Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 - Draft MinutesNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, April 3, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Brown, Lawler, Myers, Kramer, Tucker, and Hillgren ABSENT: None 4/3/14 Staff Present: Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner; Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner; Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Hillgren invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda, to do so at this time. Jim Mosher commented on the procedure for written comments from individuals who are not able to be in attendance at the public meeting. The agenda does not provide a protocol for this situation. He suggested placing a protocol for this situation on the agenda and to have a general email address for these types of public comments. Seeing no further individuals wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed public comments on non - agenda items. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Staff received a request from the applicant to continue Item No. 4, 441 Old Newport Parking Modification (PA2013 -228) to the April 17, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant's representative was in attendance to answer any inquiries. As Chair Hillgren and Vice Chair Tucker will not be present on April 17, 2014, it was suggested to move the item to the May 8, 2014, hearing. Rick Martin, Architect for the subject project for Item No. 4, noted that the applicant would prefer a two to four week continuance before the item is heard before the Planning Commission and would prefer the entire Planning Commission to be available during the hearing. There was no reason given for the extension request. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2014 Chair Hillgren reported receiving written comments with corrections the minutes of March 20, 2014, from Vice Chair Tucker and Jim Mosher. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed public comments for this item. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (7 - 0) to approve the minutes of March 20, 2014, as corrected. 1 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AYES: Ameri, Brown, Lawler, Myers, Kramer, Tucker, and Hillgren NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 Harbor Day School (PA2013 -212) Site Location: 3300 and 3443 Pacific View Drive 4/3/14 Chair Hillgren announced that he previously served on the School's Board of Directors. However, it was many years ago and that there is no conflict of interest. A staff report was given by Associate Planner Rosalinh Ling. She noted the requested increase in school enrollment and that the proposed off -site parking lot would be used for traffic queuing and special event parking. The project was described in detail and a PowerPoint Presentation was displayed. Staff believes the request is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning provisions. Traffic circulation in the area will also be improved. The project is exempt from CEQA guidelines and staff recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved. Conditions of approval from Use Permit No. 1546 and its previous amendments will be carried forward and included in the draft resolution; and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -024 will supersede the previous approvals. Staff received written comments from Pacific View Memorial Park and Jim Mosher in support of the application. Associate Planner Ung described the requested changes in Condition Nos. 16 and 18. In Condition No. 16, staff requested the word "new" be deleted from the phrase "new gymnasium" (a carryover error from the old conditions) and in Condition No. 18, the applicant or successor would be required to "retain a qualified engineer." In response to an inquiry regarding Condition No. 31 and reservoir usage, staff responded there would be actions to modify vehicle circulation within the City reservoir area in the area where municipal trucks would access the storage area around the reservoir. Commissioner Ameri inquired whether this area would be used for circulation or storage, to which staff responded that it is used strictly for circulation, not storage. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Bob Searles, Board Member at Harbor Day School, agreed with the conditions of approval and noted his availability to answer any questions. Commissioner Myers expressed his support of the application and for the traffic circulation improvements, especially in regard to Pacific View Drive. He requested further explanation as to how the applicant can increase student enrollment without a concurrent increase in staff and administrative personnel. Mr. Searles noted that there has been an increased demand for enrollment and that increases would be staggered across all grades. They would be moving from 22 to approximately 25 students per class and the faculty to student ratios are still appropriate. At this time, additional classroom space is not required. He also acknowledged Dr. Greenwood who was in attendance to answer any questions. Michael Clayton, President of Canyon Crest Homeowners Association, described the residential area adjacent to the proposed project site and potential traffic impacts with the increased enrollment. Chair Hillgren acknowledged traffic statistics provided on handwritten page 33 of the staff report. Mr. Clayton inquired as to whether the two concurrent projects occurring in the area have been studied in tandem as to the traffic impacts. He inquired as to ingress