Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_12-06-2018NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2018 REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Koetting III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Peter Zak (arrived at 5:42 p.m.), Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman (arrived at 4:01 p.m.), Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Kory Kramer ABSENT: Commissioner Curtis Elmore (excused) Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Deputy City Attorney Armeen Komeili, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Tiffany Lippman, Planning Technician Patrick Achis IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher suggested Commissioners share any information they learned from ex parte communications during disclosure of ex parte communications. He expressed concern regarding decisions being made by bodies that do not have the visibility of the Planning Commission or City Council. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2018 Recommended Action: 1. Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2018 meeting as presented. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Ellmore VII. STUDY SESSION ITEM NO.2 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED-USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) Site Location: 1701 Corinthian Way Summary: Development of a mixed-use residential project consisting of 350 residential dwelling units, 7,500 square feet of commercial space and a 0.5 -acre public park. An existing commercial center called MacArthur Square that is located on the 5.7 -acre project site would be demolished. Project implementation requires the approval of the Site Development Review, Lot Line Adjustment and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. 1 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Senior Planner Jaime Murillo reported the project site is located in the Airport Area, with John Wayne Airport to the west and the City of Irvine to the north and east. The Airport Area is predominantly developed with office uses and commercial and industrial uses. The General Plan Update, in 2006, identified the Airport Area as an area for potential redevelopment of underutilized sites for mixed-use residential development. The project site is located within the Newport Place Planned Community, which was developed in the early 1970s for office, retail, and hotel uses. In 2012, the Planned Community was amended to include a residential development overlay that allows the development of residential projects with a component of affordable housing. Projects with 30 percent of the units reserved for low-income households can be developed within the Newport Place Planned Community. The Uptown Newport mixed-use project is the first residential project approved in the Airport Area and is under construction. The project site is currently developed as MacArthur Square Shopping Center and contains three parcels totaling 5.69 acres. MacArthur Square Shopping Center contains 58,277 square feet of retail and commercial uses in eight single -story buildings. The project proposes the shopping center be demolished and replaced with a mixed-use development. The development consists of 350 rental residential units, of which 259 are considered base units and 91 are considered density bonus units; 7,500 square feet of nonresidential development, of which 2,000 square feet will be used for a casual restaurant use and 5,500 square feetfor general commercial and retail uses; and a half -acre public park. The General Plan and the Planned Community limit the density to be trip neutral and cannot exceed a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre. After deducting the half acre for the park, the remaining project site contains 5.19 acres. Multiplying 5.19 acres by 50 units (the maximum density) results in 259 dwelling units. However, because the project contains 78 affordable units, consistent with the residential overlay of the Planned Community, the project is eligible for a density bonus under the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the State Density Bonus Law. The project is eligible for the maximum density bonus, which is 35 percent of the number of base units or 91 bonus units. The residential units will wrap around a central parking structure comprised of six levels and up to 740 parking spaces. The commercial component of the project is located at the intersection of Martingale Way and Corinthian Way. Vehicular access will be through two driveways, one off Martingale Way and one off Scott Drive. The public park will be located on the southern portion of the site. The park will be dedicated to the City and be improved and maintained by the developer. Park amenities include a dog park, a bocce ball court, a pickleball court, a play lawn and playground structure, a fitness terrace, a dining terrace, and seating walls. The Recreation and Senior Services Department has reviewed and supports the plan. Staff will present the park design to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for review and recommendations on February 5, 2019, and return to the Planning Commission in February or March 2019. The residential buildings will have four and five -level facades that screen the central parking structure. For the Planning Commission's future consideration are applications for site development review, lot line adjustment, and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). The Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay is required by the City's Housing Element, provides zoning, and is intended to eliminate development constraints to affordable housing. The standards allow development of up to 50 dwelling units per acre plus any additional units allowed through a density bonus; require a minimum 30 -foot setback from streets and 10 -foot setbacks from interior property lines; establishes a 55 -foot height limit; allows a greater height limit through site development review; requires a higher level of amenities; and ensures neighborhood integration. The mixed-use development site will be divided into two parcels, one for the development and one for emergency access and parking for the public