Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2008Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 11 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter and McDaniel — All Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Hawkins noted the 27th Annual Mayor's Dinner held by Speak Up Newport will be on Friday, February 8, 2008 starting at 6:00 p.m. at the Newport None Beach Marriott. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on January 11, 2008. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 29, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Approved McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: Toerge OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of December 6, 2007. ITEM NO. 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Approved McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: None OBJECT: Hoag Health Center (PA2007 -013) ITEM NO.3 PA2007 -0103 500 -540- Superior Avenue he project includes: (1) the conversion of the remaining 232,414 square feet o Approved file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 meral Office and Research & Development floor area of the existing 329,41,e uare feet of floor area to medical office use; and (2) the construction of ar ditional 20,586 square feet of medical office space on -site, for a total of 350,00( )ss square feet of medical office floor area. The total new medical office floor sa requested in the proposed Use Permit amendment is 253,000 square feet. Iditionally, acceptance of a traffic study as conforming to requirements of the affic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). A total of 1,985 parking spaces are provided tc commodate the development, including 427 surface parking spaces and 1,55E aces in two parking structures. Total parking exceeds the minimum on -site irking requirement of 1,750 spaces required by the City's Zoning code. y McKitterick, resident and board member of Hoag Hospital and chairman facilities committee noted health care is an important issue. The mission ig Hospital is to help the community. Hoag Health Center will be a dynar Ry serving both adults and children and, along with Children's Hospital nge County (CHOC), will work together to ensure that there will be access retes care. He went on to note the care staff will provide and through owment funded by donors there will be no need for financing. He added th be an urgent care provided by emergency room staff to serve the commur that additional programs will also be available. McDermott of Government Solutions, representing Hoag Health Center a PowerPoint presentation noting the following: • The General Plan designates this site as 350,000 square feet of medic office; • The City issued a use permit to allow 97,000 square feet of research a development general office to be converted to medical office; • The approval included a new parking structure and demolition of one of t existing buildings; • We are requesting the approval of the remainder of the 350,000 square fc and asking for the certification of the Environmental Impact Report; • There will be three buildings and two parking structures on site; • Parking for medical will exceed the City requirement with a total provided 1,985 spaces; • Mitigation measure requires restriping at the intersection of Super Avenue /17th Street to provide a westbound left turn lane, shared lef /throu lane, through lane, and right turn lane when the tenant improvemel exceed 155,000 square feet of medical office floor area; • As a mitigation measure for the intersection of Newport Boulevard /18" Street - Rochester Street, the applicant shall pay a fair share fee to the City of Costa Mesa through the established fee program provided that the City has established a mechanism to accept a fair share fee, and to provide e southbound through /right turn lane at this intersection when the tenan improvements exceed 285,000 square feet of medical office floor area. There is a statement of overriding considerations included in the documentation meaning that the benefits that Hoag Health Center brings tc the community override the impact that cannot be mitigated, at this point it time; • Mitigation measures for intersection of Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road will guarantee payment of the obligation and requirement of the applicant tc construct the lengthening of the northbound left -turn lane on northbounc Newport Boulevard to provide a sufficient storage length and to address project - related impacts at this intersection per the direction and approval o the Public Works Department; • The applicant shall work in conjunction with the appropriate agency tc Page 2 of 11 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnOl 172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 Page 3 of 11 modify and/or add signage that routes traffic to the 14051SR -55 Freews via either Superior Avenue to 18th Street or eastbound Industrial Way Newport Boulevard; A revised landscaping plan for the planter along Dana Road shall provided; This project is consistent with the General Plan and is allowed with conditional use permit. rson Hawkins asked about adding plant material as a parking lot screen Condition 13. ie Murillo answered there are a number of trees in the planter area and sh hedges will provide a more dense material to help with screening. We to that Condition that General Services approve the plant material. Lepo added that the term shrub is appropriate. issioner Peotter asked about Condition 12. He was answered that this is to future cafe or medically- related retail building and also cover th fiction of the parking structure that has not yet been permitted. It