and egress to the proposed project site. Jim Mosher noted he was not a resident of the proposed project area. He commented that the intended municipal yard is in close proximity to the City water supply and wondered whether these and other 2 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 encroachments may create a liability scenario for the City. He expressed concern with the number of parking spaces and whether there were differences between employees and faculty members in regard to adequate parking. He did not find a rear carpool element within the proposed conditions. In closing, he noted the May 8, 2014, meeting where proposals to increase floor area ratios will be discussed and whether this will result in the addition of more classrooms. Lou Stavale, Canyon Crest Estates, spoke about the half -mile stretch of highway with multiple usages (commercial, schools, and residential) in the adjacent area and stated concern regarding the increased traffic impacts and safety of students. He inquired as to mitigation measures for the construction hazards. Commissioner Lawler inquired as to the access to the water supply. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine responded it was not studied in detail; however, the existing site is being used by the City for storage of vehicles and equipment. There will be drainage improvements as part of the design. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill stated the use of the City's property requires a lease which would be subject to several conditions. Commissioner Lawler inquired as to why a traffic study is not required for this project and Mr. Brine responded that the additional enrollment of 72 students did not trigger a requirement to conduct an additional traffic study. Staff noted that a significant amount of carpooling takes place at this school in regard to the transportation of students. Staff also noted City vehicles use the existing gate to access the storage area and that while a new building will be constructed to replace the older structures, there should not be additional vehicles going into the yard. There will be a separate entrance and gate so outside vehicles cannot drive into the storage area. Vice Chair Tucker inquired as to the increment used (hours versus minutes) when traffic is evaluated. Mr. Brine stated school use is different than other types of developments. Staff focused on observational evidence based upon drop -off and pick -up times. There was recognition of how the school operates in terms of carpooling. The proposed traffic mitigation of additional parking and drop -off locations has been addressed in staff's review of the project. Commissioner Ameri acknowledged his familiarity with the road as he uses the shopping center and visits the cemetery. It is one of the least traveled roads in the City. Commissioner Brown commented that this item is about circulation rather than parking and inquired as to the 36 parking spaces for faculty and employees. Associate Planner Ling commented that the parking is adequate for the proposed usage and that there is no plan to increase it. There is no ratio difference between faculty and staff parking spaces. Vice Chair Tucker stated tonight's application is for two different requests, off -site parking and increasing the number of students. It is not for increase to the floor area ratio. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Kramer and carried (7 - 0) to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -024, with the revisions to the Conditions of Approval (Nos. 16, 18, and 31) as discussed by staff and the Commission. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Lawler, Myers, Kramer, Tucker, and Hillgren NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO.3 Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) (PA2014 -005) Site Location: 5515 River Avenue A staff report was given by Senior Planner Jaime Murillo. He provided historical background of previous approvals, including approval by the California Coastal Commission, and the variety of permits related to the project. The current property owner and applicant are proposing to revise the site plan and architectural 3 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 style. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director has discretionary authority over certain aspects of the project; however, she elected to have this project come to the Planning Commission and the public for review and input. A PowerPoint Presentation was displayed. The approved Seashore Village site plan was presented and Mr. Murillo contrasted this with a new proposed site plan. The change in the architectural style would include three (3) different variations. The intensity and density of the project and the tentative tract map would not change. Mr. Murillo also described various changes to the different permits. The environmental impacts of the project were previously analyzed and, under CEQA, minor changes are allowed as long as there were no additional adverse impacts. A CEQA addendum was prepared, it was acknowledged that the findings of the original CEQA document stand, and no new mitigation measures are required. He acknowledged the presence of the City's CEQA consultants who were available to answer questions. Vice Chair Tucker stated that the project has the same square footage and the mass and bulk of the project has not changed. Commissioner Ameri inquired as to the elimination of the previous triangular open space area. Mr. Murillo responded that the current proposed project has eliminated this open space in favor of an increase in overall open space dispersed throughout project. Commissioner Myers inquired as to the status of the replacements for the low and moderate income units. Mr. Murillo responded that any demolition requires analysis of the existing units within the proposed development. Statute requires the low and moderate income units must be replaced in the project if feasible, or within three miles of the coastal zone, pursuant to the approved conditions. The developer has within three years of demolition to provide the units by an agreement with the City. The applicant is in negotiation for that project now and is available to elaborate further. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Rich Knowland, representing the developer of the project, made a report and displayed a PowerPoint Presentation. He acknowledged other members of the development team. He thanked City staff for their assistance in the project. Mr. Knowland stated that the developer supports staffs recommendation and the "substantial conformance" improves the proposed project. He believes it makes it a better living environment and the resident parking will now include two car garages and the tandem units with carports have been eliminated. The traffic will be more functional for the community. They also improved and increased the landscaped open space and reduced paved areas. They are also happy with the architecture and are receiving positive community feedback on the new architectural style. Vice Chair Tucker inquired as to whether this is a for -sale project. The developer's representative responded affirmatively. Mr. Nolan addressed the low and very low income housing units and is working with staff to propose projects. This will be accomplished as soon as possible. The developer will comply with all other conditions of approval. Marshall "Mike' Johnson, an adjacent resident to the proposed project, stated a presentation was made at their recent association meeting and that he is in support of the proposed project. He previously built houses in the area in 1988 and the design proposed is compatible with the current surrounding architectural styles. He expressed concerns with fire safety of the existing structure on the property. Jenna Bahl acknowledged that the new project will be more attractive and acknowledged her support for the proposed project. Jim Mosher acknowledged that this is a completely different project plan and was concerned about conformance with the Municipal Code. He did not find a "substantial compliance review" and noted that Section 20.54.070, allows the Community Development Director to make minor changes to a previously approved project. Mr. Mosher expressed concern that scrupulous review had been recently given to a 22 condominium project and this proposed project had similar changes, potentially warranting the need for more 4 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 review than the Director's discretion. He suggested that the proposed project go through the original review authority and a new permit process. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill did review the findings in consultation with the Planning Division. She affirmed the proposed project and that the Director's authority over minor changes is consistent with the Municipal Code. In closing, she noted although the Director was entitled to approve the minor changes, she did defer to bringing the project back for a public review before the Planning Commission. Chris Moreno commented that the proposed project falls in line with the standards for developing and beautifying West Newport and the Peninsula area. This represents a better change for this particular location. The money that the City and private investors are investing in this part of Newport Beach will revitalize the area. The community is looking forward to these changes. Lennie DeCaro, adjacent property owner, considers this a new project and cited the various changes to the site plan. The original Mitigated Negative Declaration had a resolution which articulated specific conditions for the project, such as architectural styles. She has owned the property for over thirty years and is concerned regarding the changes in setbacks, as they will be encroaching (shadow and air circulation) on her property. She had submitted a document that outlined her concerns. She further expressed concerns with the addendum prepared in compliance with CEQA requirements and suggested the new project changes are not minor changes. She alleged the project violates CEQA and is concerned that Neptune will now become a "through" street even through traffic impacts have not been studied. Chair Hillgren stated that parking for the revised project now includes two enclosed parking spaces per unit and more additional parking than originally proposed. Ms. DeCaro further opined that once the "through" street is opened, the current neighbors will not be able to park behind their houses. She purchased her home for the ocean view and setbacks. She does not like contemporary architecture and preferred the previously proposed architectural style. She hopes that the Planning Commission has consideration of the neighbors that have been in the neighborhood for many years. In closing, Ms. DeCaro cited a court case alleging that an addendum is not sufficient to approve the project. Chip Harris, resident who is adjacent to the proposed project site, stated his support for the project, especially the replacement of the existing apartment building with