The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/05/2008Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 9 file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren — Commissioner Cole arrived at 6:45, all other Commissioners were present STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Janet Brown, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 30, 2008. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 22, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 otion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Approved Peotter to approve the minutes as amended. yes: Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge bstain: Eaton and Hillgren bsent: Cole x x x OBJECT: Fury Rok & Rol Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO. 2 4221 Dolphin Striker Way PA2005-087 Update on the revocation of Use Permit No. 3162 and Use Permit No. 2005 -018. Continued to 06/19/2008 Planning Director David Lepo noted that the City Attorney requests that the Planning Commission continue this item to June 19, 2008.r Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to continue this item to June 19, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None I Absent: Cole file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 Page 2 of 9 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minuteslmnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008 OBJECT: Sejour (PA2002 -167) ITEM NO.3 3400 Via Lido PA2002 -167 Revocation of use permits for an off -site alcoholic beverage outlet with accessory Continue to on-site alcohol consumption, food service and live entertainment. 07/17/2008 Planning Director David Lepo noted that the applicant requests that the Planning Commission continue this item to July 17, 2008. The applicant has been advised of potential pitfalls for the new application, specifically their parking agreement that expires in December. The applicant has been told to submit an application for a use permit that is consistent with whatever conditions there might be; and, there as no assurance that the submitted application would be approved. Chairman Hawkins noted his concerns with the applicant's letter requesting a continuance, that the letter seems based upon the permit holder misunderstanding, and that the revocation on the current use permit could commence. Public comment was opened. Christine Overstreet, one of the owners of 3400 Via Lido, stated their reason for he request for the continuance and noted their submission of a new application. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to July 17, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: Cole OBJECT: Housing Element (PA2008 -078) ITEM NO.4 PA2008 -078 The Housing Element contains goals, polices and programs related to the evelopment, maintenance and improvement of the City's housing stock. dditionally, it includes identification of the adopted Regional Housing Needs Continue to ssessment (RHNA), housing opportunities and constraints with particular 06/19/2008 attention given to providing housing for people at all income levels. Planning Director David Lepo noted that staff requests that the Planning Commission continue this item to June 19, 2008. otion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hill ren to continue this matter to June 19, 2008. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None bsent: Cole UBJECT: Panini (PA2007 -063) ITEM NO. 5 2421 E. Coast Highway PA2007 -133 Approved he applicant has submitted an amended application for Use Permit, Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit, and Off -site Parking Agreement for the operation of a full ervice restaurant, with a Type 41 ABC License for beer and wine, an outdoor ining area and an off -site parking agreement. The proposed project include file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minuteslmnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 >r changes to the rear elevation of its building and to the valet parl iguration and the submittal of two technical studies that were not a part of nal application. Planner, Ms. Ung, gave an overview of the staff report. f members, Aaron Harp, Tony Brine and Ms. Ung discussed the responses comment letters written by Joel Kuperberg of Rutan and Tucker LLP, Rob n of RK Engineering Group, Inc., and Dennis Baker. responses included: . Inadequate project description. The mitigated negative is the appropriate document. An agency may not piecemeal a large project into smalle pieces. In this case there is no evidence that they are planning to add to the dining area, it is just speculation based on the overall size of the building. The determination that this is not piecemealing is correct. . Inadequate analysis of employee parking impacts. This is speculation where the employees will or will not park. The question of employee park at an off -site location comes down to enforcement. The previously approN resolution has a condition of an annual review of the use permit and ove parking arrangement to enforce the restrictions or add in new restrictions. Failure to analyze alley obstruction impact of valet parking plan. T assumptions made are speculation. The operation, as set now, will ha one car pulled into the garage and a second car pulling in behind and stack on the private properly, not in the public alley. This is the way t queuing would occur and the staging operation would not have an impact the public right -of -way. Failure to analyze obstruction impacts of using the alley as Panini's loac area. The City Municipal Code allows for this to occur under Sec 12.48.090. A truck can stop in an alley to drop off or pick up and this is uncommon for all businesses in Corona del Mar. Failure to analyze increased traffic from the relocated Panini Cafe. TI threshold for significance is not criteria used in the Traffic Phasing Ordinarn (TPO). In Newport Beach we use a 1% increase in peak hour movemen on any leg of an intersection in traffic as a threshold of significance. TI TPO is designed to deal with the costs of implementing additional trafi measures related to increased trips. Their analysis of an additional 300 tril per day is incorrect. This application came in prior to July 2007 and at th time we were using the city traffic model trip generation rates (NBTAI which are different from the ITE trip generation rates. Using the appropria NBTAM rates the trips generated by the project come in under 300, so TPO analysis was not required. Inadequate, vague mitigation measures. Significant work has been done the valet and parking plans. Plans being made ahead of time are an opti however, tightening up these measures with substantial conformance t! language could be more than adequate. Both of these measures are to approved by staff. The term "alley" is actually a private drive for that park lot, so any discussion involving that private drive as part of a valet plan is something that staff would need to approve. Page 3 of 9 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 annis O'Neil spoke as representative of the applicant noting an initial study itigated Negative Declaration had been prepared with the conclusion that t no potential significant impact per CEQA guidelines. following representatives of the applicant spoke in support of the 1. Bill Edwards of Planet Design who gave an overview of the revisions to a rchitectural plans. 