park. The third parcel consisting of 0.5 acre will be the public park. The AHIP will ensure development includes the minimum 30 -percent (78 units) allocation for low-income units. By providing affordable housing, the project is eligible for the 91 unit density bonus and entitled to reduced residential parking ratios, two development incentives, and a development waiver. Using the density bonus standard, the total number of required parking spaces is 474; however, the project proposes 661 parking spaces. The applicant requests only one development incentive to modify an overlay requirement such that the project could have a higher allocation of studio and one -bedroom units. The applicant requests a waiver of the 55 -foot height limit to allow rooftop features consisting of elevator shafts, stair towers, mechanical equipment, the highest level of the parking deck, and a rooftop amenity. PlaceWorks has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, and the DEIR was released for public review on November 30, 2018. Potential significant impacts were identified in the DEIR areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and public services; however, mitigation measures can reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels. The public comment period for the DEIR ends on January 14, 2019. Dan Vittoria of Starboard Realty Partners, the applicant, advised that the prior owner of the site submitted an application to develop a mixed-use project, and the Planning Commission denied the application in 2006. With respect to concerns raised regarding the prior application, the Newport Crossings project will adhere to and exceed setback requirements; comply with the 55 -foot height limit in all livable areas; have approximately 50 -percent more 2of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 retail space than the prior application; dedicate a public park to the City; have approximately 10 percent fewer units than the prior application; and the architecture and design of the project will be compatible with the surrounding development. R.C. Alley, project architect, noted the site has five sides and four street fronts. The greatest visibility of the site is on Corinthian Way. Retail spaces are located along Corinthian Way and are designed to fit a variety of uses. A plaza along Corinthian Way will be a good space for people to gather. Retail parking is located within the parking structure. With a central above -grade parking structure, a resident can park on the floor of the parking structure that corresponds to the floor of his residence. The project will have 30 -foot setbacks along Scott Drive, and ground - floor residential units will have stoops to the street. Along the southern end of Scott Drive, the building will step down and have a notch to vary the building mass. Buildings along Dove Street will step down to four stories. The recreation area of the project opens visually into the park. A vehicular entrance is located on Martingale Way, where most residents and retail users will enter the project. The leasing center will also be located off Martingale Way. The site is surrounded by many different types of projects. No buildings of a traditional style are located in the area of the project; thus, a soft contemporary style will be appropriate for the site. From Corinthian Way and Martingale Way, the focal point will be the retail space. An open walkway from the plaza to parking will separate the retail space into two components. The project will have a pool, a club and exercise facility, and a pet spa. Matt Jackson, project landscape architect, indicated the park will not be fenced or gated and will have exercise areas, a gathering space, a divided dog park, a pickle ball court, a tot lot, a bocce ball court, and seating areas. In response to Commissioner Koetting's and Vice Chair Weigand's questions, Senior Planner Murillo explained that, through the conditions of approval, the developer will enter into an agreement with the City regarding the park. The City will own the park, and the developer will construct the park and improvements, pay for the improvements, and maintain the park. The maintenance period will be indefinite. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that the arrangement will be the same as the arrangement for the Uptown Newportproject. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine indicated staff will monitor parking on Martingale once the project is fully occupied. Parking could be reviewed for time restrictions or parking restrictions. Senior Planner Murillo related that are four parking spaces devoted to park parking, one of which is an ADA space with a loading area. Any parking area is required to have at least one ADA space. The City will have an easement for emergency access and parking for the park. The space for emergency access can be used as flexible park space. Vice Chair Weigand preferred an evaluation of parking occur while the project is under construction. Commissioner Koetting suggested the applicant consider a fence between the park and the office building to the south to prevent park users from parking at the office building. Staff should invite neighboring property owners to the February meeting with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Alley advised that the project will have three floors of residential units above retail space. Generally, the retail spaces will be 19 feet tall. The roof deck will extend above the 55 - foot height limit as shown on page A.2.7 of the project plans. Mr. Vittone reported 2,000 of the 7,500 square feet of retail space will be occupied by a casual restaurant. The remaining retail space will probably be occupied by ancillary services that benefit the residents. He wanted to find a grocer for 3,000-4,000 square feet of the space. Most of the existing landscaping and the berms will remain. The project will have 78 units of low-income housing, and the applicant has requested an incentive to allow a disproportionate share of studio and one -bedroom units. For a two-bedroom, two -bathroom unit containing approximately 1,150 square feet, the applicant can charge rent of $1,080 per month inclusive of a utility allowance. The cost of the 78 units will be approximately $37 million. Given the cost and rental income, the profit will be approximately $4,000 per unit per year. Mr. Murillo explained that households earning up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) for Orange County will be eligible for some units, and households earning up to 60 percent of AMI will be eligible for other units. Units will not be uniquely designated as affordable, and all units in the project will have the same interior finishes and access to amenities. Commissioner Kramer noted his criticisms of the prior application for the site and favored the intelligent design, the wrap structure, the siting of the retail space, and the design of the park in the current application. He supported the project. 