Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/2013 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, November 21, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker ABSENT EXCUSED: Kramer and Lawler 11/21/2013 Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner; Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner; Fern Nueno, Associate Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS V. VI. Chair Hillgren invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission to do so at this time. There was no response and Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2013 Chair Hillgren indicated that written comments were submitted by Mr. Jim Mosher with corrections to the subject minutes. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Seeing none, Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (4 — 1 — 2) to approve the minutes of November 7, 2013, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTION: Myers ABSENT: Kramer and Lawler VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 DAVIS LOT MERGER AND SETBACK DETERMINATION (PA2013 -176) Site Location: 6th Street and 524 West Ocean Front Associate Planner Fern Nueno presented a PowerPoint presentation and details of the report addressing location, existing conditions, typical lots in the area, and requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. She noted staff review of the application and demolition of one unit prior to the recordation of the merger, and added that the merger would increase consistency with the Zoning Code for some of the standards including lot area and lot width minimum requirements. She reported that the merged lot would have alley access and that redevelopment of the lot would require vehicle access from the alley. She addressed parking, the curb Page 1 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/21/2013 cut, default setbacks, alternative setback determination requested by the applicant, rear and alley setbacks, views, lot development standards, and recommendations. In response to Vice Chair Tucker's inquiry regarding the setback along the alley, Ms. Nueno reported that the required setback is five (5) feet but is presently nonconforming at zero, and that correspondence was received indicating difficulty in making turns for personal and trash pickup vehicles. A five (5) foot setback would allow for increased maneuverability in the area. She added that the existing bollard mentioned in a correspondence letter is in the alley and that she will work with staff to see if something can be done to move the bollard off public property. In reply to Chair Hillgren's questions regarding setback allowances if the lots were not merged, Ms. Nueno indicated that the front setback would be eight (8) feet, the alley setback would be five (5) feet, and the side setbacks would be three (3) feet. Additionally she addressed staffs recommendation regarding the 10 -foot notch versus a 3 -foot notch and presented photos as examples of impacts to the view and discussed the increased building articulation and open space that would result from the 10 -foot notch. She noted variations in the lots in the area and commented on views from surrounding properties. Chair Hillgren commented on the applicant's request to retain the curb cut and Ms. Nueno stated that it exists. Removing the curb cut would increase available on- street parking and she noted applicable policies of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and the Council Policy Manual requiring the elimination of curb cuts whenever feasible. Chair Hillgren invited the applicant to address the Commission Bill Steele, Attorney for the Applicant, addressed the curb cut elimination and noted it is important to the design and use of the property to retain the curb cut on 6th Street. He added that the proposal is to move it slightly to the north, which would provide one more on- street parking space. The subject property has a lot of frontage on 6th Street and little frontage on the alley so a three (3) or four (4) car garage cannot be built off the alley unless they provide tandem parking, which presents many challenges. He added that there is plenty of square footage on the lot for four (4) covered parking spaces but one access way is needed from the street. Mr. Steele referenced the policies and noted that the Commission has discretion to keep a curb cut and that the policies encourage protecting existing parking spaces as well as gains in parking. He addressed existing parking spaces, stated that the structure that will be demolished has no off - street parking, and that the proposal will provide a net gain to the City of two on- street parking spaces. Eric Moss, Architect, indicated that if the existing two -car garage is moved north into the merged lot, an additional parking space would be gained and another by the demolition of the existing structure. He stated that the proposal increases the feasibility of the project and commented on challenges with tandem parking in alleys. In response to an inquiry from Chair Hillgren regarding the setback determination, he stated preference for the 3 -foot notch. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Sandy Davis, property owner, explained that the proposed modifications are to accommodate visits from her large family. Jim Mosher commented on the resolution and necessary approvals and wondered if the project will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for their determination. Paula Knight, neighbor, voiced support for the proposed project. Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. Ms. Nueno stated that the project will be consistent with the Coastal Act and that a Coastal Development Permit will be required for any new development. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding the curb cut, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported that presently, without a plan being submitted, staff is basing the matter according to Council Policy L -2, which Page 2 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/21/2013 indicates that the curb cut on 6th Street would not be allowed. When a project comes through, a condition would be included for the curb cut to be closed. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that Council Policy L -2 provides a provision that application of the policy is appealable to City Council. Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski noted that the findings must demonstrate how the project meets applicable policies. If the Commission were to allow the curb cut to remain that would need to be reflected and the Planning Commission does not have the discretion to eliminate or allow for curb cuts to be in place. Vice Chair Tucker noted the request before the Commission does not involve a house, but rather only involves a request to approve a lot merger. He added that there are conditions proposed to the lot merger, and suggested approving the lot merger. He added that the applicant could come back to the Planning Commission and seek to modify the conditions to the lot merger, specifically with respect to allowing a curb cut, when the applicant presents a plan for a house so any relief granted from the condition could be tied to an actual plan for a house. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated that the Commission does not have the authority to override Council policies. However, the Commission may, when a plan for a house is presented, recommend a curb cut at a specific location based upon that plan. Discussion followed regarding whether the curb cut can be supported by staff. It was noted that the curb cut can remain until the process continues; until there is a permit to build a home. Motion made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (5 — 2) to adopt a resolution approving Lot Merger No. LM2013 -003 and Staff Approval No. SA2013 -011. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer and Lawler ITEM NO. 3 MIRAMAR DRIVE CODE AMENDMENT (PA2013 -211) Site Location: 2022, 2026, 2032, 2034, 2038, and 2042 Miramar Drive Senior Planner Jaime Murillo presented a PowerPoint presentation and details of the report addressing the proposed code amendment, an overview of the purpose and intent of the alley setbacks requirement for alleys, existing encroachments and recommendations. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission regarding this matter, Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. Motion made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Vice Chair Tucker and carried (5 — 2) to adopt a resolution approving Code Amendment No. CA2013 -006. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer and Lawler ITEM NO. 4 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE UPDATE (PA2012 -057) Site Location: Citywide Principal Planner Jim Campbell presented details of the report, prior study sessions, public input, additional edits suggested by staff and Commissioner Tucker; and supplemental correspondence received from AT &T Page 3 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/21/2013 and Mr. Paul O'Boyle on behalf of Crown Castle. He reported minor changes to the resolution and offered to respond to questions from the Commission. Vice Chair Tucker commented on legal, non - conforming facilities and Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reported that the intent of the language is to recognize that there will be legal, non - conforming structures, which do not have to comply with that part of the ordinance. To the extent that there are future amendments to the Municipal Code changing how the City imposes requirements on legal non - conforming structures, those ordinances would apply. Discussion followed regarding protecting public views. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that potential impacts to public views listed in the General Plan, as well as others not listed in the General Plan, would be evaluated in the process, if the latter are raised as concerns within the application. Principal Planner Campbell explained the intent of the language and suggested minor changes regarding legal, non - conforming facilities, and evaluating potential impacts to views. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. John Heffernan, Director of External Affairs at AT &T, referenced the letter submitted by the company and expressed concerns regarding the restrictiveness of the ordinance. He stated that the City would be better served if it struck a balance between aesthetic concerns and the wireless needs /demands of its residents, businesses and visitors. He requested additional modifications to the ordinance before it goes to that City Council. Mr. Heffernan stated that in its current draft, it seems that the ordinance would continue to impede the ability of carriers to provide wireless service and may be in violation of Federal Law. He addressed specific problem areas within the ordinance including the blanket prohibition of wireless telecommunication facilities in certain residential areas. He added that rather than a list of prohibited areas, they would like to see a list of all areas sorted by priority and order of preference. Additionally, he expressed concern with the lack of flexibility of the ordinance in terms of aesthetics and preventing AT &T from using the latest technologies because of the restrictions. He asked that the Planning Commission continue the matter to allow for additional fine - tuning of the ordinance. Vice Chair Tucker commented on the AT &T letter and stated that the only prohibition is to install wireless facilities on a house. He stated that the letter is not specific in terms of identifying a certain location, but is general, in concept. Mr. Heffernan commented on "personal" facilities installed by customers on their homes to boost the network and commented on capacity issues versus coverage. The amount of traffic on the network in specific spots may require additional facilities. Discussion followed regarding the need to follow Federal Law and ensuring that residents' needs are met. Paul O'Boyle commented on the current draft of the ordinance and addressed challenges with some of the changes made. He suggested adding a small -cell exemption, more permissive colocation standards facilitating administrative review, and including economic /financial considerations to the definition of feasible. He noted his agreement to include facilities in the public rights -of -way in the list of preferred locations; however, he indicated that they should be exempted from hearings. He indicated a need to establish appropriate design standards, dimensions and volumes for small cell facilities, a desire to clarify that setbacks do not apply within the right of way, overly burdensome screening standards, existing features and use of substantial conformance review for changes, need to provide standards for support equipment and the elimination of the requirement for Radio Frequency (RF) compliance reports. Dean Brown, California Wireless Association, stated support for the comments submitted by AT &T and Mr. O'Boyle and agreed with the changes that were previously discussed and with the changes