2. Tony Petros, Principal of LSA, who gave an overview of the traffic p arking study prepared for the applicant. comment was opened. following members of the public appeared in opposition to the • Diane Baker - concerned about the parking and the need to take account the outdoor dining; . Patricia Bowman - concerned with safety and the ability to, as a I responder', get through Begonia Avenue with the street parking; quality life issue and restaurant patron and employee parking; • Dr. Lila Crespin - quality of life in balance with business in the CEQA concerns, car alarms; unruly patrons and the parking; • Dennis Baker - presented a video on the traffic in the alleyway; • Joel Kuperberg, attorney from Rutan and Tucker - representing G West Brokerage owner of an adjacent property, re- counted his letter; • Mr. Walker - owner and operator of Bungalow, need to consider the i on neighboring businesses and residences; safety and lack of parking; . Richard Burns - can't control the parking; can't control when truck will be made; crossing Coast Highway could be a safety issue; • Phil Berry - landowner of Bungalow's noted he had met with the proponents and discussed potential parking and truck loading; • Peggy Fort - quality of life issue and more time is needed to validate of the proposed project; • Dolores Otting - mixed use doesn't work; all restaurants in the contribute to the parking problems; enforcement is lacking. ng in support of the proposed project: • Dr. Julie Rawls - there is a problem in the neighborhood that is contribi to by everyone; the Police Department can handle the congestion in area; the restaurant is a nice one; Bungalow's and the Crow Bar Page 4 of 9 file: //Y: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd06052008.httn 07/18/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 problematic; . David Hendricks - this restaurant is a good neighbor and generates business, promotes good will and offers quality food and service; . Kathryn Biggers - explained the valet parking test run as shown on Mr Baker's video; the building is a personal purchase and will serve as s flagship for the business; already have five restaurants in southerr California; provide greater customer amenities and services; . Andres Silmore- restaurant patron; the owners are attempting to business and parking in the community; • Mark Susson - restaurant patron; restaurant does not serve alcohol and patronized by locals and provides great food, service and is family oriented; comment was closed. ner Toerge gave comments and submitted the following for the record in opposition to this proposed project: . Panini's should be congratulated for being one of the successful restaun serving residents and visitors in Corona del Mar; however, great food, nice atmosphere and the kind nature of the ownership is not relevant to land use decision before the City. • The CUP runs with the land, not with the business, or business owner. anytime in the future, the business can be relocated, but the approved permit will stay in place at the business location just as the existing Pa Use Permit will remain in place at the existing location. . This is an application for a new restaurant use, not the relocation of existing restaurant use. • Our job is to address the land use characteristics and impacts of e application to insure that, while this applicant pursues his goals aspirations, such a pursuit is done so within governing codes and does unfairly burden others, businesses and residents alike. . We do not write the policy for the City, they are already established and forth in the Zoning Code and other governing documents. • If you want to have an impact on these proceedings lease know what our is: we do not write the policy for the City, they are already established set forth in the zoning Code and other governing documents. • We are citizens charged with the responsibility to provide common st decisions based upon the Codes as they are written, not to rewrite Codes, or ignore them for any reason. of Staff: • Contrary to the statement in the LSA letter at the top of page 2, doesn't provisions of the parking requirements for Eating and Drinl Establishments, require the Planning Commission to consider, among o; Page 5 of 9 file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd06052008.htm 07/1812008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 things, the extent of outdoor dining when deciding the number of spaces to be required? 20.66.070 (0 . Further, on page 2, the last sentence of second paragraph reaches conclusion that can be confusing to the reader. It should say the provision somewhere between 16 and 22 parking spaces .... (800 sf/30= 26.67). . Is there any reliable research or evidence that "each table of diners" likely arrive in a single car? . Is there any reliable unbiased research indicating how many patrons walk the location? . Is there any reliable information regarding how often the rest5aurant is and patrons are waiting outside for a table after they have packed? on Parking: . Proper number of spaces required - I think the number provided is that is 22 spaces, 12 within the garage and 10 off -site, . The criteria we are mandated to use in making this determination requires to consider the net public area designated for dining, number of tabt parking lot design, the use of tandem and valet parking, and, the extent outdoor dining. . 1 also consider the reality that some customers walk to the restaurant that often times the restaurant is full and there are customers wa outside, which is an added demand on parking. . t consider that some will park their cars while coming to the restaurant take out service. . With these operating characteristics in mind, I conclude that the number of parking spaces is 22. we know the number required, what other requirements are in n Element 7.1.1 - Code states the following: Require that new lent provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, patrons, and visitors." Our public streets and alleys are not to be used for private I purposes. Valet operation will be extremely difficult to undertake using the public alley for staging of cars. . Multiple cars will need to be moved out of the garage in order to get a parked in the rear out of the garage. Where will these cars be parked w the valet runs back into the garage to pull out a car parked in the rear of garage? Page 6 of 9 file: //Y: \Users\PLMShared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 The dimensions of the cars illustrated in the plans are very small. Some as narrow as 5 feet in width. 