HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-2022 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2022 REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M. TELECONFERENCE LOCATION PURSUANT TO GC§54953(B): 2253 POIPU RD UNIT #21, KOLOA, HI 96756 I. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Harris III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Lauren Kleiman, Vice Chair Curtis Ellmore, Secretary Mark Rosene, Commissioner Tristan Harris, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Erik Weigand
ABSENT: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, Senior Civil Engineer David Keely, Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner Ben Zdeba, Associate Planner David Lee, Associate Planner Liz Westmoreland, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JULY 7, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Secretary Rosene to approve the minutes of the July 7, 2022 meeting with Mr. Mosher’s proposed edits.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Kleiman, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand
NOES: None ABSTAIN: Klaustermeier
ABSENT: None VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 BAJA SHARKEEZ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW (PA2017-255) Site Location: 110 and 114 McFadden Place Summary: A one-year review will be conducted for Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-034, which authorizes
the operation of an eating and drinking establishment with late hours and a type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License. The purpose of this review is to determine
compliance with the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit with a focus on alcohol sales in the morning between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 21, 2022
Page 2 of 6
Recommended Action:
1. Receive public comments; 2. Find this project review categorically exempt under Section 15321, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines – Class 21 – Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies; and
3. Accept and file the one-year review for Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-034. Associate Planner Westmoreland presented a one-year review of the Baja Sharkeez conditional use permit originally approved by the Planning Commission in June 2020. The condition focused on alcohol sales in the
morning between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. because it was the only increased time for alcohol sales. She utilized a presentation to share a vicinity map, the Conditional Use Permit: UP2017-034 details, exhibits of the
approved conditional use permit, the temporary outdoor dining patio, alcohol service morning hours conditions of approval number two and six, resolved issues or complaints, the conclusion, and the recommended action. In response to Commissioner Weigand’s question, Associate Planner Westmoreland confirmed the approval
of an operator’s license by the police chief.
There were no public comments received. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL EXPANSION (PA2020-068) Site Location: 3300 Newport Boulevard, 475 32nd Street Summary: The Applicant requests to add 15,103 square feet to the previously approved 130-room Lido House Hotel. The additional floor area would allow for the construction of five new cottages (i.e., “rooms”), increased storage space, enlarged pre-function/breakout meeting rooms, a new greenhouse seating room, expansion of three existing hotel rooms, and an enclosed area on the rooftop terrace. Also
included is the demolition of the former Fire Station No. 2 building to create additional public and private parking spaces. To implement the project, the request requires the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: ● General Plan Amendment – To amend Anomaly No. 85 to increase the development limit to
118,573 gross square feet; ● Local Coastal Program Amendment – To increase the development limit as described above; ● Zoning Code Amendment – To increase the development limit as described above;
● Site Development Review – To ensure the changes to the site are developed in accordance with applicable development standards; and
● Conditional Use Permit – To allow the operational changes that result from the changed floor plan. If approved by the City, a coastal development permit amendment will also be required from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) since it was the original review authority for the Lido House Hotel project. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-020 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-004, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2020-006, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-003, Site Development Review No. SD2020-008, Conditional
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 21, 2022
Page 3 of 6
Use Permit No. UP2020-039, and Addendum No. 2 to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lido House Hotel (SCH#2013111022).
Principal Planner Zdeba used a presentation to share a vicinity map, land use designation, background, existing Lido House hotel site, applicant’s requests, project bird’s eye view rendering, project 32nd Street view, required City entitlements, Section 423 analysis, parking, CEQA review, recommended action, and next steps. In response to Secretary Rosene’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba noted the parcel lines reflect the legal description on record.
In response to Commissioner Weigand’s inquiry, Principal Planner Zdeba used a slide to display the existing trash enclosure location and the relocated location adjacent to the new breakout room along 32nd Street, confirmed the 32nd Street parking count, clarified removable gates on the barrier fence along 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard, and noted the California Coastal Commission’s concern for coastal access with permanent gates. Commissioner Weigand expressed concern for foot traffic and safety along the barrier fence.
In response to Commissioner Klaustermeier’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba noted that the applicant can comment on the impact to public space from the greenhouse and breakout rooms. In response to Chair Kleiman’s request, Principal Planner Zdeba walked through the calculation that confirms the project is exempt from Section 423 vote requirements, shared the ground level floor plan additions, and
character imagery for the new greenhouse structure. Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications.
Chair Kleiman opened the public hearing.
Bob Olson, applicant, and Greg Villegas of WATG Architects used a presentation to review the property aerial view, cottage locations, greenhouse and breakout meeting space, proposed fencing, consistent architecture, public parking, and greenhouse details, public use, and enhanced setback.
In response to Chair Kleiman’s question, the applicant agreed to the conditions of approval as proposed.
In response to Commissioner Weigand’s request, Mr. Villegas noted the fencing and gates on Newport Boulevard on the site plans and safety measures.
