
_r Eaton made reference to the revised resolution presented at
:hat includes a narrative that the applicant agrees to the
line of existing development as ultimately determined by the
nmissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the contents and format of
various versions of the MND. These documents should be internally
rential and built upon each other. Each successive document should
lain the rationale for the solution to conflicts so that any decision making
y could disagree with that point and then go back to the earlier
ument. We are creating an environmental record and I do not believe
record is a clear one. Continuing, he noted Mitigation IX -5 refers to the
fominant line of development and the project shall be revised such that
principal building shall not be visible below 52 feet above mean sea
Cole then asked for discussion on the predominant line of
ant. He noted his opinion that there are two lines: one on the
ortion (Ocean Boulevard side and one on the northerly portion of
arnation Avenue). There had been a consensus of the
?n back in February on Ocean Boulevard westerly side as 29 feet
with the adjacent development.
mmissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the now adjusted number of
5 feet upon further surveys and this should now be the line for the west
ing side of the bluff. He exalained that this elevation is the elevation of
closest foundation and that the adjacent westerly develo raf nt.started
rtle transitionup from thee water_'s edge that is exhibited by the Channel
�If Condominiums.
missioner Toerge noted the property is located on Carnation Ave., not
in Boulevard. If it was located on Ocean Boulevard, it would have a
A restriction based upon.the. tgp of the curb. The adjacent garage.had
built into the bluff as it also had to be below the tom of the curb. The
s not comp _rised. of two bluffs_He noted that the predominant line of
ing development should be based upon the homes along Carnation
iue and not the structures on Ocean Boulevard as those structures
rencing the Vallejo Residence�Channel Reef and Kerchoff laborator
I not be built today As they would not be consistent with Codes or
y. Referring to an exhibit showing existing development on the bluff,
scussed the proposed development extent also pointing out that this
ct should not be given the ability to both go down the slope and above
urb height as it is on Carnation rather than Ocean Boulevard. He
i a legal lot has to be given development rights. He supports staff
emendation that this predominant line of development as it exists
a Carnation be applied to this property, which is on Carnation and not
Page 11 of 21
file: /fF: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
Ocean. He noted the red line on the photographic exhibit that
)resents 50.7 feet above me an sea level and it respects the continuation
the rp_edominant line of existing development as established on
oner Peotter indicated that the predominant line of_the coastal
>o reflected in the development along Bayside Place and the
on the photo_graphic exhibit might be appropriate _He also
that within the Cate orical exclusion zone, one could build to the
10 -foot setback and further expand the predominant. line of
avelop ent. He indicated his belief that the CLUP does not
finer Toerge noted that the CLUP is a policy document not the
aulations_TheCateaorical Exclusion zone does not exclude the
ie coastal zone or itswlicies.-The predominant. line of existing
:mt is a setback line for structures located on the bluff face and
!velopmgnt on Bayside Place is not on the same landform.. They
similar top-ographic setting nor are they on the same-street.-As
e. one would not use the developmemt.on Breakers_Drive to
the vertical extent of developme_.nt for the nearby lots on Ocean
as they are not in the same topographic setting,
>sioner.Hillgren noted that the 30.5 foot elevation of the adjacent
le Waeintosh Residence) is an appropriate line for development
eking at the development including_develo�ment further to the
t the predominant line is lower than that as it is kLii It right to the
edge.
of that there are two bluff facesfnodh and
Is
hould have a much higher predominant line
the west facing slope is lower than 30.5 feet.
Ir. Harp added that the applicant and staff had discussed the possibility of
ie predominant line below where their project is and the applicant has
freed to deed restrict the property that they would not develop in that area
the predominant line was set lower than the project.
VlcDanieel referenced. the photographic exhibit _noting that his
development on either. ide to ensure that the project
Ve do have a corner where the bluff turns with lower
the_east and higher development to_the. north _and .the
.
t from either side.
