Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2013 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers —100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, December 19, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 3:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Lawler III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, and Tucker ABSENT: Kramer (arrived at 3:18 p.m.) and Myers (arrived at 3:05 p.m.) 12/19/2013 Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner; Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner; Fern Nueno, Associate Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Hillgren invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission to do so at this time. Jim Mosher wished everyone a Happy Holiday and thanked the Commission and City staff for their time and efforts during the year. He commented on the preservation of recordings of Planning Commission, the Balboa Village Advisory Committee, the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee, and the Zoning Administrator meetings and added that recently, someone in City staff determined that this was contrary to City policy and that the Planning Division has been asked to destroy recordings that are not absolutely required by City policy to keep. This policy affects the Balboa Village Advisory Committee, Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee, and Zoning Administrator meeting audio. He noted that current City policy requires Planning Commission meeting recordings to be retained for two (2) years so that those from 2010 and 2011 have disappeared. Mr. Mosher opined that this is not good public policy and hoped that the Commission would object to the practice. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed public comments. Commissioner Myers arrived at this juncture (3:05 p.m.). V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2013 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Hillgren noted that Vice Chair Tucker submitted written changes to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 2013. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Jim Mosher noted the need to be especially vigilant that Planning Commission comments are correctly reflected in the written minutes. As he commented previously, adoption of a policy by Council to give City staff control in terms of how long records are retained. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed public comments. Page 1 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (5 — 1 — 1) to approve the minutes of November 21, 2013, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Lawler ABSENT: Kramer VII. STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 NEWPORT HARBOR YACHT CLUB (PA2012 -091) Site Location: 720 West Bay Avenue, 800 West Bay Avenue, 711 -721 West Bay Avenue, and 710 -720 West Balboa Boulevard Associate Planner Fern Nueno presented details of the report addressing location, existing conditions, surrounding properties, current club operations, use of the facility by members, purpose of the amendments requested, details of the proposed project, assembly use, considerations for the proposed applications, architecture and design, proposed site improvements, height limits, request for additional height, proposed additions, parking requirements and related studies, conceptual renderings, landscaping, next steps, and recommendations. Secretary Kramer arrived at this juncture (3:18 p.m.) Chair Hillgren noted that this is an informational item at this time and that the matter will be formally presented to the Planning Commission for action, at a public hearing on January 23, 2014. Chair Hillgren invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission at this time. The applicant, Jeff Gordon, spoke on behalf of the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, mentioning that the Yacht Club held a public outreach meeting for the neighbors in close proximity to discuss the design of the facility. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Tucker regarding whether Mr. Gordon has had the chance to review the Conditions of Approval, Mr. Gordon confirmed that he has and that they are acceptable. Vice Chair Tucker inquired regarding the two -year sunset for implementing the project and asked regarding approval by the Coastal Commission. It was noted that City expiration will be two (2) years from Coastal Commission action. Commissioner Lawler referenced the differences in heights and the Coastal Land Use Policy and asked regarding impacts on public views. Ms. Nueno reported that the project is not within a public view corridor or at a public view point but those policies are being used to try to gain consistency. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Ken Jacobs stated he is not opposed to upgrading the facility and commented on parking issues on the peninsula. He stated that it seems that the Yacht Club does not require employees and boat workers to first park in their lot before taking public street parking. He noted that the problem increases when they have large events and stated that it would be helpful to local residents to require that employees park in the Yacht Club parking lot before parking on the streets. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed public comments. Vice Chair Tucker indicated that the public area that the Yacht Club is asking to add is approximately sixty - five (65) square feet and commented on useable space. He commented positively on reviewing the matter in a study session prior to the formal Public Hearing and asked for clarification regarding parking issues. Page 2 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 Associate Planner Nueno reported that the parking plan includes conditions that would be required from the applicant to help alleviate parking issues that may come up. The requirements address employee parking in that they would be required to park within the lot at all times and in the remote sections of the lot. Policies are also included that would encourage carpooling and alternate transportation for employees. Vice Chair Tucker noted that he views this type of facility as semi - public in that many residents use the facility and commented positively on the proposed project. He stated that the City has provided an incredible amount of public access in the area, he will not be supportive of requiringq the applicant to provide additional amounts of public access, and he does not believe that the end of the 8' Street alley would be a good area to require additional public access improvements. Associate Planner Nueno noted that notice will be provided for the upcoming public hearing on this matter. Chair Hillgren commented positively on the proposed project and noted that the Planning Commission will carefully review the parking plan. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 BACK BAY LANDING (PA2011 -216) Site Location: 300 E. Coast Highway Senior Planner Jaime Murillo provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing details of the proposed project including existing conditions, stages of approvals, location, surrounding properties, expansion of the parcel through a lot -line adjustment, the need and purpose for General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Code Amendments, and overview of the proposed Planned Community Development Plan. Additionally, he reported on the establishment of priority uses and details of same, establishment of specific development standards, design guidelines, review of future development projects, planning areas, principal development areas, highlights of the conceptual plan, location of primary driveway, public plaza and retail /restaurant component, parking and details of the proposed enclosed dry-stack boat storage. Senior Planner Murillo addressed the location of the free - standing residential component, the public view tower, building heights and exceptions, public views and view corridors, architectural theme and materials, pedestrian, bicycle and public access, public improvements, regulation of bulkheads, required street improvements and utility improvements. Mr. Murillo reported on the required traffic study including trip generations per day, analysis of major intersections. He reported on the CEQA analysis and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the project, including the related findings, the public review period, comments received and responded to, and mitigation measures. He reported that the project was presented and reviewed by the Harbor Commission on November 13, 2013, which indicated support for the project and specifically appreciated the enhancement of water - related uses and public access and trails. Mr. Murillo presented information on next steps including review by other agencies, Council and the Coastal Commission. Vice Chair Tucker commented on the current zoning of the site and asked whether there is any text that goes along with the Planned Community zoning. Mr. Murillo noted that although the site is currently zoned Planned Community, it is not currently regulated by a Planned Community Development Plan, but rather regulated by a Use Permit. As sites develop, properties are required to prepare a Planned Community Development Plan. He added that part of the Resolution adopting the new Planned Community Development Plan would supersede the existing Use Permits that are active on the site. Vice Chair Tucker asked regarding requiring the development of Planning Area (PA) 4 at the same time as PA1 and Mr. Murillo reported that the Planned Community Development Plan requires the project be implemented in one phase. The applicant has also agreed to do so. Regarding review by the Airport Land Use Commission, Senior Planner Murillo reported that a piece of the property is within the borders of the Airport Land Use Plan, but is located outside the 65 CNEL noise contour and any protection zones. Page 3 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 Secretary Kramer noted that he recently visited the property and asked regarding the Public Bay Front Promenade Trail. Mr. Murillo pointed out the required trail for public access and those areas that will remain private. He added that the proposed public access trail will connect with those throughout the adjacent Dunes property. Secretary Kramer addressed the need to show a comprehensive plan for public access within the subject area. Mr. Murillo indicated that the Planned Community Development Plan can be improved to show the trails that exist within the Dunes in order to show connectivity throughout the area. Commissioner Myers stated that he understood there was supposed to be an equal square footage of residential and commercial space and requested clarification of development limits by planned areas. Senior Planner Murillo explained that the one -to -one ratio only applies to a portion of the project site that is north of the Coast Highway Bridge. In response to a question, Mr. Murillo explained the meaning of riprap, noting that it refers to the materials used to build up the marsh peninsula that borders PAS. Commissioner Ameri asked regarding the Land Use Table and Mr. Murillo reported it is located within the Planned Community Development Plan in the staff report (handwritten page 125). Chair Hillgren asked if there is a boat launch ramp anticipated on the property and Mr. Murillo reported there will be one for small vessels. Motorists would trailer in their boats to access the boat storage and ramp. The internal circulation has been designed to accommodate boat trailers, as well as emergency vehicles. Chair Hillgren referenced the view corridor and asked regarding use of the corridors. Mr. Murillo explained that cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists have been taken into consideration. Commissioner Ameri inquired regarding the table that indicates the square footage of each use and Mr. Murillo noted development limits by planning area. In response to an inquiry from Chair Hillgren regarding the walkway in front of the mobile home park, Mr. Murillo reported that the area will