3of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Commissioner Koetting liked the setbacks along the streets because proper tree sizes can be planted in the larger space. Vice Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Dorothy Kraus, SPON Vice President, remarked that SPON prefers projects of this scale and scope be considered after the City updates its General Plan and creates a specific plan for the Airport Area. The Newport Crossings team has been open to dialog and willing to apply feasible solutions to issues of mutual interest. SPON will continue to interact with the team to address issues. Linda Tang, Kennedy Commission, urged the Planning Commission to support the project. The project will provide much-needed affordable homes for lower-income households. The development will provide a community benefit and ease housing needs for low-income households. Greg Endsley commented that he worked with many business owners in selecting an office space. A key consideration for business owners is housing for their employees. Businesses will welcome the project because of its location in the area and the supply of housing. Carol Drew expressed concern regarding the children of the project attending Newport Beach schools. The park will have little space for the tot lot and play areas. Jodi Estwick, People for Housing Orange County, encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project as the project complies with requirements. The City of Newport Beach needs more housing units. Rick Roshan expressed concern regarding the number of parking spaces provided by the project as on -street parking is not allowed in the area. Vice Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. In response to comments, Planner Murillo reported any students residing within the project will attend schools in the Santa Ana Unified School District. The City requires 2.5 parking spaces per unit in a multifamily development containing more than four units. Without the density bonus, the project would be required to provide 875 spaces. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the applicant may request a reduced parking ratio, and the City has to grant the request. Under the reduced parking ratios, the applicant is required to provide one parking space per studio or one -bedroom unit and two spaces per two-bedroom unit, which equates to 474 parking spaces for the project. The applicant proposes 661 parking spaces. Vice Chair Weigand concurred with Commissioner Kramer's comments regarding the project. He commended the project team for engaging with community members. Commissioner Koetting advised that he read most of the DEIR and was amazed that the project had few environmental impacts. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.3 E ART GALLERY (PA2018-177) Site Location: 2721 East Coast Highway, Suite 104 Summary: A request for a minor use permit to operate a tattoo studio (Personal Services, Restricted land use) and art gallery with art classes, within an existing commercial tenant space. Proposed hours of operation would be 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it has not potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and, 4of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-032 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2018-014. Principal Planner Gregg Ramirez reported the applicant requests a minor use permit to establish an art studio/gallery with a tattoo component in an existing tenant space of a two-story, multi -tenant commercial building. There is no onsite parking for the site. Because the proposed use has a parking ratio of one parking space per 250 square feet of floor area, the use is allowed without a parking waiver. The property is located in a Commercial Corridor Zoning District and is surrounded by Public Institutions (PI) and R-2 Zoning Districts. The art studio/gallery is permitted by right within the Commercial Corridor Zoning District, but the tattoo component requires approval of a minor use permit. Proposed hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. The use would offer art instruction and classes and tattoos by appointment only with a maximum of two artists. Appointment -only tattoos and the maximum number of 2 tattoo artists are recommended conditions of approval. The multi -tenant commercial building houses fitness studio, office, retail, and other personal services uses. Adjacent properties have retail clothing, personal services, physical therapy, and general office uses. The tenant space is not visible from Coast Highway. In 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that tattoos and tattooing are forms of pure expression and fully protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, a ban on this type of land use is unconstitutional. A city can place some restrictions on the use but cannot ban the use. The California Safe Body Art Act is regulated by the County. The Newport Beach Zoning Code categorizes tattoo as a personal service, restricted and requires the approval of a minor use permit. One consideration in reviewing tattoo uses is other similar uses in the area or the proximity to other uses. The proposed project would be the first tattoo use in the Corona del Mar area. Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, find the project exemptfrom CECA, and approve minor use permit 2018-014. Savannah Gallegos, applicant, proposed the expansion of E Art Gallery to provide body art tattoo services. She has leased the site foreight months and utilized the space for painting, drawing, and conducting small consultations for art. The studio will continue to offer painting classes and to create art commissioned through various media. Business will be conducted privately and by appointment only between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Sunday through Saturday. Only two artists will tattoo at one time, and any walk-in customers will be scheduled for an appointment to come back at a later date. She plans to schedule two art classes per month with five to seven artists and one model. Each class will be scheduled for three hours, and no body art appointments will be scheduled during art classes. One-on-one art classes will be available and will be scheduled for a maximum of two hours. Art shows will be scheduled once or twice a month as invitation -only or RSVP -only viewings. Currently, five tattoo shops are located in Newport Beach. The closest tattoo shops are located 4.5 miles north and almost 5 miles south of the project site, which indicates there is no saturation of tattoo services in Corona del Mar. Her clients are recommended by referral and word of mouth. She has not used social media and foot traffic as tools to increase her clientele, but she has used social media for portfolio purposes. Children under 18 years of age are not permitted in the studio during tattoo appointments unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Drugs and alcohol are prohibited in the studio. She has obtained more than sixty signatures of support and an enormous amount of positive feedback regarding her business. She has spoken with her landlord and businesses in the building and received no complaints regarding noise or loitering. She accepts staffs recommendations. Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications. In response to Commissioners' queries, Ms. Gallegos advised that she is not tattooing in Newport Beach currently but utilizing the project site as an art studio. Regarding the proposed appointment only aspect of the tattoo portion o the business she explained that if a potential customer walks in for a tattoo, she will provide a brief consultation of 5-10 minutes and schedule an appointment at a later time for the tattoo. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell confirmed that tattoos were scheduled by appointment only in the Agape Studio application for a tattoo use. Ms. Gallegos explained that tattoos can be performed with metal equipment, which requires a sanitary station to clean the equipment. She prefers to use plastic equipment that can be placed in the trash. Signage will not advertise tattoos but will list the business name. Mr. Ramirez indicated the Zoning Code allows uses on the site when there is nonconforming parking or no onsite parking as long as the uses have a parking requirement of one parking space per each 250 square feet of floor area. Retail, office, and personal services uses are allowed on the site by right, and the City cannot condition the number of seats, the number of employees, or appointment - only services for those uses. Commissioner Kleiman felt the Planning Commission set a precedent for art studios with a tattoo component to open anywhere in the City. The lack of parking is a pervasive problem in Corona del Mar. Commissioner Kleiman was having difficulty making Findings 3 and 5. 5of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Secretary Lowrey suggested the conditions of approval include a prohibition for minor children being on the premises without a parent or legal guardian when tattoos are being performed. Vice Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Lindsay Leer [phonetic] supported an art studio use but not a tattoo use. The information does not state the frequency that tattoos will be performed. Parking is an issue in Corona del Mar. Children should not be exposed to tattooing. Vice Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kleiman noted Sherman Library and Gardens, which is near the project site, holds many family and children events. She was having difficulty finding the project consistent with surrounding uses. In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the conditions of approval for E Art Gallery are identical to the conditions of approval for Agape Studio. Commissioner Kramer remarked that societal acceptance of tattoos and the environment of a tattoo business have changed. The same issues were discussed with Agape Studio's application. Tattoo businesses are not currently located in Corona del Mar; however, the lack of tattoo businesses does not mean one would not be compatible in the neighborhood. The conditions of approval are strict. Multiple jurisdictions regulate tattoo businesses. The hours of operation are reasonable. He could make the findings for the application. The conditions of approval accurately reflect the discussions with the prior application. The application fits the criteria contained in the Municipal Code and is fair and reasonable with respect to the Planning Commission's prior approval of a similar business in a different location of the City. Commissioner Koetting was struggling with the application as well. The location is wrong for a tattoo business because it could attract the wrong element. Five tattoo businesses are located within 4-5 miles of the project site. The tattoo component appears to be an afterthought. He could not make the findings for compatibility with the area. Motion made by Commissioner Kleiman and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to adopt Resolution No. PC2018- 032 denying Minor Use Permit No. UP2018-014. Vice Chair Weigand commented regarding the absence of two Commissioners. The Planning Commission does not have the ability to make a full decision on the application. The Planning Commission has approved one minor use permit for a tattoo use that was closer to other tattoo establishments than the current project site. The project is the most discrete project he has seen for any location. Substitute Motion by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kramer to continue the item until all Commissioners are present. Commissioner Kleiman stated the precedents