HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes 051707Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
• May 17, 2007
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Pagel of 22
off.
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
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
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 3,200T
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 2
PA2007-0 -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).
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 2 of 22
ssell Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report.
blic com a a opened.
� � �
lic4orTRhns
b a closed.
•
mmissloner Peotter discussed an exhibit of sample conditions that had
:n 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
:ration with the understanding that a regular corner liquor market would
nt hours late in the evening.
mmissioner 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.
mmissioner Hawkins noted the operator is currently at a different
ation; what are his hours now?
Bunim answered they are the same as proposed in the staff report.
mmissioner Hawkins suggested there is no reason to provide hour
cibility as these are the current hours and the operator does not envision
inges. On the suggested conditions, condition one should be
•
ninated. He noted he had circulated a new recital for the resolution itself
)ut the Police Department's report and suggested a new sub - finding 2b.
E) record that is presented does not support the current 2.b finding at all.
mmissioner Hillgren discussed the newly - proposed condition 3. He
astioned the age of an employee selling beer and wine under 21.
ouldn'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.
mmissioner Hillgren stated he is okay with the hours of operation as is.
:k Webster, applicant, noted the newly proposed conditions refer to a
for 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
Jed and that the hours remain the same as those are the hours they
ie used for the past 32 years. He added that there is someone over 21
irs of age at the establishment all the time.
•
tion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by
mmissioner Hawkins to adopt resolution approving Use Permit No. 2007-
1 with the following changes:
file : / /F: \Users\PLMShared\PIanning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy ofmn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
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 Districts
and has not reported any calls for service at the applicant's current
location;
Arid the new sub - finding 2b: The principal uses of the specialty retail
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
None
McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
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
J Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan
J 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
ation relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate -
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 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy ofmn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 4 of 22
-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
:neficial to find the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan.
ranges to the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made and that •
icument has been re- circulated for public review. The issue left for
termination is the predominant line of existing development. This
,tablishes the line to which the project could be built as seaward of that
e would be inconsistent with policy and represent a significant
ivironmental 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
Jicating that the median distance of a block of homes from a
presentative point or line might be the predominant line of existing
ivelopment.
r. Campbell went on to explain that staffs position on what the
edominant line of existing 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 envelop
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 development — staff does not support this
�plication of policy. Staff believes that the applicant would have the right to
iild to the predominant line of existing development; however, the
:ntification of the predominant line of existing development must be done
insistent with the general resource protection policies.
aff believes that the median distance, once determined, is the starting
pint for analysis. In this application, staff used mean sea level as the
mmon reference line for measurement. He went on to explain the
Iculation of the median distance for a block of homes on a bluff face and
e level of subjectivity involved in the analysis.
)mmissioner awkins noted his concern with the methodology to
Aermine the redominant line of existing development and its potential
=sistency with the intent of the more general policies. He asked how to resolve
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 Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/14/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
ordance with the line (assuming the line allowed more development
i 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
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 is a conflict between the two policies when a
dominant line of existing development is identified that is representative
the existing development pattern and also conflicts with the more general
Source protection policies.
sistant City Attorney Harp added the primary way to look at the
;dominant line of development is by first focusing on the definition of the
;dominant line of development, which says it is the most common
7resentative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified
int or line. You are not bound by the examples given of median distance
ien you determine the predominant line of development. Look at the
uctures on either side in determining what the predominant line of
velopment is. This is an independent analysis done in conjunction with
policies. Since there are various ways to determine the predominant
Wf development, you can take a liberal view towards it or you can take
ervative view towards what the predominant line of development is.
)u are looking overall for a reasonableness of what the predominant line
development is because they have a right to develop up to that
Ddominant line of development. If you took the general policies and
plied those and said that was the rule, then you would have to apply the
ost conservative policy available and 1 don't think that is the intent of
ase Gede•See4a" policies. You are looking for reasonableness in settinc
predominant line of development based on the other structures.
ck Julian, applicant, gave an overview of his project noting the
chitectural 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
s comer of Ocean and Carnation; large portion of the property is single
ory height along Carnation to guarantee those views; majority of square
otage is underground and out of sight; endorsed by Coast Keepers; the
ntours of the bluff are matched with heights ranging from 29 feet to 44
at on level one of the building. Levels two and three have been pulled
ick 15 feet on unit 7 to match that contour of the bluff. He is committed to
is 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
Page 5 of 22
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 6 of 22
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;
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
1cessarily endorsed by staff. Traffic Engineer does not want to use Iris
:reet as it is very narrow with the left turns and multiple stop signs. Staff •
)es have concerns with that route.