remain as private access for the marina and there is no requirement that it be open for public access. Chair Hillgren opened the public comments period and invited the applicant to comment. Gordon Craig, Project Manager, introduced Michael Gelfand, owner of the property, and noted the attendance of their consultant team and land -use counsel. He commended City staff for their efforts on this project and recognized attending community members who have been involved as well. He addressed existing conditions and uses, location of the Orange County Sanitation District pumping station, the vision for redevelopment of the site, necessary legislative approvals, new seawall and bulkhead, enclosed dry- stacked boat storage, additional uses envisioned, launch areas, additional parking and their request to reallocate existing residential densities. Mr. Craig reported that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Development Plan were developed with the participation of many community stakeholders including immediate neighbors, surrounding communities, and business and harbor leaders. He addressed current entitlements, reallocation of residential densities, proposed location of residential units, view simulations, operation of the dry -stack boat storage building, building roof heights, boat provisioning, the pedestrian bridge and Bayside Drive ingress and egress as well as street improvements. Mr. Craig provided information regarding reconstruction of garages, reallocation of parking and providing more guest parking, storage lockers, access way to the overall trail systems, the public promenade, the viewing tower, feasibility of expanded bay front access and project benefits. He addressed community outreach and presented details of the project timeline and schedule and asked that the Planning Commission support staff's recommendation and approve the project. Vice Chair Tucker asked regarding the boat storage building and it was noted that it is proposed as one integrated building with two levels. Regarding current access along the marina through the mobile home park, Mr. Craig reported that it is gated but that users tend to leave it open. It will be closed off in the future. Page 4 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 Commissioner Ameri commented on the view corridors and Mr. Craig reported that the site is relatively flat but that Coast Highway elevates up going to the bridge. As elevation is increased, openings can be seen into the Back Bay area and the Castaways Bluff. Commissioner Ameri expressed the concern that the project is creating a meandering wall without opportunity for views. Interested parties were invited to address the Planning Commission on this matter. Philip Bettencourt spoke in support of the project and urged the Planning Commission to support it as well. Larry Van Pelt, representing the Bayside Village Home Owners Association, thanked Councilmember Selich and City staff for taking their input and concerns into consideration and incorporating them into the project. He reported that few residents of the mobile home park are on short -term or month -to -month leases, but that the vast majority of the park is owner - occupied and owners have long -term leases. The Village is documented as a private park with private roads and a private beach and any efforts to alter; divide or take away any portions of the park for public access would face strong community resistance. Additionally, the owners of Bayside Village also own and operate land parcels contiguous to Bayside Village on three sides and the owners are seeking development on those parcels. Dick Hoagland, representing the Bayside Village Home Owners Association, commented on surrounding properties and uses and addressed their involvement in the project, and notification of residents and thanked staff for incorporating their concerns into the draft EIR. He noted that the Association supports the project with the concerns included within the draft EIR and thanked staff and the Planning Commission for its consideration. In response to Vice Chair Tucker's inquiry regarding their support of the project, Mr. Hoagland affirmed that they support the project with no public access through the mobile home park. Margo O'Connor commented on increased traffic at Dover Bridge as well as on Coast Highway, approaching the bridge on either side. She added that it has gotten to the point that there is now heavy traffic on Bayside Drive. She expressed concerns with increased traffic impacts in the area and stressed the need to address the bridge as well as impacts due to the Mariner's Pointe development. Ms. O'Connor expressed doubt that there will be no significant traffic impact. She reported that there was only one presentation made to residents of Linda Isle and noted that their main concern relates to the development of Planning Area 2. Rick Julian spoke in support of the project. Jim Mosher commented on the responses to comments to the EIR and stated he was surprised regarding the comments from the Coastal Commission relative to the possibility of a project with the new entitlements. He referenced a letter from the Coastkeeper organization noting their environmental concerns related to a project. He felt that the Coastkeeper suggestion to wait until there is an actual well - developed plan to ensure that the EIR concerns are accurately addressed was a good one. He expressed concerns with the aesthetics of the project related to structure heights and obstruction of views and pointed out that the bridge is officially called the Upper Newport Bay Bridge. John Schwartz asked regarding the hours of operation for the boat storage facility and felt there should be more attention paid to Bayside Drive relative to increased traffic impacts. Terese Pearson, Pearson's Port Fish Market, expressed concern with increased traffic impacts and the ability for her family's business to continue serving the community. Additionally, she expressed concerns regarding access to parking during construction and noted that Caltrans also needs