being set are approval of all applications for tattoo uses that are similar to the current application and continuance of an item when Commissioners are absent. Commissioner Kramer noted the same argument could be made that personal bias should not enter into a decision. Given the data presented and the parameters for decisions, he could support approval of the application. Vice Chair Weigand supported the application because of the appointment -only nature of the business, the limited operating hours, and the obscurity of the location. There should not be any personal bias in relation to a tattoo establishment. Protections are in place for those who wish to obtain a tattoo. Commissioner Kleiman clarified her objections as being based on the use not being consistent with surrounding uses and on the lack of parking in the area. 6of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Substitute Motion AYES: Weigand, Kramer NOES: Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Ellmore Motion AYES: Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting NOES: Weigand, Kramer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Ellmore The Planning Commission recessed at approximately 5:48 p.m. and reconvened at 6:11 p.m. ITEM NO. 4 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING (PA2015-210) Site Location: 101 Bayview Place Summary: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 8,800 -square -foot restaurant building (Kitayama) and construct a new 120 -bed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (i.e., senior assisted living and memory care). The new facility would be approximately 85,000 square feet with three stories above a subterranean parking garage. The project site is 1.5 acres and is located at the corner of Bayview Place and Bristol Street. In order to implement the project, the applicant requests the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • General Plan Amendment (GPA)—To change the land use designation for the property from General Commercial Office (CO -G) to Private Institutions (PI) and to amend Anomaly No. 22 to replace the existing allowed development limits of 8,000 square feet for restaurant use for 70,000 square feet for office use with 85,000 square feet for a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning)—To change the land use allowances and development standards for Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District to accommodate the proposed RCFE use. • Major Site Development Review—To ensure the site is developed in accordance with the General Plan and applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). • Conditional Use Permit—To allow the operation of a 120 -bed RCFE. • Development Agreement—A development agreement providing development rights in exchange for public benefits. • Environmental Impact Report (EIR)—To identify and mitigate reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from project approval pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-033 and attached exhibits recommending the City Council: a. Certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001; and b. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005, Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, and Development Agreement No. DA2018-006. Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba reported the site is currently developed with the Kitayama restaurant and is located south of the 73 freeway. John Wayne Airport is located northwest of the site, and Fletcher Jones and the Marriott hotel are located southeast of the site. Six -story and three-story office buildings, single -story single-family residences, two-story condominiums, and an eight -story hotel are located around the site. The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial Office (CO -G), and the site is located within Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community Zoning District. The applicant proposes a 120 -bed, approximately 85,000 -square -foot Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) of three stories over subterranean parking. The structure, as proposed, complies with the maximum height limit of the Bayview Planned Community. The applicant proposes 53 parking spaces, which exceeds the 40 parking spaces required by the Zoning Code, a 40 -foot setback to residential property, a 10 -foot setback to Bayview Place, 7of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 and a 15 -foot setback to Bristol Street. The project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from CO -G to PI and to increase the development limit from 70,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet; a Planned Community Amendment to allow the RCFE subject to a use permit; site development review; and a conditional use permit (CUP). The applicant proposes a development agreement to provide public benefits of $1 million as the project is implemented. Within the City of Newport Beach, 181 parcels totaling 171 acres have a CO -G designation. Seventy-seven additional parcels totaling 137 acres have a similar designation. With the amendment, the City would lose less than 1 percent of its CO -G inventory. The application was submitted on November 23, 2015, and the project has been revised several times. Employees, visitors, and residents will primarily access the site through the subterranean parking, which should eliminate concerns about noise. Trash collection will occur via the subterranean parking and the south end of the building. The trash collection area is located near the garages for the adjacent residential development. Dropoff and pick- up will occur at the roundabout. Emergency access will be provided by a gated entrance off Bristol Street. The height limit is 35 feet to the topmost ceiling with an additional 10 feet allowed for mechanical screening. The proposed structured will be 39 feet 6 inches to the topmost roof. Materials for the project include smooth stucco, stainless steel, glass, and stacked stone columns for the perimeter wall. A DEIR was released on August 10, 2018, and the comment period ended September 28, 2018. The DEIR includes mitigation measures for cultural resources, geology and soils, land use and planning, noise, and public services. During