recommended by the Assistant City Attorney. He commented on the importance of keeping in mind how wireless telecommunications has changed lives and supported economic growth, personal safety and security. He commented on wireless service being another utility upon which people rely and on the ever - changing technology and demands for increased capacity. Page 4 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/21/2013 Sonal Thakur, Core Development Services on behalf of Verizon Wireless, addressed specific areas needing to be changed, including the requirement for submitting yearly RF compliance reports. She added that the reports are costly and asked that they not be required unless there is a specific need. Additionally, she asked that the City look at the possibility of adding small -cell technology as exempt or going through an administrative review process and addressed wireless facilities in the rights -of -way. Jim Mosher noted that the industry is well- represented at the meeting but that the public is not. He felt that the ordinance needs additional review and commented on its purpose. Dan Wampole reported on the review of an application in Newport Coast by a provider interested in installing a wireless tower and commended the Planning Commission for its work on the ordinance and its attempts at protecting the City. He commented on the new micro -cell technology and suggested that is where the City needs to go. Chair Hillgren reviewed the letters submitted by AT &T and Mr. O'Boyle. Regarding a request to include small -cell exemptions, Mr. Campbell expressed concerns that doing so would create a preference for one type of technology over another. Discussion followed regarding the need to treat all of the providers consistently and the possibility of reviewing small - cells, administratively. Regarding including specific dimensions, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill expressed concerns that dimensions that may be acceptable at this time may not be in the future. She added that staff reviews applications in terms of where the facility is proposed and how it looks. There is a process by which the facilities are designed and through that process, the scope of review is defined. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. O'Boyle discussed his definition of "small cell" facilities. Chair Hillgren stated that he would support staff's recommendation regarding this matter. Regarding collocation, Mr. Campbell reported that the definition addresses telecommunications facilities and does not exclude other facilities. Discussion followed regarding challenges of including economic or financial feasibility in the ordinance relative to screening, service issues, improvements in public rights -of -way or streets and prioritization of the types of facilities. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that she disagrees with the suggestion to include financial considerations in the term feasible and she disagrees with the statement that the ordinance does not encourage use of the right -of -way noting that it is included as a facility class and felt that the provision can remain, unchanged. Regarding setback requirements, Mr. Campbell stated that staff does not believe the matter needs changing. He noted that no setbacks are required in the rights -of -way. Discussion followed regarding screening of installations, as much as practical, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reported that the suggested changes were not necessary. Ensuing discussion pertained to adding "pole" to the list, recognizing existing poles as being viable for installation of new facilities, "consistent" versus "substantial conformance" relative to size and shape of facilities and support equipment and the ability to have some above ground facilities in the public right of way, the possibility of considering larger poles, allowing for additional flexibility and requiring RF compliance reports at the discretion of the Community Development Director. A request was suggested to modify the purpose of the ordinance to recognize the importance of wireless communications and it was decided that no changes were necessary. Page 5 of 7 VIII NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/21/2013 Discussion followed regarding ensuring that the telecommunications operations meet the City safety regulations, compliance with the Middle -class Tax Relief Jobs Creation Act and the definitions of base stations and wireless towers. After discussion, no changes to the draft ordinance were directed. Chair Hillgren closed the public comments period. Discussion followed regarding needing to see the final draft of the ordinance prior to final approval and consideration by Council. Mr. Campbell stated that he will have the changes made to the ordinance as soon possible even as early as tomorrow afternoon. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (5 — 2) to continue the matter to December 19, 2013, to allow for the review of the final draft of the ordinance. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer and Lawler STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the City Council approved the Lido Villas project and took action regarding Woody's Wharf. Additionally, at an upcoming meeting, the City Council will take action on revoking the inclusionary housing program in the Housing Element as well as consider fire rings. She reported that staff recommends cancelling the Planning Commission meeting of December 5, 2013. Committee Updates: 1. Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee Ms. Wisneski provided an update on the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee noting that it met in November and is focusing on policies. The Committee also held an EIR scoping meeting. 2. General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee She reported that the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee will meet next Wednesday, November 27, 2013, and addressed issues upon which the Committee will focus. Additionally, she reported that the Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 2013, will start at 3:00 p.m. Brief discussion followed regarding the recent California Coastal Commission meeting. ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Page 6 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES IX. ADJOURNMENT 11/21/2013 There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on November 15, 2013, at 9:55 a.m., in the binder and on the City Hall Electronic Bulletin Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive. Page 7 of 7