the proposed 24 high -end units. He purchased a property from this developer in the past and is in support of the project. Jeff Morris, resident who is adjacent to the proposed project site, spoke in support of removing the existing apartment building. He inquired as to the height of the proposed buildings and whether the new proposed materials will withstand the weathering and beach climate conditions. Richard Hamm utilizes this area of the beach and is in support of removing the existing apartment building. He opined that the suggested changes would make the project better and that there is a mechanism for minor approvals without having to restart the whole project. Marshall Lichterman lives in the apartment complex on the proposed project site and is in support of the project. He has lived in the apartment building for about ten years and has always been aware of the proposed development. He said he received a notice his lease would be terminated two days before the subject hearing. There are 54 families that will be looking for housing during the high rent period. He acknowledged that the statute is 60 days for notification of move. Two months ago he had his rent increased. He inquired if there was any consideration for those who are on fixed incomes who will now be displaced. He strongly objected to the approval of the project until consideration is given to the existing apartment residents. The previous owners offered $10,000 to assist displaced residents in the past and he requested some sort of consideration. Chair Hillgren stated that the City has no authority over the process between the property owner and tenants in regard to this specific project. Seeing there were no further individuals who chose to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. 5of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 Commissioner Myers requested that staff address and respond to some of the points made by Ms. DeCaro regarding the illegality of the addendum. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed the environmental analysis. She has reviewed the history of the project. The City previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and that there was resulting litigation. The outcome of the litigation was a dismissal of the action that was based upon a settlement agreement. The existing Mitigated Negative Declaration stands and the changes proposed indicated that an addendum was sufficient to satisfy CEQA in this case. The resolution before the Planning Commission satisfies the required findings. Vice Chair Tucker inquired as to the line of demarcation between having to complete an addendum versus a supplemental environmental analysis. He requested that each line item be discussed and addressed by staff. Senior Planner Jaime Murillo began by noting that the items in the letter from Ms. DeCaro were previously brought up in the original project approval and that the staff report addressed many of those issues. The internal driveway for the project will only be an internal driveway for the development. All original conditions for approval remain applicable and enforceable, including all mitigation measures for environmental impacts. JoAnn Hadfield, Principal at PlaceWorks (the City's CEQA consultant) addressed her history with the City and her experience in preparing CEQA documents including the 2008 Initial Study /Negative Declaration and the additional CEQA documents. She agreed that an addendum is a conservative approach and she strongly feels that the changes are minor, giving the Director the authority to make the minor changes. Ms. Hadfield explained Sections 21166 and 15162 of State CEQA Guidelines and the conditions for a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In this case, she noted that the proposed minor changes do not involve any new significant environmental impacts or result in substantial increase in the severity of the impacts, nor require revisions in the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The consultant staff reviewed the changes to the environmental setting, noting she is also the consultant for the City's review of the Land Use Element, and concluded there was nothing found that would trigger a subsequent EIR or MND. Ms. Hadfield further cited Section 15164 that if there were only minor technical changes to the previous document, an addendum can be prepared. A comprehensive addendum was prepared, the complete CEQA checklist followed, and all reasoning was documented. The project meets the criteria of only having minor changes, and staff is not ignoring the fact that there are changes to the architecture of the project. She stated that it should be noted that architectural changes are not a CEQA issue. In regard to the visual impacts of the project, Ms. Hadfield stated that the four (4) checklist question in CEQA had been analyzed in regard to the project. The City only considers public views, and in this case, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character, or substantially increase light and glare. Parking is not a CEQA issue; however, the project complies with City parking standards. The CEQA trigger in regard to traffic is related to whether the project would introduce a danger or hazards. In this case, there is nothing new to report. Ms. Hadfield cited projects that have been approved with addendums and the court precedent is that the proposed changes are minor, technical changes. In regard to noise impacts, noise was reviewed as part of the addendum and staff was looking for any changes from the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. The change in the number of buildings is not a CEQA issue. Ms. Hatfield noted the Municipal Code addresses all issues regarding AC units. This is not a new significant impact. In regard to the proposed increase in the height and bulk of the buildings there are no major increases and Ms. Hadfield referenced the increase in proposed open space landscaping. Architectural design is only a concern for CEQA if it substantially degrades the character of the surrounding community. The set back and height issues are all addressed in the addendum and are in compliance with the Municipal Code. The number of buildings is not relevant. The fiscal impacts relative to rental prices are not a CEQA issue and this was addressed in the first Mitigated Negative Declaration. 