Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/2006Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 16 http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner Cole arrived at 7:15 .m.. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Kent Moore, resident, referencing letters he had sent to the Planning Department, noted his concern of illegal building particularly in the Corona del Mar area . He asked if the City could establish a procedure of random building and code inspections of newly constructed home with comparisons to the submitted plans, and a sanction of offenders who have proceeded construction without the necessary permits. He also suggested that the issue of conflict o interest needs to be addressed in dealing with these matters. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 3, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned meeting of December 6, 2005. Minutes Approved SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 19, 2006. ITEM NO.2 Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the Consent Calendar as corrected. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 2 of 16 HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: The Natural Solution Directcare (PA2005 -287) ITEM NO.3 359 San Miguel Drive, Suite107 PA2005 -287 An appeal of the approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No.2005 -053, submitted by The Denied Natural Solution Directcare, to allow the introduction of an independent massage facility in conjunction with an acupressure /acupuncture and wellness center. The facility is located within an existing multi - tenant commercial building. No new construction is proposed with this application and the massage use will be provided within one of the three treatment rooms. Also included in the application is a waiver of the location requirements that limit the distance between such independent massage establishments to a minimum of 500 feet. Brandon Nichols, staff planner, gave an overview of the staff report. The appellant's grounds o appeal are based upon potential economic competition created by another massage use in close proximity. It is staffs opinion that neither the Zoning Ordinance nor the Massage Chapter contain language requiring or permitting denial of the use permit on economic grounds and therefore recommends that the appeal be denied. Appellant failed to appeal. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's approva l of Use Permit 2005 -053. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None SUBJECT: CalTrans West (PA2006 -016) ITEM NO.4 4850 West Coast Highway PA2006 -016 Amend the current General Plan land use designation of the site from Single Family Attached Recommended (SFA) residential to Recreational & Environmental Open Space (REDS). For consistency with for approval he proposed General Plan Amendment, a Code Amendment is required to repeal the Planned Community text and change the zoning designation of the site to Open Space- Active (OS -A), and a Local Coastal Plan Amendment is required to change the coastal land use designation from Medium Density Residential (RM -B) to Open Space (OS). Ms. Temple noted the City is currently pursuing acquisition of this site from the State o alifornia Department of Transportation. This site is referred to, within the community, as unset Ridge. The existing Land Use Element calls out for the City to acquire the site to be made into an active recreation as well as a view park. The Recreation and Open Space Element also refers to the preferred use as a park. State legislation authorizes the Departmen f Transportation to transfer or sell the property to the City based upon an appraisal of the riginal value at the time the State acquired it, which was several decades ago. One of the teps necessary is that the California Transportation Commission needs to authorize the sal through declaring the properties as surplus right -of -way. Some members of the Transportation Commission view this transfer with question and are concerned that after acquisition by the City, the City might decide to turn the site over to a private developer. In response to that concern, staff has suggested to change the General Plan and Zoning to eliminate possible residential development on this site. This item is coming forward now because there are timing issues involved and will appear on the next Council meeting if this is recommended tonight. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO2- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noting several letters received, stated that parl velopment and design criteria will be discussed at the appropriate public hearings. The Cit partments who will handle this process will have community outreach on the actual design dew and costing of the design. The City Council will then decide what components they wan proceed with, the project will then go through a full environmental review, then the project wil to final design and bid for construction. The Planning Commission has no authorip carding design or any other components. Toerge noted that the Planning Commission is not the body that will make i for the components of the park, treatment, lighting concerns, etc. We to the City Council that they do continue the acquisition of this property and open space development. Public concern should be addressed to the Tucker asked about the discretionary approval process. Temple answered the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission will mmendations to the City Council for their review. The Council decision is not mil they are governed by the Council Policy. imissioner Hawkins noted the resolution omits reference to the City's acquisition an mmended that staff insert a paragraph concerning the City's acquisition of the site. )wing a brief discussion it was determined and agreed to add verbiage regarding legislatioi the issue of land owners notification consent, etc. as a finding. irperson Toerge