Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/2017 - Planning Commission NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES CITY COUNTY CHAMBERS—100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2017 REGULAR MEETING—6:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commissioner Ray Lawler, and Commissioner Bradley Hillgren ABSENT: Secretary Peter Zak Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Police Department Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan;Associate Planner Makana Nova; Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung; Public Works Director Dave Webb;Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; and Administrative Support Technician Patricia Bynum IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher inquired whether the meeting was being recorded and, if so, where videos could be viewed. Deputy Director Wisneski advised that the meeting was being recorded, and videos would be available on the City's website the following day. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve the minutes of January 19, 2017 as presented. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hillgren ABSENT: Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 1706 PARK AVENUE SETBACK DETERMINATION (PA2016-197) Site Location: 1706 Park Avenue Assistant Planner Whelan reported the applicant proposed a 10-foot front setback where the Code required a 20-feet due to the previous reorientation of three parcels in Block 5. The structures on the subject property and adjacent property at 1708 Park Avenue are constructed at 10 feet. The structure at 1710 Park Avenue is constructed at approximately 7.5 feet from the front setback. A lot area comparison demonstrates that the proposed front setback is compatible with typical lots in the neighborhood as well as the resulting floor area. The proposed setback would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and would allow development consistent with the neighborhood. 1of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 In response to a Commissioner's question, Assistant Planner Whelan advised that the applicant is the current owner of the property. Commissioner Dunlap had visited the site, and Vice Chair Koetting had met with the applicant. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Devin Lucas, legal representative for the applicant, explained that the property was owned by a trust, and the trustees lived out of state. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Lucas related that there were no plans to redevelop the property at the current time. In reply to Chair Kramer's question, Mr. Lucas indicated sale of the property was not contingent upon approval of the proposed setback. Joanne Thomas, resident at 1708 Park Avenue, remarked that she was opposed to the house being moved forward on the lot. She did not oppose the house being rebuilt or remodeled in its current location. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to (1)find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), and (2) Adopt Resolution No. 2046 approving Staff Approval for an Alternative Setback Determination No. SA2016- 018. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak ITEM NO. 3 VUE NEWPORT RESTAURANTS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (PA2016-157) Site Location: 2300 Newport Boulevard, McFadden Square Area, Balboa Peninsula Associate Planner Ung reported the applicant proposed a fine-dining restaurant with a Type 47 alcohol license, a casual-dining restaurant with a Type 41 alcohol license, and a parking waiver with a parking management plan. Both restaurants would operate from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Wednesday and from 6 a.m. to 11 p,m.Thursday through Sunday, and would have no late hours, live entertainment or dancing. The applicant tentatively proposed Prego as the operator of the fine-dining restaurant and Pizza Press as the operator of the casual-dining restaurant. The fine dining restaurant would have approximately 5,204 square feet in gross floor area and has a limit of 651 square fleet for outdoor dining area, approximately 25 percent of the interior dining area. The casual-dining restaurant would have approximately 2,142 square feet in gross area and has a limit of 268 square feet for outdoor dining. The subject property was located in the heart of McFadden Square and zoned Mixed-use Water Related. The Police Department provided conditions of approval for the application. The site is approximately 2.3 acres in size and under construction with 27 for-sale residential units, a 19-slip marina, 35,000 square feet of retail and office uses. The site has a total of eight buildings, a public plaza, and parking for residents and employees. She reviewed access to the site, underground garage, and to the marina. The fine-dining restaurant would be located in Building C and the casual-dining restaurant in Building A. The parking requirement for the mixed-use site was a total of 257 parking spaces; the applicant proposed 234 spaces. The applicant requested a shared parking program to justify the waiver of 23 parking spaces. The parking management plan applied to the total development. Conditions of approval for the two restaurants were identical with the exceptions of the type of ABC license, area square footage, and restrictions on the bar areas. Staff considered the parking waiver and parking management plan together because of the proposed shared parking arrangement. The applicant proposed changes to Conditions of Approval 11, 16, 18, and 51, to which staff agreed. 