Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_02-23-2017 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS— 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2017 REGULAR MEETING—6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Weigand III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Vice Chair Peter Koetting (arrived at 6:35), Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Commissioner Raymond Lawler Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Deputy City Attorney Andrew Maiorano; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine;Associate Planner Makana Nova;Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba; Harbor Commission Chair Paul Blank; Harbor Resources Manager Chris Miller; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; Administrative Support Technician Patricia Bynum IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher remarked that Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners were paid $200 per meeting while Newport Beach Planning Commissioners were paid $60 per meeting. Compensation was not paid for Commissioners' service but to defray expenses. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve the minutes of February 9, 2017 with revisions provided by Commissioner Hillgren and Mr. Mosher. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Zak ABSENT: Kramer, Lawler VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 REVOCATION OF NONOPERATIONAL PERMITS (PA2016-102) Site Location: 3408 Via Oporto, Suites 102 and 103 Associate Planner Nova reported a conditional use permit was issued for Lido Bottle Works in Lido Marina Village on September 1, 2016. The purpose of this item was to clean up the nonactive use permits and outdoor dining permits for the restaurant location at 3408 Via Oporto. Vice Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher referred to Section 3 of the findings in that the permits could be revoked by the original review authority. One of the permits was listed as a Planning Director's use permit, and he assumed the Planning Director issued it. He questioned whether the Planning Director was the appropriate person to revoke that permit. 1 of 6 Vice Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Associate Planner Nova explained that the Planning Commission was the highest review authority for the series of applications. Staff typically grouped applications together and submitted them to the highest review authority, as was done in this case. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Secretary Zak to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15321 (Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies) of the CEQA Guidelines and adopt Resolution No. 2049 revoking Use Permit No. UP1849 and its subsequent amendment, Outdoor Dining Permit No. OD005, Use Permit No. UP1906, Planning Director's Use Permit No. PDUP18, and Outdoor Dining Permit No. OD45. AYES: Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kramer, Lawler VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 3 HARBOR COMMISSION REPORT Site Location: Newport Harbor Harbor Commission Chairman Paul Blank advised that he was present to request the Planning Commission be mindful of important marine-related businesses, services, and activities when making planning, zoning, and development decisions. The main responsibility of the Harbor Commission was to ensure the long-term welfare of Newport Harbor. One of the Harbor Commission's objectives was to collaborate with the Chamber of Commerce's Marine Committee to identify important businesses in the Harbor. A Harbor Commission subcommittee and the Marine Committee conducted outreach and identified critical waterfront businesses and services, elements of a successful harbor, and businesses and services that could be appropriate for Mariners' Mile. Critical waterfront businesses and services include public launch ramps, commercial fishing loading and unloading opportunities, hazardous waste and waste response teams, charter vessel industries,fuel docks, and shipyards, and boat repair. Underserved businesses and activities were hazardous waste and waste response teams, shipyards, mooring services, and dredging. An underserved element of the Harbor was a commercial wharf or loading area. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Blank explained commercial fishing loading and unloading businesses provide services to amateur anglers who do not have vessels. Currently, one small shipyard and a Duffy facility were located in Mariners' Mile. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiries, Mr. Blank indicated the Harbor Commission prioritized underserved businesses and activities. Otherwise,the Harbor Commission did not prioritize them. San Francisco would likely be a good example of a shipyard located in a high-intensity, mixed-use environment. In Newport Harbor,the area adjacent to Woodys Wharf and the Lido Shipyard were the best examples of shipyards coexisting with residential uses or other commercial uses. Specifically, Bayside Marina and Basin Marine and generally any commercial property were areas along the waterfront that might be developed. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Mr. Blank remarked that a 2012 study of public docks identified five locations for new public docks. The number one location for a new dock was at the end of Central Avenue. Construction of a new public dock at this location would begin in 2017. The second location was at the Balboa Marina,where the Coastal Commission had approved a permit for a public dock. The number three location was at the western end of Lido Isle Bridge. Number four and number five locations were respectively Lower Castaways and in the vicinity of Mariners' Mile. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Blank indicated sailmakers, canvas, and upholstery makers were appropriate businesses that are already adequately served in Mariners' Mile. 2 of 6 ITEM NO. 4 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING (PA2015-210) Site Location: 101 Bayview Place Associate Planner Zdeba reported the intent of the item was to determine information that could help the Planning Commission make a decision in a public hearing. The 1.5-acre site was located at 101 Bayview Place,where the existing restaurant would be demolished. The proposed facility was approximately 90,000 square feet in gross floor area plus a subterranean parking structure containing 60 parking spaces. The four-story building would step up from the residential area. A General Plan amendment would change the land use category from General Commercial Office to Private Institutions. The applicant proposed increasing the allowed development limit from 70,000 square feet to 109,000 square feet, which was below the threshold for a Greenlight vote. A planned community development plan amendment would revise the Bayview Planned Community to allow a private institution use and increase the height limit beyond 35 feet. A site development review is required to ensure the building complies with regulations. A conditional use permit would allow operation of the proposed facility. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was being prepared and could be released in late spring. Residents attended an August 15, 2016, scoping meeting and voiced concerns regarding the bulk and scale of the building and the use itself. The applicant had revised the project based on staff and public input. The latest submittal showed a lower height; however, staff continued to be concerned with the bulk and scale of the building. A public hearing on the proposed project could be scheduled in the fall of 2017. Associate Planner Zdeba deferred Commissioner Dunlap's question regarding the provision of skilled nursing services to the applicant. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's questions,Associate Planner Zdeba explained that a General Plan amendment to increase the development limit of more than 40,000 square feet would require a Greenlight vote. In this case, the anomaly allowed 70,000 square feet of office or 8,000 square feet of restaurant use and the proposal would not surpass 110,000 square feet. Therefore, a Greenlight vote would not be required. In response to Secretary Zak's questions, Associate Planner Zdeba did not know offhand the number of senior living units currently in the City. At least two facilities in the City were considered senior living. The need for this type of housing had not been considered, but staff would assess the need as part of the planning process. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Associate Planner Zdeba indicated the Code had no separate requirement for guest parking spaces associated with this use. Generally,the parking requirement was one space per three beds. Based on the bed count, the proposed facility would exceed the required number of parking spaces. Generally, residents of this type of facility did not drive and did not leave the site. The parking spaces were primarily for guests and employees. Staff approximated a height of 55 feet based on scaling the plans. The plans stated only 44 feet to the top of the roof. Joshua Smith, Douglas Pancake Architects for the applicant, reported the applicant planned to build a new four- story building over a subterranean parking basement. The applicant had reduced the bed count by 12, the care- unit count by 20,and the overall building height by 11 feet from the previous proposal. He did not expect the facility would offer skilled nursing services, short-term care, or medical care. He shared the history and experience of CenterPointe Senior Living and Douglas Pancake Architects. The building would be slightly less than 90,000 square feet. The Zoning Code required 42 parking spaces; the project would provide 60 spaces with no surface parking. He expected 12-15 staff members for the 6 a.m.shift, 10-12 staff members for the 2 p.m.shift, and 8 staff members for the 10 p.m. shift. He anticipated daily visitors of 20-30 and daily services and deliveries of approximately 10. The applicant believed the parking demand would be about 55 stalls. He clarified that very few residents may own cars but would not drive. The fitness room, theater, and staff breakroom were located in the basement. The first floor contained a lobby, a small living room,and core amenities. Living units would be studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Assisted living with small support spaces would be located on the second floor; memory care and an outdoor deck on the third floor; and more assisted living units on the fourth floor. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Smith clarified the building shown with red tile is intended to be representative of the condominium garage behind the property. Mr. Smith advised that he attempted to reduce the massing and push the building closer to Bristol Street and pushed the building down by one full story. The alternative use design demonstrated what is allowed by the Zoning Code and the current General Plan entitlement. 3 of 6 In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Smith indicated he used a maximum height of 35 feet for the alternative office building use. Mr. Smith reported the alternative use design was a 70,000-square-foot office building with a height of 35 feet, parking of 280 spaces, and trip generation of approximately 840. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Mr. Smith indicated the use of the facility would be the same as Vivante in Costa Mesa,which offered congregate care. The courtyard would be approximately 3,500 square feet. Commissioner Dunlap remarked that assisted living by definition included slightly more nursing care than congregate care. He noted the height of the building on a day like December 21 would not allow sunlight into the courtyard. In addition,the size of the courtyard was not large enough for outdoor activities. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry, Mr. Smith explained that lighting for memory care on the third floor and assisted living on the fourth floor would be the same. Memory care would be more secure to prevent elopement. Commissioner Hillgren concurred with Commissioner Dunlap's comments relating to recreation space. In response to his questions, Mr. Smith advised that Ralston Creek in Colorado was an operating example of the proposed facility. Mr. Smith was unsure who would be operating the proposed facility, but assumed Milestone Senior Care would operate the facility based on an existing relationship with that operator. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Smith stated individual units would not contain kitchens. All food would be prepared in one kitchen and served in a communal dining area. The formula of one parking space per three beds included parking for both staff and guests. Residents would not be driving. If residents were able to drive, they should be living in an independent living facility rather than an assisted living facility. The property did not have access to Bristol Street. The emergency driveway would allow fire apparatus to pull onto Bristol Street. The existing curb cut onto Bayview Place would remain. The building height to the crown of the roof could be 55 feet as staff had scaled. The location was prime for this type of facility in that it was close to services and amenities. A feasibility study indicated a need for senior housing in the area. Residents could take day trips from the facility. Paul Habeeb, applicant, reported the proposed facility would meet approximately 60 percent of the need for senior living units in the city. He added that Milestone would likely be the operator of the facility. Diane Krieger commented that traffic in the area was already horrendous. Offices in the area were not occupied 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The proposed facility would require emergency services and should be closer to a hospital. She indicated the proposed facility would destroy the nature preserve of Back Bay. Underground parking would change the entire groundwater system negatively. Patricia Blakeney advised that residents were promised that buildings in the area would not exceed two stories in height. 