Campbell explained staffs method of calculations, median distances,
the structures not included and those included in these calculations.
noted the elevations of 59, 50.7, 42.3 on the north facing side.
tented m the_method to identiN_the
development using the median distance of
indicated that the median distance is an example_ contained within the
Page 12 of 21
E
•
0
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
iominant line of develo meat. It is a method to identi a
where it is then compared to the existn development
ae if itmeets other resource rotection-policies and then
Hawkins asked why Ba ide Place Channel Reef and the
ato -were excluded from the calculation of the median
ided that Bayside Place was excluded as it was built in front of
i was not on the bluff face. Today,_ staff wasoresented
to suggest that 101 Bayside. Place was constructed into the toe
but staff believes Baysde Place not to be Lathe same
settinAgain today staff was presented photooraphic
of what the bluff looked like before Channel Reef was
and staff now believes this development should be considered
lcation of the predominant. line of existing development_
nple is.prol: ematic in that is could evolve into a standard. The
policy is to -protect ft bluff by iimitin deve Io ment to e within the
Onant line of existing development and the protections contained
lot lower than 50.3 feet
L.
Rmissiener Eaton commented that the west fecing_blutf 30.5 feet MSL is
ropriate as. it continues the transitional elevation change from the tower
Cations of the Macintosh residence to h�her elevations to the north. He
it on to explain that he felt that this was a unique site that 'tarns the
ier" from a lower. PLOED, based on Ocean Boulevard development to a
ier PPLOED based on Carnation Avenue development. The median
cation of 50.7 is one value tthe median) in a rang e of values_ and that
tthe prior design modifications made by the,applicant to pull in the
:reation Room and Unit 7 footprint and to cause a rising bluff face along
northerly elevation by bloekingoff.some of the lower. level windows
japreyiousjy exposed even up to an elevation of 59' at the northeast
ier of the development (which is higher even, than the staff
)mmended PLOED on Carnation Avenue of 50.7'x, that the project had
ceededjr his.opinion, in establishing o.tr_ansitionaL PLOED that
afied the re uirements of the Cm's CLUP between the 3-0— .5e levation on
east to the higher elevations on Carnation Avenue.
Campbell noted that with the Channel Reef condominium project
ided in staffs calculation, the median now becomes 49.4 feet above
a potential
- the red
Page 13 of 21
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 14 of 21
)mmissioner Eaton a rg eed with this balancing - approach and he noted
at it was a factor in his transitional predominant line of existing
.velopment appf0ach.
�mmisaioner H gren asked for clarification Commissioner Eaton •
iicated that-the transition he was thinking of is smoother than a vertical
:p froma.5 to 50.7 MSL�Commissioner Hillgren indicated his.su ort
r the reen line ro sed project/bluff interface line and also indicated
at he was unsure ofwhere the predominant line of existing development
Luld be,
)mmissioner McDaniel noted the uredominant line of existing
yelp pment does not have to be a straight line. He asked staff for
irification.
r. Alford added that this project is the first major discretionary project
iming through with this issue and is a setting where the predominant line
not easily applied because we are dealing with a corner point and a
ember of development patterns that are in different topographic settings,
r example, the development on Bayside Place, Channel Reef and on
arnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Applying the concept of the
edominant line is somewhat difficult in this situation. We recognized that
)rona del Mar in general and this area in particular was going to be
imewhat more difficult than the other areas of the City where we
�tablished the predominant line of development, around Upper Newport
ay, Cameo Shores and in Shorecliff, etc. It was decided that the best way
handle that was on a project by project basis and to develop some sort of
sidelines on which you could view them and take those into
,nsideration. It was also stated that no matter what methodology was
,ed to establish the predominant line of development, ultimately it is going
be the decision makers looking at an exhibit and deciding where that lip
appropriate. There is nothing that says it has to be a straight line as
are will be a certain level of subjectivity and judgment in applying it,
irticularly in this complex topographic setting.
>mmissioner McDaniel noted that for the City to have the best project
issible, it is within our discretion to make the line curve or whatever we
ted to make those two separate areas meet and make a nice project.
Alford noted that sometimes you have to ignore the mathematics and
eke a judgment call on how that line best fits all of the policies that are
der consideration.