noted that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction on this matter at r than to recommend it to the City Council. comment was opened. lard Bergstrom, resident, asked if this amendment goes through and a park )mmended, that a sound wall could be installed across the property in that area due to ;e. He stated that the Balboa Cove community has a sound wall and he would like to same for his community. rson Toerge noted that issues related to this matter need to be brought to the for their determination. Temple added that sound walls come with =owners association might follow the updates process where it will consider programs wements are not included. transportation improvement projects. in the Noise Element through the Ge for sound wall conditions even if aner Hawkins noted this is a CalTrans roadway and that CalTrans has soundwal for both existing as well as new construction in this District 12. comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -001, Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2006 -001 and Code Amendment No. 2006 -001 with the additional finding. Page 3 of 16 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: Cole bstain: None http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /nmO2- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 4 of 16 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 SUBJECT: Widening Coast Highway ITEM NO. 5 Between Dover Drive and Rocky Point Widening of Coast Highway Discussion of the widening or improvement of Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Rocky btwn Dover Drive Point to provide three westbound lanes as a priority project for the 2006 Capital Improvemeni and Rocky Point Program (CIP). Tabled :15 p.m. Commissioner Cole arrived. Rich Edmonston gave a brief overview of the staff report, noting the 12 foot wide dedication as made by McDonald's in 1988 in association with a mapping approval they had requested. He then explained the exhibits attached to the report adding that the primary marginal benefit of adding the widening would be to provide a separate right turn lane into McDonald's or to allow or additional on street parking. Construction would be a significant expense. The limiting actor is the lack of additional right -of -way along the properties to the west of McDonalds. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Following a discussion of the aerial photographs in relationship to the bike lanes, parking, cos and minimum benefit, it was determined to table this issue. Motion was made by Chair erson Toerge to table this matter. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cale, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel, and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Sober Living by the Sea (PA2005 -136) ITEM NO.6 2811 Villa Way PA2005 -136 Request for approval for Use Permit No. 2005 -031 to allow a substance abuse counseling Denied center. The application also requests the approval of an Off -Site Parking Agreement and a Modification Permit to allow the construction and use of an off -site parking lot located at 280 Lafayette Avenue, accommodating 12 employee parking spaces, two pair of which will be in tandem configuration. Additionally, a parking waiver of 29 spaces is requested in association with the use. Commissioner Henn recused himself from this discussion due to a conflict. Chairperson Toerge noted that this is the third meeting on this item. This is a land use issue for his application and the Commission is not here to discuss the benefits of the program despite its good service for the community. For those of you who have testified, it would not be appropriate to reiterate the same comments as they have been integrated into the reports and into the process. The purpose of this meeting is to address the questions and concerns raise by the public, by the Commission and staff and to further refine the project for either approval or isapproval. Speakers will have three minutes to speak. Jaime Murillo, noted that staff analyzed and verified parking in the area surrounding the facility, verified the maximum occupancy of the building and verified that the facility operates consistent with information presented in the previous reports. After studying the parking on the street as well as in the municipal lots, staff concluded that on average 61% of the on- street parking http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 5 of 16 within the study area was available, implying that parking is widely available during the days on he streets. The study also concluded that 24% of the parking spaces within the municipal parking lots were available. The employees of the facility are currently parking on these streets today and therefore with construction and the use of the off -site parking lot, on- street parking should become more available in the area and in the municipal lots. tinuing, he noted a detailed floor plan was provided by the applicant. Staff, using California ling Code occupancy load factors, concluded that the maximum occupancy of the building ncluding the outdoor areas, could be 152 persons. That occupancy level is higher than the Is of the facility and therefore staff has incorporated a condition of approval limiting the imum number of employees to work at the facility at any one given time to 15 employees ng the maximum number of persons that can occupy the large group room to 49 persons 25 persons in the smaller room. ff performed several inspections of the site to verify the number of employees and clients. rots used their bicycles to travel to the facility. Based on staffs verifications, it is believe( the facility operates consistent with the information presented at the previous meetings. ff believes that the computer lab is not used for assembly purposes and should therefore b( luded from the calculation of the required parking, thus bringing the parking waiver down t( parking spaces. Staff would like to modify conditions 7, 8 and 42 of the latest drat )lution. The words approved by the City should be revised approved by the Planning nmission; the word clients should read occupants including employees. Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Murillo added that he used the classification for classrooms for poses of occupancy load factors. The occupancy load is based on the Building G ;upancy load factors and is the closest use for those purposes. During inspections of ), it was evident that the computer lab is not used for classrooms. )iscussion followed on the scheduling of group meetings, number of clients and timing of nspections. )ennis O'Neil, representing the applicant, noted: . This is the third meeting for this application. . An off -site parking arrangement has been obtained. . Staff has further reviewed the information regarding the operation. . We agree to all the findings, conditions and recommendations in all of the staff ref that support the issuance of the conditional use permit and the waiver of the parking the modification to allow two tandem spaces in the off -site parking facility. . Parking has become a central issue on this application and the waiver is uni consideration. Because the operation for all the clients who participate in this recovi program ride bicycles therefore, whether this parking survey is taken during the sumn months or winter months, it may not be that relevant as the clients use their bicycles are picked up and delivered in vans. Sweeney, Executive Director of the facility, noted: This facility has been in the Cannery Village since 1992. The program has operating in Newport Beach since 1986. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /nm02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 . This facility is a drug and alcohol non - medical treatment program as licensed by State of California and governed under Federal and State law. • We are providing 13 parking spaces through an off -site parking agreement and 2 parki spaces by the facility. • The occupancy for the larger room is 49, 25 in the smaller room, and the availability grow to no more than 15 employee work stations on site. • There could also be 1 or 2 clients visiting the site, to make appointments, or to be pick up to be transported to school or a doctor's office. • Currently the meetings are staggered and may have as few as 6 to 8 in any giv meeting. Commission inquiry, Mr. Sweeney added: . 60 parking permits are used by employees, for vans, for personal use and they a have other facilities within Cannery Village that do not deal with clients and employees use some of the permits. . There currently are 27 on -site parking spaces at those different facilities. . The out - patient treatment at this facility has been eliminated. • Clients' mode of transportation to this facility is either on bikes or van transportati provided by the facility. • The facility in Lido Village will be operated by the Reach Foundation, which will be fu raising to help indigent men and women to get into a treatment program. • No meetings will be held at this facility due to the restriction of vehicle driving. • Some of the clients attend the'Twelve Step" program meetings at the Newport Club. . A contractual agreement is given in the initial orientation to the clients to prevent from driving to the facility. They are either assigned a bicycle or reservations are for van pick up /delivery to the facility. . He suggested a maximum of 100 as a maximum occupancy at any given time at facility. This number would allow for unexpected visitors as well as the client tally. . He suggested that 5 days a week the operation for group assembly would be over at p.m. at the latest. There is one night it would be over at 9:00 p.m. . The office staff personnel close at 10:00 p.m. and open at 6:00 a.m.; first assembly is 6:30 a.m. . Clients do socialize on a patio area that is tucked back behind the buildings with no than 30 people at any given time. Clients return home after the first meeting. . There is a sidewalk where staff is posted to monitor the 14 clients getting into the van. There are no more than 2 vans used at any one time and the vans are staggered and do http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO2- 09- 06.htm Page 6 of 16 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 7 of 16 not park on the street. Vans are constantly moving and transporting clients. He is not willing to give up two Sunday meetings. There are 4 staff members at thes( group meetings; one gets over at 8:30 a.m. and the other one gets over at 34:00 p.m with a duration of one hour. Jerson Toerge noted that it was stated in an earlier staff report as a condition lees in the program would not operate a motor vehicle. The way the condition r is they won't operate one to or from the facility. Which is it? . Sweeney noted that clients who are in the full 90 day program are not allowed at any ti have a vehicle. We do have an alternatives program for clients who move into the n ese who are working or going to school, those clients have a vehicle to drive to and fr rk. For any treatment they receive at the center they are provided with a bicycle or picl with a van. No client is allowed to drive to the facility. iairperson Toerge noted that the idea of a parking waiver in this location is not one that v inerally favor. However, it was compelling with the input from the applicants and what wi 'itten into the staff report that the clients that attend this location are prohibited from having iving a car; now it is changed. From my standpoint that is a significant issue and makes n tical of the project. I can only support this kind of parking waiver with the absolute assuram at everybody rides a bike. There is not going to be the ability to enforce whether or not ca e being used. It greatly compromises the support I had for this project. What you are sayir that you are not willing to modify this condition to read the way the prior