95 percent of Back Bay residents to whom she had spoken did not want the proposed project. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Ms. Blakeney indicated residents were fine with the Marriott Hotel, which was not part of the residential area. Jim Furuyama stated the residential, office, hotel, and retail uses were vital and integral to the Bayview Master Plan and each complemented the other. He objected to the proposed zone change because it would permanently alter the composition, vitality, and appeal of the community and foreclose the possibility of another restaurant locating on the site. The proposed facility was not an acceptable alternative. Rhonda Watkins expressed concern about the facility's failure to provide sufficient space for exercise, reminiscing and nature and the failure to allow pets. Noise and light at all hours would be problem. The facility would need significantly more parking than calculated. Patti Lampman did not believe there was a precedent for changing the zoning from commercial to institutional in Newport Beach. She questioned whether a mental institution could be placed at the site. Speeding traffic was a safety issue for senior residents. The developer had built only one other facility of this type. Jim Mosher understood the units would not be counted under the Greenlight provision for adding dwelling units every ten years because they did not have kitchens and are not considered residential dwelling units. However, 4 of 6 he questioned where the residents would be dwelling if not in the units. With respect to building size and mass, he encouraged the Planning Commission to take a longer view of what the area should look like. He preferred the trees shown in the alternative use design; although, the building was extremely ugly. Steve Land agreed with prior comments. The proposed building would block sunlight for all residents on that side of the Bayview community. Traffic was extremely busy and fast in the area. This facility would be nothing like the Vivante facility. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Land indicated office buildings in the area did not dominate the community. The only drawback to the offices was a corporate shuttle. Greg Carroll questioned whether the information included trips generated by hospice care. Rod Thoreau [phonetic]did not believe the amount of land was sufficient for the size of the building. Dale Ransom noted the architect did not provide sections through the facility to demonstrate the relationship between the building and adjacent residences. A General Plan amendment seemed ridiculous with respect to the amount of work taken to update the General Plan recently. Norma Yacoub felt noise and smoking from residents would be a problem. Speeding traffic would be a concern for elderly residents. The area was not appropriate for this type of facility. Lyle Brakob opposed the project. He questioned whether the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)would include a comprehensive traffic study. Deputy Director Wisneski reminded Commissioners to indicate topics they wanted to learn about in a public hearing. The EIR would disclose additional information regarding environmental impact, including traffic. Commissioners had expressed interest in surrounding need, clarification of parking, and operation of the facility. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Deputy Director Wisneski referred to a map of the Bayview Planned Community. Vice Chair Koetting indicated additional topics were open space, active area, cross-sections of the building, and traffic. Commissioner Hillgren added massing, bulk, height, the operator or operation, benign or active use, and residents' interaction with traffic. Secretary Zak requested staff provide the zoning history for the site. In response to Secretary Zak's questions,Associate Planner Zdeba advised that the height limit was 35 feet rather than number of stories. The Planning Commission's review would be based on the proposed use. For an office use, the Planning Commission would conduct a site development review and possibly review a traffic study. Secretary Zak noted emergency parking was not designated in the site plan. Commissioner Weigand requested the architect provide views from residential properties at a future hearing. Vice Chair Koetting felt a story pole would be inappropriate at the current time as the restaurant was still in business. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Director Wisneski noted the February 28 Council agenda included the Santa Ana Cottage appeal and Museum House project. Staff had provided a schedule of Planning Commission meetings for several months. Vice Chair Koetting remarked that few hefty items were on the schedule. 5of6 ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION,OR REPORT Vice Chair Koetting reported he was being asked about the lighted white signs on San Joaquin for the Irvine Company apartments. He requested staff review the sign program with the Planning Commission. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None. X. ADJOURNMENT—8:04 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, February 17, 2017, at 10:38 a.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 Friday, February 17, 2017, at 11:09 a.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary 6 of`6 Planning Commission - March 9, 2017 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of February 23, 2017 Mar. 9, 2017, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2017 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in R*•i4�-.kpo t underline format. Page 3, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 4 from end of it: "He clarified that very a few residents may own cars but would not drive." [The Feb. 23, 2017, minutes are generally excellent, but this sentence regarding the CenterPointe Senior Living proposal presentation seems grammatically challenged. From the video (at around 38:00), the applicant's presenter said roughly"Three or four residents might own cars. But these are people that need assistance with daily living... These aren't the kind of people who are going to get in their car and drive anywhere."] Page 5, paragraph 4 before Item IX, last sentence: "Secretary Zak requested staff provide the zoning history for the site." [I don't know for sure, but I've heard that before being developed, what is now the Bayview Planned Community (PC-32) was in its entirety land owned by the school district and reserved as the site for a future public high school. In its present form it seems to me it is one of the few"planned communities" in Newport Beach that truly attempted to integrate and balance a wide variety of land uses within its boundaries, rather than being a "planned community" in name only.]