2of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question, City Traffic Engineer Brine explained that 300 trips per day would trigger a traffic study, according to the traffic phasing ordinance. The traffic analysis forecast 295 trips; therefore, a traffic study was not necessary. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Associate Planner Ung explained that the parking deficiency decreased because a portion of boat slips would be leased to the general public. Parking for boat slips was calculated at 0.75 per slip, for a total of seven parking spaces. Boat size was not a factor in the parking requirement. Parking for boat slips would be located in the underground parking. Deputy Director Wisneski added that the parking deficit resulted in a cumulative parking calculation for each individual land use which does not recognize the shared aspect of the mixed use development. Peak demand was forecast at 127 parking spaces; onsite parking totaled 142 spaces. Staff did not believe the leasing of boat slips would be a significant contribution to parking demand. Nine slips could be leased to the public or to residents. Staff felt seven parking spaces for boat slips would be absorbed into the onsite parking supply. In response to Commissioner Weigand's questions, Deputy Director Wisneski advised that residents would not be allowed to sublease their boat slips. The conditions of approval stated that the slip-way area should not be used for permanent berthing but available for the public. Chair Kramer inquired whether the slip area was for smaller vessels, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated that there are 19 boat slips. In reply to Commissioner Lawler's inquiries, Police Civilian Investigator Joe indicated the Police Department carefully considered the application and believed the restaurants could work to raise the demographics in the area. Many concerns were alleviated by the lack of late hours. The Police Department included a special condition regarding no bar seating. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Police Civilian Investigator Joe clarified that the Police Department's approval would not change because of a change in operators. An operator's license was not required because the restaurants would close by 11 p.m. Associate Planner Ung reported staff modified a condition of approval to include language that the bar would be ancillary to the overall dining area. Deputy Director Wisneski added that staff typically determined whether a bar was ancillary when reviewing an application. Ancillary meant the bar would not be the predominant use. Crafting a condition of approval to require fine dining would be difficult, but the conditions would apply parameters to any operator. The applicant proposed charging a nominal parking fee to residents and employees. Businesses could validate parking for patrons. The fee was proposed as a means to discourage the public from utilizing the parking garage for trips to the beach. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Associate Planner Ung stated the applicant did not intend to have any medical uses or other uses that would increase parking demand. Vice Chair Koetting suggested a condition to eliminate that problem. Chair Kramer reported a brief telephone conversation with a representative of the applicant. Vice Chair Koetting had talked with the construction manager. Commissioners Dunlap and Weigand had spoken with the attorney for the applicant. Commissioner Hillgren had spoken with the attorney for the applicant and the Council Member for the area. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Chris Kelsey, applicant, remarked that all boat slips could be leased to the public, but the intention was to provide slips to the residents. The applicant agreed to onsite security and enforcement of rules. Successful retail needed restaurants. A nominal parking fee was needed to discourage the general public's use of the parking garage. The applicant had leases with Prego and Pizza Press. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Kelsey reported the property manager would have an office onsite with security working from that office. Staff would be onsite to monitor parking, and the restaurants would offer valet parking service. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's concerns regarding the number of employees and the amount of available parking, Mr. Kelsey advised that the two restaurants would have 12-18 employees per shift depending on the 3of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 amount of business. Janis Rhodes, JR Parking Consultants, indicated automated parking would be utilized for office and retail employee parking, Patrons were not intended to park in the podium level. Restaurant employees would be parking in the garage. Because office and retail employees usually worked daytime hours, shared parking would be advantageous. Mr. Kelsey stated the trash area for the restaurants was located on the lower level, and grease traps would have to be installed. Ken Woodrow, consultant for Prego, clarified that at any given time 18 employees might be working. A typical evening during the week would have 12-15 employees working. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's inquiries, Associate Planner Ung agreed that a high parking fee would drive employees and patrons to park off-site for free or at a lower rate. Ms. Rhodes added that the applicant intended to place parking fees within leases, so that employers would pay parking fees for employees. Jim Mosher commented that the handout regarding slip rental contained information not presented in staff's presentation. The Commission should state whether it adopted information from the slide or the handout. The last sentence of the handout contained a double negative. Mike Mugel suggested more public access to the center for boats of different sizes and types. Boat access would help reduce parking issues. He supported the project. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dunlap expressed concern regarding the amount of parking for the project and the Commission setting precedent for the applicant to change a previously approved Master Plan. The center would be easier to access by water. He suggested the Commission approve the fine-dining restaurant only and require monitoring of parking. The applicant could return at some future time with an application for a casual-dining restaurant and utilize parking reports to support the application. Chair Kramer suggested increasing public access on the bay side as an alternative. Commissioner Hillgren offered another alternative of the Commission approving the two restaurants with a condition that leasing the last few commercial spaces would depend upon a review of the functioning of the center. Retail spaces did need restaurants to be successful. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question,Vice Chair Koetting clarified his concern as being the number of employees projected for parking needs. Perhaps the Commission could incorporate a condition for no high- density office or retail such as medical or high-intensity uses such as workout facilities. Commissioner Lawler suggested a condition of approval to limit the intensity of a set amount of commercial area. Commissioners and representatives for the applicant discussed the number of boat slips proposed for lease to residents,for lease to the public and for general public use without a lease;where the slips would be located; the size of the slips; and the number of boats that the slips could accommodate. The applicant's goal was to lease as many slips to residents as possible. If all 18 slips could be leased to residents, the applicant would do so. The Commission wanted to see more slips open to the general public. The space in the middle would be open to the public at no charge. The applicant proposed two additional slips for general public use at no charge either in the middle or next to the fine-dining restaurant. The double slip located by the fine-dining restaurant could accommodate five boats depending on their size. In response to Chair Kramer's question, Deputy Director Wisneski reported the Harbor Commission had not discussed the project. Deputy Director Wisneski understood the Commission was concerned that the project was under-parked. Calculation of the parking requirement was based upon uses that were singular. For a shared parking situation, the project could have a parking reduction. Based on the shared parking analysis, there was a parking surplus. There would be 142 spaces onsite with a peak demand for 127 spaces. The Community Development Director could require additional parking strategies that could require parking permits for employees. Employees not bearing the cost of parking onsite could be incorporated into the parking management program. Chair Kramer requested staff provide language for revising Approval of Condition 16. 4of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 Police Civilian Investigator Joe amended her earlier response to Commissioner Hillgren in that security was usually a condition of the operator's license rather than the CUP. The Police Department's night duty sergeant did conduct a site visit. Deputy Director Wisneski offered language for Condition 16 of"there shall be no more than seven slips that shall be leased to the public; no less than three boat slips shall be available for dine and dock, free of charge for visitors of the center; no fewer than nine slips shall be available for lease to residents; no overnight use of any vessel shall be permitted nor use as permanent residence." Commissioner Dunlap requested language restricting residents from subleasing slips, and Chair Kramer clarified that three slots would be for public, non-lease use. Assistant City Attorney Torres clarified that each of the three slips would hold more than one duffy boat. Chair Kramer also suggested a condition regarding appropriate signage. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to (1) find each project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; (2) adopt Resolution No. 2048 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-048 for the proposed 5,204 square-foot fine dining restaurant including a parking reduction; and (3) adopt Resolution No. 2047 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-041, with revisions to Conditions of Approval 11, 15, 18, 19, and 51 as discussed. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak ITEM NO.4 DAWSON RESIDENCE VARIANCE (PA2015-224) Site Location: 2741 Ocean Boulevard Associate Planner Nova introduced the project, reported the project site is located next to a view point and coastal view road identified in the City's General Plan, and shared photos from various viewpoints. A number of properties had encroachments into the 10-foot setback along Way Lane. She reviewed the background of the property including variances, conditions of approval, and the abandoned right-of-way. Existing variances did not apply to the abandoned right-of-way parcel. In reply to Chair Kramer's question, Associate Planner Nova did not recall whether the abandoned right-of-way transaction involved compensation. Associate Planner Nova further clarified that the right-of-way was abandoned to the subject property, which added about 5,000 square feet to the lot. Associate Planner Nova indicated a new single-family residence would be constructed over the entire parcel. The proposed residence complied with a number of Zoning Code standards such as front and side setbacks,floor area maximum, and top-of-curb height limit. Portions of the home and retaining walls would project Into the 10-foot setback, with some portions encroaching more than others. The applicant proposed a pool directly above the garage area,which would project into the rear setback. At its closest point,the garage and pool would be 8 inches from the property line. The property was subject to a height limit of 24 feet for a flat roof and 29 feet for a sloping roof. The slope of the property is 58 percent. Portions of the proposed structure that exceed the height limit are primarily in the existing parcel area, with a small portion in the abandoned right-of-way. The northwest corner of the structure would project closer to Way Lane but would be within the buildable area; however, the two levels would exceed the height limit. The fire pit tower would exceed the height limit and project beyond the limit of the existing home. Staff recommended modifying the design so that the nook/sitting area was pulled back to the limit of the existing building footprint and relocating the fire pit tower to the line of the existing building footprint. Preserving and enhancing views is important to compliance with the applicable General Plan policies. There is a bulk and scale issue with the variance requested for the northwest corner. Almost every home on the block had some kind of relief from the height limit and the rear setback. Public comments expressed concern regarding structural integrity, bulk and scale, access through Way Lane, privacy and public views, nuisance of pool activity, structural integrity of the pool, and maintenance of trees and vegetation. Staff recommended approval of the project with the noted modifications. 5of10 i i NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 Chair Kramer was concerned about the setbacks, particularly on Way Lane; the northwest corner and the fire pit tower; the bulk and scale of the project; and the lack of a construction management plan. The Planning Commission proceeded to report their ex-parte communications. Vice Chair Koetting had met with the applicant and a next-door neighbor. Chair Kramer had talked to a neighbor. Commissioner Hillgren had met with the applicant and a handful of applicant's consultants and had conversations with a couple of neighbors. Commissioner Dunlap had met with the applicant and his architect. Commissioner Weigand had met with the applicant and spoke on the phone with a next-door neighbor and his attorney. At Vice Chair Koetting's request, Associate Planner Nova showed a site plan with an overlay of the proposed building. The courtyard on the upper right-hand side was not habitable floor area. Vice Chair Koetting was concerned that the proposed residence might not fit on the lot. In reply to Commissioner Lawler's questions, Associate Planner Nova reported the applicant had not been willing to relocate the fire pit tower or the northwest wing structures. The applicant submitted a concessions memo modifying the architectural design of the two structures to alleviate the adjacent residents' concerns. Those concessions were not sufficient for staff to recommend approval of the project. The worst-case encroachment at the rear setback was 8 inches from the property line. Commissioner Lawler concurred with Chair Kramer's concerns regarding the fire pit tower and the northwest wing. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiries, Associate Planner Nava advised that staff does not apply a predominant line of existing development to this property because it does not fall within the coastal bluff overlay designated in the Zoning Code. The area of focus was the existing building instead of setbacks. The existing home already encroached into the 10-foot setback. At Commissioner Dunlap's request, Associate Planner Nova explained that the applicant's memo made concessions primarily to modify the architectural design of the northwest wing at the nook/sitting area and that these changes might alleviate some of the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy. Staff still wanted the area pulled back to the line of existing home because of the bulk and scale issue. Portions of the proposed structure still exceeded the height limit and the structures are not necessary to the use of the home. The residence could be redesigned. The Zoning Code contained no specific criteria for limiting bulk and mass that exceeds the height limit; therefore, staff looked to the existing envelope for guidance. Community compatibility was a concern. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Richard Krantz, project architect, shared his process for designing the home. He wanted the house to look like it had been there for 40, 50 years. He had only architectural elements to deal with the mass and bulk. He chose a sloping roof because it extended the view. Lowering the roof height and using a sloping roof benefited the community but made it harder to generate square footage. He created the pool as a buffer and tried to preserve views. Articulation added interest to the house while attempting to preserve the view. The element at the northwest wing was meant to shield the different private decks on the adjacent property. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Krantz indicated the light green area on the slide shown was a transparent model of the neighbor's house. It was used to demonstrate that the architectural elements mitigated the lack of privacy. The protruding bit was the neighbor's deck. The elements did not block the neighbor's windows. The neighbors had not responded to the graphic and likely had not seen the proposed concessions. The massing issue was handled by the architectural features, but the existing house was massive. One element projected out to protect the privacy of both parties'decks. Chair Kramer was annoyed that the Commission received changes the day of the meeting and preferred to continue the item. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Mr. Krantz explained that the graphic illustrated the neighbor's deck projecting in the foreground. The building design was pulled back but he needed to introduce another element to protect privacy. The depiction reflected the change to the window only. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Krantz advised that the neighbors likely had not seen the proposed changes. Vice Chair Koetting noted the changes did not comply with staffs recommendations. 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 Craig Dawson, applicant, reported the memorandum was provided in response to Commissioners' requests for mitigation of the privacy issue. He did not want a more massive house. The proposed house was less massive, more attractive, and more articulated than the existing home. A portion of the northwest wing did protrude, but many portions were pulled back. The lower roof made the house look less massive. He had been working with staff for two years and conducted outreach to the neighbors. The proposal did increase privacy. He was not asking for a special benefit. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions,Associate Planner Nova indicated the applicant voluntarily placed the story poles for a short period of time. Mr. Dawson related the Hamiltons' concerns regarding view of the windows, then the balcony, and then impact to views. He had the story poles set up to demonstrate there was no material effect on views. Now, the Hamiltons were concerned about privacy. Norm Rodich, attorney for the applicant, advised that the design was mindful of the adjacent neighbor and attempted to protect views and privacy. The current situation had no privacy with views into the neighbor's home from virtually every deck and main living area of the existing residence. The neighbor's house projected out as far as possible to capture the view. The proposed residence did not extend as far as the neighbor's residence. The current issue was proximity and privacy. The neighbor chose view over privacy in cantilevering the residence as far as possible. The neighbor objected to the applicant's right to do the same thing, The new proposal was submitted in response to comments received in the last two days. The columns and windows were designed so that no one could see in or out. The northwest wing's function was to separate the main living areas of the two residences. The compromise maintained separation but eliminated cross-viewing, Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Laurence Nokes, representative for the Hamilton's, stated the house could be built according to lot development standards. The design was not harmonious with neighboring structures and did not protect use or enjoyment. He did not believe any findings could be made for the requested variances. The height variance would completely - change the way the Hamiltons used their home. The rear setback would involve an elevated pool deck, which would impact privacy and enjoyment of the property. There was plenty of room to build a conforming structure if it was sited differently on the lot. He requested the matter be denied and continued and the applicant be required to put up stakes of actual construction. Joseph Udvare shared his experience of the installation of the story poles. The poles should be reinstalled and left for a longer period of time. He opposed a variance for Way Lane. The elevated pool would look into his master bedroom and family room. Kim Effinger, representative for the Mulvaneys, opposed the project as proposed. The size and scope was massive compared to