is no to be required for a tenant improvement unless it falls under Condition 13. issioner Toerge suggested including the term 'hedge' in Condition 13 erson Hawkins noted: ion 19, remove '...and in some cases' and replace with '...a 25 — there was discussion on the need for the signage. ition 41- talks about a signal and right -of -way acquisition. The signal -ad as part of the project? >. McDermott noted we were required to bond for the signal at the time of proval of the 97,000 square feet and it was the additional square footage luired the actual installation of the signal. The signal is timed with the imi sed on the square footage. The required signal recognizes the o provements on Superior. rperson Hawkins noted his concern that the roadway costs would be the mobile home park. O'Neil suggested that this Condition requires Hoag Health Center to have that ial. There will be other landowners who will benefit from it, so by removing the ase, ... 'all or'...that would address the Commission's concern. 3irperson Hawkins agreed. )lic comment was opened. pert Petersen, owner of the Harbor Mobile Park property across the street from ; project, noted the proposed widening is a negative to his family business and is concerned with the access issue in both directions with the proposed median �rovements. The plans provided by Overland Pacific Cutler regarding the traffic ial at the north exit of his property, if implemented, my family may be in a Rion to require or convey an access easement to an adjacent private file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\tnn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 He asked to hear about what is proposed to transpire. Commission inquiry, Mr. Peterson noted he was in contact with a represents Overland Pacific and during that conversation they asked for permission to four of his tenants about relocation when we hadn't even discussed right -of- quisition yet. He called the Assistant City Attorney about this matter who is ly contact he has had to this point. comment was closed. sistant City Attorney Aaron Harp noted the process is in the design phase as at the medians will look like. It is important to involve Mr. Peterson in tt >cess and it will move forward from there. There will be plenty of opportuniti discuss that project. McDaniel asked if Mr. Peterson is required to relinquish some property. Harp answered the ultimate width required to widen the roadway will impac property along the frontage for which he would be paid just compensation. process requires the City to give notice, meet with the appraiser; then the City mcil will consider just compensation for that property. There has been nc ision by the City Council to acquire some of his property and an offer has no n been made for any of his property. added that following his discussion with Mr. Petersen, he relayed to Hoag tenants should not be notified until the City went through the process of n appraisal and made him an offer. Hillgren asked about the requirement in Condition 42. Harp answered that there has been discussion with Hoag on this went on to discuss the process for eminent domain procedure. McDermott noted there will be additional widening on Superior needed Hoag and the City. Brine added that the median improvement is a project that came igh the Hoag project. The original plan was to complete rc bilitation to Superior but the widening of Superior and the i ovements were always going to be part of the Hoag project. Hawkins noted that there may be a way that the left turn into property could be preserved. The approval of the environmc does not give Hoag the ability to install the medians that would re: Brine noted the plans for the median, street improvements and signal p currently in design and have not been completed. The property owner !t with staff to review and discuss these plans in terms of access to the ce :way. In order to construct the traffic signal, the right -of -way woulc :ssary for that intersection. Harp added that if the City Council elected not to go forward with t isition of the property then Hoag would be limited to 110,000 square feet cal office. issioner Cole asked if there were letters in opposition to this project. Page 4 of 11 file:HY: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 Murillo stated there have been two calls from citizens requesting clarification of project; there has been no other written communication other than from Mr. Hillgren asked for an explanation of limits noted in Condition 11. Brine noted the limit is to reduce impacts of the shuttle service and the route shuttle was set so it would not go through residential areas. McKitterick added the route is a benefit providing transportation and also :e potential car trips off the road. The condition of 15- minute interval 1 ever, we are not going to run if the van is not full. Murillo noted the route was the issue on the previous use permit and as part amendment request the applicant is asking for 4 times an hour and st :es upon analysis on the additional shuttle trips to reduce personal vehi Tony Petros of LSA Associates added that the analysis was conducted in and noise section. The analysis looked at what was proposed and that tt Ad be a benefit to air quality and traffic and any additional shuttle service w( vide more benefit. iairman Hawkins noted his concern that the trips be limited to 4 times an hour. suggested a change to Condition 11 to reflect this as well as to leave it up tc Planning Director to address Hoag's potential request to increase this numbe the future. oioner Toerge, referring to page 67, noted the term 'reasons' should to 'findings and considerations.' Murillo noted the change