the comment period, the City received 82 written and 23 verbal comments, and staff provided responses to each comment. The comments did not raise any issues that required significant changes and/or recirculation of the DEIR. Mitigation measures include a fair -share payment for an ambulance to be located at Fire Station Number 7 and measures to reduce construction noise. Condition of Approval Number 9 requires future review of any changes to the project. Condition of Approval Number 10 restricts delivery and trash pickup to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Condition of Approval Number 11 limits visiting hours to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Condition of Approval Number 12 requires onsite parking and prohibits parking elsewhere. Condition of Approval Numbers 29 and 30 require a photometric survey to ensure outdoor lighting does not provide glare to nearby residences. Condition of Approval Number 37 requires that a Native American monitor be on-site during excavation. Condition of Approval Number 38 requires a construction management plan be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff believes the project will create a quasi -residential project that will integrate well with surrounding uses. The project will serve the City's large aging population. If the Planning Commission approves staffs recommendation, staff will present the project to the Airport Land Use Commission and the City Council. Commissioners Kramer, Kleiman, Koetting, Secretary Lowrey, Vice Chair Weigand, and Chair Zak disclosed in-person and telephone conversations with the applicant's consultant and the applicant. Commissioner Koetting noted his conversation related to the timing of the hearing. Vice Chair Weigand indicated his conversation pertained to the merits of the application. Carol McDermott, applicant representative, advised that 25 percent of Newport Beach residents are over age 65. Existing facilities are few, were built quite some time ago, and do not represent the current standards. An RCFE is a specialized type of State licensing, is regularly inspected for care and safety standards, is a non- medical facility, and provides residents with personal assistance with daily living activities. Residents are over age 60. An RCFE can include assisted living and memory care services, but it does not provide drug rehabilitation services or nursing and medical care. Area 5 of the Bayview PC contains a mix of uses. The Bayview Planned Community was adopted in 1985, amended in 1987 to allow certain improvements in side yards, amended in 1995 to add land uses for bars, theaters, and nightclubs, and amended in 2010 to add land uses for medical office and outpatient surgery. Proposed changes to the Bayview Planned Community affect only Area 5, eliminate permitted uses other than RCFE, increase the setbacks from residential properties, provide a minimum parking requirement, and provide maximum building square footage. All other RCFE developments in the City are zoned PI. The General Plan Amendment will change the anomaly table to restrict the site to RCFE use only. With the maximum number of employees onsite during shift change, the project will provide more parking spaces than needed. The project will provide a significant visual buffer from the adjacent residences through enhancements to the perimeter landscaping. In response to Planning Commission comments, the applicant added 1,000 square feet of landscaping area near the entrance for assisted -living residents only. The applicant will request the Planning Commission consider allowing trash trucks to exit the property through the emergency access gate. The project incorporates features that are consistent with the design standards for Santa Ana Heights. Mature landscaping will fill gaps and screen the project site from the garages and parking area of Santa Ana Heights. The nearest Santa Ana Heights home is located 95 feet from the proposed building. The EIR analyzed 13 elements and determined there are no 8of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 significant impacts. The City's traffic consultant determined that the project will generate 400 fewer daily trips than Kitayama, the existing restaurant use on-site. The two main issues raised during the comment period for the EIR were land use and traffic. The City finds that the project creates no significant environmental effects. The construction phase will be 12-14 months. Construction noise mitigation measures include a 10 -foot noise barrier along the perimeter of the property, an onsite noise disturbance monitor, limits on construction hours and days, and limits on the types and proximity of construction equipment. In response to a question raised during the study session, the State does not have a licensing standard for the amount of usable open space available to residents. The State will evaluate the adequacy of open space stated in a license application. The project proposes 3,700 square feet of open space in the main internal courtyards, 1,200 square feet in the roof deck, and 1,000 square feet around the library patio. The Fire Department retains the right to decide an emergency vehicle route on a case-by-case basis. The emergency access on Bristol can be used as both an entrance and exit to the site. The State requires an emergency evacuation plan as part of licensing, and the applicant will work with the Fire Department and State to obtain it. Emergency vehicles do not normally use sirens in residential areas. An RCFE's license is issued by the Department of Social Services through the State Senior Care Licensing Program. Following the September 13 study session, the applicant worked with staff to draft a development agreement and a $1 million public benefit, to narrow the General Plan Amendment and zoning to RCFE only, to increase the amount of open space, to enhance the architecture, and to enhance landscaping. Ms. McDermott indicated one resident who lives immediately adjacent to the site and who could not be present and could not provide a statement prior to the meeting is not opposed to the project. The applicant agrees to staffs recommended conditions of approval. In answer to questions from the Planning