6 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 Ms. Hadfield acknowledged that there is not a change in mitigation measures and added that this is critical in the requirement for whether an addendum will suffice. Her firm will not prepare an addendum as a matter of policy if there are new mitigation measures required for a project. In regard to impacts on viewpoints from Sunset Park and Banning Ranch, Sunset Park is not in a straight line of site, and there is only a 1- foot -5 -inch maximum increase in height. This is not a new significant impact and there are no new proposed viewpoints that have not been designated by the City. Secretary Kramer stated that this is not a new project; it is a minor modification to an existing project, and added that it is a superior project as compared to the original proposal. He has requested to have the material boards available when reviewing these types of projects. In regard to parking, Secretary Kramer requested that a condition be added that garages are to be used exclusively for vehicles and not for storage. Senior Planner Murillo noted that material boards were available and they were distributed to the Planning Commission for review. Regarding the proposed materials, Secretary Kramer requested that staff address the durability of the materials against the beach climate conditions. Greg Bucilla, project architect, described the project materials, which includes sandstone with variation of wood and metal paneling. There will be slight variations in stucco colors, the siding will be more rugged and exposed, and more compatible with the community feel. They will also be using a metal roof, aluminum and vinyl sliders, glass railings, and pipe railing with wire. Secretary Kramer inquired as to conditioning parking relative to Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the project. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill acknowledged that tonight's action is not an entitlement, it is a determination of review, and that it is not appropriate to add a condition of approval. She recommended against doing so, noting that Planning staff will take garage parking and storage into consideration, and it could be addressed through code enforcement proceedings. Chair Hillgren noted that the two -car garages were an improvement over the original proposed tandem garages and carports. Secretary Kramer noted that this is a matter of consistency and would like to hear Vice Chair Tucker's comments. Vice Chair Tucker commented that the project is reasonable and there is a provision in the General Plan that architecture should be reviewed for quality purposes. He suggested that the material boards should be a part of the plan check process. Mr. Tucker commented on the allegations made in the letter received from Ms. DeCaro and expressed concern over many of the claims made. He strongly opposed any suggestion that the project required a completely new review and that the requested changes are only minor. Commissioner Amer! expressed his pleasure with the professionalism of Ms. Hadfield and her ability to address each of the CEQA related issues on short notice. He is comfortable making the findings presented tonight as part of the staff reports and that any allegations made in the letter received were invalid. Motion made by Chair Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (7 - 0) to adopt a resolution finding the modified project to be in substantial conformance with the project design approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007 -001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007- 044, Use Permit No. UP2007 -011, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007 -001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2008021075) and the Addendum is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Lawler, Myers, Kramer, Tucker, and Hillgren NOES: None 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO.4 441 Old Newport Parking Modification (PA2013 -228) Site Location: 441 Old Newport Boulevard This item was continued to May 8, 2014. Chair Hillgren honored a request to make comment on this item, noting that the Public Hearing was not reopened and that this item had been continued to a future date. Lyle Overby apologized to the Commission for not being available when this item was discussed earlier in the evening and looked forward to having the opportunity to discuss this item at the appropriate time. VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — None. ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Committee Updates: Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee 2. General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski stated the April 17, 2014, meeting would be canceled. She noted that the study session for the Land Use Element Amendment and the continued public hearing from tonight's Item No. 4 will be held on May 8, 2014. In regard to the Commission's request that a potential third meeting be scheduled to discuss the Land Use Element, considerable discussion took place between staff and the Commission as to appropriate dates. It was settled by consensus of the Commission that the May 8, 2014, Study Session begin at 4:00 p.m. and then be followed by the Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. At the May 8, 2014, meeting, it will be discussed whether future amendments to meeting times or additional meeting dates should be scheduled. There was acknowledgement that many of the Commissioners were not available to meet on May 29, 2014. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that she will not be in attendance at the May 8, 2014, meeting; however, coverage from the City Attorney's Office will be provided. ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT — None ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Amen requested an excused absence for May 8, 2014. Commissioner Brown requested an excused absence for June 5, 2014. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on March 28, 2014, at 4:30 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. 8 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Bradley Hillgren, Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary 9of9 4/3/14 Correspondence Item No. la Draft Minutes 04/03/2014 May 8, 2014 May 8, 2014, Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 - 6229). Item No. 1: Minutes of April 3, 2014 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in strikeout underline format. 1. Page 1, Item 1, paragraph 1: "Chair Hillgren reported receiving written comments with corrections to the minutes of March 20, 2014, ..." 2. Page 2, Item 2, paragraph 2, sentence 3: "The project is exempt from CEQA under the guidelines and staff recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved." 3. Page 2, Item 2, paragraph 2, last sentence: "Staff received written comments from Pacific View Memorial Park and -Jim Mosher in support of the application and from Jim Mosher." [The draft minutes imply my comments regarding the Harbor Day School staff report were submitted "in support of the application." They were not. Rosalinh Ung's exact words, from 00h:1 6m in the recording, were: "In term[s] of correspondence, staff received a written comment from Mr. Jim Mosher and a letter from Pacific View Memorial Park in support of the application. "] 4. Page 4, line 3: "A PowerPoint Presentation presentation was displayed." 5. Page 4, paragraph 6: "Rich Knowland, representing the developer of the project, made a report and displayed a PowerPoint moo„ presentation." 6. Page 4, paragraph 6: "Mr. Nolan Knowland addressed the low and very low income housing units ..." [Note the inconsistent spelling of Nolan /Knowland. I don't know which, if either, is correct.] 7. Page 5, paragraph 3, sentence 3: "She has owned the her property for over thirty years ..." 8. Page 6, paragraph 2, sentence 3: "The City previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and that there was resulting litigation." 9. Page 6, paragraph 4, sentence 2: "Ms. Hadfield explained Sections 21166 of the CEQA Statute and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines..." 10. Page 6, paragraph 3 from end: "Ms. Hadfield stated that the four (4) checklist question questions in CEQA had been analyzed in regard to the project." 11. Page 6, sentence 3 from end: "The ;Pt bar- setback and height issues are all addressed in the addendum..." 12. Page 7, paragraph 2: "In regard to impacts on viewpoints from Sunset Ridqe Park and Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridqe Park is not in a straight line of site sight, ... This is not a new significant impact and there are no new proposed viewpoints that have net been designated by the City." Comments by Vice Chair Tucker NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Correspondence Item No. lb Draft Minutes 04/03/2014 4/3/14 encroachments may create a liability scenario for the City. He expressed concern with the number of parking spaces and whether there were differences between employees and faculty members in regard to adequate parking. He did not find a rear carpool element within the proposed conditions. In closing, he noted the May 8, 2014, meeting where proposals to increase floor area ratios will be discussed and whether this will result in the addition of more classrooms. Lou Stavale, Canyon Crest Estates, spoke about the half -mile stretch of highway with multiple usages (commercial, schools, and residential) in the adjacent area and stated concern regarding the increased traffic impacts and safety of students. He inquired as to mitigation measures for the construction hazards. Commissioner Lawler inquired as to the access to the water supply. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine responded it was not studied in detail; however, the existing site is being used by the City for storage of vehicles and equipment. There will be drainage improvements as part of the design. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill stated the use of the City's property requires a lease which would be subject to several conditions. Commissioner Lawler inquired as to why a traffic study is not required for this project and Mr. Brine responded that the additional enrollment of 72 students did not trigger a requirement to conduct an additional traffic study. Staff noted that a significant amount of carpooling takes place at this school in regard to the transportation of students. Staff also noted City vehicles use the existing gate to access the storage area and that while a new building will be constructed to replace the older structures, there should not be additional vehicles going into the yard. There will be a separate entrance and gate so outside vehicles cannot drive into the storage area. Vice Chair Tucker inquired as to the increment used (hours versus minutes) when traffic is evaluated. Mr. Brine stated school use is different than other types of developments. Staff focused on observational evidence based upon drop -off and pick -up times. There was recognition of how the school operates in terms of carpooling. The proposed traffic mitigation of additional parking and drop -off locations has been addressed in staff's review of the project. Commissioner Ameri acknowledged his familiarity with the road as he uses the shopping center and visits the cemetery. It is one of the least traveled roads in the City. Commissioner Brown commented that this item is about circulation rather than parking and inquired as to the 36 parking spaces for faculty and employees. Associate Planner Ung commented that the parking is adequate for the proposed usage and that there is no plan to increase it. There is no ratio difference between faculty and staff parking spaces. Vice Chair Tucker stated the ienljht's— application is for two different requests, an off -site parking arrangement and to increaseing the number of students in the existing facility. The application does not include a request to"_ netfer increase to the floor area ratio of the Harbor Day campus. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Kramer and carried (7 - 0) to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -024, with the revisions to the Conditions of Approval (Nos. 16, 18, and 31) as discussed by staff and the Commission. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Lawler, Myers, Kramer, Tucker, and Hillgren NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) (PA2014 -005) Site Location: 5515 River Avenue A staff report was given by Senior Planner Jaime Murillo. He provided historical background of previous approvals, including approval by the California Coastal Commission, and the variety of permits related to the 3 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 Seeing there were no further individuals who chose to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Myers requested that staff address and respond to some of the points made by Ms. DeCaro regarding the illegality of the addendum. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed the environmental analysis. She has reviewed the history of the project. The City previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and that there was resulting litigation. The outcome of the litigation was a dismissal of the action that was based upon a settlement agreement. The existing Mitigated Negative Declaration stands and the changes proposed indicated that an addendum was sufficient to satisfy CEQA in this case. The resolution before the Planning Commission satisfies the required findings. Vice Chair Tucker inquired as to the line of demarcation between having to complete an addendum versus a supplemental environmental analysis. He requested that each major contention regarding the CEQA process and issues in Ms. DeCaro's correspondence4Re -item be discussed and addressed by staff. Senior Planner Jaime Murillo began by noting that the items in the letter from Ms. DeCaro were previously brought up in the original project approval and that the staff report addressed many of those issues. The internal driveway for the project will only be an internal driveway for the development. All original conditions for approval remain applicable and enforceable, including all mitigation measures for environmental impacts. JoAnn Hadfield, Principal at PlaceWorks (the City's CEQA consultant) addressed her history with the City and her experience in preparing CEQA documents including the 2008 Initial Study /Negative Declaration and the additional CEQA documents. She agreed that an addendum is a conservative approach and she strongly feels that the changes are minor, giving the Director the authority to make the minor changes. Ms. Hadfield explained Sections 21166 and 15162 of State CEQA Guidelines and the conditions for a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In this case, she noted that the proposed minor changes do not involve any new significant environmental impacts or result in substantial increase in the severity of the impacts, nor require revisions in the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND). The consultant staff reviewed the changes to the environmental setting, noting she is also the consultant for the City's review of the Land Use Element, and concluded there was nothing found that would trigger a subsequent EIR or MIND. Ms. Hadfield further cited Section 15164 that if there were only minor technical changes to the previous document, an addendum can be prepared. A comprehensive addendum was prepared, the complete CEQA checklist followed; and all reasoning was documented. The project meets the criteria of only having minor changes, and staff is not ignoring the fact that there are changes to the architecture of the project. She stated that it should be noted that architectural changes are not a CEQA issue. In regard to the visual impacts of the project, Ms. Hadfield