:)mmissioner Hawkins noted that the Public Works Department will have
e final authority on which haul route is used. Staff agreed and referred to
mdition 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
:)mmission had given their input on the homes that had been built on the
iastal bluff as depicted in the slides. He reviewed the site and noted the
itegorical exclusion portions. Exhibits depicting the Kerchoff Laboratory
id Channel Reef Condominium construction were discussed. He then
scussed the project and how it fits in with the surrounding residences.
Dferencing 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
:)astal 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
%velopment as a single elevation.
:)mmissioner Hawkins asked about and received information on the
file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
ufu
rical Exclusion zone. cuvQ
comment was opened.
McCaffrey, President of the Board of Directors at Channel Reef
ommunity Association, representing the members noted their support of
its project. He noted in their three -level building parking structure with 48
:sidential units with two cars each plus service vehicles, there has never
een a problem with a queue of cars waiting to get in. Additionally, there
re three names listed on a petition that had been circulated with a Channe
:eef address and those names and do not appear on their telephone list
or 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
oration 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
)rs who work in tight spaces can work around these types of
He suggested conditioning the project as such.
el Milliken 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.
p Rosenblath read a letter from John and Kathleen McIntosh. They
ct to the project and sent previous letters to the City and the applicant.
letter 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
le by the applicant.
Dawson appeared in support of the project noting the unique
=-cture 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
sed. If that is done it would be out to the 50 -52 foot level on the bluff
rg 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.
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Plmming Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm
Page 7 of 22
06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 8 of 22
arilyn Beck noted her opposition to the project due to the size and
;sign. She noted a petition she had submitted that was signed by over 80
%ople in opposition. She requested that the project be staked to allow
;ople to see the enormity of the project. This project is visible from many
•
eas. She asked the Commission to be responsible to the residents and
my this project.
;oft 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.
,ffrey 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
,ked 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.
iblic comment was closed.
•
hairman Cole asked for clarification on specific Coastal Land Use (CLUP)
)licies vs. general policies.
ssistant City Attorney Harp stated it is our opinion that you have specific
ovisions 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
;finition 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.
:)mmissioner 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
,ists 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.
:)mmissioner Toerge noted his concerns as they relate to the Mitigated
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
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
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.
ar 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 thi
rmmission; 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
Andation 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 tak(
out 3 months.
missioner Toerge noted that this explanation is helpful and withdrew
:quest for a straw vote. He will be addressing further concerns on the
itions. Referencing the MND, he noted his concern with the string line
isistencies on Ocean Boulevard as depicted on the exhibit.
Campbell noted the language related to "stringlines" is in the prior draft
Page 9 of 22
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 10 of 22
the MND. That language has been excised from the report as it was not
ear or accurate.
hairman Cole asked about any concerns noted by EQAC needing to be
idressed by the Commission.
r. Lepo said there were none.
a
I CommissionerAequest, Mr. Campbell opined on a comment letter from
e California Coastal Commission staff noting the comments were
mservative and reflect a lack of understanding of the complexity of the
-oject and the bluff. It talks about the aesthetic impact related to altering
e bluff to accommodate the project. The MND makes a conclusion that it
not a significant effect on the environment and they take a different
ewpoint on that issue. The letter indicated their view that the analysis in
e MND related to Policy 4.4.3 -8 fails to show that all feasible alternatives
the project were explained. It is our belief that this provision only applies
public improvements and not to the private development. There was
iother policy question as to whether 4.4.3 -8 and 9 apply as Coastal staff
)es not believe the project is on the coastal bluff at all. Staff believes it is
i the coastal bluff and we have a letter from the geologist supporting this
lief.
ommissioner Hawkins noted 1t+4s ref@w taa bluff face for which 4.4.3 -8
id 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
range to the boat docks and improvements to storm -water run -off systems
referred in the letter from Coastal Commission staff.
r. Campbell also discussed public access and the various factors to
insider pursuant to eew@#enee -CLUP policy when reviewing a new
-oject. The existing staircase from the apartment building to the water and
en to the existing dock system is steep an in disrepair. Topography,
ifety and the proximity to residential uses were factors considered and
ven public access nearby, staff felt that Staff believes (fiat " `"--- is
, public access across the site is not
squired.
itigated Negative Declaration (MND) items on page 51, the construction
irking plan related to construction crew parking at an off -site location until
ich time that the parking garage proposed can accommodate parking on-
te and the need to schedule grading to avoid summer months were
scussed. These components will be added as conditions and added or
fanged in the MND.
r. Harp noted the MND will be re- circulated and a revised resolution was •
stributed 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
file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
analysis. The issue stems from the basic premise that some of the
uage in the MND was not agreed to by the applicant at the time they
nitted the project, e.g., the predominant line of development. We are ii
ement with the applicant's counsel that it should be re- circulated. The
ments regarding the construction crew parking and scheduling of
ing to avoid summer months could be included in the MND and re-
lated. Discussion continued.
