Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_10-20-2016 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2016 REGULAR MEETING—6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL Chair Kory Kramer,Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Ray Lawler and Commissioner Erik Weigand Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski;Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez; and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher was pleased to hear Commissioners disclose ex parte communications at the last meeting. A policy requiring disclosures would be better. Disclosing the name of the person contacted and the substance of the contact would be even better. Preservation of harbor-related uses was important to the Harbor Commission, who hoped to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. The Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan contained policies about preserving harbor-related uses. All elements seemed not to have meshed when the Zoning Code was implemented. He hoped a jointsession between the Planning Commission and the Harbor Commission would occur. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Director Wisneski announced one request to continue Item Number 3, the Village Inn outdoor dining use permit. The applicant requested a continuance to November 3rd in order to determine alternative locations for bike racks. Staff supported the request. Mike Sullivan advised that interested parties received notice of the request that day. Interested parties were not in favor of a continuance. Vice Chair Koetting opposed any last-minute continuance. It was unfair to staff and members of the public. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to continue Item Number 3 to November 3,2016. AYES: Kramer,Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand, Lawler NOES: Koetting ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 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 October 6,2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Lawler ABSENT: None 1 of 13 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 191 RIVERSIDE LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (PA2016-127) Site Location: 191 Riverside Avenue Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford reported the proposed amendments would change the General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed-Use (MU). He showed photos of the surrounding area. The Initial Study indicated no potentially significant impacts. He reviewed comments from a resident, SPON and two Native American organizations. Staff concluded public comments did not raise any substantial evidence of new impacts or additional mitigation measures. The Planning Commission could take action on the Negative Declaration. Issues associated with the amendments were generally land use compatibility and development potential. The proposed land use was consistent with the surrounding area and the vision for the Village portion of the Mariners' Mile area. He shared the analysis performed pursuant to Charter Section 423. No development was proposed at the current time. If the land use and zoning amendments were approved, development of 10-13 dwelling units and 5,663-11,326 square feet of commercial was possible. Site development review would be required for any mixed-use or project greater than 10,000 square feet. A comparison of traffic between the previous use and the maximum development potential showed a net increase of 297 average daily trips. The study showed no significant impacts to nearby intersections or to Riverside Drive. The site contained 20 parking spaces. Under the current PF Zoning District, parking standards are established by a use permit. Maximum development of a mixed-use project would require 46 parking spaces for commercial and 26 spaces for residential for a total of 72 parking spaces. As long as uses were equal to or less than 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area, the existing building would comply with Zoning Code requirements for off-street parking. The existing building was approximately 20 feet in height. The maximum height could be 35 feet under the current PF Zoning District. Under the proposed Mixed-Use Mariners' Mile District, the height limit would be 26 feet for a flat-roof building or 31 feet for a sloped-roof building. The Planning Commission's recommendation would be presented to the City Council on November 22, tentatively. If the Council approved the amendments, then staff would submit a Local Coastal Program amendment to the Coastal Commission. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiry, Planning Program Manager Alford advised that the height restriction in the CG Zone was the same as the proposed mixed-use, 26 feet for a flat roof. The Commission had the option of finding uses that were similar,to.those provided in the Zoning Code, such as museums and cultural institutions. A public facilities designation was more limiting than a proposed mixed-use designation. The Commission could find that similar public facilities uses were consistent with the PF Zoning District. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Planning Program Manager Alford explained that the adjacent Mariners' Center showed that it could be parked in conjunction with the project to meet the parking demand for the entire site. Although the project was located on a separate parcel from Mariners' Center, they shared ownership and operations. The applicant had indicated its intent to reuse the building with straight commercial development and did not propose mixed-use. The applicant filed an application for mixed-use because mixed-use was consistent with the abutting property and property across the street. In response to Secretary Zak's questions, Planning Program Manager Alford advised that minor use permits were discretionary at staff level and could be appealed to the Planning Commission. An example of a minor use was a smaller-scale food use. Vice Chair Koetting disclosed that he met on the site to view redevelopment of the property. He had little discussion concerning the project site. Commissioners Hillgren, Dunlap and Weigand also visited the site. Commissioner Lawler reported he met with the applicant who expressly stated he was not interested in dwelling units. Secretary Zak indicated he also met with the applicant but not at the site. 2of13 Susan Hori, on behalf of Mariners Center M2, commented that the purpose was to implement the General Plan vision for the village area. She and her team were available to answer questions. Gary Jabara, Mariners Center, stated the theme of Mariners Center was consistent with the General Plan and the vision of the City. His intention for the site was retail that complemented the area. The issue before the Planning Commission was community enhancement. He was committed to bringing new life to the site and Mariners' Mile. The proposed amendments would allow him to reuse the building for a mixed-use purpose that would serve the upland residential neighborhoods. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Ms. Hori indicated a General Commercial Zone rather than an MU Zone was an option. Surrounding uses were commercial. The Planning Commission could recommend mixed-use or commercial as appropriate. Commissioner Dunlap noted properties to the west of the site were zoned general commercial. Residential did not seem appropriate for the site. Chair Kramer advised that he would not favor general commercial. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Joe Distill [phonetic] shared his experience with traffic at the site. Extra units would result in increased parking, congestion and traffic accidents. David Tanner indicated he had submitted written comments and requested the Planning Commission inquire regarding the technical points raised in his comments. He shared his experience with access from Avon Street. Approximately 50 additional parking spaces would have to be found for the site. If mixed-use was allowed, a future owner of the property could plan affordable housing and request allowances under the Density Bonus Law. He recommended the Planning„Commission continue the CEQA document until it provided a clearer picture of the project. Jim Mosher was disappointed that public comment was not requested for approval of the minutes. He had additional comments he wanted to make regarding the minutes. Chair Kramer advised Mr. Mosher to submit his comments to staff. Mr. Mosher felt this is an instance of a new property owner realizing a different zoning would increase the value of the property. He is not aware of any policy to change zoning in order to maximize profits for the owner. Council Policy A-18 encouraged staff and applicants to prepare a complete package for a General Plan Amendment along with the intended project. The area, specifically Avon Street, is subject to a planning effort, which could identify a need for property zoned as public facility. Page 10 of the staff report and the Resolution for denial of the project conflicted with regard to actions following the Commission's denial of the project. Dennis Baker felt this project is an example of spot zoning. The City, the Commission and the Council seemed to work hard to maximize profits for developers. That should not be the focus of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Allan Beek stated the area was under study for future planning. The Commission was considering one parcel and determining there would be no environmental impacts of an unknown project. That seemed like the wrong thing to do. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Ms. Hori remarked that this is the antithesis of spot zoning. The surrounding area is zoned mixed-use. Because the item was a General Plan and zoning action, no project had been proposed. Any proposed project would be subject to a discretionary review in terms of a site development review. Parking and circulation would be addressed in that review. The applicant's site plan, provided to the City Traffic Engineer, showed the parking field is adequate to park all square footage existing onsite, including the vacant Post Office building, and identified the circulation pattern within the parking lot. In response to Commissioner Lawler's inquiry, Planning Program Manager Alford reported information requested by Mr. Tanner is contained in the Negative Declaration document and the staff report. Many of the public comments are speculative in nature. Staff reviewed a worst case scenario and found no potential for significant impacts. 3of13 In response to Commissioner Weigand's question, Planning Program Manager Alford indicated land uses under the mixed-use designation are virtually the same as under General Commercial Zoning. A Mixed-use project horizontally or vertically would not be allowed. Commissioner Lawler remarked that the current zoning is not consistent with the Mixed-use village vision of Mariners' Mile. Commissioner Hillgren recalled the amendments were denied previously in order to preserve the Post Office. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve Land Use and Zoning Amendments PA2016-127, Negative Declaration ND2016-004, Code Amendment CA2016-005, General Plan Amendment GP2016-002 and Land Coastal Plan Amendment LC2016-002. Chair Kramer supported the motion. He could find no reason to deny the proposed amendments. Changing General Plan zoning separate from a project-specific application was not uncommon. Commissioner Dunlap concurred with prior comments. Public facilities are a very narrow window for development. Residential is not appropriate for the site. A gener I commercial designation and limiting the residential component would be consistent with the area. This d not limit the applicant, because he was not considering residential. Alternate motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by`Commissioner Weigand to zone the site General Commercial. Secretary Zak noted a minor use permit would allow the uses described. If a future project proposed residential, it would be subject to site development and Planning Commission review. At that point, the Planning Commission could evaluate the validity of the project. Commissioner Weigand stated the Planning Commission could change before a project was proposed for the site. The current Planning Commission was not contemplating a residential use on the site, but a future Planning Commission might. Chair Kramer supported a Mixed-use ,designation because the area was Mixed-use. He did not favor the alternate motion. Apitol Commissioner Hillgren also did not support the alternate motion. The one thing lacking in the village area was residential; therefore, the Planning Commission should encourage residential. Commissioner Lawler did not favor the alternate motion. The site is suited for Mixed-use. If a project proposed residential, Commissioners at that time would have the background information. Commissioner Dunlap remarked that within the study of Mariners' Mile local residents expressed concerns about residential at this location. If the Commission did not want residential at the site, then it made no sense for the Commission to consider residential as part of a project in the future. The entire strip of land to the west of the site and the two adjacent corners were zoned general commercial. Assistant City Attorney Torres clarified that the Planning Commission should vote on the alternation motion first. Vote on the alternate motion: AYES: Dunlap,Weigand NOES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Hillgren, Lawler ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Weigand would abstain because this was an important project and good for the community. 