stated that the four (4) checklist question in CEQA had been analyzed in regard to the project. The City only considers public views, and in this case, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character, or substantially increase light and glare. Parking is not a CEQA issue; however, the project complies with City parking standards. The CEQA trigger in regard to traffic is related to whether the project would introduce a danger or hazards. In this case, there is nothing new to report. Ms. Hadfield cited projects that have been approved with addendums and the court precedent is that the proposed changes are minor, technical changes. In regard to noise impacts, noise was reviewed as part of the addendum and staff was looking for any changes from the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. The change in the number of buildings is not a CEQA issue. Ms. Hatfield noted the Municipal Code addresses all issues regarding AC units. This is not a new significant impact. In regard to the proposed increase in the height and bulk of the buildings there are no major increases and Ms. Hadfield referenced the increase in proposed open space landscaping. Architectural design is only a concern for CEQA if it substantially degrades the character of the surrounding community. The set back and height issues are all addressed in the addendum and are in compliance with the Municipal Code. The number of buildings is not relevant. The fiscal impacts relative to rental prices are not a CEQA issue and this was addressed in the first Mitigated Negative Declaration. 6 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 Ms. Hadfield acknowledged that there is not a change in mitigation measures and added that this is critical in the requirement for whether an addendum will suffice. Her firm will not prepare an addendum as a matter of policy if there are new mitigation measures required for a project. In regard to impacts on viewpoints from Sunset Park and Banning Ranch, Sunset Park is not in a straight line of site, and there is only a 1- foot -5 -inch maximum increase in height. This is not a new significant impact and there are no new proposed viewpoints that have not been designated by the City. Secretary Kramer stated that this is not a new project; it is a minor modification to an existing project, and added that it is a superior project as compared to the original proposal. He has requested to have the material boards available when reviewing these types of projects. In regard to parking, Secretary Kramer requested that a condition be added that garages are to be used exclusively for vehicles and not for storage. Senior Planner Murillo noted that material boards were available and they were distributed to the Planning Commission for review. Regarding the proposed materials, Secretary Kramer requested that staff address the durability of the materials against the beach climate conditions. Greg Bucilla, project architect, described the project materials, which includes sandstone with variation of wood and metal paneling. There will be slight variations in stucco colors, the siding will be more rugged and exposed, and more compatible with the community feel. They will also be using a metal roof, aluminum and vinyl sliders, glass railings, and pipe railing with wire. Secretary Kramer inquired as to conditioning parking relative to Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the project. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill acknowledged that tonight's action is not an entitlement, it is a determination of review, and that it is not appropriate to add a condition of approval. She recommended against doing so, noting that Planning staff will take garage parking and storage into consideration, and it could be addressed through code enforcement proceedings. Chair Hillgren noted that the two -car garages were an improvement over the original proposed tandem garages and carports. Secretary Kramer noted that this is a matter of consistency and would like to hear Vice Chair Tucker's comments. Vice Chair Tucker commented that the project is reasonable and there is a provision in the General Plan that architecture should be reviewed for quality purposes. He suggested that the material boards should be a part of the plan check process. Mr. Tucker commented on the allegations made in the letter received from Ms. DeCaro and expressed incredulitvseasern over - Piaey -e€ the legitimacy of the positions assertedelaims made in the letter. He strongly opposed any suggestion that the project required a completely new CEQA review and noted that the requested changes are only minor with no different impacts than the previously analyzed project. Commissioner Ameri expressed his pleasure with the professionalism of Ms. Hadfield and her ability to address each of the CEQA related issues on short notice. He is comfortable making the findings presented tonight as part of the staff reports and that any allegations made in the letter received were invalid. Motion made by Chair Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (7 - 0) to adopt a resolution finding the modified project to be in substantial conformance with the project design approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007 -001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007- 044, Use Permit No. UP2007 -011, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007 -001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2008021075) and the Addendum is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 7of9