Campbell referred to exhibits on pages 22 and 23 of the MND showing
view areas of the Begonia Park. This discussion is contained in the
ument concluding that no significant impact would result to public views
n the park.
nmissioner Eaton made reference to the revised resolution presented at
meeting that includes a narrative that the applicant agrees to the
tominant line of existing development as ultimately determined by the
Council.
1mjssioner w ins noted hi ncern with the contents and format of
MMNND. "Cheats ou a in erna ly referential and built upon each other.
h successive document should explain the rationale for the solution to
nicts so that any decision making body could disagree with that point
then go back to the earlier document. We are creating an
ronmental record and I do not believe it is a clear one. Continuing, he
.d Mitigation IX -5 refers to the predominant line of development and the
ect shall be revised such that the principal building shall not be visible
Iry 52 feet above mean sea level.
iairman Cole then asked for discussion on the predominant line of
�velopment. He noted his opinion that there are two lines: one on the
%sterly portion (Ocean Boulevard side)_and one on the northerly portion
the site (Carnation Avenue)erdes. There had been a consensus of the
rmmission back in February on Ocean Boulevard westerly side as 29 fe
inciding with the adjacent development.
nmissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the now adjusted number of
i feet upon further surveys and this should now be the line for the west
ng side of the bluff. He explained that this elevation is the elevation of
closest foundation and that the adjacent westerly development started
tle transition up from the water's edge that is exhibited by the Channel
ff Condominiums.
Page 11 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 12 of 22
;ommissioner Toerge noted the property is located on Carnation Ave., not
)cean Boulevard. If it was located on Ocean Boulevard, it would have a
ieight restriction of -based upon the top of the curb height. The adjacent
garage had to be built into the bluff as it also had to be below the top of the •
;urb. The site is not comprised of two bluffs. He noted that the predominant
ine of existing development that- should dietate the pFejeeH&4wfeetbe
)ased upon the homes along Carnation Avenue and not the structures on
Xean Boulevard as those structures (referencing the Vallejo Residence,
channel Reef and Kerchoff laboratory) could not be built today as they
vould not be consistent with Codes or Policy. Referring to an exhibit
showing existing development on the bluff, he discussed the proposed
ievelopment extent also pointing out that this project should not be given
he ability to both go down the slope and above the curb height as it is on
samation rather than Ocean Boulevard. He noted a legal lot has to be
liven development rights. He supports staff recommendation that this
) redominant line of development as it exists along Carnation be applied to
his property, which is on Carnation and not on Ocean. He noted the red
ine on the photographic exhibit that represents 50.7 feet above median sea
evel eleaet+en -and it respects the continuation of the predominant line of
misting development as established on Carnation Avenue.teeEtt►at-it-"
slet�
,ommissioner Peotter indicated that the predominant line of the coastal
cone is also reflected in the development along Bayside Place and the
)urple line on the photographic exhibit might be appropriate. He also
ndicated that within the Categorical exclusion zone, one could build to the •
ninimum 10 -foot setback and further expand the predominant line of
;xisting development. He indicated his belief that the CLUP does not
effectively communicate its intent.
,ommissioner Toerge noted that the CLUP is a policy document not the
specific regulations. The Categorical Exclusion zone does not exclude the
site from the coastal zone or its policies. The predominant line of existing
ievelopment is a setback line for structures located on the bluff face and
hat the development on Bayside Place is not on the same landform. They
ere not in a similar topographic setting nor are they on the same street. As
in example, one would not use the development on Breakers Drive to
ietermine the vertical extent of development for the nearby lots on Ocean
3oulevard as they are not in the same topographic setting.
,ommissioner Hillgren noted that the 30.5 foot elevation of the adjacent
esidence (Macintosh Residence) is an appropriate line for development,
)ut in looking at the development, including development further to the
southeast, the predominant line is lower than that as it is built right to the
vater's edge.