would be agreeable. was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissior to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Traffic Stu t to Chapter 15.40 of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and approve lent to Use Permit No. 2006 -010 to allow the conversion of the balance office and R & D space on the site to medical office use with the followi Resolution — clear up language on page 2 to say, with the findings and considerations; • Condition 13, include the word 'hedge'; Condition 11, the restriction of the number of shuttle trips per hour can altered at the discretion of the Planning Director. Condition 19, incorporate the changes as proposed • Condition 41, in the last line the words, 'all or be deleted. mmissioner Peotter noted Conditions 12, 16 and 38 language should dified to indicate, any construction of the additional 20,586 or parking struc instead of any new construction. Page 5 of 11 file : //Y:\Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 maker of the motion accepted this. missioner Peotter: Condition 17 language reflects, 'a permit'. Staff agreed. • Condition 33 remove, 'and grading of the proposed' and insert, c 'of existing structure at the location of parking structure number 2. maker of the motion Eaton, Peott( s: 7--1 ( s: None ant: I None Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2006 -003 1703 W. Balboa Blvd. e applicant requests approval of a Coastal Residential Development RDP) to allow the demolition of a 10 -unit apartment building in the astal Zone. The apartment building is proposed to be replaced by tached single - family homes. The purpose of the CRDP is to ensure coml :h Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) which regulates the den low and moderate income dwelling units in the Coastal Zone. Planner Brandon Nichols gave an overview of the staff report. :r Toerge verified that the proposed new development will be homes. Hawkins noted this is not part of the approval. Nichols answered that the approval request tonight is only for the demolition existing 10 -unit building. Cole asked if there was any history of a small project b by a finding of economically feasible to replace affordable units. Nichols answered none that he was aware of. issioner McDaniel noted his concern of losing the low- income housing. is a need to have replacement of these lost units. Lepo noted similar concerns by staff. Staff is working on a Council policy Dthodology to supplement what is in the Mello Act. Land values in Newp iach being what they are, if we don't do something to provide additioi ection, the loss of low income housing in the coastal zone will continue. Th( an in -lieu fee ordinance that will be coming to Council at some point that to ,out the requirement to provide affordable housing as new units are bei Ided. The Mello Act has caused a lot of unanticipated problems with cities in < uation. When developers come in and gain economic benefit we want to le to provide for preserving affordable housing. This property has been own the same gentleman for some time and he intends to occupy and use one new homes. PA2006 -278 Approved Page 6 of 11 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 McDaniel asked if there was a way to impose a fee. Lepo answered that there is no basis for determining what that fee should n the analysis that says it is infeasible. In terms of substantiating why y Id do that, we have no quantitative analysis and because of the wording of 1 o Act, there is a suggestion that if the City accepts a fee that doesn't provi acement of all the affordable units being lost then the City takes on 1 ionsibility for making up the gap between the fee amount and the cost acing all of the demolished affordable units. Hawkins asked if this could be denied. missioner Peotter noted it would be inappropriate to tell a property owner i not re- develop his site. He opined that the City should be encouraging 1 of re- development of a 40 +year old building where we will now get three n ing buildings with less traffic. There are several benefits the City receives. City Attorney noted there are no findings for a basis of denial. Lepo noted the City recognizes there is a problem and staff is attempting •ess the issue. It is clear that Sacramento needs to amend the Mello Act. Nichols noted other jurisdictions have similar issues with the ideas ibility. The Mello Act says the units have to be replaced. It then goes on they can be exempted from this replacement requirement as noted in the sl irt. An in -lieu fee has not been established by the City as yet. noted there are no speck findings needed for the approval of nmissioner Toerge noted that until the City sets forth an in -lieu fee policy I can enforce an application based upon current rules should be able to comment was opened. s Wood, architect for the project representing the owner of the property the applicant lives in the current unit. It is no longer economically viable tc Sin this property anymore and he wants to develop his property with his owr nce there. With the down - zoning and lack of density we intend to put nice o along the peninsula that will be attractive and a good addition to the unitv with a reduction in traffic. r. Harp clarified that the purpose of the Code Section is to review whether or r e Mello Act should be implemented and the real determination you are maki night is whether or not replacement of affordable units is feasible, or whether rt it is feasible to provide all or part of affordable housing on site or off site. TI why there are no set findings in the Code; it is governed by the actual Me comment was closed. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commission staffs recommendation. McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren None Page 7 of 11 file : //Y:1Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 Page 8 of 11 Absent: None SUBJECT: Sejour revocation (PA2002 -167) ITEM NO. 5 3400 Via Lido PA2002 -167 The Planning Director has determined that there are reasonable grounds for the Approved revocation of Use Permit Nos. 2001 -005 and the Planning Commission is requested to set a hearing date for the revocation of the use permits. Mr. Lepo noted that following complaints and a significant amount of time for investigation and man - hours, I have determined that there are grounds for the revocation of the Use Permit because the Conditions have not been adhered to. The action available to the Commission tonight is simply to determine which date he revocation hearing will be held. No other action or discussion is warranted. The property owner will be requesting that the date be set for the second meeting in March and because the location has been shut down and provided it does no re -open under this Use Permit staff agrees to set the date in March. Public comment was opened. Mrs. Christine Overstreet one of the property owners requests an extension of the hearing to March 20th to allow time to evaluate the viability of re- operating the ame business she operated from 2002 -2005. We since leased the property to enants who were unable to adhere to the terms of the Use Permit and were no aware of the amount of nuisance that was caused to the City until recently. She request that the date be set for March 20th Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Cole o set a revocation hearing for March 20, 2008. I yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None bsent: None ITEM NO. 6 Fury Rok and Rol Sushi Lounge revocation (PA2005 -087) PA2006 -087 4221 Dolphin Striker Way Approved The Planning Director has determined that there are reasonable grounds for the revocation of Use Permit Nos. 3162 and 2005 -018 and the Planning Commission is requested to set a hearing date for the revocation of the use permits. Mr. Lepo noted that, after complaints and investigation, he determined there were rounds to set this for revocation hearing and requests this be set for February 21, 2008. Mr. Harp noted there is a significant difference between the previous item and this ne in the fact the Sejour is now closed and that closure resolves the immediate oncerns as long as that property remains closed, whereas Fury is still open. nother issue is that outside counsel will be advising the Commission on these matters and will be acting as the prosecutor and doing the presentation. Mr. Tod Ridgeway, owner of the building, noted he is appalled by the contents in he report. He asked for a continuation of this matter for 60 days to allow th perators to work with staff to clean up their act. The business operators are in file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutesimn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 ault of their lease and if the City finds these facts to be true they are found in violation. He asked if it is a total closure of the operation or a change of tl :ration. He understands that the Police and staff want to close them down. t happens you are taking away my property right. The current operator has i >ice but to file a lawsuit or TRO and then this thing goes into a lawsuit agair City or where we are tonight in my request for a continuance to allow me ai -on Harp to meet with the attorney and the two operators of the operation. re met with them and told them that everything that was said in the report, th, have to take care of and they will have to become a restaurant first and v re to police the parking lot, have someone clean up every night and provide 1 king which they have yet to pay for. The police have met with the to srators, but they didn't get it and I am here to tell you that if they don't get it thl tainly get into the revocation hearing, as it would be very appropriate. nmissioner Toerge asked what could be accomplished in 60 days that cou be accomplished in 30 days. Ridgeway answered that the operators did not believe they were d iything wrong. They got a security plan in but it was late and they got in s Dd numbers on the cost of food. They need to improve their operation erything that is requested. This operation is in the airport area and what b ace to have this; the complaints are really from the police. In talking to :orney and operators, they believe they have done nothing wrong. The prof this is my property. Dmmissioner Toerge noted he has not heard a reason why. If the operators g today I don't know why they didn't get it in October, but let's assume they get day. What are you going to do between day 30 and day 60 that you can't c atween day 0 and day 30? We are ready to set the revocation 30 days from no s there is a public safety issue. Our Police Department, which is an un -bias( itity, claims it is dangerous due to the fights, public defecating and urinatio ere is a whole list of issues. I am concerned with what is going to happen. Tt st item we heard, the operation is closed. That is the reason why I wa Ireeable to the extended date. This one is entirely different and we have spected police force that has brought forth these safety issues. I am concern( at if we extend it to 60 days and if something happens I would feel responsib hen we have very clear information that the operators should have been awai this in October and now it is in January. Ridgeway noted that the operators have submitted a security plan, h ing for all their people, and have asked about the parking issue and they