condition read th id the applicant shall continue to prohibit program participants from operating a motor vehic ring their tenure in the program. Now the condition says, no program client shall operate )tor vehicle during their tenure in the program to and from the facility. Which is it? Sweeney reiterated that the policy today is no client in the 90 day program is allowed e a vehicle. There are approximately ten clients in the Alternatives Program who work a e a vehicle to travel to work and back; they must take their vehicle back to the house a vans or bicycles for transported to and from this facility. No motor vehicles are allowed center. airperson Toerge asked the applicant to consider accepting the previously worded the matter of vehicle use. Hawkins asked if the 60 master permits are held by employees at the center. Sweeney answered that approximately 20 of the permits are masters; there are 40 blue e permits and 14 of those are assigned to the offices in the facility for individual counselors. the 15 people assigned to the center, approximately 9 of the master permits are used an( of the "other master permits are assigned to second vehicles for the owners, finance office J marketing office personnel. missioner Hawkins noted that 9 people would be parking on the off -site parking so master permits could be avoided, if this application is approved. Mr. Sweeney ans r. Sweeney, at Commission inquiry, noted: . Normally on site there is not more than 10 or 12 employees. However, the potential is fi a total of 14 work stations. There is an additional employee who comes on site as guest speaker once a week for a one hour period, so that accounts for the number of 1 maximum employees on site. There is no potential to increase the employee count. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO2- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 . The maximum number of meetings for the facility is 4 meetings in the large room per and 3 meetings per day in the smaller room. . Due to the time constraints and the way the meetings are scheduled, there m potentially be one more meeting that could be added during the day; however, it unlikely that will happen. . The tent area is used for about 10 - 15 minutes prior to the beginning of each and there is usually 30 clients at any given time there. . The meetings do not overlap. followed on the number of employees and clients on site. ommissioner Tucker noted that there was no classification for this use other than a ub, which brings about a large parking requirement and we are now asked for a p� aiver. We are trying to find out what the actual numbers of vehicles to the facility will be. blic comment was opened. r. Weeda, local resident speaking for several residents, noted: . They had met with the applicant and their representatives. . He then distributed a list of conditions to the Commission. . Impacts on Cannery Village are detrimental. . What about possible expansion with new buildings? . More information is needed as to what this business is and what the impacts are in village area. . Municipal parking lot should be used for tourists to the City and not employees or cl from this facility. . The three day parking study done by staff was absurd. . He concluded by asking that this be denied for the welfare and betterment of community. Commission inquiry, Mr. Weeda stated that parking in the neighborhood is being i the time and it seems to be getting worse. Temple noted that the Commission is looking at the operation that is specific to this d as it operates in association with the applicants description of the operation and nditions under which you might approve it in terms of its relationship; and, how comforl s Commission is that the operation on this site will, if operated consistent with the condii approval, not be detrimental to the area. The presence of other components of busine: other sites that may provide parking or may be older non - conforming buildings with reg parking are not part of this application. continued on the numbers of parking, space availability, street parking and use http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO2- 09- 06.htm Page 8 of 16 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Halfand, local resident, noted: . Planning staff verified parking on three separate occasions and counted the desks employees at the facility. . Parking - Planning staff verified that there are 15 people working at the facility. • 90 day program clients are not allowed to have a car. • There is no impact on parking because the 90 day program clients are not allowed have a car and each client has to sign a contract. Swanberg, local resident, noted he is charge of the residential transportation and is going back to four years of residents and the bikes that each one had or the vans been used for their transportation. Brower, Executive Director of the Alternatives Program, noted: . Meetings are in the evening and staff verifies what bikes are used and which client attending. • He went on to explain their process of sign -ins. . Most of the clientele are from out of state and do not have cars. Brown, clinical psychologist at 425 30th Street and a contractor for Sober Living, noted : . Other businesses that are connected to Sober Living by the Sea have their designated parking. • The new condominiums that have been put in at the Cannery Village have a number customers that park on the street as well as employees who work there, which puts stn on parking in that area as well. • The same application should apply to the people in the condominiums as well people this facility. :e Low, local resident, noted his letter he had sent. He noted he is not in support of tl ication for similar reasons as previously stated. He added that there will now be a wave cles coming into the area at one time. This business is a detriment to the neighborho doesn't belong there. It belongs someplace else. Jensen, local resident noted his support