access to the bridge at all times. Michael Gelfand, property owner, reported they are committed to keeping Pearson's Port an active and viable component of the future project and will continue building in assurances and considerations that keep the parking and viability of the operation. He deferred to land -use counsel to address other comments. Page 5 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 John Erskine responded regarding the view blockage and referenced View Simulation 7 in the EIR indicating that any view obstructions that would occur along a limited portion of East Coast Highway would be from a traveler going across the bridge and that project design features such as open spaces and plazas and associated view corridors would preserve views through the site at various locations along East Coast Highway. Todd Stoutenborough, architect, presented details of the view corridors and their locations. Commissioner Ameri noted that he is interested in eye -level views as well as views from driving /riding in cars. Todd Stoutenborough stated that all the views in the view simulations are from a normal person's height at eye level as well as car level. He noted the importance of View Corridor 2 and seeing through the project. He addressed other view corridors and noted that the whole project is designed to see through to the water. Commissioner Ameri expressed interest in View Corridors 3 and 4 and Mr. Stoutenborough addressed the width of each. He reported the possibility of a vegetated roof over the boat house. Senior Planner Murillo added that the view simulations are based on the conceptual design and noted that an actual development is not currently being proposed. He pointed out the design guidelines that address public views and the types of views that are encouraged as well as opportunities for new views will be considered at the time that a development plan is presented through Site Development Review. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the public comment period. Vice Chair Tucker addressed comments related to traffic impacts and noted the results of the traffic study. He added that CEQA mandates ignoring testimony that is based on opinion or speculation. The same applies to noise impacts. He addressed the necessary legislative approvals noting that the framework needs to be in place to justify the rest of the project. He reported that as long as the project fits within the guidelines, he will support it at the Planning Commission level and wish the applicant well in terms of the Coastal Commission. He commented on Bayside Drive and access for Pearson's Port. Chair Hillgren asked staff to address where specific issues are included in the documents. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported that when traffic studies are done they focus on peak hours and addressed the intersection of Bayside Drive and Coast Highway. He explained that the traffic study resulted in an acceptable level of service. Regarding traffic on Dover Bridge, he noted that when traffic emanates from the site, it will split with some traffic going towards Newport Center and some going away from Newport Center, in the opposite direction so that not all of the project traffic will be going over the Dover Bridge. In terms of residential traffic from the site, he reported that there would be a small number of trips going south through Bayside Drive. In terms of noise and its relation to the boat operations, Dave Crook, Environmental Consultant, PCR Services Corporation, reported that some level of increase in boat usage is anticipated but that it was not quantified in terms of noise adding that it will be better determined when there is a defined project. He sensed that it would not be significantly higher relative to the existing traffic and noise being generated. More specific information would be provided at a future date. Mr. Crook commented on the use of sensitive receptors when evaluating noise impacts. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Crook commented on future environmental analysis and reported that currently, this is a program -level evaluation using a conceptual project. He stated that presently, they could not be that specific, based on the level of planning, but that in the future there would be subsequent technical studies or other types of specific analyses. Vice Chair Tucker commented on assessing the noise level over a period of time and the existing ambient noise. Page 6 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 Mr. Crook noted that because of the existing ambient noise, the noise level generated by the project will be almost imperceptible. Vice Chair Tucker commented on the letter from Coastkeepers and asked Mr. Crook to address it. Mr. Crook highlighted the issues raised by Coastkeepers along with the related responses. He commented on segmentation of the EIR, impacts related to eelgrass, proximity to wetlands, impacts to the Newport Bay Marine Conservation Area (MCA), impacts to the MCA related to boat - related sewer discharges, potential water quality impacts and parking. Commissioner Ameri commented on retaining water on site and asked regarding other options, which Mr. Crook listed. Commissioner Brown asked regarding the criteria used by the City to determine whether additional studies will be necessary. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported this is a programmatic -level EIR looking at legislative approvals. If and when a specific development project comes through, the City, as lead agency, would review the project and going through the CEQA analysis, would decide what level of environmental review is required. She added that it is presently premature to determine what will be or will not be required. The City will decide what is needed in order to comply with CEQA. In response to Vice Chair Tucker's inquiry regarding impacts on access out of Linda Isle, City Traffic Engineer Brine stated that it was not considered specifically, in terms of Linda Isle but that the intersection of Bayside Drive and Coast Highway was studied for level of service. He added that for the CEQA level analysis, the baseline without the project was Level of Service C and with the project is a Level of Service D, which remains acceptable. Vice Chair Tucker mentioned that most of the comments he submitted have been addressed. He stated that he reviewed the mitigation monitoring program which seems appropriate. He commented on the use of the Planning Area 1 for a bar, lounge, or nightclub and felt that type of activity was not compatible, especially considering the residential component of the project. He stated that focus should be on restaurant service as opposed to a bar, lounge, or nightclub. Chair Hillgren agreed with Vice Chair Tucker's comments in terms of nightclub uses and added that uses related to tour boats would also merit a significant level of scrutiny at the time that a development plan is submitted. Vice Chair Tucker suggested placing a limit on the capacity of excursion boats allowed to operate from the project. He also commented on outdoor dining facilities and definitions and uses relative to commercial entertainment or recreational uses. Senior Planner Murillo reported that the food - service use category would allow for late hours and entertainment activities and would be regulated through the Conditional Use Permit and would be subject to the City's Operator License as well. Vice Chair Tucker commented on personal and restricted services and the need to treat all restricted -type uses, equally by either prohibiting them all or allowing them with minor use permits. Chair Hillgren noted that the goal is to encourage good uses. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that her office recommends treating like uses, similarly, under the Code. She expressed concerns regarding restricting specific uses and suggested considering them together and taking up specific uses on a case -by -case basis through the use permit review process. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Murillo reported that future proposed uses would be subject to the standard conditional use permit findings including compatibility with adjacent properties. The City could also Page 7 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 require conditions of approval as appropriate. It was noted that the Planning Commission's approval at this time does not give a blanket approval of the uses. Mr. Murillo commented on uses permitted by right, priority uses, and those uses that may be conditionally permitted to address the potential for problematic issues. He added the excursion boat uses would be subject to a minor use permit. Discussion followed regarding restricted personal services and maintaining the ability to turn down uses that are deleterious upon surrounding areas. Chair Hillgren commented on setbacks, uses, development limits and restrictions and noted that one of his concerns relates to parking and interior circulation of the property. Commissioner Kramer commented on the erosion that has occurred along the shore and asked regarding the seawall and bulkhead. Pat Fuscoe, Fuscoe Engineering, commented on riprap noting that it is a natural armor for the shoreline and stated that the seawall would extend under the bridge and terminate at the property line where it terminates at the Balboa Marina property site. Additionally, he addressed launching kayaks and stand -up paddleboards noting that it would be a step design into the water area. Mr. Murillo added that one of the general requirements for the bulkhead is that it shall be designed to provide access points to the shoreline. Vice Chair Tucker noted that no new information has been introduced to justify recirculation of the EIR. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that it will be included as part of the findings. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (7 — 0) to recommend to Council, certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -003 (SCH #2012101003) and find that recirculation of the EIR is not necessary. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None Vice Chair Tucker suggested a change to the list of uses in Paragraph III, Page 7 of the draft Planned Community Development Plan striking out the reference to bar, lounge, and nightclub as an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit in Planning Area 1; setting excursion services subject to a full Conditional Use Permit; Handwritten Page 152, changing language regarding commercial, recreation and entertainment uses to not include arcades, electronic game centers, billiard parlors, theaters, cinemas or like uses; and, deleting the definition of bar, lounge, and nightclub in the definitions section of PCDP. Senior Planner Murillo stated that it would be beneficial to keep the definition of bar, lounge and nightclub in the definition section in order to distinguish it from a food - related use. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown to adopt Resolution No. 1928 recommending to the Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -011, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2011 -007, Code Amendment No. CA2013 -009, Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2011 -001, Traffic Study No. TS2012 -003, and Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2011 -003 and amended as discussed above. Chair Hillgren asked the applicant to comment on the changes suggested by Vice Chair Tucker. John Erskine stated that in general, the property owner and staff want maximum flexibility noting that specific uses will be reviewed per conditional use permit requirements. He noted the separate process for land -use approvals and a similar process relative to Alcohol Beverage Control. He acknowledged concerns with having too much commercial /retail and asked for flexibility relative to potential uses. Page 8 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 Vice Chair Tucker expressed concerns with the possibility of a nightclub similar to Woody's Wharf and while he appreciates the desire to be flexible he noted challenges