)mmissioner McDaniel thanked Mr. Alford. I I
)mmissioner Peotter asked how the Commission would reference the line
i the exhibit as the one that was approved.
Harp answered that you could approve it with the elevations that are in
s plans and say that is the predominant line of development. If you want
pick something that is lower than that, you could set up the predominant
e of development that is lower and approve the project; if you wanted to,
u could deed restrict the area in between as the applicant agreed to.
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
immissioner Hawkins noted the reason for the deed restriction is a build -
line of development and so we would want to prohibit development
tween the approved line (project line) and the predominant line of
jWng development.
r. Harp answered it would also help to support the policies in that you are
otecting the coastal bluffs to the maximum amount feasible by having a
edominant line that is below that and the deed restriction would help to
otect that portion of the bluff below the project and above the line.
imissioner Hawkins noted his concern of approving this project with a
le bound predominant line of development as the City needs a specific
and the applicant and general public need a specific line so everybody
Ns where this thing is going. While I support bluff face protection, I
t see how the Local Coastal Plan as currently drafted and approved
ides such protection.
Cole asked if there were any other_uestons or comments
the predominant line of existing devetopn nt. Nonewere
there were aWdesign concerns.
imissioner Eaton noted that this project is unusual and will be unique.
City does not dictate architecture and it is beyond our purview.
nissioner Hawkins asked if the interim design_policies effective April
were applicable and he was answered nos that ordinance only
:d to single and iwo- family. residential ro'ects..
rman Cole noted this project is under the density that this site could be
to and there is no variance, only a modification for an encroachment
is subterranean.
Campbell answered the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan
licies have a higher density range. This project is well within those
nsity ranges. The Zoning Code has more strict limit and allows a
sximum 9 units, which is what we have before us in this project. The
posed project is consistent with all regulatory documents in terms of
nsit . The project complies with all development standards with the
ception of the encroachments for the front yard setback which is wholly
bterranean and the sideyard setback encroachments most of which are
bterranean but there is a single story encroachment that is a small area
the building. Staff feels the findings for the Modification Permit can be
Eaton_ noted is sup"ort for the prgp sed encroachments
sioner Eaton noted possible parking issues with the vehicle
concept and queuing. He noted that the traffic analysis prepared
V cant didnot address the issue of vehicle access or potential
He stated he would be able to find this consistent with the
Page 15 of 21
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 16 of 21
Dirculation Element and CLUP policies. He noted that the Conditions,
,ovenants and Restrictions (CC and R's) have to say that the members are
'equired to park in their garages and they cannot be used for other •
)urposes.
Ur. Harp suggested adding a condition that the CC and R's be recorded as
rueli as to require the homeowners and /or association to maintain the
)roperty and lifts in operation as well as the other conditions and
andscaping.
Ar. Campbell noted that conditions 26s 27 & 28 rovide restrictions on the
ase of parking butdo not include these restrictions in the CC &Rs.
Commissioner Toerge noted General Plan Policy CE7.1.1 which requires
)ew development provide adequate and convenient parking for residents,
)uests and visitors. Adequate parking is provided, but is it convenient?
Vot only for residents, but guests and visitors. Each unit is required to
)rovide 2 cars of parking for residents and 1/2 car per unit for guests; with
line units, the project has to provide 4 112 cars for parking for guests and
he Code requires rounding up, so the project is required to provide 5 cars
A guest parking that is convenient. On the ground level there are three
)uest parking spaces and the other two are to be used through access to
he elevator. Further, with such large storage units in the basement, users
mill be inclined to back into the vehicle elevators so that the rear of the
iehicle will be oriented toward the storage side of the basement. A resident
hat pulls a car or truck into the vehicle elevator in a forward manner and •
)roceeds to the storage area will then be required to off -load their vehicle
)n the opposite side of the storage area, requiring that they maneuver
hemselves and their storage items between the vehicle elevator wall and
he side of the vehicle. Practically speaking, the design will compel
)asement storage users to back into the elevators at street level where
here is no queuing area or other accommodation for such backing
naneuver. Of course, while the user is off - loading, the vehicle elevator will
)e tied up and not available for use by other residents or guests. Also, in
;very day use, given the time it will take for a resident to access the vehicle
;levator, lower their vehicle to the proper level, exit the elevator and
naneuver in tight quarters to their garage and repeat the same in reverse
o exit the garage, I believe the parking arrangement is not "convenient" as
• equired by General Plan Policy CE 7.1.1. To the contrary, I find the parking
;onfiguration to be "inconvenient" for residents, visitors and guests.
