Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 - Draft Minutes - 06/09/2016 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers - 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, June 9, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Peter Koetting, Commissioner Ray Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commissioner Peter Zak ABSENT (Excused): Vice Chair Tim Brown, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Associate Planner Rosalyn Ung; Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dennis Baker requested the Planning Commission meetings be televised and archived by the City. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES—None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file It was noted that written corrections to the minutes were submitted by Jim Mosher. Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Chair Kramer to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak ABSTAIN: Lawler, Weigand ABSENT: Brown Hillgren VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NOS. 2, 3 and 4 were heard concurrently. ITEM NO.2 AVILA'S EL RANCHITO OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT(PA2016-080) Site Location: 2515 East Coast Highway ITEM NO. 3 BUNGALOW OUTDOOR DINING AND OFF-SITE PARKING USE PERMIT (PA2016-083) Site Location: 2441 East Coast Highway ITEM NO.4 ROTHSCHILD'S OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT (PA2016-088) Site Location: 2407 East Coast Highway Deputy Director Wisneski presented a PowerPoint explaining the proposed outdoor dining areas at 2515, 2441 and 2407 East Coast Highway. She explained the proposed hours of operation and parking requirements. In response to Secretary Koetting, Police Civilian Investigator Joe stated Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) would determine the requirements for the outdoor dining area. Deputy Director 1 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/9116 Wisneski discussed lighting and heating conditions. Secretary Koetting stated the gas meters might need to be relocated. Commissioner Lawler requested information on Former Council Member Daigle's question. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated there was no conflict with the prior entry project and the proposed outdoor dining. He stated that, while he was not part of the original entry project, he indicated outdoor dining was envisioned in this area. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Deputy Director Wisneski discussed the Bungalow's existing patio at the rear is permitted to be open until 11 p.m. She explained the recommendation was to close the proposed street side dining at 10 p.m. In response to Commissioner Zak, Deputy Director Wisneski explained the encroachment permit requirement. Commissioner Zak asked about the waiver required under City Council Policy L-21. Deputy Director Wisneski explained that a waiver was required due to the reduction from 8-feet. Chair Kramer requested the cost of the annual encroachment permit. Assistant City Attorney Torres discussed the encroachment agreement processed through the Public Works Department. In response to Commissioner Zak, Assistant City Attorney Torres discussed the indemnity language included in the conditional and encroachment permits. Chair Kramer asked if additional insurance was required. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the requirements would be assess by the City's Risk Assessment Manager during the encroachment permit process. Chair Kramer requested the requirement be evaluated. In response to Chair Kramer, Police Civilian Investigator Joe stated the Police had no concerns with the proposed project. Commissioner Weigand requested the Commission consider extending the hours on the weekends to compensate for the cost of the permits and insurance. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. The General Manager for Avila's EI Ranchito, stated the picture depicted the proposed custom railing. Jim Walker, partner and owner of Bungalow Restaurant, stated the parking waiver and encroachment permits cost$1750. He explained ABC inspection once the fence was installed. He discussed access to the patio from the restaurant. He discussed hours of operation and sensitivity to noise and the neighborhood. He expressed appreciation for the potential of outdoor dining. In response to Secretary Koetting, Mr. Walker indicated he had read the conditions and agreed to them. Commissioner Weigand stated he suggested additional hours to benefit the restaurants. Heidi Patricola, Owner of Rothschild's, indicated she was available to answer questions. Lila Krista requested the Commission enforce closure at 9 p.m. on weeknights and 10 p.m. on weekends. Patricia Meechling expressed excitement about outdoor dining but requested limited hours of operation. Page 2 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/9/16 Judy Wagner stated no action should be taken due to improper notice and urged the Commission to deny the request due to the lack of parking. She questioned special treatment for EI Ranchito. She stated parking and congestion were unacceptable. Steve Rosansky, President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, indicated support for all three applications. Jim Mosher questioned why the Deputy Director was preparing the reports and lack of analysis. He questioned why dining was being allowed on a City right-of-way. He suggested a public use rather than dining tables. He expressed concern regarding the proposed encroachment. He suggested the possibility of outdoor dining without alcohol service, therefore eliminating the need for fencing. He requested information on the need for a waiver and whether there was an annual fee for the encroachment permit. He discussed expansion of the sidewalk and discussed parking for the Bungalow. Dennis Baker stated the restaurants were good neighbors. He discussed noise from the back patio. He expressed concern with increasing the hours of operation to 11 p.m. due to the entitlements remaining with the property. He discussed issues with parking and suggested a comprehensive plan. Bellamy Walker stated additional seating would not increase the existing parking issues. She indicated support for the applications. Mr. Walker stated there was no easy solution to the parking issue. He discussed efforts to consolidate valet parking and discussed overflow employee parking from neighboring businesses. He suggested all outside dining have the same hours of operation. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lawler asked if the noticing was adequate. Deputy Director Wisneski stated the noticing was appropriate. Commissioner Lawler stated the Commission did not have purview over parking. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated the annual fee for outdoor dining over 100 square feet was $250. Commissioner Lawler suggested surrounding parking lots. Deputy Director Wisneski stated Corona Del Mar Plaza provided a shuttle for employee parking. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2016 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-019 as amended, and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. In response to Commissioner Zak, Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the use of the right of way was in the purview of the City Council. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2017 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-020,as amended, and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2018 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-023 and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. Page 3 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/9116 AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren ITEM NO. 5 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) Principal Planner Campbell presented a PowerPoint summarizing the proposed project, land use designations, General Plan requirements, and surrounding uses. Associate Planner Ung provided an overview of the project details. She explained the General Plan Policy Waiver, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Planning Commission study session. She discussed comments received on the project. In response to Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell stated the proposed project was in keeping with the concept plan Figure LU23 of the General Plan. Secretary Koetting requested an explanation of the concept plan. Principal Planner Campbell stated the light green areas depicted potential parks, orange lines depicted future residential streets, and the dotted green lines were pedestrian ways. He explained that the concept plan shows a proposed linear park and pedestrian way across the project site. Secretary Koetting stated the concept of housing in the airport area was not new. Principal Planner Campbell discussed the zoning of the entire area, HCD requirements as the reason why the residential overlay was created in the Newport Placed Planned Community. Secretary Koetting asked about the affordable housing requirement. Principal Planner Campbell discussed the requested density bonus. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Assistant City Attorney Torres explained that the project did not require a development agreement because it was replacement units rather than infill development. He stated they had asked the applicant if they would voluntarily enter into a development agreement to which they declined. Commissioner Lawler asked for clarification on the difference between replacement versus infill and why staff did not want a development agreement. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated a development agreement would be beneficial but was not required. In response to Chair Kramer, Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the General Plan and Municipal Code provisions had been reviewed and approved by the Council and a development agreement was not required in the development. Chair Kramer asked if staff had canvassed the Council. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated staff had not canvassed the Council. In response to Commissioner Lawler and Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell explained General Plan Policies 16.15.5 and 6.15.12 related to infill projects. He also discussed the conversion of commercial square footage to residential. In response to Chair Kramer, Principal Planner Campbell explained the distinction between the proposed project and Uptown Newport project. Commissioner Lawler asked if the applicant had made efforts to incorporate additional retail on the ground floor. Principal Planner Campbell stated the applicant had made no changes to the project to increase retail. In response to Commissioner Zak, Principal Planner Campbell explained the allowance of additive units. Commissioner Zak clarified that the replacement units were calculated based on trip generation. Principal Planner Campbell explained the density bonus provision. Commissioner Zak expressed concern that the applicant was told that a development agreement was not necessary but it was now an issue. Page 4 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/9/16 Chair Kramer stated there were continuing issues with the development agreement. In response to Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell explained the requirement for the dedication of a half-acre for public park purposes. He stated the applicant was attempting to adhere to the General Plan policy by providing a half-acre of open space, allowing limited public access and providing an in-lieu fee for the value of the land. He indicated the space was largely passive. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Principal Planner Campbell explained the proposed walkway and parking. Chair Kramer requested explanation regarding the waiver of dedication for the park and necessary lot line adjustment. Principal Planner Campbell explained the dedication would affect the density calculation and if required, it would reduce the project by 33 units. Chair Kramer explained that, if the Commission could not make the finding for the waiver, the applicant would have to redesign the project. Principal Planner Campbell confirmed that to be accurate. Commissioner Zak asked why the public access easement was limited to the sidewalk. Principal Planner Campbell suggested asking the applicant. He indicated the applicant expressed a concern to staff about security for units fronting the park in relation to fencing and gating the park. Chair Kramer asked about the traffic analysis. City Traffic Engineer Brine discussed the daily trips and indicated the threshold was not met for a detailed traffic study. Chair Kramer asked why an analysis was not conducted based on the project sensitivity. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated he did not expect any impacts to be discovered from a detailed study. Britnae Jensen, Development Manager for Newport Place Residential, presented an overview of the proposed project. She explained why a development agreement was not required. She explained the overall architecture of the project, modified based on comments received at the study session. In response to Secretary Koetting, Ms. Jensen described the retail on the corner of Scott Drive and Dove Street and community space above it. Ms. Jensen discussed the modified setbacks and efforts to promote a more walkable neighborhood. She stated the project met the intent of the layout for the open space area as shown by Figure LU23. She showed a map showing retail uses in the area and petition from the surrounding businesses in support of the project. In response to Commissioner Zak, Ms. Jensen explained the reason for proposing enclosure of the open space due to residential security needs. Commissioner Zak stated he would be more open to the proposal if the open space area was not being used to increase density. Commissioner Weigand expressed concerns about the proposed main entrance and vehicular traffic from the businesses. Ms. Jensen stated they had concern about parking on Martingale Way. She stated 90 percent of the parking on Martingale Way was due to a rental car establishment on Birch Street. She discussed parking for the project. She discussed the proposed pet areas and construction timeframe. She discussed negotiations with the current tenants and explained the School District boundaries. In response to Chair Kramer, Ms. Jensen discussed the schools for the proposed project. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated school traffic had not been studied specifically; however he noted that it would be included in the trip generation assumptions. Page 5 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/9/16 Commissioner Weigand asked if future residents would be provided notice on the schools. Ms. Jensen stated disclosures regarding schools and the airport would be provided. In response to Secretary Koetting, Ms. Jensen explained the proposed singular quality restaurant use. She presented a diagram showing access and circulation and she explained the stoops and connectivity of the neighborhood. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Dennis Baker discussed traffic on Birch. He expressed concern about the lack of a proposed park and reduction of businesses that serve the area. Joe Finnell, President of the Southern California Pilots Association, presented information and the opinion that the project was a bad idea due to noise and the flight pattern that takes planes over the site. Fred Fourcher expressed concern about infill of parking lots, increasing density and traffic issues. He discussed noise from the airport and pollution from planes. John Santry, Shopoff Realty Investment, requested all development be held to the same standards and it be equitable and fair. Jan Hollis, Director of Sales and Marketing for Radisson Hotel, indicated opposition to the project due to loss of restaurant and retail options. She stated a residential complex would have a negative impact on the hotel and businesses. Dorothy Kraus, Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON), requested a specific plan or comprehensive plan for the area. She expressed concern regarding loss of parking, lack of community amenities, and increased traffic. She stated a streetscape plan was necessary. She requested the Commission delay action until the character of the airport and impact of mixed use was understood. John Petry stated the airport created a noise issue. He expressed concern regarding the loss of restaurant space and suggested a specific plan for the area. Rick Roshan, owner of office building at 4299 MacArthur Boulevard, discussed the need for parking. Jim Mosher reminded the Commission that its decisions were discretionary. He echoed the SPON sentiment for a specific plan. He discussed the idea of adding residences to the airport area. He questioned the proposed height. SueAnn Challita, representing her parents, owners of Arnie's Deli, discussed the poor condition of the property and lack of upkeep. She discussed dangerous traffic conditions. She stated the property owner had not been in contact with the existing tenants. Lori Trottier stated CEQA did not require responses to public comments on negative declarations but thanked staff for responding to her letter. She commended staff and the developer in its review of the project. She stated she visited the site and noted parking in the area. She discussed the deficiency in active parks in the area. She suggested additional traffic analysis. She questioned air quality and potential health risks from the airport. She expressed concern that there was no requirement for mixed use and it could end up as simply an apartment complex. Javaid Ansari, Managing Partner of Compak Asset Management, expressed concern regarding traffic management and suggested installation of stop signs. He suggested additional retail development be included. He questioned the proposal for a gate around the park and traffic safety. Page 6 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/9/16 With no further speakers, Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Secretary Koetting requested information on the airport and height of the building, comprehensive plan, parking reduction, applicant's pro forma for bodies per apartment, and traffic analysis. Ms. Jensen stated the required half-acre open space would be provided. She discussed the waiver for payment of in lieu fee for non-dedication of the open space. She explained the proposal to enclose the open space for increased security and maintenance. She stated the shopping center was struggling and it was not realistic to maintain it as a retail center. She acknowledged the concerns of the Radisson Hotel. She stated the project had FAA clearance and stated the impetus was on the development for appropriate sound proofing. She stated the variances would enhance the project. She discussed the comments suggesting the need for additional retail and a desire for a local market. Associate Planner Ung discussed the proposed parking ratio. Secretary Koetting asked why it was less than the standard. Principal Planner Campbell explained the parking standard is established by density bonus ordinance and indicated the project was in compliance. In response to Secretary Koetting, City Traffic Engineer Brine stated residential had obtained clearance. Secretary Koetting questioned potential traffic impacts. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated the traffic phasing ordinance was being followed. Commissioner Lawler indicated support for cautious redevelopment. He suggested a development agreement and need for additional retail. He stated the open space should be open. He indicated opposition to the project. Commission Zak indicated support for residential mixed-use in the area. He questioned Finding B. He stated a development agreement was warranted. He suggested adding a condition requiring public access cover the entire open space area and not allowing gates if the project were approved. He suggested requiring mature trees and ensuring adequate parking. Commissioner Weigand stated the residents would be aware of the airport. He suggested staff review housing near airports in surrounding communities and impacts to residents. Chair Kramer stated the parcel needed improvement and he indicated support for redevelopment of the parcel and residential use. He stated the project as currently designed had numerous flaws. He stated he could not make Findings A, 2, 3 and 5. He expressed concern about neighborhood compatibility. He stated he could not make Finding B, Finding F, nor Finding I. He expressed frustration with the inadequacy and practicality of the General Plan. He stated he could not support the project. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to deny the project and direct staff to return to the next Planning Commission meeting with a resolution containing the findings for denial. Secretary Koetting suggested the applicant make modifications based on the Commissions and public comments. He indicated support for staffs determination that a development agreement was not required. He suggested continuing the hearing to allow the applicant to redesign the project. Chair Kramer expressed concern with putting the project on hold. Ms. Jensen requested a continuance to allow revisions based on comments. Chair Kramer stated the purpose of the study session was to allow revisions to the project based upon Commissioner's input. Ms. Jensen stated they had reanalyzed the concerns and Page 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/9/16 provided justification on why some of the changes were not made. She stated there was opportunity to make additional changes. Alternate Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Zak to continue the hearing. In response to Chair Kramer, Assistant City Attorney Torres explained additional staff time involved in continuing the project. Chair Kramer stated the decision to deny could be appealed to the City Council, during which time, the project could be redesigned. Chair Kramer recommended the alternate motion be denied. The question was called on the alternate motion to continue the hearing and the motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Koetting, Zak NOES: Kramer, Lawler,Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren The question was called on the original motion to deny the project and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Kramer, Lawler,Weigand, Zak NOES: Koetting ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren RECESS Chair Kramer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:15 p.m.,with Vice Chair Tim Brown and Commissioner Bradley Hillgren absent. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 6 WEST NEWPORT MESA STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN (PA2015-138) Site Location: West Newport Mesa Deputy Director Wisneski presented the staff report. Chair Kramer discussed the proposed timeline for the plan. Brian Hannegan, RRM Design Group, presented a PowerPoint updating the Commission on the progress of the plan. In response to Chair Kramer and Commissioner Weigand, Mr. Hannegan discussed issues with power lines. In response to Secretary Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski explained assessment districts for the purpose of undergrounding. City Traffic Engineer Brine discussed conditions requiring undergrounding. Mr. Hannegan concluded that the purpose was to create a master plan to help guide improvements along the streets. Chair Kramer indicated support for the plan. In response to Secretary Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski stated a way finding sign program would be included. Secretary Koetting suggested medians where possible. Jim Mosher suggested the possibility of undergrounding based on increased utility payments. He stated the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission should be included in review of the plan. Page 8 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/9/16 Chair Kramer suggested the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission review the plan prior to final Planning Commission review. Dennis Baker requested green streets be included in the plan. IX. 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 Director Wisneski discussed the appeal of the La Jolla Variance. She stated the Planning Commission would be discussing the 150 Newport Center project at a Study Session, Lido House Amendments, and televising meetings. She stated the Master Plan, Village Inn and La Jolla Variance were scheduled for July 7, 2016. Chair Kramer requested postponing the July 7, 2016 meeting. Deputy Director Wisneski suggested determining availability then surveying the Commission on a potential meeting date. 2. Update on City Council Items Deputy Director Wisneski stated the Council had upheld the Planning Commission's determination on the Dunes. ITEM NO.9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT—None. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, June 3, 2016, at 11:15 a.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, June 3, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Page 9 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of June 9, 2016 June 23, 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 JUNE 9, 2016 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in st.-., Pout underline format. Page 1, Staff Present: "..., Associate Planner Resa" Rosalinh Ung; ..." Pages 1-3, Items 2-4: The draft minutes regarding the approval of the three outdoor dining requests are missing key points. For example, staff posted a June 6th amendment to the resolution for Avila's changing the opening hour from 10 to 9 a.m., but during the hearing it was announced this was being withdrawn because it had not been noticed. It is impossible to tell from the motions on page 3 what resolutions "as amended" were being approved. Commissioner Lawler's motion at 56_40 in the SPON video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKY1 hlxmcAO ) included not only an additional insurance requirement, but also a 10 p.m. closing hour, and Deputy Director Wisneski suggested additional "adjustments' to the motion. Page 2, paragraph 4: "Commissioner Zak asked about the waiver required under City Council Policy L-21. Deputy Director Wisneski explained that a waiver was required due to the reduction from 8-feet." [note: the Commission was not informed either orally or in the staff report that a waiver was also required from the Council policy requirement that any barricades be easily removable, not bolted to the public sidewalk, as was requested here. The idea that the outdoor dining fixtures would be present only during business hours, and not become a permanent private encroachment on the public sidewalk (as is being allowed here), was a key feature of the Council's original Ordinance 96-9 allowing use of the sidewalks.] Page 2, paragraph 7: "Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the requirements would be ams assessed by the City's Risk Assessment Manager..." Page 3, paragraph 2 before first motion: "City Traffic Engineer Brine stated the annual fee for outdoor dining over 100 square feet was$250-$258." [? It certainly sounds like "258" at 54_40 in the SPON video. It might be noted that the correct amount currently being charged actually appears to be $270 according to line 404 on page 9 of the most recent Master Fee Schedule adopted by Council Resolution 2015-76.] Page 3, between first motion and vote: The minutes fail to convey the substance of Commissioner Zak's comment (starting at 59_00 in the SPON video) that the annual encroachment permit fee seemed inadequate and that there should perhaps be instead a lease agreement in which the restaurants take over maintenance of the adjacent public sidewalk. And not recorded at all is Chair Kramer's related request that the Council be informed that the Commission thought there should be additional consideration given by the restaurants for the benefit provided to them. This lack of detail and completeness in the minutes seems a continuation of the lack of detail and preparation evident at the Commission hearing, evidently resulting from these three applications being rushed through with unusual speed. According to the Planning Division's Case Loa, the application for PA2016-080 was not even submitted until May 13th, with those for PA2016-083 and PA2016-088 following on May 18th and 20th. Yet all three were deemed ready Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Draft�l�inutes of June 9, 2016 for hearing before the Commission on June 9th. And staff reports for a June 14th consent calendar action by the City Council were published before the Commission had even made a decision, let alone after the window for an appeal of the Commission's actions had closed. So the written report to Council did not include the Commission requests mentioned in the previous paragraph, nor to the best of my knowledge were the Commission comments conveyed orally (since the matter was on the Council consent calendar which City staff does not normally comment on). Getting a final public decision through both the Commission and Council in less than a month from the date of application seems highly unusual, and the need for such haste and sloppiness was not explained. In that haste, the Commission also does not seem to have been informed that there was a fourth outdoor dining application (PA2016-084)for 2305 Coast Hwy E (Ruby's Diner) that was not presented to the Commission at all, even though it was submitted at the same time (May 18th). Staff's reasons for not presenting that application would have seemed relevant to the Commission's consideration of why the others were. Page 4, Item 5, paragraph 3, sentence 2 from end: "Principal Planner Campbell discussed the zoning of the entire area, HCD requirements as the reason why the residential overlay was created in the Newport Plat-P Place Planned Community." Page 4, Item 5, paragraph 6: "in response to Commissioner Lawler and Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell explained General Plan Policies 46 Is5 6.15.5 and 6.15.12 related to infill projects." Page 8, last paragraph: "Jim Mosher suggested the possibility of undergrounding based on inrreaseel public utility payments." [I mentioned the Rule 20A option, as explained on the City's Public Works Department web pages, which was used, most recently, on Balboa Boulevard. Such projects are funded by charges already imposed on utility bills, not by increases, and are an alternative to forming assessment districts.] Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 AWP Item No. 1b Additional Materials Received CITY OF IWgfg(WkWglof June 9, 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 Civic Center Drive l) ) S Newport Beach,California 92660 �d� 949 644-3200 4L/FofL newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Planning Commissioners From: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director Date: June 21, 2106 Re: Amendments to June 9, 2016 Meeting Minutes As stated in comments provided by Jim Mosher, the minutes overlooked key points made at the meeting. Please consider the amendments to the attached minutes. Community Development Department Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of June 9, 2016 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers - 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, June 9, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Peter Koetting, Commissioner Ray Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commissioner Peter Zak ABSENT(Excused): Vice Chair Tim Brown, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Associate Planner Rosalyn Ung; Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dennis Baker requested the Planning Commission meetings be televised and archived by the City. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES— None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 7,2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file It was noted that written corrections to the minutes were submitted by Jim Mosher. Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Chair Kramer to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak ABSTAIN: Lawler, Weigand ABSENT: Brown Hillgren VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NOS. 2, 3 and 4 were heard concurrently. ITEM NO. 2 AVILA'S EL RANCHITO OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT(PA2016-080) Site Location: 2515 East Coast Highway ITEM NO. 3 BUNGALOW OUTDOOR DINING AND OFF-SITE PARKING USE PERMIT (PA2016-083) Site Location: 2441 East Coast Highway ITEM NO.4 ROTHSCHILD'S OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT(PA2016-088) Site Location: 2407 East Coast Highway Deputy Director Wisneski presented a PowerPoint explaining the proposed outdoor dining areas at 2515, 2441 and 2407 East Coast Highway. She explained the proposed hours of operation and parking requirements. In response to Secretary Koetting, Police Civilian Investigator Joe stated Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) would determine the requirements for the outdoor dining area. Deputy Director 1 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft MinutEOJ%TgJune 9, 2016 Wisneski discussed lighting and heating conditions. Secretary Koetting stated the gas meters might need to be relocated. Commissioner Lawler requested information on Former Council Member Daigle's question. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated there was no conflict with the prior entry project and the proposed outdoor dining. He stated that, while he was not part of the original entry project, he indicated outdoor dining was envisioned in this area. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Deputy Director Wisneski discussed the Bungalow's existing patio at the rear is permitted to be open until 11 p.m. She explained the recommendation was to close the proposed street side dining at 10 p.m. In response to Commissioner Zak, Deputy Director Wisneski explained the encroachment permit requirement. Commissioner Zak asked about the waiver required under City Council Policy L-21. Deputy Director Wisneski explained that a waiver was required due to the reduction from 8-feet. Chair Kramer requested the cost of the annual encroachment permit. Assistant City Attorney Torres discussed the encroachment agreement processed through the Public Works Department. In response to Commissioner Zak, Assistant City Attorney Torres discussed the indemnity language included in the conditional and encroachment permits. Chair Kramer asked if additional insurance was required. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the requirements would be assess by the City's Risk Assessment Manager during the encroachment permit process. Chair Kramer requested the requirement be evaluated. In response to Chair Kramer, Police Civilian Investigator Joe stated the Police had no concerns with the proposed project. Commissioner Weigand requested the Commission consider extending the hours on the weekends to compensate for the cost of the permits and insurance. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. The General Manager for Avila's EI Ranchito, stated the picture depicted the proposed custom railing. Jim Walker, partner and owner of Bungalow Restaurant, stated the parking waiver and encroachment permits cost$1750. He explained ABC inspection once the fence was installed. He discussed access to the patio from the restaurant. He discussed hours of operation and sensitivity to noise and the neighborhood. He expressed appreciation for the potential of outdoor dining. In response to Secretary Koetting, Mr. Walker indicated he had read the conditions and agreed to them. Commissioner Weigand stated he suggested additional hours to benefit the restaurants. Heidi Patricola, Owner of Rothschild's, indicated she was available to answer questions. Lila Krista requested the Commission enforce closure at 9 p.m. on weeknights and 10 p.m. on weekends. Patricia Meechling expressed excitement about outdoor dining but requested limited hours of operation. Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minute@(%TQJune 9, 2016 Judy Wagner stated no action should be taken due to improper notice and urged the Commission to deny the request due to the lack of parking. She questioned special treatment for EI Ranchito. She stated parking and congestion were unacceptable. Steve Rosansky, President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, indicated support for all three applications. Jim Mosher questioned why the Deputy Director was preparing the reports and lack of analysis. He questioned why dining was being allowed on a City right-of-way. He suggested a public use rather than dining tables. He expressed concern regarding the proposed encroachment. He suggested the possibility of outdoor dining without alcohol service, therefore eliminating the need for fencing. He requested information on the need for a waiver and whether there was an annual fee for the encroachment permit. He discussed expansion of the sidewalk and discussed parking for the Bungalow. Dennis Baker stated the restaurants were good neighbors. He discussed noise from the back patio. He expressed concern with increasing the hours of operation to 11 p.m. due to the entitlements remaining with the property. He discussed issues with parking and suggested a comprehensive plan. Bellamy Walker stated additional seating would not increase the existing parking issues. She indicated support for the applications. Mr. Walker stated there was no easy solution to the parking issue. He discussed efforts to consolidate valet parking and discussed overflow employee parking from neighboring businesses. He suggested all outside dining have the same hours of operation. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lawler asked if the noticing was adequate. Deputy Director Wisneski stated the noticing was appropriate. Commissioner Lawler stated the Commission did not have purview over parking. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated the annual fee for outdoor dining over 100 square feet was $250. Commissioner Lawler suggested surrounding parking lots. Deputy Director Wisneski stated Corona Del Mar Plaza provided a shuttle for employee parking. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2016 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-019 as amended, and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. Wisneski asked for the motion to include clarification that the opening of the restaurant would remain at 10:00 a.m. In response to Commissioner Zak suggestion that the annual encroachment fee seemed inadequate for the use of the right of way, Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the use of the right of way was a policy decision and was in the purview of the City Council. Chair Kramer asked that the Council be informed that the Commission made this suggestion. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2017 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-020,as amended, and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minute@(%TgJune 9, 2016 Wisneski requested that the motion include a correction to Finding C.3. to reflect the hours specified in condition of approval No. 14. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2018 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-023 and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren ITEM NO. 5 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) Principal Planner Campbell presented a PowerPoint summarizing the proposed project, land use designations, General Plan requirements, and surrounding uses. Associate Planner Ung provided an overview of the project details. She explained the General Plan Policy Waiver, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Planning Commission study session. She discussed comments received on the project. In response to Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell stated the proposed project was in keeping with the concept plan Figure LU23 of the General Plan. Secretary Koetting requested an explanation of the concept plan. Principal Planner Campbell stated the light green areas depicted potential parks, orange lines depicted future residential streets, and the dotted green lines were pedestrian ways. He explained that the concept plan shows a proposed linear park and pedestrian way across the project site. Secretary Koetting stated the concept of housing in the airport area was not new. Principal Planner Campbell discussed the zoning of the entire area, HCD requirements as the reason why the residential overlay was created in the Newport Placed Planned Community. Secretary Koetting asked about the affordable housing requirement. Principal Planner Campbell discussed the requested density bonus. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Assistant City Attorney Torres explained that the project did not require a development agreement because it was replacement units rather than infill development. He stated they had asked the applicant if they would voluntarily enter into a development agreement to which they declined. Commissioner Lawler asked for clarification on the difference between replacement versus infill and why staff did not want a development agreement. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated a development agreement would be beneficial but was not required. In response to Chair Kramer, Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the General Plan and Municipal Code provisions had been reviewed and approved by the Council and a development agreement was not required in the development. Chair Kramer asked if staff had canvassed the Council. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated staff had not canvassed the Council. In response to Commissioner Lawler and Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell explained General Plan Policies 16.15.5 and 6.15.12 related to infill projects. He also discussed the conversion of commercial square footage to residential. In response to Chair Kramer, Principal Planner Campbell explained the distinction between the proposed project and Uptown Newport project. Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft MinutEOJ%TgJune 9, 2016 Commissioner Lawler asked if the applicant had made efforts to incorporate additional retail on the ground floor. Principal Planner Campbell stated the applicant had made no changes to the project to increase retail. In response to Commissioner Zak, Principal Planner Campbell explained the allowance of additive units. Commissioner Zak clarified that the replacement units were calculated based on trip generation. Principal Planner Campbell explained the density bonus provision. Commissioner Zak expressed concern that the applicant was told that a development agreement was not necessary but it was now an issue. Chair Kramer stated there were continuing issues with the development agreement. In response to Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell explained the requirement for the dedication of a half-acre for public park purposes. He stated the applicant was attempting to adhere to the General Plan policy by providing a half-acre of open space, allowing limited public access and providing an in-lieu fee for the value of the land. He indicated the space was largely passive. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Principal Planner Campbell explained the proposed walkway and parking. Chair Kramer requested explanation regarding the waiver of dedication for the park and necessary lot line adjustment. Principal Planner Campbell explained the dedication would affect the density calculation and if required, it would reduce the project by 33 units. Chair Kramer explained that, if the Commission could not make the finding for the waiver, the applicant would have to redesign the project. Principal Planner Campbell confirmed that to be accurate. Commissioner Zak asked why the public access easement was limited to the sidewalk. Principal Planner Campbell suggested asking the applicant. He indicated the applicant expressed a concern to staff about security for units fronting the park in relation to fencing and gating the park. Chair Kramer asked about the traffic analysis. City Traffic Engineer Brine discussed the daily trips and indicated the threshold was not met for a detailed traffic study. Chair Kramer asked why an analysis was not conducted based on the project sensitivity. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated he did not expect any impacts to be discovered from a detailed study. Britnae Jensen, Development Manager for Newport Place Residential, presented an overview of the proposed project. She explained why a development agreement was not required. She explained the overall architecture of the project, modified based on comments received at the study session. In response to Secretary Koetting, Ms. Jensen described the retail on the corner of Scott Drive and Dove Street and community space above it. Ms. Jensen discussed the modified setbacks and efforts to promote a more walkable neighborhood. She stated the project met the intent of the layout for the open space area as shown by Figure LU23. She showed a map showing retail uses in the area and petition from the surrounding businesses in support of the project. In response to Commissioner Zak, Ms. Jensen explained the reason for proposing enclosure of the open space due to residential security needs. Commissioner Zak stated he would be more open to the proposal if the open space area was not being used to increase density. Commissioner Weigand expressed concerns about the proposed main entrance and vehicular traffic from the businesses. Ms. Jensen stated they had concern about parking on Martingale Way. She stated 90 percent of the parking on Martingale Way was due to a rental Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutc %TQJune 9, 2016 car establishment on Birch Street. She discussed parking for the project. She discussed the proposed pet areas and construction timeframe. She discussed negotiations with the current tenants and explained the School District boundaries. In response to Chair Kramer, Ms. Jensen discussed the schools for the proposed project. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated school traffic had not been studied specifically; however he noted that it would be included in the trip generation assumptions. Commissioner Weigand asked if future residents would be provided notice on the schools. Ms. Jensen stated disclosures regarding schools and the airport would be provided. In response to Secretary Koetting, Ms. Jensen explained the proposed singular quality restaurant use. She presented a diagram showing access and circulation and she explained the stoops and connectivity of the neighborhood. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Dennis Baker discussed traffic on Birch. He expressed concern about the lack of a proposed park and reduction of businesses that serve the area. Joe Finnell, President of the Southern California Pilots Association, presented information and the opinion that the project was a bad idea due to noise and the flight pattern that takes planes over the site. Fred Fourcher expressed concern about infill of parking lots, increasing density and traffic issues. He discussed noise from the airport and pollution from planes. John Santry, Shopoff Realty Investment, requested all development be held to the same standards and it be equitable and fair. Jan Hollis, Director of Sales and Marketing for Radisson Hotel, indicated opposition to the project due to loss of restaurant and retail options. She stated a residential complex would have a negative impact on the hotel and businesses. Dorothy Kraus, Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON), requested a specific plan or comprehensive plan for the area. She expressed concern regarding loss of parking, lack of community amenities, and increased traffic. She stated a streetscape plan was necessary. She requested the Commission delay action until the character of the airport and impact of mixed use was understood. John Petry stated the airport created a noise issue. He expressed concern regarding the loss of restaurant space and suggested a specific plan for the area. Rick Roshan, owner of office building at 4299 MacArthur Boulevard, discussed the need for parking. Jim Mosher reminded the Commission that its decisions were discretionary. He echoed the SPON sentiment for a specific plan. He discussed the idea of adding residences to the airport area. He questioned the proposed height. SueAnn Challita, representing her parents, owners of Arnie's Deli, discussed the poor condition of the property and lack of upkeep. She discussed dangerous traffic conditions. She stated the property owner had not been in contact with the existing tenants. Lori Trottier stated CEQA did not require responses to public comments on negative declarations but thanked staff for responding to her letter. She commended staff and the developer in its review of the project. She stated she visited the site and noted parking in the area. She discussed the deficiency in active parks in the area. She suggested Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft MinutEOJ%TgJune 9, 2016 additional traffic analysis. She questioned air quality and potential health risks from the airport. She expressed concern that there was no requirement for mixed use and it could end up as simply an apartment complex. Javaid Ansari, Managing Partner of Compak Asset Management, expressed concern regarding traffic management and suggested installation of stop signs. He suggested additional retail development be included. He questioned the proposal for a gate around the park and traffic safety. With no further speakers, Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Secretary Koetting requested information on the airport and height of the building, comprehensive plan, parking reduction, applicant's pro forma for bodies per apartment, and traffic analysis. Ms. Jensen stated the required half-acre open space would be provided. She discussed the waiver for payment of in lieu fee for non-dedication of the open space. She explained the proposal to enclose the open space for increased security and maintenance. She stated the shopping center was struggling and it was not realistic to maintain it as a retail center. She acknowledged the concerns of the Radisson Hotel. She stated the project had FAA clearance and stated the impetus was on the development for appropriate sound proofing. She stated the variances would enhance the project. She discussed the comments suggesting the need for additional retail and a desire for a local market. Associate Planner Ung discussed the proposed parking ratio. Secretary Koetting asked why it was less than the standard. Principal Planner Campbell explained the parking standard is established by density bonus ordinance and indicated the project was in compliance. In response to Secretary Koetting, City Traffic Engineer Brine stated residential had obtained clearance. Secretary Koetting questioned potential traffic impacts. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated the traffic phasing ordinance was being followed. Commissioner Lawler indicated support for cautious redevelopment. He suggested a development agreement and need for additional retail. He stated the open space should be open. He indicated opposition to the project. Commission Zak indicated support for residential mixed-use in the area. He questioned Finding B. He stated a development agreement was warranted. He suggested adding a condition requiring public access cover the entire open space area and not allowing gates if the project were approved. He suggested requiring mature trees and ensuring adequate parking. Commissioner Weigand stated the residents would be aware of the airport. He suggested staff review housing near airports in surrounding communities and impacts to residents. Chair Kramer stated the parcel needed improvement and he indicated support for redevelopment of the parcel and residential use. He stated the project as currently designed had numerous flaws. He stated he could not make Findings A, 2, 3 and 5. He expressed concern about neighborhood compatibility. He stated he could not make Finding B, Finding F, nor Finding I. He expressed frustration with the inadequacy and practicality of the General Plan. He stated he could not support the project. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to deny the project and direct staff to return to the next Planning Commission meeting with a resolution containing the findings for denial. Secretary Koetting suggested the applicant make modifications based on the Commissions and public comments. He indicated support for staffs determination that a development Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minute@(%TQJune 9, 2016 agreement was not required. He suggested continuing the hearing to allow the applicant to redesign the project. Chair Kramer expressed concern with putting the project on hold. Ms. Jensen requested a continuance to allow revisions based on comments. Chair Kramer stated the purpose of the study session was to allow revisions to the project based upon Commissioner's input. Ms. Jensen stated they had reanalyzed the concerns and provided justification on why some of the changes were not made. She stated there was opportunity to make additional changes. Alternate Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Zak to continue the hearing. In response to Chair Kramer, Assistant City Attorney Torres explained additional staff time involved in continuing the project. Chair Kramer stated the decision to deny could be appealed to the City Council, during which time, the project could be redesigned. Chair Kramer recommended the alternate motion be denied. The question was called on the alternate motion to continue the hearing and the motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Koetting,Zak NOES: Kramer, Lawler,Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren The question was called on the original motion to deny the project and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Kramer, Lawler,Weigand, Zak NOES: Koetting ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren RECESS Chair Kramer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:15 p.m., with Vice Chair Tim Brown and Commissioner Bradley Hillgren absent. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 6 WEST NEWPORT MESA STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN (PA2015-138) Site Location: West Newport Mesa Deputy Director Wisneski presented the staff report. Chair Kramer discussed the proposed timeline for the plan. Brian Hannegan, RRM Design Group, presented a PowerPoint updating the Commission on the progress of the plan. In response to Chair Kramer and Commissioner Weigand, Mr. Hannegan discussed issues with power lines. In response to Secretary Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski explained assessment districts for the purpose of undergrounding. City Traffic Engineer Brine discussed conditions requiring undergrounding. Mr. Hannegan concluded that the purpose was to create a master plan to help guide improvements along the streets. Chair Kramer indicated support for the plan. Page 8 of 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 1b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minute@(%TgJune 9, 2016 In response to Secretary Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski stated a way finding sign program would be included. Secretary Koetting suggested medians where possible. Jim Mosher suggested the possibility of undergrounding based on increased utility payments. He stated the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission should be included in review of the plan. Chair Kramer suggested the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission review the plan prior to final Planning Commission review. Dennis Baker requested green streets be included in the plan. IX. 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 Director Wisneski discussed the appeal of the La Jolla Variance. She stated the Planning Commission would be discussing the 150 Newport Center project at a Study Session, Lido House Amendments, and televising meetings. She stated the Master Plan, Village Inn and La Jolla Variance were scheduled for July 7, 2016. Chair Kramer requested postponing the July 7, 2016 meeting. Deputy Director Wisneski suggested determining availability then surveying the Commission on a potential meeting date. 2. Update on City Council Items Deputy Director Wisneski stated the Council had upheld the Planning Commission's determination on the Dunes. ITEM NO. 9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT—None. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, June 3, 2016, at 11:15 a.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, June 3, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Page 9 of 9 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of June 9, 2015 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers - 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, June 9, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Peter Koetting, Commissioner Ray Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commissioner Peter Zak ABSENT(Excused): Vice Chair Tim Brown, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Associate Planner Rosalyn Ung; Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dennis Baker requested the Planning Commission meetings be televised and archived by the City. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES— None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 7,2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file It was noted that written corrections to the minutes were submitted by Jim Mosher. Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Chair Kramer to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak ABSTAIN: Lawler, Weigand ABSENT: Brown Hillgren VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NOS. 2, 3 and 4 were heard concurrently. ITEM NO. 2 AVILA'S EL RANCHITO OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT(PA2016-080) Site Location: 2515 East Coast Highway ITEM NO. 3 BUNGALOW OUTDOOR DINING AND OFF-SITE PARKING USE PERMIT (PA2016-083) Site Location: 2441 East Coast Highway ITEM NO.4 ROTHSCHILD'S OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT(PA2016-088) Site Location: 2407 East Coast Highway Deputy Director Wisneski presented a PowerPoint explaining the proposed outdoor dining areas at 2515, 2441 and 2407 East Coast Highway. She explained the proposed hours of operation and parking requirements. In response to Secretary Koetting, Police Civilian Investigator Joe stated Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) would determine the requirements for the outdoor dining area. Deputy Director 1 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft MinutEOJ%TgJune 9, 2015 Wisneski discussed lighting and heating conditions. Secretary Koetting stated the gas meters might need to be relocated. Commissioner Lawler requested information on Former Council Member Daigle's question. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated there was no conflict with the prior entry project and the proposed outdoor dining. He stated that, while he was not part of the original entry project, he indicated outdoor dining was envisioned in this area. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Deputy Director Wisneski discussed the Bungalow's existing patio at the rear is permitted to be open until 11 p.m. She explained the recommendation was to close the proposed street side dining at 10 p.m. In response to Commissioner Zak, Deputy Director Wisneski explained the encroachment permit requirement. Commissioner Zak asked about the waiver required under City Council Policy L-21. Deputy Director Wisneski explained that a waiver was required due to the reduction from 8-feet. Chair Kramer requested the cost of the annual encroachment permit. Assistant City Attorney Torres discussed the encroachment agreement processed through the Public Works Department. In response to Commissioner Zak, Assistant City Attorney Torres discussed the indemnity language included in the conditional and encroachment permits. Chair Kramer asked if additional insurance was required. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the requirements would be assess by the City's Risk Assessment Manager during the encroachment permit process. Chair Kramer requested the requirement be evaluated. In response to Chair Kramer, Police Civilian Investigator Joe stated the Police had no concerns with the proposed project. Commissioner Weigand requested the Commission consider extending the hours on the weekends to compensate for the cost of the permits and insurance. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. The General Manager for Avila's EI Ranchito, stated the picture depicted the proposed custom railing. Jim Walker, partner and owner of Bungalow Restaurant, stated the parking waiver and encroachment permits cost$1750. He explained ABC inspection once the fence was installed. He discussed access to the patio from the restaurant. He discussed hours of operation and sensitivity to noise and the neighborhood. He expressed appreciation for the potential of outdoor dining. In response to Secretary Koetting, Mr. Walker indicated he had read the conditions and agreed to them. Commissioner Weigand stated he suggested additional hours to benefit the restaurants. Heidi Patricola, Owner of Rothschild's, indicated she was available to answer questions. Lila Krista requested the Commission enforce closure at 9 p.m. on weeknights and 10 p.m. on weekends. Patricia Meechling expressed excitement about outdoor dining but requested limited hours of operation. Page 2 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minute@(%TQJune 9, 2015 Judy Wagner stated no action should be taken due to improper notice and urged the Commission to deny the request due to the lack of parking. She questioned special treatment for EI Ranchito. She stated parking and congestion were unacceptable. Steve Rosansky, President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, indicated support for all three applications. Jim Mosher questioned why the Deputy Director was preparing the reports and lack of analysis. He questioned why dining was being allowed on a City right-of-way. He suggested a public use rather than dining tables. He expressed concern regarding the proposed encroachment. He suggested the possibility of outdoor dining without alcohol service, therefore eliminating the need for fencing. He requested information on the need for a waiver and whether there was an annual fee for the encroachment permit. He discussed expansion of the sidewalk and discussed parking for the Bungalow. Dennis Baker stated the restaurants were good neighbors. He discussed noise from the back patio. He expressed concern with increasing the hours of operation to 11 p.m. due to the entitlements remaining with the property. He discussed issues with parking and suggested a comprehensive plan. Bellamy Walker stated additional seating would not increase the existing parking issues. She indicated support for the applications. Mr. Walker stated there was no easy solution to the parking issue. He discussed efforts to consolidate valet parking and discussed overflow employee parking from neighboring businesses. He suggested all outside dining have the same hours of operation. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lawler asked if the noticing was adequate. Deputy Director Wisneski stated the noticing was appropriate. Commissioner Lawler stated the Commission did not have purview over parking. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated the annual fee for outdoor dining over 100 square feet was $250. Commissioner Lawler suggested surrounding parking lots. Deputy Director Wisneski stated Corona Del Mar Plaza provided a shuttle for employee parking. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2016 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-019 as amended, and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. In response to Commissioner Zak, Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the use of the right of way was in the purview of the City Council. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2017 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-020,as amended, and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2018 approving Use Permit No. UP2016-023 and adding a condition requiring adequate insurance. Page 3 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft MinuteRJ%TgJune 9, 2015 AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand,Zak ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren ITEM NO.5 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) Principal Planner Campbell presented a PowerPoint summarizing the proposed project, land use designations, General Plan requirements, and surrounding uses. Associate Planner Ung provided an overview of the project details. She explained the General Plan Policy Waiver, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Planning Commission study session. She discussed comments received on the project. Ms. Ung stated that the applicant had not substantially changed the project after the study session comments from the Planning Commission. In response to Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell stated the proposed project was in keeping with the concept plan Figure LU23 of the General Plan. Secretary Koetting requested an explanation of the concept plan. Principal Planner Campbell stated the light green areas depicted potential parks, orange lines depicted future residential streets, and the dotted green lines were pedestrian ways. He explained that the concept plan shows a proposed linear park and pedestrian way across the project site. Secretary Koetting stated the concept of housing in the airport area was not new. Principal Planner Campbell discussed the zoning of the entire area, HCD requirements as the reason why the residential overlay was created in the Newport Placed Planned Community. Secretary Koetting asked about the affordable housing requirement. Principal Planner Campbell discussed the requested density bonus. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Assistant City Attorney Torres explained that the project did not require a development agreement because it was replacement units rather than infill development. He stated they had asked the applicant if they would voluntarily enter into a development agreement to which they declined. Commissioner Lawler asked for clarification on the difference between replacement versus infill and why staff did not want a development agreement. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated a development agreement would be beneficial but was not required. In response to Chair Kramer, Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the General Plan and Municipal Code provisions had been reviewed and approved by the Council and a development agreement was not required in the development. Chair Kramer asked if staff had canvassed the Council. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated staff had not canvassed the Council. Chair Kramer stated that its Council who has final say on interpretation of whether a development agreement is warranted, not the staff. In response to Commissioner Lawler and Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell explained General Plan Policies 16.15.5 and 6.15.12 related to infill projects. He also discussed the conversion of commercial square footage to residential. In response to Chair Kramer, Principal Planner Campbell explained the distinction between the proposed project and Uptown Newport project. Commissioner Lawler asked if the applicant had made efforts to incorporate additional retail on the ground floor. Principal Planner Campbell stated the applicant had made no changes to the project to increase retail. In response to Commissioner Zak, Principal Planner Campbell explained the allowance of additive units. Commissioner Zak clarified that the replacement units were calculated based Page 4 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minute@(%TgJune 9, 2015 on trip generation. Principal Planner Campbell explained the density bonus provision. Commissioner Zak expressed concern that the applicant was told that a development agreement was not necessary but it was now an issue. Chair Kramer stated there were continu ng issues w`h thethat the requirement for a development agreement was not a settled matter since Council had not opined on it even though the applicant relied on staff's interpretation. In response to Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell explained the requirement for the dedication of a half-acre for public park purposes. He stated the applicant was attempting to adhere to the General Plan policy by providing a half-acre of open space, allowing limited public access and providing an in-lieu fee for the value of the land. He indicated the space was largely passive. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Principal Planner Campbell explained the proposed walkway and parking. Chair Kramer requested explanation regarding the waiver of dedication for the park and necessary lot line adjustment. Principal Planner Campbell explained the dedication would affect the density calculation and if required, it would reduce the project by 33 units. Chair Kramer explained that, if the Commission could not make the finding for the waiver, the applicant would have to redesign the project. Principal Planner Campbell confirmed that to be accurate. Commissioner Zak asked why the public access easement was limited to the sidewalk. Principal Planner Campbell suggested asking the applicant. He indicated the applicant expressed a concern to staff about security for units fronting the park in relation to fencing and gating the park. Chair Kramer asked about the traffic analysis. City Traffic Engineer Brine discussed the daily trips and indicated the threshold was not met for a detailed traffic study. Chair Kramer asked why an analysis was not conducted based on the project sensitivity. change of use from retail to multi-family residential, and the inherent intensity change. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated he did not expect any impacts to be discovered from a detailed study. Britnae Jensen, Development Manager for Newport Place Residential, presented an overview of the proposed project. She explained why a development agreement was not required. She explained the overall architecture of the project, modified based on comments received at the study session. In response to Secretary Koetting, Ms. Jensen described the retail on the corner of Scott Drive and Dove Street and community space above it. Ms. Jensen discussed the modified setbacks and efforts to promote a more walkable neighborhood. She stated the project met the intent of the layout for the open space area as shown by Figure LU23. She showed a map showing retail uses in the area and petition from the surrounding businesses in support of the project. In response to Commissioner Zak, Ms. Jensen explained the reason for proposing enclosure of the open space due to residential security needs. Commissioner Zak stated he would be more open to the proposal if the open space area was not being used to increase density. Commissioner Weigand expressed concerns about the proposed main entrance and vehicular traffic from the businesses. Ms. Jensen stated they had concern about parking on Martingale Way. She stated 90 percent of the parking on Martingale Way was due to a rental car establishment on Birch Street. She discussed parking for the project. She discussed the proposed pet areas and construction timeframe. She discussed negotiations with the current tenants and explained the School District boundaries. Page 5 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes %TQJune 9, 2015 In response to Chair Kramer, Ms. Jensen discussed the schools for the proposed project. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated school traffic had not been studied specifically; however he noted that it would be included in the trip generation assumptions. Commissioner Weigand asked if future residents would be provided notice on the schools not being in the Newport-Mesa but Santa Ana Unified School District. Ms. Jensen stated disclosures regarding schools and the airport would be provided. In response to Secretary Koetting, Ms. Jensen explained the proposed singular quality restaurant use. She presented a diagram showing access and circulation and she explained the stoops and connectivity of the neighborhood. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Dennis Baker discussed traffic on Birch. He expressed concern about the lack of a proposed park and reduction of businesses that serve the area. Joe Finnell, President of the Southern California Pilots Association, presented information and the opinion that the project was a bad idea due to noise and the flight pattern that takes planes over the site. Fred Fourcher expressed concern about infill of parking lots, increasing density and traffic issues. He discussed noise from the airport and pollution from planes. John Santry, Shopoff Realty Investment, requested all development be held to the same standards and it be equitable and fair. Jan Hollis, Director of Sales and Marketing for Radisson Hotel, indicated opposition to the project due to loss of restaurant and retail options. She stated a residential complex would have a negative impact on the hotel and businesses. Dorothy Kraus, Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON), requested a specific plan or comprehensive plan for the area. She expressed concern regarding loss of parking, lack of community amenities, and increased traffic. She stated a streetscape plan was necessary. She requested the Commission delay action until the character of the airport and impact of mixed use was understood. John Petry stated the airport created a noise issue. He expressed concern regarding the loss of restaurant space and suggested a specific plan for the area. Rick Roshan, owner of office building at 4299 MacArthur Boulevard, discussed the need for parking. Jim Mosher reminded the Commission that its decisions were discretionary. He echoed the SPON sentiment for a specific plan. He discussed the idea of adding residences to the airport area. He questioned the proposed height. SueAnn Challita, representing her parents, owners of Arnie's Deli, discussed the poor condition of the property and lack of upkeep by the applicant. She discussed dangerous traffic conditions. She stated the property owner had not been in contact with the existing tenants. Lori Trottier stated CEQA did not require responses to public comments on negative declarations but thanked staff for responding to her letter. She commended staff and the developer in its review of the project. She stated she visited the site and noted parking in the area. She discussed the deficiency in active parks in the area. She suggested additional traffic analysis. She questioned air quality and potential health risks from the Page 6 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minute@(%TgJune 9, 2015 airport. She expressed concern that there was no requirement for mixed use and it could end up as simply an apartment complex. Javaid Ansari, Managing Partner of Compak Asset Management, expressed concern regarding traffic management and suggested installation of stop signs. He suggested additional retail development be included. He questioned the proposal for a gate around the park and traffic safety. With no further speakers, Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Secretary Koetting requested information on the airport and height of the building, comprehensive plan, parking reduction, applicant's pro forma for bodies per apartment, and traffic analysis. Ms. Jensen stated the required half-acre open space would be provided. She discussed the waiver for payment of in lieu fee for non-dedication of the open space. She explained the proposal to enclose the open space for increased security and maintenance. She stated the shopping center was struggling and it was not realistic to maintain it as a retail center. She acknowledged the concerns of the Radisson Hotel. She stated the project had FAA clearance and stated the impetus was on the development for appropriate sound proofing. She stated the variances would enhance the project. She discussed the comments suggesting the need for additional retail and a desire for a local market. Associate Planner Ung discussed the proposed parking ratio. Secretary Koetting asked why it was less than the standard. Principal Planner Campbell explained the parking standard is established by density bonus ordinance and indicated the project was in compliance. In response to Secretary Koetting, City Traffic Engineer Brine stated residential had obtained clearance. Secretary Koetting questioned potential traffic impacts. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated the traffic phasing ordinance was being followed. Commissioner Lawler indicated support for cautious redevelopment. He suggested a development agreement and need for additional retail. He stated the open space should be open. He indicated opposition to the project. Commission Zak indicated support for residential mixed-use in the area. He questioned Finding B. He stated a development agreement was warranted. He suggested adding a condition requiring public access cover the entire open space area and not allowing gates if the project were approved. He suggested requiring mature trees and ensuring adequate parking. Commissioner Weigand stated the residents would be aware of the airport. He suggested staff review housing near airports in surrounding communities and impacts to residents. Chair Kramer stated the parcel needed improvement and he indicated support for redevelopment of the parce'- for residential use. However, he stated the project as currently designed had numerous flaws. He stated he could not make Findings A, 2, 3 and 5—, Finding B, Finding F, nor Finding I. He expressed concern about neighborhood compatibility given the intensity of the project, lack of adequate neighborhood-serving retail, increased height, decreased setbacks, and lack of 0.5 acre park dedication with full public access. He Stated he ,.OUld .,,)t make FiRd;R9 n FiRdiRg F FiRd . He expressed frustration with the inadequacy and practicality of the General Plan as it relates the the Airport Area. Given the Planning Commission's role is to interpret policy, not change it. Chair Kramer#e-stated he could not support the project. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to deny the project and direct staff to return to the next Planning Commission meeting with a resolution containing the findings for denial. Page 7 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft MinutEOJ%TgJune 9, 2015 Secretary Koetting suggested the applicant make modifications based on the Commissions and public comments. He indicated support for staffs determination that a development agreement was not required. He suggested continuing the hearing to allow the applicant to redesign the project. Chair Kramer expressed concern with puffing the project on hold given it could be in limbo for an indefinite amount of time. Ms. Jensen requested a continuance to allow revisions based on comments. Chair Kramer stated the purpose of the study session a few months ago was to allow the applicant to make revisions to the project based upon Commissioner's input which unfortunately the applicant had not done. Ms. Jensen stated they had reanalyzed the concerns and provided justification on why some of the changes were not made. She stated there was opportunity to make additional changes. Alternate Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Zak to continue the hearing. In response to Chair Kramer, Assistant City Attorney Torres explained additional staff time involved in continuing the project. Chair Kramer stated the decision to deny could be appealed to the City Council, during which time, the project could be redesigned or alternatively the applicant could resubmit their application after having thoroughly revised the project. Chair Kramer recommended the alternate motion be denied. The question was called on the alternate motion to continue the hearing and the motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Koetting,Zak NOES: Kramer, Lawler,Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren The question was called on the original motion to deny the project and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Kramer, Lawler,Weigand, Zak NOES: Koetting ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren RECESS Chair Kramer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:15 p.m.,with Vice Chair Tim Brown and Commissioner Bradley Hillgren absent. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 6 WEST NEWPORT MESA STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN (PA2015-138) Site Location: West Newport Mesa Deputy Director Wisneski presented the staff report. Chair Kramer discussed the proposed timeline for the plan. Brian Hannegan, RRM Design Group, presented a PowerPoint updating the Commission on the progress of the plan. In response to Chair Kramer and Commissioner Weigand, Mr. Hannegan discussed issues with power lines. In response to Secretary Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski explained assessment districts for the purpose of undergrounding. City Traffic Engineer Brine discussed conditions requiring undergrounding. Page 8 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft MinuteW%TgJune 9, 2015 Mr. Hannegan concluded that the purpose was to create a master plan to help guide improvements along the streets. Chair Kramer indicated support for the plan. In response to Secretary Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski stated a way finding sign program would be included. Secretary Koetting suggested medians where possible. Jim Mosher suggested the possibility of undergrounding based on increased utility payments. He stated the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission should be included in review of the plan. Chair Kramer suggested the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission review the plan prior to final Planning Commission review. Dennis Baker requested green streets be included in the plan. IX. 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 Director Wisneski discussed the appeal of the La Jolla Variance. She stated the Planning Commission would be discussing the 150 Newport Center project at a Study Session, Lido House Amendments, and televising meetings. She stated the Master Plan, Village Inn and La Jolla Variance were scheduled for July 7, 2016. Chair Kramer requested postponing the July 7, 2016 meeting. Deputy Director Wisneski suggested determining availability then surveying the Commission on a potential meeting date. 2. Update on City Council Items Deputy Director Wisneski stated the Council had upheld the Planning Commission's determination on the Dunes. ITEM NO. 9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT—None. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, June 3, 2016, at 11:15 a.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, June 3, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. Page 9 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - June 23, 2015 Item No. 1c Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft MinuteRJ%TgJune 9, 2015 Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Page 10 of 10