Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200512_CC_MinutesCity of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 12, 2020 II. INVOCATION -Pastor Paul Hegele, Newport Harbor Lutheran Church XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 20. Approval of the Fee Study Update [100-2020] Motion by Mayor O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Muldoon, to discuss the fee study update at the May 26, 2020 Study Session a nd bring the fees back to the City Council for adoption at the June 9, 2020 City Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously. 21. Resolution No. 2020-33: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for The Garden Office and Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) (Continued from the April 28, 2020 City Council Meeting) [100-2020] Ex Parte Communications: Mayor O'Neill disclosed meeting months ago with Leslie Daigle, who represented the Applicant, and the Applicant's architect at the site and noted a conversation three weeks ago with the Appellants, their attorney, and interested parties Charles Klobe, Nancy Scarbrough, and Dave Tanner. At the Appellants' request to attempt to find a resolution, he interacted with the Applicant and Appellants. Council Member Herdman disclosed a meeting with Ms. Daigle and the architect a couple of months ago at the site. Council Member Dixon disclose d meetings with Ms. Daigle and the Applicant on site and the Appellants a nd a site visit last Saturday at the residences above the project site. Council Member Muldoon disclosed conversations with Ms. Daigle and a n eighbor. Council Member Duffield disclosed co nversations with Ms. Daigle and the architect a nd an Appellant homeowner. Council Member Brenner disclosed a meeting with Ms . Daigle and architect Scott Laidlaw and conversations with Charles Klobe and Nancy Scarbrough. Mayor Pro Tern Avery disclosed his attenda n ce at a n open house last fall where the architect, developer, and Ms . Daigle were present; a meeting with an Appellant; a self-guided tour of the property; and phone calls with Ms. Daigle. Scott Laidlaw , architect and Applicant, utilized a presentation to describe the unique circumstan ces a nd existing co nditions of the s ite. Aaron Ehrlich, Appellants' attorney, used a presentation to discuss the project site and its boundaries including: parking requirements, findings for a conditional u se permit (CUP), s ubmitta l of revised plans and their accessibility, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues; the relationship between the project and The Garden Center project, efforts to resolve issues , misstatements in the staff report, the private easeme nt's effect on the project, a nd the Appe llants ' proposal for a trellis and conditions of approval. Hal Woods , Appellant at 2919 Cliff Drive, believed property rights are a privilege and stated that the structure s hould clo s e at 10 p.m. seven days a week. Ernie Castro, Appellant at 2915 Cliff Drive , indicated t h e hearing should have been postponed because of the corona virus ; believed excess parking is intended for the restaurant project and strip mall; expressed concern regarding noise , light, and a ir pollution for reside nts due to late-night access to the parking s tructure. Volume 64 -Page 397 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 12, 2020 In response to Mayor O'Neill's question, Community Development Director Jurjis reported the Applicant's revised plans were sent to the Council yesterday and at the same time to Mr. Ehrlich. In response to Mayor O'Neill's questions, Mr. Laidlaw used a presentation to reflect revisions to retain slope on the hillside and increase landscaping at the property line with Mr. Woods' residence . He added that the changes are an attempt to make the situation better for the Appellants and noted no conflict with Council choosing to use the prior set of plans due to concerns about notice of the revised plans. At Mayor O'Neill's request, City Attorney Harp advised that as the change is relatively minor and moves the project farther away from the residences, it does not create any new view issues or other impacts. He stated that the public has had an opportunity to view the information prior to making any comments and that Council may proceed with the revised plans. Mayor O'Neill opened the public hearing. Jaleel Shabazz Blue questioned the idea of continuing a project if it is not bettering the citizens' properties. Jim Mosher indicated this is not the ideal format to hold a public hearing; expressed concern that community members are not being heard; and advised of an open parking structure at the Westcliff Drive medical offices , adjacent to residential views, was approved in 2014 without a conditional use permit. Brion Jeannette commented that the existing building is not an appropriate landmark building for the community; believed what Mr. Laidlaw is doing is a vast improvement; supported the proposed parking and landscape; and recommended Council approve the project. Stefanie Sitzer Pilalas, Appellant, agreed with Mr. Ehrlich's comments; believed there has been too much emphasis on what the project is going to look like and less on what it will be used for , hours of operation, and onsite parking; and stated the project should be further modified to make it livable . Troy Pilalas, Appellant at 2907 Cliff Drive, related that his biggest concerns are noise , light intrusion, and pollution; and suggested covering the structure with a sold roof or a complete and heavy trellis. Jeanne Fobes expressed her concern with the proposed parking structure roof. Brittany Sitzer supported placing a roof over the parking structure and expressed concern about the withholding of details. Steve Hufford shared previous businesses in the location that operated with longer hours ; indicated the building is currently dilapidated; and believed the new building would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Sandra Ayers agreed that the project is beautiful and beneficial, however its negative circumstances would be easy to resolve; believe d ingress and egress on Riverside Avenue; and stated various concerns with the proposed project. Nancy Scarbrough opposed the parking project unless there is a solid cover on the structure due to its proximity to single-family homes. Christopher Budnik supported the Appellants and asked Council to require a solid roof on the parking structure. Peggy Palmer remarked that guidelines are in place through the 2006 General Update Plan a nd the Mariners Mile Strategic Plan and noted that a parking structure there i s not reasonable. Volume 64 -Page 398 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 12, 2020 Mayra Ramirez supported the project because it would improve the area and be an upgrade from the previous restaurant. David Tanner indicated the community is threatening litigation because the project will