surrounding homes. The size,design,and certain features would impact privacy and views. The elevated pool would create unnecessary noise and a potential nuisance for neighbors. The project should be revised with the elevated pool either eliminated or relocated. Helga Pralle expressed concerns about the integrity of the slope. According to a report from a geotechnical engineer, the area was susceptible to earthquake-induced slides. The Dawsons refused to name her as an additional insured on any insurance policy for construction, to indemnify her for damage or destruction as a result of the slope potentially failing from construction, and to coordinate a pre-construction inspection of her home to document the condition of the property. The Planning Commission should impose additional conditions of approval. She opposed the requests for variances. Warren James supported staffs recommendations. Mike Mugel supported the project, but expressed concern that vendors would park in the setback and block Way Lane. Harold Parker clarified that he neither supported nor opposed the project. He simply would not object to the project. Jerry Thompson was concerned about ingress and egress. A construction entrance from Ocean Boulevard was not possible. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. 7of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 Mr. Rodich advised that abandonment of the right-of-way was irrelevant to the request for variances. The larger lot size allowed the applicant to build a larger house. There were no side encroachments. The applicant agreed to pay for the story poles to accommodate the Hamiltons. The existing housing was as massive as the proposed house. The project pulled massing and scale away from Way Lane. The applicants were not asking for anything other neighbors had not received. Pools typically were permitted in the rear setback. Staff determined pool activity was not uncommon or detrimental. Mechanical equipment would be placed in a vault, so there would be no noise issue. The pool was designed as a buffer. Chair Kramer did not feel the application was ready for a decision because several issues needed to be resolved. Staff had not had sufficient time to review the last-minute changes. He had concerns about the setbacks, the northwest corner, and bulk and scale. He suggested the Commission deny or continue the project. Assistant City Attorney Torres, noted the upcoming deadline under the Permit Streamlining Act. The applicant would need to waive the deadline in order for the Commission to continue the item. In reply to Chair Kramer's inquiry, Mr. Rodich reported the applicants were amenable to a continuance. Chair Kramer requested Commissioners provide direction to staff regarding concerns about the project. The applicant should work more diligently with the neighbors regarding issues raised in the meeting. Commissioner Hillgren commented that variances were required for the project. The expectation to develop a certain FAR was not absolute but conditioned upon being able to achieve the other conditions. Those other conditions included the height limit and setback. Various solutions could resolve the massing issue. One of the biggest challenges to granting a variance was ensuring neighbors agreed with the project. The neighbors seemed to be willing to listen and work through some of the challenges. He had no issue with the rear setback; however, the pool encroachment was inappropriate. The fire pit tower could easily be moved 4 feet so as not to block the - view. The applicant should work with the neighbor in order to resolve the issue regarding the northwest corner. Commissioner Lawler concurred with staffs recommendations regarding the fire pit tower and the northwest corner, given the amount of opposition expressed during the meeting. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Associate Planner Nova stated a variance for the pool was needed because of the height of the structure. The current roof was noncompliant. The height of the existing home exceeded the curb height. Commissioner Dunlap agreed with pulling back the pavilion. The Hamiltons needed time to review the latest proposal. Vice Chair Koetting believed the applicant should utilize more of the site near Ocean Boulevard and suggested the nook/sitting area be moved closer to the existing residence line. Story poles were important for the size and location of the project. He opposed setbacks along Way Lane. Commissioner Weigand reiterated that the Commission had not had time to review the applicant's proposed concessions. He hoped everyone could work together toward a solution. He liked the glass barriers for the pool. In response to Associate Planner Nova's question, Chair Kramer wanted to see a construction management plan containing details of interaction with the City, the process, timing, sequencing, parking, and interrelation with subcontractors. The area was very constricted with little to no parking. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to continue Item Number 4 to a date uncertain. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak 8of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 Vill. CURRENT BUSINESS ITEM NO. 5 WEST COAST HIGHWAY CAPACITY INFORMATION SESSION (PA2016-081) Site Location: Mariners' Mile Area Chair Kramer recused himself from the item because of a potential conflict of interest. Deputy Director Wisneski advised that the Planning Commission did not have authority in reviewing the configuration of Coast Highway. Staff thought it important to provide the Planning Commission with the status of the highway and future plans. Public Works Director Webb provided the history of and statistics for Coast Highway. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) was the current administrator of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). In order to receive Measure M funds, the City was required to keep current its Circulation Element and be consistent with the County's MPAH. Development and implementation of zoning and land use was directly related to the function of the arterial highway system. Throughout the City, Level of Service (LOS) should be no less than"D." In 2011,average daily traffic passing through Mariners'Mile totaled 48,000 vehicles from Newport Boulevard to Tustin Avenue and 44,000 vehicles from Tustin Avenue to Dover Drive, By 2030, the total was projected to be 57,000 vehicles from Newport Boulevard to Tustin Avenue and 53,000 vehicles from Tustin Avenue to Dover Drive. The City hired a consultant to review configurations for Mariners' Mile. Based upon the consultant's report, LOS would drop to Levels E and F. The public wanted congestion relief, bike lanes, and revitalization along Mariners' Mile. The minimum MPAH configuration could be 112 feet rather than 128 feet. The Council directed staff to proceed with removing on-street parking, installing a Class II bike - trail, a Land Use Study, and working with Caltrans on a modified arterial cross-section. Removal of on-street parking was important. Improvements could be funded through OCTA funding and development takes. He shared examples of six-lane arterial highways. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Public Works Director Webb advised that pull-in parking was possible. With respect to timing, more right-of-way was needed before internal blocks could be widened. The first step was removing parking. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiries, Public Works Director Webb indicated the highway would be 112 feet wide and six lanes. The 1963 General Plan provided for the Coast Highway to follow Cliff Drive. Commissioner Hillgren believes the City needs to carefully evaluate the issues associated with the roadway design in light of the current planning efforts and long term vision for Mariners' Mile because the proposed plan to create a thoroughfare is not consistent with the establishment of a village type environment. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Public Works Director Webb defined conformance as having a six-lane highway as stated in the General Plan. The City could lose at least $1.7 million a year for not conforming to the MPAH. The segment through Corona del Mar was listed as a four-lane facility. The MPAH could be changed if traffic was mitigated. Smart technology could be utilized to improve the flow of traffic through six lanes. City Traffic Engineer Brine added that increased development in nearby cities led to increased traffic on Coast Highway. Commissioner Weigand shared his concerns for landscaping medians. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiries, Public Works Director Webb advised that there would be dedicated bike lanes against the curb. The City could purchase a right-of-way or utilize an OCTA grant. Carol Anne Dru inquired about the time for beginning these projects. Public Works Director Webb advised that the projects could begin in five years. Ms. Dru was concerned about the speed of traffic. Removing on-street parking would adversely impact business customers. Jerry Johnson, Balboa Bay Club Resort, stated the Club supported the project. The loss of employee parking would be offset by less traffic congestion and lower speeds. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, he did not know if the Bay Club had dedicated its right-of-way. 9of10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/09/2017 In response to Jim Mosher's questions, Public Works Director Webb advised that the Corona del Mar segment had always been listed as four lanes. The purpose of widening the highway was to increase capacity rather than traffic speed. Lanes would likely be more narrow. Luke Dru suggested the volume at Corona del Mar was lower because people avoided it, a right turn-lane at Tustin would help move traffic, and work was needed on the bottleneck from Riverside to Newport Boulevard. Tom Baker believed safety would decrease with more lanes. Public Works Director Webb stated planning staff was developing unique solutions. Assistant City Attorney Torres advised the Commission that the meeting had extended beyond 10:30, and no new items could be introduced without a motion to continue the meeting. There being no motion to continue the meeting, the meeting was adjourned. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO, 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on City Council Items ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES X. ADJOURNMENT— 10:47 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, February 3, 2017, at 3:28 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, February 3, 2017, at 3:13 p.m. e 4' 144 , Cha' Peter Zak, Secret ry 10 of 10