Commission, Ms. McDermott agreed to consider ending visiting hours at 10:00 p.m. Shade in the internal courtyards may extend for a few minutes or a few hours depending on the angle of the sun and the time of year. The internal courtyards will not be shaded all day. The rooftop and library garden are not impacted by shade and shadows. The project will have no impact on neighboring properties. Chair Zak opened the public hearing. Kirk Snyder, 41 Baycrest Court and Bayview Court Homeowners Association (HOA) President, reported the HOA and other HOAs intend to challenge the project in court because a precedent -setting zoning change threatens every community in the City. The vast majority of the community objects to the project because it requires a zoning change that could allow many negative businesses on the site in the future. He explained that according to Mr. Zdeba, the City has never changed a designation to PI for a site located within a Planned Community. Jodi Estwick, Newport Coast and People for Housing, remarked that more care facilities would be good for residents to age in place. Zoning needs to accommodate the aging population. She supported the project. Patti Lampman, 140 Baycrest Court, felt the General Plan should be updated prior to the Planning Commission approving or denying the project. Over the past week, she contacted six memory care facilities in the area, and each one has openings. The need for another facility does not appear to be urgent. She wanted to know the cost for residents of the facility. Vivante is planning an additional 112 assisted living units on a site zoned for the use. If approved, the Vivante project will open in early 2020. Rhonda Watkins, 58 Baycrest, believed the project is wholly incompatible with the neighborhood. The site is a perfect location for an office building. Rezoning the site to PI will result in a daily flood of visitors and congestion in the area. The bulk and size of the project are unacceptable. Dave O'Keefe, 20082 Bayview Avenue, supported the project. Residents of Bayview and Vista will not be able to see the facility and will not drive by it. The community needs this type of facility. Steve Greer, Bayview Terrace, supported the project. The project will be a good business for the community and will provide care for aging residents. The applicant has revised the project in response to community concerns. Mr. Habeeb is a credible, local businessperson and has experience in this type of facility. Tom Dallape, 2532 Vista Drive, supported the project as assisted living and memory care facilities are a necessity. Having facilities in the City will allow residents to care for their relatives. 9of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Patrick Moriarty, 3085 Corte Portofino, related that he and his family have not found a facility of the quality proposed for Harbor Pointe for his aging parents. The quality of the project and its location within walking distance of his home appeal to his family. He supported the project. Robert Attie [phonetic] remarked that assisted living facilities provide activities for residents and allow residents of similar ages to live in the same location. These types of facilities are needed in the community. Patricia Blakeney, Zenith Street, did not oppose assisted living facilities but the location of the proposed project. The site is not designed for an assisted living facility. From the appearance of the project, many people cannot afford to live there. The project will use considerably more water than the existing restaurant. She questioned the location of parking should valet parking be needed. Dave Tax supported the project as a quiet and unobtrusive use of the property. The project will provide much- needed services for the elderly and the community. Alternative uses of the site would provide greater noise and traffic impacts. He supported the project. Mike Smith, Bayview Avenue, inquired regarding potential future designations of the site if the project is approved; consequences to the RCFE if the applicant changes or sells the business; the ability to limit the RCFE to a life of 20 or 50 years; and details of the $1 million payment. Lyle Brakob, 6 Baycrest Court, commented that noise from the airport will be a problem for residents of the facility. The traffic survey probably misrepresents the true numbers. He opposed the project. Jim Mosher suggested the Planning Commission should not approve the form of the changes to the table for Anomaly 22 as the Marriott hotel is not listed in any anomaly. In the greenlight analysis, the staff report does not explain who chooses whether a project will be 8,000 square feet or 70,000 square feet. The project does not count as housing toward the green light limit. He questioned whether the City Council had any involvement in negotiating the development agreement and whether staff identified a General Plan policy with which the project may conflict. The project does not provide sufficient sunny open space for residents. Greg Carroll, 20101 Bayview Avenue, indicated the project will not provide enough sunshine for residents and will shade adjacent properties. The emergency access onto Bristol is an issue because of the traffic on Bristol. The existing restaurant does not generate more than 700 trips daily. The project will generate more trips than reported. Ms. McDermott explained that an RCFE designation will run with the land. Any potential future use will have to conform to all conditions of approval. The traffic volume for a restaurant will change depending on the seasons and any specials the restaurant may offer; therefore, average traffic volume is used for traffic standards. The project is compatible with the City's Housing Element and Traffic Element and does not affect the remaining elements of the General Plan. The proposed open space is consistent and appropriate for residents' needs. A pathway around the building will accommodate a walker, a wheelchair, and an aide. The project will generate very little traffic and will not contribute to peak hour traffic. Chair Zak closed the public hearing. In reply to Commissioners' queries, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported staff used the trip generation