ha paid it yet. They have done some things. He suggests the continuation t with Aaron and himself to address these issues. He has been called by ott auranteurs about the parking lot issues. At Commission inquiry he noted involved with the operators about two weeks ago and has met with th ney and also with Aaron. He asked that the meeting be held March 20tH Commission inquiry, Mr. Harp stated the options at the revocation hearing 1 to revoke the use permit or modify the terms of Conditions of the use permit rm their use. :hael Cho, attorney representing Fury LLC, asked for a continuation of 60 provide a response to the staff report. He has met with Mr. Harp and bri i additional information. Since the meeting of October 18th the calls for s( J arrests have gone down significantly. The have completed the LEAD tr( ough the ABC as was required. We will continue to work with staff to a npliance with the use permit. Significant strides have been made in' the Page 9 of 11 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 Iles and we have provided invoices from the food vendors they buy from ovided copies of the sales tax report to confirm sales figures. For me to adc response and make determination we need at least 60 days. Ideally he n e 90 days. Commission inquiry, Mr. Cho added that he has been involved with nsing when they originally took over this facility. Toerge asked when Fury opened. Cho answered it opened June 22, 2007. Ron Vallercamp of the Newport Police Department noted the preference is iicate the matter as quickly as possible. We are spending a lot of tin urces and many man -hours at this location and we would like to rectify t tion and get the input from the Planning Commission. He noted he w able on the 21 It of February. blic comment was closed. missioner Cole noted a revocation of a use permit is a serious matter and it is a reasonable request by the property owner as well as the operator t them sufficient time to respond. ition was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Pe set the revocation date to March 20th, which is 60 days from now, for ssioner McDaniel noted he could not support the motion. The Polio ment has stated this is a big issue and I think the only way the operato t the seriousness of the situation is to set a date. They have had tt ility of counsel for a long time and they just now got a hold of him tv ago. Staffs request for February 21 It is the better date. He asked if staff ned about embroiling the City in a big mess as noted by Mr. Ridgeway. Lepo answered not from the Planning staff as the greater amount )ower has already been invested. Harp added that the evidence presented is sufficient to support a revocation. Idn't let the threat of litigation be of concern to you in making your decision. Aitute Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded missioner Toerge to set the revocation hearing on February 21 It. )mmissioner Toerge noted the issue of disrespect and operating in complete )lation of the use permit, a meeting occurred in October and there is n mpelling reason why the applicant and property owner could not get this fgure4 it in 30 days. I want to give them urgency. He noted the revocation hearing is �cessary as quickly as possible due to the issues of public nuisance and safety. is dangerous for us to ignore the Police Department when they say there is o iblic nuisance and safety issue at a facility such as this. Hillgren added we can hear this in thirty days. Peotter noted the property owner has the leverage to Page 10 of 11 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn01172008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/17/2008 Page 11 of 11 hanges in a faster manner and I would rather it be handled between private individuals. Commissioner Eaton asked about the March meeting. Mr. Lepo answered the hearing date was not a burden, it was the recommendation from the Police Department to set this as quickly as possible. After we set them both for the same night, Sejour did close so there was less threat and immediate anger from that facility. ommissioner McDaniel noted staff has recommended this date and thing hanged on one issue and if they should change on this issue then I don't have a problem extending the date. The sooner you set the date, the sooner things will happen. Giving them any longer time will not make a difference in the resolution. This is serious and hopefully the operators will move to take care of this. Ayes: I I Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: Eaton, Peotter and Cole Absent: None x x x ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that at the last Council meeting the 929 Bayside project was approved; re- organization for the Planning Department was approved and there will be in -house promotions; the Residential Care Facilities Ordinance was introduced and will come back for second reading and adoption; and, City Council had a workshop this past Saturday and came up with a list of their priorities for the coming year, which were then noted and discussed. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairman Hawkins noted there was no meeting for the month of January. He added that Mayor Selich has re-appointed him as the Planning Commission representative to this committee for the year. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - Commissioner Eaton reported no meeting. Mr. Lepo noted there will be a meeting on January 30, 2008. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. 9. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. DJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file://Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn01172008.htm 07/15/2008