with the specific use of bars, lounges, and nightclubs. Mr. Erskine noted that the City wants a quality project and noted uses that would not fit in the area. Gordon Craig reiterated the desire to have the flexibility to address specific uses in the future through the conditional use permit process. Commissioner Ameri noted that the current consideration is at a program level and stated that eliminating specific uses at this time may be a mistake. He indicated that the applicant needs to have the flexibility at the program level and that specific limitations may be considered at the time of the specific plan. It was suggested to have a straw vote regarding the suggested changes relative to bars, lounges and nightclubs. A straw vote of the Planning Commission resulted in a majority of Members agreeing not to eliminate as an allowed use in Planning Area 1 bars, lounges, and nightclubs so as to allow the applicant maximum flexibility. Vice Chair Tucker withdrew his suggestion to delete as an allowed use in Planning Area 1 of bars, lounges, and nightclubs due to a lack of support from a majority of the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill pointed out that the fact that a use is conditionally permitted does not provide any presumption of approval. John Erskine commented on arcades and theaters and similar uses and requested to have the applicant maintain flexibility in this regard. Vice Chair Tucker stated he would not object if they were allowed solely as an incidental part of another business. Gordon Craig expressed agreement with the prohibition as modified. Vice Chair Tucker suggested adding a proviso indicating those uses are prohibited except as an incidental part of another use. Gordon Craig agreed with requiring a Conditional Use Permit on excursions. The motion carried (7 — 0) as follows: AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ITEM NO. 4 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE UPDATE (PA2012 -057) Site Location: Citywide Principal Planner Jim Campbell provided a brief presentation noting that final edits directed at the last meeting have been incorporated. He reported receiving a comment letter from Paul O'Boyle with an issue that has been previously addressed and offered to respond to questions. Chair Hillgren opened the public comments. Paul O'Boyle commended staff and the Commission for the effort, but indicated that the ordinance misses an opportunity to accommodate small cell installations. Jim Mosher thanked City staff for not caving in to all the requests made by the industry. He pointed out that the draft ordinance had been promised to be available for review promptly but that it was not available until December 9, 2013. Additionally, he reported that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion on a case related to a lawsuit by T- Mobile against the City of Huntington Beach and the latter's denial of placing a cell site on a public park. The Court of Appeals opined that it is the City's right to refuse Page 9 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 installation on public property. He reiterated concerns regarding impacts on private views, the lack of a menu of items that was to be provided by the applicant, that public outreach needs to happen at the beginning of the process, and Class 1 installations being approved via a Zoning Clearance. He commented on environmental effects and Federal regulations and concerns about possible interference with emergency communication, private electronics, and medical equipment. Seeing no other speakers, Chair Hillgren closed the public comment period. Commissioner Myers inquired regarding the list of information that the applicant needs to provide to the City. Mr. Campbell reported that the current ordinance has a list of items and information that the applicant must provide. These requirements would be eliminated from the Municipal Code, but the same information would still be required by the Community Development Director through the application process. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (7 — 0) to adopt Resolution No. 1927 recommending City Council approval of the proposed update of the Wireless Telecommunication Ordinance (CA2012 -004). AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski recognized Jim Campbell for his work on the Telecommunications Ordinance. Additionally, she reported that the Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 2014, is canceled because of a lack of agenda items. Committee Updates: Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee Ms. Wisneski reported that the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee met twice in December and reviewed the policies. It is anticipating finalizing its recommendations at the next meeting on January 7, 2014. General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Ms. Wisneski reported that the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee will meet on January 15 and 29, 2014. She added that a Coastal Commission staff member will be joining the efforts. ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Vice Chair Tucker indicated he would like to hear more about the Planning Commission meeting recordings being discarded and asked for more information regarding the matter at the next Planning Commission meeting. He noted that he personally does not make many corrections to the minutes because he has expected the meeting recordings would always be available to verify what actually occurred. Secretary Kramer noted he had asked a question of the Traffic Engineer and inquired regarding a response. Page 10 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/19/2013 City Traffic Engineer Brine reported he has forwarded the inquiry to his staff that will follow up on the matter. Chair Hillgren addressed City facility Holiday closures. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on December 13, 2013, at 3:26 p.m., in the binder and on the City Hall Electronic Bulletin Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive. ey ill air Page 11 of 11