Attachment D
Planning Commission Minute Excerpts, Dated February 17, 2022
15-425
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
5 of 8
the plans. He further noted that the proposed plan is a compromise after staff evaluated many ways to minimize variances, considered different garage plans , the applicant’s right to remodel the home within the footprint, and possible alternatives to further improve the view beyond the current design proposal. Staff supports the proposed plan.
Commissioner Rosene commented if a larger top floor setback could be utilized, with a maximum driveway slope, it would push the building down slightly while keeping the lower sections in the setback as drawn .
Commission Koetting indicated that by moving the garage towards the ocean, maintaining the height, and lowering the driveway grade, the same viewpoint exists.
Commissioner Rosene remarked that the house is shown completely outside the front setback in the applicant’s Feasibility Study as opposed to a truer representation of it within a setback.
Commissioner Weigand shared a pragmatic opinion, recognized the field expertise involved in this project, past controversial variances, the opportunity for the Beard family to work with the community, potential compromises and appeals, and the role of the Commission, City Council and California Coastal Commission (CCC) in the process.
He further suggested taking a step back , his opposition to impacting the coastal view, the neighbors ’ displeasure with coming up on the encroachment and how it appeals from the LCP standpoint , and a better house that stands up to CCC or an appeal versus just doing the remodel. He questioned if a continuance would help working together with the community.
Commissioner Ellmore clarified the responsibilities of the Planning Commission, his perspective of the lot and applicant’s effort to minimize impacts to the view, and past approved variances and his support of the project based on a special hardship.
Commissioner Koetting clarified the responsibility of the Planning Commission, referenced past properties evaluated by the Planning Commission, and his support for the project.
Chair Lowrey asked staff to display the presentation slide showing the previous variances along Ocean Boulevard, referenced variance Findings, noted that the proposed project replaces like height with like height, includes less volume, and offers a more beautiful building, acknowledged the oddity of the lots making it hard to build, and his support for the project.
Motion made by Chair Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the project per staff’s recommendation.
Substitute motion made by Commissioner Weigand to continue Item 3 and allow residents and the applicant an opportunity seek a compromise design that might prevent an appeal that will go to CCC or the City Council. The substitute motion did not receive a second.
Commissioner Koetting remarked that obstructions to the view are created by the existing planting that should be trimmed to improve views.
AYES: Lowrey, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Rosene, Ellmore, and Koetting NOES: W
eigand
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
ITEM NO. 4 RESIDENCES AT 1300 BRISTOL (PA2021-161)
Site Location: 1300 North Bristol Street
Summary:
The Residences at 1300 Bristol Street Project (“Project”) would result in the construction of 193 apartment units atop a 346- space parking structure. The 1.97- acre project site is within the Residential Overlay of Newport Place Planned Community General Commercial Site 4, and is located at the northeast corner of 15-426
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
6 of 8
North Bristol Street and Spruce Street in the Airport Area. The project inclues 24 units that will be made available to lower-income households. Project consideration also includes the transfer of 77 units from the the Uptown Newport Planned Community. Implementation of the proposed project would require demolition of the existing 33,292-square-foot office building and surface parking. The project requires the approval of a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find that potential environmental impacts have been previously mitigated through the implementation of the policies of the General Plan as evaluated in Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2006 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2006011119), and the City of Newport Beach Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration (collectively, he PEIR); therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an addendum to the previously adopted PEIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the project; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-003 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City Council adoption of Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. ER2022- 001, and approval of Major Site Development Review No. SD2021-003, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2022.001, Traffic Study No. TS2022.001, and Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2022- 001 for Residences at 1300 Bristol Street Project located at 1300 Bristol Street (PA2021-161).
Commissioner Ellmore recused himself from Item No. 4 due to a real property conflict.
Associate Planner Chelsea Crager utilized a presentation to review the project details, vicinity map, Airport Area – Mixed Use Horizontal (MU-H2) land use designation, the breakdown of 193 units, ground level floor plan, resident amenities, required applications, major site development review, the Transfer of Development Rights from the Uptown Newport Planning Community Phase I, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) , Development Standard Waiver requests, Incentive requests by the applicant, traffic study in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), CEQA review, proposed changes to the Conditions of Approval, the project consistency with the General Plan, City’s Zoning, and State Laws, and recommended action and next steps.
In response to Chair Lowrey ’s question, Associate Planner Crager indicated that no additional Project parcel map will be provided to the Planning Commission as the project is apartments not condominiums.
In answer to Commissioner Koetting’s inquiries, Associate Planner Crager indicated that guest parking is not individually identified on the floor plan , rent is adjusted annually by the County of Orange, the project shares the same developer as one of the Uptown Newport Planned Community project s, and 77 transferred units came from potential density at sites in Phase I of the Uptown Newport Planned Community.