impact the wetland, the heritage oak tree , and the coastal bluff and create noise , light, and glare impacts to adjacent residences; and believed the project and the City must follow the rules. Charles Klobe stated the link on the City website to the last staff report was broken and urged Council to deny the project and send it back to be brought in concert with the restaurant. Portia Weiss opposed a parking structure because she believed people would rather park on the street than in a parking structure and expressed concern about the project not having a roof, impacts on the environment, the heritage coastal oak and Cliff Drive Park, and noise from doors, radios, car alarms, and tires screeching. Scott Laidlaw explained the reasons for not proposing a solid roof, including a trellis roof is a greener solution, moving everything further from the residents improves the current condition, the screening is better, a roof would need to accommodate the height of public safety and delivery vehicles , the design of the trellis is based on Building Division requirements, and a solid roof with increased height will be an eyesore. The upper-level office space functions off the upper-level parking, and the lower-level office space functions off the lower-level parking, but the two are not connected. The Bay Island parking structure has open rooftop parking and is directly adjacent to residential uses. Susan Hori, Applicant's attorney, advised that a conditional use permit allows Council to consider the unique situation of each setting, the existing grade will be lowered, and parking will be added under the parking structure. She further advised that; Condition of Approval 63 to limit entry to the upper level after 10 p.m. would be difficult to enforce and noted the Applicant team has worked with staff to address impacts to residences, and asked Council to uphold the Planning Commission action. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor O'Neill closed the public hearing. Council Member Duffield noted the existing parking lot has bee n there for decades and the new building will be one-third the size and setback from Riverside so that ingress and egress is safer when the current condition is dangerous . He spoke in favor of the project. In response to Council Member Brenner's que stions, staff exp lained that a private easement contains height limitations , so the Applicant lowered the height of building to comply with the easement. Council Member Brenner expressed concern about sports cars test driving on Cliff Drive a nd Pacific Coast Highway and mitigating the noise. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, staff was not sure of the hours of operation for the restaurant that previously occupied the s ite. Community Development Director Jurjis stated that Staff agrees that the two projects do not have to be combined and that the Applicant h as agreed to limit the hours of entry into the parking structure, but not the hours of exit. Council Member Dixon questioned whether the Applicant would consid er limiting the hours of exit to 10 p.m. a nd proposed the trellis be exte nded a few feet beyond the cars on e ither side with the roof. Mayor Pro T ern Avery stated Newport Heights is an establis h ed neighborhood a nd this development is great; stated h e would not accept this without a h ard 10 p.m. close of the parking stru cture to accommodate residents; a nd spoke in favor of exte nding the trellis as much as possible. Volume 64 -Page 399 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 12, 2020 In response to Mayor O'Neill's question, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the Planning Commission has conducted annual reviews of projects to ensure they are following the conditions of approval and added that if an Applicant is not complying with the conditions, the Applicant could make modifications or be required to adopt a n ew program approved by the Planning Commission. Scott Laidlaw clarified that the trellis cantilever co uld be extended 2-3 feet without any significant structural ramifications but potentially cause some egress challenges. Motion by Mayor O'Neill. seconded by Council Member Herdman, to a) find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potentia l to have a significant effect on the environment; and c) adopt amended Resolution No. 2020-33, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Upholding and Affirming the Planning Commission's Approual of Coastal Deue lopment Permit No. CD2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-003 to Demolish an Existing Restaurant and Office Building and Construct a New Office Building and Parking Structure Located at 215 Riuerside Auenue (PA2019-023),with modifications to Condition of Approval 61 such that the trellis shall extend an additional three feet unless such extension violates the Building Code and to retain "and exit" at 10 p.m. in Condition of Approval 63. Council Member Brenner proposed an additional condition to allow only parking on the upper level, no special events. Susan Hori agreed to park cars only on the upper level. Mayor O'Neill amended the motion. with Council Member Herdman seconding, to add Condition of Approval 66 that would require the upper level to be used for parking only. Council Member Muldoon believed the trellis is considerate and that the architect has gone to great lengths to consider the neighbors. Substitute motion by Council Member Muldoon, to a) find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and c) adopt amended Resolution No. 2020-33, A R es olution of the City Council of the City of Newport B each, California, Upholding and Affirming the Planning Commission's Approual of Coastal Deue lopment Permit No. CD2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-003 to D emo lish an Existing R estaurant and Office Building and Construct a New Office Building and Parking Structure Located at 215 Riuerside Auenue (PA2019-023), with a modification to Condition of Approval 61 to include the entire trellis . The substitute motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Dixon believed this is an asset to the community a nd the retail area that serves Newport Heights and expressed h er opinion that the Applicant has listened and responded to n eighbors' requests. Mayor O'Neill thanked the Applicant a nd Appellants for trying to reach a resolution a nd believed Council's proposal will be a better project for residents than what was approved by the Planning Commission. The amended motion carried unanimously. 22. Ordinance No. 2020-14: Terminating Non-Exclusive Commercial Solid Waste Franchises (Continued from the April 28, 2020 City Council Meeting) [24/100-2020] Public Works Director Webb reported staff has settled three franchises and proposes to terminate nine franchises based on noncomplia n ce with requirements for insurance and collision avoidance systems. Volume 64 -Page 400