In response to Secretary Rosene’s inquiry, Mr. Olson relayed public gate access, accommodations for special
events, and greenhouse uses. Mr. Villegas described the greenhouse as a warm, white colored jewel box to address Secretary Rosene’s concern for aesthetics and shared a materials board and photos. In response to Secretary Rosene’s question, Mr. Villegas confirmed a trellis trashcan covering near the breakout room.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ concerns for parking, Mr. Olson noted no complaints with parking.
In response to Secretary Rosene’s inquiry, Mr. Olson confirmed 100 percent valet parking.
In response to Commissioner Klaustermeier’s question, Mr. Villegas confirmed no reduction in the public space footprint with the addition of the greenhouse and breakout rooms.
In response to Chair Kleiman’s question, Mr. Olson noted the maintenance of the greenhouse glass. Jim Mosher thought the fence is not attractive and questioned the Greenlight analysis figures.. Bridget McConaughey of Local 11 questioned if the project will provide for affordable overnight visitor accommodations, a feasibility analysis, and a mitigation plan and if the fire station is property covered under the Surplus Land Act. Bob Fallen supported the project.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 21, 2022
Page 4 of 6
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell relayed that the 2014 Charter 423 vote analysis was based on an assumption that the City Hall site would accommodate a 75,000 square foot building, which was
embedded into the traffic plan analysis and used to establish a development limit. This resulted in no need for a vote for the increased allocation following approval by the City Council. Furthermore, he noted all increases since that time have been included in the analysis, confirmed there were no affordable accommodations proposed and emphasized the project’s contributions to a City-run youth camp program for mitigation of higher cost accommodations.
Chair Kleiman closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Secretary Rosene to approve the recommended action. AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 4 DENSITY BONUS ZONING CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2020-032) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code updating standards and establishing an approval process for considering density bonuses with housing developments. These amendments are required to ensure the City’s regulations are in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915, et. Seq (Density Bonuses and Other Incentives). A housing development project that includes a minimum percentage of affordable units is eligible for additional units above the otherwise allowed City-established maximum density and it is also eligible for reduced parking requirements, incentives/concessions, and waivers of development standards. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-018 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-004 to amend Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining density bonus to comply with State law; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-019 recommending the City Council authorize submittal of Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. LC2020-004 to the California Coastal Commission to amend Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining density bonus to comply with State law. Principal Planner Murillo utilized a presentation to review proposed Density Bonus Zoning Code (Title 20) and Local Coastal Program (LCP) (Title 21) amendments needed to bring City ordinances up to date with State law. His presentation included background, what is a “density bonus,” other eligible project types, a sliding scale bonus, other bonuses, automatic parking reductions, incentives and concessions, development standard waivers, the approval process, and the recommended action. In response to Commissioner Weigand’s question, Principal Planner Murillo confirmed that the need for the ordinance is driven by the State, explained the ordinance includes minor clarifications to the law and the City
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 21, 2022
Page 5 of 6
review process, and clarified that workforce housing is typically considered include the moderate-income category
In response to Vice Chair Ellmore’s question, Principal Planner Murillo noted project-related impacts are still reviewed under CEQA, and explained traffic and school impact fees attributed to each new unit can still be assessed. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated that the City decided that fee reductions are not mandated incentives/concessions, but can be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In response to Secretary Rosene’s inquiry, Principal Planner Murillo indicated that density bonus units are
exempt from the need to process a general plan amendment, and explained that public views in the coastal zone remain protected by the coastal resource protection policies of the LCP. In response to Chair Kleiman’s question, Principal Planner Murillo relayed that the density bonus law does not
supersede the California Coastal Act and indicated that the City can deny incentives or development standard waivers if an adverse environmental, public health, or historic resource impact is found.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ questions, Principal Planner Murillo relayed that the reduced parking ratios are the same for all density bonus projects and explained the equity sharing requirements for for-sale units.
Chair Kleiman opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher questioned the reason for the amendment review considering no options have been added by the
City and the density bonus laws do not supersede the California Coastal Act.
Principal Planner Murillo indicated that the City believed including provisions of State law in a code section would be easier for members of the public and developers to understand and implement, and noted that
although the provisions of the density bonus are eligible within the coastal zone, it does not supersede the California Coastal Act and the City is required to develop a code in harmony with coastal provisions.
Chair Kleiman closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Weigand’s inquiry, Principal Planner Murillo indicated that updated density bonus
law legislation is ongoing and minor clean-up amendments are expected in the future. Motion made by Vice Chair Ellmore and seconded by Secretary Rosene to approve the recommended action.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that the final Housing Element revisions are underway and expressed optimism for adoption before October 15, 2022, noted the appeal of the Gannon residence project and August 2022 hearing before the City Council, and announced the next Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 2022, with four items to discuss including the Circulation Element.
ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
X. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 21 , 2022
The agenda for the July 21, 2022, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, July 14,
2022, at 3:20 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 Thursday, July 14, 2022,
at 3:15 p.m.
Lac::2
Mark Rosene, Secretary
Page 6 of6