Mon Jeannette noted is opinion that people,.wi11 not be able to drive a, car
nto the lowest level as items to be taken to that level will be brought there
in small carts or a golf, card�He then explained the mechanism and
)peration of the lifts adding that the two other guest parking spaces at other
evels might be for family members who are visiting those households, and
would be specifically -granted access to those levels.
Dommissioner Toerge noted his belief . that the five guest spaces be •
;onveniently located without having to use the elevators. He then noted his
;oncern about the large subterranean storage areas and the use of the
;levators as beinq inconvenient.
file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
Jeannette answered unless you are keyed for access, you will not be
to do this. He then explained the use of a cart or dolly for
sportation, elevator use and the use of storage by the residents.
will be an increase in parkin
continued on the placement and use of the guest parking.
-man Cole then asked for any changes or modifications to the
itions by the Planning Commission.
McDaniel, noted that:
18, regarding a performance bond on completion of shoring and
walls should be require completion for the whole project.
on was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by
missioner Hillgren, to approve the project per staffs recommended
ution with Exhibit D as amended and including the following:
7inant line of development - use the "blue" line on the elevation
(23ft up to 42ft)
5sioner Eaton noted this would require a deed restriction and
led using the "green" line which transitions from 30.5' at the
9st corner of the project, to 59' at the northeast corner. There was
sus to use the "green" line. The maker of the motion agreed and
includes.
rinant line of development - the "green" line on the elevation exhibit.
was a consensus.
was consensus on the following conditions:
Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy
summer season and a portion of a nearby parking lot to be leased
for the use of the construction crew parking;
Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly- revised submitted plan
(Exhibit Z);
Condition 30 - Re -word as, "Idling of construction vehicles and
equipment shag be limited to the extent feasible. Construction
vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and
maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in
use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps,
etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be
is prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted by law."
Condition 8 - Completion bond for the entire project.
Jeannette brought up the issue of irrigation and stated that there are
Page 17 of 21
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 18 of 21
I conditions that they cannot do. He asked that staff work with them.
Mr. Campbell noted the use of the word permanent and indicated that only
emporary irrigation may be used on the bluff face to re- establish the •
plantings that would occur and staff will make those corrections to be
was consensus on the following conditions:
Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning
Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation
system where allowed by Code.
Condition 26 - add, "The location of the generator be approved
by the Planning Director and shall be sound attenuated."
Add new condition or amend condition 27- CC and R's be recorded
to require that the Homeowner's Association maintain the property
and lifts in operative condition, landscaping and other improvements
in compliance with the conditions. The City Attorney's office shall
approve the CC and R's.
Harp noted that the City would not be enforcing the CC and R's but
Id give a private cause of action to a party to that contract.
nmissioner Hawkins asked that the CC and R's require residents to park •
r vehicles in their garage.
Harp confirmed that could be added if the residents agree.
Jeannette agreed to this and to condition that garages not be used as
age rooms.
McDaniel noted a lot of people have more than two
continued.
Peotter amended his motion as follows:
Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage
for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garage;
maintain elevators in good working order, visitors' spaces shall
not be used for continual parking.
Add condition to prohibit the conversion of the common areas to
exclusive residential use by residents in the future.
Jeannette referring to Condition 8 suggested a phasing situation
ormance bond to be reduced in 25% increments commensurate with
;mental building completion.
