Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 - Draft Minutes_03-17-2016 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, March 17, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Hillgren, Kramer, Koetting,Weigand,Zak ABSENT (Excused): Brown, Lawler Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Associate Planner Makana Nova;Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten; Senior Planner Jaime Murillo; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher announced that videos of Planning Commission meetings can be found on Youtube.com and the private video, continues. He noted that those paying for the filming feel it is critically important to have a wider audience in better understanding of the City's planning process. He commented on the community's anxiety regarding issues such as increased density, height limits and land-use tables and how unbuilt hotel rooms transfer into dwelling units without changing the General Plan. Mr. Mosher listed specific areas in which the public is experiencing angst and noted that misdirection leads to mistrust. Karen Carlson agreed with Mr. Mosher's comments and referenced the Museum project, specifically, the height and density. She also spoke in opposition to the car wash project and expressed concerns regarding increased population and traffic in relation to current development projects. She expressed concerns with the lack of sufficient public notice and hoped that wisdom and good sense will prevail. Chair Kramer closed public comments. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski requested a continuance on Item No. 4, noting there was misinformation distributed which raised concerns among the public and that the applicant requested the item be continued until April 7, 2016. Additionally, she requested that Item No. 6 be tabled and stated it will be re-noticed at the proper time. Commissioner Weigand reported that, relative to Item No. 4, he spoke with the applicant and stated that the applicant is working with residents to come to a mutually-acceptable solution. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Secretary Koetting to continue Items No. 4 to the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2016, and to table Item No. 6, indefinitely. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, Koetting,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown, Lawler VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MARCH 3,2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file It was noted that written corrections to the minutes were submitted by Mr. Jim Mosher. Page 1 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve and file the Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 3, 2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Weigand ABSTAIN: Hillgren, Zak ABSENT: Brown, Lawler VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 BRISTOL STREET VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOM FACILITY (PA2015-215) Site Location: 2350 Bristol Street Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten presented details of the report addressing location, existing conditions, adjacent and surrounding properties and uses, prior approval by the Planning Commission for an AT&T telecom facility, Verizon Wireless' request to modify the previous approval with an additional fifteen inches of screen height at the Bristol Street frontage, and recommendations. In response to Secretary Koetting's question regarding the requirement of advanced planning and frequency coordination (Condition of Approval No. 12), Assistant Planner Van Patten stated that the applicant understands the condition, and that it is a standard condition. Commissioner Zak asked whether this will be a co-location. Assistant Planner Van Patten stated that it is not a co-location, that AT&T abandoned the location, and that Verizon is taking it over. It was noted that the approved AT&T facility was never built. Discussion followed regarding existing conditions and the effects of the applicant's request for increased height. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Jim Heinrich, representing Verizon Wireless, the applicant, acknowledged reading the Conditions of Approval and indicated acceptance of same. In reply to Secretary Koetting's question regarding Condition No. 37, Mr. Heinrich reported that the utility post will be on private property as opposed to the public right-of-way. Jim Mosher referenced his written comments and stated that he is pleased that Verizon Wireless is proposing a highly-stealth installation with low impact. He commented on encouraging that telecommunications facilities use the smallest technology available and commented on inconsistencies relative to antenna heights. He expressed concerns regarding the proposed column on the south side of the building and suggested screening rather than having a massive column. Discussion followed regarding the function of the proposed column. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to adopt Resolution No. 2013 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-049. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, Koetting,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown, Lawler ITEM NO. 3 EAST BALBOA LOT REORIENTATION (PA2016-010) Site Location: 1902 East Balboa Boulevard Page 2 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 Associate Planner Makana Nova, presented the staff report. She addressed the need for a code amendment, location, existing conditions, surrounding properties and uses, and details of the proposed parcel reconfiguration. She discussed the existing easements, setbacks, floor area comparisons, and recommendations. She reported receiving correspondence from the public regarding the private easement areas, about protecting existing pavers and adding signage. Ms. Nova noted that these comments had been addressed with the applicant and the public. Along with the recommendations, she presented alternative actions for the Planning Commission and noted CEQA exemptions. She added that, if recommended for approval, the project will be considered by City Council on April 26, 2016. Commissioner Hillgren asked whether consideration was given to organizing the plot into four squares instead of four rectangles and whether there are different opportunities in terms of design and setbacks. Associate Planner Nova reported that the four squares are the current lot configuration, but the applicant is requesting to re-subdivide and reconfigure the lots to the four rectangles. Commissioner Zak referenced Condition No. 5 and suggested changing language as, "Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, approval of the Coastal Commission shall be required for the sub-division', rather than a building permit. Associate Planner Nova noted that staff can make that distinction. Commissioner Koetting asked how long it would take for the Coastal Commission to consider a Tentative Map and Associate Planner Nova reported that the Coastal Commission's timing varies, based on staffing. She added that since the property is "inland", it would be a shorter review period than a project right on the water. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Thomas St. Clair, RREG Investment Series, applicant, felt that the current configuration is not consistent with the neighboring parcels and that the proposed changes would be consistent with the area. He added that the current configuration is not conducive for development and that they are essentially requesting reverting back to the original, 1925, Parcel Map. He explained that the property is in escrow and that the current owner has authorized him to engage in this process. The purchase is contingent upon this approval. In response to Secretary Koetting's inquiry, Mr. St. Clair stated that the new layout would be consistent with adjacent properties. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to adopt Resolution No. 2014 recommending the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2016-002 and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-001, and including changing Condition No. 5, as discussed. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, Koetting,Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown, Lawler ITEM NO. 4 D'ELISCU RESIDENCE VARIANCE (PA2015-205) Site Location: 1011 Kings Road The aforementioned item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2016, under Requests for Continuances. ITEM NO. 5 BACK BAY LANDING MODIFICATIONS (PA2011-216) Site Location: 300 E. Coast Highway Page 3 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 Senior Planner Jaime Murillo provided the report addressing previous consideration and approvals, Coastal Commission Suggested Modifications, location, existing conditions and stages of approvals. He addressed next steps, including the need for a subsequent site development approval, as well as background and Coastal Commission approvals. Senior Planner Murillo reported on the existing land use documents and amendments, as well as the changes proposed by the Coastal Commission and modifications made by the applicant. He noted that after approval by the Planning Commission, the matter will be presented to City Council for their approval and presented recommendations. Discussion followed regarding review of the revised architecture theme. Chair Kramer asked how the access way affects the mobile home owners and Senior Planner Murillo reported that currently, the access way is private and that there is a private beach that bisects the access way. With the new condition, the access way would be opened to the public. He added that the City has received no recent correspondence regarding the required actions and that proper notification of this matter was made. Chair Kramer asked regarding added efficiencies in terms of boat storage and Senior Planner Murillo stated that is a major component of the project and is a requirement of the Planned Community Development Plan. In reply to Secretary Koetting's question regarding the property line, Senior Planner Murillo identified it on the map. He added that it is approximately ten feet back from Coast Highway. He added that the site plan is mainly conceptual and is intended to provide a vision for development of the site. When the matter comes back before the Planning Commission, the plan will be refined, with details that comply with the development standards and the Planned Community Development Plan. Secretary Koetting noted that these are "suggestions" by the Coastal Commission. Senior Planner Murillo confirmed but added that if they are not accepted, the amendments will not be approved by the Coastal Commission. Secretary Koetting stated he would like for the applicant to address what is happening under the bridge and on the other side of same. In response to Commissioner Zak's inquiry regarding bifurcating the project, Senior Planner Murillo stated it is because of the complexity of the project and that the applicant decided to break it up to minimize risks and costs. Commissioner Zak indicated he would like to know what the applicant thinks about the modifications as well as what City staff thinks. Senior Planner Murillo responded that staff is supportive of the modifications and represented that to the Coastal Commission at the hearing. He added that in regards to public access, staff felt that what was previously proposed was adequate and noted that the enhanced coastal access has its benefits. In response to Commissioner Zak's question regarding how the land-use designations conform with the pending Local Coastal Plan (LCP), Senior Planner Murillo reported that the LCP application is currently under consideration by the Coastal Commission. Once the subject application has been approved by City Council, the revised Planned Community Development Plan will be incorporated into the LCP Implementation Plan. Commissioner Zak expressed interest in hearing from the mobile home owners as to the loss of a private beach and trail. He asked regarding the EIR addendum and whether there are changes in density and traffic. Senior Planner Murillo reported that these were evaluated and that none of the densities/intensities change from what was previously approved. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. John Erkskine, Land Use and Coastal Counsel for the applicant, commented on the process noting that it was bifurcated, early on, and addressed working with the mobile home representatives and the Coastal Commission staff relative to access along the bayfront. He reported there was extensive noticing and involvement by the mobile home park representatives. Page 4 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 Gordon Craig, Back Bay Landing, Project Manager, reported receiving input regarding the architectural style and noted the importance of place-making. He stated that nothing has functionally changed, with respect to underneath the bridge, from the original conceptual plan. He addressed improvements in circulation and in access to utilities, benefits of the lot-line adjustment, and guest parking. Chair Kramer commended the applicant on the architecture. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's question regarding securing parking under the bridge, Mr. Craig noted that the Coastal Commission is emphatic about continuous public access and indicated that hopefully, the intensification of use will dissuade certain negative uses such as drug activity or overnight stays. At Chair Kramer's request, Mr. Craig addressed boat storage, repositioning of the boat house, boat house functionality and the architecture of the boat house. Secretary Koetting asked regarding residential uses and Mr. Craig reported there is no affordable component to the residential use and that they have not yet decided whether they will be for sale or for rent, but they will be built to condominium/for sale standards. Discussion followed regarding the ownership of the land under the bridge and access for servicing same. In response to Secretary Koetting's question regarding environmental concerns relative to boat servicing, Mr. Craig reported that all conditions and concerns have been evaluated through the EIR. He added that it is better to control leakage by servicing boats on land. Maureen Santos, Bayside Village resident, reported that their Improvement Committee notified residents via a newsletter and stated that the reason they have not commented is because they felt that the Coastal Commission has spoken and that is the end of the matter. She hoped that the Planning Commission will require significant landscaping to protect residents' privacy without blocking their views. She expressed concerns with increases in traffic and commented on other developments that have been approved that will significantly impact traffic. She hoped that the Planning Commission will require hotel developers to bring a new access through the dunes to limit traffic on Bayside Drive. She referenced prior discussions about a ramp that went directly from Coast Highway, into the new project and felt that would be helpful. She wondered about increased bicycle activity along Bayside Drive, pedestrian activity, lack of parking, congestion, safety, and traffic. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski clarified that the prior speaker's reference to other developments may be in connection with the recent Newport Dunes settlement agreement. She added that has not been entitled by the City, at this point. Commissioner Zak asked about the traffic analysis and whether the Newport Dunes project was factored in. Senior Planner Murillo confirmed that it was factored into the traffic analysis for this project and noted improvements to be made on Bayside Drive as well as other mitigation measures. Jim Mosher commented on the large agenda packet and on the subject at issue at this time and on areas in which the Coastal Commission has determined consistency with policies. He addressed slipping this project into the LCP and felt it is an effort to avoid close scrutiny of the project. He believed that one of the points of contention is the proposal or a sea wall bulkhead and commented on the Coastal Commission's allowance of the same. He commented on a separate State concern regarding the area where the bulkhead would be going, north of the bridge, being a State Conservation and Marine-protected area. In response to Chair Kramer's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres addressed the Planning Commission's jurisdiction and reported that the Zoning Code ends at the land. Senior Planner Murillo added that the Harbor Commission reviewed this as part of a study session and commented on limits relative to future bulkheads. Commissioner Zak indicated that the Planning Commission is looking at land use designations and it is what is required at this time. Page 5 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 Senior Planner Murillo addressed next steps in terms of required Coastal Commission actions. Steve Ray reported there were many residents from the mobile home park at the Coastal Commission meeting who commented about the access trail and private beach. He addressed the existing and proposed storm drains and asked regarding the lot-line adjustment. Senior Planner Murillo stated that the Coastal Commission will take action on the lot-line adjustment in its consideration of the site development plan. Mr. Ray addressed the bulkhead and noted there is discussion about additional scientific assessments relative to hazard assessments, sea-level rise, the shoreline and its management. He stated there is no reference in the report that the study must be done prior to placement or determination of the sea wall. He referenced development limits and the land use plan and pointed out a discrepancy in the report. He suggested that an adjustment needs to be made regarding the residential square footage. At Chair Kramer's request, Senior Planner Murillo reported that the "missing' 4,000 square feet will be located within Planning Area 4. There are no issues with the calculations. The ratio was put in place to ensure that the mixed use water related designated properties (Planning Areas 1 and 4) consist of a 50/50 ratio and would include Planning Area 4. Seychelle Cannes reported that the ratio is only supposed to be in relation to Planning Area 1 and not included in Planning Area 4. She expressed concerns regarding Bayside Drive and opined that the elements proposed will not fit. She asked that the Planning Commission consider the matter as well as the effects of the bulkhead on sensitive habitats. Chair Kramer reiterated that the Planning Commission only has jurisdiction to the water's edge. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine addressed traffic as well as bike lanes and reported that the conceptual design being reviewed would include enough space for a Class 2 bike lane and a Class 1, off-road, shared pedestrian sidewalk. There will be landscaping and there is sufficient room for all of the proposed amenities. Ray Loud expressed concerns regarding loss of security with the public access as well as the loss of the private beach. Chair Kramer acknowledged his concerns and suggested contacting the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Zak indicated that the Planning Commission does not have to accept the Coastal Commission's modifications, but that would stop the developer from moving ahead on the project. Senior Planner Murillo noted that Mr. Ray was correct in terms of an error in calculation and corrected it to include Planning Area 4. Malcolm Read, Bayside Improvement Committee, reported they have been working with the applicant and, although not everyone is in favor of every aspect of the project, there is overwhelming support for same. He added that a quality development such as this,will improve property values, significantly. He stated there will be no loss of parking and addressed the lot-line adjustment adding that the applicant has been very cooperative in addressing resident concerns. Commissioner Zak commented on the Tidelands and related jurisdictional issues and asked Mr. Mosher to clarify his comments regarding same. Jim Mosher commented on the City's wish to improve the Lower Castaways park and during discussions, it became evident that everything north of the bridge is a Marine Protected Area. He reported sending written comments to the Coastal Commission regarding the subject. John Erskine reported that staff was aware of that communication and commented on the Marine Protected Area. He added that there is no prohibition of development, next to the Marine Protected Area. He added that Page 6 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 the Coastal Commission had the conceptual plan and the revised conceptual plan in its briefing packet and they are on file. He addressed the sea wall bulkhead issue and the requirement for a shore protective device. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Zak to adopt Resolution No. 2015 approving recommending that the City Council: Accept the California Coastal Commission suggested modifications; and approve the addendum prepared for the Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines; and approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2011-011, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2011-007, Code Amendment No. CA2013-009, and Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2011-001, as modified, to be consistent with the California Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to LC2011-007; and approve Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2016-003, including the correction in calculations of ratios, as suggested by staff. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, Koetting,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown, Lawler ITEM NO. 6 THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE (PA2014.150) Site Location: West of MacArthur Boulevard and is bounded by Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Dove Street & Scott Drive (1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, 4200, 4220, &4250 Scott Drive) The aforementioned item was tabled, indefinitely, under Requests for Continuances. The matter will be re- noticed at the appropriate time. VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the Coastal Commission will review minor adjustments to the City's coastal boundaries at its meeting in April. The Implementation Plan will be reviewed by the Coastal Commission, in May. 2. Update on City Council Items Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski referenced the Planning Commission's Tentative Agenda and commented on the recent workshop on the West Newport-Mesa Streetscape Master Plan. An update will be presented to the Planning Commission on April 7, 2016. She added that there will be a study session regarding the Museum House on April 7th, and will include an overall development potential for Newport Center. Discussion followed regarding coastal boundary issues and specific areas considered. ITEM NO. 9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Chair Kramer stated that the issue of videotaping Planning Commission meetings should have originated with the Planning Commission and asked that the issue be placed for discussion during the Planning Commission's meeting of April 7th. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None Page 7 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, March 11, 2016, at 1:35 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, March 11, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Page 8 of 8 Planning Commission - April 7, 2016 Item No. 1 a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of March 17, 2016 April 7, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2016 Suggested changes to the draft minutes passages in italics are indicated in stritceeut underline format. Page 5, paragraph 8, sentence 3 from end: "She hoped that the Planning Commission will require hotel developers to bring a new access through the dunes Dunes to limit traffic on Bayside Drive." Page 5, paragraph 3 from end, last half: "He believed that one of the points of contention is the proposal eF for a sea wall bulkhead and commented on the Coastal Commission's allowance of the same. He commented on a separate State concern regarding the area where the bulkhead would be going, north of the bridge, being a State Conservation ande- ratep ea Marine Protected Area." Page 5, paragraph 2 from end: ....., Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres addressed the Planning Commission's jurisdiction and reported that the Zoning Code ends at with the land." [according to the video, "at the land' is what was said, but "with" seems what was intended] Page 7, first complete sentence: "He addressed the sea wall bulkhead issue and the requirement for a share shoreline protective device." It might be noted that although the audio (and video) quality is less perfect than it would be if the City-owned equipment were used, the SPON video makes it much easier to scroll through the meeting and compare the minutes to what was actually said than it was in the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE501pzu cE It might also be noted that under Item 9 in the March Il Ph minutes, Chair Kramer asked for a discussion of videotaping of the Planning Commission meetings to be placed on the April 7`h agenda.