4of13 Vote on the motion: AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Hillgren, Lawler NOES: Dunlap ABSTAIN: Weigand ABSENT: None ITEM NO.3 THE VILLAGE INN OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT(PA2015-016) Site Location: 123 and 127 Marine Avenue Chair Kramer announced this item had been continued. ITEM NO.4 MUSEUM HOUSE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT(PA2015-152) Site Location: 850 San Clemente Drive Commissioner Lawler disclosed that as a private developer he had pursued development of the site, but was not selected. He had no legal or financial interest in the project. He had no bias regarding the project and would vote based on information presented during the meeting. Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez reported the site was the existing home of the Orange County Museum of Art. The proposed project was a condominium tower with 100 for-sale units. Gross floor area was approximately 392,000 square feet plus two levels of garage parking. The,proposed building would be 25 stories high or 295 feet. The applicant proposed 250 parking spaces within the garage as well as surface parking. A proposed valet and parking management plan would add 38 parking spaces. The final parking management plan would be subject to review by the City Traffic Engineer. The project also proposed shared open-space amenities for residents. The applicant proposed one pool, on the terrace. The applicant designed the building to achieve LEED Silver certification. He reviewed the proposed document amendments, adjacent properties, the site plan, and the main land use-related goal from the General Plan. If the proposed project was approved,Anomaly Area 49 would shrink and only include the adjacent site at 856 San Clement Drive. Residential developments were located on the northerly and westerly sides of Newport Center. General Plan policy indicates reinforcing the design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass off San Joaquin Hills Road and then scaling down toward Coast Highway. Height limits for Blocks 500 and 600 were 295 feet. An exception for the North Newport Center Planned Community allowed an additional 20 feet of height for mechanical appurtenances. Map H-1 from the zoning code,shows areas in the City where nonresidential buildings could reach 300 feet in height, including the subject property. Therefore the site was contemplated for a high-rise building. The Zoning Code exempted Planned Communities from height limits specified in the height limit section. However, the required findings had to be made to exceed base height limits. Setbacks of the main building are 35 feet from San Clemente Drive and 42 feet from the rear. The podium level would not be visible from the front. The parking areas maintained a 10-foot setback from the left side and rear property lines. A materials board was available, and included in the project plans. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project. Staff received many comments from a public scoping meeting held in February and considered those comments in preparing the EIR. The public comment period for the Draft EIR expired September 30th. Staff prepared responses to comments regarding the Draft EIR. The EIR included four alternatives. The Draft EIR concluded the project would have no long-term specific or cumulative impacts to traffic, public views, delivery of water or utilities or any other section studied in the EIR. The Draft EIR found the project was consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan. Mitigation measures were developed for five areas related to short-term impacts, construction and the structural design of the tower. Construction noise was deemed to be a significant and unavoidable impact due to the project's proximity to residential uses. The Final EIR included responses to all comments, an updated transit map, additional mitigations for the construction traffic management plan, and donation of the parcel at 856 San Clemente Drive to the City. There was no need to re-circulate the EIR. The existing Art Museum generated 108 average daily trips based on an actual traffic count. The proposed tower would generate 418 average daily trips for an increase of 310 average daily trips. He provided average daily trips for surrounding buildings and reviewed terms of the proposed Development Agreement including a per unit public benefit fee and the donation of the land and building at 856 San Clemente Drive to the City. The project would be presented to the Airport Land Use Commission on November 17th. Director Kim Brandt advised that two revocations were associated with the Museum building, a use permit and a modification permit. Those use permits would expire at the time demolition permits were issued for the structure. 5of13 Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the Statement of Facts contained in the draft Resolution did not include the first study session held in April and requested the Commission include that if it took action on the project. Bill Witte, Related Companies, related the Art Museum's efforts and goals in selling the property. The vision for the project was guided by residential land use in the area; the availability of 100 residential units for development in Fashion Island; local demand for luxury condominium living; and a desire for world-class, iconic architecture. Because of its siting, views of the proposed tower would be blocked by existing high-rises. The project would not block any ocean view corridors and have no shadow impact on the adjacent property. Over 60 percent of the site was open space. The proposed project emphasized smart growth, a walkable community and a mix of uses. He listed proposed luxury amenities. Gino Canon, Related Companies, reported the project would not generate long-term, significant impacts; was consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan; would promote smart growth principles; would reinforce regional design; would complement the existing skyline for Newport Center; would not create any significant impacts to existing traffic patterns; and could be served by the existing water supply. Height and mass were concentrated in the northern part of Newport Center. He explain that because of site topography, Museum House would appear 58 feet shorter than 520 Newport Center Drive, 42 feet shorter than 650 Newport Center, and 11 feet shorter than 610 Newport Center. He reviewed traffic trips as noted in the traffic study. The EIR studied water usage and concluded the City's water system had sufficient capacity for the proposed project. Museum House's water usage was projected to be 118 gallons per capita per day. Museum House would not impact existing water conservation measures. Museum House would likely be the most energy efficient residential building in the area. He reviewed traffic circulation for residents, visitors, move-ins, deliveries, emergency services, and trash pickup. The project was designed with 250 parking stalls. Valet operations would allow the stacking of an additional 54 vehicles. Construction would take approximately 28 months, and construction hours would comply with the Municipal Code. The applicant would develop and implement a construction mitigation plan prior to the start of construction. Mr. Witte noted the applicant would pay$5.9 million in permit and impact fees and $7.1 million as a community benefit contribution. The proposed Museum House Development Agreement includes the donation of the property located at 856 San Clemente Drive to the City. The project received formal support from associations representing police officers and firemen of Newport Beach. The applicant would work with a local firm to prepare construction documents. Dan Lobitz, Robert A. M. Stern Architects, stated his firm looked carefully at architectural character, local traditions, and local ways of building in designing any project. He expected to provide a top quality building. His firm had designed a number of civic and institutional buildings and high-end single-family homes in Southern California. The proposed building had been designed to fit into the skyline and character of Newport Center. A taller building allowed more garden space at lower levels. He shared floor plans for each section of the building and reviewed materials, architectural details and landscape plans. Mr.Witte added that they held more than 60 meetings with members of the community. Chair Kramer disclosed that he met several times with the applicant and its consultants. They discussed project details. Vice Chair Koetting reported he met approximately six weeks ago with the applicant and its consultants. He saw a slide presentation and listened to their proposal without commenting. Secretary Zak indicated he met several times with the applicant to review the design. Commissioner Dunlap advised that he met with the applicant approximately six weeks ago. Commissioner Lawler disclosed he met with the applicant and its consultant. Commissioner Weigand reported he met with the applicant twice. Commissioner Hillgren indicated he met with the applicant and consultants twice. 6of13 In response to Secretary Zak's question, Senior Planner Ramirez agreed that the Commission was approving an amendment to the Planned Community to allow an increase in the height of a residential development. He noted that planned communities are not limited to the heights specified in the zoning code. In response to Secretary Zak's question related to the Newport Country Club general plan amendment, Director Brandt explained that traffic for a golf course was based on the number of golf course holes rather than the size of the ancillary clubhouse. It was determined that the traffic rates used in the analysis were correct. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Senior Planner Ramirez reported the statement that the proposed building fit the area meant the proposed tower was just as suitable to the site as would be a conventional office tower. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Director Brandt reported the additional square footage allocated to Newport Center, specifically the North Newport Center Planned Community, was discussed and adopted subsequent to the 2006 General Plan adoption. The adoption included the allocation of additional square footage in Newport Center that permitted development of the two office towers located at 520 and 650 Newport Center Drive. The Planned Community regulations and development agreement were structured such that approval of the actual locations of the buildings was granted at an administrative level. No public hearings for 520 Newport Center Drive and 650 Newport Center Drive were held. Approval was based on the work and public hearings that occurred in 2008. Senior Planner Ramirez added that some buildings were demolished to accommodate those office buildings, including the approximately 250,000 square feet that previously existed on the Villas at Fashion Island apartment site. That square footage was subsequently transferred to Blocks 500 and 600. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Senior Planner Ramirez advised that the average daily trip information from the ITE calculations were accurate. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Director Brandt explained that Newport Center was within the area of influence for the Airport Land Use Commission. Any amendment to the General Plan or zoning documents must be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission forreview and a determination of whether it was consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Staff anticipated the Airport Land Use Commission would review the project in November. Staff felt that in terms of general aviation flights, the Newport Center environment was much different from that of the Uptown residential project. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the grade of the top deck area would be similar to the grade of San Clemente Drive; therefore,the grade would be raised. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Senior Planner Ramirez explained that height limit regulations in the Zoning Code allowed applicants in Planned Community areas to propose any height. Planned Communities were essentially exempt from the height limits in that subsection of the Code; however, the Planning Commission still must make the findings to increase the height limit beyond the base height limit. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Director Brandt advised that SPON's letter referred to the transfer of unbuilt hotel rooms at the Marriott Hotel to the North Newport Center Planned Community area that occurred in 2012. That was not a General Plan Amendment but a transfer and conversion of unbuilt development potential. Therefore, Charter Section 423 did not apply to that Council action. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Senior Planner Ramirez reported the Life Safety Division reviewed the plans and met with the applicant's designers to ensure that public safety was addressed and adequate access for first responders was provided. Commissioner Hillgren noted the City had approved a height of 200 feet for a residential project across the street. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Senior Planner Ramirez stated that Land Use Policy 5.1.2 applied to projects citywide and could be interpreted in different ways. In this case, staff reviewed the body of Newport Center policies and surrounding height limits and the height limit map. The height issue was a question for the Planning Commission to determine. Staff referenced the northeast quadrant as Blocks 500 and 600, posed the question whether concentrating the "greatest" mass meant anywhere else in Newport Center would 7of13 not be allowed The Height Limit Map and Zoning Code suggested a height of 300 feet could be appropriate in this northern area of Newport Center. Under Policy 5.6.1, one had to consider the environment of the project. In this case, the property would be separated from the residential use to the north and open toward Santa Maria Road, which provided a straight shot to the community in general. That policy related to the geography and the location. Mr. Canon reported the FAA recently issued a determination of no hazard for all four comers of the building. Staff did not anticipate any problems with the Airport Land Use Commission's review of the project. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Kacey Taomina was excited about the project. There was demand for this type of luxury product. She appreciated the applicant's integration of community and Planning Commission feedback. Robert Stern was one the world's most prominent architects. Larry Tucker indicated he had focused on impacts that the project could cause. People who opposed the project generally contended that impacts would be traffic, water use and views. The Draft EIR concluded there would be no traffic impacts. Multifamily residential uses did not generate many trips. Residents of Museum House likely would not be traveling during peak hours. People who objected to the project based on water usage opposed the project in general. This project would not block any views. The main issue was whether Museum House fit the design scheme of Newport Center generally and the location specifically. He found no legitimate basis to oppose the project. A high-quality project would add more residential to Newport Center, and those residents would support restaurants and retailers. In response to Chair Kramer's request, Mr.Tucker explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) limited the Planning Commission to considering substantial, factual evidence contained in the record. He read CEQA Guidelines related to substantial evidence. The Planning Commission should disregard opinions not supported by facts, i.e., technical studies. This project could increase traffic very little. Elaine Linhoff remarked that the General Plan never contained a goal for Newport Beach to be a metropolis of skyscrapers. Developers wanted more and bigger buildings. The City, staff, Planning Commission and City Council yielded too often to pressure to amend the General Plan. This project was an indefensible example of spot zoning and should not be allowed. She hoped the Planning Commission would deny the amendment. Marko Popovich presented a petition requesting the Planning Commission to vote no on the project. In five days, more than 1,000 people signed the petition. Reasons for denying the project were spot zoning; the number of housing units allowed by the General Plan; and increased traffic and congestion. Christine Sabarras opposed the Museum House. This project is located too close to flight paths and to the liquefaction zone. Most people are concerned about the height of the building. From Jamboree, the building would appear two stories taller. Anita Mishook stated the building would be a striking, positive addition to the architecture of Newport Beach. It would have elements of sustainability and appears to have minimal environmental impacts. Teri Kennady supported the project. The project was fresh, remarkable and would be a major landmark. Steve Sergi shared market feedback relative to demand for smaller and high-quality housing. There is a shortage of this type of housing. Museum House would provide the type of homes that are in demand. Jim Place felt the denial of the Banning Ranch development was a clear signal that citizens did not want growth. His concerns are building height, increased traffic, water usage and noise. The building does not belong in Newport Beach. Scott Richter supported the project as a wonderful addition to the skyline. The Newport Beach Police Officers' Association and the Newport Beach Firefighters' Association supported the project. Both organizations found the project exceptional from all aspects. The project would not significantly impact traffic patterns or water supply. It would not adversely affect police or fire services in any substantial way. The Draft EIR concluded the project was consistent with the General Plan. 8of13 Shannon Stewart questioned standards for water use and the date of water standards used in the analysis. She did not understand why developers were allowed to build more residential units when homeowners were required to conserve water. She also questioned the estimates used in traffic usage studies. She asked if Commissioners had met privately with members of the public. Chair Kramer stated Commissioners had met with members of the public. Vice Chair Koetting advised that the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan was used in the analysis. Ms. Stewart inquired whether the traffic study used estimates or real counts. Gordon Glass related the history of mid-rise development in Newport Beach. Six stories was the tallest residential development constructed in some time. In the past, the City administration realized that residents did not want high-rise residential units. This project would establish a frightening and dangerous precedent. Rick Stafford indicated Museum House would sit lower because of the topography of the land. The view would be appealing for people crossing the bay on Pacific Coast Highway. The project would harmonize with the aesthetics envisioned in the plan. Tom Frederick stated Museum House was a 25-story, 100-unit condominium tower. Recently the Planning Commission and the City Council rejected a five-story condominium project less than 300 yards from the Museum House project. The Planning Commission should deny development that was too high. Barry Allen did not understand why the applicant was allowed to speak at length when residents were limited to three minutes. If the Planning Commission and the City Council could not find an obscure exemption,the project could not be approved. Luxury condominiums generated a,higher number of trips than ordinary residential condominiums. Susan Skinner indicated the Greenlight Initiative was intended'to put projects such as the Museum House to a vote. Repeatedly, residents had voted down any plan that added development like Museum House to the City. She expected the City Council would approve the project without modification. Any development over 21 units was required by law to be put to a vote. She requested the Planning Commission respect the wishes of 70 percent of the City that did not want projects like the Museum House. Nancy McNash was interested in balancing growth with maintaining environmental amenities. When the Museum House was proposed as an addition to the General Plan, it did not seem to be consistent with the City's plans. She found it hard to believe that the project would help achieve a jobs/housing balance. Affordable housing was needed. The project benefited the developer or the Museum of Art. Robert Morgenson felt Newport Beach did not have the density or traffic of San Francisco or Los Angeles and retained a small town feel. The density of the City was increasing incrementally. Each project changed the character of the City over time. The citizens and residents of Newport Beach should decide whether high- density residential uses should be a part of Newport Beach. The residents should vote on the project, because it would fundamentally change the character of Newport Beach. Lorian Petry believed the project would result in far-reaching ramifications. Placing an obelisk-like structure between low-rise commercial and residential buildings would destroy the vision and create a precedent that could not be reversed. If approved, this project would be the first of many. The project should be denied or radically altered to fit the City's vision. Debra Allen remarked that the tallest buildings in Newport Center should be located on San Joaquin Hills Road; however, this building was not near San Joaquin Hills Road. This would be the first building of this height not located along San Joaquin Hills Road. Nancy Skinner had met with Director Brandt and Assistant City Attorney Torres in an attempt to understand the transfer of the hotel rooms. She requested staff explain how the transfer could occur without a General Plan Amendment. 9of13 Jo Carol Hunter expressed concern about the proposed changes in Newport Center. The project needed amendments to zoning and land use and was too large, too tall and too dense for the parcel. The project would block views from and cast shadows on other properties. The corner would look like a walled city. The project should not be approved until a change in the General Plan occurred. Chair Kramer requested speakers not repeat arguments in the interest of time. Karen Carlson stated a tremendous number of people felt the Museum House was not appropriate. The project should not be as tall as proposed. Newport Beach was not a high-rise City. Dorothy Kraus, speaking as an individual, expressed her frustration with responses to EIR comments, in particular the response regarding spot zoning. This project is a perfect illustration of spot zoning because it is a small parcel of land; it proposes a change to the current land use designation; it allowed a new residential development standard; and it is not compatible with any surrounding residential uses. Jean Watt advised that the site is intended to be used by private institutions for public benefit and should continue to be a cultural asset. Newport Center was built out in terms of the 2006 General Plan. Denying the project based on current zoning is appropriate. Carol Anne Dru stated Newport Beach was more than a builde is landmarks such as the Crab Cooker, Woody's Wharf, and the Ferry. Karen Evarts indicated a county had the needed density for the arts to flourish. The issue is supporting the concept of an art center. The land donation would allow the Art Museum to join the art center of the County. Jim Warren advised that the project would have a significant impact on the Harbor View Hills area. No one attending a recent Speak Up Newport meeting supported the project. Another San Francisco architect turned a $60 million City Hall renovation into a$160 million renovation. Dennis Baker concurred with comments regarding spot zoning. The Planning Commission's role was not to fill market demand. This project was a good example of piecemeal planning. This project proposed a major General Plan Amendment. The transfer of hotel rooms to residential units would remain an issue until staff provided a satisfactory explanation of the issue. Penny McManigal wanted to see a better Art Museum. If the project does not work at this location, then the community should pay for another location in Newport Beach. Bob Currie expressed concern regarding development, traffic and water. Many of the problems people spoke about simply did not exist. Residents needed an Art Museum. This was an opportunity to develop a world-class Art Museum. Jean Beek requested the Planning Commission follow the zoning. Tom Baker stated the project did not comply with the General Plan. The proposed 25-story, 295-foot, 100-unit residential tower was not compatible with surrounding development. The proposed height could be applied to only nonresidential projects. The project proposed an inappropriate General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code change to enable residential development on the site of the existing Art Museum. Approval would set an ill- advised precedent and would show disregard for the 2006 General Plan. The project was a fantastic example of what should not be done. Jim Mosher believed the Planning Commission had to make a finding exempting Planned Communities from height limits. He had questioned why the project did not disclose a primary objective of raising money to fund development of a new Art Museum in Costa Mesa and why those two projects should not be considered together. Mr. Witte's statement that the purpose of the project was to allow the Orange County Museum of Art to build a new Museum seemed to be substantial evidence. Pictures did not appear to accurately represent the building and views of the building. He questioned staffs interpretation of Planned Communities being exempt from height limits provided in the subsection. The sentence was a grandfather clause, not an exemption. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. 10 of 13 Mr. Witte remarked that people could be skeptical of depictions of the proposed building, but the project did not block any ocean corridor views and is mostly hidden by other buildings. The proposed building is most visible from Big Canyon. Support is more difficult to generate than opposition. Two hundred forty signatures in support of the project were submitted to the Commission. Residents would prefer to view open space as opposed to a Chinese wall. Chair Kramer requested Director Brandt and Assistant City Attorney Torres to address spot zoning. Director Brandt reported that a Planned Community text was in place for the property. It contained an allowance for private institutional uses on the subject property. Over time, portions of the Planned Community had been incorporated into the adjacent North Newport Planned Community. In its original context, a broader range of uses was allowed in the Planned Community. The amendment would not change the zoning designation; however, a modification would introduce residential into the Planned Community. Residential was being added to the Planned Community text; but one had to look at the broader context of Newport Center. Several General Plan policies discussed the mix of uses. In relation to General Plan policies governing the area, staff did not consider it spot zoning. Assistant City Attorney Torres agreed with Director Brandt's comments. This was a mixture of uses. Immediately adjacent to the property was residential use. That was the intention for the Fashion Island area. In response to Secretary Zak's question, Director Brandt did not s ny conflict between General Plan policies and a residential use for Newport Center. In response to Chair Kramer's request, Director Brandt explained that the transfer of unbuilt hotel rooms from the Marriott site to the North Newport Center Planned Community was allowed by the General Plan. The General Plan specifically allowed transfers of development potential within Statistical Area L-1. Transfers, which were governed by certain guidelines, could also include conversion of development potential. The City Council adopted the transfer at the time of the public hearing in 2012. The City Council did not adopt a General Plan Amendment pursuant to General Plan policies. Assistant City Attorney Torres added that the Greenlight Initiative was triggered by a General Plan Amendment. The City Council action in 2012 did not include a General Plan Amendment;therefore, it did not trigger the Greenlight Initiative. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Director Brandt stated General Plan policies allowed the transfer of development and contemplated conversions within the entire Statistical Area. In response to Chair Kramer's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Torres replied that no one filed a lawsuit or challenged the City Council's determination in 2012. The time for filing a lawsuit had elapsed. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Director Brandt recalled Ms. Watt correctly stating that the 100 units were not a General Plan allocation. The 100 units are a threshold identified in Charter Section 423 for requiring a vote. If 100 units were added to a Statistical Area through a General Plan Amendment, then a vote by the electorate was required. The issue was not the availability of 100 units for allocation within Newport Center. The threshold was further complicated by the consideration of any previous General Plan Amendments within the last ten years. Chair Kramer stated Director Brandt went into great detail regarding the issue at the last study session. In response to Secretary Zak's questions, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported there was a difference in trip generation rates between luxury and high-rise condominiums in terms of the peak hour trips. Luxury peak hour trips were higher than high-rise peak hour trips. Staff utilized high-rise trip generation rates because the manual did not contain an average daily traffic rate for luxury condominium. Staff used the high-rise condominium rate to determine the average traffic and continued to use the high-rise peak hour rates to conduct the traffic study. The manual contained peak hour rates for luxury condominiums, but not a daily rate for luxury condominiums. Using the high-rise rate, the PM peak hour rate was 33; and the AM peak hour rate was 30. Using the luxury rate, the PM peak hour rate was 50, and the AM peak hour rate was 52. Peak hour rates were utilized in the Section 423 analysis; and those rates were below the 100 peak hour threshold. In response to Secretary Zak's inquiries, Director Brandt advised that under the terms of the Development Agreement, the developer could begin construction within the timeframe of the agreement's term. Staff was concerned that there could be changes in building materials or landscaping, so Condition of Approval No. 24 is 11 of 13 proposed that requires final building design, building materials and landscaping to be returned to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Per the Municipal Code, any substantial change to the site plan also would return to the Planning Commission. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Director Brandt explained that"substantial"is a qualifier in terms of the intent of meeting the original approval. Oftentimes, minor adjustments have to be made as construction-level information becomes available. Staff reviews any changes to the site plan in relation to the conditions of approval and the findings to determine substantial conformance. Staff documents their substantial conformance findings through staff determinations, and notices of staff determinations are provided to the Planning Commission weekly. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported all rates were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Traffic Manual,which was the national standard for trip rates. In response to Secretary Zak's question, Director Brandt referred to Section 20.30.060 regarding height limits within the City. Through the process of evaluating changes in height for base zoning or standard zoning, the Zoning Code indicated that height limits established as part of an adopted Planned Community shall not be subject to this subsection and listed standard exceptions. Mr. Mosher interpreted the subsection as the height limits established as part of an adopted Planned Community were those in effect at the time of the 2010 Zoning Code adoption. Staff reviewed General Plan policies, provisions of Zoning Code Section 20.30.060 and the height map and interpreted the subsection to indicate the height limits shown in Map H-1 could be applied to certain geographical areas. It is not necessarily the existing zoning, because there could be some deviation in the base zoning. In this case, the site had a Planned Community text. Staff believed the Zoning Code would allow the project to reach 300 feet with the appropriate amendments and required findings. All the information had to be considered together. The adopted PlannedCommunity did not mean the increase in height was not allowed. Assistant City Attorney Torres added that the Zoning Code empowered the Director to make this type of interpretation. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the height findings were listed at the top of page 16. Commissioner Lawler believed there was a strong demand for this type of project and an extremely limited supply. The only problem he found in the EIR is construction noise, and that was mitigated. The project would provide a significant City benefit. Secretary Zak felt the Commission respected differing viewpoints and appreciated the community's dialog and input. He had spent a great deal of time evaluating the project and speaking to City residents. He had consistently supported residential uses in Newport Center. Residential uses were consistent with General Plan Policy 6.14. Proposed amendments were not spot zoning, because they were consistent with many General Plan policies. He did not find a General Plan policy conflicting with proposed amendments. After considering the evidence and hearing staffs logic, he was comfortable with the proposed height. The loss of the institutional use would be less than 1 percent of institutional uses in the City. It is a great opportunity for the Museum of Art to relocate and become a regional facility. He is comfortable with recommending the City Council certify the EIR. Vice Chair Koetting stated Commissioners reviewed the entire EIR document and questioned staff about it. It is one of the cleanest Draft EIRs he has seen. The EIR is prepared independent of the applicant. He could not find anything wrong with the architecture and design. The landscaping quality is amazing. Commissioner Dunlap had raised concerns regarding land use issues with staff. The quality of the building is exemplary. Water and traffic impacts are inconsequential. Commissioners rely on staff for technical and legal determinations. His issues with the project are bulk and massing and the location. The zoning had to change to make the location a vibrant part of Newport Center. Commissioner Hillgren advised that Commissioners had talked to many residents. Newport Center was planned 50 years ago with a vision for high-rise buildings around the perimeter. He understood residents'frustration with traffic. Residents are experiencing entitlements that are part of the General Plan. He had had serious concerns regarding the height of the building. The proposed use, design, and location are appropriate. 12 of 13 Chair Kramer concurred with Commissioners' comments. The project could be one of the most beautiful in Newport Beach and Orange County. There are no significant impacts. The original architects envisioned mixed- use in an intense area, and that is occurring. The Commission has to focus on the facts of the application. Newport Beach is a dynamic, cosmopolitan city. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Zak to approve Museum House Residential Project PA2015-152, General Plan Amendment GP2015-001, Planned Community Development Plan PC2015- 001, Site Development Review No. SD2016-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map NT2016-001 (County Tentative Tract Map 17970), Development Agreement No. DA2016-001, Traffic Study 2015-004 and EIR 2016-002, Revoke Use Permit Modifications UP2015-017 and Modification Permit 2004-059 with revocation effective upon demolition or grading permit issuance. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand, Lawler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee 2. Update on City Council Items Community Development Director Brandt indicated the,City's draft implementation plan would be presented to the City Council on October 25th. The California Coastal Commission is scheduled a hearing on November 4th regarding re-establishment of the Citys categorical exclusion order and zones. The AutoNation appeal and the Newport Coast Development Agreement extension were scheduled for November 8th before the City Council. ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE.PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Dunlap and Vice Chair Koetting will be absent on November 3rd. IX. ADJOURNMENT— 10:52 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, October 14, 2016, at 4:02 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, October 14, 2016, at 3:57 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary 13 of 13 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2016 REGULAR MEETING—6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL Chair Kory Kramer,Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Ray Lawler and Commissioner Erik Weigand Staff Present: Community Development Director Kim Brandt; Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski;Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez; and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher was pleased to hear Commissioners disclose ex parte communications at the last meeting. A policy requiring disclosures would be better. Disclosing the name of the person contacted and the substance of the contact would be even better. Preservation of harbor-related uses was important to the Harbor Commission, who hoped to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. The Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan contained policies about preserving harbor-related uses. All elements seemed not to have meshed when the Zoning Code was implemented. He hoped a joint:session between the Planning Commission and the Harbor Commission would occur. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Director Wisneski announced one request to continue Item Number 3,the Village Inn outdoor dining use permit. The applicant requested a continuance to November 3rd in order to determine alternative locations for bike racks. Staff supported the request. Mike Sullivan advised that interested parties received notice of the request that day. Interested parties were not in favor of a continuance_' Vice Chair Koetting opposed any last-minute continuance. It was unfair to staff and members of the public. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to continue Item Number 3 to November 3,2016. AYES: Kramer,Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand, Lawler NOES: Koetting ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6,2016 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 October 6,2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Lawler ABSENT: None 1 of 14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 191 RIVERSIDE LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (PA2016-127) Site Location: 191 Riverside Avenue Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford reported the proposed amendments would change the General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed-Use (MU). He showed photos of the surrounding area. The Initial Study indicated no potentially significant impacts. He reviewed comments from a resident, SPON and two Native American organizations. Staff concluded public comments did not raise any substantial evidence of new impacts or additional mitigation measures. The Planning Commission could take action on the Negative Declaration. Issues associated with the amendments were generally land use compatibility and development potential. The proposed land use was consistent with the surrounding area and the vision for the Village portion of the Mariners' Mile area. He shared the analysis performed pursuant to Charter Section 423. No development was proposed at the current time. If the land use and zoning amendments were approved, development of 10-13 dwelling units and 5,663-11,326 square feet of commercial was possible. Site development review would be required for any mixed-use or project greater than 10,000 square feet. A comparison of traffic between the previous use and the maximum development potential showed a net increase of 297 average daily trips. The study showed no significant impacts to nearby intersections or to Riverside Drive. The site contained 20 parking spaces. Under the current PF Zoning District, parking standards are established by a use permit. Maximum development of a mixed-use project would require 46 parking spaces for commercial and 26 spaces for residential for a total of 72 parking spaces. As long as uses were equal to or less than 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area, the existing building would comply with Zoning Code requirements for off-street parking. The existing building was approximately 20 feet in height. The maximum height could be 35 feet under the current PF Zoning District. Under the proposed Mixed-Use Mariners' Mile District, the height limit would be 26 feet for a flat-roof building or 31 feet for a sloped-roof building. The Planning Commission's recommendation would be presented to the City Council on November 22, tentatively. If the Council approved the amendments, then staff would submit a Local Coastal Program amendment to the Coastal Commission. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiry, Planning Program Manager Alford advised that the height restriction in the CG Zone was the same as the proposed mixed-use, 26 feet for a flat roof. The Commission had the option of finding uses that were similar to those provided in the Zoning Code, such as museums and cultural institutions. A public facilities designation was more limiting than a proposed mixed-use designation. The Commission could find that similar public facilities uses were consistent with the PF Zoning District. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Planning Program Manager Alford explained that the adjacent Mariners' Center showed that it could be parked in conjunction with the project to meet the parking demand for the entire site. Although the project was located on a separate parcel from Mariners' Center, they shared ownership and operations. The applicant had indicated its intent to reuse the building with straight commercial development and did not propose mixed-use. The applicant filed an application for mixed-use because mixed-use was consistent with the abutting property and property across the street. In response to Secretary Zak's questions, Planning Program Manager Alford advised that minor use permits were discretionary at staff level and could be appealed to the Planning Commission. An example of a minor use was a smaller-scale food use. Vice Chair Koetting disclosed that he met on the site to view redevelopment of the property. He had little discussion concerning the project site. Commissioners Hillgren, Dunlap and Weigand also visited the site. Commissioner Lawler reported he met with the applicant who expressly stated he was not interested in dwelling units. Secretary Zak indicated he also met with the applicant but not at the site. Chairman Kramer stated he had no interaction with the applicant. 2of14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 Susan Hori, on behalf of Mariners Center M2, commented that the purpose was to implement the General Plan vision for the village area. She and her team were available to answer questions. Gary Jabara, Mariners Center, stated the theme of Mariners Center was consistent with the General Plan and the vision of the City. His intention for the site was retail that complemented the area. The issue before the Planning Commission was community enhancement. He was committed to bringing new life to the site and Mariners' Mile. The proposed amendments would allow him to reuse the building for a mixed-use purpose that would serve the upland residential neighborhoods. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Ms. Hori indicated a General Commercial Zone rather than an MU Zone was an option. Surrounding uses were commercial. The Planning Commission could recommend mixed-use or commercial as appropriate. Commissioner Dunlap noted properties to the west of the site were zoned general commercial. Residential did not seem appropriate for the site. Chair Kramer advised that he would not favor general commercial as this parcel is with a mixed-use neighborhood. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Joe Distill [phonetic] shared his experience with traffic at the Extra units would result in increased parking, congestion and traffic accidents. David Tanner indicated he had submitted written comments and requested the Planning Commission inquire regarding the technical points raised in his comments. He shared his experience with access from Avon Street. Approximately 50 additional parking spaces would have to be found for the site. If mixed-use was allowed, a future owner of the property could plan affordable housing and request allowances under the Density Bonus Law. He recommended the Planning Commission continue the CEQA document until it provided a clearer picture of the project. Jim Mosher was disappointed that public comment was not,requested for approval of the minutes. He had additional comments he wanted to make regarding the minutes. Chair Kramer advised Mr. Mosher to submit his comments to staff. Mr. Mosher felt this is an instance of a new property owner realizing a different zoning would increase the value of the property. He is not aware of any policy to change zoning in order to maximize profits for the owner. Council Policy A-18 encouraged staff and applicants to prepare a complete package for a General Plan Amendment along with the intended project. The area, specifically Avon Street, is subject to a planning;effort, which could identify a need for property zoned as public facility. Page 10 of the staff report and the Resolution for denial of the project conflicted with regard to actions following the Commission's denial of the project. Dennis Baker felt this project is an example of spot zoning. The City, the Commission and the Council seemed to work hard to maximize profits for developers. That should not be the focus of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Allan Beek stated the area was under study for future planning. The Commission was considering one parcel and determining there would be no environmental impacts of an unknown project. That seemed like the wrong thing to do. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Ms. Hori remarked that this is the antithesis of spot zoning. The surrounding area is zoned mixed-use. Because the item was a General Plan and zoning action, no project had been proposed. Any proposed project would be subject to a discretionary review in terms of a site development review. Parking and circulation would be addressed in that review. The applicant's site plan, provided to the City Traffic Engineer, showed the parking field is adequate to park all square footage existing onsite, including the vacant Post Office building, and identified the circulation pattern within the parking lot. In response to Commissioner Lawler's inquiry, Planning Program Manager Alford reported information requested by Mr. Tanner is contained in the Negative Declaration document and the staff report. Many of 3of14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 the public comments are speculative in nature. Staff reviewed a worst case scenario and found no potential for significant impacts. In response to Commissioner Weigand's question, Planning Program Manager Alford indicated land uses under the mixed-use designation are virtually the same as under General Commercial Zoning. A Mixed-use project horizontally or vertically would not be allowed. Commissioner Lawler remarked that the current zoning is not consistent with the Mixed-use village vision of Mariners' Mile. Commissioner Hillgren recalled the amendments were approved several years prior by the Planning Commission but then denied prey ous'Tbu the City Council in order to preserve the Post Office which has since been relocated from this parcel. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve Land Use and Zoning Amendments PA2016-127, Negative Declaration ND2016-004, Code Amendment CA2016-005, General Plan Amendment GP2016-002 and Land Coastal Plan Amendment LC2016-002. Chair Kramer supported the motion. He could find no reason to deny the proposed amendments. Changing General Plan zoning separate from a project-specific application vine:is not uncommon. Commissioner Dunlap concurred with prior comments. Public facilities are a very narrow window for development. Residential is not appropriate for the site. A general commercial designation and limiting the residential component would be consistent with the area. This would not limit the applicant, because he was not considering residential. Alternate motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to zone the site General Commercial. Secretary Zak noted a minor use permit would allow the uses described. If a future project proposed residential, it would be subject to site development and Planning Commission review. At that point, the Planning Commission could evaluate the validity of the project. Commissioner Weigand stated the Planning Commission could change before a project was proposed for the site. The current Planning Commission was not contemplating a residential use on the site, but a future Planning Commission might. Chair Kramer supported:.a Mixed-use designation because the ares ap rcel was is clearly surrounded by Mixed-use and Staff's m9immendation for approval of Mixed-use is reasonable. He did not favor the alternate motion. Nor Commissioner Hillgren also did not support the alternate motion. The one thing lacking in the village area was residential; therefore, the Planning Commission should encourage residential. Commissioner Lawler did not favor the alternate motion. The site is suited for Mixed-use. If a project proposed residential, Commissioners at that time would have the background information. Commissioner Dunlap remarked that within the study of Mariners' Mile local residents expressed concerns about residential at this location. If the Commission did not want residential at the site, then it made no sense for the Commission to consider residential as part of a project in the future. The entire strip of land to the west of the site and the two adjacent corners were zoned general commercial. Assistant City Attorney Torres clarified that the Planning Commission should vote on the alternation motion first. Vote on the alternate motion: AYES: Dunlap,Weigand NOES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Hillgren, Lawler 4of14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Weigand would abstain because this was an important project and good for the community. Vote on the motion: AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Hillgren, Lawler NOES: Dunlap ABSTAIN: Weigand ABSENT: None ITEM NO.3 THE VILLAGE INN OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT(PA2015-016) Site Location: 123 and 127 Marine Avenue Chair Kramer announced this item had been continued. ITEM NO.4 MUSEUM HOUSE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT(PA2015-152) Site Location: 850 San Clemente Drive Commissioner Lawler disclosed that as a private developer he had pursued development of the site, but was not selected. He had no legal or financial interest in the project; He had no bias regarding the project and would vote based on information presented during the meeting. Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez reported the site was the existing home of the Orange County Museum of Art. The proposed project was a condominium tower with 100 for-sale units. Gross floor area was approximately 392,000 square feet plus two levels of garage parking. The proposed building would be 25 stories high or 295 feet. The applicant proposed 250 parking spaces within the garage as well as surface parking. A proposed valet and parking management plan would add 38 parking spaces. The final parking management plan would be subject to review by the City Traffic Engineer. The project also proposed shared open-space amenities for residents. The applicant proposed one pool, on the terrace. The applicant designed the building to achieve LEED Silver certification. He reviewed the proposed document amendments, adjacent properties, the site plan, and the main land use-related goal from the General Plan. If the proposed project was approved,Anomaly Area 49 would shrink and only include the adjacent site at 856 San Clement Drive. Residential developments were located on the northerly and westerly sides of Newport Center. General Plan policy indicates reinforcing the design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass off San Joaquin Hills Road and then scaling down toward Coast Highway. Height limits for Blocks 500 and 600 were 295 feet. An exception for the North Newport Center Planned Community allowed an additional 20 feet of height for mechanical appurtenances. Map H-1 from the zoning code shows areas in the City where nonresidential buildings could reach 300 feet in height, including the subject property. Therefore the site was contemplated for a high-rise building. The Zoning Code exempted Planned Communities from height limits specified in the height limit section. However, the required findings had to be made to exceed base height limits. Setbacks of the main building are 35 feet from San Clemente Drive and 42 feet from the rear. The podium level would not be visible from the front. The parking areas maintained a 10-foot setback from the left side and rear property lines. A materials board was available, and included in the project plans. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project. Staff received many comments from a public scoping meeting held in February and considered those comments in preparing the EIR. The public comment period for the Draft EIR expired September 30th. Staff prepared responses to comments regarding the Draft EIR. The EIR included four alternatives. The Draft EIR concluded the project would have no long-term specific or cumulative impacts to traffic, public views, delivery of water or utilities or any other section studied in the EIR. The Draft EIR found the project was consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan. Mitigation measures were developed for five areas related to short-term impacts, construction and the structural design of the tower. Construction noise was deemed to be a significant and unavoidable impact due to the project's proximity to residential uses. The Final EIR included responses to all comments, an updated transit map, additional mitigations for the construction traffic management plan, and donation of the parcel at 856 San Clemente Drive to the City. There was no need to re-circulate the EIR. The existing Art Museum generated 108 average daily trips based on an actual traffic count. The proposed tower would generate 418 average daily trips for an increase of 310 average daily trips. He provided average daily trips for surrounding buildings and reviewed terms of the proposed Development Agreement including a per unit public benefit fee and the donation of the 5of14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 land and building at 856 San Clemente Drive to the City. The project would be presented to the Airport Land Use Commission on November 17th. Director Kim Brandt advised that two revocations were associated with the Museum building, a use permit and a modification permit. Those use permits would expire at the time demolition permits were issued for the structure. Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the Statement of Facts contained in the draft Resolution did not include the first study session held in April and requested the Commission include that if it took action on the project. Bill Witte, Related Companies, related the Art Museum's efforts and goals in selling the property. The vision for the project was guided by residential land use in the area; the availability of 100 residential units for development in Fashion Island; local demand for luxury condominium living; and a desire for world-class, iconic architecture. Because of its siting, views of the proposed tower would be blocked by existing high-rises. The project would not block any ocean view corridors and have no shadow impact on the adjacent property. Over 60 percent of the site was open space. The proposed project emphasized smart growth, a walkable community and a mix of uses. He listed proposed luxury amenities. Gino Canori, Related Companies, reported the project would not generate long-term, significant impacts; was consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan; would promote smart growth principles; would reinforce regional design; would complement the existing skyline for Newport Center; would not create any significant impacts to existing traffic patterns; and could be served by the existing water supply. Height and mass were concentrated in the northern part of Newport Center. He explain that because of site topography, Museum House would appear 58 feet shorter than 520 Newport Center Drive. 42 feet shorter than 650 Newport Center, and 11 feet shorter than 610 Newport Center. He reviewed traffic trips as noted in the traffic study. The EIR studied water usage and concluded the City's water system had sufficient capacity for the proposed project. Museum House's water usage was projected to be 118 gallons per capita per day. Museum House would not impact existing water conservation measures. Museum House would likely be the most energy efficient residential building in the area. He reviewed traffic circulation for residents, visitors, move-ins, deliveries, emergency services, and trash pickup. The project was designed with 250 parking stalls. Valet operations would allow the stacking of an additional 54 vehicles. Construction would take approximately 28 months, and construction hours would comply with the Municipal Code. The applicant would develop and implement a construction mitigation plan prior to the start of construction. Mr. Witte noted the applicant would pay $5.9 million in permit and impact fees and $7.1 million as a community benefit contribution. The proposed Museum House Development Agreement includes the donation of the property located at 856 San Clemente Drive to the City. The project received formal support from associations representing police officers and firemen of Newport Beach. The applicant would work with a local firm to prepare construction documents. Dan Lobitz, Robert A. M. Stern Architects, stated his firm looked carefully at architectural character, local traditions, and local ways of building in designing any project. He expected to provide a top quality building. His firm had designed a number of civic and institutional buildings and high-end single-family homes in Southern California. The proposed building had been designed to fit into the skyline and character of Newport Center. A taller building allowed more garden space at lower levels. He shared floor plans for each section of the building and reviewed materials, architectural details and landscape plans. Mr.Witte added that they held more than 60 meetings with members of the community. Chair Kramer disclosed that he met several times with the applicant and its consultants. They discussed project details. Vice Chair Koetting reported he met approximately six weeks ago with the applicant and its consultants. He saw a slide presentation and listened to their proposal without commenting. Secretary Zak indicated he met several times with the applicant to review the design. Commissioner Dunlap advised that he met with the applicant approximately six weeks ago. Commissioner Lawler disclosed he met with the applicant and its consultant. 6of14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 Commissioner Weigand reported he met with the applicant twice. Commissioner Hillgren indicated he met with the applicant and consultants twice. In response to Secretary Zak's question, Senior Planner Ramirez agreed that the Commission was approving an amendment to the Planned Community to allow an increase in the height of a residential development. He noted that planned communities are not limited to the heights specified in the zoning code. In response to Secretary Zak's question related to the Newport Country Club general plan amendment, Director Brandt explained that traffic for a golf course was based on the number of golf course holes rather than the size of the ancillary clubhouse. It was determined that the traffic rates used in the analysis were correct. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Senior Planner Ramirez reported the statement that the proposed building fit the area meant the proposed tower was just as suitable to the site as would be a conventional office tower. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Director Brandt reported the additional square footage allocated to Newport Center, specifically the North Newport Center Planned Community, was discussed and adopted subsequent to the 2006 General Plan adoption. The adoption included the allocation of additional square footage in Newport Center that permitted development of the two office towers located at 520 and 650 Newport Center Drive. The Planned Community regulations and development agreement were structured such that approval of the actual locations of the buildings was granted at an administrative level. No public hearings for 520 Newport Center Drive and 650 Newport Center Drive were held. Approval was based on the work and public hearings that occurred in 2008. Senior Planner Ramirez added that some buildings were demolished to accommodate those office buildings, including the approximately 250,000 square feet that previously existed on the Villas at Fashion Island apartment site. That square footage was subsequently transferred to Blocks 500 and 600. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Senior Planner Ramirez advised that the average daily trip information from the ITE calculations were accurate.: In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, DirectorBrandt explained that Newport Center was within the area of influence for the Airport Land Use Commission. Any amendment to the General Plan or zoning documents must be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for review and a determination of whether it was consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Staff anticipated the Airport Land Use Commission would review the project in November. Staff felt that in terms of general aviation flights, the Newport Center environment was much different from that of the Uptown residential project. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the grade of the top deck area would be similar to the grade of San Clemente Drive; therefore,the grade would be raised. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Senior Planner Ramirez explained that height limit regulations in the Zoning Code allowed applicants in Planned Community areas to propose any height. Planned Communities were essentially exempt from the height limits in that subsection of the Code; however, the Planning Commission still must make the findings to increase the height limit beyond the base height limit. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Director Brandt advised that SPON's letter referred to the transfer of unbuilt hotel rooms at the Marriott Hotel to the North Newport Center Planned Community area that occurred in 2012. That was not a General Plan Amendment but a transfer and conversion of unbuilt development potential. Therefore, Charter Section 423 did not apply to that Council action. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Senior Planner Ramirez reported the Life Safety Division reviewed the plans and met with the applicant's designers to ensure that public safety was addressed and adequate access for first responders was provided. Commissioner Hillgren noted the City had approved a height of 200 feet for a residential project across the street. 7of14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Senior Planner Ramirez stated that Land Use Policy 5.1.2 applied to projects citywide and could be interpreted in different ways. In this case, staff reviewed the body of Newport Center policies and surrounding height limits and the height limit map. The height issue was a question for the Planning Commission to determine. Staff referenced the northeast quadrant as Blocks 500 and 600, posed the question whether concentrating the "greatest" mass meant anywhere else in Newport Center would not be allowed The Height Limit Map and Zoning Code suggested a height of 300 feet could be appropriate in this northern area of Newport Center. Under Policy 5.6.1, one had to consider the environment of the project. In this case, the property would be separated from the residential use to the north and open toward Santa Maria Road, which provided a straight shot to the community in general. That policy related to the geography and the location. Mr. Canon reported the FAA recently issued a determination of no hazard for all four comers of the building. Staff did not anticipate any problems with the Airport Land Use Commission's review of the project. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Kacey Taormina was excited about the project. There was demand for this type of luxury product. She appreciated the applicant's integration of community and Planning Commission feedback. Robert Stern was one the world's most prominent architects. 101, Larry Tucker indicated he had focused on impacts that the project could cause. People who opposed the project generally contended that impacts would be traffic, water use,and views. The Draft EIR concluded there would be no traffic impacts. Multifamily residential uses did not generate many trips. Residents of Museum House likely would not be traveling during peak hours. People who objected to the project based on water usage opposed the project in general. This project would not block any views. The main issue was whether Museum House fit the design scheme of Newport Center generally and the location specifically. He found no legitimate basis to oppose the project. A high-quality project would add more residential to Newport Center, and those residents would support restaurants and retailers. In response to Chair Kramer's request, Mr. Tucker explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) limited the Planning Commission to considering substantial, factual evidence contained in the record. He read CEQA Guidelines related to substantial evidence. The Planning Commission should disregard opinions not supported by facts, i.e., technical studies. This project could increase traffic very little. Elaine Linhoff remarked that the General Plan never contained a goal for Newport Beach to be a metropolis of skyscrapers. Developers wanted more and bigger buildings. The City, staff, Planning Commission and City Council yielded too often to pressure to amend the General Plan. This project was an indefensible example of spot zoning and should not be allowed. She hoped the Planning Commission would deny the amendment. Marko Popovich presented a petition requesting the Planning Commission to vote no on the project. In five days, more than 1,000 people signed the petition. Reasons for denying the project were spot zoning; the number of housing units allowed by the General Plan; and increased traffic and congestion. Christine Sabarras opposed the Museum House. This project is located too close to flight paths and to the liquefaction zone. Most people are concerned about the height of the building. From Jamboree, the building would appear two stories taller. Anita Mishook stated the building would be a striking, positive addition to the architecture of Newport Beach. It would have elements of sustainability and appears to have minimal environmental impacts. Teri Kennady supported the project. The project was fresh, remarkable and would be a major landmark. Steve Sergi shared market feedback relative to demand for smaller and high-quality housing. There is a shortage of this type of housing. Museum House would provide the type of homes that are in demand. Jim Place felt the denial of the Banning Ranch development was a clear signal that citizens did not want growth. His concerns are building height, increased traffic, water usage and noise. The building does not belong in Newport Beach. 8of14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 Scott Richter supported the project as a wonderful addition to the skyline. The Newport Beach Police Officers' Association and the Newport Beach Firefighters' Association supported the project. Both organizations found the project exceptional from all aspects. The project would not significantly impact traffic patterns or water supply. It would not adversely affect police or fire services in any substantial way. The Draft EIR concluded the project was consistent with the General Plan. Shannon Stewart questioned standards for water use and the date of water standards used in the analysis. She did not understand why developers were allowed to build more residential units when homeowners were required to conserve water. She also questioned the estimates used in traffic usage studies. She asked if Commissioners had met privately with members of the public. Chair Kramer stated Commissioners had met with members of the public. Vice Chair Koetting advised that the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan was used in the analysis. Ms. Stewart inquired whether the traffic study used estimates or real counts. Gordon Glass related the history of mid-rise development in Newport Beach. Six stories was the tallest residential development constructed in some time. In the past, the City administration realized that residents did not want high-rise residential units. This project would establish a fri tening and dangerous precedent. Rick Stafford indicated Museum House would sit lower becaus he topography of the land. The view would be appealing for people crossing the bay on Pacific Coas h The project would harmonize with the aesthetics envisioned in the plan. Tom Frederick stated Museum House was a 25-story100-unit condom m tower. Recently the Planning Commission rejected a five-story condominium project 1866 than 300 .,...as 4AFF1 the Museum House n Newport Center. The Planning Commission should deny development that was too high. Barry Allen did not understand why the applicant was allowed to speak at length when residents were limited to three minutes. If the Planning Commission and the City Council could not find an obscure exemption,the project could not be approved. Luxury condominiums generated a higher number of trips than ordinary residential condominiums. Susan Skinner indicated the Greenlight Initiative was intended to put projects such as the Museum House to a vote. Repeatedly, residents had voted down any plan that added development like Museum House to the City. She expected the City Council would approve the project without modification. Any development over 21 units was required by law to be put to a vote. She requested the Planning Commission respect the wishes of 70 percent of the City that did not want projects like the Museum House and that she supported a Greenlight 2. Nancy McNash was interested in balancing growth with maintaining environmental amenities. When the Museum House was proposed as an addition to the General Plan, it did not seem to be consistent with the City's plans. She found it hard to believe that the project would help achieve a jobs/housing balance. Affordable housing was needed. The project benefited the developer or the Museum of Art. Robert Morgenson felt Newport Beach did not have the density or traffic of San Francisco or Los Angeles and retained a small town feel. The density of the City was increasing incrementally. Each project changed the character of the City over time. The citizens and residents of Newport Beach should decide whether high- density residential uses should be a part of Newport Beach. The residents should vote on the project, because it would fundamentally change the character of Newport Beach. Lorian Petry believed the project would result in far-reaching ramifications. Placing an obelisk-like structure between low-rise commercial and residential buildings would destroy the vision and create a precedent that could not be reversed. If approved, this project would be the first of many. The project should be denied or radically altered to fit the City's vision. Debra Allen remarked that the tallest buildings in Newport Center should be located on San Joaquin Hills Road; however, this building was not near San Joaquin Hills Road. This would be the first building of this height not located along San Joaquin Hills Road. 9of14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 Nancy Skinner had met with Director Brandt and Assistant City Attorney Torres in an attempt to understand the transfer of the hotel rooms. She requested staff explain how the transfer could occur without a General Plan Amendment. Jo Carol Hunter expressed concern about the proposed changes in Newport Center. The project needed amendments to zoning and land use and was too large, too tall and too dense for the parcel. The project would block views from and cast shadows on other properties. The corner would look like a walled city. The project should not be approved until a change in the General Plan occurred. Chair Kramer requested speakers not repeat arguments in the interest of time. Karen Carlson stated a tremendous number of people felt the Museum House was not appropriate. The project should not be as tall as proposed. Newport Beach was not a high-rise City. Dorothy Kraus, speaking as an individual, expressed her frustration with responses to EIR comments, in particular the response regarding spot zoning. This project is a perfect illustration of spot zoning because it is a small parcel of land; it proposes a change to the current land use designation; it allowed a new residential development standard; and it is not compatible with any surrounding sidential uses. Jean Watt advised that the site is intended to be used by a institutions for public benefit and should continue to be a cultural asset. Newport Center was built o t of the 2006 General Plan. Denying the project based on current zoning is appropriate. Carol Anne Dru stated Newport Beach was more than a building. It is marks such as the Crab Cooker, Woody's Wharf, and the Ferry. Karen Everts indicated a county had the needed density for the arts to flourish. The issue is supporting the concept of an art center. The land donation would allow the Art Museum to join the art center of the County. Jim Warren advised that the project would have a significant impact on the Harbor View Hills area. No one attending a recent Speak Up Newport meeting supported the project. Another San Francisco architect turned a $60 million City Hall renovation into a $160 million renovation. Dennis Baker concurred with comments regarding spot zoning. The Planning Commission's role was not to fill market demand. This project was a good example of piecemeal planning. This project proposed a major General Plan Amendment. The transfer of hotel rooms to residential units would remain an issue until staff provided a satisfactory explanation of the issue. Penny McManigal wanted to see a better Art Museum. If the project does not work at this location, then the community should pay for another location in Newport Beach. Bob Currie expressed concern regarding development, traffic and water. Many of the problems people spoke about simply did not exist. Residents needed an Art Museum. This was an opportunity to develop a world-class Art Museum. Jean Beek requested the Planning Commission follow the zoning. Tom Baker stated the project did not comply with the General Plan. The proposed 25-story, 295-foot, 100-unit residential tower was not compatible with surrounding development. The proposed height could be applied to only nonresidential projects. The project proposed an inappropriate General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code change to enable residential development on the site of the existing Art Museum. Approval would set an ill- advised precedent and would show disregard for the 2006 General Plan. The project was a fantastic example of what should not be done. Jim Mosher believed the Planning Commission had to make a finding exempting Planned Communities from height limits. He had questioned why the project did not disclose a primary objective of raising money to fund development of a new Art Museum in Costa Mesa and why those two projects should not be considered together. Mr. Witte's statement that the purpose of the project was to allow the Orange County Museum of Art to 10 of 14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 build a new Museum seemed to be substantial evidence. Pictures did not appear to accurately represent the building and views of the building. He questioned staffs interpretation of Planned Communities being exempt from height limits provided in the subsection. The sentence was a grandfather clause, not an exemption. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Mr. Witte remarked that people could be skeptical of depictions of the proposed building, but the project did not block any ocean corridor views and is mostly hidden by other buildings. The proposed building is most visible from Big Canyon. Support is more difficult to generate than opposition. Two hundred forty signatures in support of the project were submitted to the Commission. Residents would prefer to view open space as opposed to a Chinese wall. Chair Kramer requested Director Brandt and Assistant City Attorney Torres to address the perceived spot zoning question. Director Brandt reported that a Planned Community text was in place for the property. It contained an allowance for private institutional uses on the subject property. Over time, portions of the Planned Community had been incorporated into the adjacent North Newport Planned Community. In its original context, a broader range of uses was allowed in the Planned Community. The amendment would not change the zoning designation; however, a modification would introduce residential into the Planned Community. Residential was being added to the Planned Community text; but one had to look at the broader context of Newport Center. Several General Plan policies discussed the mix of uses. In relation to General Plan policies governing the area, staff did not consider it spot zoning. Assistant City Attorney Torres agreed with Director Brandt's comments. This was a mixture of uses. Immediately adjacent to the property was residential use. That was the intention for the Fashion Island area. In response to Secretary Zak's question, Director Br ecdrin ee any ct between General Plan policies and a residential use for Newport Center. In response to Chair Kramer's request regar(Ag the perc rated 79 unit transfer triggering Greenlight, Director Brandt explained that the transfer of unbuilt hotel rooms from the Marriott site to the North Newport Center Planned Community was allowed by the General Plan. The General Plan specifically allowed transfers of development potential within StatisticalArea L-1. Transfers,which were governed by certain guidelines, could also include conversion of development potential. The City Council adopted the transfer at the time of the public hearing in 2012. The City Council did not adopt a General Plan Amendment pursuant to General Plan policies. Assistant City Attorney Torres added that the Greenlight Initiative was triggered by a General Plan Amendment. The City Council action in 2012 did not include a General Plan Amendment; therefore, it did not trigger the Greenlight Initiative. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Director Brandt stated General Plan policies allowed the transfer of development and contemplated conversions within the entire Statistical Area. In response to Chair Kramers inquiry whether any party filing a lawsuit challenging the City Council action, Assistant City Attorney Torres replied that no one filed a lawsuit or challenged the City Council's determination in 2012. The time for filing a lawsuit had elapsed. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Director Brandt recalled Ms. Watt correctly stating that the 100 units were not a General Plan allocation. The 100 units are a threshold identified in Charter Section 423 for requiring a vote. If 100 units were added to a Statistical Area through a General Plan Amendment, then a vote by the electorate was required. The issue was not the availability of 100 units for allocation within Newport Center. The threshold was further complicated by the consideration of any previous General Plan Amendments within the last ten years. Chair Kramer stated Director Brandt went into great detail regarding the issue at the last study session. In response to Secretary Zak's questions, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported there was a difference in trip generation rates between luxury and high-rise condominiums in terms of the peak hour trips. Luxury peak hour trips were higher than high-rise peak hour trips. Staff utilized high-rise trip generation rates because the manual did not contain an average daily traffic rate for luxury condominium. Staff used the high-rise condominium rate to determine the average traffic and continued to use the high-rise peak hour rates to conduct the traffic study. The manual contained peak hour rates for luxury condominiums, but not a daily rate for luxury condominiums. Using 11 of 14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 the high-rise rate, the PM peak hour rate was 33; and the AM peak hour rate was 30. Using the luxury rate, the PM peak hour rate was 50, and the AM peak hour rate was 52. Peak hour rates were utilized in the Section 423 analysis; and those rates were below the 100 peak hour threshold. In response to Secretary Zak's inquiries, Director Brandt advised that under the terms of the Development Agreement, the developer could begin construction within the timeframe of the agreement's term. Staff was concerned that there could be changes in building materials or landscaping, so Condition of Approval No. 24 is proposed that requires final building design, building materials and landscaping to be returned to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Per the Municipal Code, any substantial change to the site plan also would return to the Planning Commission. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Director Brandt explained that"substantial"is a qualifier in terms of the intent of meeting the original approval. Oftentimes, minor adjustments have to be made as construction-level information becomes available. Staff reviews any changes to the site plan in relation to the conditions of approval and the findings to determine substantial conformance. Staff documents their substantial conformance findings through staff determinations, and notices of staff determinations are provided to the Planning Commission weekly. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported all rates were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Traffic Manual,which was the national standard for trip rates. In response to Secretary Zak's question, Director Brandt referred to Section 20.30.060 regarding height limits within the City. Through the process of evaluating changes in height for base zoning or standard zoning, the Zoning Code indicated that height limits established as part of an adopted Planned Community shall not be subject to this subsection and listed standard exceptions. Mr. Mosher interpreted the subsection as the height limits established as part of an adopted Planned Community were those in effect at the time of the 2010 Zoning Code adoption. Staff reviewed General Plan policies, provisions of Zoning Code Section 20.30.060 and the height map and interpreted the subsection to indicate the height limits shown in Map H-1 could be applied to certain geographical areas. It is not necessarily the existing zoning, because there could be some deviation in the base zoning. In this case, the site had a Planned Community text. Staff believed the Zoning Code would allow the project to reach 300 feet with the appropriate amendments and required findings. All the information had to be considered together. The adopted Planned Community did not mean the increase in height was not allowed. Assistant City Attorney Torres added that the Zoning Code empowered the Director to make this type of interpretation. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the height findings were listed at the top of page 16. Commissioner Lawler believed there was a strong demand for this type of project and an extremely limited supply. The only problem he found in the EIR is construction noise, and that was mitigated. The project would provide a significant City benefit. Secretary Zak felt the Commission respected differing viewpoints and appreciated the community's dialog and input. He had spent a great deal of time evaluating the project and speaking to City residents. He had consistently supported residential uses in Newport Center. Residential uses were consistent with General Plan Policy 6.14. Proposed amendments were not spot zoning, because they were consistent with many General Plan policies. He did not find a General Plan policy conflicting with proposed amendments. After considering the evidence and hearing staffs logic, he was comfortable with the proposed height. The loss of the institutional use would be less than 1 percent of institutional uses in the City. It is a great opportunity for the Museum of Art to relocate and become a regional facility. He is comfortable with recommending the City Council certify the EIR. Vice Chair Koetting stated Commissioners reviewed the entire EIR document and questioned staff about it. It is one of the cleanest Draft EIRs he has seen. The EIR is prepared independent of the applicant. He could not find anything wrong with the architecture and design. The landscaping quality is amazing. Commissioner Dunlap had raised concerns regarding land use issues with staff. The quality of the building is exemplary. Water and traffic impacts are inconsequential. Commissioners rely on staff for technical and legal determinations. His issues with the project are bulk and massing and the location. The zoning had to change to make the location a vibrant part of Newport Center. 12 of 14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 Commissioner Hillgren advised that Commissioners had talked to many residents. Newport Center was planned 50 years ago with a vision for high-rise buildings around the perimeter. He understood residents'frustration with traffic. Residents are experiencing entitlements that are part of the General Plan. He had had serious concerns regarding the height of the building. The proposed use, design, and location are appropriate. Chair Kramer concurred with all Commissioners' comments. He stated we should be so lucky to have what could be an iconic, world-class, five-star, multi-family residential project in the heart of our city, in Newport Center. It could be one of the most beautiful buildings and projects, not only in Newport Beach, but in Orange County. hairman Kramer stated Tthere are no significant impacts. The original architects env sionedvision for Newport Center is one of mixed-use in an intense walkable area, and that 'moo^ ngwhat we are approving is fulfilling that vision corresponding with General Plan policies. Newport Center is a regional hub that already includes retail, residential, commercial and recreational and it makes sense to add more high quality residential. The Commission has to focus on the facts of the application not emotion. Chairman Kramer stated that some residents do not like change, but the reality is Newport Beach is not a static city, but a dynamic, cosmopolitan city with changing demographics. Chairman Kramer said he can make all required findings will be voting in favor of the proiect as recommended by City staff. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Zak to approve Museum House Residential Project PA2015-152, General Plan Amendment GP2015-001, Planned Community Development Plan PC2015- 001, Site Development Review No. SD2016-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map NT2016-001 (County Tentative Tract Map 17970), Development Agreement No. DA2016-001, Traffic Study 2015-004 and EIR 2016-002, Revoke Use Permit Modifications UP2015-017 and Modification Permit 2004-059 with revocation effective upon demolition or grading permit issuance. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap Hillgren, and, Lawler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee 2. Update on City Council Items Community Development Director Brandt indicated the City's draft implementation plan would be presented to the City Council on October 25th. The California Coastal Commission is scheduled a hearing on November 4th regarding re-establishment of the City's categorical exclusion order and zones. The AutoNation appeal and the Newport Coast Development Agreement extension were scheduled for November 8th before the City Council. ITEM NO.7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Dunlap and Vice Chair Koetting will be absent on November 3rd. IX. ADJOURNMENT— 10:52 p.m. 13 of 14 Changes proposed by Chair Kramer Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, October 14, 2016, at 4:02 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, October 14, 2016, at 3:57 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary 14 of 14 Planning Commission - November 3, 2016 Item No. 1 b Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of October 20, 2016 Nov. 3, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2016 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in strikeout underline format. Page 4, paragraph 1: "in response to Commissioner Weigand's question, Planning Program Manager Alford indicated land uses under the mixed-use designation are virtually the same as under General Commercial Zoning. ^� "neo, only under General Commercial a mixed-use project horizontally or vertically would not be allowed." Page 4, paragraph before vote: "Assistant City Attorney Torres clarified that the Planning Commission should vote on the alternation alternate motion first." Page 4, last line: "Commissioner Weigand said he would abstain on the main motion because this was an important project and good for the community." Page 7, paragraph 4, sentence 3 from end: "Approval was based on the work and public hearings that occurred in 2008." [?? According to its title page, the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-20 on December 18, 2007. Although the PC was amended to add blocks in 2009, the hearings cited probably occurred prior to Ord. 2007-20.1 Page 7, paragraph 7: "in response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Senior Planner Ramirez indicated the grade of the top deck area would be similar to the grade of San Clemente Drive; therefore, the grade would be raised." [?? I believe this referred to the elevation of the building entry area. "top deck area" sounds like something at the top of the building.] Page 13, Item 6.2: "The California Coastal Commission is has scheduled a hearing on November 4th regarding re-establishment of the City's categorical exclusion order and zones."