of this application as it has helped a lot Bigelow, employee of Sober Living by the Sea, noted he has always ridden his bike and has never driven a car to work. He helps to monitors the clients and has never se than 20 -30 bikes at a time. He states that they are a good neighbor. Garrett, local resident, noted the issue is parking and the parking waiver is too much. They a parking problem in the neighborhood. There are a number of people who do not park i Page 9 of 16 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us /P]nAgendas /2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 10 of 16 (garages as they are used to store furniture, etc. If there is a use permit granted, it should be ((reviewed annually to see if these problems are on- going. Stade, local resident, noted this is a trust issue. They are overrunning the community. J he is not in support of this application. uce Levin, in support of the application, noted that during their business hours there is 61 irking vacancy; when they close on Tuesday nights, the street are overwhelmed from the be the surrounding neighborhood. ew Wetherhault, local resident, noted that several years ago he had requested one parkir ace waiver for an addition to his home. The Zoning Code required him to have th; Iditional parking space for that property. His property backs up to the commercial lot and tt irking lot on 30th Street. He had asked for a variance and that was denied by * )mmission. The problem with his triangular piece of property was that he could not get & o parking spaces on the lot due to the dimensions of the lot. They chose to stay in tt immunity and develop his property. The Planning Commission denied the aspect of tt riance for the parking space as well as denying the aspect for his curb cut for the drivewe id denied the aspect of buying or renting a public parking space as well. That parking spat ,st him $85,000. 1 asked only for 1 space, not 43 spaces. He requested that this applicatic P denied as giving 43 spaces to an organization is unfair to residents and visitors to Newpc sach. The applicant has 60 parking permits and he requests info on what vehicles the: :rmits are assigned to. Cannery Village is severely impacted by parking and this busine: -ays too far from the Specific Plan, this is not a social club. The parking study of only thrE rys is clearly not acceptable. This business applicant draws an above average police calls fi rvice and the applicant has failed to disclose their business operations within the Canne Ilage and have many feeder sites. He stated he has a rental next to one of those sites and difficult for him to keep it rented due to the activities there. The applicant wants to expand h isiness but should not at the expense and detriment to the City. He then distributE Ivertisements for their feeder properties. As a resident, he is required to abide by the Zonir )de as should they. Reese, local resident, read his email sent to the Commission and asked that th cation be denied on the grounds of protecting the quality of life and for similar state abeth Robertson, local resident and employee of Sober Living by the Sea, supports ication for similarly stated reasons and noted that the police calls have generated from ity as a result of break ins. Andros, local resident, noted she does not support this application. She presente iphs during her testimony showing the lack of parking on a Sunday afternoon. Sh zed that parking is a problem as well as their potential expansion in the neighborhood. e Dobby, local business owner, noted he is a neighbor to this facility and that they h ys been a good neighbor, and he has never had a problem with their parking. There �r been a problem and you don't see hundreds of bicycles rampaging through Canr ge. The problem in Cannery Village has been the patrons of bars and the bar hopping. d that the applicant is adding 13 parking spaces off site and they are cleaning up what i a blight and an eyesore in Cannery Village. He sees that as a definite improvement in munity. O'Neil, speaking for the applicant, noted: . One of the conditions that has been developed requires the applicant to come back an annual review. At that time you can evaluate whether or not they have complied http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 11 of 16 the conditions that have been imposed upon them should this be granted. Buzz Person, local resident attorney speaking for the applicant, noted: • Parking stickers - discussed the distribution of master and blue pole stickers th the village and the City. "` . This is an opportunity for the City to oversee this site by the conditions that are imposed. • The City is gaining 13 parking spaces in a lot that will also be an asset for the . There is a parking problem on the weekends and whenever the weather is nice as peop will come to the beach. Any day of the weekend summer spaces are gone, but that is fact of life as we are a beach community. mmissioner Hawkins stated: The findings for a parking waiver under Section 20.66.1 nnot be made: the municipal lot is too far from the site, almost a football field away; the s not subject to two or more uses which could be staggered with varied parking; there is rking management plan; and although the parking demand may be less than required due use of bicycles, the probable long term use may generate additional parking demands r ;t by the proposed conditions discussed by the Commission; the off -site agreement is sh, m; and the proposed occupancy limitations exceed current use. Commission inquiry, Mr. Person noted that some of the conditions offered by Mr. Wee re offered by himself in a letter to the City in October, for instance, they had offered to put ignage program. In terms of some of his other conditions, most of them are unreasona t/or duplicative. comment was closed. missioner Tucker noted that the applicant has a successful business and that if mission denies the application, we cannot expect