Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 2EXHIBIT NO. 2 Excerpt of minutes from February 21, 2008 Planning Commission meeting 0 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Page 2 of 12 BJECT: AERIE CONDOMINIUMS " " "' PA2005 -196 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment Recommended for approval Iding and a single - family home and the construction of a 6- level, 8-unit Itiple- family residential condominium complex with subterranean king on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean ilevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal id Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 care feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion o site (from two- family residential to multi- family residential). The Acation includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight (8) idominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit application uests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential ✓elopment Permit application relates to replacement of demolished irtments occupied by low or moderate income households. No units eting this criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement o )rdable housing units is required. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City wport Beach in connection with the application. The Mitigated Negat claration states that the subject development will not result in nificant impact on the environment. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that the applii redesigned the project based on the City Council's decision identif predominant line of existing development at 50.7 feet mean sea 11 Q. He then noted the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land i Amendment, Code Amendment, Tract Map, Modification and Coa idential Development Permit requests. The Mitigated Nega laration has been revised providing additional analysis related to sed project. ier Eaton asked about the sufficiency of the Mitigated Nei and a requirement for a full Environmental Impact Report. Campbell answered that staff believes the Mitigated aration is sufficient and recommends action be taken to n tion to the City Council. Harp noted his agreement. Julian, applicant, gave an overview of the history of his applica to the Planning Commission and City Council. At the direction of Council, there is now a scaled -back version of the project for Plant emission review. He noted the building has been designed above Ao+ http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02212008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 7 MSL and is at a higher level than the existing apartment building. are is a reduction in the proposed living area of 25 %, the units have an reduced from nine to eight but the parking remains the same. Gues 'king has been designed at street level and a turning area has beer ated at the bottom level to improve efficiency. The view corridor ha., an opened further from what exists today by eleven feet at the corner o can and Carnation Boulevards resulting in a 44 degree range. The posed height has been lowered by four feet from the prior plan and i., II below the height limit. The majority of this square footage has beer orporated underground and out of sight and over 38% of the buildinc be below the existing grade of the property today. 46% of the buildinc icture represents mechanical, storage, parking and circulation. AERIE orporates state of the art technology to preserve and improve the iironment. Additional benefits from this project are three additional on :et parking, LEED Certification design and reduction of traffic in the a. He noted the varied roof, deck and window designs in the project. Ir. Brion Jeannette, architect of the project, made a PowerPoin resentation noting the first level of the building is at 53.50 MSL; eigh nits; square footage reduced by 17.6 %; guest parking at street level )west level is totally subterranean; basement area will have recreationa ses for tenants only; this basement area will need a modification to create re exiting from the building to an attached existing stairway down to thf each; the first level has a maximum deck extension of ten to twelve feet ie second floor is at 65.0; the third floor is at 76.0 and has no decl xtensions; the fourth floor is at 86.0; the proposed project has been puller own and has less height; the exterior is stone finish with exterior plaster ublic views are enhanced; vehicular elevators are servicing seven units ack -up spaces provided in sub - basement floor; dock design layout is urrently going through the Harbor Resources Department although that is of part of this review tonight. mmissioner Eaton asked what the color rendering on the dock lay )resented and was told it was eel grass and the docks were situated not to shadow the eel grass. Lepo noted that the docks are not part of this project application. mmission inquiry, he noted the only item that could be considered we that part that touches the land. Cole asked about the predominant line of development. Jeannette answered the first finished floor is at 53.5. The City Cou cted the predominant line of development at 50.7. He added that tt be an additional 2.9 feet to the bottom of the building and will itional bluff face all the way around. ier Toerge noted, and it was confirmed, that there is approximately 20 feet below the predominant line of existi it behind the bluff face. Page 3 of 12 56 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mnO2212008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Page 4 of 12 m Paone, Land Use Counsel for the project noted that under CEQA yoi art with an Initial Study (IS); that IS may demonstrate that there is , )tential for significant environmental impacts; the decision is made tc epare a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. the Mitigated Negative Declaration deals with the issues that have bees ised and when circulated addresses those issues, then that is sufficient. ie question becomes is there a fair argument of a potential significan fect remaining after all the discussion and disclosures contained in the itigated Negative Declaration. The CEQA guidelines equate fai gument and substantial evidence as one in the same. Either way then as to be substantial evidence; argument, unsubstantiated speculation >inion, all of those types of things are not substantial evidence. Someone sagreeing with the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the