.hairman Cole noted is belief that there are two bluff faces (north and
vest). The north facing slope should have a much higher predominant line
A existing development and the west facing slope is lower than 30.5 feet. •
f ile : //F: \Users\PLMShared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
r. Harp added that the applicant and staff had discussed the possibility of
e predominant line below where their project is and the applicant has
)reed to deed restrict the property that they would not develop in that area
the predominant line was set lower than the project.
iissioner McDaniel referenced the photographic exhibit noting that his
to use the development on either side to ensure that the project
s sense. We do have a corner where the bluff turns with lower
)pment to the east and higher development to the north and the
1 should fit 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.
Hawkins commented on the method to identify the
line of existing development using the median distance of
f indicated that the median distance is an example contained within the
iition of predominant line of development. It is a method to identify a
for analysis where it is then compared to the existing development
ern first to see if it meets other resource protection policies and then it i.
spared to the proposed project.
Ooner Hawkins asked why Bayside Place, Channel Reef and the
laboratory were excluded from the calculation of the median
aff responded that Bayside Place was excluded as it was built in front of
s bluff and was not on the bluff face. Today, staff was presented
'ormation to suggest that 101 Bayside Place was constructed into the toe
the bluff, but staff believes Bayside Place not to be in the same
pographic setting. Again, today staff was presented photographic
`ormation of what the bluff looked like before Channel Reef was
nstructed and staff now believes this development should be considered
the identification of the predominant line of existing development.
immissioner Hawkins commented that the use of the median distance as
ample is problematic in that is could evolve into a standard. The
nt policy is to protect the bluff by limiting development to be within the
:dominant line of existing development and the protections contained
:hin Policy 4.4.3 -12 are built -in to the identification of the predominant lin(
existing development. The trend with this bluff a lot lower than 50.3 feet
Page 13 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy ofmn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 14 of 22
above MSL
I
ommissioner Eaton commented that the west facing bluff 30.5 feet MSL is
appropriate as it continues the transitional elevation change from the lower •
elevations of the Macintosh residence to higher elevations to the north. He
+vent on to explain that he felt that this was a unique site that "turns the
-orner" from a lower PLOED, based on Ocean Boulevard development to a
iigher PLOED, based on Carnation Avenue development. The median
elevation of 50.7 is one value (the median) in a range of values; and that,
mith the prior design modifications made by the applicant to pull in the
Recreation Room and Unit 7 footprint, and to cause a rising bluff face along
the northerly elevation by blocking off some of the lower level windows that
mere previously exposed, even up to an elevation of 59' at the northeast
-omer of the development (which is higher, even, than the staff
•ecommended PLOED on Carnation Avenue of 50.7'), that the project had
Succeeded, in his opinion, in establishing a transitional PLOED that
satisfied the requirements of the City's CLUP between the 30.5 elevation on
:he east to the higher elevations on Carnation Avenue.
Mr. Campbell noted that with the Channel Reef condominium project
ncluded in staffs calculation, the median now becomes 49.4 feet above
VISL.
',hairman Cole asked if preserved bluff areas above a potential
predominant line of existing development (50.7 feet above MSL — the red
ine on the photograph) could be balanced against developed areas below
be line and be consistent with policy. Staff answered that it could be
-easonable approach.
;,ommissioner Eaton agreed with this balancing approach and he noted
:hat it was a factor in his transitional predominant line of existing
ievelopment approach.
Dommissioner Hillgren asked for clarification Commissioner Eaton
ndicated that the transition he was thinking of is smoother than a vertical
Step from 30.5 to 50.7 MSL. Commissioner Hillgren indicated his support
br the green line (proposed project/bluff interface line) and also indicated
:hat he was unsure of where the predominant line of existing development •
mould be.
:,ommissioner McDaniel noted 949 -the predominant line of existing
ievelopment does not have to be a straight line. He asked staff for
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
Alford added that this project is the first major discretionary project
ng through with this issue and is a setting where the predominant line
t easily applied because we are dealing with a comer point and a
amber of development patterns that are in different topographic settings,
example, the development on Bayside Place, Channel Reef and on
)oration Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Applying the concept of the
sdominant line is somewhat difficult in this situation. We recognized that
)rona del Mar in general and this area in particular was going to be
mewhat more difficult than the other areas of the City where we
tablished the predominant line of development, around Upper Newport
ty, 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 o1
idelines 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 line
appropriate. There is nothing that says it has to be a straight line as
;re will be a certain level of subjectivity and judgment in applying it,
rticularly in this complex topographic setting.
nissioner McDaniel noted that for the City to have the best project
ble, it is within our discretion to make the line curve or whatever we
to make those two separate areas meet and make a nice project.