the business will go away. And it i )ear in an unexpected place or fashion. So we have a choice tonight. To deny cation and hope the services at the facility do not end up in the residential areas anon has), or to do the best we can to control the incompatibility by conditions. Nei :e is a good one for the Commission and which would be best is not at all clear to me. Cole, discussed the following with Mr. Sweeney: • Condition 41 - cap the maximum of occupants to 89, which includes both 15 employe and clients. Mr. Sweeney replied that they have the right to have 152 and proposed as a cap, which includes 15 employees. • Condition 8 - all employees are required to park on site; vans will park on site during evenings. Employees are not allowed to park in the municipal parking lot. Mr. Sweet agreed. . Hours of operation during the week no later than 9:00 p.m. Mr. Sweeney noted that t are only 2 employees on site after 8:30 p.m. every night of the week except one and night the groups are there until 9:00 p.m. The employees would be parking on site. • Annual review of use permit - staff will review and monitor. http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/P]nAgendas /2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 12 of 16 • Limit number of meetings on Sunday - Mr. Sweeney noted and agreed that there are two meetings, one at 7:00 a.m. that is over by 8:30 a.m. and another one at 3 or 4 in the afternoon that lasts for about an hour. During the week, there are 4 meetings a day in the large assembly room. That was agreed to conditioned. Toerge, • Referring to the resolution, stated that the hearing date tonight should be referenced. • Page 12 -#3 delete beginning on February 1, 2006 • Page 12 - add language in #4 , "....off -site parking are not provided and approved by Planning Commission....." Temple asked for a condition for a reasonable time period for the completion of the off - rking area and suggested a reasonable time period would be between 30 -60 days. . Person answered that as soon as they get the building permit, and that could take 30 d more, 90 days might be more reasonable. arson Toerge suggested that the application be submitted to the Building Departmen 30 days and to be built within 120 days. The applicant and the Commission agreed. . Condition 13 - change authorized to approved. • Condition 18 - How do these numbers work? Mr. Sweeney noted that there are used and the clients are not all there at one time. • Crime - these calls have originated from this site about break -ins, missing persons, there is no evidence supporting crimes resulting from the clients at the facility. . Condition 20 - A parking waiver could be justified with these large numbers wher everybody rides a bike. He read the condition from the last hearing regarding this matter, Continuing, he stated that unless the applicant eliminates any and all opportunity foi clients to come to this facility other then through the use of a bike, he would not suppoh this application. • Condition 32 - prohibit Special Events Permits. It was agreed by the applicant. . Condition 36 - change word, "....or to and....." . Condition 37 -deliveries changed to 6:00 p.m. from 10:00 p.m. missioner Tucker noted: • We could impose a condition for no parking on the street except for the incidental minutes for the vans. It was agreed. . Log in sheets for meetings for every client noting mode of transportation. Temple stated that the applicant and staff will get together to organize a schedule of ication to be used for the annual review. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006hnnO2- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 13 of 16 (Discussion continued on the timing of the meetings and numbers of attendees. Mosen, owner and operator of Sober Living by the Sea, gave an overview of his ig his dissatisfaction with the proceedings and public testimony. Tucker continued: . Sunday meetings - Mr. Sweeney answered the last meeting is through at 8:30 p.m. there are only the two meetings as previously described. Condition 20 - word so that clients in 90 day program can not have a car and those in the alternative program can't drive to the facility, we would have a better definition. Mr Sweeney answered that is their policy now and would agree to any condition to half them to enforce that policy. iirperson Toerge stated he would prefer that in this facility eliminate anybody from driving tc facility, including alternatives and regular program clients as it was recommended at the las ring. We can add layers of conditions on this application and the more conditions we apply more difficult it is on staff to enforce these conditions. He recommended to stay with the ,r language thereby asks that the alternatives program be conducted at some other locatior ause this site is not suitable for people driving to it with the parking waiver that you are ing for. Person asked for a recess in order to discuss this with his client. conditions were summarized. imissioner Cole asked if there were any conditions that had been outlined in the could be included. Sweeney noted they agree to posting no loitering signage in the alley behind the facility. Temple noted it would not be appropriate to prohibit signage on the other build ated within the context of this business in Cannery Village, which may be perm ige under the Sign Code. meeting resumed following a 10 minute recess. . Dennis O'Neil noted that they understand the difficulty with condition 20. However, i :nts in the alternatives program have to drive to and from work even though they do not dr the 2811 facility. You are saying that as long as they are in the program the clients shoe t be allowed to drive. We can't agree to that and asked if there is some way to modify that. person Toerge noted he believed the condition that restricts people from driving to y is difficult to enforce and wrought with ambiguity. However, he was compelled with of the program that people don't