1 measured my Porsche and my Trooper, are both 6 feet wide. . All cars depicted in the plan are backed into the garage. How can this without impacting the public alley? . All the cars parked along the wall have the driver side door against the in such a way that a driver could not exit the driver side. elation Element 7.1.8 - "Site and design new development to avoid use ng configurations or management programs that are difficult to maint� enforce." Site Parking . Off -site parking arrangements in addition to being subjected to the adeque and convenience findings I mentioned earlier, because they are not on t subject property, must be accompanied by a lease or other right that "permanent." The permanent requirement is there so that we are not faced with the diffici task of modifying a CUP for loss of parking after it has been granted and viable business is operating. We have seen recently just how difficult it is revoke a use permit which is a similar undertaking to the enforcement of tl condition to require a reduction in seating capacity if the off -site parking lost. In this case, if the applicant lost the off -site parking, they would I required to reduce the number of seats by 22, or almost half. There is a J of money at stake and applicants will understandably fight. This is why tl Code requires that off -site parking arrangements must be permanent, years with a 5 year option is not permanent. . Code requires that parking be adequate and convenient for both and visitors. . The off -site parking location is a little over a quarter mile away across ask yourself, without bias, if you would find this parking conve (remember the Code does not simply say that it is workable, it says it be convenient); would you use it? . I would consider a 5 to 10 minute walk to the restaurant as reason however, a 5 to 10 minute walk after having parked your car is convenient. . Would you find this parking convenient for a young employee or a woman walk this quarter mile after closing? I do not . Lastly, the off -site packing location does not provide any parking customers which contributes to its inadequacy and lack of convenience. . With 10 of the required 22 parking spaces devoted exclusively to employ, that leaves only 12 parking spaces for 48 restaurant seats, that is adequate; when only 5 employees are working, there will be 5 par spaces that are required by Code but unavailable to customers, if parking location was in a convenient location, these 5 parking spaces w Page 7 of 9 file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 be available to customers when not in use by an employee. . Another Code provision requires that off -site parking management plan to be easily enforced, I don't see how the City can easily enforce such an arrangement; I feel there is too much common sense pressure for an employee to park in the neighborhood rather than park a quarter mile away. all of these reasons, he does not support the application. Won was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Peotter approve Use Permit No. 2007 -010, Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007-1 6, Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001, and Mitigated Negative mlaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2008041099). Hawkins noted changes to the resolution on pages 9, 13, 15, 16; of approval numbers 1, 8, 9, 12, 42. Peotter noted changes to condition 44. maker of the Motion amended his original motion to include the proposed missioner Toerge noted change to conditions 46 and 54. w vote taken on change to Condition 46 striking "16" and inserting "12 ", at the of first sentence on Condition 54 insert, ...at all times. - No, Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, McDaniel - Commissioners Hawkins, Eaton, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren - add, "at all s during hours of operation ". - No. Commissioner Peotter -Yes, Commissioner Toerge , Condition 46 stays as is and Condition 54 is modified to include , at all during restaurant hours. Cole noted he accepts the changes and incorporates them in his Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Dennis O'Neil answered that the applicant has iewed the conditions and the findings in the staff report and have followed the rections and errata corrections mentioned and accepted by the maker of the tion as well as the straw vote and agrees to all and asks that the resolution be Toerge None w w w Oasis (PA2008 -109) 800 Marguerite Avenue initiation of an amendment to the Zoning Districting Maps to reclassify Page 8 of 9 PA2008 -109 Recommended file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/05/2008 Page 9 of 9 zoning of two parcels of land owned by the City of Newport Beach from PC -33 for initiation (Corona del Mar Seniors Project Planned Community) to OS (Open Space) in conjunction with the construction of a new Oasis Senior Center. This item was re- ordered and heard fourth on the agenda. Associate Planner Janet Brown gave an overview of the staff report. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to adopt resolution to initiate an amendment of Zoning Districting Map No. 32 and No. 51 to reclassify the zoning of Lots A and B of Tract 11949 from PC -33 to OS. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that there was appeal filed or Bay Burger and Council overturned the ruling of the Planning Commission. b. Planning Commission Reports - Commissioner Toerge reported on the Green Task Force. c. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - The Commission asked for the rules issue on minute to be brought back at the next meeting. d. Project status - Mr. Lepo noted staffs progress on the review of the Zonin Code that will be heard by Planning Commission and Council at the fal hearings; Commissioner Toerge noted the Green Building Task ForoE convened for the first time this month to discuss goals and purpose t identify and implement green building standards into the development an construction in the City. e. Requests for excused absences - Commissioners Hillgren and Toerg excused from the meeting of July 17. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. JADJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd06052008.htm 07/18/2008