Ford noted that sometimes you have to ignore the mathematics and
a judgment call on how that line best fits all of the policies that are
consideration.
McDaniel thanked Mr. Alford.
mmissioner Peotter asked how the Commission would reference the line
the exhibit as the one that was approved.
Harp answered that you could approve it with the elevations that are in
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
s 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.
mmissioner 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
isting development.
Harp answered it would also help to support the policies in that you are
ecting the coastal bluffs to the maximum amount feasible by having a
lominant line that is below that and the deed restriction would help to
ct that portion of the bluff below the project and above the line.
iissioner Hawkins noted his concern of approving this project with a
bound predominant line of development as the City needs a specific
Page 15 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 16 of 22
ine and the applicant and general public need a specific line so everybody
<nows where this thing is going.
3hairman Cole asked if there were any other questions or comments •
•egarding the predominant line of existing development. None were
)resented
;ommissioner Cole asked if there were any design concerns.
,ommissioner Eaton noted that this project is unusual and will be unique.
The City does not dictate architecture and it is beyond our purview.
,ommissioner Hawkins asked if the interim design policies effective April 1,
2007 were applicable and he was answered no as that ordinance only
applied to single and two- family residential projects.
chairman Cole noted this project is under the density that this site could be
quilt to and there is no variance, only a modification for an encroachment
:hat is subterranean.
blr. Campbell answered the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan
aolicies have a higher density range. This project is well within those
tensity ranges. The Zoning Code has more strict limit and allows a
naximum 9 units, which is what we have before us in this project. The
aroposed project is consistent with all regulatory documents in terms of
tensity. The project complies with all development standards with the •
exception of the encroachments for the front yard setback which is wholly
subterranean and the sideyard setback encroachments most of which are
subterranean but there is a single story encroachment that is a small area
of the building. Staff feels the findings for the Modification Permit can be
nade.
,ommissioner Eaton noted is support for the proposed encroachments
Nithin setbacks.
,ommissioner Eaton noted possible parking issues with the vehicle
Imlevator concept and queuing. He noted that the traffic analysis prepared
ay the applicant did not address the issue of vehicle access or potential
queuing. He stated he would be able to find this consistent with these
3egeieethe Circulation Element and CLUP policies. He noted that the
; onditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC and R's) have to say that the
nembers are required to park in their garages and they cannot be used for
Aher purposes.
blr. Harp suggested adding a condition that the CC and R's be recorded as
nrell as to require the homeowners and /or association to maintain the
aroperty and lifts in operation as well as the other conditions and
andscaping.
Ur. Campbell noted that conditions 26, 27 & 28 provide restrictions on the •
ise of parking but do not include these restrictions in the CC &Rs.
Commissioner Toerge noted General Plan Policy CET 1.1 which requires
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 071tm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
w development provide adequate and convenient parking for residents,
ests and visitors. Adequate parking is provided, but is it convenient?
only for residents, but guests and visitors. Each unit is required to
only 2 cars of parking for residents and 1/2 car per unit for guests; with
ie units, the project has to provide 4 1/2 cars for parking for guests and
Code requires rounding up, so the project is required to provide 5 cars
guest parking that is convenient. On the ground level there are three
est parking spaces and the other two are to be used through access to
i elevator. Further, with such large storage units in the basement, users
I be inclined to back into the vehicle elevators so that the rear of the
hicle will be oriented toward the storage side of the basement. A resident
it pulls a car or truck into the vehicle elevator in a forward manner and
)ceeds to the storage area will then be required to off -load their vehicle
the opposite side of the storage area, requiring that they maneuver
;mselves and their storage items between the vehicle elevator wall and
side of the vehicle. Practically speaking, the design will compel
sement storage users to back into the elevators at street level where
;re is no queuing area or other accommodation for such backing
3neuver. Of course, while the user is off - loading, the vehicle elevator will
tied up and not available for use by other residents or guests. Also, in
ery day use, given the time it will take for a resident to access the vehicle
;vator, lower their vehicle to the proper level, exit the elevator and
aneuver in tight quarters to their garage and repeat the same in reverse
exit the garage, I believe the parking arrangement is not "convenient" as
quired by General Plan Policy CE 7.1.1. To the contrary, I find the parking
aguration to be "inconvenient" for residents, visitors and guests.