have cars and can't drive at all. That provided an ad of insurance to him. Absent that, how it is enforced, how it is determined whether pec or not is impossible. He further explained his feelings on this matter. ion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Use permit No. 2005 -031, :ing Agreement No. 2005 -005, and Modification Permit No. 2005 -133 subject to conditions of approval as revised: . Condition 4 - hours of operation be from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. with the exception of http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 14 of 16 1 employees to 10:00 p.m. . Condition 8 - All employees are required to park on site or on the off -site parking lot. Employees shall not park in the municipal lot. . Condition 20 - Prohibit all program clients from operating a motor vehicle to and from facility. . Condition 40 - add wording for objective analysis to be used for annual review. . Condition 41 - the facility shall be limited to 15 employees at any one given time with total of 93 persons at any one given time. . Condition 44 - add language that the vans shall not park on the street, except for a 15 minutes to load or off -load passengers, or in the municipal lot. . Add wording to add signage restricting loitering at the facility and in the alleyway. . Include all the additions made by other Commissioners. . Number of two group meetings on Sundays and four group meetings on other days. . Include the three recommended staff changes. ners McDaniel, Hawkins and Chairperson Toerge noted their opposition to for these similar reasons: . Classification as a social club is problematic. . Parking requirement has not been met. . In 1998 that area was old homes and empty lots. Now there is a lot of new developmen and it has become a viable place. We need to make sure there is parking for those uses. . A parking waiver of over 30 spaces is not realistic. . The restrictions for clients being prohibited from operating motor vehicles is critical. . This is a lawful business that is not appropriate for residential areas. . This type of use doesn't fit in this area. . The short term character of the off -site parking agreement triggers the fact that probable long term occupancy of the building will increase the parking demand beca in six years you may not have the off -site parking agreements. Findings can not made. . For the reasons stated above, the findings could not be made. missioners Eaton, Tucker and Cole noted their support to this application for these http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 15 of 16 . As conditioned, this application improves the current situation with the off -site parking lot. . This approval is conditioned upon the continuing availability of that off -site lot. If lose that lot, this permit expires. . The bike provisions are enforceable and clearly beneficial. . This is a betterment of the current situation and puts a number of restrictions on operation and is an advantage to the public and to the City. . The Cannery Village is now a mixed use residential and commercial area, where this is commercial and not residential. That is why we had to consider the social club as because that is what is allowed in commercial area. . These kinds of operations that are office and assembly are better located in commercial area than they are in a residential area. . We are governed by the Municipal Code, Building Code and land use issues. In case the Planning Director has the authority and responsibility to determine the Eaton, Cole, Tucker McDaniel, Hawkins, Toerge Henn None BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the City Council adopted the ordinance: for the Santa Barbara Condominium and Corporate Plaza West; initiated the General Plar Amendment on the CalTrans West site; and members of the City Hall Site Review committee members were selected and Commissioner Tucker has been appointec chairman. The Council also approved a budget amendment for a public relations firm tc conduct a General Plan Public Information Program. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update - the next meeting is February 27th. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certificati Committee - the draft Implementation Program (IP) has been completed; however, 't committee has not had the opportunity to review it. Ms. Temple added that the Coas Commission found the legal adequacy of the Land Use Plan. The Coastal Land Use Plan now fully certified. The draft IP will be mailed to the committee for their review Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - no meeting. Ms. Temple noted that the concept to the changes to the height limit will be included in the draft IP, then staff availability will be appraised and allocated to either this committee o another. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subs, meeting - construction of homes after permits happen as was discussed during the testimony. Discussion continued on this as a policy matter as opposed to a http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO2- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02- 09/2006 Page 16 of 16 enforcement matter. Mr. Harp noted he would talk to the gentleman. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for and staff report - none. Project status - Mr. Harp reported that a property on Balboa Island on South Bay Fr (Cirillo property) is up on appeal and the City expects to hear about this very shortly. I Temple gave a brief update on the original request and the process that it went throe about 2 -3 years ago. Discussion continued. Commissioner Tucker asked for an update the affordable housing comparative information regarding the 20 %. Mr. Harp answered would come back with that information and Ms. Temple added that was being prepared the next presentation on the Housing Element. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn02- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008