Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 - Draft Minutes_10-06-2016 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers - 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, October 6, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. ll. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, and Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Commissioner Raymond Lawler Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt, Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Deputy City Attorney Andrew Maiorano; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe, Principal Planner Jim Campbell, Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba; Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS b None. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2016=' Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2016, as amended. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kramer, Zak ABSENT: Lawler 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 2016, as amended. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kramer, Zak ABSENT: Lawler 1 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. AUTONATION PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH (PA2015-095) Site Location: 320-600 W. Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile area, approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive Principal Planner Campbell reported the project was first considered on August 18, 2016. The Commission directed the applicant to perform additional outreach because of concerns raised at the meeting. Staff met with the Bayshores Homeowners Association in September, and AutoNation hosted a community meeting at the Balboa Bay Club. Notice of the hearing was provided to a larger area. Mr. Campbell described the project site as a series of small, older commercial buildings with retail and office uses and one auto-related use. A portion of the property is vegetated and has a steep slope. He outlined project changes, which the applicant would present in more detail. A revised materials board was available. The project was an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit. Basic findings were compatibility, physical suitability of the site, and no detriment to the community. If the Planning Commission could not make the findings, then staff recommended the Planning Commission not approve the project. Staff provided a detailed analysis of the project in relation to the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. Staff felt the project was consistent with the overall vision for Mariners' Mile. He provided a summary of the Design Guidelines. He stated the project could be found consistent with Design Guidelines overall, but perhaps not each specific guideline. The Zoning Code established a base elevation, which was used to determine the height of the building. Base elevation heights had been verified. The project would not exceed the 35-foot height limitation. The tallest feature was 46 feet above the finished floor, which was approximately 1 1/2 to 2 feet above the curb. Staff felt the applicability of General Plan Policy 6.19.12 was limited because of the degraded quality of the bluff. The Mariners' Point project was found consistent with Policy 6.19.12 even though it blocked the view of the entire bluff similar to the adjacent development (Mariners Pointe). Staff felt the project complied with the Zoning Code limitation that visible walls would be only 8 feet in height. The project required dedication of the southerly 12 feet of the property for proposed highway improvements. Highway improvements would allow additional capacity in the area and assist operations at the intersection at Dove Drive. The applicant's existing dealership at 445 East Coast Highway had received some citations for violating its Conditional Use Permit and for eliminating on-site employee parking. Staff was working with AutoNation regarding offsite parking of vehicles. Staff had received 11 letters in addition to those contained in the Staff Report opposing the project. Issues raised in the letters were building mass, traffic and lighting. He summarized concerns raised in Mr. McGuire's letter. The City's environmental consultant provided a response letter. Tracy Zinn, T&B Planning, advised that her firm prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. She reviewed the CEQA analysis in relation to noise, geotechnical and historic resources, which were issues raised in Mr. McGuire's letter. She was confident the CEQA analysis was prepared objectively, and the Planning Commission should have no concern with approving the MND. Noise measurements were taken along Kings Road because it represented a quiet, residential noise condition. The noise analysis considered about 50 noise sources simultaneously operating on the property at all three levels of the building. Consequently noise levels contained in the report were louder than would typically occur. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Bill Lawson of Urban Crossroads the noise consultant explained that the noise level would probably be louder in a residential backyard, because it would be closer to Coast Highway. Because of calculations, noise would be less of an impact if noise meters were placed in backyards. Ms. Zinn reported the applicant's engineer provided a letter confirming that the retaining wall and all its components would be within the boundary of the property. The MND was accurate in its analysis of the stability of the wall, and there would be no offsite impacts associated with installation of the wall. The existing building at 320 West Coast Highway was not an example of the prominent local Page 2 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 architect's work and did not meet historic resource criteria. Removal of the building was not a significant impact to historic resources. Principal Planner Campbell advised that the environmental consultant reviewed minor changes to the project. Those changes did not create a new impact or worsen the severity of an impact previously identified. Changes were considered minor and no recirculation of the MND was necessary. Staff felt the environmental analysis was adequate to support a decision to approve the project with or without the variance request. Staff recommended the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; if appropriate, approve the project; approve the project with the variance; or deny the project if the Commission was unable to make the findings for approval. Any Resolution adopted by the Commission should be revised to reflect a 10-day appeal period because of the tentative parcel map. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning for AutoNation, stated representatives of AutoNation could not be present as they were located in Florida, which was expecting a hurricane. AutoNation needed a new site for the existing Porsche dealership. She reviewed site plans and floor plans. The project would be set back significantly from Coast Highway. Driveways would be consolidated. The dealership would offer auto service and repair. A wider roof canopy to cover all parking spaces was proposed. The canopy would connect to the parapet on the north side, and no gaps would face Kings Road. Service doors would rise in 2 seconds and close in 5 seconds. The site was designed for car carriers to load and unload onsite. Ten employees would arrive at 7:00 a.m., with the service department opening at 7:30 a.m. Employee cars would be parked on the roof. Typically customers' cars would remain in the drive aisle for approximately 15 minutes. Approximately 30 service customers would be seen on a typical day. Cars not serviced immediately would be parked on the second or third level. The sales shift would begin at 8:00 a.m. All employees would leave the building at 10:00 p.m. The test drive route would be west on Coast Highway to Brookhurst , a U-turn at Brookhurst, and then back to the project site. Approximately ten customer test drives would occur on the busiest day, Saturday, and approximately ten service test drives per day would be expected. The applicant was aware of the prohibition of test drives occurring on residential streets. She reviewed the construction timeline and the applicant's original submittal. The Mariners' Mile Design Framework was not a requirement but rather a set of guidelines. The project met 6 of the 12 general goals in the Design Framework; some goals were not applicable. She reviewed provisions of the General Plan relevant to the project. Ms. Schaffner listed details of the design, including lightening the service area, the canopy and facade at the east end, the stone treatment on the retaining wall, signage, the facade at the west end, metal screens, and windows. During community outreach, Bayshores residents commented regarding noise, lighting, height, story poles, and operations. Impacts from traffic noise, operational noise, construction noise and vibration were less than significant without mitigation. A supplemental noise analysis was performed for noise from Porsche engines, car alarms, and service noise. All noise levels with and without service doors open were compliant with Municipal Code standards. Enclosing the rooftop canopy on the north side resulted in a reduction of noise on the Kings Road side. Light standards would be 12 feet, and lights would be dimmed after 10:00 p.m. The photometric study confirmed that all lighting was confined to the site. Lighting on the roof would be controlled by sensors and would not remain on permanently. Signs on the frontage would be turned off at closing. Ms. Schaffner shared cross-sections showing heights at multiple points on the building. At all points, the building was below the 35-foot height limit and the adjacent Mariners' Pointe development. The applicant was not seeking a variance, because the project complied with the 35-foot height limit. The applicant did not wish to widen West Coast Highway; however, the City required it as a condition of approval. She addressed concerns raised in the petition, including loss of neighborhood businesses; length of the building; location against a coastal bluff; compatible architecture; the planning theme for Mariners' Mile; auto dealership use not serving local residents (it does); potential impacts on health, noise and safety; and insufficiency of the MND. She suggested the Planning Commission require the applicant to provide a monitoring report regarding compliance with conditions of approval in 6-12 months. She reiterated the applicant's belief that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and the Mariners' Mile Design Framework. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Principal Planner Campbell explained that no special approval was required for a building 26 feet in height. A 35-foot building height is allowed, subject to Page 3 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 discretionary approval with findings. A 35-foot height requires a Conditional Use Permit or a site development review. He explained the placement of noise meters under the interior and exterior standards of the Noise Ordinance. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell reported the General Plan and Master Plan of Highways outlined six lanes for Coast Highway as a future goal. Vice Chair Koetting could not believe the site would generate 1,226 average daily trips. Traffic Engineer Brine explained that the number was based on the square footage of the building and the automobile sales category from the Institution of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The net increase in average daily trips would be about 672 above current uses. Principal Planner Campbell added that the number was an average rate based upon all automobile dealerships. Because the project was a high-end dealership with lower volumes of sales, the traffic increase could be less. The City's methodology for traffic studies utilized ITE rates. Currently approximately 40,000 cars traveled Coast Highway in both directions. The project would not obstruct views from the residences above. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Principal Planner Campbell advised that an auto dealership was in a different use category from retail. The vehicle sales and services category included service of automobiles. The category of auto, highway oriented, meant uses that were reliant upon the highway and that could survive on the highway. Any use that was compatible with a highway environment was the appropriate use for the area because it was likely to survive there. Principal Planner Campbell explained the use of elevation points to determine baseline grade for the purpose of measuring building height. Commissioner Hillgren requested clarification of the findings regarding additional amenities and the amount of floor area without approval of the height increase. Principal Planner Campbell stated the area on the roof was not enclosed space; therefore, it was not classified as gross floor area. The component above the height limit was not floor area that would not otherwise be achieved. Area of elevator shafts and stairwells counted on the first floor only. Adding the height for those features did not add floor area. The building could probably be constructed with lower parapets and without the roof canopy and still have parking on the roof. Having those features at a height of 35 feet did not add floor area, and the Planning Commission could make the finding. Active or passive use of the roof was part of the Use Permit application. The Commission was being asked to determine if that activity level was detrimental because it was closer to residents. Deputy Director Wisneski added that the Mariners' Mile Design Framework did envision an automobile dealership as a use in this portion of the Mariners' Mile area. Ms. Schaffner listed amenities as the rooftop canopy, the increased setback, consolidation of lots, and consolidation of driveways. Chair Kramer added the enhanced landscaping plan and the car wash. Secretary Zak asked if the 35-foot height was covered in the Conditional Use Permit or the site development review as it was unclear in the draft resolution. He further asked if a Coastal Development Permit application was required as indicated by the shoreline height exhibit. Principal Planner Campbell advised it was not applicable as the project was not located in the Coastal Zone. In response to Secretary Zak, Principal Planner Campbell explained that a retaining wall that supported the roof of the building or the structure would be an integral part of the building. The retaining wall would be an Integral part of the site because it would create a flat area for access to the ends of the building. The retaining wall was necessary to the function of the building. The visible portions of the retaining wall would be no greater than 8 feet in height in compliance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.040. Deputy Director Wisneski advised a Conditional Use Permit was required for a vehicle service use only. Vehicle sales did not have any negative impacts. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Ms. Schaffner indicated a comparison photo of the canopy with and without the variance was not available. The applicant did not believe a full roof canopy provided a benefit. It could detract from the architectural style. In a motion supporting the project, the Planning Commission could add a condition of approval to require dimming security lights and turning off the Porsche and Newport Beach signs after hours. After widening of the highway, street Page 4 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 lights would be consistent with existing street lights. Traffic Engineer stated that the City was transitioning to LED lighting Citywide. LED lights were focused downward. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Ms. Schaffner indicated the red line in Slide 4 would become the property line with dedication of the 12-foot strip. The City could achieve the right-of-way extension through the dedication. Originally, the applicant envisioned building the project to the property line with parking spaces. When the City widened Coast Highway, the applicant would pull back the parking spaces. Vice Chair Koetting inquired regarding location of parking if the lot was full. He further inquired regarding the time of day when car carriers would be expected and whether more than one car carrier would be onsite at a given time. Ms. Schaffner did not find hours for deliveries listed in the Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit for the existing dealership at 445 East Coast Highway specified no deliveries between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Ms. Schaffner believed two car carriers onsite at the same time would be highly unusual. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Ms. Schaffner reported the noise study accounted for the design of the site including the canopy and the drive aisle at a height of 30 feet. The noise analysis assumed sound would come from all levels of the building, including the rooftop. No parking would be allowed in the drive aisle. The roof canopy would be of a wave-like, corrugated metal product with a non-reflective coating. The site would be excavated for grading and compaction purposes. The area next to the auto lift would be an operating space for a vehicle before it entered the auto lift. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Tom Zolgan stated AutoNation had proved it was not a good neighbor at the existing location. AutoNation's past actions spoke louder than their current words. The true height of the project was not 35 feet, but actually closer to 50 feet above street level. The City's method for measuring height was used to add height for a better view, not for allowing a third level. The project should not be built in its current form at the location. It appeared the City would approve the project because of the amount of potential sales tax revenue. He suggested the dealership be located at 150 Newport Center Drive. Mike Rudinica believed the project was consistent with other projects already approved at Mariners' Mile. The staff report adequately and correctly addressed technical issues. He recommended approval of the project. Ned McCune felt the project fit with other dealerships in the area. Another project might not consolidate the lots or reduce noise impacts to neighbors. Other project would not work on the narrow parcel. Mark McGuire stated his clients were concerned about the height of the project and the noise of Porsche vehicles. The project attempted to do too much on the roof. No other project on Mariners' Mile had parking on the roofing. The noisy auto lifts were too much. Many decks and patio areas immediately above the site were not considered for taking noise measurements. The statement that ambient backyard noise would be louder than street noise did not make sense. The General Plan provided a standard for increased noise, and the noise study stated that increase did occur. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. McGuire advised that he represented four homeowners above on Kings Road. Brandon Dietrich reported not all Bayshores residents opposed the project. He supported the project. Moving the existing dealership to the proposed location would improve traffic flow and public safety. The project fit with other businesses. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Page 5 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Carol Anne Dru opposed the project for many reasons. Mainly, the project was not appropriate for the neighborhood. AutoNation would be a bad neighbor and would not serve local residents. She shared comments from other residents. Neighbors did not want the dealership at that location. Ron Newman shared his experiences with noise from restaurants surrounding his home on the Coast Highway. Homes on Kings Road were not great neighbors because of noise and lighting. Auto dealerships were part of the fabric of Newport Beach. He supported the project. Todd Otte believed the issue was AutoNation's operation of the dealership. AutoNation had not been good a neighbor at its current location. The proposed project was too big. He suggested removing the service facility and the rooftop parking deck. Russ Fluter felt AutoNation was a great neighbor. The project was an improvement to the site and the area. He noted advantages of the project such as setbacks, no request for a variance, and acting as a noise buffer for homes. The project would be good for the community. Slavitsa Milosovlavich represented 2,000 businesses and thousands of residents of Newport Beach. AutoNation was a wonderful business but should not be located on Coast Highway. Her concerns were noise and traffic. Peggy Palmer commented on the noise made by Porsche engines. She questioned whether noise measurements were taken at Kings Place and Cliff Drive. The noise readings were completely incorrect. The general consensus of many realtors was that the project would have a negative impact on property values. Peter Rooney did not oppose a showroom at the location; however, the proposed project was too much. No other dealerships located in the area provide vehicle service. The site was too small for the building. Residents would prefer not to have parking on the roof. The service use was detrimental to the neighborhoods because of light and noise. The design of the building was bad. Ms. Schaffner advised that the Newport Auto Center site was similar to the proposed site in that it is also surrounded by residential uses and that it has not proven incompatible. The project site is narrow, but the applicant achieved a 50-foot setback in the front and 35-foot and 11-foot setbacks in the rear. Even with the narrow conditions, the site was suitable for the proposed uses. The applicant reduced the number of service bays and types of services offered out of concern for the neighbors. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Chair Kramer thought the project had many positive attributes. The project was well designed, did not ask for any extraordinary exceptions, was a permitted use, and enhanced the neighborhood. Porsche and AutoNation had done a fairly good job with the design given the difficulties of the site. The project conformed to the vision provided by Newport Beach citizens and to Council policies. He had difficulty finding a reason not to approve the project. He would support the project. Commissioner Dunlap noted challenges with the Coast Highway including traffic and adjacent residences. He questioned whether intensifying the use on the Coast Highway contributed to quality of life. He had developed a downsized version of the project in his mind before reading Mr. McGuire's letter and hearing Mr. Otte's comments. Other dealerships on the Coast Highway did not offer auto service. He had met with the applicant's representatives and with numerous homeowners. He felt AutoNation should relocate the sales component for Porsche to the project site only. He proposed that the applicant consider proposing a project of sales only. He would be more willing to support the project if AutoNation had not been cited for violations. Enforcing Conditions of Approval 42 and 43 would be really difficult. Chair Kramer advised that the Planning Commission's role was planning rather than enforcement. Page 6 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Commissioner Hillgren agreed the site was difficult. The City had provided some opportunities and incentives for improving the site. This site was distinctly different from the Village area. Development at this site would set the vision for Mariners' Mile. The appearance of any development at this site was important. The scale of the project did not fit with existing, adjacent developments as required. The structure was so large because the City provided additional height. He did not believe the Planning Commission could make the findings for a height in excess of 26 feet. The project was too dense. The mass and type of architecture was not in keeping with the vision for Mariners' Mile. He could not support the project as proposed; however, in general he could support the use at the right scale. Secretary Zak favored redevelopment of the site; however, it was a difficult site. The applicant made a concerted effort to design a project consistent with many of the General Plan principles. He could not make the findings, specifically L, N and Q, for the project. The height and the massing did not fit with the residential neighborhoods. Vice Chair Koetting reported the Planning Commission had approved similar but cleaner and simpler projects. Bulk and scale and size were too much. He could not make the findings for the project. Commissioner Weigand had met with the applicant. He appreciated the applicant's concessions and efforts. The applicant had been a poor steward of the community. He was close to supporting the project until the latest Code violations occurred. The site was appropriate for sales but not service. The project was not compatible with the surrounding area. Vice Chair Koetting reported he had an ex parte meeting with the applicant's local consultant. After listening to the presentation, he did not comment. Commissioner Hillgren had a similar communication with the applicant and communicated with many people in and around Newport Beach. He asked if any of the Commissioners could act positively on any component of the project to set a template for the future. Chair Kramer expressed his disappointed with his fellow Commissioners. He felt the Staff recommendation was reasonable, and Commissioners should act on it. The Commission must act on the application as submitted. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to deny the item. Chair Kramer believed the applicant would appeal the decision to the City Council. Vice Chair Koetting viewed the issue as site development. If the project was smaller and did not have a service facility, the Planning Commission could approve it. He requested Commissioners discuss a change to this effect. Deputy Director Wisneski stated such revisions would require a major redesign of the project. She cautioned the Commission against approving a project based on a condition of major redesign. The applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Weigand concurred with Deputy Director Wisneski. If the Commission approved the project, then the Bayshores community would appeal it. If the Commission denied the project, the applicant would appeal it. Chair Kramer inquired as to the applicant's wishes. Ms. Schaffner requested a no vote so that they could appeal the decision. AYES: Koetting,Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: Kramer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler Page 7 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Chair Kramer announced the Commission would hear Item 5 next. 4. ORANGE THEORY FITNESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA2016-116) Site Location: 3021 East Coast Highway Deputy Director Wisneski introduced Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager. Assistant Planner Crager reported the project is a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 2,783- square-foot fitness facility with a two space parking waiver. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the north and west and commercial uses to the east and south. She reviewed requirements for establishing a fitness facility and for parking. Other uses in the center included a grocery store, two restaurants, a retail store, a dry cleaners and an additional vacant space. She reviewed the floor plan, hours of operation, parking, and a parking study submitted by the applicant. Staff recommended a condition of approval requiring the business owner to buy annual parking permits for employees and recommended approval subject to conditions. Chair Kramer welcomed Assistant Planner Crager. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Assistant Planner Crager indicated the parking summary pertained to the existing uses in the center rather than all spaces. Per Code, parking is required to be provided onsite. However, in considering a parking waiver, the Zoning Code allowed consideration of offsite parking spaces. A separate application for a parking waiver had been submitted for a restaurant in the additional vacant space. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Assistant Planner Crager advised the applicant was agreeable to purchasing parking permits for employees. Marc Thomas, applicant, remarked that he owned four other locations of Orange Theory Fitness. Orange Theory Fitness (OTF) conducted group fitness classes focused on heart rate-based interval training. Instructor-led classes incorporated a combination of cardio and strength training. OTF is one of the fastest growing fitness franchises in the world. The location in Westcliff Plaza had reached maximum capacity, and members wanted a second location. He shared his personal history. OTF is involved in the community through donating time and money to public and private schools and nonprofit organizations in Newport Beach. Because of OTF's size and parking requirements, finding a suitable space was difficult. He had worked with staff to provide information. According to the parking study, parking needs were met. Based on the business model, OTF's peak traffic was not necessarily the peak traffic of other businesses in the center and or in Corona del Mar. OTF's busiest hours were 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. He agreed to all conditions of approval. Purchasing parking permits was not his first choice, but he is willing to do so. He requested approval to move forward with the project. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Thomas advised that 28 people are onsite for approximately 70-75 percent of the class schedule. Some portion of those people would be using modes other than cars to reach the center. Commissioner Hillgren was concerned that 24 persons would be onsite but only 12 parking spaces were required. He appreciated the peak hour variance that could offset the parking situation. Mr. Thomas reiterated that the peak hours of OTF were not the same as the peak hours for the center or for Corona del Mar. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Thomas indicated he had not spoken directly with other tenants. He had addressed the parking situation with the landlord and the landlord's representative. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski reported staff had not received communications from any of the tenants. Notice of the meeting had been posted at the center. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Assistant Planner Crager understood Mr. Thomas would be responsible for purchasing a new parking permit for each new employee. Page 8 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Chair Kramer asked if Staff is recommending the applicant purchase parking permits. Commissioner Weigand noted it was Condition 7. Mr. Thomas stated the fee for the permit is approximately $178 per permit per year. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the permit is transferrable to other employees. Staff had required this type of permit for the grocery store in the center. Commissioner Weigand suggested this second location would be good for reducing traffic as participants would not have to travel across the City. He asked if the applicant was installing sound walls. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Mr. Thomas reported he had not had any tenant issues at the West Cliff location. Generally classes were not scheduled during the early afternoon. As members were added, the class schedule could get busier. Generally little activity occurred between noon and 4:00 p.m. There could be some overlap with people arriving and departing a class. Generally, participants departed within minutes. A 15-minute break was scheduled between classes to allow instructors a break and to introduce new students. Rarely would two full classes be present at the same time. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. None. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Assistant Planner Crager reported staff noticed all area property owners and received no comments from them. Commissioner Dunlap had spoken with three tenants of the center. They supported the project. Motion made by Secretary Zak and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to adopt Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-031. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler 5. DORY DELI EXPANSION (PA2016-067) Site Location: 2108 3/4 West Ocean Front Associate Planner Zdeba reported Dory Deli is an existing restaurant located in a multi-tenant commercial building. The applicant requested expansion of the existing restaurant into the adjacent retail space; proposed changing the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license; and requested an adjustment of the parking requirement which would require a Conditional Use Permit. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit would require an operator license as issued by the Chief of Police. The project is located within the mixed-use water-related zoning district. A restaurant is an allowed use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. He provided background information for the site and noted the expansion includes a new service bar counter. The applicant proposed to close the business by 11:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 12:30 a.m. Friday through Sunday. The applicant also requested to maintain the opening hour of 6:00 a.m. Staff expressed support for the earlier opening hour request as the Police Department memorandum indicated it was acceptable. Staff also expressed support of the waiver of one parking space. He reviewed the floor plans and General Plan Land Use policies in support of the project. Staff recommended approval of the project. Mr. Zdeba noted the applicant had worked closely with staff and the Police Department to identify business hours that would be satisfactory. If the stated business hours were to change, the Police Department's support of the project would be withdrawn. Staff received approximately 20 letters in support of the application and no letters in opposition. Page 9 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Andrew Gabriel, applicant, shared his personal and business background, improvements made to the building, and participation in community events. He noted the business is struggling, and expansion is needed. Mario Marovic, applicant, also shared his educational and personal background and his involvement with the Newport Beach Bar and Tavern Association. Originally, the concept for the space was a basic hamburger restaurant with Dory Deli being located in a nearby space. The operator for the hamburger restaurant left the business, and the applicants opened Dory Deli in the space. He stated Dory Deli needs additional space to continue to operate. He highlighted improvements to the building. Only 199 square feet of the proposed expansion would be net public area and would not increase occupancy. The remaining space would be used for kitchen prep and storage. The expansion would allow a traditional breakfast menu and full table service for dinner. The lunch menu would change very little. The majority of neighbors and residents supported the project. The operator's license gave the City the ability to regulate hours of operation. The applicant expressed concern and care for the community and a desire to have a positive impact. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Associate Planner Zdeba advised that the reference to giving away alcohol was boilerplate language from the Code. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Associate Planner Zdeba explained that the difference between the hours in the Police Department's recommendation and the staff report was the difference between closing the doors and employees leaving the premises. Vice Chair Koetting was impressed with Dory Deli and noted his support the project. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Marovic indicated that additional hours beyond those recommended by staff could help ensure success of the business. The recommended hours were reached through negotiation. He originally proposed complete closure at 1:30 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. The current closing time is 2:00 a.m. Under staff's recommendation, the business would be open approximately 400 fewer hours per year. Vice Chair Koetting noted the applicant wanted an opening time of 6:00 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. Mr. Marovic added that the current open time was 6:00 a.m. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Marovic concurred with other conditions in staffs recommendation. Commissioner Weigand reported he attended a site visit with the applicant. He was impressed with the applicant and their efforts. The applicant had proposed a slightly different floor plan. Mr. Marovic indicated staffs recommendation is not his original proposal. Chair Kramer asked why staff did not support the original floor plan. Mr. Marovic stated staff suggested tables as a better fixture in order to maintain more of a dining area than a bar area. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Mr. Marovic advised that the original floor plan would provide three additional seats. Commissioner Weigand felt the applicant should have additional operating hours because he would have the Operator License. Chair Kramer concurred. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the plans evolved over several months through discussion among staff, the Police Department and the applicant. Staff never intended to approve a bar and attempted to eliminate any aspects that could be perceived as a bar. That resulted in changes to the floor plan and to operating hours. Commissioner Weigand indicated the public's perception was not within the Commission's discretion. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Page 10 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Steve Rosansky, Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce President, was aware of the applicant's improvements to the area. The applicant could improve the whole area without the City doing anything. He encouraged the Commission to give the applicant as much consideration as possible. Vaughn Johnson believed the applicant's improvements were a trend in the right direction. The Commission had the opportunity to facilitate that trend. Few incident reports and high consumer approval indicated the applicant was a responsible operator. Nathan Holthouser had submitted signatures in support of the project. This project was a perfect example of what the City needed. He hoped the Commission was as lenient as possible with the applicant. Josh Yocum supported the applicant and their efforts to improve the Newport Pier and McFadden Plaza area. He hoped improvements to the area continued. He urged the Commission to support the project and cooperate with the applicant regarding hours of operation. In an effort to shorten the meeting, Mr. Marovic suggested members of the public supporting the project show their hands. Chair Kramer asked if anyone opposed the project. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Chair Kramer favored the project. He noted the applicant had done a great job with the various establishments in the City. The applicant's request was reasonable. He would support extending operating hours as the applicant originally requested and the floor plan originally proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Dunlap stated he had met with the applicant and he further added the applicant is the model for how businesses should operate in Newport Beach. He supported the applicant's proposal. Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-016 with modifications of tabletop window seating to counter seating and closing hours of 1:00 a.m. Monday through Thursday and 1:30 a.m. Friday through Sunday. Commissioner Hillgren noted he would support all changes except the closing hours. He did not understand the applicant's request to change the hours after reaching an agreement with the Police Department and the Council representative. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Dunlap,Weigand NOES: Hillgren ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler [The Commission proceeded to Item Number 4.] 6. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT CORRECTION —NEWPORT COAST (PA2006-159) Site Location: Citywide Senior Planner Ramirez reported Section 8 of the City Council Resolution approving the 2006 Comprehensive General Update granted authority to the Planning Commission to correct scrivener's errors. That authority was also documented in City Council Policy K-1. Planning Commission action would affirm correction of an error. Anomaly No. 60 was the resort area in Newport Coast. Planning Areas 13A-E were the same as Anomaly No. 60. He listed the regulatory documents for the area. The County held land use authority, the authority to issue permits, through a cooperative agreement between the City and the County. Once Planning Areas were fully developed, the County transferred permit authority to the City. An error was made in Anomaly No. 60 in Table LU2. In 2015, staff presented the Planning Commission with a number they believed would correct the error. The Planning Page 11 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Commission decided staff should reconfirm the correct number with the County. The City and the County agreed with 2,150 hotel rooms; however, the General Plan was short 300,000 square feet in relation to the square footage associated with those hotel rooms. The County also identified 75,000 square feet of day-use commercial that was not contained in the General Plan. The corrected total was 3,035,000 square feet or a change of 375,000 square feet in the Anomaly Table. The corrected figure for Anomaly No. 60 in Table LU2 would be 3,035,000 square feet for development limit. Under development limit other, staff described how the 2,960,000 square feet was attributed to hotel development plus an additional 75,000 square feet for day-use commercial. In the additional information area and under Anomaly No. 61, staff added that it corresponded to the commercial areas of Newport Coast Planning Areas 3B and 14. In response to Chair Kramer, Senior Planner Ramirez explained the error was found during the in 2013 during the Land Use Element Update. Anomaly No. 60 was a correction rather than a General Plan amendment. There was no intent in the 2006 General Plan Comprehensive Update to change anything in Newport Coast. He indicated Staff was not aware of other errors; however, if staff discovered other errors, they would present them. In response to Secretary Zak, Senior Planner Ramirez advised that the County provided allowed development numbers in October 2015. However, before proceeding, Staff wanted a complete understanding of the built square footage and requested and received that additional information from the County In September 2016. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher believed the Planning Commission should conduct a study session with County Planning representatives prior to acting on either Item 6 or Item 7. The information was more tenuous than the staff report indicated. He was concerned that the numbers in the General Plan had been twice presented to voters as correct. He was uncomfortable changing numbers approved by the voters. Staff was aware the numbers were incorrect at the last vote but did not notify the public. Voters were told there was 1,001,000 square feet of unused development in Newport Coast that could be moved to Newport Center. However, adding 375,000 square feet to Table 3 showed there never was 1,001,000 square feet to move. The error could not be determined to be a miscopying of a number appearing in a County regulatory document. The County's letter was an interpretation of County documents. He explained why the calculations were incorrect. There would be a further inconsistency in Anomaly No. 61 by stating it coincided with Areas 3B and 14. Senior Planner Ramirez stated handwritten page 93 mentioned the 2,150 overnight accommodations. Staff felt this was a good reference for the total hotel accommodations and was confident the 2,150 number was accurate. The table Mr. Mosher referenced was provided by the County. The numbers in the table were the maximum numbers for each Planning Area, but the grand total could not exceed 2,150. The 1 million square feet related to the conversion of 1,000 hotel rooms. Dan Purcell requested Mr. Mosher's comments be taken as his. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Senior Planner Ramirez reported the 2006 General Plan used numbers from 2003 or 2004. The 2006 General Plan did not contemplate any changes to Newport Coast; it reflected numbers from the Local Coastal Program (LCP) presented by the County. The proposed modification was consistent with planning studies performed as part of the 2006 General Plan. The 2006 General Plan contemplated changes in specific subareas. The number used should have been accurate in 2001, when the area was annexed into the City. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Senior Planner Ramirez stated staff concurred with the County's numbers. There was no applicant for the action. The action was brought forward by City staff. Irvine Company properties were involved with the correction. Senior Planner Ramirez worked with two other senior staff members, including Director Brandt,to review the modification. Page 12 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to adopt Resolution affirming that the proposed correction to the Land Use Element related to Anomaly No. 60 located in Newport Coast is accurate and consistent with Section 8 of City Council Resolution No. 2006-76 adopting the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler 7. NEWPORT COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PA2016-165) Site Location: Citywide Senior Planner Ramirez incorporated the presentation made for Item No. 6. The Irvine Company requested a 15-year extension of the Development Agreement with the City regarding Newport Coast and adjacent areas. The Development Agreement became effective in 2002 and granted rights to the Irvine Company. Development capacity remained in Newport Coast, specifically in Anomaly No. 60. Staff recommended approval of the extension. A public benefit fee was under discussion. In response to Chair Kramer, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated some consideration was being paid for the extension of rights. He believes Council Member Selich and Mayor Dixon were participating in the fee discussion. The Irvine Company was not requesting any other changes to the Development Agreement. The rights granted by the Development Agreement were contained in the Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Planned Community, and the City's General Plan. Without the Development Agreement, perhaps the City could amend the General Plan to move the rights and change the development capacity. In which case, the General Plan would be inconsistent with the Master LCP. In his opinion, the City was obligated to approve the Development Agreement. Deputy Director Wisneski clarified that the Planning Commission provided a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Development Agreement. The City Council would take final action on the application. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the extension of 15 years was likely based on the original term of 15 years. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning representing the Irvine Company, provided a history of the Development Agreement. The County held development authority over Newport Coast even though Newport Coast was annexed into the City. The existing documents should be extended to allow the City to develop a Local Coastal Program for Newport Coast, which could require a few more years. The original term was 15 years and a Local Coastal Program had not been approved in the past 11 years; therefore, an extension of 15 years was logical. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Ms. Schaffner advised development could occur even though the LCP was not complete. The LCP was not delaying progress. The Irvine Company wished to protect its vested rights that were administered by the County but located in the City. It would be helpful for the Development Agreement to remain in place while the LCP was developed and adopted. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated the Development Agreement was before the Planning Commission in accordance with requirements of the Zoning Code. There were no development considerations in the Planning Commission's action. It was logical for the property owner to secure the entitlement over time. There are no planning issues to consider because entitlements had been established in the County's LCP. If the Planning Commission recommended denial of the extension,the entitlement remained in the LCP. Chair Kramer stated the Planning Commission was not considering the full picture of the Development Agreement. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Page 13 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Jim Mosher reiterated his previous comment regarding a study session with County planning representatives. He remained convinced that the previous action was inconsistent with LCP limits. The Newport Ridge portion of the Development Agreement had not been reviewed; yet, the Planning Commission was being asked to protect rights for Newport Ridge for 15 years. Ms. Schaffner calculated a different number for built development. The issues were confused. He doubted the Commission could make the finding that 40-year-old CEQA determinations were relevant. Dan Purcell requested Mr. Mosher's comments be taken as his. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In response to Chair Kramer, Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the public benefit was evolving. The Irvine Company and Council representatives were discussing the matter. Typically, the Planning Commission considered a Development Agreement in the context of a project. The terms of the Development Agreement were not within the Planning Commission's purview because they were not planning related. Secretary Zak stated the Planning Commission did not have all the terms and conditions for the Development Agreement it was being asked to consider. The City Council continued to negotiate some of the terms. Chair Kramer noted the draft amendment did not reference the public benefit. Deputy Director Wisneski suggested the Commission's recommendation include a request that the City Council include a public benefits fee at an appropriate level in the Development Agreement. Secretary Zak did not understand how the Commission could make that recommendation if the public benefit was not within the Commission's purview. Chair Kramer clarified that language regarding a public benefit should be in the Development Agreement. Secretary Zak felt a blank for a dollar amount was a policy decision. Chair Kramer stated the City Attorney should have included some language. Secretary Zak disagreed. Chair Kramer noted the staff report referenced it. Secretary Zak did not wish to make it part of the Resolution. In response to Secretary Zak, Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the fine Ms. Schaffner referenced was related to the City having a Certified Local Coastal Program for Newport Coast. The Development Agreement was a separate issue. The City had been fined $12,000 per year since the adoption of the state legislation. The fine would cease once an LCP was certified. She believed the fine was paid to the Coastal Conservancy. Ms. Schaffner referred to the original Development Agreement, which contained no public benefit fee. The public benefits were identified in the Development Agreement between the County and Irvine Company. The City received no distinct dollar amount as a public benefit. In response to Chair Kramer, Ms. Schaffner agreed that the City could receive a benefit for extending the Development Agreement. A meeting was scheduled for the following week to discuss a public benefit. Discussions had been held, but not an in-person meeting. Vice Chair Koetting indicated he could find no language regarding an extension or a right for an extension. Chair Kramer advised language could be found in Section 10.18, amendments in writing. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the amount of public benefit was a policy issue. The item contained no planning-related issues. She recommended the Commission recommend the City Council approve the Development Agreement. Commissioner Hillgren advised he was comfortable with the Development Agreement not referring to a public benefit. However, he was not comfortable recommending approval without considering planning Page 14 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 issues, which were lacking. Deputy Director Wisneski stated the project contained no planning elements. Commissioner Hillgren felt the extension of development rights was a planning issue. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated the item had to be presented to the Council prior to the end of the year, probably in November. Senior Planner Ramirez added that the Council would need to review it at the first meeting in November to allow time for a second reading. Senior Planner Ramirez explained that the planning entitlements had already been approved in Newport Coast. In response to Chair Kramer, Deputy City Attorney Maiorano reported the failure to take an affirmative vote was effectively a denial as stated in the Commission's Bylaws. Government Code Section 65867.5 required adoption of the Development Agreement by ordinance. In addition, the Council had to make a finding that the Development Agreement was consistent with the General Plan at the time of adoption. Director Brandt agreed the application was unusual. The original Development Agreement did not include any extensions. In order to extend the term of the Development Agreement, an amendment was required. No changes to the existing General Plan designations or development capacities were being proposed as part of the extension. During the 15-year extension, the City would commit to not changing the General Plan for properties in Newport Coast. This was the issue for the Planning Commission. This was a continuation of the existing 2006 General Plan for Newport Coast for an additional 15 years. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2006 General Plan accounted for the development capacity for Newport Coast, and that capacity remained unchanged with the extension. The development entitlements would not extinguish on January 1; the vested right to have those for the property would extinguish on January 1. In response to Secretary Zak, Director Brandt clarified that the amendment to the Development Agreement would allow for extension of the Development Agreement. Secretary Zak suggested the Commission recommend an extension to the Development Agreement but, without knowing the precise number of the public benefit, the Commission could not determine whether the public benefit was appropriate for the term of the extension. Motion made by Secretary Zak and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to adopt the Resolution approving the first amendment to the annexation of the Development Agreement with the term of the extension at the discretion of the Council. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS 8. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—None. 9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported staff was proceeding in discussions with the Coastal Commission staff in reviewing modifications. The suggested modifications will be presented to the City Council in a study session on October 25. Public hearings would be held in November. 2. Update on City Council Items Page 15 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/06/16 Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski indicated the October 20t' meeting would include the Museum House, Villa Inn and a General Plan amendment for 191 Riverside. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski reported that on October 20`h the Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing and may take action on the Museum House. Packets would be distributed Friday prior to the meeting. Commissioner Hillgren requested his packet be sent to a different address. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT None. 11. REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, September 30, 2016, at 3:30 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, September 30, 2016, at 4:03 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary Page 16 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 6, 2016 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers - 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, October 6, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER- The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren,and Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Commissioner Raymond Lawler Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Deputy City Attorney Andrew Maiorano; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba; Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez; and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2016,as amended. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kramer,Zak ABSENT: Lawler 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26,2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 2016,as amended. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kramer,Zak ABSENT: Lawler 1 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes olUM66er 6, 2016 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. AUTONATION PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH(PA2015-095) Site Location: 320-600 W. Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile area, approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive Principal Planner Campbell reported the project was first considered on August 18, 2016. The Commission directed the applicant to perform additional outreach because of concerns raised at the meeting. Staff met with the Bayshores Homeowners Association in September, and AutoNation hosted a community meeting at the Balboa Bay flubResort. Notice of the hearing was provided to a larger area. Mr. Campbell described the project site as a series of small, older commercial buildings with retail and office uses and one auto-related use. A portion of the property is vegetated and has a steep slope. He outlined project changes, which the applicant would present in more detail. A revised materials board was available. The project was an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit. Basic findings were compatibility, physical suitability of the site, and no detriment to the community. If the Planning Commission could not make the findings, then staff recommended the Planning Commission not approve the project. Staff provided a detailed analysis of the project in relation to the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. Staff felt the project was consistent with the overall vision for Mariners' Mile. He provided a summary of the Design Guidelines. He stated the project could be found consistent with Design Guidelines overall, but perhaps not each specific guideline. The Zoning Code established a base elevation, which was used to determine the height of the building. Base elevation heights had been verified. The project would not exceed the 35-foot height limitation. The tallest feature was 46 feet above the finished floor, which was approximately 1 112 to 2 feet above the curb. Staff felt the applicability of General Plan Policy 6.19.12 was limited because of the degraded quality of the bluff. The Mariners' Point project was found consistent with Policy 6.19.12 even though it blocked the view of the entire bluff similar to the adjacent development (Mariners Pointe). Staff felt the project complied with the Zoning Code limitation that visible walls would be only 8 feet in height. The project required dedication of the southerly 12 feet of the property for proposed highway improvements. Highway improvements would allow additional capacity in the area and assist operations at the intersection at Dove Drive. The applicant's existing dealership at 445 East Coast Highway had received some citations for violating its Conditional Use Permit and for eliminating on-site employee parking. Staff was working with AutoNation regarding offsite parking of vehicles. Staff had received 11 letters in addition to those contained in the Staff Report opposing the project. Issues raised in the letters were building mass, traffic and lighting. He summarized concerns raised in Mr. McGuire's letter. The City's environmental consultant provided a response letter. Tracy Zinn, T&B Planning, advised that her firm prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. She reviewed the CEQA analysis in relation to noise, geotechnical and historic resources, which were issues raised in Mr. McGuire's letter. She was confident the CEQA analysis was prepared objectively, and the Planning Commission should have no concern with approving the MND. Noise measurements were taken along Kings Road because it represented a quiet, residential noise condition. The noise analysis considered about 50 noise sources simultaneously operating on the property at all three levels of the building. Consequently noise levels contained in the report were louder than would typically occur. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Bill Lawson of Urban Crossroads the noise consultant explained that the noise level would probably be louder in a residential backyard, because it would be closer to Coast Highway. Because of calculations, noise would be less of an impact if noise meters were placed in backyards. Ms. Zinn reported the applicant's engineer provided a letter confirming that the retaining wall and all its components would be within the boundary of the property. The MND was accurate in its analysis of the stability of the wall, and there would be no offsite impacts associated with installation of the wall. The existing building at 320 West Coast Highway was not an example of the prominent local Page 2 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes o1(ft6ber 6, 2016 architect's work and did not meet historic resource criteria. Removal of the building was not a significant impact to historic resources. Principal Planner Campbell advised that the environmental consultant reviewed minor changes to the project. Those changes did not create a new impact or worsen the severity of an impact previously identified. Changes were considered minor and no recirculation of the MND was necessary. Staff felt the environmental analysis was adequate to support a decision to approve the project with or without the variance request. Staff recommended the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; if appropriate, approve the project; approve the project with the variance; or deny the project if the Commission was unable to make the findings for approval. Any Resolution adopted by the Commission should be revised to reflect a 10-day appeal period because of the tentative parcel map. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning for AutoNation, stated representatives of AutoNation could not be present as they were located in Florida, which was expecting a hurricane. AutoNation needed a new site for the existing Porsche dealership. She reviewed site plans and floor plans. The project would be set back significantly from Coast Highway. Driveways would be consolidated. The dealership would offer auto service and repair. A wider roof canopy to cover all parking spaces was proposed. The canopy would connect to the parapet on the north side, and no gaps would face Kings Road. Service doors would rise in 2 seconds and close in 5 seconds. The site was designed for car carriers to load and unload onsite. Ten employees would arrive at 7:00 a.m., with the service department opening at 7:30 a.m. Employee cars would be parked on the roof. Typically customers' cars would remain in the drive aisle for approximately 15 minutes. Approximately 30 service customers would be seen on a typical day. Cars not serviced immediately would be parked on the second or third level. The sales shift would begin at 8:00 a.m. All employees would leave the building at 10:00 p.m. The test drive route would be west on Coast Highway to Brookhurst , a U-turn at Brookhurst, and then back to the project site. Approximately ten customer test drives would occur on the busiest day, Saturday, and approximately ten service test drives per day would be expected. The applicant was aware of the prohibition of test drives occurring on residential streets. She reviewed the construction timeline and the applicants original submittal. The Mariners' Mile Design Framework was not a requirement but rather a set of guidelines. The project met 6 of the 12 general goals in the Design Framework; some goals were not applicable. She reviewed provisions of the General Plan relevant to the project. Ms. Schaffner listed details of the design, including lightening the service area, the canopy and facade at the east end, the stone treatment on the retaining wall, signage, the facade at the west end, metal screens, and windows. During community outreach, Bayshores residents commented regarding noise, lighting, height, story poles, and operations. Impacts from traffic noise, operational noise, construction noise and vibration were less than significant without mitigation. A supplemental noise analysis was performed for noise from Porsche engines, car alarms, and service noise. All noise levels with and without service doors open were compliant with Municipal Code standards. Enclosing the rooftop canopy on the north side resulted in a reduction of noise on the Kings Road side. Light standards would be 12 feet, and lights would be dimmed after 10:00 p.m. The photometric study confirmed that all lighting was confined to the site. Lighting on the roof would be controlled by sensors and would not remain on permanently. Signs on the frontage would be turned off at closing. Ms. Schaffner shared cross-sections showing heights at multiple points on the building. At all points, the building was below the 35-foot height limit and the adjacent Mariners' Pointe development. The applicant was not seeking a variance, because the project complied with the 35-foot height limit. The applicant did not wish to widen West Coast Highway; however, the City required it as a condition of approval. She addressed concerns raised in the petition, including loss of neighborhood businesses; length of the building; location against a coastal bluff; compatible architecture; the planning theme for Mariners' Mile; auto dealership use not serving local residents (it does); potential impacts on health, noise and safety; and insufficiency of the MND. She suggested the Planning Commission require the applicant to provide a monitoring report regarding compliance with conditions of approval in 6-12 months. She reiterated the applicant's belief that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and the Mariners' Mile Design Framework. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Principal Planner Campbell explained that no special approval was required for a building 26 feet in height. A 35-foot building height is allowed, subject to Page 3 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes ol(ft6ber 6, 2016 discretionary approval with findings. A 35-foot height requires a Conditional Use Permit or a site development review. He explained the placement of noise meters under the interior and exterior standards of the Noise Ordinance. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell reported the General Plan and Master Plan of Highways outlined six lanes for Coast Highway as a future goal. Vice Chair Koetting could not believe the site would generate 1,226 average daily trips. Traffic Engineer Brine explained that the number was based on the square footage of the building and the automobile sales category from the Institution of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The net increase in average daily trips would be about 672 above current uses. Principal Planner Campbell added that the number was an average rate based upon all automobile dealerships. Because the project was a high-end dealership with lower volumes of sales, the traffic increase could be less. The City's methodology for traffic studies utilized ITE rates. Currently approximately 40,000 cars traveled Coast Highway in both directions. The project would not obstruct views from the residences above. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Principal Planner Campbell advised that an auto dealership was in a different use category from retail. The vehicle sales and services category included service of automobiles. The category of auto, highway oriented, meant uses that were reliant upon the highway and that could survive on the highway. Any use that was compatible with a highway environment was the appropriate use for the area because it was likely to survive there. Principal Planner Campbell explained the use of elevation points to determine baseline grade for the purpose of measuring building height. Commissioner Hillgren requested clarification of the findings regarding additional amenities and the amount of floor area without approval of the height increase. Principal Planner Campbell stated the area on the roof was not enclosed space; therefore, it was not classified as gross floor area. The component above the height limit was not floor area that would not otherwise be achieved. Area of elevator shafts and stairwells counted on the first floor only. Adding the height for those features did not add floor area. The building could probably be constructed with lower parapets and without the roof canopy and still have parking on the roof. Having those features at a height of 35 feet did not add floor area, and the Planning Commission could make the finding. Active or passive use of the roof was part of the Use Permit application. The Commission was being asked to determine if that activity level was detrimental because it was closer to residents. Deputy Director Wisneski added that the Mariners' Mile Design Framework did envision an automobile dealership as a use in this portion of the Mariners' Mile area. Ms. Schaffner listed amenities as the rooftop canopy, the increased setback, consolidation of lots, and consolidation of driveways. Chair Kramer added the enhanced landscaping plan and the car wash. Secretary Zak asked if the 35-foot height was covered in the Conditional Use Permit or the site development review as it was unclear in the draft resolution. He further asked if a Coastal Development Permit application was required as indicated by the shoreline height exhibit. Principal Planner Campbell advised it was not applicable as the project was not located in the Coastal Zone. In response to Secretary Zak, Principal Planner Campbell explained that a retaining wall that supported the roof of the building or the structure would be an integral part of the building. The retaining wall would be an Integral part of the site because it would create a flat area for access to the ends of the building. The retaining wall was necessary to the function of the building. The visible portions of the retaining wall would be no greater than 8 feet in height in compliance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.040. Deputy Director Wisneski advised a Conditional Use Permit was required for a vehicle service use only. Vehicle sales did not have any negative impacts. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Ms. Schaffner indicated a comparison photo of the canopy with and without the variance was not available. The applicant did not believe a full roof canopy provided a benefit. It could detract from the architectural style. In a motion supporting the project, the Planning Commission could add a condition of approval to require dimming security lights and turning off the Porsche and Newport Beach signs after hours. After widening of the highway, street Page 4 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes ol(ft6ber 6, 2016 lights would be consistent with existing street lights. Traffic Engineer stated that the City was transitioning to LED lighting Citywide. LED lights were focused downward. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Ms. Schaffner indicated the red line in Slide 4 would become the property line with dedication of the 12-foot strip. The City could achieve the right-of-way extension through the dedication. Originally, the applicant envisioned building the project to the property line with parking spaces. When the City widened Coast Highway, the applicant would pull back the parking spaces. Vice Chair Koetting inquired regarding location of parking if the lot was full. He further inquired regarding the time of day when car carriers would be expected and whether more than one car carrier would be onsite at a given time. Ms. Schaffner did not find hours for deliveries listed in the Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit for the existing dealership at 445 East Coast Highway specified no deliveries between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Ms. Schaffner believed two car carriers onsite at the same time would be highly unusual. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Ms. Schaffner reported the noise study accounted for the design of the site including the canopy and the drive aisle at a height of 30 feet. The noise analysis assumed sound would come from all levels of the building, including the rooftop. No parking would be allowed in the drive aisle. The roof canopy would be of a wave-like, corrugated metal product with a non-reflective coating. The site would be excavated for grading and compaction purposes. The area next to the auto lift would be an operating space for a vehicle before it entered the auto lift. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Tom Zolgan stated AutoNation had proved it was not a good neighbor at the existing location. AutoNation's past actions spoke louder than their current words. The true height of the project was not 35 feet, but actually closer to 50 feet above street level. The City's method for measuring height was used to add height for a better view, not for allowing a third level. The project should not be built in its current form at the location. It appeared the City would approve the project because of the amount of potential sales tax revenue. He suggested the dealership be located at 150 Newport Center Drive. Mike Rudinica believed the project was consistent with other projects already approved at Mariners' Mile. The staff report adequately and correctly addressed technical issues. He recommended approval of the project. Ned McCune felt the project fit with other dealerships in the area. Another project might not consolidate the lots or reduce noise impacts to neighbors. Other project would not work on the narrow parcel. Mark McGuire stated his clients were concerned about the height of the project and the noise of Porsche vehicles. The project attempted to do too much on the roof. No other project on Mariners' Mile had parking on the roofing. The noisy auto lifts were too much. Many decks and patio areas immediately above the site were not considered for taking noise measurements. The statement that ambient backyard noise would be louder than street noise did not make sense. The General Plan provided a standard for increased noise, and the noise study stated that increase did occur. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. McGuire advised that he represented four homeowners above on Kings Road. Brandon Dietrich reported not all Bayshores residents opposed the project. He supported the project. Moving the existing dealership to the proposed location would improve traffic flow and public safety. The project fit with other businesses. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Page 5 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes olUM66er 6, 2016 Carol Anne Dru opposed the project for many reasons. Mainly, the project was not appropriate for the neighborhood. AutoNation would be a bad neighbor and would not serve local residents. She shared comments from other residents. Neighbors did not want the dealership at that location. Ron Newman shared his experiences with noise from restaurants surrounding his home on the Coast Highway. Homes on Kings Road were not great neighbors because of noise and lighting. Auto dealerships were part of the fabric of Newport Beach. He supported the project. Todd Otte believed the issue was AutoNation's operation of the dealership. AutoNation had not been good a neighbor at its current location. The proposed project was too big. He suggested removing the service facility and the rooftop parking deck. Russ Fluter felt AutoNation was a great neighbor. The project was an improvement to the site and the area. He noted advantages of the project such as setbacks, no request for a variance, and acting as a noise buffer for homes. The project would be good for the community. Slavitsa Milosovlavich represented 2,000 businesses and thousands of residents of Newport Beach. AutoNation was a wonderful business but should not be located on Coast Highway. Her concerns were noise and traffic. Peggy Palmer commented on the noise made by Porsche engines. She questioned whether noise measurements were taken at Kings Place and Cliff Drive. The noise readings were completely incorrect. The general consensus of many realtors was that the project would have a negative impact on property values. Peter Rooney did not oppose a showroom at the location; however, the proposed project was too much. No other dealerships located in the area provide vehicle service. The site was too small for the building. Residents would prefer not to have parking on the roof. The service use was detrimental to the neighborhoods because of light and noise. The design of the building was bad. Ms. Schaffner advised that the Newport Auto Center site was similar to the proposed site in that it is also surrounded by residential uses and that it has not proven incompatible. The project site is narrow, but the applicant achieved a 50-foot setback in the front and 35-foot and 11-foot setbacks in the rear. Even with the narrow conditions, the site was suitable for the proposed uses. The applicant reduced the number of service bays and types of services offered out of concern for the neighbors. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Chair Kramer thanked the applicant for her comprehensive presentation. Chair Kramer stated that thought-the project had many positive attributes. The project was well designed, did not ask-seek for any extraordinary exceptions, was a permitted use per the zoning code, and enhanced the neighborhood. There are no general plan amendments, zoning code changes, or variances and the findings for approval can be easily made. Porsche and AutoNation had done a fa rlygood job with the design given the difficulties of the site. The project conformed to the vision provided by Newport Beach citizens the General Plan and to Council policies. He had difficulty finding a reason not to approve the project. Hd -Chair Kramer stated he would-supports the project. Commissioner Dunlap noted challenges with the Coast Highway including traffic and adjacent residences. He questioned whether intensifying the use on the Coast Highway contributed to quality of life. He had developed a downsized version of the project in his mind before reading Mr. McGuire's letter and hearing Mr. Otte's comments. Other dealerships on the Coast Highway did not offer auto service. He had met with the applicant's representatives and with numerous homeowners. He felt AutoNation should relocate the sales component for Porsche to the project site only. He proposed that the applicant consider proposing a project of sales only. He would be more willing to support the project if AutoNation had not been cited for violations. Enforcing Conditions of Approval 42 and 43 would be really difficult. Page 6 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes ol(ft6ber 6, 2016 Chair Kramer advised that the Planning Commission's role was one of land use planning rather than code enforcement. Commissioner Hillgren agreed the site was difficult. The City had provided some opportunities and incentives for improving the site. This site was distinctly different from the Village area. Development at this site would set the vision for Mariners' Mile. The appearance of any development at this site was important. The scale of the project did not fit with existing, adjacent developments as required. The structure was so large because the City provided additional height. He did not believe the Planning Commission could make the findings for a height in excess of 26 feet. The project was too dense. The mass and type of architecture was not in keeping with the vision for Mariners' Mile. He could not support the project as proposed; however, in general he could support the use at the right scale. Secretary Zak favored redevelopment of the site; however, it was a difficult site. The applicant made a concerted effort to design a project consistent with many of the General Plan principles. He could not make the findings, specifically L, N and Q, for the project. The height and the massing did not fit with the residential neighborhoods. Vice Chair Koetting reported the Planning Commission had approved similar but cleaner and simpler projects. Bulk and scale and size were too much. He could not make the findings for the project. Commissioner Weigand had met with the applicant. He appreciated the applicant's concessions and efforts. The applicant had been a poor steward of the community. He was close to supporting the project until the latest Code violations occurred. The site was appropriate for sales but not service. The project was not compatible with the surrounding area. Vice Chair Koetting reported he had an ex parte meeting with the applicant's local consultant. After listening to the presentation, he did not comment. Commissioner Hillgren had a similar communication with the applicant and communicated with many people in and around Newport Beach. He asked if any of the Commissioners could act positively on any component of the project to set a template for the future. Chair Kramer expressed his disappointmented with his fellow Commissioners. He felt the Staff recommendation for approval was reasonable, and Commissioners should ast-en itvote to approve the ro oiect. The Commission must act on the application as submitted, not redesign the project. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to deny the item. Chair Kramer stated that he believed the applicant would appeal the decision to the City Council. Vice Chair Koetting viewed the issue as site development. If the project was smaller and did not have a service facility, the Planning Commission could approve it. He requested Commissioners discuss a change to this effect. Deputy Director Wisneski stated such revisions would require a major redesign of the project. She cautioned the Commission against approving a project based on a condition of major redesign. The applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Weigand concurred with Deputy Director Wisneski. If the Commission approved the project, then the Bayshores community would appeal it. If the Commission denied the project, the applicant would appeal it. Chair Kramer inquired as to the applicant's wishes. Ms. Schaffner requested a no vote so that they could appeal the decision. AYES: Koetting,Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: Kramer Page 7 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes olUM66er 6, 2016 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler Chair Kramer announced the Commission would hear Item 5 next. 4. ORANGE THEORY FITNESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(PA2016-116) Site Location: 3021 East Coast Highway Deputy Director Wisneski introduced Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager. Assistant Planner Crager reported the project is a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 2,783- square-foot fitness facility with a two space parking waiver. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the north and west and commercial uses to the east and south. She reviewed requirements for establishing a fitness facility and for parking. Other uses in the center included a grocery store, two restaurants, a retail store, a dry cleaners and an additional vacant space. She reviewed the floor plan, hours of operation, parking, and a parking study submitted by the applicant. Staff recommended a condition of approval requiring the business owner to buy annual parking permits for employees and recommended approval subject to conditions. Chair Kramer welcomed Assistant Planner Crager. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Assistant Planner Crager indicated the parking summary pertained to the existing uses in the center rather than all spaces. Per Code, parking is required to be provided onsite. However, in considering a parking waiver, the Zoning Code allowed consideration of offsite parking spaces. A separate application for a parking waiver had been submitted for a restaurant in the additional vacant space. In response to Commissioner Dunlap,Assistant Planner Crager advised the applicant was agreeable to purchasing parking permits for employees. Marc Thomas, applicant, remarked that he owned four other locations of Orange Theory Fitness. Orange Theory Fitness (OTF) conducted group fitness classes focused on heart rate-based interval training. Instructor-led classes incorporated a combination of cardio and strength training. OTF is one of the fastest growing fitness franchises in the world. The location in Westcliff Plaza had reached maximum capacity, and members wanted a second location. He shared his personal history. OTF is involved in the community through donating time and money to public and private schools and nonprofit organizations in Newport Beach. Because of OTF's size and parking requirements, finding a suitable space was difficult. He had worked with staff to provide information. According to the parking study, parking needs were met. Based on the business model, OTF's peak traffic was not necessarily the peak traffic of other businesses in the center and or in Corona del Mar. OTF's busiest hours were 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. He agreed to all conditions of approval. Purchasing parking permits was not his first choice, but he is willing to do so. He requested approval to move forward with the project. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Thomas advised that 28 people are onsite for approximately 70-75 percent of the class schedule. Some portion of those people would be using modes other than cars to reach the center. Commissioner Hillgren was concerned that 24 persons would be onsite but only 12 parking spaces were required. He appreciated the peak hour variance that could offset the parking situation. Mr. Thomas reiterated that the peak hours of OTF were not the same as the peak hours for the center or for Corona del Mar. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Thomas indicated he had not spoken directly with other tenants. He had addressed the parking situation with the landlord and the landlord's representative. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski reported staff had not received communications from any of the tenants. Notice of the meeting had been posted at the center. Page 8 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes olUM66er 6, 2016 In response to Commissioner Weigand, Assistant Planner Crager understood Mr. Thomas would be responsible for purchasing a new parking permit for each new employee. Chair Kramer asked if Staff is recommending the applicant purchase parking permits. Commissioner Weigand noted it was Condition 7. Mr. Thomas stated the fee for the permit is approximately $178 per permit per year. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the permit is transferrable to other employees. Staff had required this type of permit for the grocery store in the center. Commissioner Weigand suggested this second location would be good for reducing traffic as participants would not have to travel across the City. He asked if the applicant was installing sound walls. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Mr. Thomas reported he had not had any tenant issues at the West Cliff location. Generally classes were not scheduled during the early afternoon. As members were added, the class schedule could get busier. Generally little activity occurred between noon and 4:00 p.m. There could be some overlap with people arriving and departing a class. Generally, participants departed within minutes. A 15-minute break was scheduled between classes to allow instructors a break and to introduce new students. Rarely would two full classes be present at the same time. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. None. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Assistant Planner Crager reported staff noticed all area property owners and received no comments from them. Commissioner Dunlap had spoken with three tenants of the center. They supported the project. Motion made by Secretary Zak and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to adopt Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-031. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler 5. DORY DELI EXPANSION (PA2016-067) Site Location: 2108 3/4 West Ocean Front Associate Planner Zdeba reported Dory Deli is an existing restaurant located in a multi-tenant commercial building. The applicant requested expansion of the existing restaurant into the adjacent retail space; proposed changing the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license; and requested an adjustment of the parking requirement which would require a Conditional Use Permit. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit would require an operator license as issued by the Chief of Police. The project is located within the mixed-use water-related zoning district. A restaurant is an allowed use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. He provided background information for the site and noted the expansion includes a new service bar counter. The applicant proposed to close the business by 11:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 12:30 a.m. Friday through Sunday. The applicant also requested to maintain the opening hour of 6:00 a.m. Staff expressed support for the earlier opening hour request as the Police Department memorandum indicated it was acceptable. Staff also expressed support of the waiver of one parking space. He reviewed the floor plans and General Plan Land Use policies in support of the project. Staff recommended approval of the project. Mr. Zdeba noted the applicant had worked closely with staff and the Police Department to identify business hours that would be satisfactory. If the stated business hours were to change, the Police Page 9 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes ol(ft6ber 6, 2016 Department's support of the project would be withdrawn. Staff received approximately 20 letters in support of the application and no letters in opposition. Andrew Gabriel, applicant, shared his personal and business background, improvements made to the building, and participation in community events. He noted the business is struggling, and expansion is needed. Mario Marovic, applicant, also shared his educational and personal background and his involvement with the Newport Beach Bar and Tavern Association. Originally, the concept for the space was a basic hamburger restaurant with Dory Deli being located in a nearby space. The operator for the hamburger restaurant left the business, and the applicants opened Dory Deli in the space. He stated Dory Deli needs additional space to continue to operate. He highlighted improvements to the building. Only 199 square feet of the proposed expansion would be net public area and would not increase occupancy. The remaining space would be used for kitchen prep and storage. The expansion would allow a traditional breakfast menu and full table service for dinner. The lunch menu would change very little. The majority of neighbors and residents supported the project. The operator's license gave the City the ability to regulate hours of operation. The applicant expressed concern and care for the community and a desire to have a positive impact. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Associate Planner Zdeba advised that the reference to giving away alcohol was boilerplate language from the Code. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Associate Planner Zdeba explained that the difference between the hours in the Police Department's recommendation and the staff report was the difference between closing the doors and employees leaving the premises. Vice Chair Koetting was impressed with Dory Deli and noted his support the project. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Marovic indicated that additional hours beyond those recommended by staff could help ensure success of the business. The recommended hours were reached through negotiation. He originally proposed complete closure at 1:30 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. The current closing time is 2:00 a.m. Under staffs recommendation, the business would be open approximately 400 fewer hours per year. Vice Chair Koetting noted the applicant wanted an opening time of 6:00 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. Mr. Marovic added that the current open time was 6:00 a.m. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Marovic concurred with other conditions in staffs recommendation. Commissioner Weigand reported he attended a site visit with the applicant. He was impressed with the applicant and their efforts. The applicant had proposed a slightly different floor plan. Mr. Marovic indicated staffs recommendation is not his original proposal. Chair Kramer asked why staff did not support the original floor plan. Mr. Marovic stated staff suggested tables as a better fixture in order to maintain more of a dining area than a bar area. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Mr. Marovic advised that the original floor plan would provide three additional seats. Commissioner Weigand felt the applicant should have additional operating hours because he would have the Operator License. Chair Kramer concurred. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the plans evolved over several months through discussion among staff, the Police Department and the applicant. Staff never intended to approve a bar and attempted to eliminate any aspects that could be perceived as a bar. That resulted in changes to the floor plan and to operating hours. Commissioner Weigand indicated the public's perception was not within the Commission's discretion. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Page 10 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes olUM66er 6, 2016 Steve Rosansky, Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce President, was aware of the applicant's improvements to the area. The applicant could improve the whole area without the City doing anything. He encouraged the Commission to give the applicant as much consideration as possible. Vaughn Johnson believed the applicant's improvements were a trend in the right direction. The Commission had the opportunity to facilitate that trend. Few incident reports and high consumer approval indicated the applicant was a responsible operator. Nathan Holthouser had submitted signatures in support of the project. This project was a perfect example of what the City needed. He hoped the Commission was as lenient as possible with the applicant. Josh Yocum supported the applicant and their efforts to improve the Newport Pier and McFadden Plaza area. He hoped improvements to the area continued. He urged the Commission to support the project and cooperate with the applicant regarding hours of operation. In an effort to shorten the meeting, Mr. Marovic suggested members of the public supporting the project show their hands. Chair Kramer asked if anyone opposed the project. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Chair Kramer stated he supports fauefed-the project. He noted the applicant had done aood job with the various eating establishments in the City. The applicant's request was reasonable. He would support extending operating hours as the applicant originally requested and the floor plan originally proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Dunlap stated he had met with the applicant and he further added the applicant is the model for how businesses should operate in Newport Beach. He supported the applicant's proposal. Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-016 with modifications of tabletop window seating to counter seating and closing hours of 1:00 a.m. Monday through Thursday and 1:30 a.m. Friday through Sunday. Commissioner Hillgren noted he would support all changes except the closing hours. He did not understand the applicant's request to change the hours after reaching an agreement with the Police Department and the Council representative. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Dunlap,Weigand NOES: Hillgren ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler [The Commission proceeded to Item Number 4.] 6. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT CORRECTION— NEWPORT COAST(PA2006-159) Site Location: Citywide Senior Planner Ramirez reported Section 8 of the City Council Resolution approving the 2006 Comprehensive General Update granted authority to the Planning Commission to correct scrivener's errors. That authority was also documented in City Council Policy K-1. Planning Commission action would affirm correction of an error. Anomaly No. 60 was the resort area in Newport Coast. Planning Areas 13A-E were the same as Anomaly No. 60. He listed the regulatory documents for the area. The County held land use authority, the authority to issue permits, through a cooperative agreement between the City and the County. Once Planning Areas were fully developed, the County transferred permit authority to the City. An error was made in Anomaly No. 60 in Table LU2. In 2015, staff Page 11 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes olUM66er 6, 2016 presented the Planning Commission with a number they believed would correct the error. The Planning Commission decided staff should reconfirm the correct number with the County. The City and the County agreed with 2,150 hotel rooms; however, the General Plan was short 300,000 square feet in relation to the square footage associated with those hotel rooms. The County also identified 75,000 square feet of day-use commercial that was not contained in the General Plan. The corrected total was 3,035,000 square feet or a change of 375,000 square feet in the Anomaly Table. The corrected figure for Anomaly No. 60 in Table LU2 would be 3,035,000 square feet for development limit. Under development limit other, staff described how the 2,960,000 square feet was attributed to hotel development plus an additional 75,000 square feet for day-use commercial. In the additional information area and under Anomaly No. 61, staff added that it corresponded to the commercial areas of Newport Coast Planning Areas 3B and 14. In response to Chair Kramer, Senior Planner Ramirez explained the error was found during the in 2013 during the Land Use Element Update. Anomaly No. 60 was a correction rather than a General Plan amendment. There was no intent in the 2006 General Plan Comprehensive Update to change anything in Newport Coast. He indicated Staff was not aware of other errors; however, if staff discovered other errors, they would present them. In response to Secretary Zak, Senior Planner Ramirez advised that the County provided allowed development numbers in October 2015. However, before proceeding, Staff wanted a complete understanding of the built square footage and requested and received that additional information from the County In September 2016. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher believed the Planning Commission should conduct a study session with County Planning representatives prior to acting on either Item 6 or Item 7. The information was more tenuous than the staff report indicated. He was concerned that the numbers in the General Plan had been twice presented to voters as correct. He was uncomfortable changing numbers approved by the voters. Staff was aware the numbers were incorrect at the last vote but did not notify the public. Voters were told there was 1,001,000 square feet of unused development in Newport Coast that could be moved to Newport Center. However, adding 375,000 square feet to Table 3 showed there never was 1,001,000 square feet to move. The error could not be determined to be a miscopying of a number appearing in a County regulatory document. The County's letter was an interpretation of County documents. He explained why the calculations were incorrect. There would be a further inconsistency in Anomaly No. 61 by stating it coincided with Areas 3B and 14. Senior Planner Ramirez stated handwritten page 93 mentioned the 2,150 overnight accommodations. Staff felt this was a good reference for the total hotel accommodations and was confident the 2,150 number was accurate. The table Mr. Mosher referenced was provided by the County. The numbers in the table were the maximum numbers for each Planning Area, but the grand total could not exceed 2,150. The 1 million square feet related to the conversion of 1,000 hotel rooms. Dan Purcell requested Mr. Mosher's comments be taken as his. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Senior Planner Ramirez reported the 2006 General Plan used numbers from 2003 or 2004. The 2006 General Plan did not contemplate any changes to Newport Coast; it reflected numbers from the Local Coastal Program (LCP) presented by the County. The proposed modification was consistent with planning studies performed as part of the 2006 General Plan. The 2006 General Plan contemplated changes in specific subareas. The number used should have been accurate in 2001, when the area was annexed into the City. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Senior Planner Ramirez stated staff concurred with the County's numbers. There was no applicant for the action. The action was brought forward by City staff. Irvine Company properties were involved with the correction. Senior Planner Ramirez worked with two other senior staff members, including Director Brandt,to review the modification. Page 12 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes olUM66er 6, 2016 Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to adopt Resolution affirming that the proposed correction to the Land Use Element related to Anomaly No. 60 located in Newport Coast is accurate and consistent with Section 8 of City Council Resolution No. 2006-76 adopting the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler 7. NEWPORT COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT(PA2016-165) Site Location: Citywide Senior Planner Ramirez incorporated the presentation made for Item No. 6. The Irvine Company requested a 15-year extension of the Development Agreement with the City regarding Newport Coast and adjacent areas. The Development Agreement became effective in 2002 and granted rights to the Irvine Company. Development capacity remained in Newport Coast, specifically in Anomaly No. 60. Staff recommended approval of the extension. A public benefit fee was under discussion. In response to Chair Kramer, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated some consideration was being paid for the extension of rights. He believes Council Member Selich and Mayor Dixon were participating in the fee discussion. The Irvine Company was not requesting any other changes to the Development Agreement. The rights granted by the Development Agreement were contained in the Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Planned Community, and the City's General Plan. Without the Development Agreement, perhaps the City could amend the General Plan to move the rights and change the development capacity. In which case, the General Plan would be inconsistent with the Master LCP. In his opinion,the City was obligated to approve the Development Agreement. Deputy Director Wisneski clarified that the Planning Commission provided a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Development Agreement. The City Council would take final action on the application. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the extension of 15 years was likely based on the original term of 15 years. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning representing the Irvine Company, provided a history of the Development Agreement. The County held development authority over Newport Coast even though Newport Coast was annexed into the City. The existing documents should be extended to allow the City to develop a Local Coastal Program for Newport Coast, which could require a few more years. The original term was 15 years and a Local Coastal Program had not been approved in the past 11 years; therefore,an extension of 15 years was logical. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Ms. Schaffner advised development could occur even though the LCP was not complete. The LCP was not delaying progress. The Irvine Company wished to protect its vested rights that were administered by the County but located in the City. It would be helpful for the Development Agreement to remain in place while the LCP was developed and adopted. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated the Development Agreement was before the Planning Commission in accordance with requirements of the Zoning Code. There were no development considerations in the Planning Commission's action. It was logical for the property owner to secure the entitlement over time. There are no planning issues to consider because entitlements had been established in the County's LCP. If the Planning Commission recommended denial of the extension,the entitlement remained in the LCP. A, Rt rT Page 13 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes olUM66er 6, 2016 Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher reiterated his previous comment regarding a study session with County planning representatives. He remained convinced that the previous action was inconsistent with LCP limits. The Newport Ridge portion of the Development Agreement had not been reviewed; yet, the Planning Commission was being asked to protect rights for Newport Ridge for 15 years. Ms. Schaffner calculated a different number for built development. The issues were confused. He doubted the Commission could make the finding that 40-year-old CEQA determinations were relevant. Dan Purcell requested Mr. Mosher's comments be taken as his. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In response to Chair Kramer, Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the public benefit was evolving. The Irvine Company and Council representatives were discussing the matter. Typically, the Planning Commission considered a Development Agreement in the context of a project. The terms of the Development Agreement were not within the Planning Commission's purview because they were not planning related. Secretary Zak stated the Planning Commission did not have all the terms and conditions for the Development Agreement it was being asked to consider. The City Council continued to negotiate some of the terms. Chair Kramer noted the draft amendment did not reference the public benefit. Deputy Director Wisneski suggested the Commission's recommendation include a request that the City Council include a public benefits fee at an appropriate level in the Development Agreement. Secretary Zak did not understand how the Commission could make that recommendation if the public benefit was not within the Commission's purview. Chair Kramer clarified that language regarding a public benefit should be in the Development Agreement. Secretary Zak felt a blank for a dollar amount was a policy decision. Chair Kramer stated the City Attorney should have included some language. Secretary Zak disagreed. Chair Kramer noted the staff report referenced it. Secretary Zak did not wish to make it part of the Resolution. In response to Secretary Zak, Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the fine Ms. Schaffner referenced was related to the City having a Certified Local Coastal Program for Newport Coast. The Development Agreement was a separate issue. The City had been fined $12,000 per year since the adoption of the state legislation. The fine would cease once an LCP was certified. She believed the fine was paid to the Coastal Conservancy. Ms. Schaffner referred to the original Development Agreement, which contained no public benefit fee. The public benefits were identified in the Development Agreement between the County and Irvine Company. The City received no distinct dollar amount as a public benefit. In response to Chair Kramer, Ms. Schaffner agreed that the City could receive a benefit for extending the Development Agreement. A meeting was scheduled for the following week to discuss a public benefit. Discussions had been held, but not an in-person meeting. Vice Chair Koetting indicated he could find no language regarding an extension or a right for an extension. Chair Kramer advised language could be found in Section 10.18, amendments in writing. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the amount of public benefit was a policy issue. The item contained no planning-related issues. She recommended the Commission recommend the City Council approve the Development Agreement. Commissioner Hillgren advised he was comfortable with the Development Agreement not referring to a public benefit. However, he was not comfortable recommending approval without considering planning Page 14 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes ol(ft6ber 6, 2016 issues, which were lacking. Deputy Director Wisneski stated the project contained no planning elements. Commissioner Hillgren felt the extension of development rights was a planning issue. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated the item had to be presented to the Council prior to the end of the year, probably in November. Senior Planner Ramirez added that the Council would need to review it at the first meeting in November to allow time for a second reading. Senior Planner Ramirez explained that the planning entitlements had already been approved in Newport Coast. In response to Chair Kramer, Deputy City Attorney Maiorano reported the failure to take an affirmative vote was effectively a denial as stated in the Commission's Bylaws. Government Code Section 65867.5 required adoption of the Development Agreement by ordinance. In addition, the Council had to make a finding that the Development Agreement was consistent with the General Plan at the time of adoption. Director Brandt agreed the application was unusual. The original Development Agreement did not include any extensions. In order to extend the term of the Development Agreement, an amendment was required. No changes to the existing General Plan designations or development capacities were being proposed as part of the extension. During the 15-year extension, the City would commit to not changing the General Plan for properties in Newport Coast. This was the issue for the Planning Commission. This was a continuation of the existing 2006 General Plan for Newport Coast for an additional 15 years. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2006 General Plan accounted for the development capacity for Newport Coast, and that capacity remained unchanged with the extension. The development entitlements would not extinguish on January 1; the vested right to have those for the property would extinguish on January 1. In response to Secretary Zak, Director Brandt clarified that the amendment to the Development Agreement would allow for extension of the Development Agreement. Secretary Zak suggested the Commission recommend an extension to the Development Agreement but, without knowing the precise number of the public benefit, the Commission could not determine whether the public benefit was appropriate for the term of the extension. Motion made by Secretary Zak and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to adopt the Resolution approving the first amendment to the annexation of the Development Agreement with the term of the extension at the discretion of the Council. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS 8. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—None. 9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported staff was proceeding in discussions with the Coastal Commission staff in reviewing modifications. The suggested modifications will be presented to the City Council in a study session on October 25. Public hearings would be held in November. 2. Update on City Council Items Page 15 of 16 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Minutes otR5&6ber 6, 2016 Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski indicated the October 20`h meeting would include the Museum House, Villa Inn and a General Plan amendment for 191 Riverside. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski reported that on October 20`" the Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing and may take action on the Museum House. Packets would be distributed Friday prior to the meeting. Commissioner Hillgren requested his packet be sent to a different address. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION,ACTION, OR REPORT None. 11. REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, September 30, 2016, at 3:30 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, September 30, 2016, at 4:03 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary Page 16 of 16 Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 6, 2016 Oct. 20, 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. ITEM NO. 1 DRAFT MINUTES OF 10-06-2016 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in Rtr.,Poo,.t^ t underline format. Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 3, mid-paragraph: "The ",Find, Mariner's Pointe project was found consistent with Policy 6.19.12 even though it blocked the view of the entire bluff similar to the adjacent development(MarinPoint^'." [Notes: The parenthetical item appears to be a reviewer's note inadvertently left in the final draft. The first item appears to be part of the City staff's current campaign to correct what they feel were incorrect former spellings and punctuations. In this case, the project as approved (see for example, Council Item 3 on September 13, 2011) was clearly"Mariner's Pointe" and not whatever staff now wants it to be.] Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 3, line 6 from end: "The project required dedication of the southerly 12 feet of the property for proposed highway improvements. Highway improvements would allow additional capacity in the area and assist operations at the intersection at Dove Dover Drive." Page 3, paragraph 2, mid-paragraph: "Approximately ten customer test drives would occur on the busiest day, Saturday and > ateiy t^^ s ^ test droves per-day would b e-*pesteel." [If the deleted part was intended to add something to the preceding part, it is not obvious what.] Page 3, paragraph 2, two sentences later: "The Mariners Mariner's Mile Design Framework was not a requirement but rather a set of guidelines." [Again, the word "Mariner's" in "Mariner's Mile Design Framework' as adopted in October 2000 (more accurately part of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision & Design Framework) was very clearly intended to be punctuated as indicated. It is unclear why staff feels compelled to rewrite history, especially since doing so tends to diminish credibility in other areas.] Page 3, paragraph 2, last sentence: "She reiterated the applicant's belief that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and the " ar4ne .-r Mariner's Mile Design Framework." Page 4, paragraph 3, last sentence: "Deputy Director Wisneski added that the ""a ,.Q. ;,e.^-^' Mariner's Mile Design Framework did envision an automobile dealership as a use in this portion of the Mariners'Mile area." Page 5, line 1: "Traffic Engineer Brine stated that the City was transitioning to LED lighting Citywide. LED lights were focused downward." Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received October 20, 2016, PC agenda item 1 comments - Jim Mosher DraReU0-Ztfs3of October 6, 2016 Page 5, paragraph 4 from end, last sentence: "Other pxeject projects would not work on the narrow parcel." Page 6, paragraph 5: "Slavitsa Milosovlavich represented 2,000 businesses and thousands of residents of Newport Beach. AutoNation was a wonderful business but should not be located on Coast Highway." [Is this based on a speaker card? In the City's business license database the name is spelled "Slavica Milosavljevic."] Page 9, paragraph 4: "in response to Commissioner Weigand, Mr. Thomas reported he had not had any tenant issues at the 1449,;t o,,^�iF°Westcliff location." Page 16, sentence 1: "Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski indicated the October 20th meeting would include the Museum House, A49a Village Inn and a General Plan amendment for 191 Riverside." Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received October 20, 2016, PC agenda item 1 comments - Jim Mosher DraReUfn$jWs3of October 6, 2016 Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1 c Additional Materials Received After the Meeting Draft Minutes of October 6, 2016 Oct. 20, 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. ITEM NO. 1 DRAFT MINUTES OF 10-06-2016 California Government Code Subsection 54954.3(a) requires in part that "Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item ..." [emphasis added] — a fundamental principle of the Brown Act which is honored in the Newport Beach Planning Commission's Rules of Procedures (Section VII.B). This rule was apparently inadvertently violated at the October 20, 2016, when the Chair forgot to invite oral public comment on the above-captioned item, and the error compounded when, after a reminder about this, the Chair insisted any public comments on Item 1 be submitted in writing after the meeting. That said, I appreciate this opportunity to attempt to reconstruct what I might have said had I been afforded the opportunity to speak, and to have this made part of the official record of the meeting. Had public comment been invited on Item 1, I believe I would have said something along the following lines: "Chair Kramer and members of the Commission, my name is Jim Mosher. "Minutes can be accurate, but the information in them wrong. We have an example of this on pages 13 and 14 of the present item, where the Commission was discussing the request to extend the Irvine Company's Newport Coast Development Agreement. Near the middle of page 13, Ms. Shaffner, on behalf of IC, is quoted as saying one of the reasons for wanting to extend the DA was to give the City more time to develop a Local Coastal Program for Newport Coast—something, although not recorded in the minutes, Ms. Shaffner said was required by special State legislation adopted in connection with the annexation of the land, and which, for failing to produce, the City is being fined by the State. On page 14, a little below the middle, Deputy Director Wisneski appears to be quoted as confirming this. "That did not sound right to me, and I was frankly surprised City staff would seek to bolster Ms. Shaffner's erroneous comments, rather than questioning them. "The State legislation referred to by Ms. Shaffner is clearly California Public Resources Code Subsection 30519.2 and I want to disabuse the Commission of the notion it imposes any obligation on the City to produce an LCP for Newport Coast—an area which already has an LCP certified to Orange County. By my reading, the legislation requires the City to develop an LCP for its pre-annexation properties within the Coastal Zone —that is, an LCP for everything but Newport Coast—and the fine is related to that alone. Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 1 c Additional Materials Received After the Meeting October 20, 2016, additional PC agenda item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Drafft ZtZfs2of October 6, 2016 "Neither the State nor anyone else is anxiously waiting for CNB to produce a new LCP for Newport Coast. "So this turns out to be a clear case where the minutes are right but the information in them, seemingly corroborated by City staff, is wrong. "I would not be surprised if you hear more wrong information tonight, but it seems clear to me that no one at your last meeting had a clear understanding of how planning works in Newport Coast. "Which leads to my second comment, which is about the motion at the top of page 13 regarding staffs claim they needed to increase the development limits stated for Newport Coast in the City's General Plan. "Even if the body of the minutes are a bit sketchy about what was said leading up to the motions, I think it's important that the actual motions be correctly recorded. In this case, key words have been omitted. If you check the SPON video, starting at 3:45:20, you will see the actual motion the Planning Commission voted on was this: "to adopt Resolution affirming that the proposed correction to the Land Use Element related to Anomaly No. 60 located in Newport Coast is accurate and consistent with Section 8 of City Council Resolution No. 2006-76 according to Gregg Ramirez who swears on his[word omitted?]adopting the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan." "The Commission may find it embarrassing to include those extra words [shown in bold, above], and may refuse to do so, but that is what the Commission voted on, and they seem important extra words to me because they mean this was a resolution of faith in planning staff more than an independent determination by the Commission that the change was correct or they had the authority to make it. "And as to the correctness of the change, I would like to point out that planning decisions in the relevant area of Newport Coast are controlled not by our General Plan, but rather by the County's certified Local Coastal Program. And the final arbiter of what that LCP allows is not the County, but rather the Coastal Commission. Yet we made a very significant change to our General Plan with no one, neither staff nor Planning Commission, asking the Coastal Commission what they say the limits are. I think that's shameful. "Thank you."