Sn Jeannette noted is opinion that people will not be able to drive a car
the lowest level as items to be taken to that level will be brought there
small carts or a golf card. He then explained the mechanism and
.ration of the lifts adding that the two other guest parking spaces at oth(
els might be for family members who are visiting those households and
uld be specifically granted access to those levels.
,nmissioner Toerge noted his eeneeffi- belief that the five guest spaces
conveniently located without having to use the elevators. He then ask
ed is concern about the large subterranean storage areas and the use
elevators as being inconvenient.
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
isportation, elevator use and the use of storage by the residents.
mmissioner Hawkins indicated that there will be an increase in parking
the street with the reduction in the width of the drive approach.
continued on the placement and use of the guest parking.
Cole then asked for any changes or modifications to the
by the Planning Commission.
McDaniel, noted that:
Page 17 of 22
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 18 of 22
edition 8, regarding a performance bond on completion of shoring and
ining walls should be require completion for the whole project.
:ion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by
•
nmissioner Hillgren, to approve the project per staffs recommended
Aution with Exhibit D as amended and including the following:
dominant line of development - use the "blue" line on the elevation
ibit (23ft up to 42ft)
nmissioner Eaton noted this would require a deed restriction and
gested using the "green" line which transitions from 30.5' at the
thwest corner of the project, to 59' at the northeast corner. There was
sensus to use the "green" line. The maker of the motion agreed and
ion includes.
dominant line of development - the "green" line on the elevation exhibit.
re was a consensus.
re 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 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 by law."
Condition 8 - Completion bond for the entire project.
Jeannette brought up the issue of irrigation and stated that there are
iy conditions that they cannot do. He asked that staff work with them.
Campbell noted the use of the word permanent and indicated that only
porary irrigation may be used on the bluff face to re- establish the
stings that would occur and staff will make those corrections to be
sistent.
re 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
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
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.
missioner Hawkins asked that the CC and R's require residents to
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
aae 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
rformance bond to be reduced in 25% increments commensurate with
xemental building completion.
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 th
ect. 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%
Page 19 of 22
file: //F:\Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 20 of 22
crements to completion of shell with a new bond for the interior work.
Ir. Jeannette defined the shell as being the parking structure, the
ivelope, roofs, windows, etc. so that the concrete and systems are in
•
ace. The finish work for the interior would be the cabinetry, bathroom
ctures, etc.
was agreed that Condition 8 shall refer to 100% of the shell cost and
:lease in 25% increments.
t Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette, representing the applicant, agreed to
I the conditions and amendments as discussed. He noted that one
andition related to the 5 -foot easement for a sewer line which is five feet
n+ay from the property and asked if that can be worked out with Public
forks.
r. Lepo noted they can administratively find conformity with that
)ndition.
ommissioner Peotter noted the motion is the resolution that was
stributed tonight with the modification on the Mitigated Negative
eclaration to modify Mitigation Measure 15 -1 to include those two items
: garding grading to avoid summer season and the shuttling of construction
orkers, and:
Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly revised submitted plan
(Exhibit Z).
•
Condition 8 - add, shall refer to 700% 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."
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 by law."
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;
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
maintain elevators in good working order; residents shall not
use visitors' spaces for continual parking.
lmissioner Toerge noted that the minor change to the project related to
fiew corridor will eventually be a hugely significant change in the
'e. He thanked the applicant for this. He noted he has a different
ion 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
lenient. For these reasons, he stated he would not be in support of thi:
Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole,
Toerge
BUSINESS:
City Council 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.
I Report from planning Commission's representative to the Econo
Development Committee
• Commissioner Hawkins reported that EDC heard a discussion on
budget. This same presentation will be made at the upcoming St
Session.
Report from Commission's representative to
General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee
Commissioner Eaton reported the issues of grade, height and fl(
area ratios were discussed. The Technical Advisory Commitl
suggested possible ways to address those issues. We have refen
those suggestions to staff and the consulting team for their review.
Report from the Planning Commission's representative to
Intensive Residential Occupant Committee
Commissioner Toerge noted there had been no meeting. Mr.
added that there are proposed changes to group residential
short -term lodging that will go to Council next week.
Matters which a Planning Commissioner
at subseq uent meetin
Commissioner Hiligren asked about the golf course at the end
John Wayne airport. Staff answered this is not in our sphere
influence.
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
Page 21 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 22 of 22
Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to. Ip ace 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 under
the Project status.
Project status
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.
Requests for excused absences
None.
11:30 p.m.
HAWKINS, SECRETARY j •
BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
n
LJ
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Copy of mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/19/2007