inclusion of the analysis or if someone says something could happen is ar or opinion and is an issue that is addressed. It is our view that then n't substantial evidence to contradict these points. Substantial evidence insists of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts ani (pert opinion supported by facts. r. Harp noted a general concern that was raised in the presentatic garding the slips are not part of the project plans that have bee Omitted. That impact on the eel grass has not been analyzed in th itigated Negative Declaration. He questioned whether the applicant ;king for some modification or change to plans that were submitted. Ir. Jeannette answered they are not asking for the dock approval tonig r even the review. He felt it was important that the Commissi( nderstand the whole scope of the project, which is why you at least sf ,hat we are presenting. It is going through the Harbor Resources and ieeting has been set up to review the environmental documents Mar 0, 2008. No change is requested on what is being presented tonight. Ir. Harp noted the issue raised is if there is a 'piecemeal' situation, ai iat is something for the Commission to determine. Paone added that the decision had been made to not include tt ,s as part of the project. If they were ever to be included it was to be, when, down the road. However, in the interim, Harbor Resourcf artment notified the owners that there was a public health and safe with respect to the docks. As a result of that and followii ussion and negotiation, it was deemed an emergency situation by tt and a dock plan was submitted for review. There is an exemption to 15.296C of the Guidelines which provide that work to correct rgency will be exempt from the requirements of CEQA. nissioner Toerge asked if it was the existing docks in their that were determined to be a hazard. Paone answered yes. http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /Mn02212008.htrn 06/13/2008 } Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 comment was opened. McCaffrey, president of the Board of Directors of the Channel mmunity Association noted their board has voted unanimously in this project. At Channel Reef with forty -eight living units all Dugh one gate to the garage proper there has never been ck Nichols of Corona del Mar noted his support of the project noting it good looking project and is a multi - family residential project. He adds at several other homes in Corona del Mar have a basement that is bek ade and noted this was a precedent. i Dawson, noted the potential necessary excavation; the project has e economic sense; this project has taken enough time and he ask this be approved. Webb, noted she supports the application as the project will be to the community and is a property right and should be approved. Varon, noted his support of the application as the architect h: ,onded to the direction of the City Council and supports the applicant. Beck, noting his letter sent to the Commission, asked about the )osed structure and the horizontal predominant line of development. asked if it technically meets the requirements of predominant line o ical development if you are building a couple of floors below that ever igh it is not visible. This is the first project to go through the refine( i of looking at bluff development standards. en McIntosh, noted her concerns of alterations to significant nat forms, protection of existing habitat, need for a comp nmental Impact Report, and enormity of proposed complex plan. fission inquiry, she presented her written comments. :nt Moore noted his support of the project as this is a welcomed the community. i Vallejo noted her concerns of the Ocean Blvd curb cuts; this proj endorsed by Coast Keepers; the docks are part of this projec rg twenty feet lower than the 50.7 predominant line of develops miffed a request for a full and complete Environmental Impact R a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate with many h fled or not properly evaluated; and, all citizens need to be repres protected. She was unable to present her written comments that jested by Chairman Hawkins. f Bedgey noted his support of the project as the applicant has done was requested of him by the City Council. Page 5 of 12 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas/mn02212008.htm 06/13/2008 ��_ Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 arilyn Beck stated she is not in support of the project as the Coastal se Plan policies are not being adhered to and would be precedents( it was allowed and future deterioration of the bluff will happen when )mes on Carnation seek redevelopment. At Commission inquiry, -esented her written comments. Rasner noted his support of the project for similarly stated re& added that the engineers who have certified this project are arts and have credentials. He noted the views, lowered height visible stories and this project meets the FAR style. Eldridge noted his support of the project adding that car e well and this project will be an improvement to the community ;e Hansen noted she is not in favor of the project as she is conceme the integrity of the bluff and change of character of the neighborhood. irco Gonzalez of Coast Law Group representing the Vallejos referencin< submitted letter noted the procedural issues with CEQA; Mitigatec igative Declaration for the larger project has not been approved nstruction impacts; Coastal Commission letter dated in May 2007 ha: t been answered; and you can't excavate the bluff and protect the bluf the same time. Harp noted the Mitigated Negative Declaration has changed over has been re- circulated. A larger project was analyzed but now a a smaller project. There is nothing wrong with approval of the lated Negative Declaration. hn Martin noted his opposition to the project citing the lack of ivironmental Impact Report (EIR); the project is out of scale and an appropriate; we will see this project graded and we will ask how did this happen; we will all be sorry to see this if you let it go forward. arly Johnson noted it could be more massive and this is a good will be good for the community. blic comment was closed. i Jeannette noted that there were no plant, flora or fauna idenl needed to be protected; this is a four -story building with �ments; and the footprint of the building is almost identical to the is there today. missioner Hillgren asked about the demolition and excavation of face process. and whether the excavation below the PLOED wi