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
Campbell noted Condition 8 as currently worded would include the
oration of the excavations if the project doesn't go to completion, we
Id restore it back to its condition as opposed to building and finishing tt
�ct. Removing the improvements and filling the hole back in would be
h smaller bond and that is what we thought was appropriate if the
ect should fail in the middle.
Jeannette suggested doing 100% of the project with release in 25%
and Commission agreed.
1 Paone, land use counsel for the applicant, noted the suggestion would
to bond for the entire construction of the shell and release that in 25%
rements to completion of shell with a new bond for the interior work.
Jeannette defined the shell as being the parking structure, the
elope, roofs, windows, etc. so that the concrete and systems are in
:e. The finish work for the interior would be the cabinetry, bathroom
Tres. etc.
was agreed that Condition 8 shall refer to 100% of the shell cost and
ilease in 25% increments.
Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette, representing the applicant, agreed
e conditions and amendments as discussed. He noted that one
ition related to the 5 -foot easement for a sewer line which is five feet
ay from the property and asked if that can be worked out with Public
Lepo noted they can administratively find conformity with that
ndition.
ioner Peotter noted the motion is the resolution that was
d tonight with the modification on the Mitigated Negative
an to modify Mitigation Measure 15 -1 to include those two items
i grading to avoid summer season and the shuttling of constructi
and:
Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly revised submitted plan
(Exhibit Z).
Condition 8 - add, shall refer to 100% of the shell cost and
release at 25% increment per the Building official.
Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning
Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation
system where allowed by Code.
Condition 26 - add, "The location of the emergency generator be
approved by the Planning Director and shall be sound
attenuated. "
Page 19 of 21
file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
Condition 30 - Re -word as, "Idling of construction vehicles and
equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction
vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and
maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in
use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps,
etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be
prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted bylaw."
Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy
summer season.
Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage
for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garages;
maintain elevators in good working order; residents shall not
use visitors' spaces for continual parking.
nmissioner Toerge noted that the minor change to the project related to
view corridor will eventually be a hugely significant change in the
re. He thanked the applicant for this. He noted he has a different
lion on this project related to the predominant line of development and
: the architecture is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The
<ing situation, while novel, does not meet the Code as it is not
venient. For these reasons, he stated he would not be in support of this
Noes: Toerge
Excused: I None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
a. City- ouncii Follow -up
Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council took act
on updating the appraisal that is the basis for the Quimby Act,
park in -lie fee, and it will go from $6,894.37 to $26,125.
Report from Planning Commission's r presentative to
Development. Committee
Commissioner Hawkins reported that EDC heard a discussion on th
budget. This same presentation will be made at the upcoming Stud
Session.
Report from the Planning Commission's representative to
General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation..Committee
Commissioner Eaton reported the issues of grade, height and 1`14
area ratios were discussed. The Technical Advisory Commit
suggested possible ways to address those issues. We have refer
those suggestions to staff and the consulting team for their review.
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm
Page 20 of 21
•
•
•
06/22/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
d. Report from the Plannin Commission's reMsen tative to th
Intensive Residential Occupancy Committee
Commissioner Toerge noted there had been no meeting. Mr. Harp
• added that there are proposed changes to group residential an
short-term lodging that will go to Council next week.
e. Matters which a Plan ning Commissioner would like Staff to report or
at subsequent meeting
Commissioner Hillgren asked about the golf course at the end o
John Wayne airport. Staff answered this is not in our sphere of
influence.
f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on
future agenda for action and staff report
Mr. Lepo noted that there had been a receive and file on an issu
requested by a Commissioner. There was no discussion or decisio
made. He then explained the problems and solutions that arose wit
the owner of the project.
Commissioner Hawkins asked if the Zoning Administrator's decision
could be discussed at a future meeting. Updates will be given unde
the Project status.
Projecttatus
Mr. Lepo noted that the Albertson's parking permit procurement for
employees was lax. Code Enforcement is now involved as there are
other conditions not being honored as well. A full report will be
brought up at the next meeting.
h. Requests for excused absences
None.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m.
DJOURNMENT
ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
•
Page 21 of 21
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.1atm 06/22/2007