In response to Commission Koetting’s questions, Deputy Director Campbell indicated that the Planning Commission will not have an opportunity to review where the 77-unit reduction came from. The units are supplied from Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport Planned Community where the projects are administratively approved.
Commissioner Rosene noted a discrepancy between the parking space minimum in the Conditions of Approval and the proposed number.
Commissioner Klaustermeier disclosed text correspondence with the applicant. Commissioner Weigand and Chair Lowrey disclosed speaking with the applicant . Vice Chair Kleiman, and Commissioners Ellmore, Koetting, and Rosene disclosed no ex-parte communications.
Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing.
Ken Picerne, President and CEO of The Picerne Group, introduced the consultants for the Project and described the Project objective to create a mixed-income plan, combining the high standards of luxury with Affordable Housing.
Amanda Tropiano , Principal of De Novo Planning Group, utilized a presentation to introduce the Project team, Project Sponsor, the commitment of the Picerne Group’ to the City of Newport Beach, Picerne Group’s professional 15-427
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
7 of 8
history and photos of One Uptown Newport , overview of the Project including a vicinity map, existing conditions, and Project context.
Irwin Yau, Principal of TC A Architects, showed a powerpoint presentation to share the site plan, architectural strategy, and design features, clarify 34 guest parking spaces designated by the letter G, resident parking, 346 total parking spaces, more than the 233-parking space requirement. He additionally shared the Project perspective from Bristol Street and Spruce Street, elevations, building sections, and materials.
Matt Jackson, Vice President of MJS Landscape Architecture, utilized a presentation to share the design process, lifestyle imagery, composite landscape plan, ground level, podium level, and roof deck amenities, example amenity imagery from One Uptown Newport, and plant imagery.
Ms. Tropiano utilized a presentation to share letters of support the applicant received from nearby businesses, property owners, and stakeholders, acknowledged the applicant’s work to understand and accommodate the needs and concerns in the community, and summarize community benefits t hat address housing needs, support local business, and respect the community.
In reply to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Mr. Yau clarified that Studio units do not have balconies, One- bedroom units have balconies, and Affordable Housing is offered in Studio, One-bedroom, and Two-bedroom units, the trash collection process, and ground level entry points and agreed to evaluate the doorway size in the Loading Zone and Trash Staging Area before describing the move-in elevator features.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Traffic Engineer Brine clarified the purpose and function of the Spruce Street pull-off area, no parking signage, and no need for a traffic signal at Spruce Street.
In answer to Commissioner Weigand’s question, Mr. Yau indicated that resident parking will be assigned, and the Project is in compliance with electric vehicle parking availability.
Jim Mosher noted the misuse of the word “imagery” and “maximum” as it relates to the building heights on handwritten page 34 fact number 3 and discrepancies with the very Low-Income Housing Density Bonus and Project Relief, Municipal Code, and Development Right Transfer Findings.
Cort Ensign noted setbacks, landscaping accommodations to hide big structures, future developers seeking the same project type, and future plans for Newport Beach.
The applicant agreed to the Conditions of Approval found within the Resolution.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Deputy Director Campbell clarified that the Newport Place Planned Community Affordable Housing requirement is satisfied through the Density Bonus and facts exist to support the Findings for the Transfer of Development Rights and that, although the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance is out of date, the action is compliant with State Density Bonus Law.
I
n reply to Commissioner Rosene ’s inquiries , Associate Planner Crager clarified that the applicant ’s proposal includes more parking spaces than what is required by the Density Bonus per State Law in the Condition s of Approval and Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted that the substantial conformance condition is satisfactory.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Mr. Yau indicated that a 20/30 plaster finish is included in the proposal.
Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Weigand noted the view opposite the Project, listed neighboring amenities within walking distance, and supported the Project.
Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the staff recommendation.
15-428
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
8 of 8
AYES: Lowrey, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Rosene, Weigand, and Koetting NOES: None
RECUSED: Ellmore
ABSENT: None
VIII. S TAFF 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 Director Campbell reported that on February 8, 2022, the City Council approved the Housing Element and it was submitted to the State of California. The Junior Lifeguard Facility will be heard by the California Coastal Commission on March 9th, and the next Planning Commission meeting will be on March 17th. He further indicated that the Newport Crossing project has been plan checked and is awaiting permit issuance and 4400 Von Karman project is pending but is stalled due to an unresolved lawsuit, and, upon resolution, the project is expected to move forward quickly.
ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
lX. ADJOURNMENT – 9:11 p.m.
15-429