rates for a quality restaurant and for an assisted living facility contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual. The 732 trips for Kitayama was based on the square footage of the restaurant. The 312 trips for Harbor Pointe was based on the number of beds proposed for the facility. The rate for Kitayama was based on a quality restaurant, not necessarily Kitayama, because another quality restaurant could go onto the site without discretionary approval. A fast food restaurant generates more trips than a quality restaurant. The Fire Department will determine the best point of access to the property at the time access is needed. Associate Planner Zdeba advised that the project is served by the Irvine Ranch Water District. The Irvine Ranch Water District has indicated it can provide sufficient water to the project based on existing infrastructure. A mitigation measure requires the developer to notify potential residents of noise created by airplanes arriving and departing from John Wayne Airport. The project is located outside the noise contours where residential uses are considered incompatible. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the applicant 10 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 requested a development agreement, and staff negotiated the terms of the development agreement. The City Council was not involved in negotiating the development agreement. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council are part of the process for considering a development agreement. The site, as currently zoned, can accommodate an 8,000 -square -foot restaurant or a 70,000 -square -foot office building. Changing the use to an office building or a fast food restaurant could require a traffic study depending on the amount of traffic the use would generate based on the ITE manual. A change could be subject to a site development review application as well. City Traffic Engineer Brine added that a 70,000 -square -foot office building would generate 682 trips, which is less than the number of trips generated by an 8,000 -square -foot quality restaurant. Based on the reduction in trips generated, a traffic study would not be required. Ms. McDermott explained that the marketing study indicates the demographics of Newport Beach and the surrounding area over the next few years will justify the investment in the property. The marketing study is on file with the application. Associate Planner Zdeba noted the project is evaluated on its merits and is unique to the site. An RCFE is specified in the development table under Anomaly 22. If an applicant proposes changing the RCFE use in the future, the application would be subject to a public hearing and public process. The proposed use would be evaluated with new traffic counts and trip generation rates based on the new land use. In its review, staff did not identify any General Plan policies that conflict with the project. Vice Chair Weigand stated 13.9 million Californians will be age 60 and older by 2050. As the population ages, the demand for assisted living facilities will increase. The project as a whole is important to the City of Newport Beach and worthy of the Planning Commission's support. One of the goals of the Planning Commission should be to improve the quality of life of residents, which the proposed project does. The applicant has done its due diligence and worked with the surrounding community to provide a project that fits the area. The merits and needs of the project have been fulfilled. He supported the project. Commissioner Kramer remarked that over the three years the application has been pending, staff and the Planning Commission have carefully reviewed the project. The applicant has made numerous changes to the original plan. The General Plan allows amendments, and one of the Planning Commission's duties is to review them. The project does not set a precedent. The site will be conditioned as RCFE only, which severely limits any future use on the site. The EIR found no significant impacts. Demand for the use exists in Newport Beach. One of the Planning Commission's roles is to plan for all segments and ages within the City, particularly those in need of the most care. The design of the facility is intelligent and compatible with the larger area. Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Vice Chair Weigand to adopt Resolution No. PC2018- 033 and attached exhibits recommending the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018- 001 and approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005, Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, and Development Agreement No. DA2018-006. Chair Zak commented that the Planning Commission's role is to evaluate zoning standards, consider environmental impacts, and determine whether a project fits the criteria. The proposed project will be less impactful than other uses allowed under the current zoning standards. AYES: Zak, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Ellmore 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. 11 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Community Development Director Jurjis reported the January 3, 2019 meeting will be canceled. The next meeting will be January 17, 2019. Staff will introduce the General Plan Update process to the City Council on January 8 and obtain the Council's feedback. Jim Mosher requested clarification of the General Plan Update meeting scheduled for January 15. Community Development Director Judis indicated the public is invited to the January 15 meeting to learn about the General Plan and Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Staff will present a draft RFP to the City Council on January 8. In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that the City Council typically holds a goal -setting session, and the City Manager is planning that session for January 26 potentially. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None VI. ADJOURNMENT — 7:54 p.m. The agenda for the December 6, 2018, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, November 30, 2018, at 4:05 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, November 30, 2018, at 3:52 p.m. Peter Zak, Chairman Lee Lowrey, Secretary 12 of 12