rb the bluff face below that line. r. Jeannette answered the excavation along the bluff face will be inimum of three to five feet within the existing bluff mass and would r Page 6 of 12 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02212008.htm 06/13/2008 J Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Page 7 of 12 urb the fluff face below the PLOED. He then explained the uding shoring, testing of the integrity of surroundings. Cole asked about the massing and density, is there a request for Jeannette answered there is more open space provided, the units larger than the homes in the neighborhood, more parking is availal re is no request for a variance; however, there is a modification for :roachment into the side yard that is below grade so they are not visi n the street. There is nothing above height or buildable area or a of variances. nmissioner Eaton asked about the gate operation for guest parking; Jeannette answered it is a keypad operation with a phone that led in a center island even if the gate is moved in closer and discuss widths /lengths. Referencing his packet submittal he noted 1 ;hed elevator companies information. He explained there will be t ators in operation for ingress /egress. nmissioner Toerge asked if the Public Works staff had an opportun lyze the gate, location of the key pad stanchion and driveway as not noted on the plans. Jeannette answered he will have to make that happen. Hawkins asked staff if they had safety concerns with of the keypad? Brine answered yes, he has concern about the reduction of the v the placement of the keypad in the center of a twenty foot aisle. ad they have not seen a plan with this in place. imissioner Toerge, referencing the exhibit, asked about the security garage area allowing guests and tenants to use the parking a out an access barrier. Jeannette answered that had not been brought up in the past but Id be willing to look at that opportunity. ner Toerge noted the improvements made to the garage a and guest parking have improved the parking program for ommissioner McDaniel asked about the procedure for a gate 1 )mmunity. He noted his concern of anyone being able to use the there is no gate. l http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /mn02212008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Lepo answered that there ought to be some sort of signal device. This d be posted as residents only. Brine added that in a typical gate guarded community when we review is we look for sufficient length for storage of vehicles and look for a - around. In a situation such as this a visitor not having the correct >ss code and unable to contact the homeowner would be forced to c out onto Carnation. That does not meet our normal requirements for guarded access. Peotter asked about the park dedication fee. Lepo answered the appraisal was adjusted in July 2007; however, edent has been set that there is credit for existing units and because project reduces the number of units, a park fee will not be required. Campbell noted a condition to be added to address the uncovered cs on the first, second and third floors along Bayside Place that extend the required setback. They are not part of the modification permit ication as they were discovered late and not noticed. We are testing this condition to eliminate them from this project. The added tition would be, "The project shall be revised to eliminate roachments in the required 10 foot 7 inch side yard setback tting Bayside Place." Referencing the exhibit, he pointed out the was suggested and agreed to replace the existing language of Condition 2 with this new language. Jeannette noted he would like the opportunity to work this out and to ?pt a condition to meet Code is something they have to work with. He d the encroachments are minimal and is not pleased to have to rmmissioner Hillgren asked about Condition 13. Mr. Lepo answered this a Coastal Commission requirement and refers to the understanding of property owner that if they build on bluff face that is being eroded they not able to go to Coastal Commission for a permit for abutments or ur concrete, etc. ;inner Peotter inquired about the type of photometric under Condition 10. Campbell answered that the study will have analysis on the amount on the ground and that it not dissipate off the project site. 'nissioner Peotter inquired about curbs referenced in Condition 11. is the Planning Commission reviewing this? Lepo answered this is standard language and where it does not apply Page 8 of 12 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas/mnO2212008.htm 06/13/2008 5 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Page 9 of 12 not be enforced. Campbell answered the review came about at the past discussion Commission. ,nmissioner Toerge noted the Planning Commission review of thes( ns means there is an opportunity for the public review and input. H( led that the Construction, Traffic Management and Parking Plans nee( be reviewed by the Commission particularly since we are using a igated Negative Declaration and not an Environmental Impact Report. noted that Condition 20 talks about water leaving the project site due t( .r- irrigation and asked if it would be appropriate to require satellit( r. Lepo noted this condition is for when an errant sprinkler head goes off, is gives the Code Enforcement personnel extra leverage to force imissioner Eaton noted his support of this project as it is less Aantial. He opined there is a difference between a bluff face and a and in this case where there is rock bluff faces that can be protectec left undisturbed and meets the intent of the revised policies which the ncil adopted to address this situation. Guest parking is at the stree I and is an advantage and the matter of security needs to be worker before the Council meeting. There are a lot of mitigation measure: Pessing construction management and parking management issues. car elevators are unusual for the City but are workable. The project is g to be a landmark and is consistent with the General Plan and th( stal Land Use Plan. Campbell noted the guest parking area on the first level shows ring spaces. There is a lack of a hammerhead on one of those spat :h will make it difficult to use. There is a condition to allow the Tra iineer to further review that parking area. If that is not resolved thi ild be a loss of one parking space. There is a recommendation to sc k the storage areas on the lower level to enhance the maneuvering one garage downstairs. These minor details are typically handled plan check stage. Currently they are over - parked now. Brine noted there is a chance of losing one parking space on nd level due to the maneuverability issue. We can work with itect on this issue. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded ssioner Hillgren per staff recommendation with the modification on 12. He proposed to delete the requirement for Planni ssioner review in Condition 11 and insert Planning Director and approval. A straw vote was taken and a majority approved. Eaton, referring to Condition 102, the Plann http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02212008.htm 06/13/2008 (Q Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 mission would be the approving body and done at one time. taken, majority approved. wing a brief discussion, the change to Condition 102 would read r to issuance of a Demolition Permits the Contractor shall submit < truction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the ping Commission....." Straw vote was taken and majority approved. will be a public hearing and duly noticed. After a brief discussion i approved that this may come back at various times if necessary witt �d language that staff would make the determination. tmmissioner Toerge noted his earlier objections to this proposal were tht edominate line of development; the mass of the project and compatibilifi th adjacent neighboring structures and parking arrangement as it wa: t convenient. An EIR is not required although I don't agree with all th< itements in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, That the view corridor: ve been expanded is a significant change and will be of a huge benefi the community. This project will go to the Council for the final approval. any concerns with regard to parking have been raised; however, the' ve been addressed by the applicant. He recommended disapproval of t to installation unless the keypad, queuing and turn - around opportunities n be worked out favorably with the Traffic Engineer. However, thes< :re not on the prior plan and creates problems. Putting a gate ther< feats the effort of placing all the parking on the ground level. The gues rking is not for beach parking. He added the parking in the storage are< shout tying up one of the elevators is an improvement. The predominan a of existing development was approved by the City Council at 50.7 fee ove mean sea level. What is proposed is an excavation 20 feet belov 50.7 foot PLOED, resulting in a forty-foot cut from the curb face a irnation. If we did not allow any development below that predominan a of development the property would still be cutting twenty feet of the iff away and going subterranean and affording rights that othe >perties have had together with the opportunity to go thirty -three fee Ih above the curb. Referencing page eight of the draft resolution, he led that where it says the lower portion of the bluff will remain in thei isting condition is not accurate. Referencing page eleven, regarding the ilding not extending below 50.7 feet, it does extend below. This is no nsistent with what the Council approved nor with other development or irnation as none of them encroach this far down twenty feet below the sting predominant line of development. On page thirteen there is < itement regarding project not extending below this elevation, and it doe: tend below the line even though its not visible. These statements are se and misleading and should the Commission be inclined to approve project, the Commission should consider revising the language it tse statements. continued referencing Coastal Resource Protection Policy 4.4.' rding the predominant line of development is established not only the visible encroachment into the bluff but all throughout the CLUP about minimizing the alterations to the coastal bluff. To allow tl Page 10 of 12 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02212008.httn 06/13/2008 �� Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Page 11 of 12 development to go twenty feet below the PLOED does not minimize alteration to the bluff. This does not fall under components of approval of the City Council. Regardless of what happens here, this issue will to back to them. The added square footage will be massive and is not compatible with the neighborhood. He then opined on the development of Channel Reef. Land Use component 5.1.9 suggests we want to convey the character in these MFR zones of separate or clusters of living units and avoid the appearance of a singular building volume. This project does not do it as it is a massive singular building volume. Preserving the coastal bluff, visual impact of the community and integrity of the Coastal Land Use Plan is not consistent with this project. He will not be supporting this project. Chairman Hawkins noted the language on page 8 of 34 in the resolution, suggested the term bluff face throughout the items noted. ommissioner Toerge asked what happens if during the construction the lull is broken? He suggested that the Commission decide on the correct erminology. Commissioner Peotter amended his motion to include the term 'face' after bluff on page 8 of 34; on page 11 of 34 and page 13 of 34 add, "...visible ortion of the.... ". The seconded of the motion agreed. Commissioner Peotter noted this is a better project based on the policies and rules governed by the City Council. Commissioner Cole noted his support of the project and stated that the applicant has responded to the direction of the City Council resulting in a smaller project, enhanced views and better parking. It is consistent with he revised Coastal Land Use Policy and has community support. Certain language that has been adopted by the City in the General Plan Update and the CLUP is being used to restrict private property owners from developing reasonable development. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Toerge Abstaind None ECT: Fury Rok and Rol Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO.4 4221 Dolphin Striker Way (PA2005 -087) cation of Use Per 3162 and Use Permit No. 2005 -018. Continued to 03/06/2008 minutes of this portion of the ng were taken by a Couri )grapher and presented for approval when cued. ubstituto Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and-gt ded b ommissioner Cole that the City Attorney will determine whether or http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.usiPInAgendas /mn02212008.htm 06/13/2008 ��